Specifically, Lewis made the point that 9-9-9 would likely not be changed, because under the plan, to borrow one of the President's favorite phrases, everyone would have some "skin in the game". Under the current system class warfare is a political winner because of the fact that so many people don't have any federal tax burden. It is really easy to cheer higher taxes when they are only hitting the other guy. Under 9-9-9, everyone pays, so any change in the tax burden hits everyone the same, which becomes a bulwark against Congress arbitrarily raising taxes, because now there would be no classes to pit against one another. The rich, the middle classes, and the poor would all be fighting against tax increases because it affects all.

I was listening to Jason Lewis on the radio last night tallking about this, and he made a point about 9-9-9 that I think blows Lambro's argument up. What Lewis was saying is that all the fears about the government arbitrarily turning 9-9-9 into something bigger are just scare tactics by those who say they want to reduce taxes, but are only willing to do so using the current system.

What you fail to understand about the 2000 Florida recount is that in elections, federal laws always trump state laws, because without controlling federal statutes states could reimpose poll taxes if they so chose. In stopping the endless recounts, which had no set rules for determining which votes should count and which should be discarded, the SCOTUS stopped the SCOFLA from continuing to break the very laws they were sworn to uphold. The SCOFLA was actively breaking Florida election laws by demanding that the vote tallies not be certified on time by the Sec. of State and by ordering selective recounts in only heavily Democratic leaning counties. It was not the SCOTUS that was bent on getting an election result that they wanted but the...

It is, however, a violation of the 14th Amendment to treat one group of people as criminal suspects based solely om their, race, religion, or ethnic origin while deciding that others are immune from the same scrutiny. And if you are truly upset about the 14th Amendment being "kaput", why are you willing to allow it to be further degraded in the name of profiling? Either we are concerned with the destruction of the Constitution to suit narrow political objectives, or we aren't. We can't claim that the Constitution is sacrosanct when liberals abuse it for their ends, but then turn around and advocate the same types of actions. Besides, if we knew who the terrorists were, there would be no need for "profiling terrorists" would there? And...

Has anyone stopped to consider that unlike us, the Israelis do not have a written Constitution? They are free to do pretty much what they want, without having to conform to the protections granted under a Bill of Rights. Most of their constitutional protections are not actually contained in a controlling document like ours, and that makes a difference. We simply cannot, and probably should not adopt the Israeli model wholesale as so many of my fellow conservatives are clamoring for. As I wrote at my blog, I find it amazing to hear so many of us up in arms about the loss of 4th Amendment protections during airport screenings, yet there you stand cheer leading the proposed suspension of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by...

You left out two important points: Win 60+ seats in the House Pick up 6 seats in the Senate, destroying the filibuster proof Democratic majority That just about covers it, because no matter how snarky you get it cannot cover up the fact that in the 2010 midterm elections the GOP were huge winners and the Obamaites were treated to a huge, embarrassing defeat!

Yours is probably the most simple-minded post I have seen in response to Mr. Goldberg's article, as it does not address the issues at all, but takes off into an ad hominem attack on Christine O'Donnell. The odd obsession that liberals have with what degrees people hold and where they attained those degrees is one that quite simply baffles me. It is as if liberals such as yourself do not recognize how silly those arguments actually are, and how easily they can be turned around to show how hypocritical the liberal mindset is. For example, you have just argued that because many of the people sitting on the Supreme Court were lawyers, have law degrees, and were once law professors that they have some type of "inside track" on...

Amen and amen! Everything that we do has the potential to inflame the Muslim world and put our soldiers in greater danger, mainly because the Muslims around the world do not need much of an incentive to run riot through the streets. If we are so worried about the potential of insulting these people, then we should just withdraw within our borders and never venture forward, especially in the ME, because that might offend the Muslims and their tender sensibilites.

As a lifelong North Carolinian, I have never understood how our state works politically. We have a long record of supporting conservative candidates on the national level, yet we keep electing Democratic governors and allowing the Dems to dominate the state house. I hope that this is finally the time that we are able to break the Democratic stranglehold on state government and get some sanity back, before we tax ourselves into economic oblivion!

the big difference is that there is verifiable proof of a liberal slant to major media in this country, while the alleged Jewish control is just an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. And no one is trying to say "the devil made them do it" about Stalin or Hitler; we see them as evil men who made considered decisions on the actions they took. Pretending that Oliver Stone has the capacity to look through time and analyze these men is a preposterous notion. I don't think that Stone wants to understand them so much as he seeks a way to minimize their actions and diffuse some of the blame...and lay it at the feet of America. And if Stone had not made those outrageous comments, there would be no "outrage quotes" to cite! I don't see any proper...