Posts Tagged ‘federal government’

Planned Parenthood: We Murdered A Baby Every 94 Seconds. Now Give Us Our Obama Money.

January 9, 2013

God is ultimately going to burn America in hell for murdering 55 million babies so far since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  But Planned Parenthood is making out pretty good until that day comes: they got more than half a billion dollars killing babies for Obama this year.  They are receiving more and more federal money and are performing more and more abortions while offering fewer and fewer of the non-abortion services that they deceitfully use to justify the half billion plus dollars a year they get from taxpayers:

Planned Parenthood’s New Annual Report: We Did 333,964 Abortions; 1 Every 94 Seconds
By Penny Starr
January 7, 2013

(CNSNews.com) – Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s latest annual report for  2011-2012 says that its affiliated clinics performed 333,964 abortions in fiscal 2011.

That works out to an average of one abortion every 94 seconds.

The 333,964 abortion Planned Parenthood did in fiscal 2011 is an increase of 4,519 from the 329,445  abortions it did in 2010, according to a fact sheet that Planned Parenthood published last year.

Over two years, Planned Parenthood says, it has aborted 663,409.

The 2011-2012 report states that Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million  in “government health services grants and reimbursements,” which it  states includes “payments from Medicaid managed care plans.”

The report also shows that Planned Parenthood’s total assets top $1 billion dollars, specifically $1,244.7 billion.

“We are so proud of the year’s many successes, and deeply grateful for  all the partners, sponsors, volunteers, staff and friends who helped  make them possible,” states the report’s introductory letter, signed by  PPFA president Cecile Richards and Cecelia Boone, chairwoman of the  organization.

I’m sure Adolf Hitler said something just like that during the Holocaust: “We are so proud of the year’s many successes, and deeply grateful for  all the partners, sponsors, volunteers, staff and of course SS troops who helped  make the death camps possible.”

More than fifty-five million murdered human beings.  And your government is helping add another murder every 94 seconds.

Meanwhile, what does God say about His role when having to do with unborn human beings?

“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.  I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.  My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” — Psalm 139:13-16

Unfortunately, Democrats are people who apparently will never realize how truly evil the policies they support are and they are people who will never believe that they have brought God’s wrath on our nation for that evil.  Which is why they voted for a man who firmly believes that stabbing a nearly-born baby in the head and sucking that baby’s brains out is a medical procedure rather than what it is: the murder of an innocent human being.

Advertisements

Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

December 13, 2010

A federal judge fired a massive shot across the bow of behemoth government run amok over the lives of the people today in ruling key aspects of ObamaCare violate the Constitution.

Federal judge deems part of ObamaCare unconstitutional
By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller
12/13/2010

A federal judge in Virginia has determined that the part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson deemed that part of the law unconstitutional in the first part of what is sure to be a case that will end up in the Supreme Court. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli led the fight in his state.

“I am gratified we prevailed. This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said in a statement.

Hudson said the part of the law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional because it “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

The judge focused on a the analogy that Obama and Kathleen Sabelius have repeatedly used (along with the government legal team) that health care was akin to auto insurance, along with the bait-and-switch tactics of Obama repeatedly promising the American people that ObamaCare would not raise their taxes, only to use the argument that ObamaCare actually was a tax when it was conenient.

Let me say this: by the Democrats’ own use of “auto insurance” as their analogy, we have death panels galore.

How many people have been forced to surrender their drivers’ licence or to auto insurance?

Don’t pay your registration fees or your insurance premiums?  Lose your license.  Can’t pass a test?  Lose your license.  Drive under the influence?  Lose your license.

So for all the screaming about how terrible Sarah Palin was for coining the phrase “death panels,” again, by the Democrats very own analogy, we’re going to have death panels galore.  If you don’t dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’, the federal government can take away your healthcare and allow you to die.

So the next time you hear a liberal tell you that health care is like a divers license or auto insurance, go ahead and say, “Alright you Nazis; so it is.”

Conservatives, for their part, have agreed with U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in saying that ObamaCare is nothing like auto insurance or drivers licenses at all.  For the simple reasons that both auto insurance and drivers licenses are regulated by the STATES, not by the federal government.  And that the federal government is clearly usurping power – again, even with the Democrats’ own analogy – that at best the STATES SHOULD have.  And that, further, an individual is NOT in fact forced to purchase auto insurance or obtain a drivers license; as they can freely choose not to drive.

Or maybe I went to sleep and woke up to jackbooted government police kicking down doors and forcing every American to purchase an auto insurance policy.

And, again, conservatives have been loudly decrying the incredibly deceitful and cynical tactic of promising the American people that ObamaCare is not a tax, and that their taxes won’t go up “one dime,” only to say after it is passed (on the back of a demonstrable lie) that it really was a tax all along, after all.

