Powered by TypePad

« Should We Nationalize Hiring Decisions At The Washington Post? | Main | Immigration Reform Goes DOA [And Then Springs Back To Life!] »

April 29, 2010



And still not severable.http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-the-individual-mandate-severable-from-the-rest-of-obamacare/>GIGO


well, clarice, that may mean they toss the whole thing, doesn't it?

With the 19 states challenging the bill on other grounds, perhaps that will be enough to have the whole thing shot down.


It's my hope but I hope even more for a political solution--repeal.

Danube of Thought

I have more hope than I used to--and definitely more than the law prof consensus would warrant--that the US SCt might toss this whole thing on commerce clause grounds.

None of the following is supposed to affect the justices' views, but all of it will: the wholly partisan vote; the sleazy wheeling and dealing; the strong public disapproval; and the utterly screwball, Soviet-style top-down imposition of a system to gevern the behavior of 300 million citizens. None of that will be mentioned in the opinion, but it's all well-known to the justices, and they are likely to be grateful for the individual-mandate hook to hang their hats on.

One more thing: the jurisprudence of Anthony Kennedy is almost as inexplicable as that of Sandra Day O'Connor, but I saw one person who had studied it and concluded that it centered on the principle of individual liberty. (Not sure I could defend that proposition, but there it is.) So he could be the swing vote.

Danube of Thought

The question of whether there is a severability clause in the Act is probably irrelevant, because the individual mandate is so central to the whole scheme that if it is invalid the Court would probably throw out the whole thing regardless of such a clause.

Still, it seems odd that at this late date no one among those who have actually read the whole bill has come forward to say definitively whether there is or is not such a clause in the legislation. (And no, I'm not going to be the one to read it.)

Tom R

If SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare as unconstitutional based on the arguments Dr Barnett discussed, for the good of the country I hope its a 9-0 or 8-1 decision. That way all the leftist progressives won't be able to whine and complain that it was a partisan, split decision.

BTW what does "LUN" mean? I've lurked on this site on and off and see that term used all the time, but I don't recall ever reading how it originated.


That's why they are going to have to do it another way - they are going to have to raise everyone's taxes, and then give you a discount for health insurance, just like they do for mortgage payments. It's the only legal way.

But they'll have to rig it to give a full discount somehow, unlike say mortgages where you subtract it off your total income amount and then only get about say a third off, or whatever your tax rate is.

nathan hale

Link under name,


Tom R,

LUN == "Link Under Name"

One can list a URL when one posts (the third line), and people here often put the URL for the pertinent web page here. To let readers know, the short-hand of "LUN" is used. Simply click on the person's name, and you will go to the URL or the web site.


Tom: In the YOUR INFORMATION box if you post a copied link in the 3rd field (after your email address) your name is highlighted when you comment and the link is attached.



Passing the individual mandate and then destroying it is a feature not a bug. In our current health insurance regime, insurance companies sell their product to groups of people. The number one single most important characteristic of any group of people forming a health-insurance risk pool is that they cannot be allowed to self-select for health status.

Employment-based risk pools serve that purpose pretty well. Basically, in the US, (with a few big exceptions) if you want a non-crummy job, you have to be an employee, and you have to take the health insurance. (Even if you don't take the insurance, your employer does not raise your pay by the amount that they save on the premiums. So you have to pay most of the premiums.) Some other organizations work that way, too. Universities require that all students have health insurance, and it's a condition of registering for classes. This allows them to provide decent cheap insurance to students, without which many of the graduate students would not be able to stay in school. And the school is in the business of collecting tuition money from students so they need to set up things like this in order for their business model to work.

The current system creates health insurance mandates via contractual arrangements, and relies upon factors having nothing to do with your health (continued employment, school attendance) to "force" you into the pool. The creation of insurance ameliorates risk, which creates value. This value cannot be created without a way of forcing all of the members of the group to pay the premiums.

