Friday, June 29, 2012

Simon Decree


(Special thanks to DougM at Sondrakistan.com for "Rope n' Chains" joke!)
Well, well, well. The Supreme Court has spoken, and Obamacare is still standing - found to be perfectly constitutional as long as the Supreme Court pretends that it's something other than what it was presented to be.

Even though the language wasn't in the law, and Barack Obama himself denied it, the majority of the Court decided that the "individual mandate" which compels Americans to buy a product (in this case insurance) whether they want it or not is entirely constitutional...as long as the word "penalty" is replaced with the word "tax." Hey, there's no need to rewrite the Constitution when it's so much easier to rewrite the dictionary!

In making this preposterous ruling, the Supreme Court essentially threw out individual liberty in this country, chained and shackled us, and delivered our sorry asses to the new Massas in Washington DC who will now make all of our decisions for us...or punish us with punitive taxes.

Driving a gas guzzling car, or one that doesn't spontaneously burst into flames like a GM product? Uh-oh...higher taxes for you! Belong to the Mormon church? There'll be a line for that on the new 1040 tax form (but good news! There may be tax credits for Muslims!).

Overweight? Multiply the number of pounds by $150 and send the total amount to Washington by April 15th, or else. Do you want to marry someone of the opposite sex? That'll cost you! You're NOT aborting that baby? Ka-ching, ka-ching!

Do you think these examples are extreme? Because NONE of them is as extreme as the government deciding whether or not you, or someone you love, will get life-saving healthcare based on Washington's whims of the moment and whatever political files they're keeping on you. And that's now been upheld as the law of the land.

And unlike Barack Obama, we're not allowed to simply declare that we won't obey laws we don't like.

The government now has the means to control all of our wealth, all of our means of productivity, and all of our personal actions and choices. So it is no overstatement to say that we are all slaves now.

And that we've got precisely one chance to change that peacefully in November.

So now is not the time for despair. It is the time for anger, for action, and for reclaiming our nation from those who have sold out our lives, our liberties, and our children for the sake of their own insatiable desire to rule us, to rob us, and to whip us into submission.

But they should be warned - there is no whip that strong.

Nor will the whip remain in their hands if we have the resolve to take it.



As usual, Bill Whittle adds a clear and compelling perspective.
--

29 comments:

REM1875 said...

They keep saying this is a victory for conservatives, I don't think we can take many more of these pyrrhic victories. It was truly brilliant how Roberts snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. God save us from idiots -PLEASE

Velcro said...

One of the many things that galls me is Roberts' citation of Hooper v California as justification for turning "penalty" into "tax". Without getting into detail, nothing parallel to "This is NOT a tax" was stated in Hooper, so the court didn't have to address any intent. Here, as you point out, it was quite the opposite.

The court also went out of its way to say why the Commerce Clause wouldn't work...then came up with this gem.

Sredni Vashtar said...

Here are some more ideas:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/whats-next-after-the-obamacare-ruling/

Colby said...

Stilton,
Do I detect a bit of frustration and anger in your post today? I sure hope so because I'M sure feeling it.

I was encouraged by something else that happened yesterday, though. Romney calmly said that to get rid of Obamacare, we first had to send Obama packing (paraphrasing here). After that, over $3 million came pouring in to his campaign. People are pissed as hell.

We need to stay focused and engaged and not rest for a minute. Get out there an volunteer; give money if you have any left. Write letters to the paper; talk to people (calmly - not like a nut). Apathy still runs rampant, and we just can't have that.

Off soapbox now.... off to drink some "coffee."

John the Econ said...

For socialism to have any chance at viability at all, the state ultimately must impose itself upon individual behavior. Earlier Marxist states made this social responsibility very clear to their citizens. It was no secret that that there'd be no "freedom" at all, and the state was to be your master. This blunt truth was the primary reason that the Communist movement of the Progressive Era never made it far outside of the Soviet Union nearly 100 years ago. Even during the depths of the Depression, Americans had little interest in this ideology.

Having realized this mistake after about 30 years of failure, the Progressives re-engineered their approach after WWII. Hence, we got a kinder, gentler version that arose in the 60s.

Liberals have done quite well over the last 50 years selling their warm and fuzzy "soft Marxism"; the kind where people still get to be mostly free, and the state makes few demands upon the citizenry beyond taxes. And even then we're led to believe that it will be the "rich" that will pay the bulk of those anyway.

