The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition

Print Email

Text Size

Special Report

Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition

By Jeffrey Lord on 3.9.10 @ 6:09AM

If the health bill passes the push is on to repeal -- yes, it can be done.

It was called the "nullification contagion."

And it was a battle royal. Literally.

Once upon-a-time in America, a tumultuous battle over the freedom to drink alcoholic beverages raged across the land. It was the health care battle of early 20th century America, and it was furious, divisive and eventually savagely bloody.

There is debate even today as to where this story actually begins. In fact the issue raised its head in America as early as 1657, when the General Court of Massachusetts banned the sale of intoxicating spirits. Some pinpoint the 1840s. But doubtless as good a place as any to start is with the birth in 1873 of the Women's Christian Temperance Union. The objective, as is the case with government health care enthusiasts today, was portrayed as noble. Alcohol, the group believed, was tearing families -- and hence the larger society -- apart. Echoing the core argument of Obamacare today, to drink, particularly to excess, was portrayed as imposing ultimately unsustainable costs both societal and financial on others. This being the case, there was only one answer: a government ban on the use of alcohol in America.

So it was that in Fredonia, New York, members of the new WCTU, as it became known, hit upon the idea of invading saloons singing and praying, asking the saloon-keepers to stop selling alcohol. It was the opening shot in what would become a decades-long nationwide war, dividing Americans into mutually exclusive and decidedly hostile camps of "wets" (those who favored the freedom to drink alcohol) and "drys" (those who opposed).

As America gradually moved from the post-Civil War era to the new industrial age and on into World War I, a dizzying mix of issues were tossed into the drive for "prohibition" -- eventually discussed everywhere as "Prohibition" with a capital "P". Frances Willard, the second president of the WCTU, believed Prohibition must be broadened to take in the burgeoning drive for women's suffrage. Once women were given the vote, she was certain that women "would come into government and purify it, into politics and cleanse the Stygian pool." Stygian being another word for hellish. As American immigration numbers climbed (legally), the nation was flooded with those fleeing the turmoil of Ireland and Germany, among others. With unerring precision, Irish and German immigrants were singled out from the European immigrants as being particularly prone to drink, adding even more of an urgency to the cause in the eyes of Prohibition proponents.

The WCTU soon found allies, and it became one of dozens of groups that insisted cutting Americans off from their liquor was the answer to the problem. It was in fact replaced as the leading "dry" lobby by the Anti-Saloon League. In a bit of old history that will strike a chord today, the Anti-Saloon League was a leading arm of the blossoming Progressive Movement -- the political and ideological ancestors of today's Obamacare. Composed heavily of Mainline Protestant religious leaders, the group zeroed in on a drive to get states to ban the sale or drinking of alcohol -- and for a constitutional amendment that would finish off the liquor industry and its sinful followers once and for all.

The pressure built on Republican and Democrat politicians alike. A "Prohibition Party" was formed. Candidates for every office from city hall to the state house to the White House were lobbied continuously. Whether it was beer, wine or hard liquor, the objective was to shut down both the purveyors and the consumers. Leaders of the "drys" became famous, none more iconic than Carry Nation, who would enter saloons with a hatchet and start swinging away at liquor bottles. Arrested repeatedly for what she called her "hatchetations," on one occasion she announced, "Men, I have come to save you from a drunkard's fate," then proceeded to smash one bottle after another. Learning of the assassination of Republican President William McKinley by an anarchist, Nation famously cheered -- because she believed the President secretly drank alcohol in the White House and therefore deserved his fate.

Gradually, the Prohibitionists, riding on a wave of moral indignation, began to carry the day for Carry Nation. The first to fall were individual states. By January 1, 1917, four months before U.S. entry into World War I, 19 states had gone dry with several more on the verge of doing the same. Tellingly, the states ranged across the country, from Alabama to North Dakota and Washington to West Virginia. Even the then-territory of Alaska got into the act. Now the push was on for Congress to respond -- and by December 1917, the Democratic controlled U.S. Senate and U.S. House passed an amendment by the required two-thirds vote and sent it to the states for the prescribed three-fourths ratification.

On January 16, 1919, Nebraska -- home of Prohibition and progressive champion and two-time Democratic Presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson's first Secretary of State -- became the 36th state of the then-48 states to ratify. The Eighteenth Amendment was enshrined -- presumably forever -- in the United States Constitution. It would take effect one year from its passage.

In its entirety, it read:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The next step was enforcement, and to that end Congress was now required to act.

Page: 1 2 3 > Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (177) | Leave a comment

Shamus| 3.9.10 @ 6:47AM

It would be pretty easy to repeal Obamacare, since all it would require is an act of Congress. Obama could veto the repeal, of course, but the simple answer there would be to attach the repeal to a bill providing funds for the EPA. Obama would then have a choice of eliminating the EPA or signing repeal.

Eric Cartman| 3.9.10 @ 9:28AM

Shamus -
Your first sentence is the trick-knee in your hopey change - "It would be pretty easy to repeal Obamacare, since all it would require is an act of Congress."

Are you talking about the same steel-spined Congress that couldn't not fund bike paths in remote Alaska; the sex-life of bears; train museums; cricket control; and manure power research? That Congress?

Indy Voter| 3.9.10 @ 1:36PM

No, it will not be easy to reverse. If the GOP takes back the house and the Senate (a real long shot on the Senate), POTUS still has veto power, nothing gets through the senate unless you can get past 60 votes to end debate...you know the libs will use that to their advantage.

Other challenges, most of the voters in this country know far more about American Idol than they do about issues, a large percent of Americans do not pay federal income taxes; gerrymandering, SEIU, ACORN, buying the youth vote with "free education" cradle to career, massive amounts of stimulus $ set to be released to impact 2010 elections...
No, repealing this will not be easy, I for one am still trying to stop it now, please join me - call, email, write, inform as many as you can
http://market-ticker.org/archi.....eform.html

Bloke From Virginia| 3.9.10 @ 10:03PM

"Sixty votes"? Where have you been? Just drop 50 percent plus 1 on the Dems, just as they will have done to get it passed. The precedent will have been set.

Achilles Toejam| 3.9.10 @ 9:11PM

Eric Cartman, Touché

Shamus| 3.10.10 @ 9:11PM

There will be new people in Congress after the next election.

Allan| 3.9.10 @ 2:19PM

If a veto is threatened, congress can simply defund the bureaucracies necessary for Obamacare to function until Obama is replaced.

Eric Cartman| 3.9.10 @ 2:32PM

I COULD happen, but I'm not going to bet the farm on it. Repeal, de-fund, treat like a liberal step-child, I don't think we can count on congress to do what's right. Just not convinced at this point. It could happen, though.