When someone goes without health insurance in a world where coverage for pre-existing conditions is limited or excluded, they are taking the risk that they will develop cancer or epilepsy or diabetes or something really expensive and they will be on their own for paying bills. (You no pay premiums, we no pay bills.) What is important to understand is that changing the law and forcing insurance risk pools to take on sick people who waited until they got sick to start paying premiums means that ALL of the people who do not buy insurance, whether they get sick later or not, are de facto covered by the insurance. That, of course, can't last long -- you have some people in the group who pay for their coverage, while others are getting it for free, so only chumps pay. Then nobody pays, and there is no insurance.

The stated function of the bill is to take one enforcement mechanism -- exclusion of pre-existing conditions -- and replace it with another enforcement mechanism -- a tax/fine on people who free-ride on other people's insurance. Now you can have various wonky arguments about which of the two enforcement mechanisms works better. (Everyone understands, for example, that when you donate money to the benefit for your neighbor who went without insurance and is now sick, you are undermining the entire health insurance system for everyone. The pre-existing condition exclusion is riddled with holes because we are soft-hearted and rich enough to pay for lots of free riders.) But what is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR is that if you eliminate the one enforcement mechanism and FAIL TO REPLACE IT, then there is NO enforcement mechanism. That holds true whether the "replacement" gets struck down as unconstitutional, or is even just unenforceable, or even that the government doesn't do a good job of enforcing it.

That is the whole point of the bill. Eliminate health insurance by outlawing the contractual structures that make health insurance possible. Then replace it with government-provided whatever-is-left-over-after-paying-the-bureaucrats health care. The first characteristic of this will be that there will be no new innovation in health care because there will be no mechanism to get people to pay for it. The rest of the world has government-tax-supported health care, and they simply free ride off of American rate payers. But not everyone can ride for free. Once the US stops paying for new healthcare innovation there will be nobody left in the world paying.



Thanks for your exposition. It's always clarifying.


Here's an interesting clip on primary physicians in Reuters today. I think it is very important about what we do with them. Also LUN.


nathan hale

A little levity that indirectly bears on this point, well not reality, but in the LUN


does he get to call the Roadrunner as a material witness?


That way all the leftist progressives won't be able to whine and complain that it was a partisan, split decision.

Imagine the hubris of that (And I have no doubt they will do it) given how the bill was enacted. I do love the thought of Mr. Constitutional lawyer's signature piece being overturned for being unconstitutional.

I tell you tho, this may the the least of our problems given the financial services bill.


As for immigration, the congressional research service has done a fine survey on illegal aliens in the US


--I hope its a 9-0 or 8-1 decision..--

A forlorn hope I'm afraid.

JM Hanes

Interesting survey, Clarice. It sure would be nice if the public had access to all the CRA reports, but I'm sure Congress would then quickly manage to subvert the Agency's ostensible neutrality.

Even though I knew that the problem was most severe in California, I was still shocked to see that nearly a quarter of its residents are illegals. That's way over the next rung down in Texas, at 16%. Arizona (#7) at 4% is closer to NC (#9) at 3%, but I expect the impact is much, much greater at the border where drug wars and violence spill over directly.


First hitch in the Obamacare high risk pool plan.


JMH - that table doesn't say that a quarter of the population of California are illegals, it says that a quarter of the illegals in the country are in California.

Only seven percent(!) of the total population of California are illegal immigrants. Texas and Arizona have almost exactly the same fraction, Florida about half as much, and after that I lost interest.


It's worth tucking this study away somewhere to be handy when the mouths start blabbering..23% of all illegals are in California..That figure is truly mind boggling. California also has motor voter laws and one wonders how many of these drivers have been illegally voting.


So I come in for a bite to eat and a break, and look what pops up: Israel official: Accepting Palestinians into Israel better than two states. Who is this "official"? Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, a Likudnik!

In a speech given in the president's residence, the Knesset speaker called for a fundamental change in relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel, urging the foundation of a "true partnership" between the two sectors, based on mutual respect, absolute equality and the addressing of "the special needs and unique character of each of the sides."

Rivlin also said that "the establishment of Israel was accompanied by much pain and suffering and a real trauma for the Palestinians," adding that "many of Israel's Arabs, which see themselves as part of the Palestinian population, feel the pain of their brothers across the green line - a pain they feel the state of Israel is responsible for."

