A Vigorous Constitutional Challenge Must Be Mounted If Obamacare Legislation Passes

Obamacare is an inherently and hopelessly flawed, corrupt, complex bill that is constructed on lies and deceptions and threatens to bankrupt our country and usurp our inalienable rights. It is also vigorously opposed by Americans by nearly a 3:1 margin but Obama and the Democrats don’t care.

We must do everything in our power to make sure that it is not passed. If it is, Congressional leaders will have succeeded by using chicanery, ad hominem attacks, dishonesty and other tactics that would make Hugo Chavez proud.

Our next move then? Mount a formidable Constitutional challenge.

Can Forcing Purchase Of Insurance Survive Constitutional Challenge?
Thomas M. Boyd     03/10/2010

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Congressional Budget Office (1994)

During the recent summit on health care reform, Republican leader John Boehner told President Obama that he and his colleagues believe the central funding mechanism underlying the president's latest reform proposal — the individual mandate — is unconstitutional.

This language would require every American to purchase a product — health insurance. It also has appeared in every serious proposal since ClintonCare in 1993, including the proposals now pending before Congress. If it eventually becomes law, it's sure to be challenged before the ink on the president's signature is dry.

The president's response was that Rep. Boehner was resorting to "talking points" rather than substance. It would have been far more instructive if the president, a former lecturer at Chicago Law School who as a candidate opposed the mandate, had given Boehner and the Republicans — not to mention the American public watching on C-Span — his own analysis in support of his current belief that this unprecedented requirement is constitutionally permissible.

The underlying question is as simple as it is fundamental: Can federal law mandate that an individual must purchase a good or service, whether he or she wants it or not, in order to fund a massive social program perceived to be for the larger public good?

If the American people can be forced to purchase health insurance, then can the Congress also require Americans to purchase American cars to salvage the domestic automobile industry?

The most obvious legal basis for this requirement lies in the Constitution's commerce clause. One of the "enumerated" powers granted the Congress, this language allows the Congress broad freedom to "regulate Commerce ... among the several States."

From Chief Justice John Marshall's use of the commerce clause to validate federal regulation of river traffic in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) to the New Deal's application of federally imposed restraints on wheat grown for purely local consumption (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942), to the more recent affirmation of federal regulatory superiority over otherwise permissible local cultivation of marijuana for medicinal use (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005), the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted its language to expand the role of the federal government, at the expense of the states, in regulating the conduct of people engaged in otherwise intrastate economic transactions.

But every constitutional power has its limits, and it's likely the same policymakers who now endorse the legality of the individual mandate were equally convinced that the Campaign Reform Act's ban on political advertising by corporations or unions within 30 days of an election was sacrosanct.

But on Jan. 21, when the Court rendered its 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the nation discovered that the First Amendment trumped the exercise of congressional authority. Similarly, in this instance the freedom to exercise free will may trump the authority of the federal government to dictate choice.

If nothing else, whether the Congress has the power to require every American to purchase health insurance will be, as the CBO noted in 1994, a case of first impression for the court. And the result is certainly not preordained.

While it's always difficult to predict how justices might rule on a different set of facts, their prior opinions on the breadth of the commerce clause suggest that at least four of the majority in Citizens United v. FEC (Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas) may hesitate to embrace the kind of expansive view of the Commerce Clause that would be required to uphold the individual mandate.

That leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Citizens as the inevitable swing vote. And his views on the application of the commerce clause in a case like this are anything but clear.

Now that the president has announced his intention to proceed toward a vote on his version of health care reform, the issues are joined. And however the legality of the individual mandate is finally resolved, questions surrounding its constitutionality and the legitimate reach of the Constitution's commerce clause demand serious legal scrutiny and intense public debate in advance of any final congressional vote.

It's worth knowing, for example, where the money will come from if, when the court ultimately rules, the president and his political allies are proven wrong in their belief that the federal government has virtually limitless power to require its citizens to, in effect, go shopping.

Where will the money come from to fund a health care entitlement which, by that time, will have already become law? These questions deserve answers before, not after, Congress votes.

• Boyd, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of DLA Piper LLP, is a former assistant attorney general under President Reagan.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=526845

Posted in Constitution Government Control Healthcare Reform Ideology Obama Personal rights with No Comments

More:

We The People: A Resolute Message To Obama

Posted in Constitution Freedom Healthcare Reform Ideology Legal rights Obama Personal rights Socialism Tea Parties Videos with No Comments

More:

Just A Few Reasons Why Obamacare Should Not The Light of Day

Over the last year, we have expressed our resolute opposition to Government controlled healthcare reform independent of the various iterations that have been promulgated. The present behemoth legislation, in excess of 2700 pages, will destroy the best healthcare system in the world and ultimately bankrupt this country with uncontrollable and unsustainable costs.

There are countless reasons to oppose this legislation, many of which have received little exposure in the press or by analysts (privacy issues). Regardless, this bill must be vehemently fought and opposed by all Americans if we want to preserve the world’s best healthcare as well as our rights and freedoms.

Below, is an abbreviated list assembled by Investors Business Daily of some of the reasons why Obamacare should not be implemented.

Why Health Bill Makes No Sense
Investors Business Daily   03/12/2010

Health Reform: So it's come down to this — desperate Democratic leaders strong-arming members on the worst bill ever before they go home to explain to constituents why they decided to commit political suicide.

We've said just about all we've had to say on this issue — actually dating back to 1993-94, when we wrote nearly 100 editorials in opposition to HillaryCare. Since January of last year, we've weighed in 150 more times against the latest version of socialized medicine.

But to review, here are just 15 reasons why a government takeover of the finest medical system in the world makes no sense at all:

1. The people don't want it! This, we would think, should have some bearing on decision-making. Yet the Democrats forge ahead without consent of the governed. In the latest Rasmussen poll, 53% opposed the Democrats' reform while 42% were in favor. More than four in 10 "strongly" opposed; just two in 10 "strongly" favored. This jibes with other surveys, including our own IBD/TIPP Poll, taken since last year.

2. Doctors don't want it! A survey we took last summer of 1,376 practicing physicians found that 45% would consider leaving their practices or taking early retirements if the Democrats' reform became law. In December, the results were validated by a Medicus poll in which 25% of doctors said they'd retire early if a public option is implemented and another 21% would stop practicing even though they were far from their retirement years. Even if the bill doesn't have a "public option," nearly 30% said they'd quit the profession under the plans being considered.

3. Half the Congress doesn't want it! Not a single Republican backed the health care bill that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve 60-39. House passage was by a slim 220 to 215, and the lone Republican "aye" has since switched to "no."
Columnist Michael Barone says other changes would put the House vote today at 216-215 in favor, and he has doubts Democrats can even muster 216.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her job of securing yes votes even more difficult last week when she told a meeting of county officials that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." Members of Congress aren't waiting: They've already exempted themselves from whatever they inflict on us.

4. People are happy with the health care they've got! Polls show that 84% of Americans have health insurance and that few are displeased with what they've got. Last month, the St. Petersburg Times looked at eight polls and reported that satisfaction rates averaged 87%.

5. It doesn't even cover the people they set out to cover! Supporters of government-run health care say there are as many as 47 million Americans — 9 million to 10 million of them illegal aliens — without medical insurance. The Democrats' plans, however, will put only 31 million of the uninsured under coverage.

6. Costs will go up, not down! Democrats say their plans will cost less than $1 trillion over the first decade. But analyst Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute puts the cost at $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years. Even if we go with the government's lower estimates, the cost is already on the rise. A new estimate by the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the Senate bill at $875 billion over 10 years, $4 billion more than its original projection. Imagine how fast costs would soar if one of the bills became public policy.

7. Real cost controls are nowhere to be found! The Democrats are offering no meaningful tort reform that will help push down the high malpractice insurance premiums that are a burden to doctors and their patients. Nor are they considering any other cost-saving provisions, such as allowing the sale of individual health plans across state lines or easing health insurance mandates.

8. Insurance premiums will rise, not fall! One goal of nationalizing health care is to lower costs, to bend the spending curve downward. Yet, as Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin acknowledged Wednesday, that won't be the case.

"Anyone who would stand before you and say, 'Well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down,' I don't think is telling the truth," he said from the Senate floor. "I think it is likely they would go up."

An analysis completed by the CBO at the request of Sen. Evan Bayh confirms Durbin's suspicions. Insurance coverage in the individual market will "be about 10% to 13% higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law," it concluded.

9. Medicare is already bankrupting us! The Medicare trust fund, which has unfunded obligations of $37.8 trillion, will be insolvent in 2017. How can lawmakers justify another entitlement that will cost trillions when they can't pay for existing liabilities?

10. There aren't enough doctors now! Last month, 26% of physicians responding to a Web poll on Sermo.com, which calls itself "the largest online physician community," said they had been forced to close, or were considering closing, their solo practices. Providing coverage for an additional 31 million Americans when the number of doctors is shrinking won't improve our health care.

11. The doctor-patient relationship will be wrecked! The latest IBD/TIPP Poll, taken just last week, found that Americans, by a wide 48%-26% margin, believe the doctor-patient relationship will decline if the Democrats' plan is passed.

12. Medical care will also deteriorate! IBD/TIPP has also found that 51% of Americans believe care would get worse under government control. Only 10.5% said they felt it would improve. In our doctor poll, 72% disagreed with administration claims that the government could cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

13. Rationing of care is inevitable! Health care is not an unlimited resource and must be rationed, either by the individual, providers or government. In Britain and Canada, where the government does the rationing, medical treatment waiting lists are sometimes deadly and quite often excessively long.

For instance, late cancer diagnoses in an overcrowded public health care system cause up to 10,000 needless deaths a year in Britain. The reasons cited for the late diagnoses include doctor delay, delay in primary care, system delay and delay in secondary care.

14. Private health insurers will be destroyed! Added mandates and price controls will force many insurers to simply get out of the health plan business because it will no longer be profitable.

15. It's probably unconstitutional! One way to help bring down the number of uninsured is to demand that those without coverage buy health plans. But the government has never passed a law requiring Americans to buy any good or service.
Constitutional scholars say any such mandate would likely draw a legal challenge.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=527217

Posted in Congress Constitution Democrat Doctors Government Control Healthcare Reform Ideology Parable Personal rights Rationing Republican Taxes with No Comments

More:

A Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution: An Idea Whose Time Is Right

In direct response to the irresponsible and profligate spending by both Republicans and Democrats, three Republican politicians have proposed a Spending Limit Amendment. This would serve to rein in and constrain such runaway spending whether it is by the President or Congress.