R GIVENS| 4.22.10 @ 7:31PM

The foil to Alcohol Prohibition is America's long failed Drug War which began from 1910-1920, not some health care policy however good or bad it might be. In 1914 the Harrison Narcotics Act began an experiment in controlling which drugs people could legally use.

An idea of how completely failed the drug crusade really is comes from the fact that before we had drug laws there was no such thing as "drug crime." No one was robbing, whoring and murdering over drugs when addicts could buy all of the heroin, cocaine, morphine, opium and anything else they wanted cheaply and legally at the corner pharmacy. Where drug crime was unheard-of we now have prisons overflowing with drug users. Where addicts lived normal lives, we have hundreds of thousands of shattered families.

When drugs were legal addicts held regular employment, raised decent families and were indistinguishable from their teetotaling neighbors. Many of the heroes of the 19th century were opiate users. Judges, politicians and business people were addicts. The case of Dr William Halsted is proof that addicts can function at genius levels for decades if they can escape the effects of prohibition. There is no way of knowing how many thousands of worthwhile contributing citizens have been destroyed by drug prohibition.

Overdoses were virtually unheard of when addicts used cheap pure Bayer Heroin instead of the expensive toxic potions prohibition puts on the streets. Where overdoses were extremely rare we have tens of thousands of accidental drug deaths every year. Almost every "drug death" is caused by drug prohibition. (See: The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs http://www.druglibrary.org/sch.....u/cu5.html )

A 1994 US Department of Justice study revealed that "Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: disputes among rival distributors, arguments and robberies involving buyers and sellers, property crimes committed to raise drug money and, more speculatively, social and economic interactions between the illegal markets and the surrounding communities. .... alcohol is the only [psychoactive substance] whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression"

Proof that drug prohibition causes "drug problems" comes from the Swiss Heroin Maintenance Program where addicts are supplied with cheap, pure heroin and cocaine. Overdose deaths and injection transmitted diseases (HIV/AIDS, Hep C etc) have vanished in the Swiss program.

"Addict crime" in Switzerland has dropped 97% since the Swiss began providing addicts with cheap, pure legal heroin, cocaine and anything else they want. Accidental overdoses have become non-existent in the Swiss program and transmission of blood borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C has stopped. (see Status Report On The Medical Prescription Of Narcotics. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health; Jan 1995. http://www.drugpolicy.org/library\tlcswiss.cfm )

Anybody who thinks the drug war is a worthwhile policy needs to explain more than 90 straight years of failure and to explain why the "land of the free" has the largest prison population on Earth.

basur| 10.27.10 @ 7:18AM

One other thing I love about the whole 'repeal is impossible' meme and those who promote it: the premise is that the Dims should not ram this thru because the majority of Americans don't want it, but we'll magically transform our view the moment it passes. Pure idiocy.

Jason B. Kane| 3.9.10 @ 7:38AM

Therer is a fallacy with the reasoning in this article. That is that Obamacare is crafted, not to provide quality medical care or lower the cost thereof. It is crafted as another chain in theeconomic slavery which binds African americans to the democrat party.

A large majjority of the African american community is now dependent on the government for their food, housing, transportation and is thus chained to the party of welath tramsfer and dependence.

Since the primary duty of every politician is to get relected, "free" health care will never be repealed.

Yes, Republicans may tinker aorund the edges, but this incredible financial burden will never be taken from the iron yoke being welded by Democrats from the necks of the working taxpayers.

Jeff| 3.9.10 @ 8:47AM

Jason,

I could not agree with you more. Although I would like to believe that a Republican Congress would repeal the legislation it is clear from what I have seen over the last ten years that they would not. We must remember that they are politicians first and would never have the guts to remove a program like health care from a potential voter. This was apparent to me when Senator McConnell was being interviewed on one of the Sunday Morning shows just after Christmas and he was asked the direct question if his party would repeal the legislation if they had the majority. A simple yes would have sufficed, however, he gave a political speak that did not answer the question - shame on him. In my view our only hope is that it does not pass and then we begin a new look at reform vs. Government take-over of health care.

Jim Brown| 3.9.10 @ 6:13PM

I think it is time to seriously consider a movement to throw them all out. If you like your party get rid of your congressional masters in the primary. If that fails do it in November. Vote for the challenger regardless of party.

Larry| 4.14.10 @ 6:28PM

Skin color means nothing beyond it beauty.
Re-think your whole approach.
Your remarks are racist.

mike musculus| 5.26.10 @ 2:28PM

"skin color means nothing..."
perhaps I've misread the comments here, but to deny the reality of the statistics is silly: 90+ % blacks vote on the basis of skin color !alone!. My sister-in-law, (who herself is an object of derision, called an "oreo" by other of those poor, put-upon members of the High-Melanin Club...) can regale you with dozens of stories to support the stats.

Until we're really honest -- willing to call a spade a spade and NOT call it a shovel* -- we'll make no headway.
*: contrary to popular folklore, this is the original metaphor. The other's simply a Catachresis appropriated by the victim-culture to use as a bludgeon when an honest person "gets uppity"

Bram| 3.9.10 @ 7:38AM

publican Congress could simply defund the whole thing. Meanwhile the courts will be knocking out pieces based on blatant unconstitutionality. In the end, they will repeal the rest just to put it out of its misery.

logmank| 3.9.10 @ 7:45AM

Repeal is not a possibility. One thing that will happen immediately (within a few months of passage) is that tens of millions of workers will be "off-loaded" by their employers onto the government option. Once that is done, repeal would leave those folks with no insurance. Hence, repeal is NEVER going to happen.

Shamus| 3.9.10 @ 9:00AM

It could take more than a few months for anything to go into effect. Rule making alone could take six months. There would also be court challenges to be considered, and this could add to the delay.

Insurance plans would probably not be impacted until fall of 2011, and this would come after the election in 2010, so there would be plenty of time to pass a repeal bill. A government option would take years to become viable, so if employers did drop coverage, then many more people would be uninsured.

jo blo| 3.9.10 @ 7:46AM

Hey, Kane, in case you hadn't noticed, Blacks don't vote for Republicans. Who cares if they don't like repeal? As for the middle class, they want no part of this.

I really don't understand this 'repeal is impossible' mindset. If we have to, we do a soros-style election in 10 and 12 to get supermajorities and we ram thru the cuts of entitlements. Maybe a little fear mongering is in order - either we get rid of these entitlements or the Chinese own us.

And don't give me any noise about the media and democrats. They are both increasingly isolated and ignored.

jo blo| 3.9.10 @ 7:48AM

As for shaky-kneed republicans (this is a legitimate concern); they think repeal would pose a threat to their jobs? We should make it clear that NOT repealing poses a definite threat to their job.