"Many of them," Rivlin says, "encounter racism and arrogance from Israel's Jews; the inequality in the allocation of state funds also does not contribute to any extra love."

Interesting. This can be said in Israel--by the Likudnik Knesset Speaker, no less--but if you suggest it at JOM you're, what? An anti-semite? At best?

Does this sound suspiciously like preemptive concessions? TM needs to clue this guy in to what's good for Israel, right?

JM Hanes


"I have more hope than I used to--and definitely more than the law prof consensus would warrant--that the US SCt might toss this whole thing on commerce clause grounds."

Well, since change is in the air, and knowing your abiding interest in the Birth Certificate Affair, here's the latest from Hawaii:

The Hawaii legislature has now officially passed a measure that would allow state officials to legally ignore each month's dozens of repeated requests by persons or organizations seeking to see the infant Obama's actual birth certificate.

For personal privacy reasons the certificate resides under government lock and key in Hawaii and, as is his right, Obama has never authorized its release.....

Tuesday Hawaii's Legislature approved a bill that would allow state officials to make a surgical exception in the state's public records law allowing the state to ignore any such repeated requests, meaning, of course, those for the sitting Democratic president. Since not too many other Hawaiian babies have been involved in such stubborn situations.

I call this one a win for the birthers, since the surgery would continue on in any case. The Hawaiian Legislature itself has just confirmed that, contra the fiercely defended conventional wisdom, Obama's real birth certificate has not, in fact, been released. In any case, even if you think the birthers are nuts, the idea of invoking a "personal privacy" defense in the context of presidential eligibility is pretty ironic, no?


Under the scrutiny applied to GS, if it turns out that FM Davis is really Obama's dad, does he have to disgorge his take from his make believe life stories?

JM Hanes

Thanks for the correction, bgates! Guess I had good reason to be startled by the number :-)

hit and run

The Hawaii legislature has now officially passed a measure that would allow state officials to legally ignore each month's dozens of repeated requests by persons or organizations seeking to see the infant Obama's actual birth certificate.

The adult Obama's actual birth certificate would be just fine,thanks.



I found what I didn't have time to look for this morning:
Germans travel to Poland for work: Unemployed Germans have begun travelling to Poland in search of jobs - in a dramatic reversal of the usual trend for immigrant workers.

When my daughter was in college she had a German roommate who used to tell her that Poles were all car thieves. How things change.


I believe the selected excerpt from Haaretz is a misleading statement of Rivlin's views.
I believe he was saying he'd like a single state solution but that was impossible.'

This is a better reflection of his point of view.


CitingHaaretz on Likud's views is like siting newsweek on the tea party's.


Here's Der Spiegel's reporting--it turns out Poles are buying R/E in Germany, while Germans work illegally in Poland for sub-German wages:

East German guest workers seek jobs in Poland

A growing number of Germans living in the north-east of the country commute to work in Poland across the border, mostly in the construction sector, call centres and the sea port in the city of Szczecin, according to German weekly Der Spiegel.

According to the weekly, about 2,500 Germans have been officially hired in the north-western Polish province of Pomerania, but analysts say the actual number may be higher. German guest workers commute to work in Szczecin from impoverished districts in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Unemployment in Uecker-Randow district bordering on Poland reaches 18.9%, while the Polish city of Szczecin and its surrounding area continue to develop despite the global crisis.

Der Spiegel points out that Poles usually sought jobs and better pay in Germany, but the tables have turned, at least in the north of Germany, the paper observes. The newspaper also notes that Polish residents, lured by low prices, purchase real estate in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern border towns.


In WA state illegals can get a drivers license--no problem.

We also have a motor/voter law.

When I was working in elections years ago all one needed to register to vote was a drivers license.

I could ask a hispanic person if they were a US citizen when they would register to vote--and welfare made them register in order to receive benefits--but they did not have to produce a birth certificate. I was relying totally on the honesty of the oral response.

Would imagine that CA does the same/similar thing. I do know that CA is very tardy in purging the voting records of for example dead people.


