Posts Tagged ‘unconstitutional’

Moral Outrage About Liberalism’s Vile ‘Moral Outrage’

May 28, 2014

I came across an all-too typical liberal op-ed from a Harvard professor from the Kentucky School of Government named Moshik Temkin.

The subject in this case was the death penalty.  Basically, Professor Temkin says that Obama ought to once again ignore the constitutional limits on his power and declare as our Führer that the death penalty is immoral and he will not stand for it.  He ends his screed saying:

What abolitionists need to do is call for change to emanate from the very top. The president (whether the current one or a future one) will need to express a principled opposition to the death penalty in terms of the sanctity of human life and dignity.

Here I see some room for guarded optimism. Obama does not need to worry about his political future. This could be the moment for him to take a stand against capital punishment, the way he did on gay marriage. But he will probably not do this on his own; public pressure is the key.

Those of us horrified by the death penalty should not look to the courts or the states. We must look toward our national leaders and demand that they do what is right.

In the print version, the giant bold type face screamed, “Outrage over botched executions isn’t enough.  It’s about a moral stand.”

It’s an interesting thing to consider what the left would do if a right-wing president used the tyrannous dictatorial power the way Obama has to merely impose his law in place of the rule of law.  Basically, liberals are people who shout, “It’s never fascist when WE do it; it’s ALWAYS fascist when you do what wasn’t fascist for us to do!”

And they are morally idiotic enough to actually believe it, which is the truly astounding thing.

I leave my case to a LIBERAL legal scholar who has had more than enough of Obama’s fascism.  What is Jonathon Turley saying about Obama?

I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. We have a rising fourth branch in a system that was tripartite. The center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. And ithin that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

And:

“…the President is outside the line… we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view, in my lifetime… this body (Congress) is becoming less and less relevant.”

And:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Our system of government is intentionally tripartite, with each branch holding certain defined functions delegated to them by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress is charged with writing the laws; and the Judiciary is charged with interpreting them.

The Obama Administration, however, has blatantly, repeatedly and defiantly ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement at his dictate.

In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen the same pattern repeated over and over again: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.

And fascists like Temkin – a vile hypocrite in that he would be SCREAMING FROTHINGH RABIDITY if a right wing president declared anywhere NEAR similar power for himself – is encouraging him to go farther.

And I am outraged that a documented FASCIST like Moshik Temkin is allowed to hold a position whereby he can pollute the minds of young people with ideas that history has declared to be truly evil.  Fascism is ugly.  It is immoral.  We fought a World War to stop it.  We shouldn’t be forced to have to fight the same war over again.  But fascist progressive liberal secular humanist atheists appear to be ensuring that we will have to.

People like Moshik Temkin yearn for a dictatorship, so long as the dictator is a liberal progressive secular humanist atheist like themselves.  These roaches WELCOME Big Brother as long as they get to choose their Stalinist totalitarian dictator.

I frankly laugh in disgust and contempt at anyone who wants to impose “morality” on a people not through the legislative process, but through the unconstitutional dictate of a tyrant.

On that “secular humanist atheist,” aspect, I quote Temkin as declaring that the death penalty is immoral in terms of “the sanctity of human life and dignity.”

As I read that line, I thought about Isaiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

I want you to stop and think about what Temkin is asserting: the people who have now murdered well over 55 million innocent human babies in their abortion mills are now asserting that “the sanctity of human life” that they have viciously refused to apply to the most helpless and the most innocent among us – and if you didn’t have your start in your mother’s womb, this doesn’t apply to you – ought to apply to the most depraved torture-rapist-murderers among us.

Let us see what the Bible says about children in the womb, with this being but one example:

For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

In 1999, Clayton Lockett – the heroic martyr of liberalism – kidnapped, beat, and shot nineteen-year-old Stephanie Neiman and ordered an accomplice to bury her while she was still breathing. She slowly died after having been buried alive from two wounds from a shotgun fired by Lockett. In 2000, Lockett was convicted of murder, rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, assault and battery and sentenced to death.

According to progressive liberal secular humanist atheist, this monster deserves to be honored with the recognition of the “sanctity of his life” and his “dignity.”  But you can and should go on exterminating human beings in the womb in a vicious manner that these selfsame self-righteous liberals would be weeping over if we did the same thing to rats.

“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,” declares these truly morally stupid and morally evil people.  That is the soul-diseased left talking.

God declared capital punishment in very simple terms:

“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. — Genesis 9:6

I want you to notice here that God explains that it is precisely BECAUSE of “the dignity of human life” – that results from being made in the image of God and from NOTHING less and nothing ELSE – as the reason why there should be a death penalty.  It comes down to this: when one human being literally takes the power of GOD into his or her own hands to destroy the image of God in another human being, that murderer needs to die in order for the dignity of human life to be honored.  To allow such a murderer to live after that murderer took another human life is to DISHONOR and DISGRACE the image of God and to spit on the memory of the victim(s) of such a monster.

To argue that murderers ought to be spared but helpless innocent babies ought to die horrifying deaths as they are literally torn to pieces while they try to avoid the medical implements that are killing them, burned alive by acid, and ripped apart by suction (see also here), is evil.  And to repeat that evil more than fifty-five million times makes the Nazis look positively humane.

But the thing is that that means absolutely NOTHING to a genuine moral idiot like Moshik Temkin.

No, liberal secular humanists stand in JUDGMENT of God and they have declared Him evil and His ways wicked.  They have placed themselves above God and condemned Him.  And that is why they hate Christians and conservatives who try to live according to the morality God provided in His Word.

Jesus taught in John 15:18-22 (NLT):

“If the world hates you, remember that it hated Me first.  The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you.  Do you remember what I told you? ‘A slave is not greater than the master.’ Since they persecuted Me, naturally they will persecute you. And if they had listened to Me, they would listen to you.  They will do all this to you because of Me, for they have rejected the one who sent Me.  They would not be guilty if I had not come and spoken to them. But now they have no excuse for their sin.”

Progressive liberal secular humanists hate me and hate my ways because they love evil and because they hated Jesus first.

That is why they have become the official party of the wrath of God according to the divine condemnation of Romans chapter one (see here and here).

Liberalism is a rejection and a replacement of all ten of the Ten Commandments.

Liberalism is the defiant contempt of God and God’s ways and God’s people, nothing more and nothing less.  Liberals are people who kicked God out of America with their contrived “separation of church and state” myth that is NOT found in our Constitution but IS found in the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  And having exorcised God much the way Jesus exorcised demons and banished God in the name of “secularism,” they rapidly moved in to replace God with their totalitarian State that abrogated all of the divine prerogatives of God unto themselves.

Communism is State atheism.  And it is therefore no surprise that progressive liberal secular humanists would embrace the essence of Communist theory: The dictatorship by the proletariat embodied in their leader will bring about a Utopia.  And I still hear the Satan that is Obama shouting, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek” while his followers worshiped him like a god.  I still think of Obama actually saying that as a result of his presidency, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”  I still remember liberals literally teaching their own children – along with as many OTHER people’s children as they could – to worship Obama in songs to their deity.  I wanted to puke.  But liberals are a stupid enough, depraved enough, leader-worshiping enough bunch of moral idiots to fall on their knees before this pseudo-messiah.

You show me doing any of that crap with Bush.  By a wide margin over the 2nd place Abraham Lincoln, Americans say that Ronald Reagan was our greatest president.  But even with Reagan, conservatives never worshiped the man the way liberals have worshiped Obama even as Reagan led America upward versus Obama who has led this nation downward and further downward.  Liberals are quintessentially FASCIST; they YEARN for a Führer.  They’ve basically found one in Obama – and they want him to keep moving his Führership forward to the next level and then the next one after that.

It is and always has been the LEFT that 1) purges God from society and 2) establishes a cult of personality for its leaders.  Something must fill the vacuum when God is removed.  And leftists fill that vacuum with the State as epitomized in their current Stalin, their Obama.

In progressive liberal secular humanism, just as in Stalinsim, we have an ideology that suggests society would be better if it could be purified.  Stalin purged “kulaks” by the millions.  HE alone got to define what or who a “kulak” was.  Just being so labeled pretty much meant you were finished.  And now we’re seeing JUST ALL OVER THE LEFT that the same fascist murderous heart that beat in Hitler and in Stalin beats in the liberal progressive as well.  A modern “kulak” today in America is pretty much anybody that says or does anything progressive liberal secular humanists don’t like.  And they will come after their “kulaks” with a rabid hate that is astounding because the very same people endlessly talk about how “tolerant” they are at the same time they’re dumping hate on you for disagreeing with them:

Howard Dean, who is still alive, told attendees at a fundraiser for a Democratic congressional hopeful that Republicans “are not American” and would “be more comfortable in the Ukraine or Russia.” He also screamed that GOP supporters should “stay away from our country.”