Do we really want to foment a political system in which flagrent dishonesty with the American people is the best policy?  And the more outrageous the government’s lies, the better the chance they have in advancing their agenda?

Thank God this monstrosity finally hit a roadblock.  I guess in that extremely limited sense, ObamaCare is like driving a car, after all.

Cynical Demagogue Obama Holding Border Security Hostage To Leftwing Agenda

June 21, 2010

Obama says the following isn’t true, and Jon Kyle is lying.  Personally, I say the Liar-in-Chief is lying.  But if Obama ISN’T lying, all he has to do is demonstrate that he in fact has been actively working to bolster border security.  All he has to do is show us what he’s done.

Oh, wait.  He hasn’t done crap.  Not a damn thing.  The only thing he HAS done is sent in a battalion of lawyers to sue Arizona for actually DOING SOMETHING TO SLOW DOWN OUT-OF-CONTROL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

The Obama administration doesn’t have to actually bother to read the Arizona law to know they don’t like it.  Because they don’t like ANYTHING that does ANYTHING to slow down illegal immigration.

He mentioned that he was going to send 1200 National Guardsmen a few weeks back – quickly adding that they would only be used for “desk security” rather than any kind of actual border security.  In the Army we had a term for useless desk jockies who did nothing but make the lives of the actual grunts shorter, nastier, and more brutish: “Chairborne Rangers.”  But even given that the desk security personnel are going to be utterly useless, just where exactly the hell are they?  Governer Brewer says they sure haven’t appeared in her state.

Obama thinks that saying he’s going to do something is just as good as actually doing it.  So he doesn’t need to do anything now that he said he would do something.

Kind of like Gitmo.  Only this time he actually promised to do something that would at least be a tiny step in the right direction, rather than a massive step in the wrong one.

VIDEO – Sen. Kyl: ‘Obama Says No Border Security without Amnesty’
by  Connie Hair
06/20/2010

In a stunning revelation at an Arizona town hall meeting this past Friday, Republican Senator Jon Kyl told his constituents that President Obama privately insisted that he will not secure the border until amnesty for illegal aliens passes first. According to Kyl, Obama argued that Democrats would lose their bargaining chips for any type of amnesty if the government beefs up its presence on the chaotic border. “The problem is,” Obama allegedly told Kyl, “If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

Transcript (at 3:21):

SEN. JON KYL:  I met with the president in the Oval Office, just the two of us… Here’s what the president said.  “The problem is,” he said, “If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

[gasps from the audience]

KYL:  In other words they’re holding it hostage.  They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.  I explained, “You and I have an obligation to secure the border.  That’s an obligation.  It also has some potentially positive benefits.  You don’t have to have comprehensive immigration to secure the border, but you have to have a secure border to get comprehensive immigration reform.  You may be surprised, maybe you don’t think that there’d be any more incentive, but I’m not so sure that that’s true.  In any event, it doesn’t matter we’re supposed to secure the border.”

That’s why this is being done.  They want to get something in return for doing their duty.  And that’s—

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Chicago politics.

KYL: Yeah.

H/T: Scott McKay, The Hayride

The fact that Obama is denying this demonstrates how utterly despicable even he knows it is.

And, yet, just how is it in any way not in complete character with the Obama we’ve come to know and actively despise???

This is the Obama who made every sort of promise about his ObamaCare, and then systematically broke virtually all of them.  This is the Obama who has demagogued the Gulf disaster to try to gin up support for his godawful cap-and-trade boondoggle.  This is the Obama who made BP an “offer it couldn’t refuse” by threatening to criminally prosecute them even though there is no evidence yet of anything criminal, while Obama declared open war on BP’s stock price to force it to do what he wanted.

Obama hasn’t done anything about border security.  And he won’t, because Jon Kyle is telling the truth, and Barry Hussein is a lying demagogue.

Obama’s Katrina in Gulf Just Got Twice As Awful

June 11, 2010

What is it, day 54 of the fool-in-chief’s disastrous inability to do anything about that damn hole he can’t plug?

Well, the damn hold problem is officially bigger than ever.

June 10, 2010
Government doubles previous oil flow estimate for BP well
By Mark Seibel and Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday doubled its minimum estimate of how much crude oil was gushing from the Deepwater Horizon oil well, saying a panel of scientists had concluded that 20,000 to 50,000 barrels, or as much as 2.1 million gallons, were pouring into the Gulf of Mexico every day before BP sheared the well’s riser pipe on June 3.

That action, which BP engineers undertook to fit a “top hat” containment dome over the well, almost certainly increased the flow, and Dr. Marcia McNutt, the head of the U.S. Geological Survey, said an estimate of the flow since June 3 would be available in a few days.