That 223% figure gives me an idea..Maybe we should get La Raza to claim the cut off in water to the Central Valley is a racist plot aimed at the 23% of aliens living illegally in California. (Well, wouldn't word it EXACTLY like that.)


Mark Levin made a great point yesterday. Actually he was reading from someone else's article, I don't know who.. Remember when the libs started calling illegals undocumenteds? Now that AZ passed the new law, the libs are up in arms that we want the police to have the right to see documents. There will be some new euphemism soon enough-- nongeographics? extrastaters?


I believe Haaretz' reporting is correct and I'll believe that until someone can give concrete evidence that it has misquoted Rivlin. Bibi Report's reporting may be something else. The JPost report on Rivlin's Independence Day speech included the following, which Bibi Report did not:

Rivlin touched upon life in Jerusalem and warned of gaps in society.

"Specifically at a time of cultural openness, we are witness today to a dangerous process of intensifying fortification of every group within its four walls," he said. "This fortification brings with it not only cultural or political polarization, but also fatal segregation in everyday life. For example, look what Jerusalem has turned into in the last decade: separate neighborhoods, separate public transport, separate shopping centers for haredi and secular [residents], Arabs and Jews. Ghettos and more ghettos, separated by walls of alienation, not by walls of cement."

Before lighting the first torch, the speaker said that the Jerusalem reality was a far cry from the vision for "the city that was bound together" - a reference to the biblical Psalm 122. He said fear for the "other," whether Arab or Haredi, was "contrary to the very essence of Zionism."


He was talking about the efforts to divide up Jerusalem which he opposes.


Haha Peter...I read that extra-taters! I'm thinking, "What?".


Urban frontiersmen? Homeless Home Depot Deponents? Parents of future natives? Snuckingroes? Voters without borders? transcontinentalists?

Frau Wahlrecht

Illegal aliens, er, immigrants - "There will be some new euphemism soon enough-- nongeographics? extrastaters? "

A local writer to the newspaper called them "undocumented Democrats."

JM Hanes


"Interesting. This can be said in Israel--by the Likudnik Knesset Speaker, no less--but if you suggest it at JOM you're, what? An anti-semite? At best?"

Naw, for that you also to have to be obsessed with hitting on Clarice, and paste up questionable, anti-Israeli "authorities" at every turn, regardless of the topic under discussion. I doubt you even have much sympathy for the Palestinian stalking horse you're currently embracing.

"Does this sound suspiciously like preemptive concessions?"

Nope. It sounds like Plan Z.

Personally, I doubt that you'd confine yourself to anti-semitism, if you weren't having so much fun with your pedagogical posturing on that subject. I see you more as an all around Torquemada wannabe, but alas, there are far fewer enthusiasts to be found for that brand of re-education these days.

Manuel Transmission

As a further comment on the methane origins stuff on a previous thread, here is an announcement of a new paper to be published where the money line is Asteroid ice found, could be clue to oceans' origins.

Apparently, they are finding water and hydrocarbons in the most unlikely places -- at least to the usual perspective of -- "if I didn't think of it, it doesn't exist."



I read that lawsuits have been filed by a Mexican-American policeman and by "The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders" challenging the new Arizona immigration law. Any bets on whether they will turn out to have "standing"?

nathan hale

You know I do recall how back in '94, during
the Cuban immigration crisis, Lawton Chiles
that 'sainted Democrat' in combination with
the Clinton administration, expanded the Gitmo facilities to accomodate the influx, in part because they would most likely to be against the Clinton administration, And I don't recall too many protests of solidarity, like Mr and Mrs. Sarandon Oscar statement, it was also one of the ways that was used against Jeb. So I find the whole 'rattler apartheid' act very stale


Speaking of lawsuits, I see that the "Justice" Department is considering suing Arizona, "arguing that the state's law illegally intrudes on immigration enforcement, which is a federal responsibility."

Oddly, I'm having trouble finding the results of similar lawsuits the administration has been filing against sanctuary cities for the past 15 months.


C'mon, Jane.

Barack Hussein is as much a constitutional lawyer as I am a Rocket Surgeon.