But the reality remains that socialism simply cannot work that way. It's short order between the time that people realize that they can consume the resources of the state without theoretically having to also produce the resources of the state. Citizens must be held accountable to each other.

Right now, it's about "taxes". But that won't be enough, because there simply is not enough "rich" people to finance everyone for everything. Then it's going to be about your personal behavior, because the less healthy you are, the more of a burden you are to the state. And ultimately, it will be your labor. As more and more people decide they no longer want to work to provide for others as their needs are provided for, we're going to have to "make them work". (This was formerly called "slavery")

So what does that mean in terms of "health care"? Well, it means that now, your personal health is my business. The sicker you are, the worse off I am too. So get ready, because we now have both the moral and legal obligation to straighten you out.

We need to start educating people about this. Today, it's "the individual mandate", (or "tax" if the SCOTUS prefers) smoking, big gulps & CO2. Tomorrow it's cheese and meat. How about outlawing sex outside of marriage? How many expensive social problems can be eliminated just by enforcing that?

The Federal government now employs literally hundreds-of-thousands of bureaucrats who's (cushy) job it is to think up these things. I think we need to help them, before it's too late.

Earl Allison said...

John the Econ,

Scary stuff, I wish it didn't ring as true as it does.

Personal stuff:

Yup. I'm overweight, REALLY overweight (I won't get into the why, it's not relevant). I figure it's only a matter of time before they come for me.

Yeah, major Eeyore time for me yesterday, I'm still not really over it, like we were all personally betrayed over this ruling.

I hope and pray Romney is damn sincere in removing Obamacare in its entirety. And I hope and pray we the American People can ensure he has that chance.

Thanks for posting.

Chuck said...

After much “coffee” and a good night’s "sleep", I’m feeling a might better today, aside from the headache.

I not quite as depressed as I was yesterday. The SCOTUS has thrown the issue back to the politicians, in effect saying: we rule on constitutionality, not policy. Don’t call a tax a penalty or confuse interstate commerce with taxing. Now the left will have to own up to it being a tax: how will they run on the platform of saving the Øbamacare Tax?

The lies about Øbamacare continue to multiply.
You can keep the policy you have? No.
Costs will go down? No.
No increase in taxes on those earning less than $250K? Wrong again.

Oh, and some of those “good things” in Øbamacare? Well, I can’t speak from experience about all of them, but I can speak to one in particular: keeping your grown kids on your policy to age 26. My oldest son just turned 23 (I could already keep him on my policy to age 23 while he was a student. Because he got into an internship, his school time is extended, so he is still a student.) I checked with my insurance carrier about keeping him on my policy and yes, we can … for an additional $200+ per month!!! Did anyone hear this discussed at all? Turns out it is cheaper for him to get his own policy! When my sister heard he had gotten his own policy, she said, “Why didn’t you keep him on yours … it’s free?” NO IT ISN’T, at least it wasn’t going to be in our case.

I’m still greatly concerned about the precedent now set; allowing the government to mandate whatever they want and levy a punitive tax for non-compliance. However, people don’t like taxes and they don’t sell well. I’m glad they won’t be able to hide behind the commerce clause. The pundits on the left are gleeful right now, but just wait until awareness sets in. Of course, the LSM will continue to do their best to distract, bury and obfuscate to keep the masses ignorant … and that is the greatest threat we face. “Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise”. (Thomas Gray – 1742)

One more thing: the blogosphere was awash yesterday with gloating liberals delivering their and their sob stories about this lady or that guy with medical problems who will be helped now. All I can say is that I’m sorry about their health conditions, but I don’t OWE them healthcare. There are (or used to be) charitable venues that I contributed to for that purpose. Forcibly taking something from one person to give to another for whatever reason is wrong, like not “fair” (a word that, along with a multitude of others, has been hijacked by the left and no longer means what it used to mean.)

Eric Lucas said...

I'm overjoyed to see you link to the Bill Whittle video - he's right on target and insightful as usual.

Look, strangely enough I consider this a victory for liberty.