Given our financially dire present situation and an angry America as evidenced by the ascendancy of the Tea Party, it may just stand a chance.

Tea Party Amendment
Investors Business Daily   03/03/2010

Fiscal Crisis: Tea Partyers have made it clear they don't trust politicians — Democrat or Republican. Their historic uprising may now have a surefire way to stop politicians from spending us into the abyss.

In what promises to be a consequential election year, Republican leaders are eager to get the masses who make up the Tea Party movement on their side. But Tea Partyers remember that the GOP Congress and GOP president themselves spent way too much — even expanding the fiscally doomed Medicare entitlement program. Some Tea Party leaders even accuse Republican spendthrifts of practicing socialism.

GOP Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Mike Pence of Indiana and John Campbell of California may have just hit on a way of focusing the energy of a movement that's been accused by Democrats such as former Senate aide and Forbes columnist Dan Gerstein of being "incoherent, indiscriminate" and "all over the place" in its complaints.

The three have proposed a Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution that would restrain the federal government to the average expenditures of the post-World War II era — 20% of the U.S. economy. It would take a declaration of war or a two-thirds vote by Congress to waive the spending constraints.

Tea Partyers will no doubt be impressed by the fact that the idea comes from no less than Thomas Jefferson. In 1798, the Declaration's author wrote: "I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government."

There really is no credible argument against the idea. In common-sense fashion, the constraint would be suspended during a declared war, and any other real emergency would surely be recognized as such by two-thirds of lawmakers.

Other attempts to save Americans from the drunken sailors they send to Washington have failed. The automatic cuts of the Gramm-Rudman "sequester" of the 1980s worked, but the Supreme Court judged much of the law to be an unconstitutional restriction on presidential powers, and Congress defanged it. Gramm-Rudman's successor, Paygo, didn't use fixed targets, and expired in 2002. The line-item veto was famously ruled unconstitutional by the high court.

The Hensarling-Pence-Campbell Spending Limit Amendment is actually preferable to the line-item veto because it doesn't discriminate between big-spending Congresses and profligate presidents. It snaps the public purse closed on every Washington politician's fingers.

The SLA couldn't come at a more opportune time. The president and Congress want to add to our current $12 trillion in national debt a $2-trillion-plus big government health overhaul. Medicare, in the meantime, is less than a decade from bankruptcy, Social Security less than three decades away. As the plan points out, "if the SLA is not adopted, all of these programs are doomed on their current auto-pilot glide path as these three entitlement programs alone — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — are set to consume the entirety of the federal budget by 2036."

Investor's Business Daily on Wednesday asked Hensarling and Pence about the difficulties of getting three-quarters of the states to approve an amendment when so many amendment attempts by both sides of the aisle — from equal rights for women to abortion to flag desecration — have failed in recent decades.

"We're not naive," Hensarling said, noting that of about 5,000 proposed amendments only 27 have been ratified. But both men said that based on attending town halls and other venues, they have never seen the American people so incensed about runaway spending. The SLA "might be one of those simple ideas," Pence said, whose time has finally come.

If the Tea Party movement embraces this simple idea, with Thomas Jefferson as the SLA's avatar, there's no telling how big the political tsunami to strike Washington could end up becoming.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522845

Posted in Congress Constitutional Amendments Democrat Government spending Republican Tea Parties with No Comments

More:

In Defense of The Second Amendment of the Constitution

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right to bear arms, should not require much interpretation yet it has been challenged on numerous occasions. It is shocking that circuit court judges and even Supreme Court Justices provide variant interpretations. The fact that the Supreme Court decision in the Heller v. District of Columbia case in 2008 regarding Washington’s strict gun prohibition was overturned by only a 5 – 4 margin, should give pause to freedom loving Americans.

Our freedoms can be ephemeral – they can be taken away in a flash. The “progressives” and the far-left in our country are relentlessly attacking our innate rights and freedoms, often in incremental and stealth ways. The Second Amendment not only allows us to protect ourselves from others who aim to harm us but as Thomas Jefferson noted, it also is what can protect us from a tyrannical, overreaching government.

We must be ever vigilant in protecting and defending these rights and freedoms.

'Right To Bear Arms' Means Just That
Investors Business Daily   03/03/2010

Gun Rights: Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so too.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on behalf of four Chicago residents led by homeowner McDonald, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association to overturn Chicago's three-decade-old ban on owning handguns.

In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's draconian, 32-year-old ban on the private ownership of handguns. Scalia wrote that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The joy of Second Amendment defenders was short-lived. A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, rejected subsequent suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill.

According to Easterbrook, the Revolution was fought and independence won so that the Founding Fathers could write a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that applied only to the District of Columbia.

"Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government," he wrote, "while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state."

We're all for federalism, but the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution. Surely he can't be serious.

Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who won the Heller case, has expanded the argument to include the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 to prevent infringement on constitutional rights by states and others concerned about newly freed slaves owning firearms.

Introducing the 14th Amendment to Congress, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan referred to "personal rights" such as "the right to keep and bear arms, " explaining that his amendment would compel the states "to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

In 2008, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an amicus brief on behalf of 32 states that also challenged the constitutionality of the D.C. ban. Now he represents a group of 38 states fighting the Chicago ban. "The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a critical liberty interest, essential to preserving individual security and the right to self-defense," Abbott explained.

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that in Chicago only two classes of people can possess firearms: "The criminals and the politicians."

City politicians, he noted, used their influence to "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll."

Otis McDonald wants the same right to defend himself and his family. To deny him that right, city officials argue that repealing the ban will bring carnage in the streets. Yet in the forthcoming third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime," John Lott points out that the Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose afterward.

In an essay Monday for FoxNews.com, Lott noted that after the D.C. gun ban was ruled unconstitutional, murders in Washington plummeted 25% from 2008 to 2009. D.C.'s murder rate, he reports, is down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, its lowest since 1967.

More guns do seem to mean less crime. And as Mr. McDonald insists, those who gave us liberty gave us the means and the right to defend it.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522844

Posted in Far Left Freedom Government Control Ideology Legal rights Personal rights Second Amendment Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

Obama Is A Clear And Present Danger To Our Constitutional Rights

By action and words on myriad occasions, Obama has indicated that the Constitution cramps his style. Exuding arrogance and narcissism, he readily indicates that he will blatantly disregard its restraints and promulgate whatever legislation he so desires, whether it be the Federal government takeover of healthcare, industries or even firearm and munitions restrictions.

Obama has shown particular disdain for and has challenged with legislation the First, Second, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments. We, the American people, need to be eternally vigilant and vigorously oppose his each and every attempt to abrogate our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Obama must be stopped!

Obama vs. the 10th Amendment
by Chuck Norris 03/02/2010

Not surprisingly, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released last Friday revealed that 56 percent of Americans think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to their rights and freedoms.

Particularly apropos here is the feds' health care violation of the 10th Amendment, which is part of our Bill of Rights and was ratified Dec. 15, 1791. The amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thomas Jefferson explained the pre-eminence of this amendment in 1791: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

The point is that based on the 10th Amendment, when it comes to legislating and controlling our health care, the federal government doesn't have a constitutional leg to stand on. And even its past violations of the 10th Amendment by implementing government health care services have proved to break more national legs than they have to mend them. The proof is in the pudding. How many times does it have to be pointed out to Washington? Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. Case closed.

The government is inept to run America's health care system. And now it wants to expand its programs (its health care business) to oversee what equates to one-sixth of the gross national product? What rational board anywhere in the world would rightly appoint a CEO who had a string of miserable business failures and major corporate bankruptcies in his dossier?

I agree with Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at Stanford University Medical Center, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who put it best in their article a few months back, titled "Alternatives to government health takeover." They said this: "We think it's critical that power shifts to the American consumer and away from government, employers and insurers, as evidence shows medical care prices come down when patients pay directly.
Government should offer tax relief, such as refundable tax credits, to encourage private health insurance purchasing -- especially for low-income families. Similar ideas, like those in the Patients' Choice Act ... are important for Americans to consider. We would do well also to consider creative ideas such as changing federal payments to state-based medicaid plans to individual vouchers or expanding health savings accounts, as has been done in South Carolina."

Returning the onus of solving health care issues to families, local communities and states would not only return a balance of power to our federal government but also help with America's economic recovery and build up communities at the same time.

The abuse of federal political power to intervene in areas such as Americans' private health care could exist only in a nation that no longer holds its leaders accountable to its constitution and that has governmental leadership that regards itself as above its people and its constitution. Sadly, I was listening to an interview the other day in which President Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as "an imperfect document ... a document that reflects some deep flaws ... (and) an enormous blind spot." He also said, "The Framers had that same blind spot."

In so doing, the president established a rationale and justification for disregarding the Constitution. Even worse, he placed himself above the Constitution and those "blind Framers," who just couldn't see the big picture as he does today. After all, he's the constitutional scholar, and the Framers were just, well, the creators of the document!

Our 44th president would do well to learn from America's third president, Thomas Jefferson, himself a source greater than any living constitutional lawyer. Imagine Jefferson sitting there at the health care summit, a ripe sage at roughly 80 years of age. After listening to all the clamoring of both Republicans and Democrats, he politely but sternly utters these words, which he also wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson in 1823: "The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They (did not learn from the past), nor (were they) aware of the slipperiness of the eels of the law. I ask for no straining of words against the General Government, nor yet against the States. I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market."

It couldn't be any clearer or wiser than that.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35858

Posted in Arrogance Constitution First Amendment Fourteenth Amendment Government Control Healthcare Reform Ideology Narcissism Obama Second Amendment Tenth Amendment with 1 Comment

More:

How Much Personal Information Should We Provide The Census Bureau?

The U.S. Census Bureau has mandated that we complete the census forms that are replete with very personal, specific and comprehensive information. In a perfect world, if the information were to used in a benign, non-political way it may still be concerning to us. However, there are so many unanswered questions including issues related to privacy, security, usage of the information by other government agencies for reasons other than general data collection, etc. that are problematic.

The following video exposes some quite relevant and serious issues that should give us all pause before we provide the government with extremely valuable, unique and intimate information.

The Census Is Getting Personal

Posted in Constitution Personal rights Videos with No Comments

More:

Liberal Democrats and the News Media Are Viciously and Contemptuously Attacking Americans

The news media and “our” liberal politicians see themselves as so elitist and righteous that they are resorting to attacking the American people who disagree with their policies. They disparage us as ignorant or benighted simply because we are exercising our Constitutional (and inherent) rights to oppose their far-left positions. Democracy has suddenly become an inconvenience for them as it has made passage of their various bills which would further restrict and control our rights and freedoms and plunder more of our hard earned wealth, nearly impossible.

