-
When Terrorists Deny Each Other
May 7, 2013 | 166 comments
-
Barack Obama, Gun Enthusiast
February 4, 2013 | 130 comments
-
Principled Compromise
June 22, 2012 | 56 comments
-
Santorum’s College Lesson
February 29, 2012 | 102 comments
-
Letting Down the Tea Party
December 30, 2011 | 143 comments
The Obama Watch
Obamacare’s Preemptive Regulatory Strike
An administration that equates its taste for coercion and tyranny with benevolence.
(Page 2 of 2)
And what are food stamps if the food market “is not a market in which, if you go in and seek to obtain a product or a service you will get it even if you cannot pay?”
All of Verrilli’s attempted justifications for the insurance mandate could very well apply to food as well as health care. Arguably, they could apply to transportation and many other markets, too.
Even if those conditions did not exist in any other market, the government could create them by doing to another market what it did to health care: cause untenable economic conditions via a myriad of ill-conceived regulations. The issue is not the uniqueness of the health care market but the radical nature of the remedy the Obama administration and Democratic Congress imposed.
To accept the Obama administration’s argument for the individual mandate would be to accept the premise that Congress has the constitutional authority to shape any market to its liking by ordering into the market anyone whose participation would produce the outcome Congress wants.
Granting Congress the authority to preemptively regulate economic activity would give Washington compulsory powers far beyond anything the Constitution contemplates. And the Obama administration is attempting to achieve that authority by tricking the Supreme Court and the American people into believing that it is claiming no more power than it has already been given.
Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His Twitter ID is @Drewhampshire.
About the Author
Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His Twitter ID is @Drewhampshire.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (69) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Andrew Cline
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/29/obamacares-preemptive-regulato
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- We Have Her Example
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 3.29.12 @ 7:54AM
Bottom line is the health care law has zero Constitutional ground upon which to stand. It's pure control. The embodiment of the belief by liberals that the American people are too stupid to run their own lives and thus must be controlled "for their own good." The arguments before the Supreme Court are clearly showing this.
And on that note, why is Justice Kagan involved? Ethical requirements are that she recuse herself since she argued in support of the law on behalf of President Obama. The media jumps all over conservative justices with such a blatant conflict of interest, but utter silence regarding liberal justices.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.29.12 @ 9:02AM
The laws don't apply to liberal elites. They believe that they are bigger than the law.
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.29.12 @ 10:18AM
Does anyone believe that this former Coke Head Chicago Street Hustler/Bag Man for Daley, DOESN'T have his fellow Scumbags out there, looking for ANYTHING they can use as Blackmail against one of the 5 Justices NOT from the pages of an Orwellian Novel?
Does anyone believe that Herr Hussein will follow the Law, this November? Or will his UNION CIVILIAN ARMY, with the help of the Bounty Hunting, Voting Rights Violating New Black Panthers, use every Crooked/Illegal Trick in their Arsonal, to STEAL this Election? Slashed Tires. Jammed Voting Machine. Broken Windows. Voter Fraud. Liberal Judges leaving the Voting places in Black Precincts open, way past the deadline, so that everyone gets to Vote twice. And, of course, my personal favourite - NOT COUNTING the Votes of our Military Personnel, serving in Combat Zones. (But don't you DARE question their Patriotism!)
Everybody KNOWS why that Black Punkass THIEF Attorney General doesn't want Voter I.D. even though everybody in the Country who wants to go inside the Justice Dept. to see this MFer, needs a PHOTO I.D. to get through the door.
This Election will be Armageddon. America's Cities will Burn. The Dictators' Street gangs will take to the streets, as Dictators' Street Gangs are wont t do. The "Break the Law with Impunity" Black Panthers, will become the Government Sanctioned Official Poll Watchers/Head Breakers. There will be FRAUD on a Scale that would make I'mahandajob, in Iran, green with envy. It will be absolutely Putinesque, as will be Dear Leader's Syrian inspired Crackdown, on any and all, Dissent. It runs through his Vein, in his Muslim Blood.
The 68 Chicago Riots? Occupy Wall Street?
Those are like Chuck E Cheese Birthday Parties, compared to what we're looking at.