“Our scientific analysis is still a work in progress,” McNutt said.

The announcement that tens of thousands more barrels of oil than previously estimated have been spewing into the Gulf for weeks added to a growing sense that neither the federal government nor BP correctly assessed the size of the unfolding disaster or marshaled enough resources to meet it.

McClatchy gives us a picture of the constantly changing estimate:

The Los Angeles Times offers more on the sheer scope of the disaster Obama is doing such a terrible job presiding over:

The new figures could mean 42 million to 84 million gallons of oil have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on the night of April 20 — with the lowest estimate nearly four times the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill.

The flow estimates were released by Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey, and do not count any increases that may have occurred since the cutting of the well’s riser pipe, a step that was expected to boost the flow.

And was it the heroic Obama administration that determined that the official estimates were wrong yet again?

No.  It was a bunch of scientists who had been arguing that the official estimates – from both BP and the federal government – were complete bullpucky:

The official government estimate of the flow rate is 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day, which means the new device should be capturing the bulk of the oil. But some scientists have said those flow numbers could represent just the lower range and that the rate could be multiple times higher.

Worst-case scenario?
Leifer said based on the data he’s seen so far, the rate of flow from the broken well has increased since the initial April 20 explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 workers. He believes BP’s decision last week to sever the well’s damaged riser pipe in order to install the containment cap has increased the flow by far more than the 20 percent BP and government officials had predicted.

In fact, Leifer says, the well may be spewing what BP had called before the spill its worst-case scenario — as much as 100,000 barrels a day from a freely flowing pipe.He said he’s seen no evidence from BP to date that would be inconsistent from that dire scenario.

Judging by live undersea videos, “it looks like a freely flowing pipe,” Leifer said. “From what it looks like right now it suggests to me they’re capturing a negligible fraction.”

It’s unclear how much oil is still escaping because scientists don’t have access to enough data and the video feeds show a “disorganized cloud” of oil shooting out of open vents in the containment cap and between the riser and the cap, Wereley said.

Obama assured us prior to the top hat attempt which not only failed but made the crisis much, much worse that he was in charge, and that BP was answering to him.

Which means that it’s OBAMA’S FAULT that BP even attempted the top hat procedure in the first place.  Everyone knew there was a risk that it could make the problem much worse by at least 20%.  Obama gambled big and failed huge.

And it is readily apparent that Obama has literally assisted BP in a continual giant cover-up as to the actual extent of the damage, either by omission or comission:

From the New York Times:

Tensions between the Obama administration and the scientific community over the gulf oil spill are escalating, with prominent oceanographers accusing the government of failing to conduct an adequate scientific analysis of the damage and of allowing BP to obscure the spill’s true scope. […]

And the scientists say the administration has been too reluctant to demand an accurate analysis of how many gallons of oil are flowing into the sea from the gushing oil well. […]

Oceanographers have also criticized the Obama administration over its reluctance to force BP, the oil company responsible for the spill, to permit an accurate calculation of the flow rate from the undersea well. The company has refused to permit scientists to send equipment to the ocean floor that would establish the rate with high accuracy.

Ian MacDonald of Florida State University, an oceanographer who was among the first to question the official estimate of 210,000 gallons a day, said he had come to the conclusion that the oil company was bent on obstructing any accurate calculation. “They want to hide the body,” he said.

You want chilling?

Contacts in Louisiana have given me numerous, unconfirmed reports of cameras and cell phones being confiscated, scientists with monitoring equipment being turned away, and local reporters blocked from access to public lands impacted by the oil spill. But today CBS News got it on video, along with a bone-chilling statement by a Coast Guard official: “These are BP’s rules. These are not our rules.”

Fifty days into the disaster, Barack Obama had still never bothered to make any contact with the CEO of British Petroleum to lay out the way things will happen, to find out what is going on, or to hold BP accountable in any way for anything.  Or, I don’t know, to politely ask BP to please allow some actual measurements of the flow rate so the nation can know the extent of the disaster they are going to have to deal with.

And now it is becoming increasingly obvious that BP – not Barack – has been ruling the roost all along.

Obama is responsible?  He doesn’t even have a clue what is going on.

Well, now, after 54 days – and weeks’ worth of inexcusable delay and weeks’ worth of criticism – Obama is finally “summoning” the BP CEO to mitigate the damage being done to his political hide.  But it’s rather obvious that Obama isn’t meeting the BP chief to do the right thing, but rather to appear to do the right thing to avoid further legitimate criticism over why he’s taken so damn long to do the right thing.

Obama should have at least been on the phone with the BP head within the first three days of this disaster.  Instead, he’s ignored his responsibilities and allowed BP to repeatedly lie, obfuscate, conceal, and even fabricate and done nothing about any of it.