Dean, a former Vermont governor, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and a 2004 presidential candidate, made the statements last week in a fit of zeal as he was speaking in support of Colorado 6th Congressional District candidate Andrew Romanoff.

“This is a Republican party that has decided they like power so much that they think it’s okay to win by taking away the right to vote,” Dean told the gathered assembly of 750 people at Dora’s Mexican Restaurant in Aurora, Colo.

“They are not American,” he bellowed. “They could be more comfortable in the Ukraine or Russia but stay away from our country. This is based on the right to vote.”

Amusingly, Dean then lectured Republicans on tolerance and love:

“We have had enough of the extreme right wing,” Dean continued. “We have had enough of the politics of anger, we have had enough of the politics of hate, we have had enough of the politics of division,” Dean told the estimated 750 in attendance at Dora’s Mexican Restaurant.

You’d think their skulls would explode trying to contain all the massive contradictions, but not progressive liberals; their very ideology is pathological hypocrisy.  And so what they say versus what they do and how they demonize others for doing a fraction of the evils they do is an intrinsic part of liberalism.  Such that if you removed the hypocrisy from a liberal he or she would utterly dematerialize never to be seen again.

Progressive liberals say they’re like Jesus because they want socialism to care for the poor.  No.  You’re NOT like Jesus because Jesus never taught socialism: when the disciples came to Jesus and told Him that there were 5,000 men (probably on the order of 15,000 people altogether), Jesus did NOT say to call Herod or Pilate and urge them to begin a government welfare program; He said “YOU feed them.”  The ONLY places that talk about big government in the Bible, such as 1 Samuel chapter 8, CONDEMN IT.  No, you’re not like Jesus for wanting socialism, liberal; you’re like Hitler and Stalin.  You’re like Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with supposed programs to care for the poor.  And oh, yes, you really are like them.

Jesus very definitely found nothing of Himself in a liberal system by which one group forcibly seizes the wealth of another group and then gives that money not to the poor but to a totalitarian State that endlessly promises to help the poor but which year after year and decade after decade pisses away more than a half a billion dollars every single day.

If you think that Jesus believed in homosexual marriage, you’re beyond morally idiotic and you’re just plain evil.  Jesus taught that He had come to fulfill ever single jot and tittle of the lawwhich very definitely called homosexuality an “abomination” and “a detestable act.”  And Jesus commissioned the New Testament, which very clearly condemns homosexuality every bit as forcefully as does the Old Testament that Jesus lived and breathed.

For the record, one of the things Jesus lived and breathed and said He came not to abolish but to fulfill was the commandment concerning the death penalty for murderers.  That’s there, too, you know.

I read through articles in which people actually try to argue that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality and simply marvel at the determination to self-deceive and to deceive as many others as possible.  Paul spoke of these minds that “profess themselves to be wise, but become fools” (Romans 1:22) as “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

You’re definitely not like Jesus when it comes to children; Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto Me.”  In the entirety of the Bible and the biblical worldview, children were (and are) a sign of blessing from God.  But YOU say, “we define fifty-five million dead children as ‘a good start.'”

I recently wrote an article titled, Evolution Vs. The 10 Commandments: And The Winner Is…?.”   Secular humanists routinely and constantly mock and slander “Christian morality,” but I’ll take that over “Darwinian morality” every day of the year given the catastrophic consequences of embracing the “morality” of the left.  One moral system is timeless and based on God; the other continually evolves at the whim of a group of people who crave for themselves the place of God.

If there is no God, there IS no “morality.” We should act like the beasts we are. But what these people are truly looking for is to stand in the place of God over the human race (which they are strangely part of even as they view themselves as inherently superior over it) and impose THEIR vision, THEIR stamp, on the human race. We shouldn’t do what GOD says, we should do what Barack Obama says.

Such a person’s “moral outrage” is itself morally outrageous.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Why Do We Go Through The Useless Pretense Of Bothering To Have Elections When Fascist Black-Robed Judges Are Really Our Masters?

September 15, 2012

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Ah, the hell with it: Let’s just let Judge Adolf P. Fuehrer decide everything.  I mean, people sheople.

Why do we bother to go through the sham of voting and having elections?  We really might as well just have one of those tyrant-regime-style “elections” where everybody gets to vote as long as they only vote for their “president for life.”  Because that’s what we’ve got here now:

Judge strikes down Wisconsin law restricting union rights
By NBC News staff and news services
September 14, 2012

A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.

Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled Friday that the law violates the state and U.S. constitutions and is null and void.

The law took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.

Colas’ ruling comes after a lawsuit brought by the Madison teachers union and a union for Milwaukee city employees.

For city, county and school workers, the ruling returns the law to its previous status, before it was changed in March 2011, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. However, Walker’s law remains largely in force for state workers, it reported.

Walker’s law prohibited state and local governments from bargaining over anything except cost of living adjustments to salaries. Haggling over issues such as health benefits, pensions and workplace safety was barred.

Gov. Walker said in a statement Friday that he expected the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

“The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5th,” he said in the statement posted on his Facebook page. “Now, they are ready to move on. Sadly a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process.”

“We believe the law is constitutional,” said Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck.

The proposal was introduced shortly after Walker took office in February last year. It sparked a firestorm of opposition and huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law’s passage by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The law’s passage led to a mass movement to recall Walker from office, but he survived the recall election, becoming the first governor in U.S. history to do so.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I didn’t know that “collective bargaining” was enshrined in our Constitution.  Could somebody point out where?  I guess I must have slept through that lecture in that Civics class I took or something.

It’s probably in the same damn penumbras and emanations that the right to murder your baby is in, I suppose.

I’m all for workers having the right to form a union and I’m all for the right of that union to be able to “collectively bargain.”  As long as any employer – be that employer a small business owner, a CEO, a governor or a president – to be able to fire the ass of everybody who collectively bargained.

Again, where is it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that an employer loses the right to be able to fire workers?  Where is it stated that if workers want more money, and they “collectivize,” that he or she can’t fire them and get better workers who are willing to work for the wages that the employer is willing to pay???  Where the hell is it stated that an unemployed worker who would very damn much love to have a job cannot have the right to be able to work for that wage that the employer is willing to pay???  Where is it in our Constitution that only UNION workers ought to have the right to a job?

That’s what makes “collective bargaining” so evil; it arbitrarily gives a “right” to a union and takes away the rights of every single business and every single worker who would be thrilled to work for the pay that the union worker snubs his nose at.

And I want to know where that judge found that – other than by looking rather far up his own butt.

Damn I’m sick of these judges.  Just like I was sick of them not once but TWICE as a damn judge who believed himself above the will of the people overturned first Proposition 22 (which passed by 61% of the people’s vote) and then Proposition 8 (which passed by the same majority that gave Obama the damn presidency).

That’s what we need now – and will need even more if Obama gets reelected; we need a judge to look far enough up his own ass to “find” whatever penumbra or emanation and declare that Obama’s election is unconstitutional and throw his butt out of office.

This nation is no longer a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic, or anything remotely like any of the above.  It is an oligarchy of judicial activists and that is all that it is now.

A few other wise words of warning by Thomas Jefferson:

  • “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
  • “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”
  • “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
  • “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
  • “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

We are to the point where that last one has become an important reality: our country has been stolen from us by black-robed usurpers, and we need to take it back from them.

Obama The Fascist Bringing America Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism

April 11, 2012

According to the American Constitution, power is shared by three separate branches of government that have different functions and were by design intended to frustrate one another’s ambitions.

But we now have a president who refuses to accept the constitutional mandate of the other two branches; Obama wants to be America’s first “Dear Leader.”

Consider that recently Barack Obama was demonizing Congress and literally saying, “I’ll impose my will on America without you.”

The following is not from some “right-wing ‘pseudo’ news source”; it is from the reliably leftist Atlantic:

Obama Rolls Out a Jobs Plan That Doesn’t Need Congress
By Fawn Johnson
Sep 1 2011, 8:56 AM ET306
The president has asked federal agencies to find solutions on their own. His message to lawmakers: We can do this without you.

President Obama is either fed up with Congress or he’s testing his own administration’s mettle. Or both.
 
On Wednesday, Obama took a now-familiar path in adopting a program–this time a jobs and infrastructure effort–that can happen entirely within his domain. Obama directed several federal agencies to identify “high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects” that can be expedited now, without congressional approval.