Mattled| 3.9.10 @ 8:04AM

Since this doesn't "kick in" until 2014 (Oh my God---those evil Republicans don't want to help the poor unfortunate uninsured--Only the Democrats do---in 4 or 5 years))---but the taxes do and Bush Tax cuts expire in 2011, this may be easier than people thought. Even those making 40k a year will be paying higher taxes and those making less will lose their jobs due to higher taxes BECAUSE of this so-called reform.

Obama is Tone Deaf (and reading this mornings WSJ, he is compared to Humpty-Dumpty (LOL)---not good).

Make sure employers tell their employees, especially Hopey Changey ones when their paychecks get smaller---Obama.
Lose your job---Obama's fault.

Didn't get that contract because Biden's Task Force made it impossible for you to get government work unless you're a Union backed company----Obama's fault.

See? He is so powerful and awesome and cool-----he can take your money, jobs, healthcare and freedoms away from you just like that. And you have no CHOICE.

So grab your ankles Millennials and life-long Democrats----doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. He's coming to get you.

Dan Rather| 3.9.10 @ 9:03AM

And being compared to a Watermelon Salesman can's help either.

Nelson H.| 3.9.10 @ 8:19AM

Do not fret, conservative brethren. The rule that applies here is "if something is unsustainable, it eventually must stop". I don't think this bill can be repealed because of the immediate changes that would result from employers off-loading their expensive plans and putting health care in the hands of government. But the whole welfare state can be repealed if we are in the throes of a national crisis and the right leader comes along, articulating a limited government vision that a significant majority are prepared to hear. Longshot? Sure. But remember my axiom: if the situation is bad enough and it cannot go on, then it will not go on. It's up to us to shape the new course.

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 8:25AM

The American Past: A Survey of American History | CAPPEL informed links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…More > > The American Past: A Survey of American History Related Articles American Samsung Video Converter American Iphone Video Converter American Spirit? « Volatility The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition The American Spectator : Looking Out for the Big Guys Stabroek News – Bigelow makes Oscar history as war drama triumphs Top Moments in Philadelphia Phillies History:…

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 8:30AM

American History X part 13 of 13 [GOOD QUALITY] | CAPPEL informed links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…GOOD QUALITY] American History X part 13 of 13 [GOOD QUALITY] Related Articles American Samsung Video Converter American Iphone Video Converter American Spirit? « Volatility The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition The American Spectator : Looking Out for the Big Guys Veritas – EN » Living models of the Good Samaritan Are Lakeland Terriers good dogs? Just how good is the new 2010…

Deborah D| 3.9.10 @ 8:39AM

As a proud Tea Partier, I am equally proud to say that my grandfather was a proud bootlegger! He would make rum in Florida and then throw the cases into the ocean so he could say they were from Cuba and just washed ashore. Rebellion, apparently, runs in the family! :)

I hope you're right, Mr. Lord. I just hope it doesn't get that far.

SCM| 3.9.10 @ 2:15PM

At least your grandfather's progeny turned out much better (and more useful to the Republic)than that of a more famous rum runner, Joseph Kennedy.

Rmm| 3.9.10 @ 8:59AM

This comment may be off topic but you can call me an Obamaphobe. This jack-ass just makes me ill.
As far as blocking Obamacare, which doesn't kick in until after nummy has left office, the legal challenges to this behemoth are being drawn up as we speak. The Federal government cannot mandate that anyone has to carry health insurance.
It is insane that the Dems are trying to reinvent the wheel, for the sake of 30 million uninsured,
while sending the Country to hell in a hand basket.

Stephanie| 3.9.10 @ 12:57PM

RMM, you know this isn't about "healthcare" anyway. It's about all the other socialist/communist "pig-ear marks" that are in the monstrosity of a bill. It ain't about insuring those 30 million, it 's about controling our lives from cradle to grave.

Tom| 3.9.10 @ 9:05AM

Prohibition was an idiotic idea, and so is trying to force an analogy between it and health insurance reform. Every advanced civilized country protects its citizens from the prospect of financial ruin from having astronomical medical bills, except the good ol' USA!

Hawaii has had their mandated healthcare system, which covers well over 90% of its citizens, for 40 years now. There is no groundswell to overturn this system in Hawaii (which, contrary to what some seem to believe, is actually a state in the USA). To the contrary, it's quite popular. It's not a failed "experiment" it's just what any civilized country would do. Deal with it!

Tom| 3.9.10 @ 10:45AM

Tom,
Hawaii does indeed have a mandated healthcare system and it seems to work well. But whether its experiences can be extrapolated to the nation as a whole is questionable. Hawaii has several unique qualities that do not mirror America at large.

As an island and a tremendous tourist destination there is little ability of many businesses to transfer in search of lower business costs.
Hawaiians do not utilize advanced medical technology as often as mainlanders. They tend to be more active and thus healthier.

I think Hawaii is a perfect example of how federalism should work. If the Hawaiian model is really superior it would be adopted by other states since it would offer a competitive advantage. It has not because it is suited for the unique qualities of the Hawaiian market.
Tom

txn4ever| 3.9.10 @ 2:20PM

Hawaii has a large transient population that does not use public services such as state helth care. And that transient population is the U. S. Military. The Military and it's personnel is a huge tax base that extracts very little from public coffers.

Patrick Miller| 3.9.10 @ 9:12AM

At least the progressives of the Wilson era had the decency to respect the Constitution by following the amendment process. Today's progressive thugs are so much more dangerous because of their blatant disregard for that most sacred document and the inherent checks and balances it provides. Look at the height of the bar that had to be cleared in order to allow for prohibition (2/3 of Congresss, 3/4 of the states) and compare/contrast it with health care and its Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, Gatoraide, reconcilliation, the outing of Massa, .... all the while no mention of our amendment process.
The article provides an intesesting comparision, but if this modern progressive regime is willing to go to the above mentioned lengths to ram this through unconstitutionally, don't plan on them leaving the door open for any sort of repeal!

Houston Rao| 3.9.10 @ 9:44AM

+1.

I have always felt that the one amendment missing in the Constitution was to require an unanimous decision by SCOTUS on the constitutionality of any law. That would put an end to ideological leanings on the bench and political gaming of the bench. We require an unanimous verdict by a 12 person jury to convict someone of a crime; shouldn't the bar for deciding the constitutionality of any law or action be at least as high?

Alan Brooks| 3.9.10 @ 9:15AM

Didn't read this piece. Can't read everything (otherwise I would never have graduated High School two years late), but the linkage from Obamacare to Prohibition is rather... tenuous, no matter what the article might say.