What we have here is a complete failure of leadership.  And the result of that failure has just officially become twice as awful as it had been.

The Real Issues Behind Arizona’s New Illegal Immigration Law

April 26, 2010

George Will, on ABC’s “This Week,” hit the nail right on the head regarding Arizona’s new illegal immigration policy, just signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer:

“Reasonable suspicion” that the person is an alien. What does that mean, George?

WILL: Well, the Fourth Amendment says there should be no unreasonable searches and seizures, and we’ve generated volumes of case law trying to sort out what that means over the last century or so. So it’s not clear what that means. Let’s say this about Arizona. They have 460,000, an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants there. So before Washington lectures Arizonans on irresponsibility, perhaps Washington ought to attend to the central attribute of national sovereignty which is to control the borders. We are the only developed nation in the world with a 2,000 mile border with an undeveloped country and we have a magnet of a welfare state to the north.

So this is not Arizona’s fault. Beyond that, this should be said however. Reasonable suspicion is going to put upon the police of Arizona a terribly difficult job. This is what the governor said. “We must enforce the law evenly and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” I don’t know how do you that. […]

WILL: Again, in defense of Arizona, large majority of Arizonans support this bill and a large majority of Arizonans are not, by definition, the fringe of the state. They are temperate, decent people with a huge problem.

What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a crime, a federal crime. Now, the Arizona police — and I’ve spent time with the Phoenix Police Department — these are not bad people. These are professionals who are used to making the kind of difficult judgments. Suspicion of intoxicated driving, all kinds of judgments are constantly made by policemen. And I wouldn’t despair altogether their ability to do this in a professional way. […]

GLICK: So put the 3,000 troops on the border as McCain suggests.

WILL: Build a fence, do what McCain suggests, and you’ll find that the American people are not xenophobic, they are not irrational on the subject, but they do want this essential attribute of national sovereignty asserted.

TUCKER: And where does the money come from for that, George?

WILL: It’s a rounding error on the GM bailout.

A number of major points come out of George Will’s remarks:

1) This is NOT Arizona’s fault; it’s the federal government’s fault.  The first order of business for any government of any nation-state is to protect their borders from invasion; and the U.S. government has utterly failed to perform that function.  Worse, up to this point, they have even perversely prevented the states from acting to save themselves.

2) Arizona’s illegal immigration policy is NOT some “racist” or “extreme” agenda; it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Arizonans:

The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.

These are reasonable people put into an unreasonable position by a bunch of extremists who are running our government and who are leading racist organizations such as La Raza (which literally means “the race” – and how racist can you get?).

The “racist extremists are on the other side from the decent Arizona people:

Whenever I’m asked about media treatment of the Tea Parties, I ask myself a simple question: What do you suppose the media would say if tea partiers were biting off people’s fingers?

A new question for today: What would they be saying if even a small group of Tea Partiers physically attacked the police at a rally?

Witnesses say a group protesting against SB1070 (Arizona’s harsh new immigration law) began to fight with a man who was for the controversial immigration bill.

Police tried escorting that man away from the scene, fearing for his safety, when they too came under attack by people throwing items, including water bottles.

And, yes, the police are under more than just rock and bottle attacks from protesters who want to prevent Arizona from keeping illegal immigrants outside their borders:

(CNSNews.com) – Law enforcement officials from the Arizona counties hardest hit by illegal immigration say they want U.S. troops to help secure the border, to prevent the deaths of more officers at the hands of criminals who enter the country illegally.

“We’ve had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Monday at a Capitol Hill news conference. “And that shouldn’t happen one time.”

Babeu said the violence in Arizona has reached “epidemic proportions” and must be stopped. “In just one patrol area, we’ve had 64 pursuits — failure to yield for an officer — in one month,” Babeu said. “That’s out of control.”

I have seen a number of occasions in which a situation went way too far one way, which ultimately led to it swinging way too far the other way.  I believe that the Democrats under Obama have done that very thing on virtually every issue under the sun.  I would say the following: don’t act like a bunch of rabid leftwing extremists, and then cry when conservatives start acting like a bunch of rabid rightwing extremists.

3) Given the fact that the federal government – aided by a powerful special interest lobby, and aided even further by judicial activists who refuse to make a distinction between citizens and illegal immigrants – have refused to protect our borders, Arizona decided to do the job the federal government has refused to do.  That means that Arizona police officers are going to have to step up and do a tough job.

Being a police officer means making judgment calls, and balancing peoples’ rights with enforcing laws every single day.

Bottom line: if you think police can’t make a reasonable determination whether someone is here illegally, I hope you don’t think law enforcement can make any other reasonable judgments (such as whether I’m driving drunk), either.

