American Pioneer Savings Bank[edit] In 1979, McAuliffe met Richard Swann, a lawyer who was in charge of fundraising for Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in Florida. In 1988, McAuliffe married Swann's daughter, Dorothy. In the late 1980s, Swann's finances collapsed, entangling McAuliffe, who then used his political contacts to help Swann.[8] In 1990, federal regulators seized Swann's American Pioneer Savings Bank, causing Swann to file for bankruptcy, and McAuliffe to lose $800,000 he had invested in American Pioneer.[8] The Resolution Trust Corporation, a federal agency, seized American Pioneer's assets and liabilities.[8] Under the guidance of Swann, McAuliffe partnered with a pension fund controlled by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the National Electrical Contractors Association to buy American Pioneer real estate, valued at $50 million, for $38.7 million from the Resolution Trust Corporation.[8][10] Of the purchase amount, McAuliffe paid $100, while the pension fund paid $38.7 million;[8] McAuliffe still received a 50% equity stake.[10] The deal was arranged by pension fund trustee Jack Moore, who was an acquaintance of McAuliffe from the Gephardt presidential campaign.[8][10] Following the deal, the Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against McAuliffe and Moore, accusing them of imprudent business practices.[8][10] Global Crossing[edit] In 1997, McAuliffe invested $100,000 in Global Crossing,[6] a Bermuda-registered telecommunications company providing fiber-optic networking services worldwide.[11] Global Crossing went public in 1998.[12] The following year, McAuliffe sold the majority of his holding for a $8 million profit (other accounts have said his profit was $18 million).[13] McAuliffe sold the rest of his shares in January 2002.[13] The company filed for bankruptcy that same month, causing investors to lose over $54 billion, and 10,000 employees to lose their jobs.[13][14] McAuliffe, who lambasted Republicans after the Enron scandal, was criticized as hypocritical in the media, prompting him to set up television interviews to explain himself.[15] On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity pointed out McAuliffe's large profit, to which McAuliffe responded, "What are you, jealous or something? I mean, you buy stock. It was a great company."[16] According to McAuliffe's book, he played no management role in Global Crossing.[6]
] Five-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader alleged that in 2004, McAuliffe offered him cash to withdraw from certain pivotal states in the 2004 election.[35] McAuliffe's staff admitted that he indeed engaged in a conversation with Nader about his campaign, but denied that he offered any money.[35] Wiki
Just like Democrats like um. Character doesn't matter when you biggist dream in life is to shred the document that underpins the success of the United States. The last 2 Democratic presidents have been blatant liars but were reelected twice. Certainly in the case of Obama, his lack of integrity was pointed out before he was elected the first time.... But that doesn't matter when your point man is on the same mission as you. Of course, to be fair, not too many Republican 'officials' have a hell of a lot of integrity either....
Of course McAuliffe was a tainted candidate and again you miss the point. Tainted as he is he won over a very conservative tea party backed candidate in Ken Cuccinelli. And Chris Christie a moderate republican romped through NJ a state with more democratic voters then republican ones. So regardless of the tainted polls and readings you rely on, America is again showing that the middle is where we are as a nation. The moderate won, the extremist lost against a very suspicious candidate, and all you get out of that is that McAuliffe is shady? We all already knew that. When your tea party backed candidate gets beat by a Terry McAuliffe I would think that would perk you up to bigger things going on then McAuliffe's integrity. When Chris Christie romps through a highly democratic state running as a RINO I would think you would see something bigger that might possibly be stirring in America.
“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.” ― Joseph Sobran
Do keep in mind that for a government to fairly 'referee' is not the same as intervening... and the middle, as you describe the electorate , being pulled and pushed by the different sides of the same coin that is the Republican and Democratic national parties, and are blindly headed for a cliff socially, financially and militarily...
Well hell Live, the right has worked to disenfranchise the black community and the Hispanic community. Guess the next legislation will have to reverse the right of women to vote. Can't beat 'em well.... just take away their rights.... this coming from the party that is for rights......... rights for property owning, business owning white men...... so many good reasons not to be a republican.
To give you an idea just how libertarian Robert Sarvis is, Ron Paul specifically refused to endorse him on some of his policies... like forcing black boxes in cars to monitor motorists road usage and allowing government to collect yet another tax to waste. He was such a good candidate that Obama’s campaign donation bundler ‘accidentally’ supported Sarvis’s compaign by making it possible for him to even appear on the ballot in the first place. Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor and a top bundler for Obama. One has to ask the question that if this ‘libertarian’ supports such government intervention into people’s lives... is he a libertarian or a Trojan horse.
Its interesting how people on the left want to poke republicans for this and that but when you look at a number of things they gripe about it is all just revisionist history.
Like the civil war being started over slavery and Lincoln being antislavery... BS.. it was about taxes and representation. About how social security was their a baby of the democrats but if you really look at the history, it was capitalists like Rockefeller who’s idea it was.... The right doesn’t want to hear it and the left will let the myth be. Then we have the ‘Dixiecrats’.... sold as racist but actually their whole point was about States rights and right of association. The federal government had no need nor real authority to enact the civil rights act as integration is not a provision of our law... pursuit of happiness is. The constitution provided all the remedy needed for laws violated against blacks but, never to miss an opportunity to gain voters and put another nail in the coffin of the constitution, the left painted Dixiecrats as racist. While some of them were, Sen. Strom Thurman was not... He believed in strongly in States’ rights and the right to associate with whoever you wished as long as they too were willing. Then of course we have the ‘neocons’..... defectors of the democratic party and steeped in the socialist legacy of Ivan Trotski. Trotski did not believe in socialist countries as did Lenin... he believed in a socialist world! Most neocons will say that they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, they party left them because they drew the wrong lessons from the Vietnam War....
So now we have the dreaded ‘neocons’ (and yes, they should be dreaded) taking over the world and being embraced once again by their old democratic party who are working tirelessly to take over the state.... A pincher move on the constitution if I ever saw one, and a strategy that most people would never see when they vote for their partisan flavour of the month.... Yes, they are meeting in the middle, the real objective of which only the drivers of this two sided coin called ‘the parties’ really know. The voters are divided and slaughtered....
I just watched a prime ministers question time here in Britain. It is an open question time in Parliament for ministers to ask questions of the Prime Minister and for the Prime Minister and Shadow Prime Minister to ‘debate’ issues. On particular attack on the Conservative PM was about the National Health Service. His reply is interesting in that it turned tables on Labor who, for eons, have supported the NHS. In his reply he shunned the approach of Labour to this particular question and touted the conservatives’ adding that ‘it is the conservatives who are the true supporters of the NHS and not Labour as people believe’....
It is this kind of slight of hand that will never allow voters to understand the real situation in the world.
Any leftist knows that the civil war didn't start over slavery, nor was it taxes and representation. It was about states rights specifically the right to leave the union. At the time the south was well represented and did a good job at maintaining their slight advantage through the several compromises attained during the lead up to the war. The election of Lincoln caused the south to secede not because he was anti slavery himself but a large part of his republican party was. No Lincoln was going to let slavery die it's own slow death which it would have with the advent of the cotton gin and other mechanical devices which would have rendered slaves especially field hands to become a financial burden. But Lincoln also believed that no state had the right to leave the union, and thus we get a civil war. the slavery issue wasn't involved until 1863 when Lincoln and his cabinet decided that the war could not be won as long as slavery existed therefore the emancipation proclamation, a toothless edict because it only freed the states in the rebellious states, states that Lincoln did not control at the time. Today no state except Texas can secede from the Union without the permission of the federal congress contrary to what many people believe. Yes any state can petition the government to leave the union but that permission is probably not going to be granted unless the state can come up with a damn compelling reason. As you discuss who really came up with social security lets look at the republican plan for healthcare reform to block the Hilary Clinton plan in the nineties. This republican bill had 24 sponsors including your Strom Thurman and was proposed in 1993. Know as the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994, discussion of the bill started on nov 20th 1993. Let's look at some provisions of this bill..........
Why can't your hero Barrack Obama be a man and admit that he lied? We know the answer, all despots including Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro told the "Big Lie."
Nobody blames Strom Thurmond for anything that he didn't do. Fact is he was one of 24 republican Senators to co sponsor a bill in 1993 that looks and sounds very much like Obamacare. The biggest difference I see is that the mandate was placed more on business and less on the individual. That would have hurt small business. That would have alleviated the individual responsibility on the person and placed it back on the business. $50 bucks a day per employee. That would have wiped out small business in America. Thought you guys were all about the small businessman and individual responsibility? Guess not in 1993. So many good reasons not to be a republican.
Subtitle A tax treatment of health care expenses. sec 101 refundable health care expenses tax credit subtitle B sec 111 federally qualified health insurance plans sec114 guaranteed issue sec 115 guaranteed renewal sec 117 establishment of regulatory program for certification of plans sec 118 standards for regulatory programs sec 122 conversion of non self insured plans SEC. 122. CONVERSION OF NON-SELF-INSURED PLANS.
