Friday, July 06, 2012

Sen. Scott Brown Continues to Pick Up Endorsements of Democrat Politicians in MA – The Real Deal – vs. – Warren as Outsider – Commentary

On the One Hand - Brown's Just so Darn Likable - image

From The Boston Globe: Elizabeth Warren, Progressive-Democrat Senate Candidate (MA), suggested that she would bring an “outsiders” view to Washington in a recent interview. The Globe also noted that Warren’s quest to unseat Republican Scott Brown is her first attempt at running for public office, and it shows. To suggest that Warren would bring an “outsider view” to Washington is somewhat a stretch, considering she worked with the Obama administration, has rallied for President Obama and is being touted by Progressives (petition and all) as the next Barack Obama – someone that can be molded into a 2016 Presidential Candidate. All the brouhaha over her false heritage claims, her house-flipping deals on foreclosed homes, her plagiarism (cookbooks of all things) pale compared to her latest claims as an “outsider”.

Massachusetts politicians appear to agree – especially those that would be considered “peers” of Warren, were she a fellow “Democrat” – conventional wisdom dictates that party members support one another – however – it appears that certain Democrat and Independent Massachusetts politicians are not enamored of Ms. Warren, and are endorsing her opposition – incumbent Senator Scott Brown.

In 2009, Brown took the “people’s seat” (previously referred to as the “Kennedy Seat”, by a margin of 5 points, which, in Massachusetts with the dead voting, that’s no mean feat. The spread between Brown and Martha Coakley was, in all probability, much higher – that aside, there were forces at play in Massachusetts that were a signal to the rest of the nation – find a Conservative Republican, who is willing to work across the aisle, and who sticks to his principles, no matter what – and you have a winner. Brown is the real deal – and attracted a myriad group of supporters in Massachusetts – Green Party, Democrats, and even some of those Republican’s that are said to reside in the “Bluest State”. Brown also was a Mass. State Senator, and had built a reputation on defending his constituents, regardless of party affiliation – the biggest attraction: Brown is just one of us – his story is the story of most regular folks – he just took a different path from most, dedicated himself to service, and it brought him to the U.S. Senate.

Brown knew how to campaign, but he was genuine in his approach – the money poured in after bloggers got busy when it was apparent Brown was able to defeat Coakley, even though the Beltway suggested the seat would go to Coakley, the polls indicated the same, but the 300 plus miles that separate Massachusetts from the Beltway – made it impossible for any real “political intelligence” to penetrate those pundits that decide a race before it even begins. They were not on the ground, did not see the volunteers filling Brown offices, did not see the guy in his pick-up truck crisscrossing the state – or feel the excitement – neighbor to neighbor – most shockingly because Brown wanted to Stop the Legislation on the Affordable Health Care Act and bring work towards a better model.

Therefore, the fact that he is picking up endorsements left, right and center, endorsements that should go to Warren, is not surprising to those of us who live here in the “Bluest State” – Warren is, regardless of friendly polls, and friendly press, and Progressive Democrats glowing - indeed an “outsider”.

In Massachusetts, party affiliation is one thing, but most of the public that votes, consider themselves “independents” – and, indeed over 50% of the State’s electorate is enrolled as “unenrolled” (no party affiliation).

In April, according to The Hill Blog (speaking of Beltway):

“Ray Flynn, who served as Boston’s mayor for almost a decade before being named an ambassador under President Clinton, will endorse Brown on Monday at South Boston’s Castle Island. A conservative Democrat, Flynn has long been allied with Brown, and endorsed his 2010 Senate bid against state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D).

Hours later, former Worcester, Mass., Mayor Konnie Lukes will announce her support for Brown in the city Lukes ran until 2009.

Both endorsements serve as reminders of Brown’s continued crossover appeal to centrist Democratic voters, despite the star power and grassroots energy behind Warren’s campaign.”

To which one might ask the Hill, what grassroots behind Warren’s Campaign? – It’s not on the ground in Massachusetts, unless one counts the fundraisers in Boston at which she has appeared or perhaps her trips across the state, surrounded by local Democrats – grassroots’ appeal is defined by Brown, when average (non-paid) individuals stand up and support a candidate.

In June Mass Live (The Springfield Republican) noted that Democrat and Independent Politicians had endorsed Brown followed by the July 3rd (The Springfield Republican) Scott Brown picked up the endorsement of Paul Walsh, the former Democratic District Attorney of Bristol County. Walsh joins nine other Bay State Democrats who have endorsed Brown

Therefore, Brown’s managed to cross party lines, both in the political spectrum, in the interest of his constituents, and now, in the election arena, as those public servants, from either party, or independents, see Brown as a politician who is more interested in the people he serves than in furthering a political party.

