The Trapeze Act

How very appropriate that the Medical symbol on Reform's back looks more like a giant screw.

Lightnup, LOL, and notice it is pointing up. As in screw-up. It fits perfectly.

Too bad Pelosi and Reid haven't managed to wrap those ropes around their own necks. I'd pay good money to see that. Who am I kidding, I'd help 'em with it if I didn't think they will end up doing it themselves anyway.

On another note, Clay gets a "thumbs up" for distilling the nature of our current national leadership. It's a circus.

Folks, why don't we wait until the FINAL bill is on the table to see what is in it, what it does for all of us, or none of us as the case may be, and THEN discuss the merits of it?

For the first time, I am starting to have serious doubts as to whether or not ANY of our legislators have the fortitude to do what needs to be done to fix our broken health care system.

The House version passed was a complete waste of time, because it will never be passed in the Senate without some severe and radical changes being made to it.

The preliminary bill is twice as long as the Bible. Who wants to wait for the final? (Cartoon well drawn, of course, but I commented on the Times editorial, because it gave more specifics to respond to.)

Amen, Alprova, Amen!!

For the life of me, I have yet to figure out why so many are so upset over NOTHING!! It's just rude, not to mention, a little weird.

Know your enemy first, I am sure someone said a long time ago. However, in this case, it's not the enemy that some people are deriding. It's the mere thought of the enemy that has them up in arms.

I'm thinking if we could harness all the hate and revulsion being aimed at the "PROPOSED" health care reform. We could have defeated the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan a long time ago.

Oh well, so much for knowing your enemy. Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

Excellent cartoon, Clay. We should have a lot of agreement on this one...even if for different reasons.

Alprova, the House medical reform bill approval process is happening exactly like the version Dear Leader tried to ram down their throats -- and ours -- in five days...unread, unreviewed, unreleased to the public. His excuse? It MUST be passed NOW! [Please note he said the same about the "stimulus" bill and the money still lies there, unspent, as his own personal campaign fund.]

It is also similar to the McShame/whoever Amnesty Bill process until we, the voters, caught the Senate with its pants down. The "stimulus" BS system won't happen again. Every two years 1/3 of the Senate must re-justify why we sould re-elect them...next year is one of them. They are running scared. NY-23 hit them where it hurts...just think -- they needed the votes an unexpected turncoat RINO brought to the table to get their man in!

When the House and Senate decide to follow the wishes of the people instead of their own perverted ideas of what should be, and stop passing unread lobbyist-written bills, they just might get some support. The party of conservatives is not going away anytime soon nor are the Independents...they both just keep gaining strength and an Internet voice.

Things are tough without ACORN, huh?

This cartoons reminds me of that celebrity game show where they each had to compete in circus acts against each other. Some were terrible, some were actually impressive, but none of them compared to the professionals occasionally seen on the show. It serves as an excellent comparison in having government bureaucrats attempt to push through legislation without knowing the full details (case and point: Arlan Specter). I digress.

The cartoon, in my opinion, only has one possible error. The while the rope may be tangled for Reed, it certainly is not completely untangled for Pelosi. An untangled rope would have been a bipartisan bill in which the majority of both parties had agreed upon.

alprova, I complete agree with you. But I don't think the problem is that members of Congress lack the political fortitude. The problem is they know how to play the game: the game of say what you need to say and do what you need to do to get re-elected. Another reason we should vote them all out, regardless of party.

And are so many still forgetting that this bill, as similar to the previously proposed, is going to cost nearly $1 trillion? The savings or offset they are talking about with the legislation is all smoke and mirrors, and much of the projected costs do not include the legislation for future appropriations. Regardless, other major government programs projected to "save" result in no savings at all. Every single piece of legislation that has dealt with some government run program, most notably with health care, has resulted in costs several times the projected amount.

Interesting story today in the Washington Times. I especially like the part where they say this it is not unusual for Congress, regardless of who is in the majority, to set budgets for legislation in this manner...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/10/fuzzy-math-could-boost-health-care-bills-hefty-cos/

alprova wrote: "Folks, why don't we wait until the FINAL bill is on the table to see what is in it, what it does for all of us, or none of us as the case may be, and THEN discuss the merits of it?"