This is also exactly why they are viciously attacking and denigrating the Tea Party Movement, a grass roots movement that represents an angry middle America. We are sick and tired of politicians imperiously foisting expensive and irresponsibly solutions on us, ransacking ever increasing amounts of the fruits of our labor, and destroying our economy, jobs and freedoms yet they live by another set of rules (including their gold plated healthcare plan), corruptly aggrandize themselves with our tax dollars and evince a general antipathy toward the people who are suppose to be their bosses.

This must stop. These despicable, arrogant, corrupt politicians must be voted out of office ASAP!

As for much of the news media, a boycott of their products and programs can be quite effective. In the following article alone, several of these are quoted from that excoriate Americans that we can place on this list:

Times Magazine, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker

To this we can add other far-left media like: MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS

Money, or the lack of it, talks. Let’s be quite loud on this issue!

Blame Americans First
Democrats lose patience with democracy.
By Matthew Continetti     March 1, 2010

What’s the clearest sign the Obama agenda is in trouble? That’s easy: the string of jeremiads in the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets of fashionable opinion. Unable to tout the administration’s successes, and worried about Republican ascendancy, liberals have assigned responsibility for the mess they’re in neither to their program nor to their methods but to larger, structural faults in American politics and society. Beginning with you.

You aren’t too bright, for one thing. After all, opines Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek, the “biggest culprit” behind “our political paralysis” is the “childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.” You simply do not know what’s good for you. “On many issues these days,” writes the Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein, “the American people are badly confused.” “The people may have spoken,” writes the New -Yorker’s James Surowiecki. “It’s just not clear that they’re making any sense.” In a blog post titled “Too Dumb to Thrive,” Time magazine’s Joe Klein cuts to the chase: “It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.”

The problem, as Weisberg sees it, is that America “simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, and other problems.” Note the myopia. For Weisberg, the only conceivable “action” on any issue is limited to the policy preferences of liberal Democrats. No other options spring to mind.

This is nonsense. Just because the public says the economy is important does not necessarily mean it has to support a stimulus measure that has added massively to the debt without much benefit. Just because the public is concerned with rising health care costs does not mean that it has to support a bill that could alter existing health care arrangements and increase costs in the long-term. Steven Pearlstein writes that Americans “want to do something about global warming.” No they don’t. Global warming came dead last in a recent Pew survey of public priorities.

The reason health care, cap and trade, and the other blocks of Obama’s New Foundation are unpopular isn’t public ignorance. It’s that the public sees them as counterproductive—and in many cases beside the point. The people’s representatives have responded to a variety of signals, from falling poll numbers, to town hall protests, to GOP victories in -Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Which is precisely how democracy is supposed to function.

And that’s the problem, says Kurt Andersen in New York magazine. “American democracy has gotten way too democratic.” The “thoughtful, educated, well-off, well-regarded gentlemen” who designed our Constitution “wanted a government run by an American elite like themselves.” But the “populist impulse” abroad in the land today has scared legislators into obeying the people’s demands.

It was not always thus. “In the old days,” Andersen laments, “the elite media really did control the national political discourse” and “presidents and congressional leaders could pretty well manage the policy conversations” without the public trying to butt in. But there’s no going back now; “maybe our republic’s constitutional operating system simply can’t scale up to deal satisfactorily with a heterogenous population of 310 million.”
This liberal uneasiness with democracy is not new. In 2003, in The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria made the case against too much public involvement in government. In 2008, in Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Thomas Friedman dreamed of America becoming “China for a day” so that he could impose his environmental agenda on a truculent populace. In a 2009 New York Times column, Friedman wrote that a dictatorship, “when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today,” has “great advantages” over democratic systems. In the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows writes that “whatever is wrong with today’s Communist leadership [in Beijing], it is widely seen as pulling the country nearer to its full potential rather than pushing it away.” Nevertheless, the Democrats probably aren’t going to run on “Communist China Does It Better.”

What makes the liberal jeremiads confusing is that they work at cross purposes. On one hand, you’ve got the attacks on the people’s intelligence and representative government. On the other, you’ve got the attacks on American institutions for not being representative enough. Which is it? Are the people the problem, or is their government? According to Fallows, it’s the latter: “Our government is old and broken and dysfunctional, and may even be beyond repair.”

The culprit is the Senate, which gives equal say to states with small populations and requires 60 votes to pass legislation. Fallows says these minority rights have turned the Senate “into a deep freeze and a dead weight.” “America is not yet lost,” Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times, “but the Senate is working on it.” In a Huffington Post blog, Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, writes that special interests are “using the filibuster to stop legislation that would benefit the little guy,” whether the little guy likes it or not.

You can make a persuasive argument that the filibuster has been deployed too frequently in recent years, especially when it has prevented presidents, Republican and Democrat, from staffing their administrations. Nevertheless, the Senate and the filibuster are there for good reasons: to defuse momentary passions that could have unintended and harmful consequences for the country.

The system is designed to ensure broad consensus before Congress enacts major reforms. Such consensus existed during the New Deal and Great Society. And there was consensus behind certain elements of Reagan’s and Bush’s and Clinton’s programs, as well. That was not the case when George W. Bush attempted to overhaul Social Security, however. The public agreed with Bush that there was a problem, but it did not like his solution. It has had the same reaction to Obama’s proposals.

The liberal program is in disarray because liberals have failed to establish general agreement. They have found that simple majorities do not automatically translate into programmatic success. And when they are met with public opposition and institutional resistance, they do what comes naturally. They blame Americans first.

Matthew Continetti is associate editor of The Weekly Standard and the author, most recently, of The Persecution of Sarah Palin (Sentinel Books).

http://weeklystandard.com/articles/blame-americans-first

Posted in Arrogance Constitution Corruption Far Left Freedom Ideology Intolerance Liberal Media - Far Left Personal rights with No Comments

More:

The Supreme Court’s Overturning Of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law Is A Victory For Free Speech

The Supreme Court on January 21st ruled that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was unconstitutional and overturned it. Though intentions were ostensibly good in its passage, what it ended up doing was restricting the rights of free speech and created asymmetries in political information delivery. To wit: most of the liberal news media foisting their political biases unfettered on the public both by commission and omission yet they were not regulated by this legislation.

The ruling is a victory for free speech and the First Amendment and freedom from government intrusion and restraint on our rights.

The Gag Is Removed
Investors Business Daily    01/21/2010

Campaign Finance: Five justices ruled Thursday that corporations and labor unions can donate directly to political activities. At least someone in Washington is trying to protect free speech.

Lawmakers have been strangling constitutionally secured political speech for years. In 1990, the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law that barred corporate political contributions. Twelve years later, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Among other restrictions, it banned for 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election any "electioneering communications" that would be broadcast over television airways or transmitted via cable or satellite.

The encroachments were too much for the Roberts Supreme Court, which on Thursday invalidated 5-4 the McCain-Feingold blackout period and overturned the 1990 high court ruling in its Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission decision.

In 2008, Citizens United produced "Hillary: The Movie." The documentary, aimed at derailing Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, was political in nature. The FEC shut down pay-per-view broadcasts of "Hillary," saying that it was a political ad and therefore violated federal election law.

Citizens United, an advocacy group, rightly responded by asking the courts to protect its right to free speech. The Supreme Court rightly replied by ruling for Citizens United — and for everyone else in the country as well.
Free speech cannot survive in a society when it's for me but not for thee. If the government can take away one person's free speech, it can bar free speech for all. Yet that's the society some want.

Take note of campaign finance law supporters, who suspend belief that money donated to political activity is speech protected by the Constitution. They ignore both the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court ruling, which confirmed that political donations are speech, and their own instincts that tell them financial contributions are indeed expression.

Today they condemn the pro-liberty Citizens United ruling and lament that the Roberts Court is moving hard to the right.
The First Amendment is neither right nor left. It protects all sides of every argument — yes, even the more unsavory speech that hurts feelings and offends our sense of decency. Constitutional expression promotes a vibrant, enlightened and open society. The more information we have, the better off we are.

The Citizens United ruling is an important decision that moves the country closer to the principles of its founding and the vision of its founders.

URL   http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518759

Posted in Constitution First Amendment Freedom of Speech Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

Obama, Blinded By Ideology, Ineptness and Inexperience, Will Force America To Pay A Great Price

As a consequence of Obama’s unwavering adherence to his radical and inimical ideologies, his glaring lack of previous executive experiences, and his prodigious and destructive arrogance and narcissism which preclude him from dispassionately assessing all angles of situations, he has set America to pay dearly this and in coming years. Exacerbating this situation further is his innate corruptness, scheming dishonesty and expressed profound disdain for America and most of its citizens (excluding the chosen minorities in specific and his constituency in general).

If you have any doubt about this, just consider all the mandated minority preferences in Obamacare and other legislation (which are racist and should be unconstitutional), wealth transfer beneficiaries, the dropping of charges against the New Black Panther Party regarding voter intimidation during the Presidential election, and even his racist tact in response to the Henry Gates – Cambridge police office incident, etc.

The following editorial enumerates some of the issues or incidents that Obama’s inept or ideologically blinded responses, attitude or inactions will ultimately lead to bad outcomes for America. Aside from a few exceptions, you won't see incisive assessments like this in the sycophantic liberal news media

Chickens Of '09 Coming Home To Roost In '10
By Victor Davis Hanson

Plenty of our chickens will be coming home to roost this year.

Take foreign relations. In 2009, the new administration assumed that George W. Bush was largely responsible for global tensions. As a remedy, we loudly reached out to our foes and those with whom we had uneasy relationships.

But so far these leaders — like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Russia's Vladimir Putin — have only interpreted Barack Obama's serial goodwill gestures as weaknesses to be exploited. They play the part of the pushy class bully, we the whiny nerd.

In the waning days of 2009, Iran has announced it has no intention of dismantling its nuclear facilities and ignored the latest Obama deadline to cease. There's no reason not to expect the theocracy to make significant strides in its nuclear program in 2010, while continuing without rebuke to beat and murder democratic dissidents in its streets.

Russia has announced plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons — and scoffed at our polite suggestions that it should pressure Iran to stop its nuclear development.

Venezuela brags of its own similar program to come — an act that could threaten all the neighboring democracies in the region.

The administration courted China on a much-heralded Asian tour. President Obama has even said he would be our first "Pacific president."

Unfortunately, China was not impressed. It declined our advice about reducing its carbon footprint and instead reminded Americans that we owe the Chinese people nearly $1 trillion. Expect much more of that hectoring in 2010 as our debt to China grows.