Brown has never written a cookbook, he wrote a tell-all book about the pain he suffered in his childhood that led him to rally hard for women and children’s rights both in the MA Senate and in the U.S. Senate.

Brown is Brown, Warren is – another Obama.

On the other hand - Warren - obviously partisan -image

To wit, Barack Obama was groomed for a political background rooted in Academia. His rise through Illinois was nothing short of meteoric, a term in the State House, then right to the U.S. Senate and without finishing his first term, he ran for the Democrat Nomination – was handed that by Progressives in Congress who, though super delegates overrode the popular vote (Hillary Clinton) and appointment Obama the nominee – and the rest is history. Now, Progressives see another opportunity – to mold a newcomer, an academic, someone with little to no experience in legislation, a stint in the White House surely, but neither in crafting legislation nor responding to constituents needs – but she does answer the call of the Party.

Therein lays the difference – and why one might anticipate additional endorsements from individuals of all political affiliations to go to Brown. Warren truly is an outsider – Brown remains one of us.

Thursday, July 05, 2012

President Obama’s “Taxing” Issue with the Affordable Health Care Ruling – Court Decision Gives Romney Ammunition – Romney’s Speaks with Authority on

Romney On Parade Route New Hampshire – Crowd Support in a Battleground State – image Washington Post

From the Boston Globe: Headline: “Mitt Romney says health care penalty is a tax” – speaks to Romney’s assessment of the Supreme Court’s Decision to Uphold the Affordable Health Care Act as a “Tax” in a recent CBS interview as somewhat contradictory. That due to the fact that Romney’s aid (some news outlets use the term “chief advisor”), Eric Ferhnstrom, made a comment on MSNBC suggesting he agreed with the Obama administration on the mandate which he did and which was quickly termed a “Mr. Potato Head” moment by the MSNBC crew. (See Video Below)

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It remains to be seen how much longer Mr. Ferhnstrom will be with the Romney Campaign. That notion aside, Romney gave an interview to CBS News while on vacation with his family in New Hampshire and left no doubt as to how he stands on the ruling - and that is not good news for the Obama administration, try as hard as they might to make it into an issue for Romney – the Tax is going to land in the President’s lap – thanks to Supreme Court Justice Roberts. While in the same way, Roberts took the ‘mandate problem” away from Romney. The transcript which follows is from that interview. CBS News’s, Jan Crawford with Mitt Romney, GOP Presumptive Presidential Nominee:

Romney: Well, the Supreme Court has the final word. And their final word is that Obamacare is a tax. So it's a tax. They decided it was constitutional. So it is a tax and it's constitutional. That's the final word. That's what it is.
Crawford: Have you changed your views on this? Do you now believe that it is a tax at the federal level, that the Supreme Court has said it's a tax? So it is a tax?
Romney: Well, I said that I agreed with the dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt it was unconstitutional. But the dissent lost. It's in the minority. And so now the Supreme Court has spoken.
There's now way around that. You can try and say you wished they would have decided in a different way, but they didn't. They concluded it was a tax. That's what it is. And the American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made. He said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle-income Americans. Not only did he raise the $500 billion that was already in the bill, it's now clear that his mandate, as described by the Supreme Court, is a tax.
Crawford: But does that mean the mandate in the state of Massachusetts under your health care law also is a tax, and that you raised taxes as governor?
Romney: Actually the chief justice, in his opinion, made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don't need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts' mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me. And so it stays as it was.
Crawford: So at the state level, you're saying the Supreme Court says that's different? That the federal government--
Romney: They made it very clear.
Crawford : -- the powers are different between the states and the federal government? Does that make sense to you?
Romney: Well, just take a read of the opinion. The chief justice said that states have what's known as police power. And states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth under their constitutions, which is what Massachusetts did. But the federal government does not have those powers. And therefore, for the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion it did, that the law was constitutional, they had to find it was a tax and they did. And therefore, Obamacare's a tax. Like it or not, it's a tax.

The full video is below.

Therefore, the Roberts ruling was crafted in such a way as to avoid the mandate’s constitutionality entirely, instead, making a clear distinction that the Act is a Tax by Congress, which would allow the Court to uphold “Obamacare, however, Roberts also noted that States which imposed similar mandates have that power under a “police action” – therefore, those states are entitled to enforce a mandate – not a tax. This falls under the 10th amendment of the Constitution and State’s rights.

