MADDOG10's Blog

The Middle East isn’t just a foreign policy problem it’s another one of the man-caused disasters that has become the hallmark of the Obama administration’s version of Moe, Larry and Curly.

And the cause of the disaster is transparently clear: These stooges are all campaign and no common sense.

Because the amigos tres in this instance haven’t just been poor executives-- as they have shown in other policy-- they’ve been poor thinkers as well. That they are hurting Muslims in Iraq and the Middle East -- a group they say they stand in solidarity with-- is immaterial to them. Campaigning for these stooges has always come before common sense.

That’s why secretary of state John “Larry” Kerry-- who was for the Iraq war before he was against it while he was campaigning for president-- is secretary of state; and perhaps the worst secretary of state ever if you discount the last secretary of state, who also was for the Iraq war before she was against it.

“This is not a combat, boots-on-the-ground, operation in Iraq,” said Defense Secretary, Chuck “Curly” Hagel—another guy who was for the war before he was against it-- all while he ordered 130 more US boots on the ground.

So let’s just say that the campaign is never ending, and thus common sense is still quite uncommon with our foreign policy stooges.

So uncommon in fact that Barack “Moe” Obama can’t even admit what we all know to be facts.

When confronted with the fact that he promised to remove US troops from Iraq, then kept that promise, and then claimed he ended the Iraq War by removing the troops-- while really he was destabilizing the country—Moe had this to say:

“What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision,” said Obama about the decision to end the US troops that stabilized Iraq. “Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there.”

Let’s just be clear, shall we?

It was Moe—and Kerry and Curly-- who claimed from the campaign trail in 2008 that Iraq was just a sideshow, the surge wouldn’t work, and that the real US troop surge needed to happen in Afghanistan. It was Moe—and Kerry and Curly -- who said the Bush administration made a mistake in not pursuing Osama bin Laden, like somehow bin Laden’s death would make a difference. It was Moe-- and Kerry and Curly -- who pulled troops out of Iraq after the surge worked and INTO Afghanistan, even though we know now that Moe— and Kerry and Curly -- didn’t want troops in either country.

So why are they sending troops in now?

Because they are stooges, that’s why.

I’m not sure what it is that theses stooges think they accomplishing for the Muslim world, or for America, but if Obama-- and Kerry and Curly—have something to offer in the Middle East besides an apocalypse now and more apocalypse later and even more apocalypse later still, they should cut the vaudeville routine.

Their slapstick is a painful substitute for statesmanship.

WASHINGTON - President Obama is on a two-week vacation in Martha's Vineyard, as wars rage across the Middle East and Ukraine, terrorists threaten to topple Iraq, and Republicans are on the brink of capturing the Senate.

Around the country, a deepening mood of anger and anxiety permeates America's electorate, with the midterm elections a mere three months away.

And in a brewing political civil war among Democrats, Hillary Clinton has unleashed a sharp attack on Obama's timid foreign policy, calling for a more muscular response to the spread of global terrorism.

The president's job approval scores remain in the low 40s and show no signs of improvement on the problems voters are angry about -- from jobs, incomes, the budget deficits and a rash of disturbing government scandals that have exposed an incompetent and corrupt administration.

"There is a lot of angst about whether this country is continuing to provide an opportunity to live the American dream," says Democrat Ted Strickland, former governor of Ohio. "The overarching concern is an economy that is not providing an opportunity for working people."

Hurtling toward the fall elections, the Democrats' political prospects, and Obama's presidency, were sinking fast.

Republicans have a political lock on the House and had a better than even chance of taking over the Senate where they need only six seats to make Harry Reid the minority leader.

Last week, those chances improved significantly when Democratic Sen. John Walsh of Montana announced he will not seek election in the wake of a story broken by The New York Times that said he had plagiarized portions of a paper he wrote at the U.S. Army War College.

According to the Times, the six recommendations he made in a foreign policy study were "taken nearly word-for-word without attribution from a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace document on the same topic."