If the court had struck it down then Obama and the "progressives" would have a powerful motivational weapon to rouse their base: Defeat the "political" Supreme Court. As it is, this decision is a lightning bolt to the rear-end of the conservative and independent voters - stand up against Obama and the government take-over of health care... or line up for your custom-fitted chains. In reality there is only one size of chain and you get to fit yourself to the chains of the state - or else.

FlyBoy said...

I like to ask my progressive friends: if socialism (communism lite) is so wonderful, why does it need to be forced on people? You'd think that everone would be clamoring for it. Why does it NOT raise everybody up as promised, but instead makes most miserable? I've yet to receive a sound, logical answer.

John the Econ: you have a rare talent to put into words the complex and make it pragmatic. It's always an intellectual delight to read what you opine on.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@REM1875- I've read enough analysis at this point to have (ahem) "evolved" in my opinion of yesterday's ruling enough that rather than being totally devastated, I'm now just thoroughly confused - which is an improvement of sorts. Giving the states some pushback power (via Medicare/Medicaid policies) may actually be a huge kick in Obama's ass as states essentially opt out of Obamacare rather than being bankrupted by it. And declaring the penalty is actually a tax will (hopefully) carry considerable stink into the elections as people realize that Obama not only IGNORED our economy and jobless problem in order to work on his pet project, but he also RAISED TAXES during a recession (or, according to Uncle Joe Biden, a Depression).

Yesterday was, for me, all about reacting with emotion. Today, logic is kicking in...and it's slower going.

@Velcro- It seemed that a significant part of the Court's ruling on the Arizona immigration law was to honor the intent of the policies of the Feds, even though those policies conflicted with the law. But if that's the case, why ignore the clearly expressed intent that the penalty not be considered a tax? Again, very confusing.

@Sredni- Nice link. The suggestions include new taxes for failing to use your recycling bin properly, failure to own an electric car, and so on. Does anyone believe that the Left will not abuse this newly discovered ability to control our lives while stealing our money?

@Colby- Detecting frustration and anger in my post? But...but...I'm a professional who skillfully hides his feelings! You must be projecting.

Seriously, it WAS encouraging to see people give Romney a good shot of money after the ruling (I may do so myself). And the rest of your comment is solid gold: we all need to do more than opine to each other (though that's good too). Volunteer, give money, put up yard signs, write to the papers, and be vocal and logical. Obama must go, and we are the ones who have to make it happen.

@John the Econ- Masterful review of what's going on. This deserves to be published in the Wall Street Journal instead of on this humble (but feisty) blog.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Earl Allison- With very few exceptions, we all have conditions which increase our risks. Don't have any now? Wait till you get older! But the existing system of insurance, as flawed as it is, took this into account with higher premiums or flat-out exclusion. For the government scheme to work everyone MUST be paying in and by corollary, everyone will start caring about how much is being paid out to certain individuals. Obama has already pointed out that a huge percentage of Medicare/Medicaid outlays occurs in the last months of a person's life. So if we just ignore those months (or throw some narcotics at them), The State will come out way ahead financially. Oh sure, it means cremation instead of chemotherapy...but isn't that an acceptable tradeoff for making sure our unemployed citizen-brothers and citizen-sisters can get their free abortions?

@Chuck- We're in much the same place today. Let's see how popular Obamacare is when a 16-ounce soda gets an additional $1.50 tax put on it. Or watch Obama's support among black voters disappear when an obesity tax is levied. Like I said earlier, things aren't as disastrously clear as they seemed to me yesterday.

And I couldn't agree more about the uselessness of anecdotal stories as justification for policy. Not long ago, there was a popular Facebook picture of a libtard holding her "I Am Obamacare" sign along with her sob story. I researched her REAL story and appended it to the picture and put THAT on Facebook - killing several longterm friendships with people who considered me to be a heartless bastard. Fortunately, I've got a policy for people who can't take a joke. Only in this case, it's no joke.

Click here to see little Miss Obamacare and her real story.

@Eric Lucas- Bill Whittle is a treasure. I try to never miss his videos, and heartily encourage others to do the same.

As you point out, this can become a clarifying moment for Americans to make a choice: Big government and control by taxation, or smaller government and personal liberty. I just wish I was more confident that most people will choose the latter.

@Flyboy- And if Obamacare is so great, why do the Bamster's closest political friends and allies get waivers from it?