Romney ran with it brilliantly. Meanwhile the Obama Campaign is digging up every old news clip it can find in order to call Romney a hypocrite, however, in light of the Robert’s Ruling, that’s a difficult if not entirely false assessment. Romney is merely noting the decision as it was written, and it was written as a tax (similar to the manner in which Social Security, originally not a popular program with the American public, was put into place – as a “Tax”, rather than as a mandate – and therefore, Roberts and the Liberal Justices with which he sided, used that precedence for the ruling on “Obamacare” in order for the liberal members of the Court to stay true to their ideology, and for Roberts to hand it back to the Obama Campaign, as promise broken to the American Public – no new taxes on the middle class. In addition, Roberts covered Romney’s behind by adding the snippet about the states and the ability for states, under their constitutions, to enforce penalties as part of a “police action”.

Partial Quoting Eric Erickson from RedState: Robert’s was playing chess.


How is this all working out for Mitt Romney on the battlefront known as the Presidential Campaign? – Quite well, if one is to look at early polling for indicators, a Recent CNN/ORC Poll, shows Romney Leading Obama by 51 percent to 43 percent in the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Gallup Daily Tracking has seen both Obama and Romney run neck and neck for the past few months, within points of each other nationally, however, as any pundit or political junkie knows, when it comes to close Presidential races, 1000 votes in Ohio can sway an election and those states noted in the CNN/ORC poll are crucial. However, one has to look at the broader polling picture to see Romney’s true advantages. Gallup’s series of Obama’s job approval ranking in all 50 states, for a three year period, conclude that his approval is over 50% in merely ten states, and not one of them a battleground state mentioned in the CNN poll.

Therefore, it is no wonder that the Obama Campaign with MSNBC and the rest of the crew, are looking for any opportunity to try and pin anything on Romney – yet they keep coming up short - this will be a non-story for Romney and a huge story for the Obama administration in the coming months leading to the election especially with lower and middle income voters who are aware that the “penalty” is for them, call it what one will but “tax” or “penalty” is a non-starter politically, for Obama, especially when one considers the stagnant economy and the continued high unemployment rate.

From this opinion, Romney walks away with this, especially with lower to middle income voters, while Obama is left to explain why he broke his promise on no taxes. It may not be fair, and the President’s intentions may have been as noble as Mitt Romney’s when he put the mandate into place in Massachusetts, but, the Robert’s Court became a major force in this election with that particular ruling. As a resident of the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and a Conservative in a land apparently surrounded by progressives, it must be noted, that Romney, as Governor, made decisions that were not necessarily in simpatico with this resident who sees any fee or tax or penalty as a “tax”. That said, the original intent was sound, but lacked one key component, opening the borders to other health insurance companies. This may have been in the back of Romney’s mind (who’s big on free enterprise) but would find resistance in the Democrat controlled legislature and the heavy presence of the insurance lobby in the Commonwealth who revels in their monopoly. Overall, Romney managed to get a great deal accomplished by working both sides of the aisle, some programs we can agree with, others we do not – as an independent, that makes Romney extremely appealing, as a partisan on either side, well, not so much, depending on which side one’s on – which brings us to the general. The percentage of voters who are “unenrolled, independent, or what have you” has risen in the past four years, and those voters will determine who will be the next president. Since Romney is more appealing to those independent voters (see constant polls from any source), the odds are on Romney – Regardless of what an aid may or may not have said on MSNBC

The CBS News – Romney Interview

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776 - Text

The Signing of the Declaration of Independence (John Trumbull)image - reprints from

The Document text below, presented to Congress on July 4, 1776 is the epitome of a call for freedom - from excessive taxation, for personal liberty and for the rights of all men to be treated equally - having the same opportunities to succeed or fail, regardless of background. The text, from is worth reading, once a day, once a week, once a year - as a reminder of how fortunate we citizens of the United States of America are to be a part of this society envisioned by founders - the words, as appropriate today as they were in July of 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Mexico: Violence Continues: Beheadings and Bombings – Will a New President from an Old Party Bring Peace to the U.S. and Mexican Border?