Consider also the threat of Islamic terrorism. In 2009, some in the Obama administration decided "war on terror" was too provocative a label for what might be better dubbed "overseas contingency operations." Apparently, they were thinking a kinder, gentler image would discourage terrorists.

Accordingly, the self-confessed architect of Sept. 11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was promised a civil trial in New York rather than a military tribunal normally accorded to out-of-uniform murderous terrorists. Expect a lot of soapbox speechmaking about America's sins during his testimony in 2010.

As part of our efforts to break with the Bush anti-terrorism past, President Obama also vowed he would close the facility at Guantanamo Bay by Jan. 22, 2010 — another deadline that won't be met.

But as 2009 ended, we were reminded that radical Islamic terrorists still want to kill us for who we are, and what we represent, rather than any particular thing we do.

Maj. Nidal Hasan, nursed on radical Islamic doctrine, murdered 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian at Ford Hood, Texas.

Five would-be terrorists with U.S. citizenship were arrested in Pakistan on their way to link up with Islamist militant groups. And Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was stopped in flight from Amsterdam before he could blow up an American passenger jet.

Note that all these recent terrorists were not poor, lived in the hospitable West — and cared little that the Obama administration has been critical of prior U.S. war-on-terror policies.

So, while we assured the world in 2009 that we wouldn't be overzealous in our various efforts to stop terrorists, the terrorists proved that they most certainly would be in theirs to kill us.

Meanwhile, at home we operated on the same naive assumptions. The Obama administration inherited a $500 billion deficit and expanded it threefold. Its planned mega-deficits may well grow the aggregate national debt over the next decade to over $20 trillion.

But the administration's 2009 calculations on how to service the growing red ink are based on continued cheap interest. Yet in 2010, it is likely we will see rising inflation, rising interest rates — and rising costs to the continual self-destructive borrowing.

We were given a financial break on energy prices in 2009. The worldwide recession sent oil down to about $50 a barrel.

But America did little during the year's reprieve to rush into production newly discovered domestic gas and oil fields, to tap existing finds in Alaska, or to license new nuclear plants.

By year's end, oil was creeping back up to $80. If the economic upswing continues, in 2010 it may near its old high of nearly $150 a barrel. Soon we will wish we had done something concrete in 2009 rather than offering more stale rhetoric about wind and solar power.

In other words, 2009 may seem to have ended relatively quietly. But in our foreign relations, in the war against terror, in our massive borrowing and in our energy policies, we created chickens that soon will come home to roost in 2010.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517009

Posted in Arrogance Corruption Incompetence Intolerance Narcissism Obama Reverse Racism with No Comments

More:

Killing Obamacare Based on Contitutionality Issues: The Best Strategy

The following editorial appearing in www.humanevents.com scrutinizes Obamacare from a constitutional perspective. No where in our Constitution is the Federal government given the authority to mandate or control healthcare.  Furthermore, there are several inherent issues and requirements that are clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, many Democrats and the far left treat these issues in an arrogant, perfunctory manner. “We want this healthcare reform imposed, Constitutionality be damned” are their attitudes.

Our recommended approach: Kill the bill on the basis of Constitutionality issues which are myriad. Then, vote these corrupt imperious elitists out of office.

Obamacare's Fundamental Flaw
by Gary Bauer   01/01/2010

The Left has always had an erratic relationship with the Constitution. Liberal judges are known for discovering constitutional rights that had eluded judges for centuries. That’s because some of those so-called rights, such as the right to privacy, have no basis in the text of the Constitution but rather somewhere in its “emanations” and “penumbras.”

But the alleged right to privacy has its limits even among liberals. The Left’s judges routinely rule that the right protects abortion on demand, but its legislators have no qualms about extinguishing the right of citizens to make other private healthcare decisions free of government coercion.

While much of the healthcare debate has focused on arguments over policy, a more fundamental debate is taking place over whether the Democrats’ healthcare overhaul is even constitutional.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to be involved in healthcare, and the loud affirmation of this fact may offer conservatives their best chance to pull the plug on Obamacare. It would be ironic if it is in the courts, liberals’ favorite venue for forcing social change, that the rule of law were restored and the personal freedom of the American people affirmed.

The power to regulate each citizen’s health care is not listed in the Constitution among the federal government’s enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment makes clear that any powers not specifically granted to Congress are reserved to the states.

But among liberals, for whom it is an article of faith that government-run healthcare is a basic human right that no person of goodwill could oppose, any arguments about its constitutionality are irrelevant.

When pressed to address constitutionality, liberals often point to the commerce clause. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate “commerce among the several states.” But that does not mean Congress can meddle in anything that affects economic activity. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate non-economic activities just because, somewhere down the road, they may have an effect on economic activity.

The most egregiously unconstitutional element of the health care legislation concerns the individual mandate, which requires each American to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty of up to $25,000 or one year in prison. The individual mandate is essential to the Left’s plan to impose government-run health care. Without it, because of the left’s insistence on barring insurance companies from denying coverage to people for pre-existing conditions, people would simply obtain insurance only when they have a need for medical care.

The individual mandate is a way to keep costs down, but there is not constitutional authorization for it. As Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has said, “…here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want…and…that’s not constitutionally sound.”

Back in 1994, during the Democrats’ last foray into healthcare reform, the Congressional Budget Office stated that compelling individuals to buy insurance would be “an unprecedented form of federal action” because “the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the U.S.”

Liberals often liken the health insurance individual mandate to the law requiring all people who own automobiles to have auto insurance. But it’s a flawed argument. Only state governments, not the federal government, can require automobile owners to obtain auto insurance (and two states, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, don’t).

Also, as legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation point out in a recent legal memorandum, “automobile insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself.”

The Heritage memo, titled “Why the personal mandate to buy health insurance is unprecedented and unconstitutional,” also notes that states require drivers to maintain auto insurance only to cover injuries to others. “The mandate does not require drivers to insure themselves or their property against injury or damage. Thus the auto insurance requirement covers the dangers and liabilities posed by drivers to third parties only…”

It would be an understatement to say that individual mandate advocates have struggled to defend its inclusion. In a series of interviews conducted by CNSNews.com, Democrat after Democrat failed to give a coherent answer about where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance.

Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka said he was “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority, while Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) said he’d “have to check the specific sections,” and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) flatly admitted that he did not know.

Senator Blanche Lincoln should have taken the Nelson route but instead opined, “Well, I Just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.” And Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) dismissed the question, insisting that “nobody” questioned Congress’ authority to require individual mandate.

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) said Congress authorization to impose an individual mandate could be found in the part of Constitution that authorizes the federal government to “provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.” But, as CNSNews.com pointed out, “health” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

Then there was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who simply responded “Are you serious? Are you serious?” By which she seemed to be saying, “Do you seriously think we progressives would allow constitutionality to get in the way of our half-century old goal of government-run health care?!”

There are other constitutional problems with Obamacare. For instance, if the public option provides for abortion, many Americans will be compelled to subsidize other people’s abortions, which would infringe upon the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.

And constitutional concerns exist over exempting some states from Obamacare’s provisions. In Harry Reid’s fire sale for votes, he essentially agreed that some states would bear the brunt of the economic burden of the health care monstrosity but not others. Presently state legal experts are examining whether the constitution can force such a burden upon them.

Other constitutional issues are buried deep in the pages of the bill just now seeing the light of day. For example, in spite of recent Supreme Court decisions raising constitutional questions about racial set asides, Obamacare promises federal financial assistance to medical schools, but only if they have programs that serve “under-represented” groups based on race, sex, religion and sexual orientation.

An unintended consequence of the health care debate may be that legislators on both sides of the isle are dusting off and reading their copies of the U.S. Constitution. Conservative members of Congress should resolve in the New Year to talk more often and more loudly about the constitutional arguments against Obamacare.

If it passes, conservatives should test its constitutionality in the courts. It may well be that the jobs saved or created by the Obama Administration’s health care plan go to lawyers, not doctors.

URL   http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35040

Posted in Arrogance Congress Constitution Democrat Government Control Healthcare Healthcare Reform Ideology Liberal Obama with No Comments

More:

A Few Reasons Why Obamanocare Should Be Obliterated

As the ObamaCare legislation is being scrutinized by the public, innumerable insidious, discriminatory, restrictive, unconstitutional, and generally outrageous clauses and mandates are being discovered that were intentionally hidden because they were either “illegal”, reflective of corruption or egregiously bad for the public. We also suspect that not one politician who voted for the legislation has read the entire bill. What unalloyed arrogance! These contemptuous politicians all need to be voted out office at their next elections.

More Reasons For Killing Off Health Reform
Phyllis Schlafly             12/29/2009

New reasons emerge almost daily as to why ObamaCare can and must be defeated.

1. Americans oppose ObamaCare by almost 2 to 1 in the latest CNN poll. Other polls show lopsided opposition to passing either the Senate or House health care bill.

Public opinion is against the bill because of its obscene costs in higher taxes, burdensome debt, anti-freedom mandates, rationing and reduced care for seniors. The American people have awakened to the fact that ObamaCare is transformational legislation that will drag us against popular will into European-style socialism.

2. The Democrats' double-counting of ObamaCare's financial benefits has been exposed as a colossal lie. Harry Reid told the Senate that his bill strengthens our future by both "cutting our towering national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years" and "strengthening Medicare and extending its life by nearly a decade."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) refuted that assertion. CBO said the claim that ObamaCare would provide these benefits simultaneously "would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position."

3. ObamaCare is unconstitutional because of its mandate that all individuals must carry "approved" health insurance and all businesses must give health insurance to their employees whether or not the company can afford it. "Universal" coverage will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service with power to punish those who don't have such a plan.

Constitutional lawyers say the Commerce Clause does not give Congress authority to force Americans to buy health insurance as a condition of living in the U.S. because personal health insurance is not "commerce." The CBO wrote that "a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action"; the Supreme Court has never upheld any requirement that an individual must participate in economic activity.

4. Since the Senate bill imposes sharp limits on health insurance companies' ability to raise fees or exclude coverage, it likely will force many of them out of business. ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it violates the Bill of Rights protections against takings without just compensation and deprivation of property without due process of law.

5. Other ObamaCare provisions blatantly legislate racial and other forms of discrimination. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent two letters to the president and congressional leaders warning about the obnoxious requirements for racist and sexist quotas.

The Senate bill requires that "priority" for federal grants be given to institutions offering "preferential" admissions to minorities (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation and religion).

Institutions training social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral pediatricians, psychiatric nurses and counselors will be ineligible for federal grants unless they enroll "individuals and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic and class backgrounds, and different genders and sexual orientations."