Democrats will choose a new candidate next week, but the chances of mounting a credible campaign and raising enough money to be competitive were bleak. Before the scandal broke, polls showed GOP Rep. Steve Daines running ahead of Walsh by double digits.

This means Democrats were behind the eight ball in at least three seats their party held but that were now open due to retirements: Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, and to some extent a fourth in Iowa.

So Republicans will need just three more seats to take control, and there were at least five (and possibly a dozen) competitive contests to get them there: Colorado, North Carolina, Louisiana, Alaska and Arkansas.

What is the coming midterm campaign going to look like when it gets underway on Labor Day weekend?

No doubt Obama will be fully engaged, but he is no longer the political force he once was. Indeed, many Democrats will not want to be seen with him in red states like South Dakota, Louisiana, West Virginia or Montana, to name but a few.

Democrats are desperately sinking piles of money into voter turnout to counter the GOP wave, but their turnout will be well below what it was in 2012.

Voter intensity is stronger in the GOP, and even among independent voters, than it is among Democrats. That'll be an overriding factor on Nov. 4.

Next will be the Democrats' message, if they have one that resonates. Right now, it doesn't appear they do.
Obama ground tested several carnival barker pitches this year -- including income inequality -- only to discover they didn't resonate with voters.

Neither does Obama's insistence that the economy is doing much better since the recession. Many Americans, including large numbers who have dropped out of the work force or who are in part-time jobs but need full time work do not believe that for a moment.

Then there's the pessimism factor. No matter what he says about an improving economy, he hasn't been able to persuade skeptical Americans who believe that economic conditions will be worse in the future.

Recent Gallup surveys reported that confidence in the U.S. economy fell significantly last month.

One attack line Obama will continue to hammer will be against Congress for not acting on his threadbare agenda. Or, he claims, not even offering any legislation of their own to deal with the country's problems.

In truth, House Republicans have sent more than 300 pieces of legislation to the Senate where they have been summarily shelved by Reid.

Obama wants voters to think that it's the Republicans in the House who are holding things up, as he threatens to take executive action, with or without Congress's support.

It is all play acting of course. Over the decades, most of the bills the House sent to the Senate have been routinely placed in limbo, according to GovTrack.us that has gone back and study the legislative flow.

The website's findings: More than 50 percent of the bills sent to the Senate in 11 of the last 19 Congresses had not received action by the time Congress finished its business and went home.

The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us a lengthy, delay-prone, legislative system filled with plenty of procedural obstacles to keep bad bills from becoming law. What Obama's complaining about is that Congress won't pass his bad laws.

But what about the GOP's election agenda? That's not getting anywhere near the public attention it deserves.
Partly because the national news media tends to ignore Republican proposals or distorts what they would do.

And partly because the GOP leadership has done a poor job of explaining, promoting and selling its ideas.

A national TV ad campaign explaining how their ideas would unlock the power of job-creating capital through tax reform, expand trade, lower gas prices, cut the deficit and step up new business formation would be a good place to start. Backed up, of course, by its candidates.

Wonder of wonders: The Washington press corps woke up.

Finally, mainstream journalists are onto Barack Obama's game. Their breaking-news shocker? Turns out all that "hope and change" stuff was just hot air. A new report from the D.C.-based press shows that -- gasp -- the White House is infested with Beltway lobbyists.

Good morning, sleepyheads!

According to Politico's analysis published on Monday, the "Obama administration has hired about 70 previously registered corporate, trade association and for-hire lobbyists. And many of these former lobbyists work at the highest levels of government."

Wait, there's more. The "most transparent administration ever" is playing disclosure-dodging renaming games to hide lobbyists' grubby paw prints. By officially de-registering as corporate lobbyists and morphing into "consultants," "counselors" or "advisers," Obama's K Street operators can maintain the fiction of upholding the Great Agent of Change's grand ethics pledge.