4) Finally, if we just built the damn wall like Bush tried to do, we wouldn’t be in this stupid mess to begin with.  And the people who screamed about that wall have no right to complain with Arizona’s new policy now.  They BEGGED for the tough new Arizona law.

The shrill cry of the leftwing was that a border wall was identical to the Iron Curtain.  The only thing wrong with that is that it is beyond ignorant; the Iron Curtain was created to keep citizens from escaping to freedom; a border wall would protect out citizens by keeping illegal immigrants who have no right to be here out.

Liberals also cite the Posse Comitatus Act as preventing the powers of the federal government from using the military for law enforcement.  But that begs the question: just how is protecting our borders from foreign invasion “law enforcement”?  This is a clear situation in which our national security is at issue.  The soldiers on the border would not be arresting American citizens; they would be detaining foreign invaders.

The Chinese built the Great Wall of China to keep the Mongols out; and it worked.  And I’m just guessing that a people who put a man on the moon can build a damn wall that does the job.

Bottom line, I think the Arizona law probably ultimately goes too far.  But like I said, pro-illegal immigration forces DEMANDED a law that went too far by steadfastly refusing any form of reasonable policy.

There is no reason whatsoever that citizenship should not be checked along with identity and residence, under the same conditions and situations in which it is reasonable to ascertain identity and residence.  And if you are here illegally, your ass should be on the next bus out of the country – after serving jail time for violating our borders and breaking our laws.  And the wall that we build should make sure you don’t come back.

Checking citizenship (or immigration status) at every arrest, or at every reasonable situation in which police check for identity, would take away the “racist” profiling issues.

Because, yes, I’m just as ticked off at the illegal immigrant Canadian or Irishman as I am at the illegal immigrant Mexican.

At the same time, building a wall to protect what is yours should be familiar to any child who has ever walked down the sidewalks of his or her own neighborhood.  I’m not “racist” for building a wall; and it is frankly racist to suggest that I am.  It amounts to basic common sense.  And combined with a military patrol that would be able to identify and apprehend anyone climbing over that wall, it would make the issues surrounding “border enforcement” moot.

You can disrespect America’s borders as much as you want – so long as you remain on the other side of them.

13 States Have ALREADY Sued Over ObamaCare Obomination

March 23, 2010

13 states have already filed suit to stop the monster of ObamaCare.  A total of 38 states (76%) are now working on their own versions of “the spirit of ’76.”

From the AP:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.
The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the bill the House passed Sunday night.
“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit says.
Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.

You DO have to kind of laugh at the propaganda that the AP feels they must insert: “Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding,” as though every single legal expert has ruled, and the AP merely duly reported.

Bullpuckey.  There are plenty of “legal experts” who think the exact opposite.  And it couldn’t be more dishonest of the Associated Press to imply that such isn’t the case.

One of my favorite “legal experts” who disagrees with the AP’s monolithic assertion is Jay Sekulow, who has argued before the Supreme Court on numerous occasions and frequently won.  In another article which has a rather different slant from the AP’s bias, he had the following to say:

The ACLJ says it will file amicus briefs on behalf of thousands of its supporters in the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care law by numerous states.

“Most Americans do not want this plan. That includes millions of pro-life Americans who don’t want to be forced to purchase a health care package that funds abortion,” ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow told LifeNews.com.

“We support the litigation being initiated by a number of states and plan to file amicus briefs in those cases representing thousands of our members. This health care law should not be forced upon the American people. We believe the courts will agree,” he added.

Sekulow added: “These legal challenges will be numerous and occur in many jurisdictions. The constitutional issues at stake are significant and it’s likely this will end up before the Supreme Court of the United States.”

I’m not trying to present Jay Sekulow as the greatest of all “legal experts.”  But there is no question that Sekulow IS a legal expert.  His American Center for Law and Justice has been called a “powerful counterweight to the ACLU” by Time Magazine.

Oh, there are other ones, such as Dr. Randy Barnett, who argues regarding ObamaCare that:

Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people. For this reason it is highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will uphold this assertion of power.

How many legal experts am I supposed to produce to show that the Associated Press is full of crap?

One of the constitutional issues derives from the 10th Amendment, which reads:

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.

Now, I know that liberals are often able to find penumbras and emanations that justify them to do pretty much whatever the hell they want to justify, but you show me where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to ram ObamaCare down our throats or to force citizens to purchase insurance just for the privilege of breathing.

The other issue is the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Now again, you need one hell of a penumbra and emanation to see in this clause the right for the federal government to force private citizens to purchase insurance from private companies.

It’s one thing to say the federal government can regulate, quite another to assert that the federal government has the power under this clause to force whoever they want to buy whatever they want from whoever they want.  Unless “commerce” is to be defined as a transaction that takes place at the point of a gun aimed at the purchaser’s chest, with the government saying, “Buy or die.”