Tim| 3.9.10 @ 9:20AM

Didn't read your post Alan, I'm sure it was the usual tripe.

Alan Brooks| 3.9.10 @ 11:33AM

Flattery will get you nowhere, Tim (but how could you know how to reply if you didn't read the commen ... oh, never mind).

Just as you don't believe everything you read, I don't read everything I believe...
... um, that didn't come out right, did it?

Tim| 3.9.10 @ 3:25PM

How would I know, not having read it?

Jim Hlavac| 3.9.10 @ 9:33AM

Repeal it will be. Repeal of more than health care, too. It will be repeal of all the Gov-Cares in our midst. Nothing less. That it will take a while is true. That many Republicans will have to be shown the door is true. That 97% of Democrats must be gone is true, too. But there is no doubt that Obama did the best thing he could do for all of us, lumbering along as we were in slothful ignorance of imminent doom, by so riling up the people about so many things. It is now generally known that the entire corporate, non-profit and personal welfare systems are unsustainable. From food price supports, to money for arts, to money for food stamps. Got to go, and be changed. This health care bill was merely the last straw on the camel's back -- there is no choice but to repeal vast swaths of federal, and state, authority and programs. For even without health care reform there is no way this can all continue -- even without health care the deficits are in the trillions -- and this will not change, or at worse get worse.
Now it is a matter of who will be the Great Repealer.
But repeal it shall be.

Houston Rao| 3.9.10 @ 9:41AM

There is however, one big difference. Prohibition involved the taking away of something that people wanted. Obamacare, on the other hand, make health care a free entitlement. Taking away an entitlement or a 'free' benefit is difficult, perhaps impossible, as the entitlement becomes more ingrained and accepted. The mortgage deduction is a simple example, in the name of helping people afford homes, it set up a continuing subsidy for home purchases, inserting distortions in the free market, ultimately saddling the government with trillions in mortgages. Yet, how many people will accept repealing the deduction?

roy| 3.9.10 @ 1:11PM

Exactly. The history is interesting, but ultimately the analogy is extremely weak.

Although, I must admit that if the WCTU and similar groups were active today, they would not make the mistake of simply banning alcohol. Instead, they would:

1) engage in unceasing demonization of alcohol. OK, they did that. But did their propaganda saturate elementary schools? No? Missed opportunity!
2) loudly promote "alcohol free" beverages. Demand huge government subsidies for these beverages. Demand that employers provide free non-alcoholic beverages to their employees; any employers who didn't want to do this are clearly the heartless "rich".
3) Establish a "cap and trade" system for alcohol. This would win the support of existing alcohol companies which would use it to eliminate competitors.
4) Use various heartstring tugging stories to bury alcohol under so much bureacro-babble, regula-blather and governmo-nonsense that nobody would ever want to go into the business.
5) In the end, nobody might be any less drunk, but they sure would feel good about themselves.

JimP| 3.9.10 @ 3:18PM

A free entitlment? Hardly. Only for the lower 50% of income earners, perhaps. Passage of this law will be taking away the current quality of healthcare, will institute de facto rationing on everyone which will continuously drive prices up leading to more rationing, drive doctors OUT of the country, and severely depress innovation. It starts out as a law that roughly 70% do not want as well. I think the Prohibition analogy is apt. The people wanted their booze and the people want their current healthcare, but without the market skewing government problems that presently afflict the system and prices.

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 9:49AM

The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…As American immigration numbers climbed (legally), the nation was flooded with th ose fleeing the turmoil of Ireland and Germany, among others. Here is the original: The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition tags: chappelle, fleeing-the-turmoil, hollywood, nation, numbers-climbed, overboard-the-uss, person-tells, singled-out, the-nation, the-rule, through-the-constitution,…

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 9:56AM

Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition | Virginia Right! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…21222324252627 28293031 How to Beat a Speeding Ticket Legally » Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition By Tom White, on March 9th, 2010, at 9:55 am From The American Spectator: The tale of Prohibition and its repeal should serve as a cautionary tale to Obamacare supporters — and a source of inspiration to its opponents. Simultaneously it shows in vivid…

Tim| 3.9.10 @ 10:03AM

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. "

C. S. Lewis

Troy| 3.9.10 @ 10:05AM

What other laws have been repealed? I think this is the only time where we see a "Hey we tried this and it didn't work, oh well, let's give it up" attitude. These days the legislators leave te laws on the books and ignore them. Oh, wait there was 55mph, and that was for safety also...

TacoBill| 3.9.10 @ 10:21AM

The mandate for health insurance is unconstitutional. I look forward to going to jail rather than paying the mandate. The IRS and judicial system will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours to bring my case to court. I will of course demand a speedy jury trail. My hope is that that another 5,000 citizens in EACH congressional district will also sacrifice a few years of ther lives in the service of the Constitution.

Henry David Thoreau had it correct: "All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable."

Tim| 3.9.10 @ 10:37AM

In the Soviet Union, guys like you were packed off to mental hospitals, no juries, no trials.

MarkJ| 3.9.10 @ 10:53AM

Tim,

One small difference: in America, many of the recalcitrant kulaks are already armed, many more are getting armed, and they're all stocking up on ammo from Sportsman's Guide.

Tim| 3.9.10 @ 11:14AM

When they draw up the lists of people to be arrested, I'm sure we will all be on it.

George S| 3.9.10 @ 11:02AM

Why didn't Ronald Reagan dismantle the Departments of Energy or Education when he first came into office with a Republican congress? Those agencies were only created a few years earlier; how did they become bulletproof so quickly? Here was the dean of small government, yet he could not get rid of a single federal bureaucracy (not a single one). What chance does a Republican president and congress have in 2012? If your answer is people weren't fearing for their lives when Energy and Education were created, then wouldn't that made it that much easier to dismantle either or both?

oof oof| 3.9.10 @ 10:53PM

The Congress was divided under Reagan, with the Dems in control of the House, and the GOP having the Senate thru 1986. Tough to abolish cabinet dept. that way. Besides, Reagan was pretty busy righting the ship after the disaster known as Carter, and destroying the USSR.
Mission accomplished on those, tho

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 11:04AM

American cars from glory to disaster (Braintree Forum) | Go Cheep Flights links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Results for cheep flights Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) Related posts on American I am an American. | Moe_Lane's blog American Spirit? « Volatility The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition Related posts on Braintree UnitedHealth Group: Strategic Account Executive- OptumHea … Making Cents: Financial planning myths, truths « Finance Business ……

grumpygresh| 3.9.10 @ 11:28AM

Using the prohibition analogy, perhaps we will see the rise of "black market" medicine. Under 0bamacare, physicians accepting government insurance (exchanges co-ops) may not privately contract with those patients for covered services. As the rates go down, there may be more willingness to circumvent the system to more easily gain access. Patients may use an alias or state that they are not US citizens to enter into a private agreement with a physician. Physicians may also promote un-covered services (experimental or not medically necessary) that are actually indicated as a way of circumventing the system. Of course, there will also be physicians that opt out of the whole system and others that go to Costa Rica.