Remember: Back in the day, candidate Obama assailed the K Street crowd with righteous (or rather, left-eous) zeal. "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over," he thundered in 2007. In one of his first executive actions, he declared that the White House had closed "the revolving door that allows government officials to move to and from private sector jobs in ways that give that sector undue influence over government."

But the reform-peddling candidate soon found it impossible to practice what he so sanctimoniously preached. Now, Obama depends on their "strategic advice" and Beltway wisdom. Here's the White House's chortle-inducing rationalization for elevating Broderick Johnson (husband of friend of the Obamas and NPR anchor Michele Norris, and longtime Democratic lobbyist for Microsoft, Pearson, JPMorgan Chase, Comcast, Fannie Mae and FedEx) as a top aide:

"The pledge does not bar anyone with prior lobbying experience from serving in this administration," an Obama spokesman told Politico.com. "Broderick has substantial experience working in the Clinton administration, on the Hill and in the private sector in a variety of capacities, as well as on the president's campaign. We welcome that mix of experience."

That "mix of experience" also includes veteran Beltway lobbyist Cecilia Munoz, formerly of the National Council of La Raza and consultant to the Mexican government, who is now assistant to the president and director of the Domestic Policy Council -- along with revolving-door beneficiaries Melody Barnes, Marc Berejka, Bradley Gillen and Sean Kennedy, all lobbyists turned Obama bureaucrats turned lobbyists again.

When Republicans hire lobbyists, it's a culture of corruption and influence peddling. When Obama hires lobbyists, it's a celebration of experience diversity.

Of course, these double standards and this double talk were clear from the outset. As I pointed out in my book "Culture of Corruption" five years ago this summer, the business-as-usual writing was on the wall from Day One. As soon as he was elected, Obama threw open his doors to the nation's leading lobbyists and professional D.C. back-scratchers:

Attorney General Eric Holder was registered as a lobbyist at Covington and Burling. Tim Vilsack, former Iowa governor and Obama's first agriculture secretary, was a registered lobbyist for the National Education Association. Ron Klain, Vice President Joe Biden's first chief of staff, was a lobbyist at O'Melveny and Myers. Leon Panetta was a lobbyist-lite who raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporations in "consulting fees." Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson served as chief of staff to former Treasury Secretary-turned-lobbyist Tim Geithner.

But now the K Street president is news?

Like the old saying goes: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

Obama and the Democrats are facing a disaster at the voting booth in November. His ratings have hit all-time lows. 70 percent of the public believes America is headed in the wrong direction. In fact, right now, polls are ranking Obama the worst president since WWII— lower than even Nixon or Carter.

And Obamacare also rates at all-time lows. Remarkably, it just experienced one of the biggest month-to-month opinion drops in the history of polling.

Yet Obama and his Kool-Aid drinking Democratic supporters are so ideological, delusional and out of touch with middle class America that they don’t understand why this is happening.

My new book, “The Murder of the Middle Class” is about how America is being destroyed by the “murder of the middle class.” It is important to note that this murder is not just due to misguided, inept, or amateurish policies. It is a deliberate, purposeful, and planned destruction. Every day, the middle class sees their jobs being destroyed and replaced by low wage part-time jobs and/or government checks. Every day, their bills for gasoline, electric, groceries, and health insurance goes up. Every day, their job prospects, income, and assets go down.

Little by little, the proud middle class is being forced to grovel for government checks or subsidies just to survive. It is not happening by accident, mistake, or coincidence. This is a purposeful plan and it is succeeding. How do I know? I was Obama’s college classmate at Columbia University, where we studied this exact plan that he has been implementing for the past six years.

It took a while, but middle class Americans are finally realizing—with friends like Obama, who needs enemies? They’re finally learning to watch what Obama does, not what he says. The middle class finally understands that when Obama says he wants to “save” the middle class, the proper reaction is to reach for our wallets.

Reagan famously said, “the government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.” That applies to Obamacare, green energy, amnesty for illegal immigrants, taxes, regulations and debt. Obama’s policies are helping the super-rich, the corporate elite, and the poor. But those same policies are murdering middle class opportunity and mobility, raising costs, and destroying the livelihoods of middle class Americans.

