Obama Abuses the Supremes

Several years ago, Mr. Obama stood at a podium when he reported to Congress and the American people, and wagged a rhetorical finger at the Justices sitting below him to the side, and made it clear he did not approve of their ruling on a case involving political action committees.  The justices sitting on their hands could do nothing for they are not political and Obama was being very political.

More recently, Obama has made it clear to the Supreme Court that he would like to

"remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

We are not commenting on Republicans Mr. Obama, we are commenting on what you have done, not what some hypothetical past congress did in your revised memory.  What we are talking about is your proposed healthcare (one which few members of congress read, which some of your own party told us we had to approve to find out what was in it) that was supported by one Republican with some Democrats crossing the aisle in opposition.  THAT Mr. Obama is a clear indication that it was not supported or approved by a majority and because you will raise the issue of a majority - a vast majority of Americans do not want your healthcare system.  They want it erased.

The Supreme Court is about to render parts of the plan unconstitutional.  You strike back that it was duly constitued and approved.  So was Plessy versus Ferguson.  So were the laws that enslaved.  So were many laws we now find repulsive and unconstitutional Mr. Obama.  Using your poor logic, those duly constituted and approved laws (separate but equal and enslaved) should be left alone.  The fact you think the law is constitutional doesn't mean anything except your opinion really does not matter on these issues.  What is clear is your opinion of yourself and the Imperial Presidency.

In the first months of his administration in early 2009, he stacked the Executive Office of the President with "Czars" who were not approved by the Senate, but were responsible to congress for the departments they oversaw.  This effort was, with very little question by reasonable people, an end-run around the requirement for Senatorial Advice and Consent.

It would seem you have little respect for the Constitution you swore to uphold Mr. Obama.

Just sayin'

obama

The Beginning

In November 2000, Bush won, and Democrats refused to accept the fact. They fought it for quite a few weeks, and the bitterness remained. Yet, when the smoke cleared the day after the election and Republicans had taken control of the House by a slim majority of either 7 or 9, I cannot recall the 2 independents. In the Senate it was 50 – 50, 49-50, and 50 – 48. Regardless – very close, but Republicans still had control, and what do you think they did that day in November after winning the election and control of Congress? Slap kick the Democrats down the hallway? Nyet. Boot them out and lock the doors? Nope. They allowed them to keep control of all the committees until the 20th, which is only right, but given the election, the Republicans would have been within their right to prevent legislation that was opposed by Republicans. It was very civil – and Republicans deferred to the Democrats, went quiet, and gave them the last 70 or so days to do as they wished – and the Democrats wished a lot. The comments from Democrats about Bush during that time, the attacks on his person, and the atmosphere Republicans brought to Washington – the attacks were relentless and Republicans did little to nothing to respond. That should have been the hint, but Republicans didn’t catch on.



They attacked Bush from Day 1 until he left office. They attacked his Iraq policy and did everything they could to interfere with his handling of foreign policy. When Republicans rebuffed their bills, the Democrats screeched about being locked out.


Through the Bush administration the behavior of Democrats was always bothersome, sometimes I believe traitorous (Kuchinich standing in the House saying publicly that the US had troops in Iran – I have no idea if we sent special forces into Iran, but he claimed we did). They called Bush every vile and mean name one can imagine, and each negative claim was a reinforcement of more malicious attacks – each piece of hate was evidence of why they should hate him, and not only hate – for they did not call it hate – they identified their animus as legitimate – Bush was the evil-doer.


They attacked him and every action he took – unless they approved, like the Education Bill crafted by Ted Kennedy … until much later when they attacked him on his failure on education. They did not care what the consequences of their political pettiness were around the globe. Today China tells us we have no right to criticize their human rights policies – not after Abu Ghraib and Hurricane Katrina. Neither of which are legitimate complaints.


Yet through all of this, Democrats and Republicans could act and did act, at times, with pettiness and vindictiveness. They could play games with Congressional rules and push bills onto the floor for a vote after only a few hours debate. They could exclude amendments and invoke filibusters (something Biden said would be used against several Bush acts). They have not until now, been willing to bend the Constitution. They have not, until now threatened everything we (they included) have, and want to keep – a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Pushing through bills without a vote, voting on amendments before the bill is even a law, manipulating numbers to convince a few while knowing the numbers put us deeper in the hole, ready to bankrupt America, beyond the point we are at already, ready to fundamentally change America, violate the Constitution, act in direct opposition to the will of the people, and do so for political purposes only – this we haven’t seen before. We have been given glimpses, but never witnessed. I suppose the Alien and Sedition Acts would have been a concern for the Congress when Adams pushed the bills through – providing power to the Executive beyond what most Americans believed legitimate. The Constitutional over-reaching by the Roosevelt Administration was another such concern. We have had few of these moments in our history, yet on Sunday, March 21, 2010, we will be forced to enter into a whole new time, a new world – one Obama has decided we must all enter together.