6. Obama's claim that "everybody" will now be covered creates few winners but lots of losers. Universal health insurance will be achieved by forcing young people to pay the additional costs (insurance for the youngest third of the population would rise by 35%), and by restricting and rationing care for the elderly.

7. According to columnist Robert Samuelson, the "wild card is immigration." From 1999 to 2008, 60% of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics, and Obama's refusal to close our borders will make this problem more costly every year.

8. ObamaCare gives Medicare bureaucrats the power to ration health care by forcing doctors to prescribe cheaper medical devices and drugs. In the recent case of Hays v. Sebelius, the court ruled that Medicare doesn't have the right to make this rule, but ObamaCare takes jurisdiction away from the courts to hear any appeal from decisions of the new Medicare Commission.

The "stick" applied to primary-care doctors is imposing financial penalties if they refer too many patients to specialists. The "carrot" is financial rewards to doctors who give up small practices and join into larger medical groups or become salaried employees of hospitals or other large institutions.

9. The Senate bill contains at least a dozen of what can be described as bribes. Sen. Mary Landrieu received a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for her state (known as the Second Louisiana Purchase), and a $100 million bribe to Sen. Ben Nelson gives Nebraska a permanent exemption from the costs of Medicaid expansion.

10. The Senate bill even has a four-page section artfully written to enable Acorn to get federal health care grants. This section describes grant recipients as "community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups" having "existing relationships ... with uninsured and underinsured consumers."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516531

Posted in Constitution Corruption Government Control Healthcare Reform Obama Racism Rationing Reverse Racism Socialized Medicine with No Comments

More:

Government Healthcare Mandates Not Supported By The Constitution

The elitist hauteur of liberal politicians, if left unchallenged, will translate into significant loss of many of our remaining rights and freedoms. Several prominent Democratic politicians including Obama have displayed arrogant and wanton disregard for the specifics of the Constitution, perverting its dictates in order to meet their ideological agenda.

One of these involves the current healthcare legislation based on their belief that healthcare is a right that they can fully control, regulate and issue mandates including forcing people to buy health insurance and forcing citizens to subsidize the care of others. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given such authority.

Health Care Not In Constitution
Investors Business Daily

Self-Evident Truths: Sen. Dianne Feinstein says it comes under the Commerce Clause. Rep. Steny Hoyer says it's mandated by the "general welfare" clause. Despite liberal wishes, health care is not a right.

The "living Constitution" that Democrats and their court appointees have given us may be the death of our freedoms. Their constitution adapts to the times and serves the whims of the elitists. The Constitution is supposed to limit government powers. It does not allow government to do anything it feels like doing.

Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is the author of "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever."

He writes glowingly of how President Franklin Roosevelt, unsatisfied with the Constitution the Founding Fathers wrote, proposed a Second Bill of Rights in a speech on Jan. 11, 1944.

One of the new "rights" FDR envisioned was "the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." If health care were a right under the U.S. Constitution, FDR would not have had to propose it as one to be added.

Yet liberals believe it should be, and some believe it is. Feinstein, the senior senator from California, was asked Tuesday by CNSNews on what constitutional authority the Senate and House bills are authorized. She responded, as others have, "Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That's how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."

Maybe so, but it's a power that has been grossly abused and distorted beyond all meaning. The Commerce Clause was intended for the regulation of economic activity across state lines that involves the production distribution or consumption of commodities. One does not go to a doctor to engage in commercial activity.

Mandates including the one to buy health insurance go over the line. "Even if the Supreme Court has expanded the commerce power, there has been one constant," noted Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Congress was always regulating activities in which people chose to engage." He added that "rather than regulate what people have chosen to do," the mandates "would require them to do something they have not chosen to do at all."

When asked the same question, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer pointed to Article 1, Section 8, which gives the Congress the power to raise taxes in order to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Does that give Congress the authority to buy things like health insurance?

We and others have made the point that broccoli is good for our general welfare, but can Congress make us eat it and charge us if we don't? Losing a few pounds would help us all and reduce health care costs, but can Congress mandate health club memberships? Hoyer thinks so.

This clause says nothing about the citizens of the United States, only the United States as a whole. The Constitution provides for the raising of armies to defend the country, not for whether or when women should get mammograms and who should pay for them.

Hoyer is wrong, according to constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin: "The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly, because if that's true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything."

Does the "general welfare" allow for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make backroom deals that tax other states and other citizens to benefit a single state such as Nebraska and its citizens and to literally bribe senators like Ben Nelson for their vote?

Health care is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the only time the word "care" appears is in Article II, Section 3, which says the president of the United States "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes our highest law, the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516140

Posted in Arrogance Congress Constitution Democrat Government Control Healthcare Healthcare Reform Ideology Obama with No Comments

More:

Congressional Democrats Show No Regard In Trampling Over Our Constitutional Rights in the Healthcare Legislation

The magnitude of corruption, bribery with our tax dollars and complete contempt and disregard for the wishes of the American people that occurred in the process of trying to legislate healthcare reform is essentially unprecedented in national politics. Congress’ responses to questions of Constitutionality of some of the mandates and clauses are dismissive. Obama and these Democrats are telling us: We don’t give a damn about what you want or don’t want and we will do as we please.

As we have been warming for a long time, this has become a dictatorial government that will trample over our rights and freedoms, steal and deal our tax dollars, and impose at will whatever legislation they deem important in order to satisfy their ideological goals.

We must do whatever it takes to reclaim our country!

Forever Gone
Investors Business Daily 12/22/2009

DeMint: Is health care reform even constitutional? AP Photo

Any law can be repealed, but the Democrats' radical health bill contains unprecedented language that could wreck the U.S. health system permanently. It's one of the dirtiest tricks yet.

'Page 1,020" — it may soon be a mantra for one of the most disturbing abuses of legislative power in history. In setting up an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, that page of the Senate health overhaul bill passed in the dead of night early Monday says, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

This enters the realm of "hyperlaw" or "laws on steroids."

As Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., pointed out on the Senate floor, it isn't lawmaking, but rather "creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law."

DeMint is "not even sure that it's constitutional," since it affects "the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future Congresses."

Clearly liberal Democratic leaders will stoop to record depths to expand the federal government's powers.
Public support plummets well down into the 30s? They don't bat an eyelash.

Mandating an individual's purchase of a private service like insurance tramples the Constitution? Just watch them do it.
Bribe Senators Tom, Dick and Ben? Here's the cash.

As John Steele Gordon noted in Commentary, the Medicaid bribe that bought the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., is so unprecedented it may not withstand constitutional muster.

According to Gordon, "one could argue that Nebraskans will be getting what amounts to a rebate on federal taxes through the backdoor of lower state taxes," which might violate Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution requiring government collections to be "uniform throughout the United States."

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid admits, "I don't know that there's a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that isn't important to them," adding that "if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them."

That is the arrogance of the mind-set dominating the legislative and executive branches: Your money is really theirs, to be handed out like a Mob-backed union boss toting a bag of cash on the waterfront.

When you put together Medicare and Medicaid recipients, government employees and contractors, and active and former military members and their dependents, over 40% of Americans receive government-subsidized health care. The Democrats' health care revolution would up that to a solid majority of our citizens.

American history shows that once an entitlement is enacted, it's next to impossible to erase. Catastrophic health care for seniors, passed 20 years ago, is the only such program ever repealed; the 1996 welfare reform severely limited that socially destructive entitlement.

The statists may now finally have bitten off more than they will be able to chew politically. If Republicans act like Republicans and convince the populist Tea Party movement not to go the suicidal third-party route, the coming public backlash will see to it that the greatest health care system in the world is not gone for good.

Look for demonstrators to start burning copies of Page 1,020 the way '60s radicals used to burn their draft cards.

URL   http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516040

Posted in Arrogance Congress Constitution Corruption Democrat Government Control Healthcare Reform Ideology Obama Personal rights Sen. Jim DeMint Taxes with No Comments

More:

Obama’s Failing Presidency

Though this piece was written three months ago for the American Thinker, the intervening events have added even more solid validation of the perspicacious assessment of Obama, the emperor who is not wearing any clothes. Of course, you can also substitute the words readily available on the tip of the tongues of his fervent minions: “savior” or “messiah” instead of emperor.

How much more of this can we endure?

Another Failed Presidency
by Geoffrey P. Hunt     Aug. 31, 2009

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

George Bush Jr. didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School.  Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us.  He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course.  It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

URL  http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/another_failed_presidency.html

Posted in Arrogance Constitution Ideology Incompetence Liberal Narcissism Obama with No Comments

More:

Justice for Terrorists the Obama and Atty. Gen. Holder Way

Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder Ideology Islam Legal rights Military Obama Political Cartoon Terrorism with 1 Comment

More:

Jim DeMint (R. – South Carolina) Introduces An Amendment to the U. S. Constitution to Set Term Limits for Congress

The following press release by Jim DeMint unveils his brilliant plan of seeking an Amendment to the United States Constitution which will set term limits for U. S. Senators and U.S. Representatives. In a very lucid and concise fashion he presents a very convincing case for this action.

November 10, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced an amendment to the United States Constitution that would apply term limits to all members of Congress, limiting U.S. Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms in office. The amendment is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). As an amendment to the Constitution, it would require a two-thirds majority vote approval in the House and Senate and must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," said Senator DeMint. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power. I have come to realize that if we want to change the policies coming out of Congress, we must change the process itself. Over the last 20 years, Washington politicians have been reelected about 90% of the time because the system is heavily tilted in favor of incumbents. If we really want to put an end to business as usual, we’ve got to have new leaders coming to Washington instead of rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down.”

Senator Coburn added, “The best way to ensure we are truly a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is to replace the career politicians in Washington with citizen legislators who care more about the next generation than their next election. The power of incumbency has created an almost insurmountable advantage for Washington politicians. Incumbency allows politicians to raise millions of dollars in campaign funds in exchange for earmarks. Incumbency gives Congress the power to raise money for itself – Congress just approved itself an increase of nearly $250 million from the U.S. Treasury that members will spend to promote themselves. Finally, with redistricting incumbents can choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Term limits is the best way to break this cycle.”

“Some say only long-serving, seasoned elites have the skills to lead the people, but that’s exactly what we have today and how do you think it’s working out for us?” said Senator DeMint. “It wasn’t the ‘people’ who gave us a $12 trillion debt, an IRS tax code seven times longer than the Bible, over 1,700 departments of the federal government, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, $100 trillion long-term shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, the Wall Street and auto bailouts, and the pending health care takeover.

“This nation can no longer afford these entrenched men and women who enjoy lives of luxury wholly insulated from the consequences of their major policy failures.