Newly Elected President of Mexico - Enrique Pena Nieto and Family - image:

From the Telegraph (UK): Enrique Peña Nieto, (Institutional Revolutionary Party –PRI) won the Presidential Elections held in Mexico this past week. The party had ruled for decades prior to 2000- but was ousted over corruption and violence. That said, the problems with violent Drug Cartels and a stagnant economy, plus the popularity of Neito, who is married to one of Mexico’s most famous soap opera stars, Angelica Rivera (ABC News) coupled with promises of reform without a return to the corruption of the past, propelled him to victory. (Telegraph)

However, the violence in Mexico has continued with a dozen dismembered bodies were discovered in Durango State (Borderland Beat), coupled with a car bombing, days before the election in Neuvo Laredo which is less than 2 hours drive from Carrizo Springs, TX, and the beheading of rival drug members which was videotaped and placed online (ABC News).

It remains to be seen, therefore, how the new President, who officially takes office in December, will deal with the cartels: either through a mutual agreement as in past decades under PRI party rule, or other methods not yet know. It that without serious intervention, including marshal law and a complete military compliance with zero tolerance for gangs – little can be done to stem the ever increasing battles on and crossing the U.S. Mexican border into neighboring states (Texas and Arizona (less in California as the border has been secured with 18-foot-high fences and camera monitors in hard-to-reach valleys(USA Today).

President Obama did call and congratulate President elect, Enrique Peña Nieto, but did not mention the drug cartels or address the growing violence on the border. (Yahoo News) This is most likely related to the ongoing scandal with the Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder who was found to be in Contempt of Congress for refusing to submit documents relating to the Fast and Furious gun exchange with Mexican Cartels which led to the death of a border patrol agent and untold numbers of Mexican nationals (Alaska Dispatch). President Obama has exercised Executive Privilege in refusing to release the documents subpoenaed by Congress in this case, protecting Holder. The President insists he knows nothing about the situation. That said, the administration has offered a $5 million dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of one of the cartel members who has operations in both the U.S. and Mexico (U.S. Department of Justice).

Mexico, it appears, is on its own, with a new President, an old political party and an out-of-control border war that once was based on the occasional shootout, but has morphed into Middle Eastern like car bombings, beheadings and dismemberments. As this is occurring right on the U.S. border as well as in popular cities throughout Mexico, it bears watching by those planning trips to Mexico, as well as Border States in the U.S. It also gives credence to Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer, who has fought relentlessly for the rights of Arizonan’s to protect themselves from the overflow violence. She has gone head to head with the administration, and has won a partial victory in the Supreme Court over enforcement of the Arizona Law SB1070. Governor Brewer is one of the biggest advocates for a controlled U.S. Mexican border to preserve the peace, lives and livelihood of Arizona and U.S. residents.

Of course, it remains to be seen if the popular new President will have an impact on the border, but, as Mexico’s elections, which require a national voter i.d. card (USA Today), are based on the will of the people, his political fortunes may depend upon finding a solution to end the violence.

Monday, July 02, 2012

Is ObamaCare (Affordable Health Care Act) a Tax or a Penalty? – The Short and Simple Answer – a Public Service Announcement

With all the hubbub about politics, and one’s pocket book, and the war of words between Democrats and Republican’s – it is without doubt, one of the biggest disservices to the American People that the question of whether or not Obama Care is a Tax or a Penalty be answered. It is constantly asked.

The Democrats want the people to view it as a penalty – if you don’t have insurance, and are uninsured – then you pay a “penalty”

Using the Massachusetts Model - similar in “penalty structure” to the Federal Model
When it comes time for those of you who are not offered employer insurance, or if offered, cannot afford the insurance or, if unavailable, one cannot still afford the insurance – one can pay a penalty to the State of Massachusetts, Department of Revenue, which is sometimes up to two-thirds less than having to buy insurance, but at least – one is not going to jail for not paying their “penalty”.

Additionally, the penalty is paid to the Department of Revenue, the department that is directly responsible for all taxes in Massachusetts.

Moreover the employer, the employed, the unemployed, the underemployed, must produce proof of insurance to the state of Massachusetts in order to file their tax returns – in other words, there is no way around not having health insurance in Massachusetts - if one does not – one pays the “fee” to the Commonwealth.

Under the Affordable Health Care Act, the situation is similar, except forms will be going to the Internal Revenue Service, if one does not have the insurance papers, or proof of insurance, one is assessed a penalty of up to $25,000, and if one can’t pay that penalty? – then one is subject to interest on the outstanding balance, one might have wages garnished, or even social security garnished, and incur incredible legal fees, or face prison. This is for every single American that is not insured, it does not affect those on Medicaid, or Medicare, or those who have insurance through employers, but those who do not have the luxury of either, and there are millions of them – all earning anywhere from $30K to under $200K per year.

