Mitt Romney is really in the mold of a 1960′s type of Democrat.  His stances on the issues and political philosophies are very close to President Kennedy’s:  Cut taxes to spur the economy and actually generate more revenues to the government, keep the budget balanced, strong defense, stand up for America and her interests, basic safety net for the truly needy, etc.

Mr. Romney is your parents’ idea of an authentic democrat.  He holds to the ideas that traditional democrats held until the uber left of the party started taking over in the 1990′s (or earlier).  He would easily fit in with John Kennedy and other moderate democrats of that era.

Democrats - go ahead - it’s okay to vote for Romney.  After all, you would really be voting for a traditional democrat  vs. voting for a far left One.  Think about it, Romney is more likely to work with the Democrats in the House and Senate than Obama.  Also more likely to increase good paying jobs in energy, manufacturing and related job sectors as well as increasing entrepreneurial opportunities.

FROM THE DISSENT:  “The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is,does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation.

And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union.Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’sdecision should have vindicated, should have taught, thistruth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.

For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.”

First, the U.S. government did not do its job in enforcing immigration laws in AZ, causing it to be overrun.  Naturally, AZ tries to protect itself by passing identical laws to the Federal Laws so they can handle the illegal immigration problem.

Next, the U.S. government takes AZ to court to stop it from enforcing these laws that mirror federal laws.

Then the Supreme Court says the Federal Government “has got these” in three of the four laws, i.e., federal preemption applies and the Feds will handle them.  The Supremes did say Arizona can implement the fourth law, i.e., when an individual is stopped for another offense, officers may ask the individual for proof of being in the U.S. legally.

However, almost immediately after the Supreme Court issued these decisions, the U.S. government said it was essentially not going to take any calls/referrals from Arizona regarding illegal immigrants.   PLUS, the U.S. set up a hot line for people to call if they think Arizona law enforcement officials may be abusing the new law.

Ergo, The Supreme Court prohibits Arizona taking action to slow down the mass illegal immigration going across its state, then the U.S. government provides the knock out punch by not taking Arizona illegal immigration referrals.  Finally, as a Gestapo warning to any other states, the Feds set up a snitch hot line.

The result, Arizona is “Dead to the U.S.”  AZ is powerless to do anything and must just allow the illegal immigrants to run freely through its state.  Message to potential illegals – come on in through Arizona – go wherever you want in the U.S.  Oh, and do not forget to vote on November 6th.

Arizona does have a viable option though.  Secession.  It is already a sovereign republic.  Then it can enforce its own borders without U.S. government interference.  This might cause a stampede of actual U.S. citizens and legals into Arizona, resolving their poor housing market.  I get first dibs on entry.  See you in Prescott!

http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2012/03/04/carbonite-drops-ads-from-rush-limbaugh-but-not-ed-schultz/

The link below from Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator lays it out clearly and names the other companies dropping Rush.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/05/rally-for-rush

“Not to speak is to speak, Not to act is to act.”   Bonhoeffer.

As one legislator said Sanford Health stands to be just one of a very few health providers in SD under Obamacare.

In a related note, Sanford Health’s CEO, Kelby Krabbenhoft’s most recent compensation was $1,872,656 per the SiouxFallsBusinessJournal.com report of Feb. 26, 2012.