“I want to be clear: demanding that reformers adopt self-imposed term limits is a recipe for self-defeat on this issue. We lost the battle for term limits after the 1994 Republican Contract with America because we forced our best advocates for reform to go home, while the big-spending career politicians waited them out. We must have term limits for all or term limits will never succeed. Only when we apply the same rules to all will we be able to enact vital bipartisan reforms.

“Term limits will increase legislative turnover, expand the field of candidates who run for office, and instill transparency and accountability in our public officials. By ratifying this amendment, we can end the tremendous advantage enjoyed by incumbents in Washington, break long-lasting ties to special interests and lobbyists, and transform Congress from the body of career politicians that it has become, to a chamber of true citizen legislators,” said Senator DeMint.

URL   http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=df3453ee-c1f0-e8d5-3fb3-77379823cf1c&Month=11&Year=2009&Type=PressRelease

Posted in Congress Constitution Constitutional Amendments Corruption Government Control Ideology Sen. Jim DeMint with 1 Comment

More:

The USSR and the USA: Frightening Parallels

History repeats itself. Those who don’t learn from it are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. In our present situation in America, all the warning signs have been there and couldn’t be any clearer yet many either refuse to believe them or are just plain apathetic, lazy or corrupt.

The following editorial by Svetlana Kunin, a Russian immigrant who happened to live in the communist Soviet Union, starkly and chillingly details the shocking parallels of life, events, rhetoric and attitudes in the USSR of the 1970’s to what is transpiring right now here in America under Obama, Pelosi and Co. (Related posts worth reviewing: 9/11 Tribute to What America Stands For and Why We Need to Keep Fighting To Preserve Our Freedoms and Rights: The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant which is also written this same person and The Dismantling of America: A Clarion Call To Action)

Service.gov And Its Soviet Similarities

By SVETLANA KUNIN

USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.

The story of young pioneer Pavlik Morozov is required reading. Pavlik reported his father to the secret police for disobeying government regulations. His life exemplified the duty of all good Soviet citizens to serve their government.

From the first year in school, all of us are made aware of our ethnicity (ethnic Russian, Jewish, Asian, etc.) and class (proletariat, intelligentsia), around which society is structured. This inherent divisiveness makes it easy for the government to stir ethnic and class tension and in this way distract from economic failure.
Newspapers and TV transmit government-approved news. Any critical voice is immediately suppressed and publicly denounced.
My parents, as all citizens of the USSR, work for state-run companies. All workers are unionized — another way the state controls the citizens. There is no private enterprise in USSR.

Whatever small private farms or shops that existed before 1930 have been taken over by the state. All medical care and schools are state entities. The government regulates what kind of technology, service and compensation are allowed.
From school age through adulthood, citizens are called to public service four to five times a year. Activities such as farming, cleaning places of work, and paper/metal scrap collections are mandatory.

Religious symbols are forbidden in schools or on state property. Most old religious buildings are transformed for secular use.

The Soviet government imposes the Iron Curtain. The state has strict control over our ability to travel abroad. This prevents us from realizing the discrepancy between the media's image of the great socialist country and the reality of our low standard of living.

USA, 2009: "Progressives" control the government. Children in some public schools sing songs about the president and study his directives.

Progressives view people not as unique individuals, but as groups. They play on class envy, or divide people by ethnicity (African-American, white, Hispanic, etc.). From early childhood they remind children of their ethnic identity. The idea of a color-blind society united under the American flag is not politically correct.

The mainstream media are aligned with the government. Those media outlets critical of government policy are publicly criticized by government officials and are in danger of suffering repercussions.

Government seizes a majority stake in two major auto companies and, through TARP money, has control over major banks.
Congress discusses capping salaries in private businesses and is in the process of increasing its control over the health care industry.

Big labor union leadership is fully aligned with the progressives in government. There is strong pressure to eliminate the secret ballot in order to increase union membership.

Cap-and-trade, if passed, will drive a lot of small businesses into bankruptcy and create a fruitful soil for favoritism and government control over private entities.

Sept. 11 is declared a day of national service by the administration. It is no longer a day of remembrance for the horrific attack perpetrated by terrorists.

The American Constitution protects the separation between church and state. Atheist zealots pervert this ideal in order to force out religious symbols and traditions from public space. It is fashionable in progressive circles to ridicule religion and religious people. "Tolerance" is applied only to anti-religious values.

As a former citizen of the USSR, I heard and experienced all of this before. I listen to the speeches by the president asking people to sacrifice and serve. So what are we to sacrifice? For what? And to whom? I think I get it now.
Citizens of America, sacrifice your elders and forget your selfish aspirations of prosperity for yourself and your family! Sign onto Service.gov and serve your government!

• Kunin lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 and now lives in Connecticut.

Posted in Cap and Trade Capitalism Communism Constitution Freedom of Speech Government Control Ideology Indoctrination Intolerance Labor Unions Media - Far Left Obama with 1 Comment

More:

The Dismantling of America: A Clarion Call To Action

The following editorial, written by Thomas Sowell, should serve as a clarion call to all Americans that our country, rights, freedoms and way of life are on the precipice of annihilation due to the inimical ideologies combined with contemptuous, nefarious, imperious politicians who desire unfettered power. In a very comprehensive yet succinct and persuasive manner, he states his case … which we must act on immediately and decisively before the situation becomes even more dire.

Dismantling America — Piece By Piece

By THOMAS SOWELL

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the president, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50% or 90%?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers — to create a situation where some papers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get lifesaving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life-and-death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving schoolchildren material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies.

What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brownshirts of dictators than like anything American. How far the president will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America"; the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among those appointed as czars by Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government — people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year — each bill more than a thousand pages long — too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed.

That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question — and the biggest question for this generation.

Internationally, Obama has made every mistake that was made by the Western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes that put Hitler in a position to start World War II — and come dangerously close to winning it.

At the heart of those mistakes was trying to mollify your enemies by throwing your friends to the wolves. The administration has already done that by reneging on this country's commitment to put a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and its lackadaisical foot-dragging on doing anything serious to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That means, for all practical purposes, throwing Israel to the wolves as well.

Countries around the world that have to look out for their own national survival, above all, are not going to ignore how much Obama has downgraded the reliability of America's commitments.

Iraq, for example, knows that Iran is going to be next door forever, while Americans may be gone in a few years. South Korea likewise knows that North Korea is permanently next door, but who knows when the Obama administration will get a bright idea to pull out?

Countries in South America know that Hugo Chavez is allying Venezuela with Iran. Dare they ally themselves with an unreliable U.S.A.? Or should they join our enemies to work against us? This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.

URL :     http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510870&Ntt=

Posted in Arrogance Black nationalism Cap and Trade Capitalism Communism Constitution Czar FOX News Foreign Policy Freedom of Speech Government Control Healthcare Reform Ideology Indoctrination Liberal Obama with No Comments

More:

Republicans and Some Democrats Demand Info From Obama on His Appointed Czars

It has been largely Republican members of Congress who have questioned the legality and authority of Obama’s myriad czars. The calls for more scrutiny of these appointees intensified when the radicalism of the “green jobs” czar, Van Jones, came to the fore. A few Democrats have joined the chorus of concern including one of the more liberal members of the Senate, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who also is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has requested information from the White House regarding the exact roles and responsibilities of the czars as well as the constitutionality of their powers.

With the excessive number of czars in place, many with radical agendas that they ostensibly want to implement, and no defined restraint of power, Obama has essentially created a parallel unelected shadow government that has no accountability to the American people or even to Congress. Left unchecked, this situation has the potential to severely curtail our rights and freedoms and radically and undesirably transform our socioeconomic system.

Read: Feingold questions Obama 'czars'

Posted in Congress Constitution Czar Ideology Obama Personal rights Van Jones with No Comments

More:

Articles of the Day

Land Of The Fee
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee wants levies on insurers to pay for ObamaCare and fines for families who don't sign up. We can cut costs and expand coverage without sacrificing freedom. Read article

Could The Feds Seize The Internet?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

A Senate bill lets the president "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "nongovernmental" computer networks and do what's needed to respond to the threat. Didn't they just collect our e-mail addresses?

We wish this was just a piece of the fictional "Dr. Strangelove" that fell to the cutting-room floor, but it's not. It is a real piece of disturbingly vague legislation sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. Read article


Bush's Guard Service
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Veteran reporter, author and commentator Bernard Goldberg reports that when CBS News did its fake National Guard story on George W. Bush avoiding service in Vietnam, it knew it was a lie. Read article

Posted in Arrogance First Amendment Freedom of Speech Government Control Healthcare Hollywood conservatives Media - Far Left Obama Socialized Medicine Taxes with No Comments

More:

9/11 Tribute to What America Stands For and Why We Need to Keep Fighting To Preserve Our Freedoms and Rights: The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant

The following letter was originally published in IBD on Friday August 21st and has been appeared again in several subsequent editions. We feel the perspective and message is powerful and important enough that it be posted in its entirety this 9/11. Many Americans take for granted the rights and freedoms that we still have and don't realize that we must relentlessly fight to preserve them as they can be legislated or just taken away.

By SVETLANA KUNIN

In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I was taught to believe individual pursuits are selfish and sacrificing for the collective good is noble.

In kindergarten we sang songs about Lenin, the leader of the Socialist Revolution. In school we learned about the beautiful socialist system, where everybody is equal and everything is fair; about ugly capitalism, where people are exploited and treat each other like wolves in the wilderness.

Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures.

The government-assigned salary of the proletariat (blue-collar worker) was 30%-50% higher then any professional. Without incentive to improve their life, professionals drank themselves to oblivion. They — engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers — earned a government-determined salary that barely covered the necessities, mainly food.

Raising children was a hardship. It took four to six adults (parents and grandparents) to support a child. The usual size of the postwar family was one or two children. Every woman had the right to have an abortion and most of them did, often without anesthesia.

There is a comparative historical reality that plays out the consequences of two competing ideologies: life in the USSR and in America. When the march to the worker's paradise — the Socialist Revolution — began in 1917, many people emigrated from Russia to the U.S.

In the USSR, economic equality was achieved by redistributing wealth, ensuring that everyone remained poor, with the exception of those doing the redistributing. Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West.

The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care. The egalitarian utopia of equality, achieved by the sacrifice of individual self-interest for the collective good, led to corruption, black markets, anger and envy.

Government-controlled health care destroyed human dignity.

Chairman Nikita Khrushchev released facts about Stalin and his purges. People learned of the horrific purge of more than 20 million citizens, murdered as enemies of the state.

Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise. The majority of those immigrants achieved a better life for themselves and their children in this capitalist land.