In the case of an employer-sponsored health insurance plan in force on the date of the enactment of this Act, and which is not a self-insured plan, the insurer from whom the plan was purchased (or, in the event such insurer refuses, any new subsidiary, corporation, insurer, union, cooperative, or association willing to become the new sponsor of the plan) shall-- (1) notify, not later than October 1, 1997, all of the primary insured beneficiaries of the employer-sponsored plan of their rights to convert their insurance coverage to a federally qualified health insurance plan (as defined in section 111) offered by the insurer with benefits identical to, or actuarially equivalent to, those of the employer-sponsored plan and the rates of that coverage, and provide such beneficiaries 60 additional days to decline or accept the new coverage, and (2) offer such coverage beginning January 1, 1998, at premium rates which vary only by age, sex, and geography, except that the combined total of the new rates charged separately to the various beneficiaries may not exceed the total group rate paid by the employer or employees or both under the employer-sponsored plan on the last day it is, or was, in force. SEC. 413. ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION TO FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Effective January 1, 2000, if a provider is required under a Federal program to transmit a data element that is subject to a presentation or transmission standard (as defined in subsection (b)), the head of the Federal agency responsible for such program (if not otherwise authorized) is authorized to require the provider to present and transmit the data element electronically in accordance with such a standard. (b) PRESENTATION OR TRANSMISSION STANDARD DEFINED- In subsection (a), the term ‘presentation or transmission standard’ means a standard, promulgated under subsection (b) or (c) of section 411, described in paragraph (4) or (5) of section 411(b). SEC. 421. STATE COMPARATIVE VALUE INFORMATION PROGRAMS FOR HEALTH CARE PURCHASING.
(a) PURPOSE- In order to assure the availability of comparative value information to purchasers of health care in each State, the Secretary shall determine whether each State is developing and implementing a health care value information program that meets the criteria and schedule set forth in subsection (b). (b) CRITERIA AND SCHEDULE FOR STATE PROGRAMS- The criteria and schedule for a State health care value information program in this subsection shall be specified by the Secretary as follows: (1) The State begins promptly after enactment of this Act to develop (directly or through contractual or other arrangements with 1 or more States, coalitions of health insurance purchasers, other entities, or any combination of such arrangements) information systems regarding comparative health values. (2) The information contained in such systems covers at least the average prices of common health care services (as defined in subsection (d)) and health insurance plans, and, where available, measures of the variability of these prices within a State or other market areas. (3) The information described in paragraph (2) is made available within the State beginning not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and is revised as frequently as reasonably necessary, but at intervals of no greater than 1 year.
Is a citizen sovereign or a state sovereign? If the people of a state do not have the right to secede are those citizens truly free?
No they aren't. Let's cut the crap. Lincoln destroyed many things that our founders formulated for us. We as citizens have not truly been free since he turned on his own constitution.
It has always been implied that no state has the right to walk away from the union and yes today it takes congressional approval. I don't know dude I feel pretty free. I do what ever I want within the bounds of the law and nobody bothers me. yea that's pretty much freedom.
(a) IN GENERAL- If the Secretary finds, at any time, that a State has failed to develop or to continue to implement a health care value information program in accordance with the criteria and schedule in section 421(b), the Secretary shall take the actions necessary, directly or through grants or contract, to implement a comparable program in the State. Oops! A healthcare exchange by any other name is still a healthcare exchange SEC. 5000A. FAILURE OF EMPLOYERS WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
‘(a) GENERAL RULE- There is hereby imposed a tax on the failure of any person to comply with the requirements of sections 121 and 125(a) of the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994 with respect to any employee of the person.
‘(b) AMOUNT OF TAX-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) on any failure with respect to an employee shall be $50 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to such failure. By god there's an individual mandate! Sounds really, really like Obamacare don't it, Proposed by 24 republican senators in 1993.
103d CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 1743
To provide Americans with secure, portable health insurance benefits and greater choice of health insurance plans, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993
Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. MACK, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DOLE, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HELMS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. WALLOP, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance Sounds like this was a republican idea too.
History limited are we?... The north and the south were two different economies. The south was almost completely agrarian with cotton being its major crop. Before the war cotton, the largest industry in the world at that time, comprised over half of the US export trade and brought huge revenue and credit worthiness to the federal government and wealth to northern industrialists. So I am not quite certain where you get that the south ‘did a good job of maintaining slight advanages’..... The south was a huge part of the economy! Trade policies, immigration and industrialization skewed the population to the north and because the slave model did not fit the north, they sought to abolish it at the same time they were getting rich from the cotton industry in the south. This set up considerable friction and culminated in the election of Lincoln who received not one electoral vote from the south. Certainly the frictions revolved around slavery. Was it wrong, yes but at the time it was legal and affirmed by the Dred Scott case. Interestingly enough what is it that we hear about a harmful and unconstitutional law today?..... “It’s the law; people have attempted unsuccessfully to repeal it and the Supreme Court has upheld it , so get over it?” So, yes, it was about representation and taxation and federal overreach....
Which brings us to ... Obamacare and how it is only a model of the republican plan...
“This republican bill had 24 sponsors including your Strom Thurman and was proposed in 1993.”
I could invoke the ‘I voted for it before I voted against it.’ Bs but I won’t cause the heritage plan, later denounced for flaws it contained was never like Obama care in the first place and its original intent was to try to fix the mess cause by liberals in the first place.
The heritage mandate proposal, if you could call them that, was in direct response to the EMTALA. The EMTALA was the largest unfunded mandate setting up a cost shifting nightmare and the decimation of charity hospitals across the country. It, in fact had the same horrible effects on the healthcare industry as Obamacare is having on the individual insurance market. Interestingly enough, many democrats now, argue that the ‘free rider’ problems caused by EMTALA were not nearly as bad as Republicans say, yet, they felt the need to enact EMTALA moving those people from charity work to for profit hospitals.... If it wasn’t a problem then why, unless of course your real objective was to socialize anything and everything, was the EMTALA enacted in the first place.
I digress. As I said, the heritage proposal was in response to EMTALA and evolved before Bill and Hillary came on the scene.
The heritage foundation retracted their belief in their position before Obama even took office as being flawed and harmful but the big thing that the Obamacare flag wavers need to understand is that it was fundamentally different from Obamacare in 3 ways... ultimately making it, regardless of flaws, constitutional.
(1) it required people to buy catastrophic coverage, rather than more expensive comprehensive coverage
2) it was primarily financed “through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher…rather than by a stick”
(3) Heritage’s mandate “was actually the loss of certain tax breaks…not a legal requirement.”
“(1) IN GENERAL- The amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) on any failure with respect to an employee shall be $50 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to such failure. By god there's an individual mandate!”
NICE CURVE BALL!... until you read that this provision is indeed a penalty against employers for not following the provisions of section 121....
The penalties imposed against people who did not comply were 1) inability to avail themselves to any federal tax deduction such as home mortgage interest etc. 2) would not be able to use the bankruptcy courts to discharge acquired medical debt.
Obamacare isn’t about providing insurance, it’s about destroying insurance and forcing a single payer system and the leadership of the left will lie, cheat and steal to see it happen.. even to its own people.
So yes Strom Thurman may have voted for it... but it damned well wasn’t anything like Obamacare.... At least the right (on some issues) will admit when a policy they create is flawed and change their mind... the left will burn the house down before they admit that they are doing great harm.
Besides.. What happened to the old.... “I voted for it before I voted against it”.... :-)
P.S. Their was opposition to the bill and at least two others were tabled so we can’t say that this was all one sided... particularly when Obama opposed it in the first place... I think his words were:
“A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasises lowering costs.”
“you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home”
I guess he was against it before he was for it......
You know taxes and representation is a nice curve for a society (southern anti bellum) that didn't want to admit that they would fight to keep an abomination like enslaving another human being regardless of what the need or perceived need was. Abraham Lincoln was in fact anti slavery. He hated the abomination. but he also knew he couldn't just end it and always stated that he wouldn't. It didn't matter if Abe Lincoln became president in 1860. It could have been any member of the republican party. The secession didn't happen because it was Lincoln it happened because he was a republican. It happened because the strongest plank in the republican platform that year was that the spread of slavery stops now. So yes in time the balance of representation would have greatly favored the anti slavery forces but that had not happened in 1860. The south seceded first and foremost over the slavery issue. Slavery was going to die in the United States. If you believe anything else was the number one reason then you are history limited. For the south that was job one. Second was states rights. You can spin that anyway you want but pure and simple states rights. For the north the war was a fight to preserve the union but as stated above Lincoln new that slavery would have to end or the war would go on forever. The war started in various forms 10 years before the start of open hostilities, Ever heard of bleeding Kansas or is that just another leftist myth, the beating of William Seward on the floor of the senate, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry all hostilities that led to our civil war. But maybe it all didn't happen when you are subjected to the limited narrow view in the south.
On representation, Okay Mr. Constitution do you recall the compromise that was reached to ensure equal representation for the south? it was called the three fifths compromise in which 5 slaves were counted as 3 whites. Because of this rule the south was awarded 47 house seats instead of the 33 they would have based only on the white or free population. In 1812 that grew to 76 instead of 59 and by 1833 98 instead of 73. This allowed the south to control the political debate, the presidency, the house speakership and the supreme court right up to the outbreak of the civil war.