This is what Dr. Randy Barnett was getting to: to grant the constitutionality of ObamaCare amounts to a massive increase in federal power, which would make the states and the people vassals and the federal government a tyrant.  It would no longer make sense to ask what the federal government can do under the commerce clause; it would only make sense to ask, “Is there anything the federal government CAN’T do under the commerce clause?” And the answer would be basically no.

The CBO, in a more honorable day, stated this abuse of federal power quite clearly when it responded to the individual mandate that Bill Clinton sought to impose:

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. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

One of the interesting things about ObamaCare is that it never even attempts to state the cost of the individual mandates.  That figure is nowhere found in the CBO score.  It isn’t deemed a “tax” because the federal government doesn’t take the money.  Rather, you are forced to give your money to a private insurance company.

It is a fact that ObamaCare represents a massive unprecedented takeover of not only our health care system, but of our way of life, by the federal government.  Nothing like this has EVER been done in our entire history.  And Democrats frankly don’t care about this abuse of our history, our laws, and our way of life because they have always looked to the socialism, Marxism, and fascism of Europe as their model.

The one thing I can take some hope in is that the Supreme Court still has a 5-4 majority of conservative justices.  I expect those justices to recognize that Barack Obama shouldn’t have unlimited power as the head of the federal government to impose his will upon the states and upon the American people.

And Obama certainly didn’t do his standing with Justice Samuel Alito or Chief Justice John Roberts when he contemptuously demonized the Supreme Court at his last State of the Union.

Let me ask one final question: suppose you are a liberal, and you want ObamaCare.  Are you willing to take in trade for that a Republican president and Republican Congress enjoying this unprecedented federal power?  It is increasingly obvious that Republicans are going to take back the House and Senate in the 2010 election.  You’d better realize that your support of ObamaCare now means you will be voting in favor of the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act” after we take back the White House and do unto you twice what you did unto us.

Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings said,

‘There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along…”

You Democrats might be mocking us now, but just you wait until you see what OUR interpretation of “There ain’t no rules around here” looks like.  You will have opened the door to your own future payback.  You just wait until we have our chance to use the raw, naked power of government to impose our very righteous anger back on you.

I submit that neither side should want the kind of unprecedented federal power that will be necessary to implement ObamaCare.

States Working To Protect Citizens From ObamaCare

March 15, 2010

Why is it that Americans overwhelmingly now believe that the federal government is a threat to citizens’ rights???

Washington (CNN) — A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

If ObamaCare is so wonderful and so popular as the Democrats claim, then why is it that the most Democrat state in the nation voted for a Republican who promised to be the 41st vote blocking the ObamaCare boondoggle, and why is it that nearly 70% of the states are trying to protect themselves from it’s abuses of citizens’ rights?

Va OKs 1st bill banning mandated health coverage
By BOB LEWIS (AP)

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia’s General Assembly is the first in the nation to approve legislation that bucks any attempt by President Barack Obama and Congress to implement the national health care overhaul in states like Virginia.

Without debate, the House of Delegates voted 80-17 Wednesday to accept Senate amendments to a bill that supporters say preserves Virginia’s prerogatives as a state.

Thirty-four other legislatures have filed or proposed similar measures rejecting health insurance mandates.

But Virginia’s legislature, scheduled to adjourn Saturday, is the first to finish work on a bill. The measure goes to Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, who plans to sign it.

The measures are advancing nationally as Republicans capitalize on voter discontent over Democratic-backed federal health care reform efforts in Congress.

The Democrats are going to make it a federal crime to live and breathe without buying their health insurance, like mobsters who break your windows and destroy your store if you don’t buy their “insurance.”

It is amazing.  Democrats in Congress and the Obama White House have spent a full year trying to push a massively expensive bill that will destroy our health care system even as states feverishly work to protect themselves from that very same ObamaCare.

States realize that the accounting gimmicks that deceitfully produce a “deficit neutral” bill end up creating the mother of all unfunded mandates for the states to pay.  That means vastly higher state taxes and fees for you.

There’s also a fair chance that you may lose the insurance plan you have as you are shoved into the inferior care provided by Medicaid.  ObamaCare promises to “nudge” approximately one in five Americans who presently aren’t in the Medicaid system into that system (see also here).

For the record, Medicaid is the system for individuals and families with low income and resources.  It is not the best quality care, and it is certainly not the care that the Congress that is forcing this monstrosity down our throats will have.  Republicans offered 11 amendments that would have required Congress to enroll themselves and their families in the plan they were trying to force on everyone else.  The Democrats voted every single one of them down.

Democrat politicians believe they’re better than everyone else.  Their children are better than your children.  Their attitude toward you as regards ObamaCare is “Let them eat dirt.”

