Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Ken Cuccinelli On The Health Care Lawsuit

By Greg L | 22 March 2010 | National Politics, Virginia Politics | 68 Comments

This is apparently becoming a pretty popular video. Here’s Ken Cuccinelli explaining why the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to file a lawsuit against the federal government to strike down the health care reform bill.

One detail I find fascinating about this bill is that unlike just about every other piece of legislation I’ve encountered it doesn’t contain a “severability clause.” When this is in a piece of legislation and a part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the legislation remains after any part of it is struck down. In this case if a court strikes down any single piece of this soon-to-be law, the whole thing is trashed. Should Virginia prevail in any part of their legal arguments, the Commonwealth would save the nation not just from the unconstitutional individual mandates in the bill that are the subject of this lawsuit, but every pork-laden, budget-busting, tax-hiking, behind-locked-doors backroom deal stuffed into it’s thousands of pages.

Thus making Ken Cuccinelli a national hero. That would drive liberals absolutely bonkers to a degree that utterly defies imagination.

UPDATE: Courtesy of the Daily Press, here is the brief for the lawsuit, which was filed today.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 22 Mar 2010 at 3:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m so proud of Virginia for getting ahead on this. Go, Cucc !!

    Isn’t it timely and ironic that the British Parliament passed what later became known as the “Intolerable” Stamp Act on March 22, 1765.
    And we know how that arrogance turned out for the British overlords. Are you listening, Speaker Pelosi? Your hubris and desire for “history” may very well be your undoing. You carried your oversized speaker’s “Medicare gavel” with the same pomp and circumstance the Parliamentary Sgt-at-Arms carried the Mace into the chamber the day in 1765 they decided to inflict tyranny on the Colonies.

    For what it’s worth, I view this as a beginning, not the end — to paraphrase another feisty historical figure — “We have not yet begun to fight”.

    In that spirit, I ordered today from Amazon.com
    “Cooking Alinsky’s Goose” by Charly Gullett.

    Greg, please keep us posted on how this progresses, and what we can do to support Cucc in this endeavour.

  2. Freedom said on 22 Mar 2010 at 5:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    God Bless the state of Virginia…one last hope in an age of dispair!!

  3. jbjd said on 22 Mar 2010 at 9:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    AG Cuccinelli could end this problem with Obamacare and prospectively prevent similar problems by investigating the citizen complaints of election fraud filed with his office. Here is a portion of the open letter I wrote to the AG, proposing this option.

    Recall that, over the past several months, many citizens of the Commonwealth have filed with your office complaints of election fraud against The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (acting in a non-governmental role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation (“D Corporation”) Convention), charging that she Certified to the Virginia Board of Elections that Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen to get them to print his name on our general election ballot; without ascertaining beforehand that he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. (As you know, under Virginia law, only the names of eligible candidates may be printed on our ballot.) Yet, for some reason, up until now, you have exercised your discretion not to pursue these citizen complaints. (See citizen complaint for links to legal and documentary references.)

    Please, consider how much more easily this ‘alternative’ process can be carried out now.

    Your office could contact Ms. Pelosi with this request:

    “Please produce all documents which were the basis for the Official DNC Certification of Nomination you signed and then submitted to officials at the Virginia Board of Elections attesting that Presidential candidate Barack Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the job.”

    Offered a time certain to produce such response and, assuming no such response is forthcoming, you could proceed to criminally charge Ms. Pelosi with election fraud shortly thereafter. Given the fact, at that point, any and all such criminal filings from your office will become part of the public record; I predict in no time at all, Congress, now apprised that election fraud has been charged in Virginia (and, no doubt, other applicable states), will have no other choice but to introduce Articles of Impeachment, so as to determine the legal status of the man now occupying the Oval Office.


  4. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 22 Mar 2010 at 9:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have read many of your posts in other places, and I admire your tenacity.

    For whatever reason, no one wants to touch the ineligibility issue.

    I for one, cannot understand why the AG’s are shying away from this like a horse facing a wildfire.

    My husband is a commissioned military Officer of Marines, and a multi-generational US citizen. I am not. When our daughter was born in Pensacola, FL, I was a legal immigrant (green card holder), and her father was a US citizen. She, obviously, was born on US soil. Clearly, she is a US citizen.

    However, a few years later, I decided to take some college classes in US history and the US government and Constitution. Since the US was now my new home, I felt it important to learn about my new country.

    My Government and Constitution prof used me as an example for the class to explain the differences between a “Native Born” and “Natural Born” citizen under the provisions of the Constitution.

    According to my Prof, my daughter is “Native Born”, but not “Natural Born” since I was not a US citizen at the time of her birth, and she can claim Canadian citizenship in addition to US citizenship. Thus, she is considered a “dual citizen” with dual allegiances.

    I was told that my US citizen daughter can run for Congress, but would never be eligible to be a candidate for the Presidency. This was back in 1999, two years after her birth.

    If Barack Obama’s hagiography is true, then he falls under the same issues as my US-born daughter. He claims a Kenyan father, and was considered by the British, at the time of his birth, to be a UK citizen by virtue of his father’s status. Ergo, he has dual allegiances and ties, and is not “Natural Born”.

    I do not understand why this can not be a legitimate inquiry, and certainly one that many “Native Born” US citizens would appreciate having clarified by the US Supreme Court. The impact of such a decision about what truly constitutes “Natural Born” has wide-reaching implications — not only vis-a-vis Barack H. Obama.

    However, this line of legitimate inquiry is considered “Taboo”. I can not help but feel it is solely because he “is” black, and, ergo, the “historical” implications of his occupation of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are more important than the rule of law. I firmly believe that there would be no end of challenges of eligibility on this basis if he were NOT black and “history-making”.

    I, for one, wish that the state AG’s would attach a “Quo Warranto” petition to any lawsuit that they file, if for no other reason, but to clear up this murky bit of US Constitutional Law.

    I hope that I get a top bunk at re-education camp.