I'm thinking: Newark/Watts/Rodney King and Kristallnacht COMBINED.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for" (For a very long time).
Anyone believe that "WE" will just go quietly in to the night?
Neither do I.
Dmac | 3.29.12 @ 10:58AM
Being from Texas things may be somewhat skewed here, but from the people I talk to and reading local papers there's no way Obama even comes close to carrying Texas. So my feeling is that if Obama somehow does get re-elected we only have a few choices.
We can demand that the governmors convene a Continental Congress.
Some states may choose to secede.
Or, we do what we should have done in the first place, have a revolution and clean house, every nook and cranny , every department, and every branch of government.
Should we allow Obama to have four more years he will most likely fire most genrals in our armed forces and keep only those that would be loyal to him, not the Constitution or the people. If we allowed that to happen then we would have to take the option of revolution off the table.
Remember, those that supported revolution in the early 1770's were not the majority, but they were right. When good men do nothing, bad things happen.
Purp| 3.29.12 @ 2:40PM
You tried that once, remember? What a dumb idea ... but you can adopt a red flag to symbolize the Red State Commies you are - completely un-American.
Dmac | 3.29.12 @ 3:22PM
I'll take that as a compliment Purp. The patriots of the late 1700's were called traitors to the British throne, so do you really think it bothers me if I'm considered a traitor by you, Obama, Reid or Boehnor? I rather consider it an honor.
Larry| 3.29.12 @ 10:35PM
YOU, Purp, calling anyone a Commie is like the pot calling the kettle black.
SUBVET| 3.29.12 @ 12:50PM
TLP...............as I look through the periscope and announce "fire one" ....great post.
Purp| 3.29.12 @ 2:36PM
True to form, you're as paranoid as always....
junkyard infidel| 3.29.12 @ 3:45PM
true to form, you're as vacuous as always....
Teaghan| 3.29.12 @ 3:28PM
About Kagen recusing herself, that is why they first jumped all over Thomas, wanting him to recuse himself because his wife worked for someone they looked upon as being a conflict of interest. They knew about Kagen, what she had done and that we knew she should recuse herself.
Appleby| 3.29.12 @ 8:02AM
Does anybody remember "We had to destroy the village in order to save it"?
There is hope that people can come to their senses about these things, though. Our current city government has brought the "public sector" [government] unions to heel, as the liberals said they never could or would; as the few KKK protests have proven lately, there is a lot to be said for a large crowd of people on the other side standing in silent disapproval all around you, encouraging you to go shut up and go home. The librarians have apparently seen the light too, and realized that nobody cares if they stay on strike until they freeze to death on the picket lines, and are voting on the take it or leave it contract they were offered two weeks ago.
All it takes, apparently, is for the people to realize we have power and we CAN stop the gravy train. Keep it going, folks. It's working.
albert constantine jr.| 3.29.12 @ 6:36PM
I believe the village was Ben Tre.
Appleby| 3.29.12 @ 9:41PM
On March 16, 1968, a company of U.S. soldiers went into the village of My Lai 4, in Vietnam. A soldier later testified, "The order we were given was to kill and destroy everything that was in the village. It was clearly explained that there were to be no prisoners."
J Kelley| 3.29.12 @ 8:14AM
This is a good example of only Judges who believe in the constitution should be appointed. There is no question in the media how the 4 Liberal Judges will decide. But they are not sure how the Conservative Judes will rule. That tells the whole story, the media should not be able to know what a Judge will do. If Obamo gets to appoint one more Judge, it will be over for a free Country.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.29.12 @ 9:04AM
The four liberal judges are not judges. They are political hacks.
kwan| 3.29.12 @ 11:59AM
As Verrilli's arguments began to be seen as nonsensical and came under attack, leftist-BORG robot Kagan fearing that all was not well chirped in to try and rescue Verrilli who was doing his best to defend this unconstitutional assault on the American people. Without a doubt you can be sure whatever unconstitutional law Obama and the Democrats would try to implement these four leftist cheerleaders (Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) would claim it was constitutional.