Their families are going to continue to get the very best of care, while you and your family find yourselves getting shoved into a health care system designed for the poorest Americans.

The Democrats are playing every imaginable game with the Constitution and the political process to shove this 2,700 page boondoggle down the country’s collective throat.  It looks like the only thing that will protect Americans from the worst White House and Congress in our national history will be the states.

Under Obama Federal Spending Way, WAY Up, And Federal Revenues Way WAY Down

March 3, 2010

Let’s see, if you lost your job, and then you decided to massively increase your spending – you know, buy a mansion, buy a yacht, buy a Ferrari – what do you think would happen?

If you don’t know, you’re about to find out on a national level.

We keep hearing from the mainstream media that Messiah Obama has led us out of the recession.  But it’s a great big shining lie.

The fact of the matter is that even as Obama is spending more in 20 months than George Bush did throughout his entire high-spending 8 years combined –

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging? (Source: Wall Street Journal)

– the federal government is simultaneously taking in record low income tax withholdings from businesses and individuals.

From Zerohedge:

February was not an auspicious start to Obama’s record budget deficit-busting plans. The Daily Treasury Statement for the full month of February was just released, and it disclosed that while corporate tax withholdings, net of refunds, actually climbed marginally to $3.4 billion from $(3.4) billion in February 2009, individual tax withholdings plunged to a multi-year low of $30.7 billion. Combined, the two items also posted a multi low of $34 billion, less than the previous recent low from February 2009 when the first leg of the Greater Depression was allegedly at its zenith (see chart below). We can’t wait to hear how the “recession is over” brigade will paint this particular data point.

On a rolling twelve month basis, the government has to plug an LTM hole of about $250 billion in annual tax withholdings. The LTM individual tax withholdings have dropped to an unprecedented low of $1.275 trillion, compared to the $1.43 trillion as of September 2008 when the recession was about to start. If the government is unable to resurrect tax withholdings to historical levels before the interest rate on the $7.9 tillion in marketable debt starts climbing (even as the $7.9 is set to become about $10 trillion in just over a year), call it a ballgame.

Zerohedge’s Tyler Durden asks, “We can’t wait to hear how the “recession is over” brigade will paint this particular data point.”  Knowing the mainstream media, they won’t “paint” it at all.  They simply won’t cover it.  They are “gatekeepers,” after all, which means they protect you from information that they have concluded you don’t need to know.  If it doesn’t fit their narrative, it doesn’t exist.  You know, like in the novel 1984.

Oh, we’ve had the odd report.  For example, there was this one back in August from CBS (the only one I could find):

Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression.

That sounds really bad.  And you’d think the media would be all over it, keeping track of it and regularly reporting on an issue that is clearly very important.  But no.  It makes Obama look bad.

If tax witholdings under Bush were at a record low, you KNOW the media would be crawling all over it.  But it doesn’t fit their leftwing narrative to let you know.  So they don’t report it.

For the record, the “Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue,” we find out in the Washington Times.  But the media weren’t too keen on letting you know that factoid, either.

Those two arrows in the bottom graph representing business and individual tax withholdings could well end up stabbing the heart and killing the U.S. economy.

You’d think this was something important that the media would report.  But nope.  Sorry.

Obama has done nothing to fix the real problems with our economy that are SCREAMING out for solutions.  He’s been far too busy trying to impose his ObamaCare boondoggle to be bothered with economic reality.  Meanwhile, we’re heading for a double-dip recession and very bad news.

And the smiley-faced media propagandist aren’t going to change that fact by glossing over or spinning the bad news and hyping anything remotely positive in order to make their messiah look as good as possible.  Personally, I’m sick and tired of the media reporting that everything is “unexpected” when it doesn’t fit their agenda.

Obama Backlash Beginning: Montana Defies Administration With In-Your-Face Gun Law

May 7, 2009

The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand by passing a new gun law that virtually thumbs its nose at the federal government’s encroachment on state and individual rights.  If the tea parties were the first shot across the bow of liberal fascism, this is surely the second – and it’s being done with heavy artillery.

Liberals have been employing “sanctuary cities” across the nation that flouted federal immigration laws.  Now conservatives are taking that same idea to have “sanctuary states” to protect their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights against liberal tyranny.  And Montana, Utah, and Texas are leading the nation in standing up to the federal government’s unconstitutional laws in direct violation of states’ rights.

Montana Governor Brian D. Schweitzer, for what it’s worth, is a Democrat.

Montana fires a warning shot over states’ rights
State is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and make a point

updated 4:54 p.m. ET April 29, 2009

HELENA, Mont. – Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.

Legal showdown
Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana’s sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government’s regulatory authority extends.

“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.

Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.

Guns and states’ rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and ’80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

Montana’s leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.