And I echo your appreciation of John the Econ's wisdom and erudition. But let me spread the praise around more generally: ALL of the comments here tend to be smart, well-informed, and well thought out. I take pride (and humility) from the fact that this blog seems to attract and hold actual thinkers. So here's a big "thank you" to every one of you for making this blog more than I could ever make it on my own.

CenTexTim said...

Goodness knows there's no shortage of opinions today about the ruling. Two things:

1. Stilt and others are 100% correct about 'these are the time's that try men's souls.' Time to gird our loins (you too, ladies) and get to work to take back our country. Now!

2. There's lots of ire being directed at Roberts. While I agree with REM1875 that we can't stand many more of these pyrrhic victories, this may be a 'lose the battle win the war' kind of thing. Here's another perspective. Briefly:

The individual mandate, relative to the commerce clause, is unconstitutional. This means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything.

Since the mandate is dead, obamacare must be funded through a tax. Now obama and the libs can't hide behind word games anymore. Obamacare is clearly funded by a tax increase, which the dems must defend this Nov. (And there's all that juicy footage of obama saying "it's not a tax.")

Also ruled unconstitutional (and lost in much of the uproar) is the notion that the federal government can force states into compliance by denying (unrelated) medicaid funding. This means the states can refuse to participate in obamacare without penalty - a victory for states' rights.

I'm not smart enough to figure out if Roberts is a spineless weasel or a brilliant and devious mastermind. But the article did make me think about it.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@CenTexTim- Great link. That's the very article that made me take a step back and wonder if Roberts is playing chess while all I can figure out is checkers. Then again, the Wall Street Journal editorial today certainly wasn't high-fiving Roberts...quite the contrary.

So I'm confused about the shakeout from all of this and will have to see how the tea leaves settle.

BUT...none of this changes in the least the fact that Obamacare is a terrible idea, that it will continue to be disastrous to our healthcare system, and that it is about government power and redistribution of wealth rather than medicine.

Anonymous said...

I really don't understand the decision - If you can't afford the insurance, you are fined for not having it. If you can afford the insurance, you are penalized for having it, and forced to pay for those who don't. It just doesn't make any sense.

Our only conservative victory is - we get to mobilize and remove the socialist liar from office and this should be catalyst enough to get us off of our asses to vote.

CenTexTim said...

One other comment: we have (or will shortly have) a health care crisis, not a health insurance crisis.

We need more health care professionals and facilities, which obamacare does nothing to provide. Instead, we will have increased demand (via all the new health insurance patients) and the same or a decreased supply, leading to higher costs and less availability.

All administered by yet another government bureaucracy.

Now where did I put that bottle of 'coffee'...?

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

And when the death panels start deciding who lives and who dies, will the libs say "thank you, Sarah Palin, for warning us of this"? Hell no! If they mention her at all they will probably claim she made a lucky guess.
This is why the libs attack her; not because they really think she'd be a terible president but because they are terrified at just how good she'd be at it.

SeaDog said...

Now comes the Machiavellian part, Robert's, faced with 4 Justices dissenting and throwing the whole law out, 4 Justices upholding the law, he must become a tie-breaker (something he sees as his primary responsibility). The dissenting opinions are correct that the mandate, and thus the entire law, can not qualify under the Commerce Clause, but siding with the dissenting Justices would be against his beliefs (that overturning legislation passed by Congress is 'activism', legislating from the bench is not within the Court's responsibility.). He crafts an opinion that 'threads the needle' and re-states the argument that the mandate is not a penalty, but a tax and thus within Congress' authority (One must remember that the original law draft had it as a tax and was a bill that was passed by the House and had been gutted to avoid that pesky Constitutional requirement that taxing authority must originate in the House. The language was changed to penalty since Reid would not get the votes needed in the Senate to pass if it was a tax). Robert's statement in his opinion, "...it is not the responsibility of the Court to protect the People from their electoral choice (paraphrased)" or, more plainly - "Elections have Consequences". Roberts has effectively thrown the whole mess back to the electorate. Romney must have a solution that addresses the problems in Obamacare, one that provides sensible free-market solutions as well as tort-reform, and must begin to market the replacement bill in order to garner the support of independents and the non-Obamabots. IMHO, make Paul Ryan Ways and Means Chairman and have him oversee the crafting of the bill - he has already provided three very good solutions. The bottom line in all this is that the US is on a precipice and there are only two choices in November, to quote, "Sweden or Free-Market Capitalism".