"I call this one a win for the birthers..."

I call it a loss for commom sense. He is a dual citizen. "Birthers" are the strawman.

"The adult Obama's actual birth certificate would be just fine,thanks."

Just fine for what? It will show his dad is Kenyan. Will you then argue that the son of a Kenyan is not "natural born?"

We already know that, so argue it now.


hit and run

Just fine for what?

Just fine for pointing out a stupid locution in the article.

Lighten up,Francis.


Hit and run.

I get it now. My single issue focus sometimes makes me miss the comedy gold!



Well to all the Urban Frontiersmen and Undocumented Democrats I say, "You've made enough money." "Time to go back to your home country.".


Hey y'all,

Off to see Sarah Palin in a few minutes, newborn in tow. Wish me luck. :) I wonder if I'll know any of the counter protesters....


Can't wait to hear all about it when you return Porchlight.


Hit and run,

By the way, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM&NR=1 "> don't call me Francis.



Well, I am just speechless over this . . .

Obama Cries a River

Michelle looks a little skeptical.

Dave (in MA)

Auntie Zeituni can rest easy. Thanks, dems.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

I do know that CA is very tardy in purging the voting records of for example dead people.

That may be a county by county problem. My Mother died in August and we had an election in November. She had voted in the Primary a few months earlier by absentee ballot.

We did not receive a ballot for her for November and the day I voted, I asked to have her name checked and she was on the role as "deceased."

I was pleased to see that our county was on the ball, but I admit, surprised considering the publicity about so many dead voters still on the roles.


If I had made 4 or 5 million last year, I believe it would embarrass me to have everyone in the country have to pay more tax because my aunt didn't have enough to live on without taxpayer support.


Well Pagar, that is why you are not a liberal. They have no shame. They think up ideas and use other people's money to implement the ideas...then they get awards from other liberals for being virtuous.


Arnold came out in favor of Obamacare today. What a frickin disappointment that moron has been. Maybe he and Charlie Crist can be bunk buddies.

Basically, the country has been divided into the entitled and connected and the rest of us.....


Have y'all followed this Judge Robert Chatigney confirmation story? LUN at Powerline. Good Lord. Who would I write or call about this?
The absolute worse among us are in positions of power.

nathan hale

And he's for cap n trade, at some point they reprogrammed him when they sent him back from 2029. sarc. Who am I kidding he flew to Havana
to dine with Fidel right after True Lies wrapped, so he was always a raptor at heart


This story puts another hole in the "sophisticated investor" defense:

Basically, Goldman Victim ACA Was Wall Street's "Town Bicycle".

There's a link in the blog:

Dan Wilchins at Reuters has a good profile on ACA, the collapsed firm that lost a boatload on the controversial Abacus deal.

The nut of it is that the firm was "easy," so to speak:

But many traders said it was an open secret that ACA would consider deals that few others would take.

"They'd say 'yes' to pretty much everyone who asked them to dance," said one Wall Street professional who did business with ACA.

Jane says obamasucks


I dared to hope on the MA illegal thing. silly me.


Jaet, I am beginning to think that the administratin is using its power of appointment to deliberately smack this country in the face--I have never seen such ill- suited persons from office starting with a tax cheat for Sec of the Treasury.


This is OT but too unbelievable to ignore.

Apparently now if you type in Laurabush.com you get redirected to an Organizing for America site.



Janet, do you know the definition of "chutzpah"? It's a guy who kills his parents and then asks the judge for leniency because he really enjoyed hearing their screams.


Who would I write or call about the confirmation...my Senators? Or does it have to be the Senators on a certain committee?


bgates, enough of this goofing around. We need to start a Freedom for Puerto Rico website and get out All Immigration Laws are Racist sign shop up and running,


Janet: I would start with the Senate Judiciary committe. See LUN


"Arnold came out in favor of Obamacare today."

Well he will be out of a job soon, and needs to get back into really good graces with his Hollywood pals. After all, he is an aging, soon to be has-been so he better suck up really quick if he wants any film roles at all.

nathan hale

From picking Biden to Geithner, Sibelius, Holder, Napolitano, it's like the Peter Principle cavalcade


The czars and judicial nominees are like a rogues gallery of miscreants.