These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party. The freedom to pursue personal self-interest led to prosperity. Prosperity generated charity, benefiting the collective good.

The descendants of those immigrants are now supporting policies that move America away from the values that gave so many immigrants the chance of a better life. Policies such as nationalized medicine, high tax rates and government intrusion into free enterprise are being sold to us under the socialistic motto of collective salvation.

Socialism has bankrupted and failed every society, while capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

There is no perfect society. There are no perfect people. Critics say that greed is the driving force of capitalism. My answer is that envy is the driving force of socialism. Change to socialism is not an improvement on the imperfections of the current system.

The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.

Today we can define the better system not by slogans, but by looking at the accumulated facts. We can compare which ideology leads to the most oppression and which brings the most opportunity.

When I came to America in 1980 and experienced life in this country, I thought it was fortunate that those living in the USSR did not know how unfortunate they were.

Now in 2009, I realize how unfortunate it is that many Americans do not understand how fortunate they are. They vote to give government more and more power without understanding the consequences.

Svetlana Kunin, Stamford, Conn.

Editor's note: Mrs. Kunin, an IBD subscriber, is a retired software developer. In the Soviet Union, she was a civil engineer.

URL:    http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=336952385266203&kw=Russian,Immigrant

Posted in Capitalism Constitution Constitutional Amendments Freedom of Speech Government Control Ideology Legal rights Personal rights Socialism with 1 Comment

More:

Obama, Pelosi and Congressional Democrats Try to Marginalize Those That Disagree With Them

Yesterday we examined the condescending and derogatory attacks perpetrated by Obama, Pelosi and many Congressional Democrats on American citizens who were simply exercising their right of free speech and disagreed specifically with the Obamanocare legislation. We also exhorted all Americans to “relentlessly continue to exercise their rights to dissent and free speech and vociferously voice their concerns otherwise we will lose many more of our Rights and Freedoms.”

Today, we present a scathing and insightful commentary written by Rep. Thomas Price (R. – Georgia) of these vitriolic, arrogant, and unwarranted attacks led by Obama and Pelosi. Rep. Price, who is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee as well as a physician, presents a very incisive, informed firsthand account and assessment of the deceptions, lies, corruption and dishonesty perpetrated by Obama, Pelosi and many Congressional Democrats.

Read: Obamacare Meltdown

Posted in Arrogance Congress Democrat Freedom of Speech Government Control Healthcare Reform Intolerance Legal rights Nancy Pelosi Obama Republican Tea Parties with No Comments

More:

The Imperial Obama and Pelosi’s Democrats Bullying the American People

Obama, Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats consistently demonstrate why they are dangerous for America and the rights of the American people. They write legislation like peremptory decrees – impose it on Americans and stifle all discussion. Democracies are based on the free flow of thought and the unimpeded right to dissent and protest. That is not what Obama, Pelosi, et. al have in mind.

During the Bush Administration, Congressional Democrats including Senator Obama, inexorably exercised their rights of free speech and dissent, frequently past the point of proper decorum and often beyond what jeopardized our national security. The media was complicit in this, especially the New York Times. You didn’t hear Bush or Cheney viciously attacking these partisans or worse, the American people.

Obama, Pelosi and several Congressional Democrats are waging blistering, vicious attacks on American citizens simply because they are exercising their Constitutional rights and voicing their concerns and outrage regarding irresponsible legislation, profligate spending, oppressive taxation, unchecked government intrusion in their personal lives, and risks to their rights and freedoms. The Government’s attacks are not just verbal but have also become physical. They are facilitating mob like tactics such as using labor union members (SEIU) as enforcers and protectors of their ideology.

These directives are coming right out of the White House and Congress. The sycophantic news media and the radical anti-American ACLU have not issued condemnations of what is transpiring. As to be expected!

American citizens must relentlessly continue to exercise their rights to dissent and free speech and vociferously voice their concerns otherwise we will lose many more of our Rights and Freedoms.

Read: The Real AstroTurf

Posted in Arrogance Congress Constitution Democrat Freedom of Speech Government Control Ideology Intolerance Labor Unions Legal rights Media - Far Left Nancy Pelosi Obama with No Comments

More:

The End of Colorblind Justice…

Posted in Constitution Legal rights Political Cartoon Racism Reverse Racism Sotomayor with No Comments

More:

Kenya Imagine If This is Obama’s Real Birth Certificate?

A shroud of mystery and intrigue persist regarding Obama’s true birthplace. The magnitude of importance of the real answer is immeasurable because the U.S. Constitutions explicitly mandates that an individual who seeks the Presidency must be born an American citizen and not a naturalized one.

Rumors have lingered for a long time that the birth certificate from Hawaii is not the real or original one and that he was actually born in Kenya. Up until now, there has been no irrefutable evidence to support this contention such as documentation from Kenya. However, a birth certificate from Kenya surfaced recently that does not overtly appear to be a fake. If this is ultimately proven to be the genuine article, then have we got a real story!

Read: Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?

Posted in Constitution Obama with No Comments

More:

Obama’s Arrogance, Consolidation of Power, Inexperience and Blind Ideology Spells Disaster for America

Though a majority of Americans either didn’t see or chose to ignore the radicalism, hate, racism, lies and deceptions, disingenuous rhetoric, arrogance and inexperience of Obama prior to the Presidential election, many of these people are coming to their senses now and are horrified at what they see. In fact, many are downright scared or even terrified. In just six months, America’s economic and political systems have metamorphosed by fiat more than any other time in our history. The end result is essentially fascism and socialism with a consolidation of power, reckless expansion of an arrogant government, ubiquitous governmental intrusion, irresponsible foreign policy, onerous taxes, wealth redistribution, class warfare, and laws and actions in direct conflict of our Constitution.

Leading this radical “change you can’t believe is happening” is Obama abetted by the ideologically far-left, filibuster proof Democrat controlled Congress. Speaker of the House Pelosi, the most far left and anti-American politician in Congress, runs the House of Representatives like a dictator and does much of his bidding. America is in deep trouble.

In the following editorial by the renowned economist, philosopher and columnist Thomas Sowell, he explicitly enumerates the many areas of concern that he has about Obama, his policies and the potential for unparalleled disaster in America.

Read: Our New President: Disaster In The Making?

Posted in Arrogance Congress Constitution Democrat Far Left Foreign Policy Government Control Ideology Nancy Pelosi Obama Racism Security Socialism Taxes with No Comments

More:

Is Obama Really Contemplating Imposing Government Censorship of the Internet?

Closely scrutinizing the big picture by assessing Obama’s past, his rhetoric, associations and actions reveals far more nefarious intent than most people realize. In just a short time, he along with an abetting Democrat controlled Congress has turned this country upside down economically, socially and politically. Intentionally irresponsible legislation will bring this country to the brink of bankruptcy and encumber Americans with taxation rates consistent with slavery. It will also insinuate the government in all aspects of our lives so that we will be severely constrained legally in our options and activities of daily living. In the last few months, it has acquired varying levels of control of our banking, insurance, and automobile industry and is intent on taking over the healthcare sector which constitutes around seventeen percent of America’s GDP. The Cap and Trade Bill threatens to massively increase our taxes and the cost of energy including an estimated doubling of the price for electricity as well as even the light bulbs we use. It will also affect the cars we drive and even how much we do drive.
If all this weren’t egregious enough for the American people, there are now some rumors that consideration is being given to some sort of monitoring and policing of the internet by the Federal government. Though not couched in such terms, this is unequivocally censorship which threatens our First Amendment rights and with it, many others. This must not be allowed to come to fruition.

Read: Should President Obama Control The Internet?

Posted in Cap and Trade Congress Constitution Constitutional Amendments Democrat First Amendment Freedom of Speech Government Control Healthcare Reform Legal rights Obama Personal rights with No Comments

More:

Rebalancing the Rights of Victims versus those of Repeat Offenders

Thanks to the far-left ideologues who blame society and the perpetrator’s unfortunate circumstances (he had such a bad childhood!), the pendulum has swung excessively far in order to protect the “rights” of criminals, especially repeat offenders, who they empathetically claim are “victims” too. This, of course, is to the detriment of innocent and often dead victims and their families who never will have justice or peace. Our public officials, most notably judges, should be held accountable for their actions and more egregious rulings. If these evil, depraved individuals were kept off the streets with much longer prison sentences that were appropriate to their crime and past criminal history, there would be less crime and we would all be safer.

Practically, we need to be able to fully defend ourselves against crime. The vocal far left, media and many Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration appear to be preparing to challenge the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, in a variety of ways.

In the following video, Ted Nugent expresses his moral outrage about this problem and voices solutions that many people feel but may not verbalize.

Posted in Congress Constitutional Amendments Democrat Far Left Ideology Legal rights Second Amendment Videos with No Comments

More:

“Americans have the right to … have their cases judged based on the Constitution and our laws, not on politics and personal feelings”

Testifying during the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, the lead plaintiff firefighter in the Ricci vs. DeStefano (The City of New Haven) case stated that “Americans have the right to go into our federal courts and have their cases judged based on the Constitution and our laws, not on politics and personal feelings”.  He also unwaveringly asserted that Sotomayor’s ruling against the firefighters in his case was solely based on "politics" and "personal feelings" and not on the law.
During the confirmation hearings, Sotomayor has been evasive and guarded in her responses to some very important questions in order to avoid controversy and be able to quickly wrap up her confirmation. Many of her answers belied her previous rulings and statements. This is a particularly prevalent tack that Obama, his cronies and nominees have adhered to – say one thing to garner votes and then do something totally different which was the true, original underlying intention. Hence the warnings that we should adhere to when reading and listening to the idologues: Actions speak louder than words. No matter what Sotomayor states in the hearings, her past record belies her true positions which should definitely strike fear in the minds and hearts of the average citizen.
Many Americans have been duped by these despicable deceptions, prevarications and the complete absence of integrity. This is all part of a master plan base on ideology to shrewdly but resolutely acquire power so that the Federal government will ultimately control most aspects of each citizen’s life.

Read: New Haven Firefighters Testify at Sotomayor Hearing

Posted in Arrogance Congress Constitution Government Control Ideology Intolerance Legal rights Obama Personal rights Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

Republicans Must Expose Sotamayor as the Racist That She is and Not Just Throw in the Towel

In the recent history of these confirmation hearings, the Democrats have monolithically voted for the appointees if they were liberal and against if they were of conservative ideology – and aggressively and relentlessly challenged them. The Republican Senators have been far too gracious and derelict of their responsibilities, essentially mailing it in and accepting candidates that should have undergone far more rigorous questioning. Unfortunately, it appears that history is repeating itself again. This should rightfully enrage the countless conservatives who are placing their dwindling hopes that Sotomayor can be exposed for the racially divisive jurist that she has so patently demonstrated in the past and have her confirmation blocked. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama has taken his responsibilities seriously and should be lauded whereas Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina initial comments to her that confirmation was inevitable essentially removed virtually all of the pressure off her.