JP| 3.29.12 @ 10:44AM
Based upon the questioning it appears a 5-4 majority in favor of striking down the IM is already established. Justice Kennedy appears to be in the conservative camp. Despite the media's claim to the contrary, the pressure will be on Breyer to join the conservatives. Gingsburg, on the face of it, perhaps would join the majority if the opinion doesn't scrap ObamaCare in its entirety.
We could very well see a 7-2 majority opinion which declares the IM unconstitutional, or a 5-4 decision which declares the entire law unconstitutional. Roberts may lean towards the former, as it allows the court to offer a strong opinion and it cannot be blamed for playing politics.
Making the IM unconstitutional while not touching the other 2700 pages of the law would put Congress it a bad position (not to mention the President). It would also focus the elections on ObamaCare (something the Dems wish to avoid at all costs).
Purp| 3.29.12 @ 2:44PM
The Country you live in and love is largely a result of the New Deal and some poor attempts to dismantle it by Reagan and the Bushes.
If the right-wing has it's way, you won't have any choice - you will do what your told or suffer the consequences. Republicans rule, Democrats socialize. Rulers don't like freedom for others.
Stan REdmond| 3.29.12 @ 3:10PM
It's always Bush's fault.
Nick| 3.29.12 @ 7:17PM
Wrong, again, Purp.
The Raw Deal nearly destroyed this great country.
It is still doing great damage, but, hasn't sunk us, yet.
Indiana Alex| 3.29.12 @ 7:28PM
It's telling that the most bankrupt programs in government are held in the most esteem by the left.
Appleby| 3.29.12 @ 9:43PM
No, it was not. The America I love was built by pioneers and patriots who lifted the boats by working in their own self-interest to make the world a better place. FDR didn't put in a single program, nor did LBJ, that did me a bit of good.
Gary| 3.30.12 @ 3:36AM
No, the country I love exists in spite of the New Deal and is the result of a vibrant, innovative, hard working private sector which O is now trying to regulate, direct, control, through every agency of the federal octopus. Absent private enterprise there would be no funding for all of your pet social programs which, by the way, have not reduced poverty, but which have contributed to the break down of the family, marriage, two parent households, especially among minorities. It ain't Utopia dude and the Euro trash who live your dream are now having to face the piper and have taken to the streets.
numbatdog| 3.29.12 @ 8:37AM
This case leaves me with a great sense of unease.
The supreme court justices are clearly among the brightest minds in the country.
And yet we know they will vote strictly along conservative / liberal lines on the healthcare matter despite the mountain of evidence it is unconstitutional.
What does this mean?
That the liberal judges are so sold on their ideology it trumps all argument to the contrary?
Why then argue at all? In fact you don't even need learned judges in the supreme court. Any appointees will do if they always vote along party lines.
I thought the supremes were better than this.
Alan| 3.29.12 @ 8:49AM
When supreme court justices cease defending the Constitution and BECOME the Constitution, then tyranny reigns.
My fear is that the 4 leftists vote to keep this abortion, the other 4 vote it needs to go and then we have one who will try to placate both sides with some kind of muddy, covoluted reasoning and we end up with a disaster. There is nothing difficult to figure out here, its blatantly unconstitutional and your one judge away from katy bar the door. The US Constitution is almost gone, just a couple more slats to kick out.
Clint| 3.29.12 @ 8:56AM
" Ron Paul rightly blasts ObamaCare as an “unconstitutional monstrosity” and yet we might see this week whether or not the Supreme Court agrees. As Dr. Paul has pointed out time and again, ObamaCare is but the latest example of a federal government that behaves as if the Constitution doesn’t exist."
RustyG| 3.29.12 @ 9:06AM
Any fear of the courts decision is misplaced.
How soon we forget......... the court now has a woman. Not just any woman, but a Latina woman whose UNIQUE wisdom producing life experiences will guide the court to justice and truth.
Rest easy my friends.
Larry| 3.29.12 @ 10:37PM
Sarc!
Rurik| 3.29.12 @ 9:40AM
According to the Verilli principle the Feds ought to mandate that every adult citizen own a working firearm and ammunition for self protection.
In fact, according to Justice Breyer, this idea would even be suppported by precedent in his beloved International Law, specifically Swiss practice.
Pecos Pete| 3.29.12 @ 10:15AM
Rurik: From your typewriter to King O's teleprompter!
Indiana Alex| 3.29.12 @ 10:03AM
For my money the entertainment of this case is found in the lefty blogs. Clearly liberals were not prepared for a legal challenge. They argue nothing about the constitutionality of the law, rather they suggest that conservatives want children to die in the streets.
Of course the top of the liberal class argues that the mandate is constitutional because "health care" used interchangeably with "health insurance" is different, therefore the constitution doesn't really apply.
Indiana Alex| 3.29.12 @ 10:05AM
And I suggest for next season SCOTUS should replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Paula Abdul. No decisions would be changed, but the ratings would likely be much higher.
Larry| 3.29.12 @ 10:38PM
Paula couldn't be any worse than Ginsburg. At least she would have stood up for our Constitution in Egypt.
Pecos Pete| 3.29.12 @ 10:20AM
The hidden ingredient in the mandate issue is if the federal government can mandate us to buy something we don't want, then the government can mandate that we NOT buy products we do want.
Example: light bulbs.
If the mandate passes the constitutional test we can expect that soon their will be various mandates NOT to buy tobacco, guns, ammunition, 450hp motors for vehicles (ummm?), ice cream.
vtwin| 3.29.12 @ 10:32AM
There are already mandates over what must and must-not, liability insurance to drive on public roads, immunization to attend public schools, prohibition against drugs, eating dogs…
Indiana Alex| 3.29.12 @ 10:47AM
You are confusing the powers of the state with the powers of the Federal Government.
The 10th amendment is pretty clear on the issue.
JP| 3.29.12 @ 10:47AM
But there are no mandates that force a citizen to purchase a product from another citizen. Auto liability insurance applies only to drivers. If a person doesn't drive, he doesn't buy. Liability insurance that covers, say sporting events, only apply to those hosting the event and not to all citizens or private companies. The government doesn't force all companies to purchase liability insurance to protect themselves against some future event.
Teaghan| 3.29.12 @ 3:35PM
And some children do NOT have vaccinations which are pushed by Big Pharma anyway.
mmercier| 3.29.12 @ 10:42AM
Private sector employment will remain stagnant until this law is repealed.
Same with dodd fagged.
The communists have achieved their goal.
vtwin| 3.29.12 @ 10:51AM
To the dismay of the fascists, private sector job growth under Obama has actually been “solid” for 23 straight months.
http://jerrykhachoyan.com/job-.....een-solid/
http://www.examiner.com/libera.....bama-photo
mmercier| 3.29.12 @ 10:59AM
Delusional.
I hang with frigging pirates now.
We all used to have real jobs... for the last few decades. There is no work if you are not An immigrant willing to work for a wage that barely covers your rent and fuel.
Those would be the illegals mowing your lawn.
SUBVET| 3.29.12 @ 12:46PM
TLP.........illeagals mowing your lawn I resent that statment.
Indiana Alex| 3.29.12 @ 11:22AM
It's almost amazing to imagine such a high unemployment rate, disregarding the shrinkage of the labor force, could somehow be the result of "solid" job growth...
Until one understands the comparative measures of success when trying to spin the results of yet another example of liberal economic policy failure.
JP| 3.29.12 @ 12:45PM
Love your sources - 2 blogs. Impeccable.
Indiana Alex| 3.29.12 @ 1:11PM
Having now read the two articles you sighted as the basis for claiming "solid" private sector job growth, it has become even more clear that you don't have much of a clue about any of this, and are content to repeat talking points rather than try to understand reasonable positions for or against any policy.
Congratulations, you've once again proven your liberal credentials.
Teaghan| 3.29.12 @ 3:35PM
You actually believe this? My goodness.
mmercier| 3.29.12 @ 10:52AM
It remains to be determined if a population with the ability to bear arms will allow their overthrow from within.
The Romans did. We will likewise follow their lead.
Brian Mc| 3.29.12 @ 4:44PM
God, please forbid it. I, for one, will be dragged kicking and screaming, both guns blazing into this altruistic "hope and change".
Bill| 3.29.12 @ 10:50AM
The SC must Overturn Obamacare and the Congress should repeal it.