1. Because by then it is too late to mount an effective campaign against a government takeover. Were it not for the much-maligned Tea Parties and conservatives publicizing and protesting against what was actually in the earlier versions, the House likely would have forwarded an even more severely flawed bill to the Senate.

2. If you truly believe that waiting until the FINAL bill is on the table before discussing it, I assume you will not be posting any more of your opinions on the topic until that time?

3. It is not whatever minutia is in the FINAL bill that upsets conservatives, it is the whole concept of Congress even considering another big-government, entitlement creating, tax raising, job killing, power grabbing bureaucracy, and doing it in the middle of a recession with double-digit unemployment.

I am very disappointed.

We will have more bureaucracy, more debt, and the Insurance Companies are still involved. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While I was at the VA Monday, I picked up a magazine I thought was Newsweek. It was NewsMax and had a great picture of Glen Beck on the cover with the title, "Glen Beck Wants YOU!. I looked more carefully and found it touted itself as "Independent.American." It was the October, 2009 issue.

I began reading it and found it might be "Independent" but, if so, it was Far Right Independent.

Whooee!

This is the Wikipedia entry I found this morning.

Newsmax Media

Rolando wrote: "Please note he [Obama] said the same about the "stimulus" bill and the money still lies there, unspent, as his own personal campaign fund."

You're 100% correct Rolando. But the reason Obama can't release too much stimulus money before his health care power grab is passed is because robust employment would mean too many people are covered by insurance, which is a bad thing when you are trying to convince people that too many people aren't covered.

Incidentally, since the Pelosi version and the Reid version (and all other versions) still leave tens of millions uncovered, the rest of us will STILL foot the bill for the uninsured, but now will also be forced to pay for insurance whether we want to or not. How wonderful. Gotta love big government.

woody wrote: "For the life of me, I have yet to figure out why so many are so upset over NOTHING!! It's just rude, not to mention, a little weird."

Are you kidding? Even in the face of loud protests and clear evidence that most Americans DO NOT WANT government run health care, Pelosi and Reid ram it forward without a care. Is that what represetative government is supposed to be like? Imagine how insidious the final version would be if the citizenry just remained silent. Especially since Obama's broken promise about a new era of transparency and the public being able to read bills online before passage means that the final bill would be voted on before anyone (including Congress) even knows what is in it.

Woody, if you think it is rude or weird to object to proposed government plans while they are in the formative stages, may I suggest moving to Cuba or China where citizens aren't allowed to comment on what the government decides to do or not do. Let us know how that works out for you.

woody opined: "I'm thinking if we could harness all the hate and revulsion being aimed at the "PROPOSED" health care reform. We could have defeated the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan a long time ago."

If hate and revulsion could produced that, the past eight years of it from the left would have been more than enough.

can anyone tell me why bills go to the house before the senate? I really don't know.

Lighnup, I don't mind being quoted. I don't even mind being chided for my points of view. However, I do resent suggestions that I leave the country I love for anywhere else on this 'old globe', let alone die-hard Communist regimes.

I might add, if that is the best you can do as far as a 'decent comeback or argument' in your own defense, I would suggest "Honest Abe's" advice of, "...you can keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, or you can open it and take away all doubt...."

Now if you and any other "Right-Siders" out there can take this comment in the vein in which it was meant, I will once again say, Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

Woody, perhaps you should take my statement in the vein in which it was meant - which is:

The freedom to voice opposition to laws and/or policies that government plans to implement is a freedom that the citizens of many other countries do not enjoy. If you believe that expressing one's opposition is rude and even weird, perhaps you would feel more conmfortable among the "polite, un-weird" citizens of countries whose voices are muzzled. Or, you could always propose trying to make it illegal to voice one's dissatisfaction with government through something like the "fairness" doctrine.

If you resent that sentiment, too bad. There is no right (yet) to be protected against hearing something you resent. If you wait long enough though, I'm sure Obama will happily make saying resentful things a hate crime.

trburrows- I am no scholar on congress or legislative procedure, but I think it has something to do with what type of bill is being proposed. For example, bills that raise taxes or provide for appropriations of federal funds cannot be initiated by the Senate. Are there any Political Scientists out there that can give us a little Civics lesson on this? Thanks

Interesting that only Reform is spelled right side up. House and Senate both have their words upside down.