Well Rick, I don’t know what to say. You have hit on most of the major points I would use in rebuttal to your arguments. You have however, used colourful twists of history to skew those points to suit your position.
Of course I don’t think that the history of the civil war started with the election of Lincoln. As you pointed out in a discussion some days ago about gerrymandering, those ruthless republicans... come democrats manipulated the entry of states carved from newly gained territory to their own advantage. They did that by cutting the southern states out of the decision making process as to how they would be formed. Southern states, I might add, that provided revenue and blood in the acquisition of those new territories. It, as you pointed out didn’t work quite as smoothly in Kansas however. As soon as the accomplished this, where they knew they had a clear majority, the went back and tried to revisit the 3/5s compromise..... They wanted to raise it to 1/1 so that they could draw even more taxes from the south.
It’s even suggested, though no absolute proof is available that it was northern industrialist that put Lincoln in office with the express purpose of decimating the south. It is quite curious that a part of Dixie that was absolutely razed by Sherman had no slaves.... The Savannah area of Georgia was becoming highly industrialized and used no slave labor. Did the northern industrialists feel threatened by the ability of the south to transform itself into a competitive force that would put the north out of business? Did they understand that by virtue of geography, climate and a labor force they would no longer be able to compete.
It is interesting that progressives seem to be right in the middle of most upheaval in this country... and most of it seems to surround big business... The fed, states rights, the expansion of the commerce clause... etc... just a point to ponder...
Lincoln had no real support for his presidency having only won with a majority of 38.9%.... the lowest in US History. And after his election even those that voted for him wondered if they had made a serious mistake. Observations of Henry Clay recounted that he only had support from 1/3rd of the house... Of course much of the disdain heaped on him wasn’t necessarily about anything that he had done or not done.... it was that he was an unknown, an interloper and he received the frustrations of a nation who projected on him the things the people saw as wrong with the nation: “To the opinion makers in the cities of the East, he was a weakling, inadequate to the needs of the democracy. To the hostile masses in the South, he was an interloper, a Caesar who represented a deadly threat to the young republic.( A republic, I might add, that was founded on the sovereign place of the individual states in the Union ) To millions on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, he was not a statesman but merely a standard bearer for a vast, corrupt political system. (Sounds like someone else we know.. someone, who, like Lincoln, defiled the constitution, violated black letter law and ultimately took people to war without any popular mandate what so ever)
Look, I don’t believe that slavery was at all right. But I don’t like revisionist history in trying to deflect blame for events to others because progressives don’t want to be judged by their character. Were progressives on the right side of the issue?... Yes. Did they lie, cheat, steal, ignore the law, defy Supreme Court rulings and ultimately when they couldn’t muster enough support for their cause, circumvented congress and goad the south into a war... Yes.
But you can’t talk away the fact that secession while related to an economy built around slave labor was not about slaves... It was about taxes.... It was about representation ... It was about states’ rights.... and indeed about the rule of law which seemed to be lacking in a less than representative federal government.
Below is a link to some of the secession declarations of the southern states. Georgia and Texas are particularly good at delineating the reasons that they succeeded and while it was centered around the issue of slavery, the facts are that abolitionists fervour were trampling on the laws of the republic... a step too far when everything being done in the south was 100% legal at the time, part of the country’s economic condition from its inception and conditioned in the constitution ratified by all of the colonies of which Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut were 4 of the first 5 to jump on board.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
And now we come full circle and we as a people are confronted with the same corrupt political system... One quietly and not so quietly guided by a progressive movement who could give a damn about the rule of law or a constitution or indeed the rights and liberties of man.....
I wonder how these words by Lincoln would play in modern revisionist textbooks about the motives and motivations of the great emancipator: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality”
While we can all look back today on slavery as being a huge blemish on the history of this country, the unilateral revocation of agreements and indeed constitutional law just because someone is in power was not the right way to solve the situation. Today a body of the American public is starting to open their eyes to the blatant attempt to overthrow the republic founded in liberty.... This republic has enemies on both sided of the political isle and they are being pointed out vocally and they don’t like the attention one bit. Libertarians and Tea’s can be called lots of names but ‘terrorist’ is being used by people who don’t like the light of day shown on their deeds and tactics.
I wanted to mention, but forgot, something about Lincoln that I feel was in his favour. He said that the authors of the Declaration of Independence:
"intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where."
On expansion... I disagree that the republicans-come democrats controlled how states came into the union. 1st before 1856 there was no republican party. The modern republican party started as a conglomeration of many factions and fractious parties, Whigs who had lost power long before, know nothings, free soilers, and anti slavery northern democrats. There were actually two dems that ran both somewhat pro slavery or of the mind to leave it alone. The single most divisive act the Kansas Nebraska act was proposed by a northern democrat (Stephen Douglas) but it more favored the south then the north over time. The pro slavery constitution for Kansas was adopted not the anti slavery one. Missouri was allowed to be a slave state in that compromise although it was north of the 3630 line. The north IMO did everything they could to appease the south with most of the representatives of both sides democrats. Only other party at the time were the whigs and that never was a strong party. Yes I know that Lincoln did not see blacks as equal to whites but he also never saw the need to enslave them, and the very things he spoke about were the greatest fears of the southern people when it came to imagining free blacks. He definitely put to words exactly what many were thinking. But John Wilkes Booth did not do the south any favor although at the time it was celebrated. Lincoln was a strong enough and crafty enough politician that he would not have been railroaded into the harsh repercussions that the south endured because of the weak president that succeeded him. Lincoln didn't want that he wanted re establishment of the Union to be easy and fast. Had he have lived there would have been no military districts no carpetbaggers no subjecting the southern whites to the rule of blacks, no crushing reparations. It's not what he believed in.
Fine then..... anti-slavery, abolitionist, progressive zealots, come republicans-come democrats controlled how states came into the union. Hows that? ;-)
You know that the conspiracy theory is that Booth was hired by the very men who put Lincoln in office don't you?.... politics is a dirty business and if you want to crush your competition, you use all measures necessary....
Just a little more there is no real historical proof that the 3/5th compromise was to be changed, only the Missouri Compromised was changed with the ratification of the Kansas Nebraska act. Again I challenge the reasons of taxation and representation as the primary cause of secession. In perusing your link left above, every state except South Carolina states within the first paragraph of their secession document the right to slaves and their desire to protect that institution. Yes taxation and representation may be underlying circumstances but the defense of slavery was the main reason that 11 states left the union. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the border states Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware never left and slavery was also not as prevalent and deemed financially necessary in this 3 states. Further more the mountainous part of Virginia which became West Virginia refused to support a war for the protection of the institution. Yes my friend however we got there, Slavery was the #1 issue that split this country in half.
I would say that you have entered the realm of circular logic... The institution is slavery and slavery is the institution. African chiefs offered up strong men and women for power and wealth and to rid themselves of enemies, slave traders bought from Africa and sold to the Americas, slaves, not for ideology but for economic gain and 99.9% of buyers in the Americas did so for an economic purpose. The remaining .1% who felt the need to own a living foot rest or a tight young concubine would have found someone to enslave degrade regardless the skin color. Slaves were not bought from the British for any ideological reason nor were they forcibly removed from Africa as an expression of supremacy... it was purely economic. As far as the feeling that white intellect was superior, that occurred in the northern European psyche long before Columbus, Vasco da Gama or Magellan went in search of a new trade route to the indies....
Just a couple of facts...
Population: north 22m (71%) South 9m (29%) Free Population: North 22m South 5.5m Border State Slaves: .5m South 3.5m Soldiers: North 2.2m(67%) South 1m (33%) Railroad Miles: North 21.7k(71%) South 8.8K (29%) Manufacturing: North (90%) South(10%) Firearm Production: North: (97%) South (3%) Cotton Production 1860:North(Negligible) South 4.5m bales Cotton production 1884:North(negligible) South 300K bales >>>Prewar Exports: North (30%) South (70%)
Cotton, its production and export was everything to the South. The cotton gin revolutionized production and made the labor intensive job of picking even more important. Perhaps had the cotton gin never been invented, the need to keep slaves would have diminished naturally on its own. Just like today’s assumption that we will always find a way to feed an ever expanding population, slave owners wanted guarantees that their ability to use slaves would be assured in perpetuity.. And the only way that would happen is with equal representation in the federal government. Note from the stats above the last item... exports... Given that the federal government financed itself with tariffs, do you think that the south had a financial stake in and right to expect, its representation? This is precisely why states rights are so important. Of course today we must enforce a ‘sensible’ reading of the constitution, but taking the rights and representation of states away kills the ingenuity and creation of competition.
The issue was not the right to keep slaves; it was the right to insure that they continued to have the right. In light of the strength of the abolition movement, they knew that without representation, guarantees by Lincoln and others were meaningless in the future. This is why they were so animate about having a balance in newly acquired territories. There was no way that the New Mexico territories would ever have a viable economic use for slaves but as long as the right were enshrined in the state constitutions, the balance would remain in Washington.