One week before he will make a major address to Congress on jobs, Obama is making sure they know he plans to move forward without them. The president has also directed the Education Department to come up with a “Plan B” updating the 2001 No Child Left Behind law in the absence of congressional action. The message to Congress is clear: Do your work or we’ll do it for you.

On all sorts of fronts, Obama has blatantly ignored the Constitution as he has made one power grab after another.  The Foundry provides one example:

“Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will.” With this bold statement, President Obama announced last Friday that he would unilaterally replace the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) with conditions-based waivers. Obama’s waiver strategy is an alarming misuse of executive power that undermines the separation of powers.

In and of itself, the use of waivers is not unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to create laws with provisions that allow the President to grant exceptions in certain circumstances. NCLB does, for instance, authorize the Secretary of Education to grant waivers to applicants that meet certain criteria. However, waivers are not written as blank checks of authority for the President to bypass Congress and enact new policy.

In this case, the President is using waivers to rewrite the law. The Obama waivers go far beyond the measures allowed by NCLB. To receive a waiver, states must agree to implement a new set of goals and programs determined not by Congress, but by the White House.

For months, President Obama and Congressional Republicans have disagreed on how to reform NCLB. There are major problems with the law’s intrusive regulations. But the Obama administration decided that the “do-nothing Congress” could not be trusted to act and so the President is acting without them.

But co-opting the waiver power to craft a new laws designed in and implemented by the White House is a departure from the constitutional separation of powers.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to craft the nation’s laws and to reform those laws when they do not work as planned. The executive is authorized to carry out the laws passed by Congress. But this can be quite bothersome for a President if Congress doesn’t see things his way.

According to the New York Times:

HONOLULU — President Obama is heading into his re-election campaign with plans to step up his offensive against an unpopular Congress, concluding that he cannot pass any major legislation in 2012 because of Republican hostility toward his agenda.

[…]

However the White House chooses to frame Mr. Obama’s strategy, it amounts to a wholesale makeover of the young senator who won the presidency in 2008 by promising to change the culture of Washington, rise above the partisan fray and seek compromises.

After three years in office, Mr. Obama is gambling on a go-it-alone approach. In the coming weeks, he will further showcase measures he is taking on his own to revive the economy, Mr. Earnest said, declining to give details.

I can’t go on without pointing out that what Obama is doing is hardly merely a “wholesale makeover”; it is a fundamental lie and betrayal of the American people in the form of a willfully broken “core promise” Obama made to them.  Barack  Obama is a liar.  He is a genuinely evil man.  He despises this nation and the more sacred the institution, the more he despises it.

The Associated Press points to the incredibly cynical Obama strategy and the depraved and self-centered partisan motivation behind it:

Posted: 11:01 AM Dec 31, 2011
Obama to press ahead without Congress
The Associated Press

President Barack Obama is entering his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers take little action in 2012.

Devoid of any major policy pushes, much of the year will instead be focused on the biggest goal of all: winning a second term.

Obama has also recently ignored the Constitution and the Senate by making a NON-recess “recess appointment.”

That’s one branch of Congress the President of the United States no longer needs and feels free to demonize, ignore and usurp whenever it benefits him politically.

Here’s the other: The Supreme Court of the United States.

You should be familiar with Obama’s attitude toward the SCOTUS because it is still so fresh in the news.  But here are a few of my articles on the subject:

White House Explains Obama’s Fascist Supreme Court Gaffe: You’re Just Too Dumb To Understand Obama’s Brilliant Legal Mind

Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Reacts To Obama’s Fascist Statements Undermining The Constitution’s Separation Of Powers And Role Of ‘Unelected’ Judiciary

Would Conservative Court Striking Down ObamaCare Be ‘Judicial Activism’? Only According To Liberal Relativism

Fascist-In-Chief Obama Demonizes Supreme Court YET AGAIN (‘WAAAAH! They Won’t Let Me Have My ObamaCare! They’re Traitors To My Regime!!!’)

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

Key SCOTUS Vote Kennedy: ObamaCare ‘Changes The Relationship Of The Federal Government To The Individual In A Very Fundamental Way’

Obama literally tried to argue that the Supreme Court of the United States did not have the authority to overturn a law passed by a “strong majority of Congress” (how about the slimmest possible majority rammed through in the dead of night with no one even having the opportunity to read the damn bill?) in spite of the obvious historical fact that the Supreme Court has had that declared authority since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison.  Obama tried to argue such an overturn would be “unprecedented” in spite of the glaring historical fact that not only has the SCOTUS overturned MANY laws passed by Congress, but has even overturned two laws that used the “commerce clause” as their justification for unconstitutional mandates since 1999.  And on top of that, Obama argued that ObamaCare shouldn’t be overturned whether it is unconstitutional or not because it does a good thing and the ends ought to justify the means.  Which is to say that the president was demonizing the Supreme Court for “judicial activism” even as he demands that the SCOTUS practice judicial activism.

With that preamble that serves to point out that everything that is cited in the following article is simply factually true, here it is:

Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?
Posted 04/05/2012 06:34 PM ET

Power: Given the president’s end-runs around Congress, his shredding of the Constitution and his assault on the authority of the courts, a second term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect.
 
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, raised the question on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” show Wednesday. And while it seems fanciful in light of the safeguards built into our democracy and its institutions, it recognizes the threat posed by the president’s policies and actions if left unchecked.
 
“I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism,” Napolitano opined. “A few months ago he was saying, ‘The Congress doesn’t count, the Congress doesn’t mean anything, I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.’
 
“Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”
 
Some would consider this borderline hyperbole. But this is, after all, a president who has said he can’t wait for Congress to act and will govern by executive order and regulations if necessary. He has questioned the Supreme Court’s “unprecedented” review of ObamaCare.
 
As the Department of Justice turned in its homework assignment on the judicial review of the constitutionality of laws, it was a reminder that this is an administration that’s already been found in contempt of court by a federal judge.
 
In February of last year, Louisiana Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman found that the Obama Interior Department was in contempt of his ruling that the offshore oil drilling moratorium, imposed by the administration in 2010, was unconstitutional. After Feldman struck down the initial drilling ban, the Interior Department simply established a second ban that was virtually identical.
 
Judge Feldman was not amused. “Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in his ruling. “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second moratorium … provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt.”

As for Congress, we see the same dismissive tone. “Whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we’re going to act,” Obama said in February at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with Vice President Joe Biden off to the side. “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”
 
When cap-and-trade failed to make it through Congress — a Congress that had specifically denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act — the Obama administration, with the support of the usual suspects in the media, went ahead, unleashing the EPA to make war on coal and other fossil fuels.
 
In April 2009, Time Magazine ran a piece titled, “EPA’S CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress’ Head.” The New York Times editorialized that if Congress fails to ram through cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA should ram it down our throats. And that’s what the administration has been doing.
 
The whole thrust has been the acquisition of power by the federal government centered on the White House. That is the theme of ObamaCare, which is not about health care but about making people as dependent on government benevolence, if we can use that word, as possible.
 
Those who stand in the way, whether it be the Supreme Court, Congress or institutions such as the Catholic Church, are to be either ignored when possible, or intimidated and bullied into silence and acquiescence in the proud tradition of President Obama’s mentor, Saul Alinsky.
 
What is at stake here is freedom and whether we shall be governed by a document that begins with “we the people” or whether we shall be ruled, in totalitarian fashion, by a bill that says “the secretary shall determine” what our rights and freedoms are.

The Constitution and the American way of life is teetering on the edge of a cliff.  And Barack Hussein is doing everything he can to push it over and finish the job of “fundamentally transforming America.”

Consider just how godawful Obama’s ObamaCare abuse of power truly is:

Another $17 trillion surprise found in Obamacare
By Neil Munro – The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller – Fri, Mar 30, 2012.

Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 Obamacare law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap.
 
“The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” said Ala. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republican’s budget chief in the Senate.
 
“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said.
 
The hidden shortfall between new Obamacare spending and new Obamacare taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court judges grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the constitution’s limits on government activity. If the judges don’t strike down the law, Obamacare will force taxpayers find another $17 trillion to pay for Obamacare’s spending.
 
The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion over the next 75 years.
 
The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term.
 
That $82 billion in unfunded future expenses is more more than five years of wealth generated by the United States, which now produces just over $15 trillion of value per year.
 
The $82 trillion funding gap is equal to 28 years of the the current federal budget, which was $3.36 trillion for 2011.
 
