. . .why the Democrats would find the “deemed” passing of the Senate Bill to be better than actually voting on it. Tony Blankley explains why in this opinion piece, which states two basic reasons, which he argues runs directly against what the Constitution says.

“It is those two provisions of the Constitution that would be evaded: 1) the House vote, with the names and votes of the individual members publicly published, and 2) the president’s signature. That is James Madison’s precise 18th century version of transparency and accountability.”


I don’t know if he’s right, but if he and anyone is paying attention, this ought to provoke a Constitutional crisis. In a prior discussion I averred that we were on a slippery slope to Banana Republic status. I was mostly joking, but now I’m not so sure.




March 16, 2010



. . .when I write I told a friend that Agassi’s career would rebound right after a divorce from Brooke Shields (this was long before any marital difficultly became public).

Could it be that way with our President as well?



Got this from a link on Drudge. Pretty funny in that sort of “I’m kind of laughing, but it could materially and negatively impact me and my country” sort of way. Could have been taken out of context, and I did look for the rest of the video, but couldn’t find it.



If it goes to reconciliation, do the Democrats really want to drag this effort into April or May?

As I recall, the taxes go into effect immediately. The other stuff goes into effect three years later. Even if it passes, if the country is still as enraged as it is now. And, trust me, the higher taxes won’t help. It’s not out of the question the whole thing we be repealed in 2012.