Thank you centralcal. Sen. Al Franken...good Lord.


What is going on with the sudden concern over Puerto Rico becoming a state? (Besides more dem voters - ::eyeroll::)

And look who voted for it on our side: (per Allahpundit)

Marsha Blackburn, Eric Cantor, Joe Cao, Mike Castle, Tom Cole, Jeff Flake, Jeb Hensarling, Darrell Issa, Peter King, Mark Kirk, Kevin McCarthy, Pence, and Aaron Schock.


" immigration enforcement, which is a federal responsibility"

How could any court find that the federal government had fulfilled it's responsibility when there are millions of illegal immigrants in the country? Looks to me like the last thing any federal employee would want would to be held responsible for failure to do their duty millions of times. Why is such gross failure tolerated?


The absolute worse among us are in positions of power.
Just the other day I wrote my Senators about..."the inappropriate anti-Semitic "joke" told by our National Security Adviser Gen. Jones. This is an embarrassment to our country."
I don't even know what to do anymore. I need the Tea Parties just to have an outlet.


We need a "I am outraged by the outrage" statement from someone about this Arizona bashing from the MSM.
Why should we obey our laws if citizens from other countries don't have to obey our laws?


``Why should we obey our laws if citizens from other countries don't have to obey our laws?''


Jane says obamasucks

What is going on with the sudden concern over Puerto Rico becoming a state? (Besides more dem voters - ::eyeroll::)

According to Heritage and Glen Beck it's a huge set-up to further accumulate power and transfer wealth - and would cost this country a kajillion bucks.


The bigger question than Puerto Rico being the 51st state is which are Obama's other 6 to get us to his 57??

In the spirit of the liberal boycott of Arizona Tea, due to my deep opposition to liberalism, I am now boycotting Shithead Beer.

Rob Crawford

Why should we obey our laws if citizens from other countries don't have to obey our laws?

Precisely. All are equal before the law; all must obey the law.

If the law is unjust, fight to change it. If that fight includes disobeying it, be prepared to suffer the consequences. Part of civil disobedience is highlighting the evil or absurdity of the law by suffering its consequences.

Of course, no one's actually talking about actually changing our immigration laws. Instead, they're talking about rewarding the last 20 years of violators, making a vague gesture towards stronger enforcement, then going right back to ignoring the laws again.

Personally, I'm sick of the illegals, sick of the crooks who hire them in order to skirt labor laws, sick of the politicians who bow to either group, and sick of being called "racist" because I think everyone should be equal before the law.

(And about the labor laws -- I thought lefties were in favor of health and safety laws, minimum wage laws, and union-shops. Yet they sacrifice all those in favor of a criminal class -- and another criminal class that employs the first criminal class.

And, of course, there's the way illegals undercut the least-skilled workers, blocking them from getting work. Where's the lefty compassion for those less well-off?)

Bill in AZ

California also has motor voter laws and one wonders how many of these drivers have been illegally voting.

...and they don't even know they voted (ACORN).

Speaking of the Goracle (last thread, just catching up), it is snowing hard here again 70 miles NE of Phoenix. I did the Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (walk, run, bicycle 40+ miles), and just about froze.

In the spirit of the liberal boycott of Arizona Tea, due to my deep opposition to liberalism, I am now boycotting Shithead Beer.

Pops, you already owe me some bandages from the crack you made a while ago about the commie barking at McCain in a small room (health summit). I went out mtn biking after reading that, and while grinding up a rocky grade, got to thinking about that comment and laughed so hard I crashed.
Careful, man, words have consequences.


As to why Cantor etc voted for it--it is not a bill offering Puerto Rico statehood. It is a bill to make them vote again. So far IIRC there have been three b\votes with statehood never getting more than 20% in any event it seems the local republican party has rather captured the island's power levers. I'll post the article when I find it again.


Will Immigration Law Cost Arizona All-Star Game?