  5. Anonymous said on 22 Mar 2010 at 9:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    and you idiots voted for mccain? He wasnt even born here. What does your prof say about that high and mighty.

  6. J. Tyler Ballance said on 22 Mar 2010 at 10:10 pm:
    Flag comment


    AG Cuccinelli will speak at GMU Law on Tuesday at 5:00 PM, room 121.

    The announcement says that the event is limited to staff, students and faculty with valid Mason ID.

    Of course Mr. Cuccinelli’s detractors will surely ignore that rule and show-up and try to shout-down the AG.

    I encourage Democrats and Republicans who attend the event to politely hear Mr. Cuccinelli and allow his ideas to stand on their own merit.

    Many Democrats, although not former supporters of Mr. Cuccinelli’s candidacy, agree that the questions of law that he raises deserve to be heard, both by our citizens and the courts.

    The fact is that ALL laws that provide special protected status to favored minority groups, violate the intent and explicit language of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    In America, we must never have some citizens deemed to be, “more equal than others” as though this were some re-enactment of Orwell’s Animal Farm.

    Democrats and Republicans need to unite and repeal all special protected status laws and restore equal protection under the law for all citizens. We surely must NOT compound the existing error by creating yet another special class of citizenship, for the homosexuals.

  7. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 22 Mar 2010 at 10:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    I like your cowardly approach, but couldn’t you at least make an effort and create a nom de plume? I mean, really.

    I don’t know what my Prof had to say about that. It was 1999, and this was well before McCain/Obama were Presidential candidates.

    However, I am quite confident that had McCain won against Clinton, the Demoncrats would have had no problem filing eligibility lawsuits by virtue of the fact that McCain was not born on US soil.

    This line of inquiry however, is entirely hypothetical, since Clinton was not the Democratic nominee, and McCain did not win. However, Obama’s eligibility issues and his decison to seal all his records does not resolve the underlying issues.

    Clearly, this is a line of inquiry that threatens and alarms you, otherwise, there would be no need for the gratuitous throw-off line of “high and mighty”.

    Further adding impetus to asking the questions no one wants asked.
    It’s time to rip the scab off the Natural Born clause.

  8. anklenipper said on 23 Mar 2010 at 4:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Laurie, I have followed a lot of the message boards leading up to the bill passing this weekend and the only defenses the liberal democrats have are like the ones “anon” posted.

    Like, “what about the war Bush started?” or “the republicans did it”, or “Bush did this and Bush did that” and of course most of the name calling came and racial implications came from their side. Nothing of any substance, just anger and hatred. I’ve never really hated the liberals as some have, my point was this is America and their voice can be heard like the rest of us but I’m learning. During the last few months their true colors are really showing and it’s a scary bunch. I firmly believe DC would have been trashed if the vote turned out nay.

    As far as birthplace goes, I assumed that the McCain campaign would have dug up anything of substance there but it is strange that so much legal strength is used to keep Obama’s documents out of the public eye, I mean if there is nothing to fear there is nothing to hide right? What is he afraid of?

    Back to topic, I’m behind Ken and his decision to follow up on this. I sure hope it works and for those that don’t like it they can leave VA, simple. This bill is a control bill under the guise of healthcare reform.

    It’s a mess, I hope we can find our way out of it.

  9. Jeff Hunter said on 23 Mar 2010 at 8:59 am:
    Flag comment

    Regarding all the “birther” type comments and discussion: Does anyone here really believe that if there was anything to be discovered or litigated to disqualify Barak Obama from the Presidentcy that the Clinton machine would not have already done so during the primaries?

  10. Big Dog said on 23 Mar 2010 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Within the massive bill is a new 10% tax on tanning salons.
    (Assume the rational is that they cause skin cancer and, thus,
    customers/victims should pay for their presumed future care).

    Should we tack on another 10% on other “risks” ?

    - Cigarettes and booze
    - Fatty foods and sugared drinks
    - Middle aged man buying high powered motorcyles
    - Being fat
    - Not exercising
    - Allowing yourself to get old

    The camel’s nose is in the tent.

  11. Anonymous said on 23 Mar 2010 at 9:46 am:
    Flag comment

    A. I do not work for the military industrial complex or the goverment. B. I have to pay for my own insurance wich is not tax deductable. C. Since we are on the george orwell theme here, lets tax everyones health insurance benefit provided free by their employers just like I pay taxes on my own policy. D. Tax exempt 100% from fica medicade and federal tax on all peoples health insurance bills. E. We have serious bills to pay for in this country and either we pay taxes for them or we only protect north america instead of making my thirteen year old kid pay for it like you bush people did with your tax cut n borrowing to pay for a war of who knows why we fought.

  12. Anonymous said on 23 Mar 2010 at 9:55 am:
    Flag comment

    The reason the state budget is going up is because of the cost of health care for state employes. Come up with ideas on making health care work. The private system in place currently makes some people more equal than others. I. E. 30k a year employer provided health care cadilac coverage tax free as compared to my 100% taxed 2400 dollar self payed for coverage that u guys have no problem with. The private industry in virginia cut health care coverage to construction workers as my self. U state and local goverment workers had your 10% increase in coverage paid for by my taxes. My taxes pay for gold plated military industrial complex workers. As jesus says he who is without sin cast the first stone. Come up with a solution because the current system is not working.

  13. MPResident said on 23 Mar 2010 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am 100% against this bill and hope that every Democrat that voted for it is out their next term. However, I am sick and tired of every privately employeed person getting on here and knocking the benefits local, state and federal employees receive. You had the same opportunity as we did. I don’t knock anyone for the money they make and that includes professional athletes, CEO’s or any other person who makes millions of dollars. I chose local government employment knowing I wasn’t going to get rich, but the benefits were great. Don’t fault me for that and don’t start saying my benefits should be cut because times are getting hard. I haven’t had a raise in two years and I understand that and I don’t complain. But to suggest that my benefits should be cut is hypocrital. Again, you chose your lifestyle and I chose mine. Don’t knock me for it.