The new $17 trillion funding gap is five times the current federal budget.
 
Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 65 years. Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
 
The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.
 
The extra $17 billion gap was discovered by applying standard CMMS estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.
 
For example, Session’s examination of Obamacare’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.
 
The same review also showed the Obamacare law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.
 
“President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,” Sessions said in a floor speech.
 
“We don’t have the money… We have to reduce the [obligations] that we have.”

Remember what Nancy Pelosi infamously said as Speaker of the House of Representatives?  “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Fascists frankly don’t give a damn about anything but naked power-grabs.

Either Obama wins and America dies or America wins and Obama is removed from office.  It’s that simple.

I wrote an article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” a full year ago.  And he has done so many vile and un-American things in his God damn America since then it is unreal.

Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Reacts To Obama’s Fascist Statements Undermining The Constitution’s Separation Of Powers And Role Of ‘Unelected’ Judiciary

April 5, 2012

First of all, I have previously written – at length – that Barack Obama is a fascist.  I hope more people will believe me now.

In that article, I begin by correcting the historical fabrication that “fascism” was somehow “right-wing.”  It was most certainly NOT.  Hitler and his Nazism was on the far right of the radical far LEFT.  Fascism was a rival brand of socialism along with communism; and the war between the fascist Nazis and the communist Marxists was akin to a war between Pepsi and Coke or between Bratz dolls and Barbie dolls.

Then I start ticking off examples of fascist things Obama has pulled off.  And of course I just go on and on because there’s just so much.   Obama is a spurting firehose of fascism.

Even given the fact that “Why I Call Obama A Fascist” is a loooong article, there are current examples galore: for example there is the recent “hot mic” moment in which Obama reveals he is a Quisling just waiting to betray America when he doesn’t have to be accountable to voters during his second term (and see also here).  There was the issue of ObamaCare and all the lies that went into selling it to the American people and all the terrible developments that have come out since such as the SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR FUNDING GAP and the fact that up to 20 million workers will lose their employee-based coverage and be thrown into an inferior healthcare system.  And then there is the issue of the headline above, of course.

When Obama demonized the Supreme Court and the separation of powers Monday, he was merely continuing to reveal his contempt at the Constitution and the founding fathers who wrote it, such as when he said:

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot.”

And so it’s really no surprise that Obama would say to the Supreme Court the moment it revealed it might not support his fascist messiahship, “OUT, damn spot!”

It’s just so much easier for an Obama to “fundamentally transform America” when Hitler is the government and the government is Hitler, isn’t it?

Appeals Court Calls President’s Bluff on Obamacare
Tuesday, 03 Apr 2012 08:17 PM
By David A. Patten

President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court appeared to backfire Tuesday, when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order giving the Justice Department until noon Thursday to state whether the administration truly believes courts lack the authority to strike down mandates that they determine are unconstitutional.

On Monday, Obama said that striking down his signature healthcare legislation would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” and would demonstrate a lack of “judicial restraint” by the Supreme Court.

He also pointed out that the nine Supreme Court justices are unelected, suggesting that it would therefore be undemocratic for them to overturn Obamacare, which narrowly eked through Congress by a seven vote margin in the House of Representatives.

“This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments,” Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday, pointing out the courts have had the authority to strike down unconstitutional provisions for over 200 years. “And [they are] trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly had lost intellectually and logically.”

The order from the 5th Circuit for the Justice Department to clarify its position on judicial authority came during a separate challenge to Obamacare brought by physician-owned hospitals.

As a Justice Department lawyer began arguing the government’s case, Appeals Judge Jerry Smith interrupted the presentation to ask if the 5th Circuit Court had the legal authority to strike down a law it finds to be unconstitutional. CBS News reports that when the government lawyer answered affirmatively, the judge stated that it was not clear to “many of us” that the president agrees.

The three-judge panel then gave the Justice Department until noon Thursday to provide a three-page letter clarifying whether it believes courts have the authority to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws.

“Clearly, Jerry Smith was upset by the president’s remarks and he has every right to demand clarification,” judicial expert Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice told Newsmax. “Obviously, he’s making a point as well as requesting clarification.

“But the president left himself open to that,” Levey added. “Of course the president doesn’t really believe the Supreme Court can’t strike down unconstitutional laws. But if the president’s going to say things like that to demagogue, then he is responsible for them.”

Many observers saw the president’s remarks as a clumsy attempt to “work the refs” and influence the court’s decision on his healthcare reforms. His challenge to the independent judiciary branch of government provoked widespread criticism from both sides of the aisle Tuesday.

“For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice,” wrote Washington Post correspondent Ruth Marcus, who has been a staunch defender of the president’s policies.

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, published a pointed editorial taking the president to task.

“Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law,” it stated. “As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama’s inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.”

By upping the ante, the 5th Circuit focuses more attention on a misstep that the administration would prefer go unnoticed. The president came under attack from the left and right Tuesday over what looked like a blatant attempt to intimidate the court and influence its verdict. He quickly backed off from his challenge to the judiciary, however.

“The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution, and all of us have to respect it,” he said. “But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to a duly elected legislature.”

Obama went on to assert that overturning congressional legislation was so extraordinary that the burden of proof would be on those who felt it could be unconstitutional.

That view, however, appeared to be at odds with the position of the key swing vote in the case, however: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional,” Justice Kennedy said to U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli on the second day of oral arguments last week. “But, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

[For the record, I added the link to the WSJ article.]

CBS begins its piece on this “unprecedented” fascism by Obama as follows:

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom. 

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

As the CBS piece points out, the heart of Obama’s “case” is simply purely dishonest – and Obama has the law degree to document that he’s a lying fool rather than just an ordinary fool.

And, on the “lying fool” thesis, let me further point out that this ObamaCare law – as dreadful and harmful to America as it is – would almost certainly have been declared constitutional had it not been for pathological deceit by Obama.  An LA Times piece, even while being written from a decidedly liberal perspective, backs up that contention:

In 2009, President Obama was asked whether the individual mandate in his healthcare plan was really just a tax in disguise. “I absolutely reject that notion,” he responded.

But if the president had been brave enough back then to call a tax a tax, his healthcare law might not be in such a mess today.

At the Supreme Court this week, both sides basically agreed that the Constitution allows the federal government to enact a national health insurance plan — even a government-run single-payer plan. (That, after all, is pretty much what Medicare is.) And both sides agreed that the Constitution allows the government to levy taxes to help pay for that health insurance. (We all pay a Medicare tax.)

But that’s not how Obama and the Democrats wrote their healthcare law. Instead, to avoid the stigma of the word “tax,” they included a requirement that everyone obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

It turns out that was a big mistake. As we now know, there’s one thing Americans hate even more than taxes, and that’s being ordered around by their government.

Even the left have widely panned Obama’s incredibly harsh remarks directed at the Supreme Court as untrue.  The reliably leftist LA Times editorial board affirmed that “There are several things wrong with the president’s remark.”

And then, the following day, when Obama allegedly tried to “walk back” his remark, he said more things that were untrue.  He tried to say that there hadn’t been a law struck down on economic issues since the New Deal days; that was a lie and Obama has the law credentials to know it is a lie: In 1999, in States v. Morrison and in 1995, in United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down laws that had been passed by Congress using an unconstitutionally-overly-broad usage of commerce clause as justification.  It hasn’t been that long since the Court exercised its Marbury powers which it has affirmed since 1803, and it isn’t that unusual.

Justice Kennedy rightly called that out in the first day of oral arguments before the SCOTUS.  Justice Kennedy said that today (Monday) Obama’s mouthpiece is arguing that the mandate is not a tax.  Tomorrow (Tuesday) the same Obama mouthpiece is going to come back to the same courtroom on the same case and argue the exact opposite thing from what he’d argued the day before.  And excuse me for pointing out what a collection of lying fascist fools you people are.

The same swing-vote (Kennedy) also affirmed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

And Justice Scalia pointed out that ObamaCare forced people to buy a product simply so the government could call it “commerce” and regulate it.  Justice Scalia said to the Obama lawyer’s examples, THOSE cases dealt with commerce; THIS case deals with people who HAVEN’T participated in commerce – people without insurance.  You’re going to force millions of Americans to buy something they haven’t bought just so you can then turn around and regulate them.  And if they don’t you’re going to hit them with a penalty you call a tax but only when it’s convenient to you to call it whatever you’re calling it at any given time.

