Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Window War: The WaPo generally gets it right with only a couple of obvious errors.

Brick, Liberty Tool, Model Mark One dash A.

Well folks,

Here is the Washington Post story with only a couple of obvious errors. Anyone who has read my stuff knows I don't advocate "initiating" civil war, I'm trying to prevent one. Claiming that is like assigning to the Jews the blame for the Holocaust or blacks for slavery and Jim Crow.

Also, characterizing my statement as a "complicated theory" doesn't say much about this boy's IQ. Seemed rather simple and straightforward to me. Perhaps an editor slipped that in. They're dumber than boxes of rocks, in my experience.

Anyway, here's the article. Enjoy.

Oh, one more thing. He's right. I AM unapologetic.


Former militiaman unapologetic for calls to vandalize offices over health care

By Philip Rucker

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 25, 2010; 3:52 PM

The call to arms was issued at 5:55 a.m. last Friday.

"To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW."

These were the words of Mike Vanderboegh, a 57-year-old former militiaman from Alabama, who took to his blog urging people who opposed the historic health-care reform legislation -- he calls it "Nancy Pelosi's Intolerable Act" -- to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide.

"So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party [that they] cannot fail to hear, break their windows," Vanderboegh wrote on the blog, Sipsey Street Irregulars. "Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats. But BREAK THEM."

In the days that followed, glass windows and doors were shattered at local Democratic Party offices and the district offices of House Democrats from Arizona to Kansas to New York. At least 10 Democratic lawmakers reported death threats, incidents of harassment or vandalism at their offices over the past week, and the FBI and Capitol Police are offering lawmakers increased protection.

Local Democratic Party officials in New York have called for Vanderboegh's arrest, believing he is implicated in the vandalism in Rochester, but Vanderboegh said he has not yet been questioned by any law enforcement authorities.

Vanderboegh was unapologetic in a 45-minute telephone interview with The Washington Post early Thursday. He said he believes throwing bricks through windows sends a warning to Democratic lawmakers that the health-care reform legislation they passed Sunday has caused so much unrest that it could result in a civil war.

"The federal government should not have the ability to command us to buy something that it decides we should buy," Vanderboegh said. The government, he added, has "absolutely no idea the number of alienated who feel that their backs are to the wall are out here . . . who are not only willing to resist this law to the very end of their lives, but are armed and are capable of making such resistance possible and perhaps even initiating a civil war."

The law will set in motion over the next 10 years a complex series of changes to the nation's health insurance market. An estimated 24 million people who lack access to affordable coverage through their workplace will be eligible for tax credits to buy insurance on new state-based exchanges. Nearly everyone who earns less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level will become eligible for the government-run Medicaid. And for the first time, individuals will face fines of as much as $695 a year for refusing to buy insurance, and employers with more than 50 workers that do not provide coverage could also face significant fines.

Vanderboegh said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democrats should beware "unintended consequences of their actions." Vanderboegh outlined a complicated theory that IRS agents will go after people who refuse to buy insurance or pay the fines, ultimately resulting in "civil war."

"The central fact of the health-care bill is this, and we find it tyrannical and unconstitutional on its face," Vanderboegh said. "The federal government now demands all Americans to pay and play in this system, and if we refuse, we will be fined, and if we refuse to pay the fine, they will come to arrest us, and if we resist arrest . . . then we will be killed. The bill certainly doesn't say that, but that's exactly and precisely what is behind every bill like this."

He said his call for people to throw bricks is "both good manners and it's also a moral duty to try to warn people."

Vanderboegh, who lives in the Birmingham suburb of Pinson, described himself as a "Christian libertarian" and said he has long been a gun rights advocate. He said he joined a clandestine militia group called the "Sons of Liberty" and later became a public leader of the First Alabama Cavalry, Constitutional Militia.

In 2006, Vanderboegh advocated hurling bricks through the windows of members of Congress who supported giving illegal immigrants the same rights as U.S. citizens, according to news reports at the time. He said those bricks should be used to build a wall sealing off the United States from Mexico.

Vanderboegh has no criminal record in Jefferson County, Ala., according to a court clerk there.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist and hate groups, has been following Vanderboegh since the mid-1990s, when he first surfaced in Alabama militia groups, said Heidi Beirich, the center's research director.