  14. Gurduloo said on 23 Mar 2010 at 1:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sounds like MPResident has some serious entitlement issues. No raise in 2 years, huh? That’s tough. The rest of us in the private sector have had actual pay cuts, or lost our jobs entirely. Meanwhile, the government is having to either raise taxes or cut services in order to pay for your increasing benefit costs. And don’t try to tell me that government employees are EARNING those benefits - we all know that’s not true.

  15. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 23 Mar 2010 at 1:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    @Jeff Hunter:
    I believe that the “Racism” card was used as such an effective weapon that it became the third rail of the campaign, and no one was going to touch it.

    I don’t subscribe to most of the “birther” hysteria, however, I fail to understand the secrecy on the part of BHO. In my opinion, anyone who wants to “apply” for the job of POTUS should have to provide to the public original source documents regarding their history. What was released during the campaign is insufficient IMHO. The continued secrecy around BHO’s history, background and even so simple as a long-form birth certificate is extremely troubling to me.

    If BHO is legitimate, and I were his campaign manager, I would have held a press conference on the steps of the Hawaii Registrar’s office, made a big show of signing a release and providing original copies of the Long-Form certificate to major members of the Press. That would have shut up the naysayers once and for all, and left them with egg on their faces.

    But the BHO campaign DIDN’T do that. They continue to deflect, hide and refuse to reveal. I found it interesting that when a member of the military received orders to Iraq and challenged them on a “Quo Warranto” basis, the Obama administration rescinded the Orders, rather than face a challenge as his legimitacy as CIC in the courts. From my perspective, that behavior is very strange if everything IS on the up-and-up.

  16. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 23 Mar 2010 at 1:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wondered something similar when talking about the mandate. Does this mean that the Insurance Co’s are now prohibited from using any type of actuarial or risk management tables to set premiums? If someone engages in behaviors that increase the likelihood that they will incur high medical costs, does this mean that the rest of the population who don’t make choices that increase their risks are forced to pay for someone’s else privilege to be irresponsible? I don’t know.

    For example, if you are convicted of DUI your car insurance will go up. Will the same rules apply for health ins premiums? I highly doubt it.

  17. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 23 Mar 2010 at 1:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think some of the frustration stems from the fact that many feel that gov’t employees feel that they should somehow be exempt from the layoffs and drawdowns, pay reductions, etc that the rest of the private sector is feeling.

    I know there was a huge controversy when we were in Monterey, because during the “boom” times, the local government expanded their payroll well in excess of what was required on a per-capita basis per resident for services. When the hard times came, there was a huge outcry at the budget provisions to return the level of employees and service to pre-boom times and the historical per-capita ratios. The local employees and their union felt there was some sort of permanent social contract that had to be honored.

    I don’t think you should take it personally, but you should recognize the reality of the economy we live in. No one is exempt from cost-cutting, reductions or layoffs. There are many people I know who thought that if they signed on with major-blue-chip-employer-”X” they would also be sheltered from economic storms.

  18. Dave Core said on 23 Mar 2010 at 1:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    For the record, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, at the time a U.S. territory. He had or has as much right by birth to be president as anyone born in the U.S. Virginia Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico. I don’t know if this applies to N. Mariana Islands.

    On a more serious note, I am reminding all my friends who are furious about this health care takeover not to complain about it but to work for the defeat of the Congressmen who voted for it, e.g. Gerry Connolly. His two Republican opponents could use the help now. As a matter of fact even if he’s not your Congressman, work for his defeat this November.

  19. Johnson said on 23 Mar 2010 at 2:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    The current system was working fine. Seek employment that provides coverage. My taxes and inflated premiums pay for the uninsured to walk into emergency rooms and receive free care. Stop complaining and looking for “social justice.” Move to Great Britain. They will nanny you, cradle to grave. Start deporting the 30 million illegal alien freeloaders and watch the health care system right itself, without the burden of those who refuse to pay.

  20. Johnson said on 23 Mar 2010 at 2:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    As a gov’t employee for the last 30 odd years, I disagree. I earn every penny of my salary. I work nights, weekends and holidays. I work in all kinds of weather and in dangerous conditions to keep our country safe, while you are at home, enjoying your security. During the flush years, private sector employees heckled us for being stupid enough to serve. Meanwhile, we plodded on. Now that tough times are setting in, you want to disparage us. Fill out an application and join our ranks. We need good people. I feel badly for those who are unemployed. I hope they find a way through these trying times. I’m glad that I have a job and I’m proud to serve. Don’t run others down because you are discouraged. It’s not right.

  21. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 23 Mar 2010 at 2:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    I hear you. So many of my husband’s colleagues left during the boom years and teased him for staying. He felt called to serve; in fact; he had given up a good job in the private sector to go back into the military in 1994. Now that the economy is in shambles, many of those same people are calling him asking him if there’s any work available as activated Reservists (of course, they always add they want something where they’ll be “guaranteed” not to deploy).

    It’s tough times right now, and people are afraid and are lashing out. Heck, if the economy totally takes a tumble, even federal employees could find their paychecks returned NSF. It’s a good time to take to heart all the lessons our grandparents who survived the Depression and WWII taught us, even if our families our fortunate enough right now not to be feeling the full effect of the downturn.

    Which is why our country doesn’t need to be saddled with yet MORE debt and more “mandatory” taxes and levies.

  22. Gurduloo said on 23 Mar 2010 at 2:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    So what was the lesson from the Great Depression? Look for a job from the government? Wait for another “New Deal”? Not a very conservative attitude there.

    I know there are a few hard working gov’t employees, but ask any one of them and they’ll tell you they are the minority.

  23. Rez said on 23 Mar 2010 at 2:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    I assume everyone has heard that Virginia and 13 states filed suit in Federal court within 5 minutes of the health care bill being signed into law.

  24. Gurduloo said on 23 Mar 2010 at 3:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Any guesses on how long it will take the case to get to the Supreme Court? I would imagine it will be on the fast track.