What made the light bulb go off? What turned the middle class against Obama? In a word…Obamacare. The reason is simple. Obamacare is no longer a theory in a campaign speech. America’s middle class is now living and experiencing it firsthand.

Here's a story that sums up what is happening in the real world—outside of Washington DC. I landed at the airport last week and hailed a cab. With no prodding, and as cab drivers are prone to do, the taxi driver wanted to vent. About what? Obamacare. He believes Obamacare has ruined his life. His words, not mine.

This taxi driver had just heard from his insurance agent. He and his wife are in their late 40’s. They just found out their premium will double starting January 1^st. But that’s only the start of their pain. Their co-pay istripling from $10 per doctor visit to $30. Their surgery coverage is going from 90 percent to only 80 percent. And their deductible is doubling from $500 to $1000. Add it up, and this middle class couple faces a tripling of healthcare expenses.

The reason, of course, is because Obamacare demands this middle aged couple pay to cover pregnancy, prenatal, sex change surgery, and abortions— none of which they’ll ever need in his remaining lifetime. And, of course, the middle class has to pay extra to cover the costs of the 30 million people receiving Obamacare for free.

While I don’t know if this cabbie understood the reasons why his healthcare costs were tripling, he certainly understands the effect these dramatic Obamacare cost increases will have on his middle class lifestyle.It will destroy it.

He also clearly understands his options. He said his options are to go without health insurance (now against the law) and pray no one in his family gets sick…or declare bankruptcy, give up his home in foreclosure, and move into a small apartment…or quit his job and live on the government dole. These are the choices left for middle class Americans because of Obamacare.

My personal story is similar. Before Obamacare my family’s health insurance was $500 per month. Today it’s $1,700 per month (but about to get much worse). Aetna just cancelled my policy (effective Jan. 1st). I've never been sick. They blamed it on the mandates and costs of Obamacare.

Will the new policy be $2500 per month? $3000? How high can it go? Few small businessmen can afford $30,000 or more per year for health insurance. This is a disaster. This is financial ruin. Small businessmen like me are being forced to close our businesses, or lay off employees to pay for Obamacare. That’s the death of full-time jobs in America.

This is “the murder of the middle class.” This same story is playing out across America. The middle class is being financially murdered—and now, they know it. It’s hitting their pocketbooks hard. Many conservative pundits may have predicted it before, but now, the cat is out of the bag. Obamacare is no longer a theory on paper, or political promises at a campaign rally. Obamacare is the law. People are experiencing it, and it is destroying middle class lives from coast to coast.

So finally the slumbering giant has awakened. The middle class understands the truth— Obamacare isn’t helping us. Obamacare is our enemy. We now know Obama committed fraud when he said “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.” We know he lied when he said our prices would go down. We know he lied when he said our quality of care would not go down. We know he lied when he said we could keep our current doctors. We know he lied when he said Obamacare would help the economy. We know he lied when he said it wouldn’t kill jobs. We now know that Obamacare is the death of our middle class quality of life.

But that was the plan all along. It was never about improving healthcare. It was always about income redistribution to shift the cost to the middle class. It was always about making the middle class poor and dependent on government.

Yes, Obama has been successful in his purposeful plan to murder the middle class. But wait until he sees what we’re going to do to him and his Democratic allies in November. The middle class will have their revenge.

President Obama claims that the extremism and reality-challenged nature of his political opponents explain his limitless policy failures, which, of course, he also refuses to acknowledge. This is truly rich but nothing new.

 

Obama told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, "What you've seen with our politics ... is increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme, maximalist positions." He continued: "Sooner or later, that catches up with you. You end up not being able to move forward on things we need to move forward on. ... We need to rebuild our infrastructure. You go to the Singapore airport and then you come back to one of our airports and you say, 'Huh?' We're not acting like a superpower."