SeaDog said...

My wife, who is an RN, saw the precursor of Obamacare when she worked in NC. The State reduced the Medicaid compensation to doctors. Most of the doctors servicing the regional hospital (MediCare & Medicaid patients made up 90% of the population), either said they were going to retire or go Cash only. The hospital had to close two wards since they did not have enough doctors to staff them. Now to get any type of advanced care the patients have to travel 40 miles to another hospital that is supported by a medical school.

Colby said...

Good stuff here today! Well, there's good stuff every day, but this day's postings are above average good stuff. I am beginning to think Justice Roberts is dumb like a fox. I was not aware, for example, that the mandate was shot down, and also, the Feds can't blackmail the states into complying. this is almost better than having the whole thing shot down. The libs are all out there celebrating their big victory, while the ruling actually took a lot of the teeth out of the law. It's like Roberts said, "OK, you can keep your stupid law, but you have to tell the people you're funding it with HIGHER TAXES on EVERYBODY (not just the "rich"), and you can't force it on the states.

I feel sorry for those of you who live in uber-liberal states because you are likely screwed, but I think most states will tell BO to perform aviated coitus with a rotating, perforated pastry.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

OK. I'm out of my SC Decision-induced coma now. I would have been happier to have Øbama smacked down so hard, I could hear his pointed head bounce all the way from Michigan - but, as the shock and resulting twin senses of desparation and desolation subside, and I read some of the very insightful comments made here and elsewhere... Maybe I'm premature in damning Roberts (though not for damning the four lib-holes on the court).

I still believe that the "law" should have been assessed on its own merits; not as one would interpret it, or as one would remember it in a former instantiation of the bill that eventually became "law".

And, to Roberts' comment regarding protecting the electorate from their choices, he's dead wrong. His job is to do precisiely that, when called upon because those "choices" have strayed outside the bounds of the Constitution - notably as the current jackass has been - particlaurly with this Øbamanation. His wordsmithing to support his eventual position is still outside of my - and likely most others' - expectation of what the supreme court is chartered to do. (And, for the record, rewriting a law from the bench is no different than writing that law from the bench... Øbama realized his greates fear in an "activist" judge legislating from the bench - only he won't call it that now, since it seems to dfavor his position.)

@AHD: Actually, they'll find a way to blame Palin and the GOP for that particular failure if it ever comes to pass (please, God: no...). They always do, and the "electorate" always seems to be buyin' what they're sellin'...

@Anonymous: Øbama and the leftists in government chafe at the terms "socialist". Please refer to them as marxist from now on - as that's closer to the tenets they actually espouse...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Anonymous- There's one piece missing from your logical puzzle: if someone can't afford insurance, then they'll receive a "tax credit" (ie, someone else's money) with which to buy it. Wealth redistribution 101.

This election is as clear as it can be: Constitutionalism or Socialism.

@CenTexTim- True healthcare "professionals" won't put up with being underpaid, over-regulated, and regularly sacrificed to the trial lawyers. Which is why Obamacare will inevitably result in our receiving treatment from the same freaking morons who currently staff other government offices. They will slowly (and often incorrectly) enter our symptoms into a computer, push a button, wait to get diagnosis/treatment authorization from Washington, then send us on our way. Still bleeding.

@Angry Hoosier Dad- The Death Panels are still in the law. The end of life "counseling" ("Do you really want to be a burden to your family?") is still there. Painkillers instead of pacemakers is now the law of the land. And by "land" I mean cemetery.

@SeaDog- Good summary, though I wish I knew for sure what was in Roberts' head and heart. But maybe it doesn't matter as much as I've thought: we knew we had a giant mess to clean up no matter what the ruling...and we still do.

Regarding your wife's experience, it perfectly mirrors my own family's experience in Hawaii (I didn't live there, but my parents did). Nearly everyone there is insured, many on Medicare and Medicaid, and the doctors couldn't afford to continue doing business - so got the hell out. The president of the Hawaii Medical Association said "I pretend I'm in a Third World country doing my community service and I get by." (By the way, the article I link to above is old now - and the situation is much WORSE.) Ironically, Hawaii was found to be #1 in "access to healthcare" according to one study. Access was defined as "having insurance"...but it turns out that such "access" is meaningless when there are no doctors to see.