I would also say that the south had a considerable problem and the north provided no real solution for it. The slave owners were very aware of the Haitian Revolution. Not only where the slave owners and the peace keepers who supported them up against an angry black populous but they were turned on by the change in attitude of the French government who stopped supporting the system they helped create . Even if economic reasons were to have disappeared, they would have still had a little problem with what to do with this population of people who weren’t inclined to live and let live should the be freed.
With respect to the states that didn’t secede but supported the south... the support of states’ rights. Why did West Virginia split from Virginia..... Mountains don’t grow cotton or tobacco... No?
Part of the untold story here is that the GOP hates the Tea Party. They rather a Democrat win than the Tea Party to gain a foothold. Chooch was outspent $3 million to $18 million and still he almost won. In the past the GOP has spent $9 million in this race.
What can we learn from this? A lot of RINOs and long term GOP are going to get challenged ans LOSE in their primaries. The Tea Party is going to get more and more people in to Congress.
You are absolutely correct. The real fear that I have is that much of what is called the Republican party has been co-opted by the left and the out come of an election doesn't really matter as long as the Libertarians and Teas are stifled. The can happen in so many ways. We saw Ron Paul ignored by the left media and ignored by the right. We just saw with this election, the accusations that the Republican party turned their backs on Cuccinelli in the last week of the race thus making the effect of Sarvis, a less than libertarian, libertarian even more effective.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
The it will force the right to actually stand for something. Either they want freedom guaranteed by the constitution or they want social engineering.. either they are for fiscal disipline and 'defence' or they don't care about the money and are mere collaborators with the left in working for a one world government... In that last regard, the only dispute between the right and left is who will lead it...
I'm curious. Do you think Rick Santorum would have fared better than Romney in 11/2012, and if you think yes, why?
I don't, and I can't see how a Tea-partier, with the commonly held image that goes with the label, would attract democratic and independent voters. At the congressional level, perhaps. In some states. But for the WH? I can't picture it.
No he would have had to run the same way IN THE MIDDLE. Talk about clowns to the right and jokers to the left that primary absolutely made the republican party look bad including those identified as tea party. T's backed every candidate in that primary at one time or another and Santorum was the only one that really spoke your language consistently He was your second to the last choice, he was the big dog only when it got down to him and Romney. yeah yeah now spin it and say you supported him all along. Ya know ya didn't. It was Bachmann, then Perry, then 999 Cain, then Newt, Huntsman left and ya had no one else but Romney (ugh) and Santorum and suddenly he was the guy. pitiful.
When Christie dropped out of the 2012 race the NY rino money went to Ronmey. Christie will stay in next time and the dems will help prop him up because like Romney and McCain they know they can beat him like a stick. Like Gore couldn't win Tennessee Christie won't even win NJ and Hillary will use the left and right coast strategy to wipe the floor with him.
The Tea Party will never support Christie especially after his bromance with Obummer "down the shore." As a Jersey guy I hope Chris stays in NJ cause he's doing a lot helping to make a lost cause State somewhat livable and possibly not bankrupt.
The deal last week was that the rino's gave the dems Va and the dems let Christie walk so they could set him up as a 2012 straw man.
"The deal last week was that the rino's gave the dems Va and the dems let Christie walk so they could set him up as a 2012 straw man."
You really believe that statement don't you. Boy oh boy oh boy. Besides a weak candidate Christie won because he has been good for N J. He is somewhat moderate and is well liked especially after his handling of last years storm. See when people are battered and scared help any help trumps politics every time. The people of NJ didn't care if he had to smooze Obama to get the help they needed and most saw nothing wrong with it. Virginia: a very tainted democrat won over a tea party backed extremist. That was no gift and that was no accident. I said it before and I will say it again, America is center. Sometimes it's center right sometimes it's center left but always it is in the center. No extremist from either side will any important office especially in a national election. People want continuity, and people want things left alone for the most part.
Jean, I would say that I doubt that a Libertarian or a Tea Party candidate could be elected to the WH....
Stranger things have happened but the Left and Right of this country are entrenched. The lies and the propaganda they throw around is mindboggling. To me, ‘most’ Libertarian principles are common sense but to the left and right they are a threat. They can’t articulate the threat as the only words that they can find are ‘loonies, crazies, terrorists, anarchists, etc..... but no real argument with respect to policy. You see now in the news that Republicans and democrats are coming together to push libertarians and t’s to the margins. Interestingly, Obama will claim deficit reductions during his time in office. Most of these modest reductions in spending have come as a direct result of confrontation (not reasoned compromise as they say they want) with strong fiscal conservatives and more tellingly over the objection of limp wristed republicans.
No, the WH house is not within reach of a third party or in the case of someone like Ron Paul, a dissident within a party. The message of Libertarians and the constitutional message of the T’s is something that is decidedly ‘ground up’. The good news is that it is growing and growing fast.
It is going to take people to realize that it is wrong for the state to force the direction of a cultural mores. It is wrong for a police force to look and act like a combat unit. It is wrong for the government to annul basic principles of freedom and liberty so that they can kick down your door without a warrant. It is wrong for the state to heap mountains of rules on people who start a business about who, how, where and when they can hire someone.... to tell them how much to pay, and who to promote over another... to force someone to take an otherwise qualified fat person to front a business predicated on health and fitness.... to sell to someone who flouts an attitude and opinion with which an owner disagrees. People are starting to understand the difference in the laws as they are and the laws as they should be....
Rick Santorum got the votes he got because to many people, like me, he is not presidential material... As far as his views, I would say that on many points they are not mine..... His is a social conservative where, REGARDLESS OF HOW I FEEL ABOUT A SUBJECT; I do not believe that the government has a right to participate. Indeed much of his policy direction came from what I would call, ‘Catholic Doctrine’. While it is certainly right that he is principled in his beliefs, it is not right that he circumvent the secular nature of our society to create laws....such as annulling gay marriages...to satisfy his own beliefs. Never once did he truly attempt to defend the constitution, states rights, or individual expression..... He did, however make stupid ass statements like, ‘states should have the right to outlaw contraception’....No, he wasn’t my kind of guy...
This is the kind of dialog that divides republicans and gives the left the ammunition they need to take constitution waving republicans apart:
Rick Santorum, the fourth-place finisher in Saturday’s Straw Poll, took on new competitor Rick Perry over the Texas governor’s initial reaction to New York’s law legalizing gay marriage. Perry, a supporter of state’s rights, said he had “no problem” with New Yorkers deciding their own laws, then later Perry said he favored an amendment to the U.S. constitution to ban gay marriage.
“We have people who say, ‘States have the right to pass gay marriage,’” Santorum said last night in Waterloo. “I say, ‘No they do not because they do not have the right to do wrong.’”
Firstly Perry is correct.. states to have the right to set their own agenda (as long as it doesn’t run afoul of the US constitution) then he goes off and shows his ignorance of freedom and liberty by proposing a constitutional amendment to discriminate in government.
This is closely followed by Santorum’s statement that the states don’t have the right to do wrong.. Of course they don’t... But we don’t need civil rights laws, women rights laws or gay rights laws to defend against state violation of constitutional principles and we need no more than the constitution to say that a state law banning any kind of government recognized union as opposed to another is against the principles of equality and diminishes the fact that ‘marriage’ is defined by a religious order and only they, again based on constitutional doctrine, decide who to marry or refuse to marry. Period.
As for the T’s... They lost the plot, IMHO. They started out with a simple idea. Constitution, Fiscal Responsibility and Rule of Law.. no side issues, no divisive issues..... At this point, I am behind them 100%.... Libertarians are behind that message 100%. Then they got co-opted by a lot of mainstream republican money. Their message broadened into a more standard socially conservative message. While it is certainly correct that each and every member have the right to believe that, for instance, gay marriage is wrong. It is NOT a political issue. What is a political issue is how the state deals with people who choose joint ownership and cohabitation and in that, the constitution says that they must be treated the same... Period. I digress... It is hard for the Tea Party to galvanize on one candidate because the issues of social engineering always pull people away from the real issue of government and if a person expresses social conservatism, they lose voters or if they move toward a liberal social stance, they lose support.. The concept of a tea party ‘candidate’ is difficult because anyone who says, for instance, that they would annul gay marriages, to me, immediately says that they do not understand the principles of freedom, liberty and the constitution.... nor in fact where the institution of marriage comes from in the first place.
Virginia governor elect
ReplyDeleteAmerican Pioneer Savings Bank[edit]
In 1979, McAuliffe met Richard Swann, a lawyer who was in charge of fundraising for Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in Florida. In 1988, McAuliffe married Swann's daughter, Dorothy.