  25. Freedom said on 23 Mar 2010 at 3:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Laurie Ann, I couldn’t agree with you more that BHO should have dispensed with all the secrets and made himself known to be whole and eligible. I also believe that eligibility verification should be a first step in an individual’s candidacy. For some reason, he has chosen not to reveal his credentials. Is it simply because “I don’t have to and therefore I won’t”?? Seems strange to me, but lots of things seem strange these days.

    I would caution however and with all seriousness, that should BHO ever be determined ineligible to hold the Presidency, and be removed from office, his successor would be an even GREATER bufoon and embarassment to our country! :(

  26. anonymous said on 23 Mar 2010 at 4:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Jeff Hunter said on 23 Mar 2010 at 8:59 am:
    Regarding all the “birther” type comments and discussion: Does anyone here really believe that if there was anything to be discovered or litigated to disqualify Barak Obama from the Presidentcy that the Clinton machine would not have already done so during the primaries?”

    Maybe they did…from 11/17/2007:

    “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23467

  27. chicko said on 23 Mar 2010 at 5:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    what they will do is wait until everyone has filed and then they’ll consolidate for an end-run on the supreme court. That’s gonna take awhile though to work their way up though but you never know…I think the states have a good case, but the lib’s would have done their homework before they spit out legislation so this would be a pretty good battle. I would lay odds this gets repealed.

  28. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 23 Mar 2010 at 5:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    The lessons from the Great Depression are to live well below your means, to save and be thrifty, to have struggling families members move in together (where possible) and pool resources. Put away a minimum of 10% of whatever you earn. Cut expenses to the bone.

    We’ve always had a long term pantry including some long term storage food items, and a “Victory Garden”. I’ve always canned and put up fruits and veggies in the freezer long before it became trendy.
    With four growing kids at home and one income, our grocery bill has always been well below similar sized families we know.

    You also do what you have to do. My son has been unemployed and starts each day applying for a minimum of 3 - 4 jobs. Then he hits the road for the first of his many part-time jobs, including selling car wax and detailing cars. It’s not work he enjoys, but it pays his bills while he looks for something more meaningful. In our house, no work is “beneath” anyone.

    I hope this answered your snark, Gurduloo. Those are ALL conservative values.

    BTW, your post exposes your envy and resentment. Not a very becoming character trait.

  29. MPResident said on 23 Mar 2010 at 5:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gurduloo, where did I ever say I feel like I am entitled to anything. I sacrificed money in the good ole days and stayed put with my local government job knowing my benefits were equal or better than in the private sector. I also wrote I wasn’t complaining about not getting a raise in two years. I also spent my nights plowing snow while your sorry a$$ was most likely, and if I’m wrong I apologize, in the bed warm with your spouse. I also spent the majority of my years with a small local government expected to wear many hats which I did with a smile meaning I helped investigate fires and arrest criminals one day and helped on a water break the next so don’t feed me your bull$hit that I should just accept all the busting of my balls because you aren’t doing as well as me. I worked for every penny and have earned the nice benefits I get. With that being said, I can’t wait for our one term president to be gone and be known as the worse president in our time before all of us and our kids our broke for the rest of their lives.

  30. Rez said on 23 Mar 2010 at 6:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    MPResident, the problem with people outside government is that they forget that government employees don’t enjoy the “ups” when times are good. So they have to rely on depressed wages for years in order to secure benefits. And who is asked to sacrifice first when budgets go bad, these same government employees. so they are happy when they are doing well, and then so depressed when things go sour. It is the life they chose.

    Private industry would probably want to have the hard working people in government as opposed to the fictitious claim that there are any more lazy employees than are in private industry. I have come across many in private industry that have surly attitudes that would be fired in government.

    So don’t worry about it. People forget how this country continues to operate even in bad times–it isn’t private industry that makes sure that things run on time or that social security checks arrive.

  31. Rez said on 23 Mar 2010 at 6:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    the they in “so they are happy when they are doing well, and then so depressed when things go sour. It is the life they chose.” is referring to the people in private industry. Badly constructed sentence.

  32. L0ser said on 23 Mar 2010 at 7:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    So if government employees are so hard working and industrious — why exactly are we opposed to having government run health care? I thought the conservative line was that the private sector is better at running things and the government just screws things up. Now I’m just confused.

  33. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 23 Mar 2010 at 8:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Posted on Talking Points Memo:

  34. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 23 Mar 2010 at 8:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    More (Tuesday) Morning quarterbacking on what happens next with the HCR Bill.


    I have faith that the state AG’s will be able to prevail and convince the SCOTUS that the Fed overreached.

  35. Rez said on 23 Mar 2010 at 9:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Loser, should I play on your name? Some things government is good at. They are not good at other things because they have too much interference from politicians and political appointees who do the wrong things for the wrong reasons. It is quite simple.

  36. MPResident said on 23 Mar 2010 at 9:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    LOser, because it will be set up by loser polititions. The employees can only administer what is given to them to administer, which at this point is a system that will bankrupt this country. Next time we get two feet of snow who will be out plowing the streets. God forbid, should your house catch on fire, the fire fighters that will respond. How about when you call 911 because of the chest pains you get when you realize how much this health care system is going to cost, the medics that show up, the street employees that repair the pot holes in the street. How about when you hear a noise at your back door, the police officer that shows up to ensure your safety. How about the teachers that are not only suppose to teach your children but be part time parents also. And all the other employees that keep your town, city and county operating. Next time you want to bad mouth government employees, remember all the services they provide. Don’t blame us because we chose to sacrifice money for the benefits and you chose to take the money and run in the private sector. Sorry about your bad luck!

  37. Citizen12 said on 23 Mar 2010 at 10:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, there you go. They continue to heard us just where they want us, left squabbling and name calling over who works harder, who is lazy, who took less money for more benefits and who took more cash and if they did or did not buy benefits. These are really all moot points. Who cares?