‘Made in Montana’
Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped “Made in Montana.” The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it’s illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

“I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress,” said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.

Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

Hot Air has the text of the law, titled:

AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

This is defiance as a thing of art:

defiance_mouse_eagle

It is a determination to keep fighting for one’s freedom no matter how hopeless things might look:

defiance_frog_stork2

And why is this level of defiance necessary? An image worth a thousand curses suffices by way of explanation:

obama_yes-we-can_1st-amendment

Don’t think this isn’t a direct response to Barack Hussein.

Gun and ammunition sales have soared out of naked fear of Obama.

And for good reason: Obama is pushing a treaty to ban reloading. Liberals are trying to regulate the components of ammunition as explosives and thus restrict ammunition. Liberals in California are nakedly attempting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment by regulating ammunition, hence making guns useless.

And the liberal campaign to deprive Americans of their 2nd Amendment guarantees (even as they discover “penumbras and emanations” in the Constitution that let them kill babies) is only a distant side issue in the massive government takeover of American society. Obama’s massive spending – more than every president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED – will leave this country with an insurmountable national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 and threaten this country’s very survival. We are now on the hook for $12.8 TRILLION dollars in government spending and commitments in the brave new world of the Obama economy.

We’ve got a president who is firing CEOs, stacking boards of directors, changing the rules for the auto manufacturers’ bankruptcy filings in order to favor the unions that supported him over the secured creditors. And if they don’t like it, they are met with frightening threats from the administration and death threats from union members. If that isn’t bad enough, we’ve also got card check on the horizon, which would allow union thugs to intimidate workers into unionizing with the union allowed to know exactly how each worker voted.

We’ve got a president who won’t let banks repay bailout loans (which in many cases were literally forced on them in the first place) so he can continue to impose onerous terms and conditions on them and control what they do and how they do it.

We’ve got a president who is planning to nationalize health care – and the one-sixth of our economy that it represents – even as he moves to impose costly and burdensome cap-and-trade regulations that would (in Obama’s own words) necessarily cause energy prices to soar.

And we’ve got a president who is attempting to nationalize student loans such that private lenders are phased out altogether. If Obama gets his way, the government will loan directly to families and students, making them directly indebted to the federal government. The government will necessarily get to decide which students, which schools, and which academic programs get loans.  An option for students is to repay their loans by means of “national service,” which already precludes any type of religious service whatsoever. The potential of liberal big government harnessing student labor to staff liberal organizations such as ACORN is becoming all-too real.

We have a new administration that moved to criminalize political differences by targeting Bush officials as war criminals, even as returning veterans and pro-life Americans are labeled as “rightwing extremists” in a DHS report sent out to the nation’s law enforcement agencies and police departments.

not-fascism-when-we-do-it3

I’ve been saying something over and over in different ways. What the liberals are doing now will ultimately result in a “rightwing” backlash. What is true in physics is true in politics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Liberals are pushing and pushing and pushing through one new massive spending program and one new policy after another that will change and undermine this country forever afterward.

Under Obama, terrorism is now called an “overseas contingency operation” and terror attacks are now nothing more than “man-caused disasters.”  In attacking the CIA as a means to attack Bush, Obama has created a depressed, sullen, and angry morale which promises to transfer into “cover your ass” caution and bureaucratic gamesmanship.  He has undermined our security to a shocking degree.  If we are attacked, this country will swing so far to the right so fast it will be absolutely unreal.

But even if we are not attacked, our country will likely implode under its own weight: trillions of dollars of reckless spending will have that effect as our dollar devalues and our interest payments on the debt begin to soar when inflation begins to take its toll.  Ultimately our taxes will skyrocket due to all of this spending.  CBS News has an article from March entitled, “If China Stops Lending Us Money, Look Out.”  Well, guess what?  They’re doing exactly that.  They’re canceling our credit card.

In a poll of chief executive officers taken prior to the election, 74 percent of the executives said they feared “that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”  And some of the CEOs predicted that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.”  And with the Congress in nearly total Democratic control, they ARE being implemented.

When Obama and the Democrats bankrupt the country and undermine our entire social structure with massive spending programs and massive bureaucracies that cannot be undone, which direction will the country turn?  And how complete will that turnaround be?

Liberals are ignoring one ominous warning of popular outrage after another, claiming that conservatism and the Republican Party are dead.  And they will likely ignore what is going on in Montana – which is led by a Democrat governor – as well.  They are doing so to both their party’s and their country’s peril.

Montana, you’ve done a great thing for liberty, which is freedom from the growing tyranny of the smiley-face-fascist nanny state.

The backlash against big government liberal tyranny is beginning.  And it will become larger and hotter as Obama’s policies take their toll.  Let us hope that the spark turns into a fire before – rather than after – Obama has done too much damage to recover from.