I am certainly no expert, but I believe that a bill can come from either the House or Senate, just depends on who wrote it. Here is a link that is supposed to explain the whole process. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/legprocess.htm

Bills directly associating with revenue or appropriations must originate from the House. They cannot originate from the Senate. Even if the Senate attempts to originate such a bill, by general practice it is vetoed by the House.

Lightnup, too bad woody and others here don't 'get' your acerbic wit and absolute grasp of the truth. Humor, to the Leftist mind is something best used in a violent, trashing sort of way towards those who don't agree with them, then it's funny. Or, in an arrogant, "I'm better than you guys" tone. ("after all, MY profs @ UTC know everything and always teach us the FACTS..").

They believe the 'bad ones' need to be shut up or exiled or both. Free speech cannot be considered or accepted in that type of Bubble world. Especially if you are a person of sincere Faith, evidenced by the reception we get here on the "Free" Press forums.

There is a "woody from TN" on Townhall.com though. Quite happily telling off the bad conservatives with a real nasty tone. Gotta love these guys and leave 'em alone.

As for the three-ring circus. Perfect metaphor and depiction of our Government in Washington.

Aces25, Nurse,

I agree! This is what I read, also.

I am confused about Article 27...something about the congrss and Senate not being able to raise their compensation without the intervention of WHO or WHAT?

Alprova, I agree about not getting in an uproar until I read the Bill, but it seems a great deal more difficult to alter things after it slides through.

I'm amazed that the present congress hasn't found a way to add it as an amendment to some other health legislation.

But then, what do I know. What I do know is that I have been unable to put very little input into this monstrosity.

Clara wrote: "I am confused about Article 27...something about the congrss and Senate not being able to raise their compensation without the intervention of WHO or WHAT?"

Clara, with the current administration and majority in Congress, it matters not what it says in Article 27 or any other governing document. Arbitrarily taking over major corporations, arbitrarily firing CEOs of private companies, arbitrarily violating the contractual rights of bond-holders in order to reward unions during a bankruptcy, arbitrarily mandating that all Americans purchase specific consumer products, arbitrarily telling executives at private corporations how much they can make and in what manner they will be compensated - it's all arguably unconstitutional.

But liberals consider the Constitution to be a freedom-inhibiting document rather than a freedom-enhancing document, so they blithely ignore it.

"But liberals consider the Constitution to be a freedom-inhibiting document rather than a freedom-enhancing document, so they blithely ignore it."

Can you please explain this statement, with specific examples?

Lightnup, you seem to be a rampage today. You usually aren't quite as abrasive as you seem today, so I'll simply hope you get up on the other side (of anything except the 'aisle') tomorrow.

And, Canary, I am Woody and I have been around Tennessee long enough I appear to be from here. However, I am not the one you mentioned in your post. And I always leave the 'nasty tone' stuff to my Conservative friends. And, yes I do have a few who claim me.

Woody (from here)

lkeithlu wrote: "Can you please explain this statement, with specific examples?"

I gave 5 examples in the same post. What's to explain?

I just don't understand Amendment XXVII! (27)

Amendment XXVII (Ratified May 5, 1992)

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Does this mean it will take 2 years before the pay change will take effect?

This last pay raise seems to be somewhat excessive over the cost of living indexes.

All I am personally aware of is that my cost of living has gone up about 25% or more, without any indication that Congress or the Senate will take note of OUR plight.

Clay, I love it. I also notice that the trapezes are not firmly attached, and could slide off at any moment. I also notice that if the single line holding the Senate trapeze slides off, the Senate will be dangling in mid-air by both legs with no safety net. C:-)

"I gave 5 examples in the same post. What's to explain?"

I'm not seeing them. What article specifically? And where is it that liberals, in a group, find the constitution to serve as freedom inhibiting? It's a rather broad statement about a large group of people, and your paragraph only talks about some corporate stuff.

How in the world has Woody suddenly become representative of "the Leftist mind"--whatever those words might mean?

I read the TFP postings with close attention. By my record, Woody has indicated his impatience and dissatisfaction with both Republican and Democratic parties.