Obama said we need "to revamp our education system." "All these things are doable. Our fiscal position, actually, now is such -- you know, the deficit's been cut by more than half -- where we're in a position to make some smart investments that have huge payoffs, that historically have not been controversial, historically have garnered bipartisan support. But because of this maximalist ideological position, we've been blocked. ... That ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent right now in the Republican Party than the Democrats."

How did he describe the Republican maximalist extremism? He noted that while "the Democratic consensus" is "pretty common-sense, mainstream" and generally "fact-based and reason-based," the Republican position is "a lot of wacky ideological nonsense. He said: "We're not denying science. We're not denying climate change. We're not pretending that somehow, having a whole bunch of uninsured people is the American way."

Can you say "delusional"? Republicans are extreme? Not fact- or reason-based?

Obama simply will not accept responsibility for his own actions or the failure of his own policies. His latest jaw dropper is his denial that he had anything to do with completely withdrawing our troops from Iraq, though he campaigned on a promise to do so and refused to become engaged enough in the Iraq problem in 2011 to even try to achieve a status of forces agreement. As if auditioning for the "Saturday Night Live" character who would play him, he said, "What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision." Wow.

In Obama's defense, he has no choice but to blame others for his failures, because he is serving a lifetime sentence in the prison of his narcissistic psyche.

Fact-based, Mr. President? You mean like:

--Your refusal to recognize the global threat of Islamic terrorism, believing the only culprit is al-Qaida? Or your fantasy that terrorists are born as a result of the failure of governments to give them a seat at the table of power, as opposed to their ideological fervor, and that they can be won over with a little tolerance?

--Acting as though we don't have a crisis on our southern border?

--Dismissing the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups and the convenient, mysterious destruction of agency hard drives as a phony scandal?

--Claiming Obamacare is improving our health care system, improving the quality of care, increasing choice and reducing costs to individuals and the government?

--Contending that you've cut the deficit in half when you are basing that calculation on an artificially high base line based on your predecessor's last year in office, which included extraordinary items from the 2008 financial meltdown?

--Alleging that a deficit that has finally been reduced -- against your wishes, by the way -- to a figure twice as high as President George W. Bush's average deficit constitutes fiscal progress when we have $17 trillion of debt and $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities? Do you actually expect us to believe that just because our deficits are lower than during Bush's last fiscal year and your first term, which featured record-setting spending, we are now swimming in money and have surplus resources to spend on infrastructure and education? That's like a bankrupt individual's saying he intends to build a mansion because he only increased his bankrupt-level indebtedness half as much this past year as he increased it the year before. Do you really not yet understand the difference between deficit and debt?

--Claiming that your nearly trillion-dollar stimulus package, your war on business and oil, your avalanche of new smothering regulations, and your onerous tax policies have resulted in an economic boom throughout your term?

--Pretending that one incidental quarter of growth -- which fails to factor in that we have the lowest labor participation rate since 1978, anemic household income and record levels of people on government assistance -- sustains your claim that we're witnessing an economic boom?

--Your belief that if we just throw more federal money at education, we'll start seeing some results?

If the polls are any indication, people may finally be realizing that it is not Republicans but Obama's extremism, his unswerving ideology and his refusal to accept facts and draw reasonable conclusions from them that are perpetuating America's rapid decline.

November should tell the tale.

Six years into the worst administration for African Americans since Andrew Johnson sanctioned segregation in the South, it’s no surprise that riots have broken out in St. Louis.

“The police shooting of an unarmed teenager in a St. Louis suburb over the weekend triggered angry demonstrations Sunday morning and vandalism and looting Sunday night, local media reported,” says the LA Times.

The only question is: “What took it so long?”

With president Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, race-baiters Al Sharpton, Sheila Jackson Lee, and an assortment of others constantly fanning the flames of hatred-- and thus keeping the black community in the big state straightjacket-- it’s not surprising that the disenfranchised have now turned to the remedies available to the disenfranchised for eons: chaos, rioting and looting.

Self immolation is the last resort of those who have no other voice.