So, is it or is it not a tax?

The rule of thumb is this: if you pay a fee or a penalty to an agency such as the Internal Revenue Service, must include supporting data on your Tax Returns in order to either become except from the penalty or pay the penalty – then that penalty – on your Tax Returns, and the monies that you pay – is a TAX.

When money comes out of your pocket and is placed in the hands of a government – call it a fee, call it a penalty – if it sounds more politically appealing, but at the end of the day, the citizen who’s wallet is slimmer, who’s mortgaging their home, if they can to pay the fees levied by the IRS for not having health insurance, is having their wages, or tax returns garnished for not having health insurance, and has to make any payments to an agency who’s sole specific purpose is to collect taxes for the Federal Government – what does that make the money leaving one’s pocket and going to the Federal government? – A Tax

Therefore, a penalty or a fee is just a nice word used by politicians to get you to pay a – Tax.

It’s simple, it’s logical, and now the American Public is being forced to purchase an item, and if they cannot afford to purchase that item? – They are being taxed, and if they do not pay that tax, they are considered “criminal”.

More-over, if one lives in a state that already has Health Care Reform with penalties in place for non-compliance and those “taxes” are sent to a Department of Revenue, then one will be liable to pay two fines – or two taxes – just like one does the income penalty – or the federal income penalty, the taxes one pays or is penalized for working for a living. That’s a stretch, but it allows one to understand that every nickel or dime one is paying to a state or government is not a “fee” or “penalty” is it a tax. The word tax being unpopular, is often interchanged with “fee” or “penalty” but is, and remains a tax.

Elizabeth Warren, (D) for Senate, Mass. – House Flipping History Does not Square with Stump Speeches – Hypocrite?

Elizabeth Warren, Dem for MA Senate, (Against Scott Brown), shown with house she "flipped" in OK - image Boston Herald)

Elizabeth Warren appears to have a bit more family history that might not square with her “persona” as a “champion for the middle class” – The Boston Heraldreported that Warren and her Husband made huge profits off foreclosed properties in Oklahoma, and lent money to family members at high interest rates to boot. The woman who is being groomed by the Democrats as the “Next Barack Obama” (NYTimes-Multiple source), apparently has more hypocrisy in her history besides claims to have begun the Occupy movement (Shades of Al Gore), and her fiasco of a claim that she was part Cherokee, to the extent that it appeared to have given her a job at Harvard. The list goes on and on – making her one of on the biggest shysters to come down the Massachusetts Turnpike (see Big Dig) in a long time.

The problem with Warren, is not so much her ideology , which as progressive as the President, and every college professor in Massachusetts (with few exceptions), Warren is the typical bongo drumming, down with capitalism, up with the people, taxes are great, share the wealth nonsense everyone in the Bay State is used to hearing – and for the most part ignoring. – Of course, not everyone buys into the Progressive Democrat ideology – with booksellers to bakers from the East Coast to the Western Hills, using the moniker for cities such as Amherst and the entire Bay State – as the “People’s Republic”. The difference between those die-hard, tie-died liberal progressive Democrats is that they are sincere in their belief structure, having of background of bongo drumming and the occasional protest against whatever strikes their fancy at the moment. Even criminal Speakers of the Massachusetts House are so transparent, that they are normally indicted – Massachusetts politicians maybe a lot of things, but for the most part, they are essentially honest and have a past, criminal or otherwise, to back that up.
However, the more we learn about Elizabeth Warren, the more it appears as if she’s taken advantage of the programs and the systems in a way that would make most EBT Fraudsters proud – and to top it off, has an excuse, or press release – handy whenever the next shoe bomb falls. All in all, the whole lying about being a Cherokee to get ahead, and get federal student loans, and into specific colleges, and into jobs, fairly commonplace – and not such a big deal, on the face of it – so Elizabeth Warren lack integrity. The fact that she’s flipped houses, for profit, and then goes on an “Occupy Wall Street Rant” – classic do as I say, not as I do elitist Progressive fare. However, she continues to offer these press releases stating that it’s overblown – seriously.

Warren who runs ads that do not tie her in any way to the Democrat Party, rather attempt to make her appear as independent as possible to Massachusetts voters – are so lacking in depth that no one east of the Boston Globe, the Herald and the Mass DNC knows who she is and what she is running for – a recent Democrat Convention held in Springfield, MA was underpublicized, except in a local daily, and a few blubs on local news – the bulk of all Warren stories, good or bad, are coming from out-of-state.