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 11:45AM

The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…turmoil of Ireland and Germany, among others. With unerring pr ecision, Irish and German immigrants were singled out from the European … See the original post here: The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition tags: european, immigrants-were, irish, should-answer, the-nation, the-same, turmoil, unerring-precision | I am an American. | Moe_Lane's blog The American Spectator :…

maverick muse| 3.9.10 @ 11:50AM

TEMPERANCE.

"But doubtless as good a place as any to start is with the birth in 1873 of the Women's Christian Temperance Union. The objective, as is the case with government health care enthusiasts today, was portrayed as noble. Alcohol, the group believed, was tearing families -- and hence the larger society -- apart."

These women had a point since many households were run by hard working alcoholics, whether upper class or labor. Labor had a point against abuse, as well, but going to the other extreme (as Temperance shakers went) only ended up hurting as badly but differently, and worse for effectively burgeoning illicit fortunes.

Legislating prohibition as if exemplifying 'temperance' did not allow CHOICE. Authoritarians might presume a facade of 'temperance' but that would not temper the authoritarians to actually limit and separate their own power with others in order to protect the public. No, they would only protect themselves and their corrupt interests and abusive powers.

ObamaCare would play on both the ignorant and the wise public just as alcohol plays to a drunk who abuses spouse, children and the public at large.

We face the need to temper unconstitutional authoritarians drunk with outrageously abusive powers.

WHY hasn't anyone already exposed the UNCONSTITUTIONAL components in Obama's healthcare legislation? Where is the organization from Conservative opponents of socialism prepared to PROSECUTE the sponsors of this audaciously unconstitutional legislation?

HR3200 mandated that all Americans be implanted with a chip, and to imprison the opposition. WHERE is the proof that these two measures are not in the augmented bill grown to nearly 3000 pages now preparing for a vote?

Roy| 3.9.10 @ 1:17PM

Got any evidence for the conspiracy theory?

Akaky| 3.9.10 @ 12:01PM

I was just thinking that Ross Perot was wrong back in 1992 when he said that the giant sucking sound we’d hear in the future was the sound of American jobs heading off to Mexico. Nope, that sound will be, in fact, the sound of Grandmas from the length and breadth of this our Great Republic toddling off to one of the scores of new hospitals in Tijuana, Nogales, and Ciudad Juarez that will cater to Americans getting around the restrictions of ObamaCare. Yes indeed, the President’s health care plan will do wonders for the Mexican economy, no two ways about it. And it’s not like you couldn’t tell this was going to happen, is it? Let’s face reality: if Grandma needs a hip replacement, she’s going to get one whether the government says she can have one or not. This is the United States of America, boys and girls, not Canada or the UK-we don’t do queue here, unless it’s to see Brad and Angelina. And what if Grandma or Grandpa needs some expensive drug that the government says they can’t have? There are some 800,000 hard-core heroin users and about as many crack addicts in this country, along with millions of casual users of those drugs, in addition to millions of marijuana users, and the DEA and your local police department’s narcotics squad cannot make a significant dent in the traffic in those drugs despite their already Herculean efforts. Given they can’t stop the flow of already illegal drugs into the country, what happens when Lipitor and Crestor are the drugs of choice for millions and millions of people? The DEA, Customs, and the Coast Guard will not be able to stop the tidal wave of unofficial pharmaceuticals popping over the border. Give extra patent protection for Big Pharma as the price of their support? Fat lot it’ll do them once the illegal labs in Colombia and Venezuela get a hold of their new drugs and start making knockoffs for a fifth of the price. Think it ain’t gonna happen, folks? Who’s kidding who now? So kudos to the President and to Congress as well, for coming up with what, if it passes, will be the most unenforceable law passed in the United States since Prohibition reared its ugly head.

Roy| 3.9.10 @ 1:18PM

That's for as long as we can afford medical care in Mexico.

Bruce| 3.9.10 @ 12:02PM

In 1746, the English - having had enough of the Scottish heathens to their north - proscribed the Scots from exercising any form of national identity, to include the highland bagpipes and their beloved kilts. They were further proscribed from carrying their claymore swords, and limited to carrying a small utility knife.

I see more parallels there than I do with Prohibition in the US.

The Scots handled it in their own way - they went to war, and eventually the hated English were beaten. I rather think that sort of tactic is becoming more and more viable in this country every day, as the donks and Presbo continue to turn aside OUR national identity and rights.

FREEDOM!

Akaky| 3.9.10 @ 12:05PM

Just as a matter of curiosity, has anyone else noticed the same thing about the Prohibition Amendment and the Volstead Act? While both forbid the making, selling, and transportation of alcoholic beverages, neither the amendment nor the act actually forbids people to drink liquor. I always thought that was a little odd.

Yosemeti Sam| 3.9.10 @ 12:08PM

Repeal BHOcare?

Not been legislated yet.

May the power of prayers across America STOP
this SOCIALISM in the guise of LIBERAL sop
egalitarianism.

Flock back to the caves - ye LIBERAL con artists!

FawnridgeFarm| 3.9.10 @ 12:11PM

How sad that most comments here reflect acceptance that the passage of socialized medicine is a foregone conclusion. Discussing the repeal of legislation not yet enacted into law is nothing more a tacit admission of defeat. It is also reminiscent of an attitude once pervasive among "sunshine soldiers and summer Patriots", at least to those of us who still remember our American history. Folks, this discussion would better serve America were it about preventing the unconstitutional passage of socialized medicine instead.

Indy Voter| 3.9.10 @ 1:27PM

FawnridgeFarm, I'm with you...take a look at hillbuzz, readers there are still working to stop this bill from passing and are formulating a plan, they are mostly Dems / Independents who think very differently from the GOP
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/03/09.....-9th-2010/

Fred| 3.9.10 @ 12:13PM

The Dems have already fixed it so it CAN'T be repealed by inserting wording within the bill originally passed by the Senate specifically to preclude repeal by a future Congress. Even that is unconstitutional, but then again, so is almost the whole bill. Does any of that matter? Not a wit, they're going to pass it anyway, and we're all going to be stuck with it, period. Anybody thinks there COULD EVEN BE a repeal is spitting into the wind. There won't be a repeal because the weak spined GOP, I refuse to call them Republicans, does not have the guts to roll it back.

maverick muse| 3.9.10 @ 12:17PM

George S

Reagan established the Dept. of Education.