@Colby- I think the penalty/tax issue is a distinction without a difference, and the government still has all the power of the individual mandate. BUT I take heart from the idea that states may opt out of some of this nonsense. For instance, I live in Texas and am pretty sure that our Governor will tell Mr. Obama that he can take a flying...uh..."romantic overture" at a rolling donut.

@Emmentaler- You're correct that, whatever his motives, Roberts was completely wrong about the appropriate role of the court. If the people vote in something that is contrary to the Constitution, it's his sworn duty to protect the people from their own idiocy or greed.

JustaJeepGuy said...

@Stilt,
Your quote: "...but it turns out that such "access" is meaningless when there are no doctors to see." leads directly to the state forcing doctors to work in health care whether they want to or not (i.e., our newest form of slavery). How soon will we see that happening? I'm sure Barack Hussein has a plan to make it work...(oh, do I need a "/sarc off" tag?)

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Stilton: per your medical "professionals", recall Idiocracy... "Uh, this goes in your mouth. This one goes in your ear. This one goes in your butt. Hang on a second. This one. Uhhhh. This one goes in your mouth..."

Kick ass...

Suzy said...

The only thing I disagree with is the idea that gayness and abortion will be taxed.

Nah.

They are special interest groups whose votes are too valuable to tax.

Everything else, for the most part, however, is probably fair game.

Sad, huh.

Suzy said...

On another note...what I find sad is that...frankly....some of us won't have any choice but to probably end up joining in with the health care socialism. I mean...once insurance is so high only the rich can afford it....and with families to provide for....we'll eventually be swallowing our pride and jumping on the government care bandwagon. What other choice will there be? Its too bad.

The scary part is when everyone decides to jump on the welfare bandwagon. :-S Since Obama got in, people are doing so in droves..... (not us, if I have anything to do with it!)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@JustaJeepGuy- I'm sure that the government can make medical work compulsory, but they can't make good medicine compulsory. Intelligent students will be "accidentally" cutting off their own fingers to get out of medical service. And I'm not kidding.

@Emmentaler- That's one of my favorite scenes in an already great movie (not perfect, but its merits more than outweigh the flaws). The scary/horrible/funny thing is that I think we're getting a good look at exactly where our medical practice is going...and it won't take long to get here.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Suzy- The only things which will be taxed are behaviors the government wants to discourage...OR behaviors which are popular enough to capitalize behaviors the government wants to support politically (like abortion, electric cars, racial sensitivity training camps, etc).

Regarding being driven into the Obamacare insurance pool, the system is set up to make it unavoidable. For one thing, Obamacare is set up to drive private insurance out of business by making it compete with insurance pools that don't need to make a profit (or even break even) and will be endlessly funded with taxpayer dollars until the private players just have to drop out.

Obamacare also creates significant hurdles and penalties for people (like me!) who opened Health Savings Accounts to try to show a little self-reliance. Now, such accounts are very difficult and cost-ineffective to use.

And if you DO have the money to keep paying for your (increasingly expensive) private policy? Then it's categorized as a "luxury" plan which you will be fined (oops, "taxed") for owning.

Get it? You're in trouble if you have too little, too much, or too self-sufficient insurance...and every day that goes by, more private insurers will drop out, as will more private practice doctors.

In the end - and by design - the government has our money, has our "insurance," runs us through medical mills which will be the equivalent of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and - when we're no longer of value to The System - will either kill us or let us die of something perfectly treatable.

And the reason this nightmare scenario is happening is because so many of our fellow citizens would happily let ANYthing happen to our nation and our people as long as their lazy, greedy asses could get something "free" out of it.

Pete(Detroit) said...

TANSTAAFL!!!

There Ain't NO Such Thing As A Free Lunch
- R.Heinlein, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

Sparky said...

My head is still reeling from the decision. It's so disheartening. Here in the South, we're ready for a rumble, and it may start in Louisiana this time, instead of South Carolina. All of us have ample "hardware" to be sure. [wink]

Y'all gotta read this lady's comment about the decision and why it happened the way it did:
Stupid, Stupid Jackasses. Part 1
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - June 30, 2012
http://barnhardt.biz/

I couldn'ta said it better Ms. Barnhardt.

God bless fellow Patriots.