    While the masses continue to play class warfare stick ball, they go about their agenda, unchecked. And yet another election cycle will come and go with 12% approval ratings and 94% reelection numbers.

    If you really want change in the way congress does its job they ALL have to go, including “your” representative. America needs a new crew with a clear understanding of the job description. As long as we let the hired cooks run the kitchen we’re stuck with what menu they serve up.

  38. zuzu said on 23 Mar 2010 at 11:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m getting damn sick and tired of people who portray government employees as bunch of worthless, self indulgent, pencil pushers who do nothing but waste taxpayer dollars thinking of ways to waste even more taxpayer dollars while sitting at their desks complaining about how hard their lives are because they went to lunch only to find that the champagne was burnt and the shrimp was frozen!! Please don’t confuse local gov’t employees who actually do the job they were hired to do with members of Congress… local gov’ts have also suffered many lay-offs.
    Local benes aren’t all they’re cracked up to be by the way. Home Depot offers a far more comprehensive bene package than most local gov’ts. Federal Govt. gets all the goodies but local gov’t is right there with 7-11….maybe….in fact, that might be pushing it.

  39. Fairness In Media said on 24 Mar 2010 at 2:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Some are already saying they don’t want their tax paying dollars going toward what will be found a frivilous lawsuit.

  40. I H8 Trolls said on 24 Mar 2010 at 4:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Hey, everybody, smile & wave at the Troll!
    Nice to see you….did Axelrod or Rahm send you our way?
    Thanks for your concern….bye bye now

  41. Freedom said on 24 Mar 2010 at 8:15 am:
    Flag comment


    The US Constitution is the framework of our nation and ensuring compliance with it is hardly a frivolous activity. Disregarding the Constitution and “making the rules as we go along” is despicable.

  42. Jeff Hunter said on 24 Mar 2010 at 9:41 am:
    Flag comment

    @Laurie-Anne Manel said on 23 Mar 2010 at 1:21 pm:

    “…I would have held a press conference on the steps of the Hawaii Registrar’s office, made a big show of signing a release and providing original copies of the Long-Form certificate to major members of the Press. That would have shut up the naysayers once and for all,…”

    And then you no longer have the “birther” paintbrush to smear your oppostion with. I’m sure they’ll do just that, at the most opportune moment, when it causes the most damage the opposition’s credibility.

  43. Jeff Hunter said on 24 Mar 2010 at 9:49 am:
    Flag comment

    @anonymous said on 23 Mar 2010 at 4:54 pm:

    “Maybe they did…from 11/17/2007:

    “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton … she has scandalous information about … Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. … http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23467

    The article also says “It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton …”

    Anything coming out of Team Clinton isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit. Either they really did have some kind of dirt, which may explain why she’s now Secretary of State, or they were just trying to stir up the press to “find out what they had” and perhaps stumble across something themselves. Who knows? If it was the former, and it was disqualifying instead of merely embarassing ,do you really think they would have hesitated to leak it?

  44. Johnson said on 24 Mar 2010 at 11:22 am:
    Flag comment


    It has been my experience, in my field, that 1% of my fellow employees should not be an employee, vs. the private sector, where I consider the average to be about 10%.

    My opinion only.

  45. Anonymous said on 24 Mar 2010 at 12:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Fairness, how will you handle being told that you or a family members health care needs request is deemed frivolous by some government cost control gatekeeper panel ? Saying they can’t authorize your tax paying dollars going toward what will be found a frivolous treatment. No longer qualify as a functional or potential “payer source”?

    Rep. Dingell: It’s taken a long time to ‘control the people’


    Stalinists are always using the illusion of benevolence as a mechanism to consolidate power. They only pretend to be championing concern, care, peace, justice, fairness “closing the gap”, “47 million uninsured” providing for, protecting, pacifying, progressing…. the issue is never the issue … it’s all about power - about lying to people to gain control.

    Using Green/Cap & Tax Energy another “control the people” example used to de-industrialize, de-construct capitalism, create patronage/jobs system for communists - SEIU/Acorn activists.

  46. jackstraaw said on 24 Mar 2010 at 6:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    I suppose its time for my two cents:

    1. On the actual topic; our representatives no longer represent us. It’s that simple. And what conservative principles have Republicans done over the past 10 years to earn our trust?

    2. This effort to reassert state sovereignty should be the 1st part of a process that demands it or else. The only way to beat radical Marxists is to treat them for what they are, enemies of the Constitution and founding principles of this nation. If it comes to it, I would rather secede then continue being a part of this union.

    3. Please stop the birther crap. There is one good reason BHO does not release the info. If he doesn’t release it, then he can EFFECTIVELY paint conservatives as fringe lunatics. That is the side issue of side issues. Get back to reading the Federalist Papers, Paine, and the Constitution, and argue against the traitors in DC.

    4. For the “lurkers” who come on here and blame Bush and have no intelligent reason for their support of Obama, this manipulation and false argument has run its course. I for one, am at the point where I will no longer view fellow citizens who support this socialist garbage as worthy Americans. You are enemies that need to be defeated.

    5. The ethic of government workers in my immeasurable experience is not much different then private business. The leadership sets expectations and tone. Leaders that demand hard work, will get it. Leaders that are lazy and indifferent, get lazy and indifferent. It makes no sense to take your anger about the size of government out on the people that are unelected or not a part of the legislative process.

  47. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 24 Mar 2010 at 7:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t know. The disingenuousness, the secrecy, the lies have gotten to me. I guess we’ll just have to see. In the meantime, more people are beginning to educate themselves on what the Progressive agenda is all about.

    All I know is, I couldn’t get an offer of employment in the private or public sector with the bs he’s pulled …..

    I guess some animals really are more equal than others.

  48. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 24 Mar 2010 at 7:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, was not aware until today that VA is going it alone in VA courts and not joining other states.

    Go Cucc !!

    I have faith in our legislators here.

    I have faith in the system.