In the late 1980s, Swann's finances collapsed, entangling McAuliffe, who then used his political contacts to help Swann.[8] In 1990, federal regulators seized Swann's American Pioneer Savings Bank, causing Swann to file for bankruptcy, and McAuliffe to lose $800,000 he had invested in American Pioneer.[8] The Resolution Trust Corporation, a federal agency, seized American Pioneer's assets and liabilities.[8] Under the guidance of Swann, McAuliffe partnered with a pension fund controlled by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the National Electrical Contractors Association to buy American Pioneer real estate, valued at $50 million, for $38.7 million from the Resolution Trust Corporation.[8][10] Of the purchase amount, McAuliffe paid $100, while the pension fund paid $38.7 million;[8] McAuliffe still received a 50% equity stake.[10] The deal was arranged by pension fund trustee Jack Moore, who was an acquaintance of McAuliffe from the Gephardt presidential campaign.[8][10] Following the deal, the Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against McAuliffe and Moore, accusing them of imprudent business practices.[8][10]
Global Crossing[edit]
In 1997, McAuliffe invested $100,000 in Global Crossing,[6] a Bermuda-registered telecommunications company providing fiber-optic networking services worldwide.[11] Global Crossing went public in 1998.[12] The following year, McAuliffe sold the majority of his holding for a $8 million profit (other accounts have said his profit was $18 million).[13] McAuliffe sold the rest of his shares in January 2002.[13] The company filed for bankruptcy that same month, causing investors to lose over $54 billion, and 10,000 employees to lose their jobs.[13][14] McAuliffe, who lambasted Republicans after the Enron scandal, was criticized as hypocritical in the media, prompting him to set up television interviews to explain himself.[15] On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity pointed out McAuliffe's large profit, to which McAuliffe responded, "What are you, jealous or something? I mean, you buy stock. It was a great company."[16] According to McAuliffe's book, he played no management role in Global Crossing.[6]
] Five-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader alleged that in 2004, McAuliffe offered him cash to withdraw from certain pivotal states in the 2004 election.[35] McAuliffe's staff admitted that he indeed engaged in a conversation with Nader about his campaign, but denied that he offered any money.[35]
ReplyDeleteWiki
“Terry McAuliffe is slipperier than an eel in olive oil,” Nader told the Post.
DeleteJust like Democrats like um. Character doesn't matter when you biggist dream in life is to shred the document that underpins the success of the United States. The last 2 Democratic presidents have been blatant liars but were reelected twice. Certainly in the case of Obama, his lack of integrity was pointed out before he was elected the first time.... But that doesn't matter when your point man is on the same mission as you. Of course, to be fair, not too many Republican 'officials' have a hell of a lot of integrity either....
DeleteOf course McAuliffe was a tainted candidate and again you miss the point. Tainted as he is he won over a very conservative tea party backed candidate in Ken Cuccinelli. And Chris Christie a moderate republican romped through NJ a state with more democratic voters then republican ones. So regardless of the tainted polls and readings you rely on, America is again showing that the middle is where we are as a nation. The moderate won, the extremist lost against a very suspicious candidate, and all you get out of that is that McAuliffe is shady? We all already knew that. When your tea party backed candidate gets beat by a Terry McAuliffe I would think that would perk you up to bigger things going on then McAuliffe's integrity. When Chris Christie romps through a highly democratic state running as a RINO I would think you would see something bigger that might possibly be stirring in America.
ReplyDelete"I would think that would perk you up to bigger things going on then McAuliffe's integrity."
DeleteBigger things than integrity?
Unfortunate, Rick, yes? That such a characteristic seems to take a back seat.
Jean
“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.”
ReplyDelete― Joseph Sobran
Do keep in mind that for a government to fairly 'referee' is not the same as intervening... and the middle, as you describe the electorate , being pulled and pushed by the different sides of the same coin that is the Republican and Democratic national parties, and are blindly headed for a cliff socially, financially and militarily...
Once Again - Women sending America down the path of failed socialism.
ReplyDeleteUnmarried women went for McAuliffe by a wide 67-25 percent margin.
Well hell Live, the right has worked to disenfranchise the black community and the Hispanic community. Guess the next legislation will have to reverse the right of women to vote. Can't beat 'em well.... just take away their rights.... this coming from the party that is for rights......... rights for property owning, business owning white men...... so many good reasons not to be a republican.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo give you an idea just how libertarian Robert Sarvis is, Ron Paul specifically refused to endorse him on some of his policies... like forcing black boxes in cars to monitor motorists road usage and allowing government to collect yet another tax to waste. He was such a good candidate that Obama’s campaign donation bundler ‘accidentally’ supported Sarvis’s compaign by making it possible for him to even appear on the ballot in the first place. Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor and a top bundler for Obama. One has to ask the question that if this ‘libertarian’ supports such government intervention into people’s lives... is he a libertarian or a Trojan horse.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting how people on the left want to poke republicans for this and that but when you look at a number of things they gripe about it is all just revisionist history.
Like the civil war being started over slavery and Lincoln being antislavery... BS.. it was about taxes and representation. About how social security was their a baby of the democrats but if you really look at the history, it was capitalists like Rockefeller who’s idea it was.... The right doesn’t want to hear it and the left will let the myth be. Then we have the ‘Dixiecrats’.... sold as racist but actually their whole point was about States rights and right of association. The federal government had no need nor real authority to enact the civil rights act as integration is not a provision of our law... pursuit of happiness is. The constitution provided all the remedy needed for laws violated against blacks but, never to miss an opportunity to gain voters and put another nail in the coffin of the constitution, the left painted Dixiecrats as racist. While some of them were, Sen. Strom Thurman was not... He believed in strongly in States’ rights and the right to associate with whoever you wished as long as they too were willing. Then of course we have the ‘neocons’..... defectors of the democratic party and steeped in the socialist legacy of Ivan Trotski. Trotski did not believe in socialist countries as did Lenin... he believed in a socialist world! Most neocons will say that they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, they party left them because they drew the wrong lessons from the Vietnam War....
So now we have the dreaded ‘neocons’ (and yes, they should be dreaded) taking over the world and being embraced once again by their old democratic party who are working tirelessly to take over the state.... A pincher move on the constitution if I ever saw one, and a strategy that most people would never see when they vote for their partisan flavour of the month.... Yes, they are meeting in the middle, the real objective of which only the drivers of this two sided coin called ‘the parties’ really know. The voters are divided and slaughtered....
I just watched a prime ministers question time here in Britain. It is an open question time in Parliament for ministers to ask questions of the Prime Minister and for the Prime Minister and Shadow Prime Minister to ‘debate’ issues.
On particular attack on the Conservative PM was about the National Health Service. His reply is interesting in that it turned tables on Labor who, for eons, have supported the NHS. In his reply he shunned the approach of Labour to this particular question and touted the conservatives’ adding that ‘it is the conservatives who are the true supporters of the NHS and not Labour as people believe’....
It is this kind of slight of hand that will never allow voters to understand the real situation in the world.
Any leftist knows that the civil war didn't start over slavery, nor was it taxes and representation. It was about states rights specifically the right to leave the union. At the time the south was well represented and did a good job at maintaining their slight advantage through the several compromises attained during the lead up to the war. The election of Lincoln caused the south to secede not because he was anti slavery himself but a large part of his republican party was. No Lincoln was going to let slavery die it's own slow death which it would have with the advent of the cotton gin and other mechanical devices which would have rendered slaves especially field hands to become a financial burden. But Lincoln also believed that no state had the right to leave the union, and thus we get a civil war. the slavery issue wasn't involved until 1863 when Lincoln and his cabinet decided that the war could not be won as long as slavery existed therefore the emancipation proclamation, a toothless edict because it only freed the states in the rebellious states, states that Lincoln did not control at the time. Today no state except Texas can secede from the Union without the permission of the federal congress contrary to what many people believe. Yes any state can petition the government to leave the union but that permission is probably not going to be granted unless the state can come up with a damn compelling reason.
ReplyDeleteAs you discuss who really came up with social security lets look at the republican plan for healthcare reform to block the Hilary Clinton plan in the nineties. This republican bill had 24 sponsors including your Strom Thurman and was proposed in 1993. Know as the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994, discussion of the bill started on nov 20th 1993.
Let's look at some provisions of this bill..........
Oh, now it's Strom Thurman's fault.
DeleteWhy can't your hero Barrack Obama be a man and admit that he lied? We know the answer, all despots including Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro told the "Big Lie."
Nobody blames Strom Thurmond for anything that he didn't do. Fact is he was one of 24 republican Senators to co sponsor a bill in 1993 that looks and sounds very much like Obamacare. The biggest difference I see is that the mandate was placed more on business and less on the individual. That would have hurt small business. That would have alleviated the individual responsibility on the person and placed it back on the business. $50 bucks a day per employee. That would have wiped out small business in America. Thought you guys were all about the small businessman and individual responsibility? Guess not in 1993. So many good reasons not to be a republican.
DeleteSubtitle A tax treatment of health care expenses.
ReplyDeletesec 101 refundable health care expenses tax credit
subtitle B
sec 111 federally qualified health insurance plans
sec114 guaranteed issue
sec 115 guaranteed renewal
sec 117 establishment of regulatory program for certification of plans
sec 118 standards for regulatory programs
sec 122 conversion of non self insured plans
SEC. 122. CONVERSION OF NON-SELF-INSURED PLANS.