I’m going to be straight with you: If I were a black male in America I’d be a radical, I’d be angry, I’d be striking back.

Just not over this shooting only-- and not in this way.

Can you imagine any other population-- say Italians-- being OK with the same type of tragedy in their own communities that is decimating the black males?

I can't.

While the details of the shooting aren’t clear, what is clear is that a black youth is dead, another casualty to America’s insistence by people of all colors to use, exploit, and otherwise misunderstand race relations in this country.

While not getting into the argument about why this is true, it’s a fact that by every appreciable measure this country has failed and continues to willfully fail black males. And in my long-standing refrain, as conservative, I’m not OK with it.

And if you’re conservative who is OK with it, I don’t mind telling you that I’m not OK with you. We’re better than this, not just as conservatives, but as the People of Lincoln, as Americans.

In education, in life expectancy, in income, in employment, in health and in incarceration rates, the data tell a sad story of a whole segment of society—that is, the black male—that has been left behind.

And if you don’t acknowledge the fact that behind all the reform minded talk about education, income, employment, health and crime in America lies the haunted and hunted figure of the black male—especially the young black male—then you’re either stupid, or worse yet, you’re a progressive.

If you take the black male out of the statistics in healthcare, employment, income, education and incarceration rates, the picture of America doesn’t look quite as bleak.

Take healthcare, for example. One of the principle arguments that Dems have made as to the necessity of healthcare reform has been that mortality rates in the United States are worse than in Europe, even though we spend more money on healthcare. Yet, when one looks at life expectancies in the US of populations besides the black males, life expectancy doesn’t look that much different than in Europe.

The same thing apples in education. If we take the black male out of the stats, the story is much different—and thus more <snip>ing of our policies—than if we include the black.

So what are we talking about here?

We’re talking about how America has failed black males in this country.

And while Obama and Holder certainly share a lion’s share of blame for the plight of black males in 2014, I know that conservatives can do better.

That we don’t do better as conservatives, I’m not OK with that.

We’re smarter and our ideas are better.

HOW OBAMA'S LEADERSHIP CRIPPLES AMERICA, PART 2

Exclusive: Chuck Norris reveals why 'Iraq is only symptomatic of greater problem'

Published: 22 hours ago

Donjindrawrote: We're running huge deficits. Of course our tax bill will go up. It should go up. Do "conservatives" think there's a free-lunch? That money grows on trees? Apparently so. -Merry Christmas: This Tax Increase is for You, America

Dear Comrade Jindra,

OK, so now liberals are worried about the deficit? And you guys are lecturing the rest of us about fiscal responsibility and how money is created?

Typical tough talk from a group that can’t even pass a budget, yet alone balance one.

Here’s a good idea: Have your messiah present a plan to Congress that balances the budget, right now, not after the passage of time and some mythical increase in GDP created by “voodoo” tax increases on everyone.

Because Obama’s newest plan is basically the same, old plan he had last year- and the year before- that even Democrats wouldn’t vote for…not one vote.

“Even after granting all the phony spending cuts and similar gimmicks in Obama’s budget of last February,” writes Heritage’s J.D. Foster, ”federal debt held by the public rises by $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years without the tax hike and by $7.7 trillion with the tax hike. Expressed another way, allowing some of the Bush tax cuts to expire as Obama demands represents less than 10 percent of the projected debt increase.”

Only a true liberal would could come up with a plan to minimize the damage done to the economy by the expiration of $500 billion in tax cuts by raising taxes another $1.6 TRILLION, including $600 billion on ordinary, middle class Americans.

I really hope Obama gets his party to vote “yes” on these tax increases.

The language of the Obamacare legislation is unambiguous:

 

the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 ^[1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

This language clearly and concisely provides that the Obama administration did not and does not have the right to provide subsidies to individuals enrolled in states that did not organize state exchanges (or prospectively states that eliminate their state exchanges). While the Obama administration has played fast and loose with effective dates, insurance requirements and the like, both the language and the history of this language should hardly be in dispute.