I point out at the beginning of my above article re: Scalia that liberals as a species simply aren’t capable of listening and engaging in the other side’s arguments; they simply either want to shout and chant over you or declare you politically incorrect persona non grata.  And so when oral arguments began arguments that they could have heard and tried to counter for two years came as a complete shock to them – because they had never bothered to actually listen to us or engage with us – like the quintessential fascists that they are.  And the result was that the fascist left was shocked and panicked as they watched their government takeover of one-fifth of the American economy begin to go up in smoke.  Hence Obama’s unhinged statements denouncing the Supreme Court before it had even made its decision and certainly before any grounds for that decision had been provided.

My challenge for those who want to minimize Obama’s incredible words on Monday which followed his public attack on the Supreme Court at a State of the Union address is to find George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan doing anything like that and disrespecting the Supreme Court – a coequal branch of government – that way in such a public forum.

Would Conservative Court Striking Down ObamaCare Be ‘Judicial Activism’? Only According To Liberal Relativism

April 5, 2012

William F. Buckley famously provided an example of “relativism” as:

“the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around”  — William F. Buckley, Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography

[For the record, it was Greg Gutfeld on the April 3rd edition of “The Five” on the Fox News Channel, who adapted that particular Buckley analogy to ObamaCare and “judicial activism.”].

When Obama and other liberals try to frame a Supreme Court decision – particularly when that decision has not even been rendered and the grounds of that decision have not even been provided – as “judicial activism,” it is beyond dishonest.

Liberal commentator Ruth Marcus hits on this “disservice” to justice:

I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.

Again, the SCOTUS not only hasn’t issued its ruling yet, but they most certainly haven’t provided their grounds for their ruling!!!  For Obama to dictate to the Supreme Court that “if you rule against me, you are an unelected and therefore illegitimate and discredited body, but if you rule for me, then you can go back to being legitimate again,” does profound and disturbing injury to our constitutional republic founded upon the separation of powers.  And Barack Obama ought to live in infamy for that act of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America that he falsely swore to uphold and defend.

What is “judicial activism,” stripped of the delusional relativistic spin that Democrats want to apply to pervert something that has so often outraged conservatives???  The answer is that it is inventing concepts not found in the Constitution whatsoever – such as “penumbras and emanations” used to justify Roe v. Wade.  EVEN RUTH BADER GINSBURG HAS SAID THAT ROE V. WADE WAS TERRIBLE LEGAL REASONING!!!  And the spirit of judicial activism can be summed up in famous liberal justice Thurgood Marshall, who expressed the essence of his judicial philosophy as follows:

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”

THAT is what judicial activism is.  “You do what you think is right” (substitute your own will in place of the law) “and let the law catch up” (ignore the law altogether because you are re-creating it and what it said prior to your imposing your will on it frankly doesn’t matter to you one iota).  Considering a law and seeing glaring issues of unconstitutionality and then striking down that invalid law is NOT “judicial activism.”  It is what the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED TO DO and what the founding fathers DESIGNED IT TO DO.

Chief Justice John Roberts had an interesting point to make about his judicial philosophy when he was going through the nomination process:

John Roberts: “I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

Contrast that with Thurgood Marshall’s “I impose my own will on the law and force the Constitution to say whatever I happen to want it to say at any given moment” view.

Some articles I’ve written hit at some of the VERY legitimate constitutional questions raised by Supreme Court Justices:

It’s A ‘Tax’ When It’s Convenient For Us But It’s A ‘Penalty’ When It’s Convenient For Us: Deceitful ObamaCare Attorney Mocked By Supreme Court Justices

Key SCOTUS Vote Kennedy: ObamaCare ‘Changes The Relationship Of The Federal Government To The Individual In A Very Fundamental Way’

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

Scalia ‘Benchslaps’ ObamaCare Mouthpiece: ‘Those Cases Dealt With Commerce; THIS Case Is Aimed At People Who AREN’T Participating In Commerce (people without insurance)’

And just to add insult to that injury to the U.S. Constitution there’s the fact that there is the headline “CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion” and the even more shocking fact of “Another Little ObamaCare Surprise: How About A SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR Funding Gap?

Everything – and I mean EVERYTHING – that Obama has said about ObamaCare and the Supreme Court has been a demonstrable lie.  Founding Ideals has gone after some of what Obama has said:

Dishonest Statement:

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”

The Truth:

The law passed by a very narrow majority (220-215 in the house with 39 Democrats voting against it). That certainly wasn’t a strong majority. The program was so divisive that massive protests were held in opposition to the bill and its passing energized the nascent Tea Party. Even today a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare.

[Further, it passed in the Senate by such a tiny necessary majority that the Scott Brown election – with Scott Brown running on the promise that he would be the “41st vote” to stop ObamaCare – threw a huge monkey wrench into the Democrat campaign to ram it through and necessitated all kinds of procedural gimmicks such as “to deem it passed.”]

Dishonest Statement:

“With respect to health care, I’m actually — continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.”

The Truth:

There is no precedent where the Federal government has forced people to purchase a good or service from a private company.

Mere Hyperbole:

“That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.”

A more honest answer:

The CBO’s estimate is that 20 million people that will lose coverage because the perverse economic incentives encourage employers to drop coverage for their employees. No one knows what the net gain will be. (Based on other Obama success stories like Cash for clunkers, Solyndra, etc – I predict that the number of net newly covered individuals will be much less than 20 million)

On April 3rd, in a question and answer, Obama said:

OBAMA: Um, we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a[n] economic issue like health care that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner, right? So we’re goin’ back to the thirties, pre-New Deal.

Again, that is simply FALSE.  In FACT the Supreme Court has struck down at least TWO laws that had been passed on the basis of the same “commerce clause” that was used as the grounds for ObamaCare.  In 1999, in States vs. Morrison and in 1995, in United States vs. Lopez, a broad interpretation of the commerce clause and expansive federal powers under the guise of regulation “economic issues” were struck down by the Supreme Court.  Which is to say that Barack Obama not only as a former lawyer, but as a “constitutional scholar,” is openly lying to the American people.

The Supreme Court has struck down on average provisions of two laws every single year.  What Obama said is beyond ridiculous.

In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court quite literally struck down the laws in all fifty states and wrote the new law by itself.  And for the same liberals who celebrate that law to demonize a Supreme Court for striking down a law that clearly extends the commerce clause beyond ANYTHING that the founding fathers envisioned is itself demonic.

There is also this fact that came out of the exchange with Obama:

during the Q&A, the moderator is the chairman of Associated Press, Dean Singleton, who said, “Mr. President, you said yesterday it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. Yet that’s exactly what the court’s done during its entire existence.”

Which gets us back to the fact that overturning ObamaCare would hardly qualify as “judicial activism.”  It is simply the Supreme Court’s job to consider a law brought before them and compare it to the Constitution to see if said law is supported by the U.S. Constitution.

Barack Obama is a liar without shame, without honor, without integrity.  That is a fact.

Justice Antonin Scalia said something interesting in a debate with ACLU president Nadine Strossen about the idea that liberal “judicial activism” would one day come back to haunt liberals:

                 Scalia: Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court —

    26:57 Strossen: — I think that day has come! (laughter) —

    26:58 Scalia: And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.

I’m to the point where I actually hope that right-wing justices rise up and do unto the left as the left has done unto us for the last eighty years.  So here’s to hoping for some right-wing judicial activism to re-balance the scales that have tipped so far away from our Constitution that it’s not even funny.  We’re far past the point of being able to negotiate with liberals to fix the problems that will necessarily implode us and leave us a bankrupt banana republic.

P.S. The infamous Supreme Court “wheat” decision from 1942 that ObamaCare defenders keep citing is one of the things that desperately needs to be overturned if we’re ever going to actually have anything to do with the Constitution again.

Left Shocked And Panicked That Supreme Court May Not Like ObamaCare Fascism

March 28, 2012

This must be what it was like just before WWII Germany collapsed for the Nazis.

From Rush Limbaugh:

Left Shocked by Court Developments
March 27, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Grab sound bite two before we get to sound bites 23 and 24.  This is last night.  We’ll do a little timeline here involving Jeff Toobin.  Last night on Charlie Rose, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin — who, by the way, for those of you old enough to remember, is the son of former NBC News reporter Marlene Sanders.  He wrote a big book after the O.J. trial, and he’s been at CNN for quite a while.  And Charlie Rose said, Jeffrey Toobin, “How big a deal is this Obamacare case at the Supreme Court?”

TOOBIN:  Epic! Awesome! Enormous! Huge!

ROSE: (guffawing)

TOOBIN: This is the biggest case involving the power of the federal government since the New Deal.  And if this law is struck down, the federal government is gonna look very different the next day.  And lots of plans and lots existing programs are in jeopardy.  So, I mean, as big as you think this case is, it’s actually bigger.