    But just in case, we need a “Plan B” ;)

  49. Anonymous said on 24 Mar 2010 at 10:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sounds like working for the state is a socialist paradise. Lets run our local goverments like the private industry does. Lets hire low wage replacement workers for the ones who have been here the longest. Lets fire ones with families they cost more for health care. Sounds mean dont it? Welcome to the right to work state of Virginia. When my health care went up, I had to pay for the increase.

  50. Fairness In Media said on 25 Mar 2010 at 12:47 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t know, states dictate that auto insurance is mandatory by law to protect other people in case of an accident. So people are forced to buy the insurance. It would seem prudent then that a person without health insurance is like saying: “Go ahead commit suicide if you like” ; somehow this is where you fall short in argument.

  51. MPResident said on 25 Mar 2010 at 8:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Fairness, the argument with auto insurance is no one requires you to drive. Don’t drive a car and you don’t have to have insurance.

  52. Anonymous said on 25 Mar 2010 at 8:36 am:
    Flag comment

    Is there any other product which the federal government can compel you to purchase?” Penalize you for refusing to buy ? No. Not yet.

    Yell “car insurance” but there is no mandate that someone carry car insurance if they don’t drive. Car insurance has nothing to do with this. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

    Any sort of states mandatory auto insurance exists to cover any liability the motorist might inflict on OTHERS and is only required for those who CHOOSE to operate a vehicle on public property. It is not mandatory in any other sense.

    You agree to purchase car insurance in order to drive on publicly-maintained roads. But if you choose not to drive, or only drive a vehicle on private property (think farm vehicles) you don’t need car insurance.

    The difference in this case is that there is no option to choose to not have health insurance, as all people (with very conspicuous exceptions) are required to purchase the insurance by virtue of simply being alive.

    You do not need to drive a car, therefore you do not NEED to pay a tax. If you are a citizen, you have the right to be able to live in America, and are now being told to pay a tax for that right.

    One taxes a privilege, the other taxes a right. Apples and oranges.

    Would those who use this inane comparison support the enforcement of ACTUAL mandatory auto insurance, i.e. forcing everyone to pay for auto insurance whether or not they even own or operate a car? Whether or not they are even capable of driving? Even if they are too young now to drive because they might need it in the future? I doubt it.

    According to the Health Care Score Card from the AMA, the “insurance” company that denies the most claims is government run Medicare.

    $60 Billion Lost Every Year To Medicare & Medicaid Fraud … http://www.breitbart.tv/60-billion-fraud-60-minutes-investigates-medicaremedicaid-billing-scam/


  53. Rez said on 25 Mar 2010 at 9:35 am:
    Flag comment

    I tried this argument on another blog and the answer I got? Try to get along without a car. It was like they may have read the response but it didn’t sink in.

    Someone else said something about income taxes. Well, that was a constitutional argument but again if you do not earn an income, you are not subject to income taxes. If you don’t have a job, you don’t pay social security.

    To date, I have never heard of an existence tax, where one is taxed because one exists.

    By the way, the constitutional question about income taxes was settled finally by the 16th Amendment.

  54. Kevin C said on 25 Mar 2010 at 10:19 am:
    Flag comment

    zuzu said on 23 Mar 2010 at 11:05 pm: “I’m getting damn sick and tired of people who portray government employees as bunch of worthless, self indulgent, pencil pushers who do nothing but waste taxpayer dollars thinking of ways to waste even more taxpayer dollars while sitting at their desks complaining about how hard their lives are because they went to lunch only to find that the champagne was burnt and the shrimp was frozen!!”

    You mean like the county “worker” who was hired to do maintenance but didn’t know one end of a hammer from the OTHER ???

    The one who came to work (almost) every day TOO hung over to FUNCTION (of course that was only when he didn’t show up DRUNK) ???

    The one who was required BY LAW to be licensed but time after time after time after time FAILED the licensing test even after being sent, out of state, to school at TAX PAYER expense ???

    Couldn’t climb a LADDER, tried to shingle a (small) roof from the TOP down ???

    Tried to put a vinyl tile floor in a BATH ROOM (8X10 ft) but couldn’t get the FIRST row of tiles down without CUTTING himself, with the utility knife, resulting in a trip to the HOSPITAL and (fully paid) WEEKS off due to a JOB RELATED injury ??!!

    The incidents go on and on and on but the BOTTOM LINE is, you want to know what “they” did with this TOTALLY INEPT, INCOMPETENT, UNQUALIFIED, DRUNKEN IDIOT ??

    They REWARDED him with a job at the McCoart building ??!!??!!

    Your TAX DOLLARS at work !!!!!

  55. Anonymous said on 25 Mar 2010 at 11:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Amendment to Remove Sweetheart Deals, Bribes, and Payoffs - voted down by Democrats

    Amendment to Bar Tax Hikes on Families Earning Under $250,000 - voted down by Democrats

    Amendment to Remove the Employer Mandate - voted down by Democrats

    Amendment to Require the President and Congress Enroll in Exchange - voted down by Democrats

    Amendment to Prevent Sex Offenders from Receiving E.D. Drugs - voted down by Democrats on a party-line vote

    Amendment to Remove New Taxes on Investments - voted down by Democrats

    Amendment to Protect Wounded Soldiers from Medical Device Tax - voted down by Democrats

    Amendment to Protect Pediatrics and Disabled from Medical Device Tax - voted down by Democrats

    Amendment to Protect Cancer Patients from Medical Device Tax - voted down by Democrats

    So, Democrats are now on record as supporting giving Viagra to sex offenders, support punishing taxes on wounded veterans, cancer patients, sick children, and the disabled. They are on record as supporting kickbacks and sweetheart deals for themselves.


  56. Patty said on 25 Mar 2010 at 1:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Republican Congressman Eric Cantor’s campaign office was shot at last night. Also, Jean Schmidt, Republican Rep. from Ohio received a threatening message on Friday. I’ll bet you’ll not hear about that in the MSM, especially NBC nightly news. Fox reported it.