In the case of an employer-sponsored health insurance plan in force on the date of the enactment of this Act, and which is not a self-insured plan, the insurer from whom the plan was purchased (or, in the event such insurer refuses, any new subsidiary, corporation, insurer, union, cooperative, or association willing to become the new sponsor of the plan) shall--
(1) notify, not later than October 1, 1997, all of the primary insured beneficiaries of the employer-sponsored plan of their rights to convert their insurance coverage to a federally qualified health insurance plan (as defined in section 111) offered by the insurer with benefits identical to, or actuarially equivalent to, those of the employer-sponsored plan and the rates of that coverage, and provide such beneficiaries 60 additional days to decline or accept the new coverage, and
(2) offer such coverage beginning January 1, 1998, at premium rates which vary only by age, sex, and geography, except that the combined total of the new rates charged separately to the various beneficiaries may not exceed the total group rate paid by the employer or employees or both under the employer-sponsored plan on the last day it is, or was, in force.
SEC. 413. ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION TO FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Effective January 1, 2000, if a provider is required under a Federal program to transmit a data element that is subject to a presentation or transmission standard (as defined in subsection (b)), the head of the Federal agency responsible for such program (if not otherwise authorized) is authorized to require the provider to present and transmit the data element electronically in accordance with such a standard.
(b) PRESENTATION OR TRANSMISSION STANDARD DEFINED- In subsection (a), the term ‘presentation or transmission standard’ means a standard, promulgated under subsection (b) or (c) of section 411, described in paragraph (4) or (5) of section 411(b).
SEC. 421. STATE COMPARATIVE VALUE INFORMATION PROGRAMS FOR HEALTH CARE PURCHASING.
(a) PURPOSE- In order to assure the availability of comparative value information to purchasers of health care in each State, the Secretary shall determine whether each State is developing and implementing a health care value information program that meets the criteria and schedule set forth in subsection (b).
(b) CRITERIA AND SCHEDULE FOR STATE PROGRAMS- The criteria and schedule for a State health care value information program in this subsection shall be specified by the Secretary as follows:
(1) The State begins promptly after enactment of this Act to develop (directly or through contractual or other arrangements with 1 or more States, coalitions of health insurance purchasers, other entities, or any combination of such arrangements) information systems regarding comparative health values.
(2) The information contained in such systems covers at least the average prices of common health care services (as defined in subsection (d)) and health insurance plans, and, where available, measures of the variability of these prices within a State or other market areas.
(3) The information described in paragraph (2) is made available within the State beginning not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and is revised as frequently as reasonably necessary, but at intervals of no greater than 1 year.
Is a citizen sovereign or a state sovereign? If the people of a state do not have the right to secede are those citizens truly free?
ReplyDeleteNo they aren't. Let's cut the crap. Lincoln destroyed many things that our founders formulated for us. We as citizens have not truly been free since he turned on his own constitution.
It has always been implied that no state has the right to walk away from the union and yes today it takes congressional approval. I don't know dude I feel pretty free. I do what ever I want within the bounds of the law and nobody bothers me. yea that's pretty much freedom.
DeleteRick, tell me that your comment is a joke.
Delete"Pretty much freedom?" You're either free or you're not.
Common!
SEC. 422. FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION.
ReplyDelete(a) IN GENERAL- If the Secretary finds, at any time, that a State has failed to develop or to continue to implement a health care value information program in accordance with the criteria and schedule in section 421(b), the Secretary shall take the actions necessary, directly or through grants or contract, to implement a comparable program in the State.
Oops! A healthcare exchange by any other name is still a healthcare exchange
SEC. 5000A. FAILURE OF EMPLOYERS WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
‘(a) GENERAL RULE- There is hereby imposed a tax on the failure of any person to comply with the requirements of sections 121 and 125(a) of the Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994 with respect to any employee of the person.
‘(b) AMOUNT OF TAX-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- The amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) on any failure with respect to an employee shall be $50 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to such failure.
By god there's an individual mandate!
Sounds really, really like Obamacare don't it, Proposed by 24 republican senators in 1993.
103d CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 1743
To provide Americans with secure, portable health insurance benefits and greater choice of health insurance plans, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 20 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993
Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. MACK, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DOLE, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HELMS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. WALLOP, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
Sounds like this was a republican idea too.
History limited are we?... The north and the south were two different economies. The south was almost completely agrarian with cotton being its major crop. Before the war cotton, the largest industry in the world at that time, comprised over half of the US export trade and brought huge revenue and credit worthiness to the federal government and wealth to northern industrialists. So I am not quite certain where you get that the south ‘did a good job of maintaining slight advanages’..... The south was a huge part of the economy! Trade policies, immigration and industrialization skewed the population to the north and because the slave model did not fit the north, they sought to abolish it at the same time they were getting rich from the cotton industry in the south. This set up considerable friction and culminated in the election of Lincoln who received not one electoral vote from the south. Certainly the frictions revolved around slavery. Was it wrong, yes but at the time it was legal and affirmed by the Dred Scott case. Interestingly enough what is it that we hear about a harmful and unconstitutional law today?..... “It’s the law; people have attempted unsuccessfully to repeal it and the Supreme Court has upheld it , so get over it?” So, yes, it was about representation and taxation and federal overreach....
DeleteWhich brings us to ... Obamacare and how it is only a model of the republican plan...
Continued.....
“This republican bill had 24 sponsors including your Strom Thurman and was proposed in 1993.”
DeleteI could invoke the ‘I voted for it before I voted against it.’ Bs but I won’t cause the heritage plan, later denounced for flaws it contained was never like Obama care in the first place and its original intent was to try to fix the mess cause by liberals in the first place.
The heritage mandate proposal, if you could call them that, was in direct response to the EMTALA. The EMTALA was the largest unfunded mandate setting up a cost shifting nightmare and the decimation of charity hospitals across the country. It, in fact had the same horrible effects on the healthcare industry as Obamacare is having on the individual insurance market. Interestingly enough, many democrats now, argue that the ‘free rider’ problems caused by EMTALA were not nearly as bad as Republicans say, yet, they felt the need to enact EMTALA moving those people from charity work to for profit hospitals.... If it wasn’t a problem then why, unless of course your real objective was to socialize anything and everything, was the EMTALA enacted in the first place.
I digress. As I said, the heritage proposal was in response to EMTALA and evolved before Bill and Hillary came on the scene.
The heritage foundation retracted their belief in their position before Obama even took office as being flawed and harmful but the big thing that the Obamacare flag wavers need to understand is that it was fundamentally different from Obamacare in 3 ways... ultimately making it, regardless of flaws, constitutional.
(1) it required people to buy catastrophic coverage, rather than more expensive comprehensive coverage
2) it was primarily financed “through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher…rather than by a stick”
(3) Heritage’s mandate “was actually the loss of certain tax breaks…not a legal requirement.”
“(1) IN GENERAL- The amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) on any failure with respect to an employee shall be $50 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to such failure.
By god there's an individual mandate!”
NICE CURVE BALL!... until you read that this provision is indeed a penalty against employers for not following the provisions of section 121....
The penalties imposed against people who did not comply were 1) inability to avail themselves to any federal tax deduction such as home mortgage interest etc. 2) would not be able to use the bankruptcy courts to discharge acquired medical debt.
Obamacare isn’t about providing insurance, it’s about destroying insurance and forcing a single payer system and the leadership of the left will lie, cheat and steal to see it happen.. even to its own people.
So yes Strom Thurman may have voted for it... but it damned well wasn’t anything like Obamacare.... At least the right (on some issues) will admit when a policy they create is flawed and change their mind... the left will burn the house down before they admit that they are doing great harm.
Besides.. What happened to the old.... “I voted for it before I voted against it”.... :-)
P.S. Their was opposition to the bill and at least two others were tabled so we can’t say that this was all one sided... particularly when Obama opposed it in the first place... I think his words were:
“A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. … But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can’t afford it. And that’s why my plan emphasises lowering costs.”
“you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home”
I guess he was against it before he was for it......
You know taxes and representation is a nice curve for a society (southern anti bellum) that didn't want to admit that they would fight to keep an abomination like enslaving another human being regardless of what the need or perceived need was. Abraham Lincoln was in fact anti slavery. He hated the abomination. but he also knew he couldn't just end it and always stated that he wouldn't. It didn't matter if Abe Lincoln became president in 1860. It could have been any member of the republican party. The secession didn't happen because it was Lincoln it happened because he was a republican. It happened because the strongest plank in the republican platform that year was that the spread of slavery stops now. So yes in time the balance of representation would have greatly favored the anti slavery forces but that had not happened in 1860. The south seceded first and foremost over the slavery issue. Slavery was going to die in the United States. If you believe anything else was the number one reason then you are history limited. For the south that was job one. Second was states rights. You can spin that anyway you want but pure and simple states rights.
DeleteFor the north the war was a fight to preserve the union but as stated above Lincoln new that slavery would have to end or the war would go on forever. The war started in various forms 10 years before the start of open hostilities, Ever heard of bleeding Kansas or is that just another leftist myth, the beating of William Seward on the floor of the senate, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry all hostilities that led to our civil war. But maybe it all didn't happen when you are subjected to the limited narrow view in the south.