RUSH:  Last night, Jeffrey Toobin accurately describes the size and scope of Obamacare.  Today, it’s Politico “breaking news,” but we’ve got sound bites from CNN.  Toobin, quote: “This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong… [I]f I had to bet today, Wolf, I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate.” Tom Goldstein, attorney and cofounder, center-left SCOTUS blog: “The individual mandate is in trouble, significant trouble.” Los Angeles Times’ Noam Levey: “Tuesday’s arguments may signal trouble for the mandate, widely seen as a cornerstone of the law’s program for achieving universal health care coverage for the first time in the nation’s history.”

Politico breaking news: “The conservative justices and potential swing vote Anthony Kennedy raised concerns Tuesday that forcing Americans to buy health insurance would open the door to other intrusive requirements from the federal government…” What was so hard to predict about this?  This goes right to my point.  What’s so hard to predict that this thing is unconstitutional?  It is unconstitutional. And a Civics 101 student in junior high, after having the Constitution explained to them, would know this.  And here come these legal experts: “There’s no way that justices are gonna strike this down! There ain’t no way,” and then after one day of oral arguments, these same experts (probably just as qualified as the economic experts at the Associated Press) say: My God, these justices, they don’t like the individual mandate! We’re in big trouble.

Here’s Jeff Toobin.  He’s on CNN this afternoon.  The coanchor, Ashleigh Banfield, said, “Tell me everything, Jeff.  What happened today?”

TOOBIN:  This was a train wreck for the Obama administration.  This law looks like it’s gonna be struck down.  Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, was enormously skeptical.  Every comment Kennedy made — uh, at least that I heard — was skeptical of the law.  The wild card in this argument was, uh, Chief Justice Roberts.  Chief Justice Roberts actually asked a lot of hard questions.  Roberts seemed like a much more likely vote to uphold the law than Kennedy was.

RUSH:  See, he had to find something positive after saying today “was a train wreck for the Obama administration.”  And again he said, “I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong… this court is going to strike down the individual mandate.” Wolf Blitzer then weighed in…

BLITZER:  This is really huge! Uh, uh, uh, what you’re saying — and you’re an authority on the US Supreme Court. You’ve written the major book on the current Supreme Court — uh, The Nine. So you fully understand. But just because a justice is asking tough questions, let’s say of the government lawyer — Mr. Verrilli in this case — that doesn’t necessarily mean that that justice is gonna come down on the other side.  Isn’t that right?

TOOBIN:  It’s true, but it’s not very true, Wolf.  Yes, it is true that sometimes we’re surprised by the justices’ votes after hearing their comments at oral argument.  Most of the time — and it’s not all the time, but most of the time — the questions that the justices ask at oral argument are very good predictors of how they’re gonna vote.

RUSH:  So the left is in panic! Wolf Blitzer is in panic, looking for a life preserver from Jeff Toobin, who didn’t give him one.  And they’re shocked!  This is what’s funny.  They are shocked.  We aren’t.  Well, we might be because we’re surprised that the Constitution is actually being adhered to here, or appears to be.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

 RUSH:  Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to temper your expectations on this.  This is just oral argument, and we’re nowhere near the vote on this thing and we really don’t know how this is gonna go.  All we have right now is palpable fear on the left. … This fascinates me, all of this shock and surprise on the left.  The media, court watchers, leftist legal beagles.  They are in a state of shock, a legitimate state of shock, folks.  They really believed this was gonna sail through.  And we have to always keep in mind how relatively young most of these people are, and thus how they’ve been educated. They didn’t get Constitution 101 like I did.  They have been taught that the Constitution’s a flawed document that needs to be changed whenever it can be.

And this represents the greatest opportunity to do that that they have all ever had. The very fact that Obamacare became law against the objection of a majority of the American people — and the way it became law, basically under cover of darkness with every legislative trick under the sun being tried — didn’t matter. It didn’t matter that it might be illegal. It didn’t matter that it might be unconstitutional, because that’s precisely what this was about: Making it constitutional by virtue of changing the Constitution and using this law to do it. Then all of a sudden the oral arguments come up today, and the four conservative justices and the so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, all have problems with the mandate.

And they’re literally shocked, A, that everybody doesn’t have the same worldview of this that they do; and, B, that there is any objection to it at all. Remember for these people the government is the end. It’s the be-all, end-all. Government is the final authority. Government is where everything important happens and every important decision happens for everybody. But it didn’t go that way today in the case of oral arguments and so now they’re scratching their heads and they’re genuinely surprised. Jeffrey Toobin is genuinely surprised. The CNN legal guy predicted this would sail through, and they probably were looking at this court’s actions on campaign finance law, McCain-Feingold. “Well, if that sailed through, this will.”

So where we are with this is the left now blogging incessantly their fears and their hopes at the same time. There is a left-wing blog called SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court of the United States. And this is a very relevant post on that blog: “Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions, Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment.”

So they take all of Kennedy’s questioning here, which indicated to Toobin: This thing’s dead, this thing is a “train wreck.” One question by Kennedy at the end is now given them hope that he might see this as so unique that he would vote for the mandate. A reporter at the Huffing and Puffington Post is saying that it’s, quote, “almost entirely unequivocal that a majority of the court thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional.” They are scared to death. Lyle Denniston used to be the court reporter for the Baltimore Sun. He posts this:

“If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him,” and therefore give us a huge winning majority. “But if [Kennedy] does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.” A lot of these blogs are being critical of the solicitor general, the government’s lawyer, Mr. “Virility.”

One blog is saying: “I can’t believe how poorly prepared this guy was on the mandate! I can’t believe they sent him up there and he had no idea how to answer these very obvious questions on the mandate.” So apparently the government’s lawyer didn’t do a good job. The left can’t believe he wasn’t prepared any better. Well, how do you defend the indefensible? What is this guy gonna say? When that burial analogy comes up, he’s dead. When the broccoli analogy comes up, he’s dead. If you’re up arguing before the Supreme Court that the government has the right to require us to buy health insurance, then why not burial insurance? Why not broccoli?

This guy had no answer for that other than a bunch of gobbledygook. And all of his supporters watching this know what a poor job he did, and so now they’re worried, and they’ve just go on a little carrot. Anthony Kennedy gave ’em a little carrot dangling there at the far end of the mine. It’s right down there next to the canary. He might find a way. This situation is so unique and we’re talking about health care, so maybe this could be okay. That’s what they’re desperately hoping. But their instincts tell them that it was a “train wreck” today. And I must tell you, I still find it… I don’t know, I guess I shouldn’t, ’cause I know how they were educated (which was poorly). I’m still struck by the fact that they’re surprised, that they’re shocked.

What world do they live in?

This could not have been the first day in their lives that they’ve heard these objections to the mandate. But what if it is? What if they live in such a close-knit circle and they hang around only with each other? What if it actually was the first time they’ve heard these objections? That can’t be! These objections, these arguments, against the mandate have been made throughout the media everywhere. So I guess they just locked in on the idea that it doesn’t have a prayer of losing. But like so much of liberalism, and like so many liberals, they live in their cloistered world of the faculty lounge. They sit around and they talk theory all day. They don’t understand dynamism. Everything is static to them.

And then they get confronted with reality one day and it’s like a cold shower or a slap upside the head and they are bewildered. And it still amazes me that people who are reputed to be so intelligent and so smart can be so surprised when they hear arguments — logical arguments — that make it obvious this is unconstitutional. But, again, I fall back on something we must never forget, and that is: This is not about health care and it’s not about the mandate per se. It’s about changing the Constitution. Not piecemeal with this one. This is huge. If you have it codified as the law of the land that the government can make you buy something? Then, my friends, the Constitution has finally been defeated — and that’s what they can taste. In fact, it’s in their grasp, but it’s a little slippery and they can’t hold onto it.

But it’s right there.

Right there.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Wolf Blitzer was in hysterics moment ago on CNN. He had the congressional correspondent Kate Bolduan on. They had this exchange. We already heard Toobin. Blitzer is beside himself with what happened today on oral arguments.

BLITZER: Kate, you were inside the courtroom! The solicitor general, uh, Donald Verrilli, uh, was he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Uh, did he seem unprepared and overly nervous in responding to the conservative justices’ tough questioning?

BOLDUAN: It’s hard to get into his mind. But I can say, if you compare it to yesterday, he did appear to stumble more; almost seem apologetic for some of the answers that he was giving.

RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. So now it’s time to dump on “Virility” here, the government lawyer. Blitzer: “[W]as he sort of stumbling? Did he not have the right answers? Did he seen unprepared…?” Wolf, you go defend this law up there and see how you do. There isn’t anybody who can! Obama’s not even trying to defend it. Pelosi’s only defense is, “What do you mean ‘unconstitutional’? Don’t be silly!” Nobody can defend this. Nobody. It isn’t constitutional.

END TRANSCRIPT

I just wish I was as confident about the outcome that is so panicking Jeffrey Toobin.  But I can imagine Justice Kennedy giving his ruling in agreement with the liberals and – borrowing a phrase from Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon Cooper – saying “BAZINGA!”

Because that’s just how the law often works due to the fact that it is pretty much dominated by outrageous nerds.

But at least it’s fun to watch liberals squirm with the fear that maybe they won’t get their Big Brother takeover of society that they’ve been dreaming about.

75% Of Registered Voters Believe ObamaCare Is Unconstitutional

March 1, 2012

Do you hear this, Supreme Court???

This is amazing: three out of every four registered voters in America believe ObamaCare is unconstitutional:

Poll: Most voters believe health care mandate is unconstitutional
By Kim Geiger / Tribune Washington Bureau
Monday, February 27, 2012

WASHINGTON — Nearly two years after President Barack Obama signed his landmark health care package into law, three-quarters of registered voters believe the law’s requirement that every American carry health insurance is unconstitutional, according to a new survey.

A USA Today/Gallup poll taken earlier this month and released Monday found that a majority of voters _ those surveyed in battleground states and nationwide generally — agreed in their dislike of the Affordable Care Act. Voters in battleground states are more likely to want it repealed, the poll showed.

Fifty-three percent of voters polled in battleground states _ Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin _ said they would favor repealing the law if a Republican is elected president in November. Nationwide, 40 percent said they would favor repeal.

A majority of voters — 50 percent nationwide and 53 percent in battleground states — consider the law a bad thing. The vast majority of voters feel the law has so far had no effect on them or their families, but more than 40 percent believe it will ultimately make things worse.

The results are disappointing news for Obama, whose re-election campaign counts enactment of the health care law as a signature achievement of his administration. And voters’ dislike of the law is likely to be revived next month when the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of the law.

The survey also polled voters on their general election preferences. Nationwide, Obama and Mitt Romney are tied in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup, with 47 percent each, according to the poll. Rick Santorum holds a 3 percentage point advantage with 49 percent compared to Obama’s 46 percent. Both results are within the sampling error of four percentage points.

Of a number of polls released Monday, the USA Today/Gallup survey painted the gloomiest picture for Obama. A Rasmussen tracking poll showed Obama leading Romney 45 percent to 43 percent and ahead of Santorum, 47 percent to 42 percent. A Politico/GWU/Battleground poll showed Obama leading Romney 53 percent to 43 percent and leading Santorum 53 percent to 42 percent.

It is not unusual for results to vary widely among different polls, as methodology and subject matter can skew results. For example, a recent polling experiment by Marquette University Law School found that the order of pollsters’ questions can impact respondents’ favorability toward a candidate. In that survey, Obama’s favorability was greater among respondents who were asked job-approval questions before being asked about the economy.

The Obama presidency itself ought to be unconstitutional.

Yet Another Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Mandate Unconstitutional

September 15, 2011

It’s not like Barack Hussein Obama – a “constitutional scholar,” we were told – gives one slimy cockroach crap about the U.S. Constitution.  Recently, before deciding that his government would not follow (i.e. that the Obama regime would BREAK) federal immigration law and refuse to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who had had their day in court and LOST, Obama told a Hispanic group the following in explaining why he couldn’t do what they wanted:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

And then a few weeks later Obama did the very thing he himself had categorically stated was both undemocratic and unconstitutional.

He also previously similarly ignored federal law – law passed by both branches of Congress and signed into law by Democrat President Clinton – and decreed that his government would ignore the Defense of Marriage Act.  He has now held that the power of law resides within the power of the Führer alone.  The law doesn’t matter if Obama doesn’t like it.  He alone as our Messiah stands transcendantly above the law and the rule of law.

So it doesn’t surprise me whatsoever that he rammed a despicable undemocratic and unconstitutional takeover of the health care system.  He has PROVEN that he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution or the rule of law.

Pa. fed judge knocks down key Obamacare health care requirement
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011
By MARC LEVY,
Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The requirement in the national health-care overhaul law that individuals buy health insurance is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday in a question that the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to settle.

The suit decided by Judge Christopher C. Conner in Harrisburg is one of more than 30 lawsuits nationwide that have been filed over the 2010 law that is President Barack Obama’s signature initiative.

Conner, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush, said the individual mandate is an unconstitutional extension of authority granted to the federal government under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“The nation undoubtably faces a health care crisis,” Conner said. “Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant. The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress’s efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers.”

But Conner rejected an argument by the plaintiffs — a York County couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman and Gregory Bachman — that the mandate is “disastrous to this nation’s future, such as the Bachmans’ prediction of America evolving into a socialist state. These suggestions of cataclysmic results … are both unproductive and unpersuasive.”

While most of the massive law can remain intact, Conner said, certain provisions are linked to the health insurance requirement and must also be struck down. Those provisions are designed to guarantee that insurance companies cannot discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions.

Separate lawsuits have already reached appeals courts in Richmond, Va., Atlanta and Cincinnati, with one of those courts ruling against the mandate.

It’s time to return to the wisdom of Ronald Reagan who confronted such a socialist takeover attempt of medicine in his own day and said:

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

The polls overwhelmingly demonstrated that what was true in Reagan’s day is every bit as true today.  The American people never wanted this vile and un-American monstrosity.

It is unconstitutional.  It is an unconstitutional TAKEOVER meant to impose socialism.  Obama knows it; that’s why he will NOT let this come before the Surpreme Court where it would be overturned.  Rather, he has done everything he could to delay that day of reckoning.

Which is paralyzing businesses who need to know their cost if they are going to take the risk of hiring workers.

Barack Obama has been granting waivers to the very leftwing unions and businesses who helped Obama impose ObamaCare so that they would not have to pay the way all the OTHER Americans will have to pay.

Impeach Obama from office before he damages this nation beyond the possibility of repair.  Because that point of no return is rushing toward us.

Liberals Seek Power For Government To Dictate Every Decision Of Our Lives – And They’ve Almost Got It

August 22, 2011

From Reason Magazine:

Looking for Limits
The power to mandate health insurance is the power to mandate almost anything.
Jacob Sullum | August 17, 2011

Opponents of the federal law requiring Americans to buy government-approved medical coverage face a daunting challenge. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has treatedthe power to “regulate commerce…among the several states” like Silly Putty since the New Deal, explaining why it cannot be stretched to cover the health insurance mandate is harder than you might think.

But as last Friday’s decisionby the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit illustrated, the law’s defenders have a corresponding problem. Because a limitless Commerce Clause contradicts a fundamental constitutional principle, they have to justify the mandate in a way that does not also justify every other conceivable congressional dictate regarding how we spend our money. So far they have been unable to do so, which is the main reason the appeals court rejectedthis “wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of Congressional authority.”

Under our system of government, the 11th Circuit noted, Congress has only those powers that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, with the rest “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (as the 10th Amendment puts it). An all-encompassing Commerce Clause that authorizes any mandate, restriction, or prohibition aimed at behavior that might affect interstate commerce (subject to specific limits such as those imposed by the Bill of Rights) is plainly inconsistent with this federal system.

The Obama administration therefore needs to explain why its constitutional rationale for the health insurance mandate—that the failure to obtain medical coverage, in the aggregate, has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce—does not amount to such an open-ended license. Toward that end, it argues that health care is unique because it is expensive, everyone needs it at some point yet cannot confidently predict when, and federal law requires hospitals to treat people regardless of their ability to pay, which shifts costs to others.

As the 11th Circuit noted, however, “virtually all forms of insurance entail decisions about timing and planning for unpredictable events with high associated costs.” Based on the administration’s criteria, “there is no reason why Congress could not similarly compel Americans to insure against any number of unforeseeable but serious risks,” including natural disasters, accidental death, theft, business interruption, disability, long-term nursing care, and burial costs.

More important, the distinguishing characteristics cited by the government have no basis in the Constitution or in the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause precedents. “They are not limiting principles,” the appeals court said. “Rather, they are ad hoc factors that—fortuitously—happen to apply to the health insurance and health care industries.”