And he does not seem to speak in the ready-made cliches of conservative or liberal party-speak.

I would count Woody as an independent thinker of the good old folksy earthbound and contrariwise sort. We used to have more of those folks up in these mountains until recently. . . .

Take him for all in all, I am always happy to see Woody's posts. He may not always be in agreement with things as I see them, but I do hear him speaking truth of his own fashioning and not truth of someone else's.

I would be proud to have him on my porch with a can of beer and a banjo, anytime.

Interesting Amendment. It only took 202 years for the required number of states to ratify it...maybe there is still hope for the Equal Rights Amendment. :o)

I agree with your last, IB. Aptly put.

The closing phrase brings to mind the infamous "Deliverance" scene -- inadvertently and only on my part, I'm sure. :o)

Inspector, I am 'toasting' you as I type (not really easy to do, considering how bad I type with two empty hands).

When I found this site, I was elated to be able to add (most days) to the goings-on here. Most days I still am.

However, no matter what, it is only a gathering place for discussion and 'whatnot'. Some days more 'whatnot' than not.

And I do appreciate a good banjo tune. But my favorites are a well-played mandolin and dobro. And I'll 'cool' one down for you too.

Woody

Thanks, Rolando. Thanks, Woody.

I like the old time VA and NC stuff for listening--Dock Boggs and Tommy Jarrell on vinyl set me right.

And for the more recent recordings Doc Watson and Norman Blake--a great Chattanoogan, born and bred!--fit.

Norman Blake - Nashville Blues http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKLgXgVRqjk

I attended a Doc Watson performance this summer. What a legend.

Lightnup wrote:

"1. Because by then it is too late to mount an effective campaign against a government takeover. Were it not for the much-maligned Tea Parties and conservatives publicizing and protesting against what was actually in the earlier versions, the House likely would have forwarded an even more severely flawed bill to the Senate."

I don't doubt that conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, may have had some influence in any weakening of any of the several bills of specifics that were changed or dropped, but any thought that the tea bag toters had any influence is....well a joke.

"2. If you truly believe that waiting until the FINAL bill is on the table before discussing it, I assume you will not be posting any more of your opinions on the topic until that time?"

I haven't discussed specifics about any bill in weeks. In fact, when H.R. 3200 basically died, I quit discussing specifics. I'm quite aware that the bill that has been passed onto the Senate, will resemble nothing at all like it did when it was passed by the Congress.

What remains to be seen, is what the Senate does with what they now have to work with. When they finish, I may well have plenty to discuss. Right now, it's anyone's guess.

So why sweat hypotheticals?

"3. It is not whatever minutia is in the FINAL bill that upsets conservatives, it is the whole concept of Congress even considering another big-government, entitlement creating, tax raising, job killing, power grabbing bureaucracy, and doing it in the middle of a recession with double-digit unemployment."

You really think that's what it is all about, don't you?

There are 535 representatives between the House and the Senate, who are elected to represent the people of the United States. 237 of our fine representatives are millionaires. 50 of them are worth $10 million or more. Seven of them are worth $100 million or more.

1% of the general public have a net worth of million dollars or more. This means that 44% of our representatives have something in common with 1% of the general public.

Never in the history of this nation have a clear minority of people had such an over-representation in Washington.

Clearly, they take care of their own.

Are you one of them Lightnup?

"But liberals consider the Constitution to be a freedom-inhibiting document rather than a freedom-enhancing document, so they blithely ignore it."

Still waiting to hear how liberals consider the constitution freedom inhibiting. That's a mighty big claim that does not appear connected to the corporate stuff. From my perspective, if a corporation got a bailout using my taxes, I would want them accountable to the government that gave it to them, but hey, that's just me.

However, this does not appear to be related to the constitution. Throw me a bone here, Lightnup.

Woody replied:

Amen, Alprova, Amen!!

For the life of me, I have yet to figure out why so many are so upset over NOTHING!! It's just rude, not to mention, a little weird.

Know your enemy first, I am sure someone said a long time ago. However, in this case, it's not the enemy that some people are deriding. It's the mere thought of the enemy that has them up in arms.

I'm thinking if we could harness all the hate and revulsion being aimed at the "PROPOSED" health care reform. We could have defeated the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan a long time ago.