On representation, Okay Mr. Constitution do you recall the compromise that was reached to ensure equal representation for the south? it was called the three fifths compromise in which 5 slaves were counted as 3 whites. Because of this rule the south was awarded 47 house seats instead of the 33 they would have based only on the white or free population. In 1812 that grew to 76 instead of 59 and by 1833 98 instead of 73. This allowed the south to control the political debate, the presidency, the house speakership and the supreme court right up to the outbreak of the civil war.
DeleteWell Rick, I don’t know what to say. You have hit on most of the major points I would use in rebuttal to your arguments. You have however, used colourful twists of history to skew those points to suit your position.
DeleteOf course I don’t think that the history of the civil war started with the election of Lincoln. As you pointed out in a discussion some days ago about gerrymandering, those ruthless republicans... come democrats manipulated the entry of states carved from newly gained territory to their own advantage. They did that by cutting the southern states out of the decision making process as to how they would be formed. Southern states, I might add, that provided revenue and blood in the acquisition of those new territories. It, as you pointed out didn’t work quite as smoothly in Kansas however. As soon as the accomplished this, where they knew they had a clear majority, the went back and tried to revisit the 3/5s compromise..... They wanted to raise it to 1/1 so that they could draw even more taxes from the south.
It’s even suggested, though no absolute proof is available that it was northern industrialist that put Lincoln in office with the express purpose of decimating the south. It is quite curious that a part of Dixie that was absolutely razed by Sherman had no slaves.... The Savannah area of Georgia was becoming highly industrialized and used no slave labor. Did the northern industrialists feel threatened by the ability of the south to transform itself into a competitive force that would put the north out of business? Did they understand that by virtue of geography, climate and a labor force they would no longer be able to compete.
It is interesting that progressives seem to be right in the middle of most upheaval in this country... and most of it seems to surround big business... The fed, states rights, the expansion of the commerce clause... etc... just a point to ponder...
Lincoln had no real support for his presidency having only won with a majority of 38.9%.... the lowest in US History. And after his election even those that voted for him wondered if they had made a serious mistake. Observations of Henry Clay recounted that he only had support from 1/3rd of the house... Of course much of the disdain heaped on him wasn’t necessarily about anything that he had done or not done.... it was that he was an unknown, an interloper and he received the frustrations of a nation who projected on him the things the people saw as wrong with the nation: “To the opinion makers in the cities of the East, he was a weakling, inadequate to the needs of the democracy. To the hostile masses in the South, he was an interloper, a Caesar who represented a deadly threat to the young republic.( A republic, I might add, that was founded on the sovereign place of the individual states in the Union ) To millions on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, he was not a statesman but merely a standard bearer for a vast, corrupt political system. (Sounds like someone else we know.. someone, who, like Lincoln, defiled the constitution, violated black letter law and ultimately took people to war without any popular mandate what so ever)
Continued.....
Look, I don’t believe that slavery was at all right. But I don’t like revisionist history in trying to deflect blame for events to others because progressives don’t want to be judged by their character. Were progressives on the right side of the issue?... Yes. Did they lie, cheat, steal, ignore the law, defy Supreme Court rulings and ultimately when they couldn’t muster enough support for their cause, circumvented congress and goad the south into a war... Yes.
DeleteBut you can’t talk away the fact that secession while related to an economy built around slave labor was not about slaves... It was about taxes.... It was about representation ... It was about states’ rights.... and indeed about the rule of law which seemed to be lacking in a less than representative federal government.
Below is a link to some of the secession declarations of the southern states. Georgia and Texas are particularly good at delineating the reasons that they succeeded and while it was centered around the issue of slavery, the facts are that abolitionists fervour were trampling on the laws of the republic... a step too far when everything being done in the south was 100% legal at the time, part of the country’s economic condition from its inception and conditioned in the constitution ratified by all of the colonies of which Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut were 4 of the first 5 to jump on board.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
And now we come full circle and we as a people are confronted with the same corrupt political system... One quietly and not so quietly guided by a progressive movement who could give a damn about the rule of law or a constitution or indeed the rights and liberties of man.....
I wonder how these words by Lincoln would play in modern revisionist textbooks about the motives and motivations of the great emancipator:
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality”
While we can all look back today on slavery as being a huge blemish on the history of this country, the unilateral revocation of agreements and indeed constitutional law just because someone is in power was not the right way to solve the situation. Today a body of the American public is starting to open their eyes to the blatant attempt to overthrow the republic founded in liberty.... This republic has enemies on both sided of the political isle and they are being pointed out vocally and they don’t like the attention one bit. Libertarians and Tea’s can be called lots of names but ‘terrorist’ is being used by people who don’t like the light of day shown on their deeds and tactics.
I wanted to mention, but forgot, something about Lincoln that I feel was in his favour. He said that the authors of the Declaration of Independence:
Delete"intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where."
What a very Libertarian thing to say......
On expansion... I disagree that the republicans-come democrats controlled how states came into the union. 1st before 1856 there was no republican party. The modern republican party started as a conglomeration of many factions and fractious parties, Whigs who had lost power long before, know nothings, free soilers, and anti slavery northern democrats. There were actually two dems that ran both somewhat pro slavery or of the mind to leave it alone. The single most divisive act the Kansas Nebraska act was proposed by a northern democrat (Stephen Douglas) but it more favored the south then the north over time. The pro slavery constitution for Kansas was adopted not the anti slavery one. Missouri was allowed to be a slave state in that compromise although it was north of the 3630 line. The north IMO did everything they could to appease the south with most of the representatives of both sides democrats. Only other party at the time were the whigs and that never was a strong party.
DeleteYes I know that Lincoln did not see blacks as equal to whites but he also never saw the need to enslave them, and the very things he spoke about were the greatest fears of the southern people when it came to imagining free blacks. He definitely put to words exactly what many were thinking.
But John Wilkes Booth did not do the south any favor although at the time it was celebrated. Lincoln was a strong enough and crafty enough politician that he would not have been railroaded into the harsh repercussions that the south endured because of the weak president that succeeded him. Lincoln didn't want that he wanted re establishment of the Union to be easy and fast. Had he have lived there would have been no military districts no carpetbaggers no subjecting the southern whites to the rule of blacks, no crushing reparations. It's not what he believed in.
Fine then..... anti-slavery, abolitionist, progressive zealots, come republicans-come democrats controlled how states came into the union. Hows that? ;-)
DeleteYou know that the conspiracy theory is that Booth was hired by the very men who put Lincoln in office don't you?.... politics is a dirty business and if you want to crush your competition, you use all measures necessary....
Anyway... good discussion.. Thanks
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJust a little more there is no real historical proof that the 3/5th compromise was to be changed, only the Missouri Compromised was changed with the ratification of the Kansas Nebraska act.
DeleteAgain I challenge the reasons of taxation and representation as the primary cause of secession. In perusing your link left above, every state except South Carolina states within the first paragraph of their secession document the right to slaves and their desire to protect that institution. Yes taxation and representation may be underlying circumstances but the defense of slavery was the main reason that 11 states left the union. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the border states Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware never left and slavery was also not as prevalent and deemed financially necessary in this 3 states. Further more the mountainous part of Virginia which became West Virginia refused to support a war for the protection of the institution. Yes my friend however we got there, Slavery was the #1 issue that split this country in half.
I would say that you have entered the realm of circular logic... The institution is slavery and slavery is the institution. African chiefs offered up strong men and women for power and wealth and to rid themselves of enemies, slave traders bought from Africa and sold to the Americas, slaves, not for ideology but for economic gain and 99.9% of buyers in the Americas did so for an economic purpose. The remaining .1% who felt the need to own a living foot rest or a tight young concubine would have found someone to enslave degrade regardless the skin color. Slaves were not bought from the British for any ideological reason nor were they forcibly removed from Africa as an expression of supremacy... it was purely economic. As far as the feeling that white intellect was superior, that occurred in the northern European psyche long before Columbus, Vasco da Gama or Magellan went in search of a new trade route to the indies....
DeleteJust a couple of facts...
Population: north 22m (71%) South 9m (29%)
Free Population: North 22m South 5.5m
Border State Slaves: .5m South 3.5m
Soldiers: North 2.2m(67%) South 1m (33%)
Railroad Miles: North 21.7k(71%) South 8.8K (29%)
Manufacturing: North (90%) South(10%)
Firearm Production: North: (97%) South (3%)
Cotton Production 1860:North(Negligible) South 4.5m bales
Cotton production 1884:North(negligible) South 300K bales
>>>Prewar Exports: North (30%) South (70%)
Cotton, its production and export was everything to the South. The cotton gin revolutionized production and made the labor intensive job of picking even more important. Perhaps had the cotton gin never been invented, the need to keep slaves would have diminished naturally on its own. Just like today’s assumption that we will always find a way to feed an ever expanding population, slave owners wanted guarantees that their ability to use slaves would be assured in perpetuity.. And the only way that would happen is with equal representation in the federal government. Note from the stats above the last item... exports... Given that the federal government financed itself with tariffs, do you think that the south had a financial stake in and right to expect, its representation? This is precisely why states rights are so important. Of course today we must enforce a ‘sensible’ reading of the constitution, but taking the rights and representation of states away kills the ingenuity and creation of competition.