These factors may help explain why Congress wants to make people buy health insurance, but they do not explain why it has the authority to do so. And if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the unprecedented policy of mandating purchases in the name of regulating interstate commerce, future Congresses could decide there are sound reasons to make people buy other forms of insurance (to prevent cost shifting), exercise equipment (to reduce health care costs), double-pane windows (to conserve energy), or American cars (to stimulate the economy and support domestic manufacturers).

“Every day,” the 11th Circuit observed, “Americans decide what products to buy, where to invest or save, and how to pay for future contingencies such as their retirement, their children’s education, and their health care. The government contends that embedded in the Commerce Clause is the power to override these ordinary decisions and redirect those funds to other purposes.”

Given the potential for wide-ranging controls over heretofore private decisions, you can see why this debate is not simply about arcane legal doctrines or arbitrary distinctions between state and federal powers. “While these structural limitations are often discussed in terms of federalism,” the appeals court noted, “their ultimate goal is the protection of individual liberty.”

By increasing the federal government’s role in medicine, President Obama’s health care reforms directly limit freedom. But the legal arguments he is using to defend them may turn out to be a much bigger threat.

After all the Democrats’ constant attacks on the Bush “power-grabs” over such areas as civil liberties and personal freedoms, the very few liberals that actually have at least some consistency and integrity are pointing out that Obama is actually WORSE than Obama.

A Daily Kos piece begins thus:

On July 2nd, I attended a session given by Glenn Greenwald at the Socialism 2011 conference in Chicago.   He began the speech by discussing the fact that even a year ago if he had attempted to give a speech observing that Obama has not only continued but in some cases enhanced the Bush/Cheney attacks on civil liberties he would have had to spend all of his time attempting to convince his audience that this was true. 
 
People just instinctively found it repellent—the idea that this wonderfully, sophisticated, educated, progressive, constitutional lawyer, who ran on a platform of denouncing these policies and vowing to unroot them and reverse them, would actually be continuing and in many cases actually worsening them. It was just something that despite the abundance of evidence proving it was true was something that people intuitively reacted to in a negative way. You had to spend a great deal of time persuading them that it was actually the case by assembling all the evidence to prove it.

Democrats have viewed the Constitution as un unpleasant nuisance that needs to be ignored.

Lest we ever forget, “it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people,” according to Democrats.  But have no fear, those of you who want nothing more than to wear the yoke of big government around your necks, we’ve almost got that complete dictatorial control over us now.

Obama just suspended the deportation of 300,000 illegal immigrants who were already in the system and ready to go.  Before taking this incredible – and completely politically motivated – move, Obama actually said that what he would ultimately do was both unconstitutional and undemocratic:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

That he would say he was tempted to do something that violates the American system of government, that fundamentally violates a democracy and that treats the U.S. Constitution with disregard is bad enough; to actually do it is treason.

In the situation of oil drilling, even a liberal a judge whom Obama had appointed himself recently ruled that the administration lied, broke the law and violated the rights of drilling companies as Obama labored to destroy 20,000 Louisiana jobs.

Obama doesn’t care about the Constitution. ObamaCare was declared unconstitutional, and it will be up to the Supreme Court to rescue the American people from him and from his tyranny. The Appeals Court just said in its opinion:

“What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.”

But hey, at least überconservatives are soon going to be able to use this same power to mandate that every single American purchase a Bible, go to a Christian church, tithe to that church and put homosexuals into re-education camps (you know, after psychological counseling becomes part of ObamaCare). After all, the Commerce Clause let’s you do anything these days, doesn’t it?

Here’s the last inch of the slippery slope described:

Over the years the courts have gutted constitutional doctrines intended to limit state power and justified almost any government action unless barred by the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Commerce Clause, which authorizes federal regulation of commerce “among the several states,” has been interpreted to largely swallow up Article 1, Section 8, which enumerates Congress’s authority. The ocean became one of government power, with but a few islands of personal freedom.

However, Obamacare went further than any previous federal intrusion. In the name of regulating commerce, the law ordered people who had not entered any market to purchase a private product. If upheld, the measure would establish the principle that Americans could be forced to buy American cars to bail out the auto industry, Lehman securities to save Wall Street, and homes to revive the housing market. Whether or not the insurance mandate is good policy — and there are lots of reasons to argue that it is not — it effectively dismantles any meaningful limits on the national government.

… Indeed, District Court Judge Gladys Kessler stated in her opinion that the government could regulate “mental activity” — under a constitutional provision involving “commerce.”

And what’s good for the überliberal goose is good for the ultra-conservative gander.

Justice Antonin Scalia tried to warn ACLU president Nadine Strossen of that fact when he said:

“Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court … And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.”

Barack Obama has declared open warfare on the Constitution, upon democracy and upon the American way – as he himself admitted.  If he is allowed to win now, conservatives will have no other choice but to retaliate in this total war he started by fighting back on Obama’s own terms.

What Obama is doing right now – and what he’s trying to do – should frighten everyone.

ObamaCare Ruled Unconstitutional Again, This Time By Federal Appeals Court

August 12, 2011

Here’s the great news of the day: ObamaCare is unconstitutional, which is to say it violates the Constitution of the United States, which is to say it is un-American.

I pointed out – and documented at length – some time back that Democrats couldn’t care less about the Constitution of the United States of America.

And the “Constitutional scholar” president is at the head of the list of Democrats who have been using the Constitution like toilet paper.

Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement
By Greg Bluestein
Associated Press / August 12, 2011

ATLANTA (AP) – A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn’t go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics argued the law violates people’s rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a “quintessential” power.

The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that “the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power.”

“What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” the opinion said.

Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.

The 11th Circuit isn’t the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government’s new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.

But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ coverage.

The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson’s ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that “would imperil individual liberty, render Congress’s other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states.”

The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its “quintessential” rights when it adopted the new law.

During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.

The arguments unfolded in what’s considered one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.

Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he’s been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter’s outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.

Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami’s lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.

Obama lied, health care died.

I also just this morning wrote about the pathological dishonesty of Barack Obama with his health care takeover, having no idea whatsoever that view was about to be further confirmed today.

Here’s yet another major demonstration of Barack Obama’s personal and professional dishonesty:

ObamaCare’s Mandate Is Not A Tax, Except When It Is
By David Hogberg   
Thu., June 17, 2010 2:06 PM ET

The Obama administration has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from 20 states opposing ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which requires almost all Americans to purchase health insurance.

According to Obama’s Justice Department, the individual mandate is constitutional because “requiring individuals to buy health insurance is an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority.” (The National Federation of Independent Businesses has more here.)

President Obama insisted repeatedly during the health care debate that the individual mandate is “absolutely” not a tax increase.

More broadly, the administration’s legal position could create a big political problem. Back on Sept. 12, 2008, Obama said:

I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

On multiple occasions Obama promised, “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

Some argue that Obama already violated that pledge when he signed the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan bill that boosted cigarette taxes. And that may, indeed, be the case.

But the individual mandate “tax” hits almost everyone and gives people no choice.

If the administration continues with its legal position, Obama is admitting he’s violated his tax pledge, giving political fodder to Republicans. But if he stops the DOJ, that weakens the case for an individual mandate, a critical part of ObamaCare.

Maintaining a campaign pledge vs. ramming through the transformation of American society? That’s a no-brainer for this president.

An update to that article: it’s not “20 states” any more.  At least 38 states have tried to protect themselves from the ravages of this anti-American takeover of the health care system.

What did Obama say in what turns out to have been his “read my lips” moment re: ObamaCare?

(AP) President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

[…]

He told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he will keep his pledge not to raise taxes on families earning up to $250,000, and that much of the final bill – hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years – can be achieved from savings within the current system. Coming up with the rest remains a key legislative obstacle.

And now there is no question that if ObamaCare ISN’T A TAX – which would make Barack Obama a documented liar when he publicly said it wasn’t – that it is a clearly unconstitutional takeover.

Obama didn’t just lie about this central element of his ObamaCare.  He’s lied over and over and over again.  And even Obama’s own fellow DEMOCRATS have recognized that Obama has lied about ObamaCare.

Either way, the man stinking up the Oval Office is the most dishonest and profoundly anti-American president in this once great nation’s entire history.

Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola – whose previous ruling that ObamaCare was inherently unconstitutional was cited and reaffirmed today – explained why ObamaCare was unconstitutional and un-American in terms such as these:

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.

Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

By the way, DEMOCRATS as a species are now documented liars.  Here’s now DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz just telling flat-out LIES about ObamaCare.  If Democrats want to have any integrity whatsoever, they could start by throwing out this nasty demagogue liar.