Oh well, so much for knowing your enemy.

I hate to burst your bubble of love for ole' beer drinking Woody, but he has his biases like everyone else here on these posts. Who is the "them" he's always mentioning? The "hate" comments re: Lightnups' previous posts? It sure ain't the Libs and the Left he directs his 'disagreements' at and with.

As for independent thinking, some of us do just that. I use my own words unless I'm quoting someone. MY thoughts and ideas come from my own life experience/education and study-no one elses. No political party or corporation or mad professor tells me what to think or say. No mere man or woman either. I don't have to hide behind poetry or poet's mad musings.

The problem here is there are alot of pretenders who seem to think they are the only unbiased, untouched- by- any corruption, humans on this site. And maybe that's part of the problem in Washington too. Too many blowhards sitting in committees, not enough Truth happening.

Alprova wrote,

"1% of the general public have a net worth of million dollars or more. This means that 44% of our representatives have something in common with 1% of the general public."

Why don't you go ahead and break it down by political party so everyone can see who the party of the "rich" really is.

Our own Sen. Corker is the most wealthy R in the Senate, and his (self-made) fortune is not actually very impressive if taken in context of many others in Congress.

What fine fortune, Lightnup.

You can always tell the young folks that you were there and saw Doc Watson.

I think here of Guy Clark's "Dublin Blues":

I have been to Fort Worth I have been to Spain I have been to proud To come in out of the rain

I have seen the David I've seen the Mona Lisa too I have heard Doc Watson Play Columbus Stockade Blues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQGjkBuMGAU

I miss the days when we could go over to Merlefest. Last time we caught Doc Watson, Pete Rowan, Tony Rice, Tim O'Brien, Levon Helm, Ricky Skaggs, &c. Now there's a pride of lions to draw to. . . .

Apologies for derailing the discussion.

IB, familiar with Wayne Henderson or Jeff Little? Saw them too this summer. Simply incredible.

And this from the CSM against Health Coops.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1110/p09s02-coop.html

Thanks for the tip, Lightnup. I will mark it down in my tablets.

I lived for many years within a short drive of Wayne Henderson's home base in VA. I think I heard about him on "The Old Home Place" and other local radio shows, but I do not believe I saw him live.

I saw The Seldom Scene perform on a faultless night at the Nelson County Fair. If you know the Scene's "Wait a Minute," you know that this experience in a twilit grove was as close as mere mortals will get to what getting is good.

Seldom Scene on Tommy Hunter Show - Wait a Minute http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wigjZ7...

Rest easy, pardner. I think we found a happier topic than capitol confusion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1110/p09s02-coop.html

This blog is about Health Care Reform!

I know I err, too, but not 4 comments about country music.

Come on, Men, have a happier time by contacting each other on e-mail. It's available to you, you know.

Bless your heart, Clara.

The most recent list I just downloaded has 237 Representatives in the House and Senate reporting average wealth that makes them millionaires.

Breaking it down by party, it goes like this;

Democrats: 134

Republicans: 107

Independents: 1 (Lieberman, of course)

The top 10?

Darrell Issa (R-Calif) - $251,025,020.00 Jane Harman (D-Calif) - $244,796,667.00 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) - $214,570,011.00 Mark Warner (D-Va) - $209,700,598.00 John Kerry (D-Mass) - $208,801,275.00 Jared Polis (D-Colo) - $158,173,566.00 Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) - $142,432,692.00 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) - $94,306,010.00 Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) - $74,744,094.00 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $72,380,637.00

The five poorest?

Bart Stupak (D-Mich)- $-411,496.00 in debt Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $-452,998.00 in debt John Salazar (D-Colo) - $-479,000.00 in debt Jeffrey Lane Fortenberry (R-Neb) - $-526,496.00 in debt Alcee L Hastings (D-Fla) - $-4,732,002.00 in debt

Yeah...I was blown away too when I perused that list.

Doggone Republicans. They are so desperate for votes, that they purposely gave away the vast majority of their wealth to Democrats, so that they could appear to be poor.

Now here's something that will make you wonder if the Republicans are on track to do as well as some would like to think they will in 2010.