  57. MPResident said on 26 Mar 2010 at 7:29 am:
    Flag comment

    Kevin C, you have painted all government workers with a broad brush. Do you think there aren’t bad workers in the private sector? I for one have worked in local government for over 23 years and worked with some of the most loyal and dedicated people I know. It is a shame most don’t get the respect they deserve for keeping our towns, cities and counties working. The next time you need a pothole repaired on your street, a loose dog picked up, a rowdy neigbor quieted down, a medic because someone in your family is having chest pains, a water break on your street repaired at 2:00 a.m. on a cold winter morning, remember the dedicated employees of your city or county.

  58. Citizen12 said on 26 Mar 2010 at 10:31 am:
    Flag comment

    SEIU’s Andy Stern: We ‘changed America forever’…

    “….Stern is, after all, the most frequent visitor to the White House..”


  59. Kevin C said on 26 Mar 2010 at 8:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    MPResident said on 26 Mar 2010 at 7:29 am: “Kevin C, you have painted all government workers with a broad brush.”

    No I didn’t, I painted ONE !!!

    I said “THE” county worker !!!

    Where are you getting, “ALL” and WHY are you trying to make something out of NOTHING ???

  60. rgdfry said on 26 Mar 2010 at 10:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    MPR. . . and Kevin, what the he!! does this have to do with the VA lawsuit?

  61. constitutional scholar said on 27 Mar 2010 at 9:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Tue Mar 23 14:00:29 2010 Pacific Time

    Health Reform Law ‘Constitutionally Mainstream,’ Says University of Maryland Expert, Should Withstand Legal Challenges
    COLLEGE PARK, Md., March 23 (AScribe Newswire) — The newly signed health care reform law should stand up well to legal court challenges, says constitutional expert and political scientist Mark Graber of the University of Maryland. Graber describes the measure as “constitutionally mainstream.” Here are more of his thoughts.

    - - - -

    The new Affordable Health Care for America Act is politically innovative, but constitutionally mainstream. Much debate has and will take place over the merits of requiring some individuals to purchase health care and of requiring insurance companies to enroll most Americans. While these policy questions are genuinely difficult, the constitutional issues are not. The legislation President Obama signed on Tuesday is as constitutional as such mainstays of the New Deal and Great Society as the Social Security Act, the Wagner Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    For the past 70 years, a constitutional consensus has existed that the federal government may regulate all commercial activity that has an effect on interstate commerce, no matter where that commercial activity takes place. Health providers and insurance are two of the largest commercial activities in the United States. That Congress can regulate such activities is obviously inherent in the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

    When regulating interstate commerce, Congress has the constitutional power to regulate private activities that, standing alone, might appear to have no relationship to a national market. In the 1942 case, WICKARD V. FILBURN, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could prevent a farmer from using wheat grown on his farm to feed his animals on the ground that home-grown wheat interferes with the interstate grain market.

    Congress may also regulate interstate commerce for any reason. The Civil Rights Act forbade racial discrimination by any business engaged in interstate commerce.

    The most politically explosive aspects of health care reform are no more controversial constitutionally than legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in the past. If Congress has the power to require persons with farm animals to feed them with wheat purchased at the market place, then Congress can require all persons to purchase health insurance.

    Given that the failure to purchase health insurance may impose increased costs on the general public (which often must pay for health services when insurance is unavailable), the federal government has the power to make sure individuals do not become a burden on the public.

    Congress may, of course, pass stupid acts. That is what elections are for. Republicans claim the Democrats have passed a stupid act. That is what the elections of 2010 and 2012 are for. The crucial point is that nothing in the health care legislation is at all different from a constitutional perspective than the other features of the contemporary welfare state. Whether Americans like that state is a matter best determined by voting, not by litigation.

    - - - -

    Mark Graber, a constitutional lawyer, is professor of law and government at the University of Maryland, College Park and the University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore.

    - - - -


    - Mark Graber

    301-405-4215 (College Park)

    410-706-2767 (Baltimore)

  62. Citizen12 said on 27 Mar 2010 at 1:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s just my opinion but it would appear that the Federal Government has become like a guard dog that has grown beyond all expectations, and now can’t be put back in its own yard and on its chain. Ken Cuccinelli is attempting to do just that and needs our support.

    The use of the commerce clause as a means to unjustly provide unlimited expansion of power to the Federal Government over the citizens of the United States has been well documented.

    The continued failure of each States representatives not only to correct the wrongs brought about by the previous ones sent to Washington, but to perpetuate these very practices reflects the failures of these very citizens who elected them.

    Those who send back the same representatives expecting new and better results, as well as those who don’t bother to vote at all, should reexamine the purpose, value and power of their vote.

    Before Americans had a vote or even a Constitution they had a Declaration of Independence, and justification to get this whole thing started.

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”


  63. Greg L said on 27 Mar 2010 at 2:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    It shouldn’t surprise me a whole lot that “constitutional scholar” was posting that nonsensical Gruber hogwash from an IP address inside Loudoun County government, given how insane LC government has been lately. Perhaps he’s not a bad guy at all, but I can’t say this coincidence is a shocker.

    So Gruber thinks that forcing people to buy a product or service is the same as forcing them to not produce a product or service. I haven’t seen anything so nonsensical in quite some time. In one case it is the regulation of activity that might impact interstate commerce. The other is an attempt to regulate inactivity, which because it is nothing, cannot possibly have any relation to interstate commerce.

    If this stupid healthcare law stands, a future congress could require everyone in America over 21 years old and with no disability from owning a firearm to purchase one and have themselves trained for national military service under the guise that the additional firearms and ammunition sales would positively impact interstate commerce. Let’s see how the liberals like that one.

    Or maybe all Americans could be required to buy a book on the Constitution, so idiots like Mark Gruber would be immediately be laughed off rather than have their nonsense used as talking points by the fundamentally under-informed.

  64. Anonymous said on 27 Mar 2010 at 3:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Makes you wonder whose constitution Prof Grab-bag of tricks teaches.
    More likely making up his own little “manifesto”.