Note that while the Courts may currently be split on whether the Obama Administration can continue to pay these subsidies, Joel W. Hay argues that it is possible that all recipients of such subsidies may be required to repay their subsidies to the Federal government. So, while the Obama Administration can continue to pay, the President may be putting millions of families across the country at risk for repayments they will not possibly be able to afford. This possibility has not been discussed in the press. Is the Obama Administration or any of the insurance companies alerting anyone to this possibility?

There are two bona-fide witnesses that the language was no typo. Further, Democrats did not take the opportunity to try to change or "fix" the legislative language through a technical corrections act.

The first bona-fide witness was the then Leader of The Pack, Nancy Pelosi, who famously said that everyone would have to read the bill to know what was in it. This is the manner in which Ms. Pelosi chose to legislate. Shame on her, shame on the Democrats who were one hundred percent of the votes in favor of Obamacare for what they now portray as shoddy legislation (although most believe this was the intent of the Democratic Party's outside expert.) The legislation is what the legislation says, no more and no less.

The language is clear and specific. The Internal Revenue Service does not have the authority to provide tax subsidies to individuals and employers in the 36 states that opted out of creating state run health insurance exchanges. Perhaps if the legislation had been available for review, someone would have explained the risk of this explicit language to the then Speaker of the House. But, let's be clear, the language is the language and there was an affirmative decision to vote on that language before a reasonable period of time to review the legislation.

The second bona-fide witness is Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare. It has been widely reported that he publically indicated that the subsidies were only for states that formed their own exchanges. I remember reviewing this particular section of the law and concluding it was politically brilliant. I had thought that governors would be unable to resist the insurance subsidies for their constituents and virtually every state would accede to the creation of its own separate health insurance exchanges. Obviously, I was wrong and the thirty-six governors showed more character than I could have imagined. These governors' integrity is a wonderful thing.

Now The Empire (Courts) is striking back. The President, through his HHS, has lost every round with respect to the ability for his Obamacare to trump religious freedom. The Supreme Court will not be able to condone the insurance subsidy payments for the thirty-six states not operating state exchanges. This means that the four or so million Americans in those states likely need to repay subsidies already received and subsidies received before any Court case that determines such payments were incorrect. This is not a result I suspect many Americans want to see. Obamacare will become a regional program, again not an answer most wish to see.

But what now?

Republicans now have some serious arrows in their quiver. That quiver will be noticeably larger after the fall elections.

The issue for citizens is that Obamacare needs to be incredibly and dramatically reigned in or eliminated. The Democratic concern has to be that their "key legislative accomplishment" could be decimated by the Courts and this could, in reality, cause a significant part of their base to lose faith.

There may be a bi-partisan opportunity here. Could Republicans and the President live with

(a) elimination of all penalties under Obamacare making the entire program voluntary,

(b) a restoration of the ability of the consumer, whether that consumer be an individual or a business, to purchase health insurance covering whatever and not covering whatever they choose, (This would restore the opportunity for citizens to return to buying policies that they believed were and are sufficient for their needs.)

(c) creating the ability of insurance companies to offer insurance policies in whatever states they choose without restriction,

(d) creating the ability of insurance companies to offer polices that augment business insurance policies that individuals believe need augmenting,

(e) abrogating most of the rules released to date by HHS and the elimination of the corresponding federal jobs

(f) prospective capping (as to individuals and in total) of any health insurance policy payments for which subsidies are being paid by the Federal government and

(g) undoing any requirement for repayment of subsidies incorrectly paid by the Federal government where the recipient did not commit fraud in the recipient's application

This is, by no means, perfect and obviously the list could be supplemented and/or amended. That being said, most authors believe that leaving the other side the opportunity not to be humiliated is the way to get a transaction completed or a war ended. With the strong possibility that the Supreme Court will rule against the Obama Administration with respect to subsidies and the risk to Democrats that other law suits challenging Obamacare will be successful, Democrats have significant reason to reduce their downside and accept a deal that most citizens would find reasonable.