As with other socialist permeation in our government augmenting bureaucracies from BOTH parties, the false premise becomes policy: bigger is better solving problems with "the best of intentions".

Note the odious results from both Reagan's administrative gift of the Dept. of Education with its current "safe school czar" pervert, and the progressive Bush "no child left behind" rationalization that the fault for today's illiterate high school graduates (and the high drop out rate) is all the onus of teachers and educational institutions. WAKE UP. These new bureaucratic legislative measures have not fixed anything, but have made things worse. The failing students are not succeeding when they fail to produce their own dedication to study. The obvious link with parents who fail to integrate successful study habits at home is totally ignored. Already, schools offer pre-school and after-school care providing supervised study time to do the homework assignments before going home or to class. Federally subsidized liberal programs provide these measures for those in poverty. Schools have part-time kitchen, custodial and teacher's aide positions for unemployed parents who need their children to get more scholarly help with tutors than the parents can oblige. That students do not succeed to become LITERATE to read in school is their own family's fault when they don't dedicate themselves to reading. Free television teaches viewers reading lessons. The schools move through curriculum at a snail's pace, so it isn't as if things are too difficult to achieve today. Students COULD get help understanding assignments at school from their teacher if they just ask. Those who don't try to succeed and refuse to patter their own efforts with "diligence" do fail. There are winners and loses in life, and pretending that dedication doesn't matter, and practicing federally mandated politically correct endorsement of failing efforts from students/parents in order to avoid discomfort only makes things worse FOR EVERYONE.

Back to healthcare, this generation of youth are the first to be raised on perscription drugs altering their neurology. And the advancement of the pharmaceutical industry ruling over the population will only augment the social problems we experience from a population that can not and will not naturally concentrate in thought. And the public school system has only encouraged the drugging of America in order to keep order.

This is not going well culturally. And it won't end well through Statist Care that endorses implanting chips in the entire population.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.9.10 @ 1:11PM

Maverick...

You write:

"Reagan established the Dept. of Education. "

Sorry, but not so. Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979.

Flatdog| 3.9.10 @ 12:39PM

If you want to know why it will be impossible to revoke Obamacare, you only have to take a look at the British National Health Service (NHS). It is a garantuan monster of an organisation, and only employs fewer people than the Chinese Red Army and the Indian National Railway. One in every 23 British workers work for the NHS.

A similar organisation in the US would employ about 7 to 8 million people, each of whom have a vote. It would be a brave politician indeed (or an incredibly stupid one) to pull the plug on their jobs. Most of the workers would vote Democrat, anyway, which is probably the main (hidden) aim of Obamacare.

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 12:47PM

I find it extremely disheartening that people are stuck on emotions instead of debate, stuck on easy "catch" words, instead of reality, and would rather not find a solution other than "You suck!"

In other words, the health care bill is almost exactly what health insurers wanted, not Obama who prefers the more a single payer system that saves/conserves $400 billion every year.

The real problem is the infusion of corporate $'s into the debate-over $1 billion in the last 2 years spent by HMO's on lobbyists and political coffers of Senators.

In this sense, the whole article and comments are misleading and completely off target.

JP| 3.9.10 @ 3:23PM

"In other words, the health care bill is almost exactly what health insurers wanted, not Obama who prefers the more a single payer system that saves/conserves $400 billion every year. "

Are you saying that the President is the victim here? You seem blissfully unaware of the fact that the President got the insurance companies to sign off on ObamaCare as early as April of 09.

Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 8:57PM

Every politicians is a willing victim to corporate finance $'s. They dictate the debate. that's just how it is. I think you have to get to the root of the problem before you can fix it.

using politically charged catch phrases deconstructs the debate into political talking points and does not solve the issue.

Dave Williams| 3.9.10 @ 12:51PM

Let us not forget that during prohibition, the government caused somewhere around 10,000 deaths by deliberately poisoning alcohol to discourage its use. This is only slightly less dangerous than what today's goo-goo types have in mind for us regarding health care.
On an unrelated note, citing the emergence of NASCAR as a positive development of prohibition is dead wrong. In these days of tightening oil supplies, such deliberate and frivolous waste of fuel is unconscionable.

Northern Rebel| 3.9.10 @ 1:15PM

So while we're waiting to repeal Obamacare, will Dr Kildare, and Marcus Welby enrichen themselves ala Capone, with black market health care?

Oops, I guess I'm dating myself!

I mean Dr. Phil, and Dr.J?

Oh, never mind!

JimP| 3.9.10 @ 1:22PM

Ahh, the Thompson Sub-Machinegun. The - 'Tommy Gun', aka: 'Chopper'; 'Chicago Typewriter'; 'The Gun That Made the Twenties Roar'! Love the nicknames for this awsome weapon. I wonder what the weapon that will symbolize the ObamaCare (OC) era will be?

OC era bootleggers will be running patients to offshore ships, islands, countries with doctors who practice without federal BS. NO death panels there and prices will be lower. A whole new industry will spring up and boost the underground economy during the The Great Obama Depression. Dems seeking healthcare offshore will likely get keel-hauled en route.

Bob| 3.9.10 @ 1:47PM

Lord, what are you drinking? Perhaps you are living proof that we should not have repealed prohibition. The problem with the health care bill is cost. Since when have either Democrats or Republicans cared about cost? The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't funded. The tax cuts under both Reagan and Bush were not revenue neutral and until Obama, created the largest increases in our debt in history.

Prohibition was about limiting liberty just as being anti-abortion is about limiting liberty. Both were in the name of creating better and more moral families. The cost of health care is in the future and no one thinks about future costs unless there are political points to be made.

I wish you continued success in your intoxication efforts. However, next time try writing a column when you are sober.

JP| 3.9.10 @ 2:41PM

"The cost of health care is in the future and no one thinks about future costs unless there are political points to be made."

The costs to the individuals and companies begin immediatly via premium increases and fees. The costs to doctors and hospitals begin immediatly through "cost curbing" (ie lower reimbursements). The costs to those employed in the Health Insurance fields will begin immediatly through lay-offs (not all health insurance firms got the sweet heart deals that Blue Cross and United Health got) Many insurance firms will drop health insurance altogether. And for seniors, thier costs will go up with the rescinding of Medicare Advantage and $500 billion benefit reductions. These are just a few of the highlights of the Senate version of ObamaCare.

Bob| 3.9.10 @ 3:18PM

JP, it doesn't work that way in the real world. There are currently 40-60% raises in many states before this plan even takes effect because young, health individuals are not buying health insurance. State plans must have increases approved by the state insurance commissioners (I know, I've been through that process in virtually all of the states), and that takes a lot of time and experience. The more companies that drop insurance, the greater the call for Medicare for all -- it will work in the opposite direction. Seniors will not see the $500 billion in benefit reductions because of Medicare Advantage because very few procedures will not be covered. It takes years to see those things.