Let's talk campaign donations:

Here's what has been raised for the 2010 election thus far;

Democratic Party - $294,777,716 Republican Party - $168,013,376

Democratic National Committee - $61,795,622 Republican National Committee - $68,832,049

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - $44,410,839
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee - $27,197,153

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - $33,388,909
Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee - $29,740,082

$140,590,426.00 - Go Democrats!!

alprova,

Good posts. The D to R ratio is as lopsided as I recall seeing somewhere else a few months back, thought the actual numbers and relative positions are a bit different. (Of course these types of things are very difficult to pin down with any certainty.) With access to wealth like that(on both sides), it is no wonder they are so out of touch with the rest of us.

Not that I mind people amassing wealth, but it goes along way toward explaining why they don't think $15,000 a year mandatory health insurance premiums and skyrocketing energy prices are such a big deal.

SCOTTYM wrote: "With access to wealth like that(on both sides), it is no wonder they are so out of touch with the rest of us."

Word.

Scotty wrote: "Good posts. The D to R ratio is as lopsided as I recall seeing somewhere else a few months back, thought the actual numbers and relative positions are a bit different. (Of course these types of things are very difficult to pin down with any certainty.) With access to wealth like that(on both sides), it is no wonder they are so out of touch with the rest of us."

Those figures are the average reported wealth. Queen Pelosi claims from year to year that she is worth either $4 million over and above, or $3 million in the hole.

I don't think anyone can actually verify the net worth of any of them, if the truth were known.

"Not that I mind people amassing wealth, but it goes along way toward explaining why they don't think $15,000 a year mandatory health insurance premiums and skyrocketing energy prices are such a big deal."

I'm waiting patiently to see what happens. If this is all that comes down the pike, then we've ALL been sold out to the insurance companies.

Surely to goodness they, as in all our representatives, are not that stupid.

Or are they?

"Or are they?"

LOL. Is that a rhetorical question?

Disagree with the current administration or the health care bill, Lightnup, but refrain from statements that condemn an entire group. I hardly think you would remain silent if I posted that conservatives are racist or want a theocracy in place of our democracy. It does not move the discussion forward, nor is it true. It is beneath you.

I certainly agree that our lawmakers cannot possibly understand what it is like to be in need. Once you get that powerful and wealthy, even if you are from humble roots (and most of them are not) you forget how the average family lives. It also takes a certain amount of ego to run for office, especially at the national level.

lkeithlu,lectures from you telling me what statements I can and can't write? Please.

And your demands for fast responses? Until you become the forum moderator, no one is obligated to respond to you at all if they choose not to, much less meet your timetable.

But here is some fodder for you regarding my contention that liberals feel the Constitution is an inhibiting document.

"...Liberalism regards the restraining spirit of the Constitution as incompatible with the democratic principle, and seeks ways to short-circuit the constitutional resistances to majority will. ...Conservatism ...seeks constitutional refuges from the democratic principle and from the authority of the government established by the Constitution." http://nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080514_issue1conservativesliberals.pdf

Obama says Constitution is a document of negative liberties and reflects fundamental flaw of this country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

“...The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize "positive" rights, not just "negative" rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits." “From [Obama Czar Cass] Sunstein: With growth and change, political rights enshrined in Constitution are inadequate.”

“….The left makes no secret of its intentions where the Constitution is concerned. It wants to change it, in ways that have nothing to do with what the document actually says. It wants the Constitution to enshrine its own policy preferences--thus freeing it from the tiresome necessity of winning elections.” “…The new, improved Constitution will come about through judicial re-interpretation. It only awaits, perhaps, the election of the next Democratic president.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/504hndlw.asp?pg=1

Pelosi, when asked where the Constitution authorizes Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, responds only with, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

"Senate Judiciary Chairman [Patrick Leahy] Unable to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55910

“Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, ....longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56447

Where did I demand fast response?

I will read those articles you posted, and will also consider their sources. However, please be aware that painting an entire group with extreme claims lessens your credibility. As a liberal, I support the constitution in every way. I respect your differences in opinion as a conservative. I've learned to do so-my entire family is conservative; I and my in-laws along with my children and most of my colleagues are liberal. To accuse me, along with a large part of the American population, of such un-American ideas, is insulting.