Sue| 3.29.12 @ 11:29AM
Yesterday, Justice Scilia opined that reading the PPCAPA violated the 8th amendment. My question is, "why isn't living under it violating the 8th amendment?" To hell with reading it.
Sue| 3.29.12 @ 11:32AM
Everyone in the Administation keeps harping that young people aren't paying into the system. What the friggin' heck is the Medicare tax being taken out their pay and the taxes being paid to provide Medicaid insurance for indigents? No one on the Supreme Court asked this question. If the government is so concerned about the uninsured, why didn't they just raise taxes and be done with it? That isn't their objective. Controlling a demand market where they parce out goodies to their cronies is what they want. We are all fools if we can't see this for what it is.
Pecos Pete| 3.29.12 @ 11:47AM
Sue: You are correct. If Obamacare falls, then King O and his cohorts in Congress will very likely move to put everybody on Medicare and raise the Medicare payroll deduction. Result: single payer health insurance. Not quite Obamacare, but damn near.
Pecos Pete| 3.29.12 @ 11:51AM
As for Medicaid, that's the health insurance causing states to go bankrupt. King O will kill it and have everyone, including indigents and illegals, covered with Medicare. We have to be fair, don't ya know.
Teaghan| 3.29.12 @ 3:38PM
Because it isn't all about "healthcare' It's about control over our lives in many areas. We don't know what's in that bill. Our REPRESENTATIVES don't know what's in it for God's sake! Many signed it anyway and now look what we have. No, this isn't about our health folks.
Ken| 3.29.12 @ 12:45PM
What gets me is that Congress could implement Obamacare Constitutionally by simply setting up a system like Social Security and imposing a tax. That's what all the back and forth about tax vs. penalty is about. But they don't have the courage to do that and so they try to pass it off as something else which is politically palatable. What a bunch of weenies.
cicero| 3.29.12 @ 1:08PM
This whole thing got started with the mantra that our health care system was broken. That was the big lie. The American health care system was working just fine. Anyone who could not afford health care was allowed to go into any hospital for treatment, and be treated. The rest of us, through our taxes and health insurance, picked up the shortfall. The only place where the system was broken was in the government provided programs, Medicare and Medicaide, where fully one third of all money paid out was for fraudulent claims. Rather than overturn the entire system, the government should have done away with both Medicare and Medicaide, and issued vouchers or tax credits for insurance. Couple that with crross state policies, competition in the market place, and the ability to buy what you needed, rather than what the government required you to buy, and the system would have continued on its way, as the best provider of the best health care in the world.
Lazy Jack | 3.29.12 @ 1:26PM
I wrote this in March 2010. Maybe, just maybe, the court will begin the process of repairing the damage done by that congress:
As a 20 year subscriber to The Economist I was stunned this week that the editors of the weekly would throw their lot in with the Modern American Socialists in supporting the American Healthcare Indenture. Specifically, the leader “Pass the Bill” from the March 20, 2010 edition was a testament to the gradual loss of direction at the paper. I cannot think of an opinion piece published by The Economist that is less grounded in facts and logic. It is as if the editors decided to copy an article out of Nylon or Teen Beat magazine and publish it.
Foregone is any fact check of the actual number of uninsured in the U.S. Absent is any understanding that the U.S. government already underwrites 50% of the healthcare cost in the U.S. and is therefore a massive part of the problem. Gone is any assessment of the distortionary effects of the existing massive government intervention in the market. For example, before 1965 and the enactment of the Medicare and Medicaid ‘reform’ programs health spending as a percent of GDP was 5.9% in the U.S. In 2007 it was 16.2% or a 174% increase. Life expectancy in the same period increased by a mere 11%. In fact, growth in life expectancy slowed from the prior 30 years. That is some return on investment.
In other words, the “basic decency” rule The Economist invoked appears to have slowed the rate of growth in American life expectancy. As with many things government, the path to #$#% is paved with good intentions. But, please, do not let critical thinking get in our way.