I was in the group insurance business and your scenario is just not realistic. You've been listening to Fox News too much.

Jeffrey Lord| 3.9.10 @ 4:18PM

Hic...

Bob| 3.9.10 @ 4:20PM

Gesundheit....

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 2:27PM

Avis Budget Group announces pricing of $450 Million of senior … | Senior Health Wisdo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…10, 2010, subject to customary closing conditions Read the original here: Avis Budget Group announces pricing of $450 Million of senior … Related Blogs on The New The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition Brazil: The New Home of Financial Innovation? Now You're The New Dork (Video) Related Posts McClatchy Announces Pricing of $875 Million of Its 11.50% Senior ……

JP| 3.9.10 @ 2:32PM

I remember waaay back in the 80s how many in the GOP said they would not rest until Roe was overturned. Now, 30 years later an entire industry (and careers) are devoted to over-turning Roe with no end in sight. Of course Roe is at heart a judicial matter; but, 5 Republican Presidents have appointed 7 Justices which approved of Roe in one form or another. And I can't help but wonder how many so-called conservatives quietly hope Roe remains in prepetuity. It would be a career killer if it was overturned.

Which leads me to this question: Does the RNC and GOP really mind if ObamaCare passes? From a purely tactical point of view, the longer this thing festers the more seats the GOP will pick up come the November Midterms - and beyond. And once ObamaCare passes, the popular revulsion will be so great that one could say it will be the "gift that keeps on giving" (as far as the GOP is concerned).

I know this point of view is a very cynical one. But from a purely political standpoint, what incentive does the GOP have in ending a program that will push millions of voters thier way?

DC Goodman| 3.9.10 @ 5:36PM

The most consistently held value in American history is that of personal Liberty. It transcended my Christian values and those of my pagan fellow American. We are always in trouble when we trample on personal Liberty.

We trampled it with slavery and prohibition. We trample it with social security, medicare, medicaid, drug prohibitions, gun control and it will be further trampled with Obamacare. Our trampling created the corrupted healthcare system, the blood thirsty drug lords of Mexico and the federal workers enriched by our tax payments.

Will we ever wise up and leave each other alone?

somnolence| 3.9.10 @ 5:57PM

I'm so glad I retired last year at 55 after saving enough money to do so. I don't have an income other than savings and I've resolved to just pay the fine when all this comes down the pike. It will sure be a lot less than buying the farce. By the way, millions will do likewise.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.9.10 @ 6:19PM

Well,
None of us has read the entire bill yet. None of us knows what tiny little phrases buried in the text will be used to try to end our republic.
This we do know:

We know the players and their goals. We know their arrogant attitude toward those of us who make the country run, one paycheck to an employee at a time. We know they want to degrade and "humble" us...or perhaps "house-break" us.

We also know that the leftists, (as opposed to Liberals), have been quietly promoting racial slavery by building a multi-generational welfare class among minorities. That welfare class sees absolutely no option except to squat in their "ghettos of the mind and spirit".

We older folks have more or less gone along with a grumble or two, not truly realising that we have become "enablers" of these leftist bastards...until just recently. The leftists have finally rubbed our noses in the poop, literally, with glee.

And look where we are.

I personally want to apologise to you younger people. We are on the verge of putting you in the middle of a civil war that will determine whether freedom and personal hopes and dreams as envisioned by our forefathers will be something you too can enjoy for a life time as many of us have.

These communists, (pardon the shorthand), are going to try to break you. They are going to try to make your "careers" a nasty chore instead of a self-directed vocation utilizing your best talents and skills....that you decide to employ in your own way.

In short terms...these communists, (pardon the shorthand), want you to be pliable, frightened, and alone in your thoughts and fears.
So.
The one last gift we old fartes can give you, is our outright refusal to let these communists take over your futures.
We can refuse to comply, and the economy crashes in a way that will make the great depression look like a sunday school pik-nik...though for a shorter period.
I spoke yesterday about "push-back is going to be a bitch".
I don't truly know what ways we shall choose to stop them. I don't know what precise methods will be employed to stop them.
But
Freedom and Liberty for the rest of history is at stake.
We know that "America" is the last hope on this earth. These days, we still have the power to stop this slide into oblivion.
One way or another we will use that power.
You have our word of honor.

varment| 3.9.10 @ 8:40PM

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it"

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 9:44PM

Rather Poignant… « Truth, Lies and In Between links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…1idvet 18:44 pm Here’s a rather poignant article that discusses Prohibition and compares it to Obamacare. Good stuff, with a little history lesson. Pay attention liberal morons. Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition By Jeffrey Lord It was called the “nullification contagion.” And it was a battle royal. Literally. Once upon-a-time in America, a tumultuous battle over the freedom to…

Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 10:28PM

ADVANCE Blog for PAs : Stronger Primary Care Requires More PAs, NPs | Educational Mon links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Related Blogs on Actually Limit FDA Reviewing Product Liability Issues With Fosomax « Legal Blog … ADVANCE Blog for PAs : Stronger Primary Care Requires More PAs, NPs The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition Related Posts SAVE HIGHER EDUCATION IN ILLINOIS NOW | CitizenSpeak MATR News: Study of Health Care – Montana's Medical Education … Ancient Roman Education…

Squibster| 3.9.10 @ 11:41PM

Ken (Old Texican),

You pretty much covered it all in your comment. Here’s the thing that has me worried why is Obama pushing this health care bill so hard? Does anyone really think he is that concerned over the uninsured? So why the push, because he needs this bill to be passed so he can advance to the next step of his agenda which I believe is nearly a carbon copy of the Nazi Aktion T4 Euthanasia Program spanning from October 1939 through August 1941 and responsible for the deaths of 275,000 Germans deemed by a five member panel to be unfit for life.

It set the precedent for mass murder by the Nazis through out Europe, the Ukraine, Russia, etc. In 1935 Hitler told the Reich Doctors' Leader, Dr Gerhard Wagner, that the question could not be taken up in peacetime: "Such a problem could be more smoothly and easily carried out in war", he said. He intended, he wrote, "in the event of a war radically to solve the problem of the mental asylums”. The outbreak of war in 1939 thus opened up for Hitler the possibility of carrying out a policy he had long favored.

Not wanting the Federal Government controlling our health care pales in comparison to the very real possibility of death panels and the politically incorrect being terminated, or as they were called in Germany the “useless eaters”, serving no useful purpose to society. At T4 a card was marked with a red slash across an open box when a person was being processed into the facility, this meant that that person was to be exterminated immediately. A blue dash bought you some time but the inevitable outcome was the same.