"He has been on our radar forever," she said. "He hasn't been involved in any kind of violence that we know of ourselves, but these causes that he's involved in led to a lot of violence. The ideas that Vanderboegh's militia groups were pushing were the same extreme anti-government ideas that inspired [Timothy] McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing."

Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. He has private health insurance through his wife, who works for a company that sells forklift products.

Born in Michigan and raised in Ohio, Vanderboegh said he was not always a libertarian. He once was active in the Young Socialist Alliance and the Progressive Labor Party. "In my youth, I was a communist," he said. But in the mid-1970s, Vanderboegh read Friedrich von Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," among other books, and had an epiphany.

"From that point on, I could never take Marxism-Leninism seriously again," Vanderboegh said.

He said he long opposed President Obama because he believed the president has "collectivism" tendencies. But he became especially energized during the health-care debate.

Vanderboegh said he advocates breaking windows only of Democratic Party offices, not congressional offices, and that he does not condone the death threats and other incidents of harassment that some Democratic lawmakers have faced.

"Obviously I not only deplore or decry that, but I denounce that vigorously because it has nothing to do with what I was advocating," he said.

Still, Vanderboegh's public cry for vandalism has made him vulnerable to the same threats.

"Frankly," he said, "my phone's been ringing off the hook with death threats the last few days."

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.


Mickey Collins said...

So, a constitutionalist threatening to break a window is the "same threat" as a statist threatening to kill him:

Still, Vanderboegh's public cry for vandalism has made him vulnerable to the same threats.

"Frankly," he said, "my phone's been ringing off the hook with death threats the last few days."

sonofliberty said...

good for you. i would happily and proudly accept that kind of notoriety.

i wonder where my own local democrap party office is...

patriot_ohio said...

I can't see a problem here. One of the unintended consequences of the Two Party Party having their way with We The People's pockets is that We The People see fit to enforce the laws that the Two Party System has saddled us with.

Storefronts across America (wherein one finds the Democrat Party offices in most towns) are not up to the Building Codes that the parties have foisted upon everyone else. This is simple law enforcement, as far as I can see.

You toss a chunk of debris through a dangerous old plate glass window, the occupants have to get a building permit to replace the window, because they have to update the storefront opening to the legal building code and applicable standards. Pretty simple.

This is good for the economy, let's enumerate. It is good for the permit issuing office, good for the guy who has to engineer an upgrade for the outdated storefront, good for the building inspector (heck, he might even find further code violations to force the occupants to conform to) good for the guys who have to install the new steel supports, good for the window subcontractor and it increases tax revenues for the two party system through the revitalization of neighborhoods.

What's to hate here? It's THEIR system at work once the heavy lifting of chunks of debris, vectors and velocities have been handled.

Hope and Change folks. We can hope and we can change.

Anonymous said...

Now that ObamaCare has been passed, those assholes are becoming increasingly brazen and willing to actually state their ultimate intent. WTF does this WaPo hack not understand? Listen to this,...

The hair on the back of my neck is standing on end.

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I am wrong,..
but are these people (use that term lightly) calling for
your "processing" due to the
mere fact that you put up a
link to a story you didn't even write?
I know the link went up a week or so ago but that was my impression at that moment in time.
Sloth prevents me from going
through the history.


pdxr13 said...

Since when is being a "former militiaman" more scary than being a "former Communist"?

My improved WaPo headline:

"Former Communist street agitator inspires recent patriot counter-war activities" sub-heading
"Democratic Party office glass broken, $200 damage, no injuries, message ignored"


Brock Townsend said...

I'm surprised that it's basically a fair article, although I wish they could have used a different source that the $PLC and the "complicated theory" was certainly a strange remark, for then they go on and make fools of themselves by explaining how truly simple it is!:-)

Nathan said...

They couldn't help themselves. The writers. They always have to tie these things to Tim McVeigh and Oklahoma City. Makes better stories that way. "Baby killers" can be inferred easily.

I have pondered for years what is wrong with these people. We have worked hard to teach the country's history to our children as the school are ultra liberal and it is all "team" everything. Individual effort is discouraged and outstanding performance is not rewarded. "We are all winners" in their ideology, not just those who earn it.

And many of the folks who think that way have lots of education. Guess maybe they went to the wrong schools or something.

Absolutely cannot change their minds. Congress folks think that, becauese they are congress folks, they can do anything they want. Any relevance the Constitution may have on them is zero. "That was then, this is now".

To not adhere to our basic principles of governance as laid down by the founders, people who were much smarter than those in DC today, is treason in my mind. To want to alter our government in such a way that power is now held by those not intended to hold those powers is not much different from a coup in a bananna republic.

Yet we beat our heads against the wall every day trying to get people to understand our founding and our history to absolutely no avail. I am totally discouraged with the way our nation is going and am not sure what to do.

I have not thought violence would be used as a political weapon in America, but then remember that it indeed was used once upon a time. And in the Decleration those marvelous thinking people wrote right out that it was not only our right to change things if they went south, but it was our dity.

I have lived nearly 63 yrs and never thought I would see such a power grab in Congress and the Executive office that would be approved by millions of American people.

They know not what they do!

And they have discouraged the hell out of me and my family.


Anonymous said...

This being one of the finest constitutional militia blogs around, if not THE finest, I had hoped to see the greatest possible exposure, so that patriots all across the nation would be aware of it and tap its valuable practical and philosophical resources.


Concerned American said...


acrobat said...

you are a idiot and I hope you end up in jail. Yea you are a 3 percenter. Only that much of your brain is working. Your tactics have nothing to do with the founders, only your own selfishness.

Taylor H said...

See, THIS is what the press should do: Just present as many facts as they can find and let the reader decide.

gkemp said...

I hope they start liking this treatment. "They" call this violence.
"They" haven't seen anything yet. Wait until "they" try and pass illegal immigration reform.

Anonymous said...

March 25, 2010 3:40 PM
Blogger acrobat said...

you are a idiot and I hope you end up in jail. Yea you are a 3 percenter. Only that much of your brain is working. Your tactics have nothing to do with the founders, only your own selfishness.

March 25, 2010 3:41 PM

I hate using bad language but in this case an exception is in order ! Hey Father Fucker go read the Constitution and quit running your Cock Receptacle. And DO NOT threaten me through a keyboard and think you remain ANONYMOUS, PUNK. Shut up and leave this TO MEN, comprende' NOW GO SUCK A LOLLIPOP AND WATCH OPRAH LITTLE GIRL!


Nathan said...


..."acrobat said...
you are a idiot and I hope you end up in jail. Yea you are a 3 percenter. Only that much of your brain is working. Your tactics have nothing to do with the founders, only your own selfishness"....

Acrobat made the case I was trying to make above. How can you make any progress in trying to fix things when you are dealing with ignorance like this?

Just from his statement alone I doubt very much this gentleman knows anything about the founding of America.


Shy Wolf said...

Gosh, Acrobat-- I can see your educational level didn't make it thru the third grade- so you obviously aren't a "threeper".
Seriously, if you think Civil Disobediance isn't something the Founders used, then you've never had an honest American History class in your life.
Sheesh, what a bunch'a dumb-fXXXs.

Your Enemy's Friend said...

You want a war assholes, you got it. Open season on conservative douche bags and THEIR representatives.

thedweeze said...


Still not a proper name, but at least you're not hiding behind Anon. It's a start.

We might all end up in jail (or worse), but I assure you none of us are idiots. Oh, and it is 'aN idiot': failing to use basic syntax and grammar kinda weakens your argument.

Finally, your last sentence is simply nonsense. Some of us are up to breaking windows. Nobody as yet has gone for tarring & feathering, nor has anyone been ridden out of town on a rail.

Thanks for playing, though.

Jeff said...

SPLC?! Running dogs. Sorry cover for nothing less than a bunch of collectivist, power-hungry, whores who will stop at nothing to nuzzle the festering a$$hole of the state to advance their agenda (control that is, control of every aspect of your life - thou shalt not think that!). No doubt I am on one of their lists since I am a retired Navy Officer - you know how dangerous those veterans are, what with actually honoring that oath thingy I took. Who are they trying to protect, why and from what? Are there any people in poverty other than those who live in the South? How about poor people in the south who don't want these motherless wankers to speak for them? Potok is a slimy worm who has clearly positioned himself as one who cares not for liberty or the Constitutional Republic. He is, in a word, a domestic enemy.

Dedicated_Dad said...

How funny, "acrobat"

Good name - adequately described the mental (pun intended) gymnastics you must go through to swallow their kool-aid every time.

Since you obviously went to public school, here's a hint: You might note the phrase "Sons of Liberty" being used a lot around here. Try googling that phrase.

You'll find they not only broke windows but tarred and feathered people. T&F is not funny - it was always extremely painful and often fatal - and still far less than these tyrannical traitors deserve. Thankfully, I know there's a G*d in heaven who will see they get their just desserts - sooner or later.

What you're witnessing is the buzzing of a rattlesnake, trying desperately to get your attention in the hope you'll back off before he's forced to bite. He neither buzzes or bites out of any evil impulse, but rather only in self-defense.

"Don't Tread On Me!"

bsr said...


This is more of a general comment about stuff on this blog rather than about this particular post. I thought I'd put it here because this post is newest (as of this being written) and so it seems likely that people will see it / respond.

I'm genuinely curious about the perspective that the health care reform bill will somehow undermine American liberty and end our way of life. Could I ask a couple questions about that?

First, it seems like we have become accustomed to coercive government mandates in situations where there is a substantial public health or safety interest involved (mandatory auto insurance, having to school your kids in some way to a certain age, and so on). We also have generally accepted taxation to fund social service programs that are felt to be to the substantive benefit of the public (Medicare, Medicaid, disability benefits, and so on).
Of course, there are political viewpoints that seriously disagree with this stuff - I'm not denying that. My point is just that it seems like the healthcare reform bill is actually not some new mechanism of oppression. It seems pretty commonplace for the last 60 years. In my mind, this raises two questions - first, if you think America is pretty alright now, why would the healthcare bill change that? Second, if you do adhere to one of those strict libertarian viewpoints that rejects these sorts of very common policies at large, why are you focusing your fight on healthcare reform? It seems like your task would be to target a massive underlying political framework and presumption that the US has adopted. Social programs won't end with the repeal of a particular piece of legislation.

Second question - are you opposed to the insurance mandate, or the bill at large, or some other particular provision / combination of provisions?

Third and final question - I'm very curious about the associations between Obama/liberals/HCR architects and the violence of the 1960s. This is something that I've seen referenced, I'm just curious if anyone wants to explain it. Liberal social spending / service programs predate radicals such as Ayers by decades, both in the US and elsewhere. Why is it necessary that there be a connection between the ideology that arose later in the Vietnam era and an ideology that predates FDR?

I'd be interested to read answers to these, so thanks, if anyone feels like indulging me. I guess there's not much reason for you to, unless you want to expound on your case to a liberal.

Anonymous said...

I thought I would pass this on in case you hadn't seen it Mike. I know how much you love the SPLC and the critter Potok.

Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared “Left-Wing Hate Group”

Keep fighting the good fight Mike. Good always wins in the end. Even if it sometimes gets ugly in winning.


Mickey said...

I get it now.
Bricking a window is 'violence', but vandalizing the White House is a 'prank':

Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...

Mike, rent the movie "Proof of Life", if you don't own it.

There's a scene right after Terry Thorpe (played by Russell Crowe) takes control of a certain situation with the assistance of his fellow merc Peter Bowman (played by David Morse). The next morning, the house secured, a shotgun-wielding Bowman is listening to police and paramilitary traffic in his earphone, and tells Thorpe, "You are the talk of the town, baby."

Welcome to the big time. You were the subject, even if somewhat tangentially but definitely disparagingly, of Denver radio talk and of the Hugh Hewitt show as I drove home tonight.

Don't let it go to your head, Mike, because we need you to do what you do without an inflated ego. But you are definitely the talk of the town tonight, baby. ;)

Ain't that right, moonbats?

restoretheconstitution said...

To acrobat : "you are a idiot"? Yes, your subconscious is speaking to you in a small voice. I suggest you listen .

To Mike: Good on your for standing your ground. I look forward to meeting you on the 19th of next month.

- A Patriot

Brutus said...

acrobat said...

you are a idiot and I hope you end up in jail. Yea you are a 3 percenter. Only that much of your brain is working. Your tactics have nothing to do with the founders, only your own selfishness.

March 25, 2010 3:41 PM

acrobat ... you retard. Look, I realize that you have been highly edumedicated by the government run public skule system and probably recieved the highly coveted self-esteem diploma which makes you a two page founding father expert ... but really, you should try to actually read a few thousand pages on the subject matter since you left skule to round off your edumedication.

In order to help you along in your expertise on the founding fathers, I have listed a few books that I have read in just under a year, although I have omitted a few others as I have other tastes as well.

Try reading these before you give us your expert opinion on the founding brothers.

# American Creation
# American Sphinx
# Arundel
# Founding Brothers
# George Washington's War
# His Excellency: George Washington
# James Madison: A Biography
# Jefferson
# John Adams
# Mayflower
# Rabble in Arms
# Setting the World Ablaze
# The Federalist
# The Revolution: A Manifesto
# The Spirit of Seventy - Six

When you are not reading these books, you can also continue your expertise here:

Happy reading acrobat.

Anonymous said...

Brutus, ya just gotta love "American Sphinx". That's a great book about a great man.

G3Ken said...

Snaggle-Tooth Jones made a nice reference to "Proof of Life", but erred in his narrative. Peter Bowman (David Morse)was not a fellow merc, but rather was the hostage rescued by Terry (Russell Crowe). His fellow merc who told him "You're the talk of the town, baby" was thatmiscast (IMHO)red-headed freak, David Caruso. Don't mean to pick.

Anonymous said...


I'd be interested to read answers to these, so thanks, if anyone feels like indulging me. I guess there's not much reason for you to, unless you want to expound on your case to a liberal.

Don't you find it ironic that the case against government coercion, and blatantly unconstitutional at that, needs to be argued to a liberal?

Liberalism is about liberty - think Thomas Jefferson, not Lloyd Blankfein meets Chairman Mao. If you're seeking to understand what's wrong with BambiCare (and the decades long string of preceding usurpations), a more appropriate label is perhaps 'collectivist'?

Here's an interesting and very old interview with Milton Friedman:

Just think how much worse things have become since then, for everyone but the elite. Both for the people the do-gooders (who are invariably co-opted and used as braindead cheerleading pawns by forces of corruption) wished to help, and for the taxpayers at whose expense all that redistribution took place. That much of the redistribution invariably settles in the pockets of the bureaucrats, unions, and corporate masters, doesn't help matters any and only encourages more of the same. The social ills only get worse, and the graft only grows in magnitude.

Every one of these socialist schemes is a total failure when it comes to the stated goals and promises, but they're splendidly successful in buying votes, buying the obedience of state governments, and lining the pockets of all the right people along the way.

Moreover, all of this bullshit is unconstitutional, yet allowed to stand through the neglect and malfeasance of complicit/treasonous Washington elites (notably including SCOTUS) going back to the very beginning.

Nathan said...

At least bsr had the decency to not start out with "dear asshole', used good grammar and spelling and had a polite tone to his writing. One can have good discussion with anyone coming from that point.

The answer to his questions is really quite simple. Constitutionalists, us, believe in the ideas behind the founding of our nation. As the people who argued and debated and eventually put all of this together, were very intelligent, thinking folk, who had the benefit of having lived under the rule of a tyrannical King for some time previously, they tried to put together the best nation that their combined wisdom could create.

And by golly, they wrote this all done. Thats right Virginia, it exists in writing. Our founders ideas are right there in black and white in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution and the Bill of rights, along with other lesser documents. And the thinking that led to the creation of these documents was written down also along with vast reams of thoughts that followed, all on the same topics.

The founders feared, above all, a powerful central government. They had lived and died under one (the British Royal Family and the abuses of their agents). They felt this was the worst possible thing that could happen in America's future.

So they put down some things in the Constitution. They allowed the federal government certain limited powers, and they listed them, and then wrote that any powers NOT mentioned specifically, were left to the "states". They argued about how to do this for a while but realized that leaving most of the powers with the "states" gave the people the way to fight back against, if need be, attempts to make the central government all powerful. State "militias" were intended to give the states a force to fight with if needed. The founders feared a standing federal army as that could/would be used to keep the people in line if the fed decided to expand.

Fast forward to 9/11. The terror acts on American soil just increased, rapidly, the growth of the Federal leviathan. Millions of Americans begged the government to protect them from Osama.

As long as America is still to be a nation governed by the rule of law, no matter how many millions of Americans may want somethng, like healthcare, protection from Osama or what have you, it cannot be made "right" if you will as it is Constitutionally illegal.

Pelosi, Reid, Obama, GW and a whole cast of characters that not even Damon Runyan or Steven King could make up, have been the foes of the foundations of our country and everything we are supposed to stand for.

Too often today Liberty has taken a back seat.

Under Constitutional Law Congress had no right whatsoever to create Obamacare or any other federal healtcare program. No matter how much good, if any, it might eventually do, Congress was not within their rights to do so as the Constitution clearly spells out.

If we are to reamain a great nation we must live under the rule of law. Congress and recent Presidents have forgotten or ignored if they ever knew, what is in the constitution.

Bsr, it is not "healthcare itself" that bothers me, rather it is the fact that Congress has no Constitutional right to create such laws, no matter how well inteneded they may be, or how badly they may be desired by millions of Americans.

Congress did this specifically so the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government could have more powers than the Constitution would allow them to have. During the debate Pelosi was asked about how all of her bill would stand against the Constitution and she replied: "you've got to be kidding" or something to that effect (paraphrased). The lady has neither knowledge or respect, for some of our most cherished law.

Bsr, google "United States Constitution" and read it for yourself. If you go at it with an open mind you should undersand why some of us think the way we do when you get done.


Anonymous said...

bsr, perhaps you may find this enlightening. It isn't just "militia types" who are "mad as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore."

Snaggle-Tooth Jones said...


You're right. I stand corrected. Thanks.

It's a great scene by the way.

45superman said...

Possible new motto for the Window War (with apologies if this has already been suggested)?

In case of emergency, break glass!

This is, after all, an emergency.

Allis said...

Nathan (& anyone) -

I am a curious bystander like BSR, just trying to understand the views expressed here and reasoning behind them. I suppose I am a liberal, but beliefs are more than just a label. I probably come from a very different background as you (for one thing, I'm over 40 years younger than you) so on the surface our views are quite different, but ultimately I am a product of America, too, and so we share *some* characteristic national psyche. Here are some values I hold highly & are relevant to this discussion:
- belief in reason, and ability to re-frame views in light of new reason & truths
- intolerance for hypocrisy
- one might sometimes have to make sacrifices for the better good.

I admit that I have not read the constitution carefully at all, I will believe your words are true. Therefore, although I think the constitution a remarkable piece of work that laid down some very important rules and structures, that provided the framework upon which this great country was built, I believe we must adapt to the times. In my mind, the constitution is like the bible: outdated in some respects (1787 is a lot different from 2010) but the underlying message still rings true. The bible tells us how to live well, the constitution tells us how to govern well. In 2010 (& for the past 100 years), governing well means looking out for and protecting the people of America - whether its from nutjob terrorists, or greedy massive insurance companies who have created unreasonable hoops and costs that prevent a significant portion of the population from getting - what I believe to be a human right - safe, affordable healthcare. Obamacare is far from the first time the federal government has overstepped the boundaries/rules the founders wrote out, but I think in most cases they are still operating within the ideals and intentions of the constitution: care for the people; protect the people from overbearing parties more powerful than the people (the British monarchy, excessive central government, attacks/war, big business, the list goes on). In my reading of the history of the United States, it would follow naturally that we add healthcare to the list of things the government provides/protects us with. I would have preferred if the duty of providing healthcare to the people was performed by the individual states, but it didn't seem possible this time. The state governments are a mess (at least my state - California; we're struggling to provide residents with a previously established human right: education), and the government already provides care/support to some people (such as the writer of this blog!). . . anyway, some healthcare is better than no healthcare.

Do you agree with these general statements? Where do our views differ?

thanks for reading all this, and putting up with my rambling. I'd really just like to understand why we're of different opinions.