He knows how he will handle the deficit created by most of what he is forcing upon us, he has yet to make it clear though – if you study Marx, or review any of the European states, you will see where he will cut to get the money. Marx argues for this because his clash is one of economics and equals – all workers being subjugated by the wealthy who control enterprise and who wage war for power and wealth. One way to end all of this is to make war very nearly impossible – cut our budget dramatically.


Of course Republicans would not go along and neither would many Democrats, BUT if you implement a program that creates a gaping hole you cannot close, in order that the health and welfare of the people is realized, you must cut from any and all budgets to find the funds. When confronted with the dire – either cut it or be unable to provide health care to the poor in your district – Democrats will reluctantly agree, as will a few Republicans. Once you cut the budget and redirect those funds, it will become very nearly impossible to ever re-redirect the funds. He doesn’t even need control of Congress to accomplish this. He simply allows the numbers to become public – here $200 billion, there $400 billion – without the money people will die … and then he will make a very good argument for why we need to cut the military.


At that point, it would nearly be irreversible, and that is his plan. It begins on March 21, 2010. He will push the immigration bill forcefully, to get these illegals made legal by 2012, if possible, or at the very least the election after in 2014. I was tempted on my census to discover that 10 more people were living here (and no, I did not provide birthdates or names – if they aren’t happy with what information I did provide, fine. The government is charged with doing a Census, I am not required to answer – if I was, then the idea of uncounted thousands would be thousands of violations of the law).






I am not very happy tonight.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
democrats

Hysteria and Absurdity

I am often left wondering at the common sense of people so caught up in the ideal of the moment that they completely lose their grasp on reality. At least from at or around 2001, the left has attacked Bush as usurping their rights, seeking to usurp their rights, trying to take their civil liberties, attempting to otherwise thwart their happiness (and I am aware of redundancy but then the left is not and I do not wish to ruin or rain upon their poor logic skills). From spying on Americans (which it isn't) to violating the First Amendment (which he hasn't) ... the left are apoplectic when it comes to the very mention of the word Bush.

We can all imagine the very British style of a 'stiff upper lip and all that' versus the emotion Americans tend to wear on their sleeve. Imagine the lady of the house, London 1942 - the rockets are raining down upon London and she refuses to run to the tube for safety, she instead stays for tea and has the tea cups all set up for her guests as the rockets explode all around her. Nothing will move her from her course until due time (after tea).

That English woman is the left. They have utterly no comprehension of reality and instead march on railing against Bush when there are real enemies subverting their rights and diminishing the civil liberties of the American people ... and it isn't Bush or Cheney.

There are scores of examples, but this one just dropped in - Cellphones to keep track of your purchases -- and you. March 16, 2008. Q13 Fox.com News.

I am sure that some who lambaste Bush and rail against FISA would in fact welcome this new development as it will make their lives easier. Silly stupid rabbits. Yes, much easier, but all that information stored somewhere, waiting for someone to steal it for nefarious purposes. Chinese hackers claim they hacked into the Pentagon recently. And the storage of all this vital information would be even more protected than the Pentagon??

So rail on you moral idiots and when you wake up one day you will find your rights were taken away, not by Bush or the government, but by you ... you handed them over to business with all the best intentions.

Medical Insurance

If you don't have medical insurance, you might want to consider buying your own, quickly. One way Hillary is going to immediately decrease the number of people without medical insurance is to force them to buy medical insurance.

The percents and numbers are not available at this moment, but of the 30-40 million without medical insurance, a sizeable percent earn between $35,000 and $55,000 a year and are between 18-40, single and or married with no children (the percentages are similar, not exact).

This group choose not to have medical insurance. They are betting (gamble) on not getting sick. They have the money, they choose not to spend it. It is their right. When they get sick they go to the doctor and pull out the checkbook and pay out of their own pocket.

Now comes Hillary who has said she would be interested in garnishing their wages to ensure they secure medical insurance.

The effect: immediately the un-insured would drop a large percentage. From 40 million to 25 or so million. That would look very good on her promises kept even if it in no way had anything to do with anyone doing anything except her taking their money.

That is the other point - the taking of peoples money. This isn't a tax nor is it legitimate - it is a 'taking' that violates several amendments to the Constitution. She, like her husband, have a knack for Constitutional violations. What dolts do not have a problem with this?

I make $40,000 a year and am 22 years old. I live alone. I do not like to spend my money. I am saving money. I haven't been sick in four years. I do not want to pay $1000 a year for insurance I do not need. I worked for my money. It is my money. I paid my taxes. I want my money.

Which part of that do you have a problem with? It is mine, not yours. If you take it, I will call the police because you are stealing.

Listen - doing this (her idea) doesn't do anything, hasn't helped anyone, and doesn't count - anyone could do this, but Bush, despite the left-wing nuts falling all over themselves in their claims of his attacking their civil liberties, would not do this (seize money from law abiding citizens). It is like redefining what poor is and then claiming you lowered the number of poor people in the country. Stupid is as stupid does.