    The welfare of the people, in particular, has always been the alibi of tyrants and his “the contemporary welfare state” should read “… welfare of the state.”

    So far as I can tell, his basic argument is that this approach is legitimate because everyone does it all the time.



    “Why have liberals rejected the Founders’ idea of free speech?

    The Founders looked toward a society in which each person’s right to life, liberty, property, free exercise of religion, and pursuit of happiness would be protected by government. Except for sex, marriage, and other matters connected with the generation of children, and injuries to persons or property, government would be mostly indifferent to the manner in which citizens lived their private lives. Laws would protect everyone’s rights equally, but it was understood that equal rights lead to unequal results, because of differences in talent, character and luck. About a century ago, liberals began to argue that the Founders’ view, which is embodied in the Constitution, is unjust in two ways.

    First, they argued that by protecting everyone’s property equally, government in effect sides with the rich against the poor. It protects the rich and leaves the poor open to oppression. It is not enough, in the liberal view, for government to be neutral between business and labor, between men and women, between whites and racial minorities, and so on. In each case, liberals say, justice requires that government must put burdens on the rich and powerful and give special advantages to the weak and vulnerable.

    Applied to free speech, the liberal view leads to the conclusion that government must limit spending by those who can afford to publish or broadcast their views. As University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein writes, the traditional autonomy of newspapers “may itself be an abridgment of the free speech right.” Government interference with broadcasting content through FCC licensing is from this standpoint a positive good for free speech. Without it, rich white males will dominate, and the poor, women and minorities will be marginalized and silenced. Therefore, in the liberal view, speech rights must be redistributed from the rich and privileged to the poor and excluded.

    University of Maryland professor Mark Graber endorses this view: “Affluent Americans,” he writes, “have no First Amendment right that permits them to achieve political success through constant repetition of relatively unwanted ideas.” In other words, if you publish or broadcast “too much,” government has the right, and the duty, to silence you. Yale law professor Stephen Carter agrees: “Left unregulated, the modern media could present serious threats to democracy.” Sunstein calls for a “New Deal for Speech,” in which government will treat speech in exactly the same way as it already treats property, namely, as something that is really owned by government, and which citizens are only permitted to use or engage in when they meet conditions established by government to promote fairness and justice.

    Arguments like these are the deepest reason that liberals no longer follow the Constitution, and why Americans today no longer know what the free speech clause really means.

    One might raise the objection that these are only law professors. But their view turns out to be squarely in the mainstream. Several candidates for the presidency in 2000 from both political parties (but not George W. Bush) called for much more stringent limitations on free speech in the name of campaign finance reform. One of those candidates, Bill Bradley, proposed a constitutional amendment in 1996 that would have repealed the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Dick Gephardt, the former minority leader of the House of Representatives, has made the same proposal. In the end, even President Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

    I am reminded by this of Abraham Lincoln’s remark in the 1850s about those who would read blacks out of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence: If that view is to prevail, why not move to Russia, he asked, where we can take our despotism unalloyed? Liberals today are on the verge of throwing off all pretense and admitting openly that what they mean by equality is the abolition of liberty.

    There is a second reason that today’s liberals see the Founders’ view of free speech as oppressive. The Founders’ regulation of sexually explicit and obscene pictures and words, they believe – like any interference in the sex lives of citizens – stands in the way of the most important meaning of liberty. People must be permitted, in this view, to establish their own way of life and engage in whatever kind of sex they please. A famous passage from a Supreme Court pro-abortion decision sums up this liberal view. It reads, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    The Founders would have replied that we are precisely not free to define our own concept of existence and meaning. God and nature have established the “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” which have already defined it for us. Human beings, Jefferson wrote, are “inherently independent of all but moral law.” If men defy that law, they are not free. They are slaves, at first to their own passions, eventually to political tyranny. For men who cannot govern their own passions cannot sustain a democratic government.

    Our task today is to recover the cause of constitutionalism. In doing so, the recovery of a proper understanding and respect for free speech must be a high priority.”

    Constitutional lawyer is code for the U.S. constitution is on trial and Graber and his ilk are the prosecuting attorneys.

  65. Kevin C said on 28 Mar 2010 at 9:24 am:
    Flag comment

    rgdfry said on 26 Mar 2010 at 10:31 pm: “MPR. . . and Kevin, what the he!! does this have to do with the VA lawsuit?”

    About as much as YOUR comment !!!

    Are you with the BLOG police?

  66. rgdfry said on 28 Mar 2010 at 11:16 am:
    Flag comment

    Kevin C . . . yeah, you just got a jay walking citation. Try to have a nice day.

  67. Kevin C said on 28 Mar 2010 at 5:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    rgdfry said on 28 Mar 2010 at 11:16 am: “Kevin C . . . yeah, you just got a jay walking citation.”

    Sorry pal, FIRST you’ve got to show a BADGE !!!!

    For the record, SEE how you’ve added absolutely NOTHING to the conversation (2 posts now) !!!

    In the future, try not to be such a HYPOCRITE !!!!

  68. Laurie-Anne Manel said on 28 Mar 2010 at 10:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m trying to work my way through reading the entire finished bill. I can assure you, it’s filled with a lot of weaselese. In the meantime, I’m relying on legal opinions that several of the better conservative legal blogs are posting. The link to the Republican website about the amendments that the Dems shot down was very helpful.

    The spousal unit is extremely annoyed that our wounded warriors are going to be taxed on their prosthesis. The whole premise is sickening.

    I think the whole strategy of the entire Progressive caucus and their camp followers in the MSM and “think tanks”, including the entire Brain Trust at the HuffnPuff, is to convince America that this is a “done deal” and just to accept then capitulate.

    Again, I am proud of our VA reps & VA AG for standing firm and fighting for the Constitution and Liberty.

    Can you imagine if Tim Kaine was still in office? Shudder.

Comments are closed.

Views: 2934