The issue was not the right to keep slaves; it was the right to insure that they continued to have the right. In light of the strength of the abolition movement, they knew that without representation, guarantees by Lincoln and others were meaningless in the future. This is why they were so animate about having a balance in newly acquired territories. There was no way that the New Mexico territories would ever have a viable economic use for slaves but as long as the right were enshrined in the state constitutions, the balance would remain in Washington.
I would also say that the south had a considerable problem and the north provided no real solution for it. The slave owners were very aware of the Haitian Revolution. Not only where the slave owners and the peace keepers who supported them up against an angry black populous but they were turned on by the change in attitude of the French government who stopped supporting the system they helped create . Even if economic reasons were to have disappeared, they would have still had a little problem with what to do with this population of people who weren’t inclined to live and let live should the be freed.
With respect to the states that didn’t secede but supported the south... the support of states’ rights. Why did West Virginia split from Virginia..... Mountains don’t grow cotton or tobacco... No?
Part of the untold story here is that the GOP hates the Tea Party. They rather a Democrat win than the Tea Party to gain a foothold. Chooch was outspent $3 million to $18 million and still he almost won. In the past the GOP has spent $9 million in this race.
ReplyDeleteWhat can we learn from this? A lot of RINOs and long term GOP are going to get challenged ans LOSE in their primaries. The Tea Party is going to get more and more people in to Congress.
You are absolutely correct. The real fear that I have is that much of what is called the Republican party has been co-opted by the left and the out come of an election doesn't really matter as long as the Libertarians and Teas are stifled. The can happen in so many ways. We saw Ron Paul ignored by the left media and ignored by the right. We just saw with this election, the accusations that the Republican party turned their backs on Cuccinelli in the last week of the race thus making the effect of Sarvis, a less than libertarian, libertarian even more effective.
DeleteClowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
The it will force the right to actually stand for something. Either they want freedom guaranteed by the constitution or they want social engineering.. either they are for fiscal disipline and 'defence' or they don't care about the money and are mere collaborators with the left in working for a one world government... In that last regard, the only dispute between the right and left is who will lead it...
LF, TS,
DeleteI'm curious. Do you think Rick Santorum would have fared better than Romney in 11/2012, and if you think yes, why?
I don't, and I can't see how a Tea-partier, with the commonly held image that goes with the label, would attract democratic and independent voters. At the congressional level, perhaps. In some states. But for the WH? I can't picture it.
Jean
No he would have had to run the same way IN THE MIDDLE. Talk about clowns to the right and jokers to the left that primary absolutely made the republican party look bad including those identified as tea party. T's backed every candidate in that primary at one time or another and Santorum was the only one that really spoke your language consistently He was your second to the last choice, he was the big dog only when it got down to him and Romney. yeah yeah now spin it and say you supported him all along. Ya know ya didn't. It was Bachmann, then Perry, then 999 Cain, then Newt, Huntsman left and ya had no one else but Romney (ugh) and Santorum and suddenly he was the guy. pitiful.
DeleteWhen Christie dropped out of the 2012 race the NY rino money went to Ronmey. Christie will stay in next time and the dems will help prop him up because like Romney and McCain they know they can beat him like a stick. Like Gore couldn't win Tennessee Christie won't even win NJ and Hillary will use the left and right coast strategy to wipe the floor with him.
DeleteThe Tea Party will never support Christie especially after his bromance with Obummer "down the shore." As a Jersey guy I hope Chris stays in NJ cause he's doing a lot helping to make a lost cause State somewhat livable and possibly not bankrupt.
The deal last week was that the rino's gave the dems Va and the dems let Christie walk so they could set him up as a 2012 straw man.
"The deal last week was that the rino's gave the dems Va and the dems let Christie walk so they could set him up as a 2012 straw man."
DeleteYou really believe that statement don't you. Boy oh boy oh boy. Besides a weak candidate Christie won because he has been good for N J. He is somewhat moderate and is well liked especially after his handling of last years storm. See when people are battered and scared help any help trumps politics every time. The people of NJ didn't care if he had to smooze Obama to get the help they needed and most saw nothing wrong with it.
Virginia: a very tainted democrat won over a tea party backed extremist. That was no gift and that was no accident. I said it before and I will say it again, America is center. Sometimes it's center right sometimes it's center left but always it is in the center. No extremist from either side will any important office especially in a national election. People want continuity, and people want things left alone for the most part.
Jean, I would say that I doubt that a Libertarian or a Tea Party candidate could be elected to the WH....
DeleteStranger things have happened but the Left and Right of this country are entrenched. The lies and the propaganda they throw around is mindboggling. To me, ‘most’ Libertarian principles are common sense but to the left and right they are a threat. They can’t articulate the threat as the only words that they can find are ‘loonies, crazies, terrorists, anarchists, etc..... but no real argument with respect to policy. You see now in the news that Republicans and democrats are coming together to push libertarians and t’s to the margins. Interestingly, Obama will claim deficit reductions during his time in office. Most of these modest reductions in spending have come as a direct result of confrontation (not reasoned compromise as they say they want) with strong fiscal conservatives and more tellingly over the objection of limp wristed republicans.
No, the WH house is not within reach of a third party or in the case of someone like Ron Paul, a dissident within a party. The message of Libertarians and the constitutional message of the T’s is something that is decidedly ‘ground up’. The good news is that it is growing and growing fast.
It is going to take people to realize that it is wrong for the state to force the direction of a cultural mores. It is wrong for a police force to look and act like a combat unit. It is wrong for the government to annul basic principles of freedom and liberty so that they can kick down your door without a warrant. It is wrong for the state to heap mountains of rules on people who start a business about who, how, where and when they can hire someone.... to tell them how much to pay, and who to promote over another... to force someone to take an otherwise qualified fat person to front a business predicated on health and fitness.... to sell to someone who flouts an attitude and opinion with which an owner disagrees.
People are starting to understand the difference in the laws as they are and the laws as they should be....
Rick Santorum got the votes he got because to many people, like me, he is not presidential material... As far as his views, I would say that on many points they are not mine..... His is a social conservative where, REGARDLESS OF HOW I FEEL ABOUT A SUBJECT; I do not believe that the government has a right to participate. Indeed much of his policy direction came from what I would call, ‘Catholic Doctrine’. While it is certainly right that he is principled in his beliefs, it is not right that he circumvent the secular nature of our society to create laws....such as annulling gay marriages...to satisfy his own beliefs. Never once did he truly attempt to defend the constitution, states rights, or individual expression..... He did, however make stupid ass statements like, ‘states should have the right to outlaw contraception’....No, he wasn’t my kind of guy...
DeleteThis is the kind of dialog that divides republicans and gives the left the ammunition they need to take constitution waving republicans apart:
Rick Santorum, the fourth-place finisher in Saturday’s Straw Poll, took on new competitor Rick Perry over the Texas governor’s initial reaction to New York’s law legalizing gay marriage. Perry, a supporter of state’s rights, said he had “no problem” with New Yorkers deciding their own laws, then later Perry said he favored an amendment to the U.S. constitution to ban gay marriage.
“We have people who say, ‘States have the right to pass gay marriage,’” Santorum said last night in Waterloo. “I say, ‘No they do not because they do not have the right to do wrong.’”
Firstly Perry is correct.. states to have the right to set their own agenda (as long as it doesn’t run afoul of the US constitution) then he goes off and shows his ignorance of freedom and liberty by proposing a constitutional amendment to discriminate in government.
This is closely followed by Santorum’s statement that the states don’t have the right to do wrong.. Of course they don’t... But we don’t need civil rights laws, women rights laws or gay rights laws to defend against state violation of constitutional principles and we need no more than the constitution to say that a state law banning any kind of government recognized union as opposed to another is against the principles of equality and diminishes the fact that ‘marriage’ is defined by a religious order and only they, again based on constitutional doctrine, decide who to marry or refuse to marry. Period.
As for the T’s... They lost the plot, IMHO. They started out with a simple idea. Constitution, Fiscal Responsibility and Rule of Law.. no side issues, no divisive issues..... At this point, I am behind them 100%.... Libertarians are behind that message 100%. Then they got co-opted by a lot of mainstream republican money. Their message broadened into a more standard socially conservative message. While it is certainly correct that each and every member have the right to believe that, for instance, gay marriage is wrong. It is NOT a political issue. What is a political issue is how the state deals with people who choose joint ownership and cohabitation and in that, the constitution says that they must be treated the same... Period. I digress... It is hard for the Tea Party to galvanize on one candidate because the issues of social engineering always pull people away from the real issue of government and if a person expresses social conservatism, they lose voters or if they move toward a liberal social stance, they lose support.. The concept of a tea party ‘candidate’ is difficult because anyone who says, for instance, that they would annul gay marriages, to me, immediately says that they do not understand the principles of freedom, liberty and the constitution.... nor in fact where the institution of marriage comes from in the first place.