[faithhopecharity]

Agreed. But the obamacare decision remains a disaster for health care, for basic liberty, and for jobs.

[867V309]

Sore-Loserman

[zeestephen]

Re: “The good thing to say for those who are worried is that we do have a Supreme Court.”

No, we have a 5-4 Supreme Court.

That balance will permanently change any day now.

Since the Reagan Amnesty in 1986, the Democrat Party has imported 20 million Socialist voters.

Because of that, Republicans will not win the Senate in 2014, we will not win the White House in 2016, and we will lose the House in 2022, after Census redistricting.

Frankly, it will make no difference.

Obama ignores the laws he doesn't agree with, and Boehner and the House Republicans are too weak and too fearful to impeach him, or to freeze the budget, or to freeze the debt ceiling.

[Vendome]

Still need to attack the severability clause (lack of), unlawful alterations of the law and the boo chit presumption of taxation, which does not exist anywhere in this fascist dreck.

[stanne]

A statesman. And this is the rare breed of patriarchs since the advent of birth control and rampant selfish immaturity from the ranks of males and the girls who accept them

[Robwin]

Supreme Court Is Keeping White House in Check

And only the Supreme Court. The Republicans in Congress are useless.

[Usagi_yo]

+1 Lieberman

[MaxMax]

We are one retirement away from turning America into a 3rd world hell hole run by communists.

[nathanbedford]

"And one of the main causes of the problem there that allowed this radical group to take hold is that the U.S. did not come to the side of the opposition in Syria to Assad when it took shape three years ago.

"As a result, we created a vacuum into which this truly radical, anti-American group has come in from all over the world now.''

Lieberman fears that if the Islamic State is able to establish a home base "it's going to be just like what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban was in charge."

Let's see, America permitted the Sunni uprising in Iraq to "take hold" because it did not "come to the side" (boots on the ground?) of the "opposition" (Sunnis?) in Syria.

Lieberman fears a "home base" just like "what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban was in charge." Does Lieberman really believe that 19 men with box cutters who spent considerable time before 9/11 in Germany and who arrived in America with visas, would have been stopped had we occupied Afghanistan?

Lieberman is committing once again the original mistake made by neocons in Iraq, to understand the war against militant Islam is solved by occupying territory which requires putting boots on the ground. We put boots on the ground in Iraq and it is a disaster. We put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and it is becoming a disaster. Neither these wars made us safer at home-at least not from sophisticated upper-middle-class terrorists who are at home in many many countries.

The war against militant Islam is not like a checkerboard and conventional thinking which led us into Iraq and Afghanistan is spilling our blood and draining our treasury only making matters worse. At the end of the day we are weaker than when we started and Iran is the clear winner.

We need a more intelligent approach then invade, suffer casualties, waste enormous amounts of money, and bug out. Until there can be a showing that a stable reasonably democratic Muslim state can be achieved by invading and occupying, we better look for a more efficient, more productive, and less bloody option then playing checkersand calling it grand strategy.