Best-case scenario would be for some other states - like TX, UT, OK, NC - to do an I Am Spartacus and take up a similar law as AZ's.

nathan hale

This is one of those geniuses who miss the point entirely, in the LUN


Hmm, this is the comment (from FR), I have no idea how accurate it is. I know nothing about PR politics.

"The New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (NPP) is a political party that advocates for Puerto Rico's admission to the United States of America as the 51st state.

Following the 2008 general elections, it currently holds supermajorities in the Commonwealth's House of Representatives and Senate. The NPP also won the Puerto Rico's sole delegate to Congress seat and the Governor's office at La Fortaleza. Forty-eight of Puerto Rico's 78 mayoral seats are now also occupied by NPP.

The majority of the PNP leaders are also members of the US Republican Party, with only two PNP governors, Carlos Romero Barceló, and Dr. Pedro Rosselló González, being registered as US Democrats. The current Governor, Luis G. Fortuño, caucused with the Republicans when he was in Congress and serves as Puerto Rico's Republican National Committeeman. The current House Speaker Jennifer González and the Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz are Republicans.

The party's platform is decidedly conservative and it holds intrinsic values of this deeply religious Caribbean island.

I see Puerto Rico sending 2 republicans to the Senate and 4 out of 6 congressional seats going to republicans."


or Virginia...I wish Virginia would. God bless Arizona!


Well, wikipedia says the same thing--Republican pols run Puerto Rico now:

And they want Statehood. Perhaps it will checkmate the plan to give D.C. statehood


Thanks, Clarice for the info. During the week, at work and depending on work flow, I am unable to keep up well with everything that is hitting us (from all sides and above and below).

I have a lot of faith in Blackburn and Cantor and a few of the others, so I figured I must be totally out of the loop about what is going on.

However, I have been seeing headlines here and there about it being a Glenn Beck focus (thanks, Jane), so I wasn't sure what was happening.


Well, it's disputed. IBD, for example, says this:

"Politics: Faced with losing Congress, the Democrats want to make Puerto Rico a state whether the people want it or not. The Democrats would get two new senators, new congressmen and a campaign issue. Throw in voting representation for D.C., amnesty for illegals and voting for felons, all items on the Democrats' agenda, and in their cookbook you have a recipe for Democratic majorities as far as the eye can see. It's a plan to retain control at all costs and counteract a Tea Party movement that threatens to throw their big-government liberalism on the ash heap of political history."

Frankly, I think we have enough states. I'm just astonished that when we reneged on our promises to Alaska it didn't just secede.

nathan hale

Webb has proven an enormous dissapointment, that's why that Annabel person from the Coffee
Party supported him, then again his grudge with Oliver North, his opposition to the Gulf
War, and his protectionism should have been a clue

nathan hale

Well an Independent candidate won for governor once up there,Walter Hickel, the frosty Perot like curmudgeon, so I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again. Begich, one
of those other rocket surgeons, remarked not
long ago, he was surprised the GOP was working
on an alternative to the financial reform bill,


Webb seems to be a self centered thug though, so I'm not sure he would go over the cliff with the far-far left. I figure our other Senator, Warner, is being blackmailed. He just quietly goes along with everything "they" tell him.
Warner was a successful businessman, and not a totally kooky governor so he should know better than to vote for some of this nonsense. Blackmail is all I can come up with.

Jane says obamasucks

As to why Cantor etc voted for it--it is not a bill offering Puerto Rico statehood. It is a bill to make them vote again.

I don't think so. I read something yesterday, maybe in the WSJ - I can't recall about how this was an orchestrated set-up - by having 3 options on the ballot the administration had jimmy-rigged the vote to get something.

Glenn Beck was going nuts about it today - but it was just background music and I wasn't paying attention. All I know is he thinks it is dire.

Rob Crawford

by having 3 options on the ballot the administration had jimmy-rigged the vote to get something.

No, I think the past ballots had 3 options -- statehood, commonwealth status, or independence. This ballot eliminates one of them -- the commonwealth status? -- so as to force them to chose between the least popular two.

Oh, and it expands the pool of voters to include those no longer living in Puerto Rico. I don't know what the exact criteria are, but you could have spent the last 30 years in Des Moines and would be eligible to vote.