I am sure that these clauses are in this health care bill somewhere I just can’t locate them, the wording has been changed enough I believe to conceal them from the general public.
There are 2,407 pages to this health care bill that is equivalent to nearly three times the text for Leo Tolstoy’s novel War & Peace! It is time to scrape this sucker and get it off the table. If this bill is rammed down our throats I think it goes without saying that shortly thereafter we will be involved in some sort of a national emergency that requires martial law. Having the same legal precedent that Hitler had with their new health care bill being law, ( I use the term Law lightly), the United States can and will gather up and exterminate the majority of the populous of this country, albeit legal just as it was in 1939 Germany.

Here is the website for the bill passed December 24, 2009 in the U.S. Senate. It wasn’t as available the second time around as it was initially when it first came under public scrutiny, makes me wonder why how bout you?

http://democrats.senate.gov/re.....passed.pdf

I understand if it does not pass Rohm Emmanuel and Obama are going to use an Authoritarian Decree and pass it as an Executive Order which is against Constitutional law, and I believe to be a treasonable offense. He’s all about getting this bill passed and the means he is willing to undertake should be a red flag warning to us all.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the Gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

Honor is a gift a man gives to himself.

Rob Roy

Hold true the Constitution and keep the faith, may the good Lord preserve us to these ends. Peace be with you.

Squibster| 3.9.10 @ 11:51PM

Correction to web addy for health care bill, incorrect addy posted with initial comment, interesting no?

http://democrats.senate.gov/re.....passed.pdf

Let's see if this posts in its entirety! Otherwise its a useless addy, here goes again.

Squibster| 3.9.10 @ 11:59PM

Okay I will try writting it out and not pasting it this time, last shot!

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-

protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.

pdf

I double spaced the addy and seperated it, its a long one if in presents in its entirety this time just put it together/copy and paste it and it should work.

Squibster| 3.10.10 @ 12:03AM

Yea! The correct addy posted, go check it out this is one monsterous all over the place legislative bill it is worth the perusal for sure, and yes it will most definately cause a headache if read for to long
a duration. See Ya

Pingback| 3.10.10 @ 1:24AM

Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…J.P. Freire) Britain could force owners to microchip their dogs (Associated Press – Raphael G. Satter) *Must Read* Krugman Got It Wrong (Forbes – Richard A. Epstein) Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition (American Spectator – Jeffrey Lord) *Must Read* Gun Owners — To the Back of the Bus! (Human Events – Skip Coryell) Pol calls beer raid ‘ridiculous use of…

Bill, rom WV| 3.10.10 @ 6:34PM

The states are voting everyday to declare sate sovereignty ( I think it is up to 33 states now) to "Opt-out" of anything Obama passes anyway!
The states know (except stupid ones like Maryland)
that they will never be able to afford to cover the costs that they MUST incur under this plan!
Medicare cuts alone are 500 billion in this plan!
the REALITY is that once an endowment is put in place(and that is what this is ) it is very hard to repeal.
And, as I have said from the start, ACCESS to health care is not RECEIVING health care !
Just because I have access to a bank does not mean I get the money that is in it for free!

MRD

wow| 10.17.11 @ 1:00PM

This is the 2nd moment I've noticed your web sites within the last few weeks. Looks like I ought to take note of it.
actos lawsuit

Pingback| 3.10.10 @ 11:25PM

The Green Geneva Auto Show | Blog Automotive | Daihatsu Automotive Marque links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Auto Show | Blog Automotive Related Blogs on Known As The acidkid.com » Blog Archive » Also known as the Google Unveiled its Online Store Known as Google Apps Marketplace The American Spectator : Repeal: Obamacare as the New Prohibition Related Posts Preview Tokyo Motor Show: Boxes from Daihatsu | Automotive Reviews Geneva 2010: I.D.E.A Institute's SOFIA sedan – Automotive News … Hemmings Auto…

Tony| 3.26.10 @ 1:31PM

I want to know who voted for this atrocity so I will know not to vote for them. Repeal it! The gov. has no right to force people to buy something they do not want nor think they can afford or fine them because they do not choose to. I am a so-called "liberal" but will vote Republican if it means getting rid of Obamacare.

Pingback| 3.31.10 @ 2:27PM

Obamacare as the New Prohibition « Truth2Freedom's Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Chritian Maturity & The Heart God Revives About Us Subscribe to feed Obamacare as the New Prohibition March 31, 2010 in Truth2Freedom Headline Alerts http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/09/repeal-obamacare-as-the-new-pr Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) Global Warmists Feel a Chilly Wind Who Killed Obamacare? While America Slept No Title Categories Select Category…

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 11:59AM

This is the best post on this topic i have ever read.I am really very impressed with it.Keep bloggingmesothelioma attorney

malibu real estate| 10.11.11 @ 2:12AM

It’s hard to search out knowledgeable folks on this matter, however you sound like you already know what you’re talking about! Thanks

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:37PM

This is a good post. This post gives truly quality information. I’m definitely going to look into it. Really very useful tips are provided here. Thank you so much. Keep up the good works.zoloft lawsuit

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 12:37PM

Hey i just visited at your blog and i really like the content of your blog...Keep writing again and again...I really appreciate your work....Thanks a lot
L Tod Schlosser

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:47PM

Your internet site is invariably one of the most efficient . As a whole impression of the site is probably delightful .
yaz recall

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:43AM

actually what I was looking for, and I am glad to came here! Thanks for sharing the such information with us

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 9:02PM

I desired to thank you for this exceptional read !! I absolutely enjoyed every single small little bit of it. I’ve you bookmarked your internet site to look at out the new stuff you post.
fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:27PM

Its really Great to see this site.Give us more interesting and informative stuff
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:44AM

MrI think youve made some truly interesting points. Not too many people would actually think about this the way you just did.
Actos side effects

yanyan| 10.20.11 @ 4:26PM

A very good and informative article indeed.I am very much satisfied for the great technology is visible in this blog.Nice and informative website by the way.

accident attorney dallas

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 2:48PM

It was called the "nullification contagion." SURELY, YOU WILL LEARN THIS TOPIC IF YOUR READ. THIS HAS INSPIRED ME. THANKS

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 1:36PM

Hi, There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points.this is very useful information. I actually appreciate your own position and I will be sure to come back here.

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:56AM

I will bookmark your blog and still have my pals visit here often. Thumbs up

filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:32AM

.This could be used for many purposes. Really nice and great and works really good with twitter threads.

zoloft lawsuit

Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 4:02AM

I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here! keep up the good work…
mesothelioma lawyer