That strategy is not going to work for Massachusetts, assuming that one will get the vote simply because one has a “D” in front of their name, especially when the incumbent, even though a Republican, is one Scott Brown – popular. It’s rather hard to find anyone who doesn’t know who Brown is – but on the other hand, it’s difficult to find anyone who knows show Warren is – even down to the Cherokee Nation – and for Warren – she’s got too much fodder on the table now to try and play coy – she’s a carpetbagger from Oklahoma who has splaining' to do about her “dubious” past, and even that might not work. However, in order for the DNC plan of turning her into the next Barack Obama, so they can achieve another historic 1st (1st women President), they need a springboard, so they are using Massachusetts as a way to get Elizabeth some credence. They should back another horse, find another state, and go for it, leaving Warren to fare for her. It’s going to be a huge waste of money and comparable to the attempts of the SEIU and Wisconsin Democrats to topple Scott Walker in a recall.

Why? Brown broke the mold – not the mold as in now everyone who is a Republican will get elected (although there are a few house seats that are going to be extremely competitive and could give the Congress a few more Republicans), but the mold that puts people in a mindset of “vote Democrat if you’re a Democrat” - Independents, if one must be reminded are the majority “party” in MA, and they no longer care if someone is “a friend of Barack Obama’s” or “A Kennedy”. Therefore, stand up Elizabeth be proud of your hypocritical land-flipping, your claims of being on the “Trail of Tears” (sarcasm), and anything else that might come up – (the Herald is most likely saving the better skeletons for September and October) – and run for a statehouse seat. You could then get elected to the Speaker of the House (just as good a platform for a woman, historically, in Massachusetts, and just as lucrative a job opportunity!) If all else fails, after the indictments are handed down, Warren could enjoy a massive state pensions then take to the airwaves, as a talk show host – maybe grab a spot next to Carr’s on WRKO.

As a feminist, one must realize that not every woman who comes down the pike (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York just to name a few turnpikes), is worth the vote. One must be discriminatory, when looking for someone who would represent not only the people, but women in general – as a first of anything, or as a Senator or elected official. It is imperative that the credentials be almost squeaky clean – maybe a blur, but not to the point of continued “revelations” of character flaws. Why? Women have a hard time being taken seriously, still earning less on a dollar despite multiple attempts dating from JFK forward to enact “Equal Pay Laws”, maligned for everything from biological to fashionable, women themselves eat their own (See Hillary Clinton, most qualified candidate in the past decade for President, thrown under the bus, by alleged “feminists”), so why would a flawed candidate believe for one minute that they would be qualified to not only take on the Senate, but stand for all American women? The danger in electing Warren isn’t that she’s incompetent, or that she stretches the truth, or that she’s a Progressive who sits at Obama’s right hand and has become his biggest Romney attack dog – the danger is that should she be elected, she’ll be the one all women are judged against, especially in Massachusetts – making it impossible or implausible that another woman running, even a competent woman would be able to make the grade. Is it Warren’s fault? Not entirely, it’s the DNC and their failure to completely vet; their arrogance in thinking that anyone they choose to be the Next Barack will just be so elite, no one would dare question their choice. (The DNC isn’t the only major party with that problem – See Scott Brown early election with the RNC stayed out of the race until it became glaringly apparent that here was a race and he had a snowballs chance in Hades that he just might win and make history.)

To recap, Warren is a lovely woman, grandmotherly, sweet, in her ads, but a tool none-the-less of the DNC, she has made at least one glaring hypocritical error, and of course, figured out how to best the system by being “American Indian” – perhaps thinking no one would buy her being another “minority”. Due to the benign ads, no one has a clue that she’s a Democrat – which might play in her favor, except she’s unknown and Brown is known – for doing a lot and working for the state. He may have those who disagree with him, especially within his own party, but that’s a non-starter. When name recognition is a problem, something is wrong – and for Warren to get her name out there, she’ll have to bring all the baggage with her – then the PAC ads will begin – and that will be the end of it.

Although polls show this to be a close race, one must recall the Massachusetts polls of the past, specifically with Scott Brown, where he was the underdog, by upwards to 15 points, 3 days before he won by 5. In Massachusetts, when one is known to be doing their job, Democrat or Republican, people remember, and instead of voting just because someone is of a certain prominent party, or in support of ObamaCare (the TAX), or in support of “middle class families, losing their homes”, while having flipped houses, one will vote for the Devil the know – rather that the Devil that they don’t.
It’s that simple.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address