The Big Alienation: Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control. Excerpt:

The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.


One just has to stand back in amazement at the false outrage of the Left on the Arizona law. There is a whole class of we here in California call professional Mexicans who are pulling the same thing the Irish and the Jews and the Italians did before them.

But this time not only are they defending a policy that is against U.S. Law, but they are misrepresenting the law they are protesting.

The latest is Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly known as Tony Villar before entering politics. The Mayor of Los Angeles is outraged and wants to halt all interaction with Arizona until the evil law is repealed.

In the past 5 years over 22,000 Mexicans have died in the violence. What part of crime wave don't they understand? Mexico has a low grade civil war going on that is financed by America's cocaine and heroin habit.

I think the Left may have barked up the wrong tree on this one. With the Tea Party energized, this is simply another assault on the rule of law by the grifters and may tip even more voters conservative.

While the Left feels they can count on the Latinos, perhaps the Arizona law has to better explained to legal immigrants. In Arizona, a high percentage of those supported the new legislation. It's a battle for hearts and minds.

The Left must be portrayed as those who are tearing down all that is good about America. I think Obama and his crowd are doing a very good job of doing this for us. Break the Law! Don't pay that mortgage! Want an insider deal? Vote Democratic!


I believe this is the argument, Jane:

"ponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state.
The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and “pursuing a different political status.” If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years.
If the majority votes for “different status,” a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo of “U.S. territory” would not even be an option! In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status."
http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2010/04/28/puerto-rico-51st-state-congress-scrambling-to-make-it-so/>But Cantor's no dunce


So it goes in Shreveport has some discussion on the Puerto Rico statehood Issue but they have more on their Potluck site (link is on the original Link). The comments on the Potluck site are most informative.

IMO, the Democrats in the US House know that every of the new PR House and Senate seats will go Democrat. It is why the issue is on the House floor. The Republicans are being conned into supporting another fiasco that will insure Democrat control of America forevermore. Surely we have seen enough Democrat efforts to maintain control of America.
There are serious money problems involved, i.e every taxpayer in the current fifty states will be required to contribute to bring the standard of living up in PR.

PR statehood will eliminate any chance to maintain the English language majority in the US, IMO.


A Crisis for the Faithful. Excerpt:

The Parsi bodies are piling up in India. Parsis are modern adherents of the ancient Zoroastrian faith that emerged in the 6th century B.C. in Persia, predating Christianity and Islam. According to many scholars, Zoroastrianism influenced these religions and Judaism with its fundamental concept of a dualistic world of light versus darkness, with a good God pitted against the forces of evil.

In the earthly realm of humans, Parsis also believe in the ritual purity of fire, soil and water, elements that shouldn't be sullied by pollution from a defiling corpse. So while virtually all other cultures dispose of their dead by burial or cremation, Parsis have followed a more unusual method. Yet after millennia, that method now has been called into question, forcing a crisis of faith whose only answer is adaptation.

In a ritual so old it was described by Herodotus, Zoroastrians have laid out their dead atop Towers of Silence to be exposed to sun, sky and—most importantly—vultures. These massive harbingers of death with eight-foot wingspans once numbered in the millions across South Asia and could strip a corpse to the bone in hours. Yet their service has come to an abrupt end in the past decade as the vulture population plummeted due to a fatal reaction to a common painkiller given to the livestock and humans that the birds eventually feed upon. Ongoing habitat shrinkage has exacerbated the decline. With vultures virtually extinct, the Parsis are left struggling with the question of how to preserve traditions when modern forces conspire against them.

nathan hale

So Labour is going real subtle, ala the 1st season of '24


As for the original question, it's hard to take the "it's unconstitutional to force people to buy a product" argument particularly seriously. Over the whole history of the country we have had the government force people to take a particular job (serving in the military). And it's not just any job -- it's a job where you get yelled at, are forced to have a particular haircut, eat crummy food, live in close quarters showering and using the toilet in front of others, kill people, and are put in mortal peril.

Compared to that, being forced to buy health insurance is a laughable triviality.

The comments to this entry are closed.