As of this writing, the bill is Law. For those of us who have read the U.S. constitution, it is very likely unconstitutional. In 1854 the Democrats passed a law enabling slavery in many of the territories west of the Mississippi. It was also unconstitutional and morally reprehensible, but was upheld by a U.S. Supreme Court filled with seven Democrats and two Republicans, who dissented. It took a war to remedy that terrible law. This law, despite The Economist’s sanguine endorsement, is pretty bloody awful in itself. The mandate to enter into a commercial contract amounts to an indenture of every U.S. citizen. The economic effects carry with them the risk of runaway debt, the associated currency contagion, and the potential to take 1-3% out of the world GDP growth annually. In other words, the happy endorsement may likely result in a poorer Britain. Because the U.S. will not fight another civil war over it, we will have to live with it for a very long time.
Had the editors of The Economist, and dozens of other members of the Fourth Estate, actually made time to examine the facts about it, perhaps the U.S. and the world would have been spared the potential economic disruptions that may accompany this bill. For The Economist’s past yeoman’s effort at championing free markets, I thank you. For this thoughtless, illogical, poorly constructed opinion, please accept my embarrassment on The Economist’s behalf.
Lazy Jack
Teaghan| 3.29.12 @ 3:39PM
Maybe they were threatened by soros or the administration.
Petronius| 3.29.12 @ 2:59PM
Nobody has ever mentioned the true goal behind liberalism: the attainment of living without having to compete and earn anything in a market setting. Liberals want perpetual kindergarten where government replaces "mommy" to succor the ignorant, indolent, incompetent, infantile slugs of society. When it collapses, we'll see who survives.
Brian Mc| 3.29.12 @ 4:57PM
Perpetual Kindergarten....I LOVE it. Hat's off to you, Petronius...once more you impress. And, as a closing note, great surmization by Lazy Jack above, much to ponder in the numbers and his profound thoughts concerning the situation.
ABNCP| 3.29.12 @ 4:10PM
Pretty much everything that comes our of Obamas mouth or from his administration is, misinformation, disinformation, half truths or dammed lies. I believe SCOTUS will take out Obama care period, but even if that does not happen Obama and his Democrat cohorts are going to lose the election. My take is that the Republicans get a majority of at least 65 seats in the Senate, remain in control of the house and Romney will be President. At that time Obama Care, if it is still in place will be gone. Over 60% of Americans want it the hell out of our lives along with everything else that incomptent disaster of a President and his administration has forced on us.
Appleby| 3.29.12 @ 9:48PM
Its all right there in Brave New World. If you can't read, it's available on iTunes. If you have a short attention span, read the chapter in which Mustapha Mond explains the whole concept to John Savage. You'll probably be surprised when you see when it was written.
Michele San Pietro| 3.29.12 @ 5:37PM
Obamacare is simply a monstrosity, we must stop it before it is too late.
Marty Noel| 3.29.12 @ 6:28PM
Well said. Perhaps this experience will cause our Congressional legislators to pay some attention to the legality of the laws they are proposing to implement. Good job, Sir.
albert constantine jr.| 3.29.12 @ 6:47PM
When I was a kid, the "Spiderman" cartoon would get played on TV in the afternoons when I came home from school. The photo of Mr. Verilli does seem to bear a strong resemblance to Peter Parker's boss, J. Jonah Jameson.
To Rurik:
I believe a municipality in Georgia some years ago actually passed legislation requiring residents not prohibited by law or physically disabled possess a firearm.
Appleby| 3.29.12 @ 9:48PM
That would be Kennesaw.
( . . . after the beep . . . )| 3.30.12 @ 1:14PM
"Ahem, pardon me sir, but there's a need to fear, when you as a child were so apparantly oblivious to hear, the liberal Bar Sinisters and other Riff Raff trampling all over the Sweet Purebreads all around, while I was always ready to abound. Please tip with joy, your regular shoeshine boy."
POST American| 3.29.12 @ 11:29PM
--------------------TRUTH OPENED-----------------------
ROME--knee/ObamaCARE = Rockefeller EUGENICS
---Weaponized injections
------Weaponized GM food
---------CHEM-trails
------------Tainted water
---------------Plastics bisphenol A
-------------------Pepsico's et al dead baby derived
flavor enhancers (--check it out!)
-------------------------on and on and on
"The bottom line?
------I WANT TO SEE A NUREMBERG TRIAL."
-ALEX JONES
(yesterday)
SO DO WE
----CASE OPENED----