Read: Sonia’s Senators

The following is Senator Jeff Sessions in Senate Hearings discussing concerns regarding Sotomayor and the issue of  "empathy"

In this video, Senator Sessions discusses his concerns about Sotomayor and the Second Amendment

Posted in Arrogance Conservative Constitution Democrat Diversity policies Freedom of Speech Ideology Intolerance Legal rights Liberal Obama Personal rights Racism Reverse Racism Second Amendment Sotomayor Supreme Court Videos with No Comments

More:

Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Being Held in the Senate This Week – Take Action!

Americans who want to preserve what freedoms and liberties we still have need to contact their Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding the Sotomayor confirmation hearings which are being conducted this week. Her confirmation, a lifetime appointment, would impose her abominable misguided “empathetic” legal input and judgments on the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans for decades! Her long dismal track record speaks for itself – someone who consistently considers race, sex, etc. as highly influential factors when she adjudicates thereby ascribing more legal rights to these individuals than to others. As we noted before, this is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment where all Americans are mandated to have equal protection before the law. There is no legal authority for “oppressed” or privileged minority groups.
Whatever she reveals in her testimony before the Senate will be just plain expedient, hollow rhetoric. She stated that "Many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law." Her previous writings, judgments and statements even captured on video belie these comments, instead showing a racist, manipulative and intellectually dishonest arbiter. Just review her most recent case that was overturned by the Supreme Court, Ricci vs. The City of New Haven to understand the dangers to freedoms, liberties and impartial justice that she represents. This was the fourth out of her six cases that the Supreme Court has reversed – an ignominious record.

For a review of the first day of hearings, read: Republicans contest Obama's Supreme Court choice

The following video captures Sotomayor's comments on judicial activism that contradicts her testimony given today before the Senate. Read between this lines of her comments.

Posted in Constitutional Amendments Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Personal rights Racism Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court Videos with 1 Comment

More:

Call to Action: Sotomayor Hearings Begin Today in Senate

The doomsday clock for the rights of the average American is ticking down. The confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor begin this morning in the Senate and may last this entire week. If you are a regular reader of www.saveyourrights.com, you will know that we vehemently oppose her being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. We have written many columns exposing her racist, preferential, and socialistic attitudes and rulings which will cause irreparable harm to freedom, liberty, equal rights and the support of democracy in America.
Call and e-mail your Senators today or ASAP. Although most all pundits say this is a done deal and the odds are overwhelming stacked against us, let’s not give up. We have to vehemently and relentlessly fight this and every other important issue that affects us. DO NOT GIVE UP! Our freedoms, liberties and way of life need to be defended.

About today's hearings, read: Sotomayor faces Senate hearing

Posted in Government Control Ideology Legal rights Liberal Personal rights Racism Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

Inspiration for July 4th – The American Spirit

On this America’s 233rd Anniversary as a free and democratic Republic, let us reflect upon our roots as a nation. Our Founding Fathers created a Constitution and Bill of Rights that was expressly meant to limit the reach of government into our personal lives in order to protect our rights and freedoms and preserve most of the fruits of our labors. They envisioned a nation of free people, self-reliant and motivated by the limitless opportunities to prosper, unimpeded by the constraints of an overbearing government. They wanted a nation in which you could worship freely without being a nation that sponsored any one religion over another. America and the values on which she was founded are worth preserving. Unfortunately now, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have the opposite vision: a bigger, more controlling, intrusive and restrictive government that will severely limit your rights and confiscate an exorbitant percentage of your hard earned income. They see your money and wealth as rightfully theirs to acquire and spend as they see fit including redistributing it to their favorite constituencies. To them, some people are more equal than others.
Let us honor our Founding Fathers as well as the countless anonymous Americans since who have sacrificed, labored and fought to keep our nation a free and safe one. We must continue this unparalleled legacy by fighting relentlessly for the core values that has made America a great nation and the beacon of hope for all other peoples worldwide that struggle to live in freedom. Government’s ever increasing intrusion in our lives, limitation of our rights and confiscation of our earnings must be stopped and reversed. This must be a government for all the people and not just for the chosen ones. It must also be a representative government that works for all of us and not the other way around.
You may not agree with everything in the following video but it captures some of the American spirit and is fitting for this July 4th.

Posted in Congress Democrat Government Control Ideology Legal rights Obama Taxes Videos with No Comments

More:

Correct Supreme Court Ruling in Favor of Ricci and Firefighters vs. City of New Haven by only a 5 to 4 Margin is Concerning

Yesterday in our post, we cheered the Supreme Court correct verdict in favor of Ricci and the Firefighters versus the City of New Haven. We also noted that this case was unequivocally a blatant and abhorrent example of reverse discrimination in order to allow the city of New Haven to realize greater ethnic “diversity” in its member firefighters. It egregiously abridged the rights of a group of individuals (largely White) who were more qualified and scored better on the test but did not have the correct ethnicity yet was overturned by only a 5 to 4 margin. We may not be so lucky in the future if Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court justice vacancy and whose decision the Supreme Court overturned, is confirmed. Her decisions, opinions, speeches and background are replete with “ethnic empathy” where some people (specific minority groups) have and will be afforded more rights and leeway than others.

Read George Will’s editorial on this verdict: Four Justices Unable To See Beyond Race

Posted in Diversity policies Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Obama Racism Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

Supreme Court Overturns Sotomayor’s and 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals Decision That Supported Reverse Racism to Implement Diversity Policies

The Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 margin overturned the decision of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotamayor rendered and that went against Ricci and the White firefighters in their case versus the City of New Haven. In the surprisingly close ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that these firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race (reverse discrimination) in order for the city of New Haven to implement their diversity plan.
Though the decision was anticipated, what we find shocking is that the vote was only 5 to 4 to reverse the Court of Appeals judgment in a case that was patently was blatantly reverse discrimination by any criteria. This case and the razor thin margin should serve as a clarion call regarding the importance of vehemently opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. A similar case like this in the future could go the opposite way resulting in the discriminatory abridgement of our rights thus attributing greater inherent rights and equalities to some favored groups or individuals versus others.
Contact your representatives and voice your opposition to Sotomayor being confirmed!

See Video regarding the case and Supreme Court verdict:

Read: Supreme Court rules for white firefighters

Read: Connecticut Firefighters 'Vindicated' by Supreme Court Ruling

Posted in Diversity policies Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court Videos with No Comments

More:

New Information Reveals Sotomayor’s Position in the New Haven Firefighters Case to be Even More Indefensible

In the National Journal Review, Stuart Taylor closely examines the infamous New Haven firefighters affirmative action case. What he discovered was that the evidence and information reveal a far more indefensible decision reached by Sotomayor with manipulation of the legal system in order to facilitate the hiring of undeserving and unqualified minorities so as to obtain racial diversity. Even more abhorrent is that she used her legal position to pervert and “interpret” the law in accord with her race based ideologies in a very disingenuous, corrupt fashion. The result also is the violation of the civil rights of those individuals who passed the test and should have been given the jobs which they rightfully earned.
As we have emphatically stated in earlier posts, Sotomayor must not be confirmed to be a Supreme Court Justice!

Read: Firefighters Case: What Really Happened

Posted in Congress Constitution Ideology Legal rights Obama Personal rights Reverse Racism Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

Sotomayor Opposed to Death Penalty and Shows Empathy For Criminals, Not Victims

Evidence uncovered from Sotomayor’s past reveals staunch opposition to the death penalty. Some of her reasoning is unequivocally refuted by data readily available to all thus substantiating that ideology for her trumps facts. Furthermore, it also makes quite apparent that she is both naïve and an intellectual lightweight whose empathy will pervert the law to where there will no longer be equal justice for a given crime.
Not surprisingly, like many effete liberals, she attaches greater empathy toward the perpetrator than to the victim and their family. This is not the type of empathy America needs!

Read:  Sotomayor Vs. The Death Penalty

Posted in Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Legal rights Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

GOP Should Take Some Lessons From Their New York Brethren

Americans are getting restive and angry with the bloodless coup we find ourselves in the midst of thanks to the Obama Administration, Pelosi, Reid and other ultra-left Liberals in Congress. In every direction we turn, there are threats to our rights, freedoms and economic well-being. We have ubiquitous taxes and proposals for more taxes. Giving our fair share means taking as much as possible from those who are productive and distributing it to those who are lazy, undeserving or illegally living in this country.

Warp speed to Socialism with consolidation of power and wealth to the Big Brother Government! It is now the proud owner of GM, wants to determine pay for employees of companies even beyond those to whom it has bailed out and gives sweetheart deals to unions while illegally shafting bond holders.
In the legal department, we have a nominee (Sotomayor) that in no uncertain terms states that some individuals are more equal than others, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. She also has indicated disdain for the First Amendment (Right to Free Speech) and the Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) as well. We haven’t yet reviewed her stance on the other Amendments.

We can go on and on enumerating more of these radical changes and confiscatory policies being implemented but you get the point. Meanwhile, where is the opposition, the Republican Party who is supposed to represent and speak out for us? They are a minority party but their influence and presence appears to be microscopic. Perception and appearance is everything and they appear to be a feckless group though this may not necessarily the case. Instead, several passionate, articulate and well-informed Conservatives in the media have effectively taken on the challenges. Like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell and many others. Conservatives in America have been active with grassroot organizations and, of course, the Tea Parties.

The Republican Party needs to be more articulate, passionate, aggressive, bold, persistent and omnipresent rather than just polite and trying to be thought of positively by the liberal media. Maybe they should seek inspiration from their New York counterparts who recently staged a coup in their State Senate.

Read: GOP Stages a Coup in New York Senate

Posted in Congress Constitution Democrat Far Left First Amendment Fourteenth Amendment Government Control Legal rights Media - Far Left Nancy Pelosi Obama Personal rights Republican Second Amendment Socialism Sotomayor Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

States Are Using the Tenth Amendment to Assert Their Rights and Fight Federal Mandates

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution delineates the division of authority between the States and the Federal government: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Thoroughly tired with relentlessly increasing, costly and intrusive Federal mandates which also infringe on the Constitutional rights of the States, many States are now fighting back vigorously – and winning. The following article details this growing movement to reduce Federal Government interference and return power back to the states.

Read: Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States

Posted in Constitution Government Control Tenth Amendment with No Comments

More: