OBAMACARE or OBAMACRAP?

ObamaCare has a Silver Lining.

There is a silver lining to the strange and surprising Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare.    The most obvious part of that silver lining is that it is now a rallying cry for Romney and for the repeal of Obamacare.  It must however go much further than that.    It must be a repudiation so strong that the Court's decision itself is repudiated.

I believe that will happen, and there is a precedent.  In 1798, Congress passed the Alien & Sedition Acts, making it a crime to criticize the government.  There was a huge outcry against the Acts, but the lower courts upheld them as constitutional.  Thomas Jefferson waged his campaign for President in the Election of 1800 largely on repudiating those Acts.  He was successful, but the Acts were not just repealed (or more accurately, left to expire).  They were repudiated.  Jefferson pardoned every one of the conscientious objectors who had been convicted under the Acts, and the judgment of history has been that the Court decisions holding the Acts constitutional were profoundly wrong.  That is the exercise of true power by a truly sovereign people.

We need to begin now by having an honest debate about the value of ObamaCare, which, frankly, is a complete fraud.  For example; Supporters tout that children up to 26 years old can remain on their parents’ plans, but never mention that the parents must then pay for comprehensive insurance plans that cost substantially more than healthy young adults can obtain on their own.  They applaud the elimination of lifetime caps on payments by insurance companies without pointing out the obvious consequence that premiums will increase significantly to cover these costs.  And these are just two of the many flies in the ointment. There are many more misleading claims.

Now we must convey how deceptive this law is at its core.  If you don’t believe me, believe Obama’s Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.  He stated “The ACA represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years and presents a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service.”  (ACA = affordable care act)  It includes 20 new taxes (now 21 after Roberts’ ruling), few of which have gone into effect and most of which are deviously imposed on us by raising them on third parties.  For example, there is a new tax on medical devices that will be passed through to insurance companies – and then, of course, to policyholders (you).  Democrats have already imposed a new tax on pharmaceutical companies, which raises the cost of your prescriptions through higher premiums or larger out-of-pocket costs.

Americans need to familiarize themselves with these 21 new taxes and realize that when our medical costs and insurance premiums costs soar, it is ultimately ObamaCare that is responsible.  Furthermore, these tax rates will inevitably increase, with the overwhelming portion of the burden squarely on the shoulders of the middle class.  That’s because that’s where the money is.

We have to inform the American people that there are 157 commissions and boards that will start going into effect in 2013. These will be filled with government hacks who are convinced that they know how the health care system should operate.  They will write thousands of pages of regulations and make decisions for every one of us.  Your health care will no longer be determined by you or your doctor.
It is now very clear that ObamaCare is a huge tax increase that will hit every working American – specifically the working class upon whom Obama promised not to raise taxes.  The law will put a stranglehold around the neck of all Americans, and ultimately centralize every decision about health care in Washington.

I’m not saying our health care system is perfect as is.  It does need some fine tuning, but I don’t know of any country anywhere that has a better one.   Mr. Romney must, with the help of all of us, communicate to the electorate that ObamaCare is a disaster.  Justice Roberts has given us that opportunity.  If we cannot accomplish this goal, we deserve to lose the election – a loss that would put an end to the America we know and Obama’s dream come true.


Is everybody forgetting that the Constitution does not permit a single penny of the people’s money to be appropriated without consent of the House of Representatives, and who controls the house?

That’s right, the Republicans do.  They don’t have to wait for the election.   They could just refuse to allocate any funding for Obamacare.  All it takes is the will to defend the republic and the integrity to truly mean it when you swear your oath of office.

Maybe it’s time for everyone to write a letter to their congressman and remind them.

Our rallying cry should now be: 

No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

SUICIDAL MANIACS

Iran’s supreme leader, for the first time, is telling his nation that it must prepare for war and “the end of times”.  

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/iran-leader-we-must-prep-for-end-of-times/print/

“Today we have a duty to prepare for the coming. … If we are the soldiers of the 12th imam, then we must be ready to fight,” Khamenei said.

“With the guidance of Allah and His invisible help, we shall make the Islamic civilization proud on the world stage. … This is our destiny. … The youth, the faithful must prepare themselves for this great move.”

Referring to the Quran, Khamenei said the coming has been promised by Allah. “There will come a time when all the oppressive powers of the world will be destroyed and humanity will be enlightened in the era of Imam Mahdi.”

As reported recently, the regime has distributed the booklet “The Last Six Months” among its military forces in preparation for the coming and its confrontation with the West. The material admonishes the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij paramilitary forces that they must be prepared to do their duties during the expected war.

IS IT JUST ME?

The Public education system has really gotten weird.

California has always been weird.

Put the two together, and who knows what the results might be.

Take this for instance.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/school-retreats-spotlight-kinky-sex-plastic-genitals/print/

Maybe I’m just an old fashion conservative unable to understand modern day Liberals.

I'm going back to the lake where there is NO INTERNET and NO TV. 

THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY

The imperial presidency revisited

By: Charles Krauthammer
7/5/2012 08:00 PM

WASHINGTON — Though overshadowed by the shocking Supreme Court decision on health care, the court’s Arizona immigration decision, issued three days earlier, remains far more significant than appreciated. It was generally viewed as mixed or ambiguous because the Justice Department succeeded in striking down three of the law’s provisions. However, regarding the law’s central and most controversial element — requiring officers to inquire into the immigration status of anyone picked up for some other violation — the ruling was definitive, indeed unanimous.

No liberal-conservative divide here. Not a single justice found merit in the administration’s claim that this “show me your papers” provision constituted an impermissible pre-emption of federal authority.
On what grounds unconstitutional? Presumably because state officials would be asking about the immigration status of all, rather than adhering to the federal enforcement priorities regarding which illegal aliens would not be subject to deportation.

For example, under the Obama administration’s newly promulgated regulations, there’ll be no more deportation of young people brought here illegally as children (and meeting certain chronological criteria). Presumably, therefore, the Arizona law is invalid because an officer might be looking into the status of a young person the feds now classify as here legally.

Beyond being logically ridiculous — if a state law is unconstitutional because it’s out of sync with the federal government’s current priorities, does it become constitutional again when federal policy changes? — this argument is “an astounding assertion of federal executive power,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in a concurrence. The Obama Justice Department is suggesting that “a state law may be pre-empted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency’s current enforcement priorities. Those priorities, however, are not law. They are nothing more than agency policy.”

And there’s the rub: the Obama administration’s inability to distinguish policy from law. This becomes particularly perverse regarding immigration when, as Justice Antonin Scalia points out, what the administration delicately calls its priorities is quite simply a determination not to enforce the law as passed.

This is what makes so egregious the Obama claim that Arizona is impermissibly undermining federal law. “To say, as the court does,” writes Scalia regarding those parts of the law struck down by the majority, “that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

Consider this breathtaking cascade: An administration violates its constitutional duty to execute the law by deliberately refusing to enforce it. It then characterizes its non-enforcement as simply establishing priorities. It then tries to strike down a state law on immigration on the grounds that it contradicts federal law — by actually trying to enforce it!

The logic is circular, oxymoronic and the very definition of executive overreach. During the Bush-43 years, we were repeatedly treated to garment-rending about the imperial presidency, to major hyperventilation about the “unitary executive.” Yet the current administration’s imperiousness has earned little comparable attention.

Perhaps because President Obama has been so ineffective. It’s hard to call someone imperial who’s failed so consistently. Or maybe not. You can surely be imperial and unsuccessful. Waterloo comes to mind.

Regardless of results, however, Obama’s presumption is Olympian. He takes America into a war in Libya with U.N. approval, but none from Congress. Yet that awful Bush had the constitutional decency to twice seek and gain congressional approval before he initiated hostilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services issues Obamacare regulations treading so heavily on the free-exercise rights of Catholic institutions that Obama’s own allies rebel. The new regulation concocted to tame the firestorm blithely orders private insurers to provide free contraceptives to employees of the objecting religious institutions. By what possible authority does a president order private companies to provide free services? To say nothing of the 1,200 Obamacare waivers granted with royal arbitrariness according to the (political) whims of an HHS secretary.

And now immigration. Obama adopts a policy of major non-enforcement of the immigration law — a variant of the very DREAM Act he could not get through even a Democratic Congress — and promulgates it unilaterally, while his Justice Department claims the right to invalidate state laws that might in some way impinge on that very non-enforcement.

The Republican presidential campaign centers on the ineffectiveness of this administration: failure at home, passivity abroad. A fine electoral strategy. But as citizens we should be grateful. Given the administration’s extravagant ambitions, incompetence is its saving grace.


The following was not part of the column by Dr. Krauthammer... 

PRAYER RETURNING TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

Muslim congressman has plans for your child's school

Now that the Bible, prayer and most positive references to Christianity have been forced out of public schools, a U.S. lawmaker – who prides himself on being only the second Muslim elected to Congress – has stepped forward to fill the vacuum ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8NMhqAw1M&feature=player_embedded#!

A U.S. lawmaker – who prides himself on being only the second Muslim elected to Congress – has declared that America “needs Muslims” and U.S. public schools should be modeled after Islamic madrassas, “where the foundation is the Quran.

In a dramatic video dated May 26, U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., addressed an Islamic Circle of North America convention, saying the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was hard on Muslims and that Americans should look to Muslim schools for guidance.

At the 6:19 mark, Carson declares:
“America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran. And that model that we are pushing in some of our schools meets the multiple needs of students.

“Most of us are visual learners. Some of us are auditor learners – we learn by hearing. Many of us are kinesthetic learners. We learn by doing, touching, feeling. I have found … that we need an educational model that is current, that meets the need of our students. America must understand that she needs Muslims.”

He adds, “There are over 7 million Muslims in this country. And while we are under attack, we cannot retreat.”

Carson is married to Mariama Shaheed Carson, public-school principal of Snacks Crossing Elementary School in Indianapolis, Ind.

WELL, WHY SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED,  WE ELECTED A MUSLIM PRESIDENT!

Arrest Eric Holder

The House has voted overwhelmingly to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for withholding documents on the Fast and Furious scandal, but where do we go from here?   Not surprisingly, the Justice Department won’t prosecute Him, and Obama would only take action if the attorney general became a personal liability (my personal preference is for whatever action makes him the biggest liability).   And there is a way for Congress to make him a huge liability.   The House could arrest Holder without the consent of the Justice Department.  I betcha that would encourage some corporation.

Such a move is called “inherent contempt,” a process that, writes The Washington Times, “is well-established by precedent, has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings, and is available to any Congress with the cojones to force such a confrontation.”
  
It was also recently alluded to by none other than Nancy Pelosi when she addressed what she considered Karl Rove’s contempt of Congress and said, “I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day.  I’m not kidding.  There’s a prison here in the Capitol….  If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.”

Eric Holder should be arrested for one simple reason: he is currently one of the worst criminals I know of.  To use a variation on a slogan the left once so loved, Holder lied and people died.   The problem, however, is that our Congress is obviously not equipped with the afore mentioned cojones.   No one in America is supposed to be above the law, yet so-called “elites” are held to a lower standard.  If anything, they should be held to a higher one.

One reason we have as much bad behavior as we do among pseudo-elites is the same reason why child misbehavior is now rampant: there is little fear of consequences.  And this is because the consequences are inconsequential.  But high profiles should come with high risk.  If powerful public officials knew they could be marched away in handcuffs to a jail cell, perhaps they’d take their oaths of office more seriously. 

I realize there are many reasons (other than lack of the cojones) why Holder won’t be arrested.  For one thing, such a move would most certainly be demonized by the media and might backfire on Republicans in November.  Another is that few members of the ruling class want to animate a hangman that could be used (perhaps wrongly) against them in the future; once the mutual get-out-of-jail-free card is gone, it’s gone.   But I can dream, can’t I?

DUMB LIKE A FOX.

Is Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts dumb like a fox?

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding ObamaCare is really the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts.  Large parts of it, including his lengthy attack on the constitutionality of the individual mandate to buy insurance, are his alone, since he wasn’t able to get the liberals or dissenters on the conservative wing of the court to sign off on it.

The only way Roberts could get a majority to uphold the law — and thus assign the opinion to himself, the prerogative of the Chief Justice — was to join with the liberal wing on the narrow question of whether the mandate was in fact a tax even if President Obama and Congress denied it was.  

By upholding the law, Roberts sheltered the court from liberal criticism.  At the same time he asserted at least two powerful holdings that pushed the authority of the court further than it had ever gone before.   Roberts “asserts the court’s power over two hugely important constitutional questions, the Commerce Clause authority and the spending clause.   In both instances he imposes unprecedented limitations on Congress.  

No court has gone as far as Roberts did in telling Congress the limits to what it can do under the Commerce Clause, for example.  The decision isn’t necessarily law since the conservatives — Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy — refused to sign off on it.  But they made the same points in their dissent, so this and future courts are likely to follow the reasoning of the majority on this question.

Roberts also went further than any previous court in finding limits to how Congress can dictate the terms of programs administered by the states.   He ruled that it was unconstitutional for Congress to threaten the states with the loss of all their Medicaid funding if they didn’t vastly expand eligibility for the program.

By asserting that Obamacare is funded by taxes, it now becomes just another tax increase that the Democrats will have to defend.  Not only is it a tax, it may be the biggest tax increase in history.  It is so unpopular it will drive more people out to vote, especially doctors.  A Rasmussen poll this month found that 52% of likely voters want Obamacare repealed.  Obama is trying to avoid speaking about it in his reelection efforts; this victory puts him in an awkward position. Mitt Romney has said the first thing he will do when he becomes president is sign an Executive Order exempting all 50 states from Obamacare.

This decision will go down as one of the most significant rulings coming from the Supreme Court ever.  Instead of continuing the 200 years of lumping government expansion of power under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court has now turned to the Taxing Clause to authorize massive new regulations.

 Here is what this decision has done;
1. Obamacare has been outed--by the authoritative voice of the nation's highest court-as a fraud. Yes the administration pitched it as a "penalty," as something that would not carry with it the burdensome label and politically repulsive thought of a tax.  But Chief Justice Roberts seduced the four Obama supporters on the bench into agreeing that President Obama had in fact lied to the nation all through his 2008 campaign.  Promising tax-cuts for 95% of the nation (a promise wrapped in a lie all its own), he has instead raised taxes--primarily on middle class families to the tune of $1.7 trillion dollars for the next decade.

2. The commerce clause has been severely restricted.  Roberts sided with the conservative wing of the court in asserting rightly that the Congress can't wander into a grey area of regulation, by attempting to force behavior of the population through manipulation of the commerce clause.  The court rightly examined and asserted that the legislature has no right to legislate what people choose not to do.  Punishments can not be levied on inaction.  And if they attempt to do so, they must come in the form of a tax that the nation has recourse to change and remove through the electoral process.

3. The true cost to America's middle class was unveiled.  Hiking taxes by close to $5 billion, with an additional $5 billion in medicare cuts, didn't close the loophole, no matter how much President Obama attempted to argue that it would.  In reality the middle class families of America--already under assault by a horrible economy with limited prospects of improvement--will be forced to fork over another $1.7 trillion in forward looking deficits.  Yes the families who earn $60-$90,000 per year will be the ones who make too much to qualify for the low income freebies, and not be making enough to be able to afford plans that they can buy in to.  It will be these families who will be punitively crunched with this penalizing tax called Obamacare, and the Roberts' decision has removed the veil to allow this to be seen.

4. Perhaps the most important thing of all, the Roberts' decision may very well hand Governor Mitt Romney a 40 state victory in the upcoming elections.  The Tea Party has been reignited.  Grassroots groups have reawakened.  And the roar of 2010 will be a distant memory when the voters take Governor Romney's advice and change Obamacare by removing President Obama.

I must admit that I was somewhat worried about the political outcomes of the case, had the justices thrown out the law altogether because, that would have neutralized one of the most glaring differences between the two sets of solutions being offered in this election cycle.

Re-electing President Obama would mean the full implementation of the biggest small-business-killer ever invented by the Congress--Obamacare.  Choose another path and you will set a course for the complete repeal of Obamacare, and the beginning of a new day for small business owners across the nation.

The choice is simple.  And John Roberts was the secret weapon that made it all happen, by out-thinking everybody, and staying true to the Constitution.
I think he may very well be dumb like a fox.