Friday, June 29, 2012

Depressing Day for America

What a depressing day for America: Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal justices on the Supreme Court as the fifth and pivotal vote that allowed most of Obamacare to survive.

While much of the speculation in the academic and media world was about Justice Anthony Kennedy as the possible swing vote, one of the lawyers in my office kept saying over the past few months that Roberts was actually the weak link. Unfortunately, that prediction turned out to be all too accurate.

By upholding the individual mandate, the Court got it exactly wrong. They’ve issued a ruling with terrible implications for the future.

It is true that the majority opinion, written by Roberts, stated that the individual mandate was indeed beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. While the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, the power to do so presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. As expansive as the Supreme Court’s prior reading of that power has been, those prior cases have uniformly described the power as reaching “activity.”

According to Roberts, the individual mandate does not regulate existing commercial activity. Instead, it compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Roberts refused to go down that path, concluding that would open a new and potentially vast and unlimited domain of congressional authority and power. There is no doubt that liberal scholars will be disappointed by this part of the ruling, since they do not believe there should be any limits on congressional power and that the Commerce Clause should be extended to cover virtually anything that Congress wants to do. What should scare Americans is that the four liberal justices, in a concurring opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that the individual mandate was within the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

Roberts also refused to uphold the individual mandate based on the government’s second, fallback position, the “Necessary and Proper” clause. Roberts said that all of the Court’s prior cases on this clause have involved exercises of congressional authority derivative of, and in service to, a power specifically granted to Congress. Even if the individual mandate is necessary for Obamcare to work, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means to implement the law.

Unfortunately, however, Roberts bought into the third fallback position that the government brought into the case: that the Obamacare law is within the taxing power of Congress. What is so extraordinary about this strained holding is that both President Obama and the congressional supporters of Obamacare all vehemently denied that the penalty an individual will pay if he does not comply with the individual mandate was a tax. In fact, the government took the completely contradictory position that the penalty was a penalty for the purposes of getting around the Anti-Injunction Act (which prohibits a lawsuit against a tax until the tax has been paid by the taxpayer) but then claimed it was a tax within Congress’s constitutional power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

This expansive reading of the tax authority is almost as bad as the kind of expansive reading of the Commerce Clause that the government and liberals wanted: it places virtually unlimited authority in Congress.

In a good example of that, the majority opinion says it would be perfectly fine if Congress enacted a law that made individual Americans pay a $50 tax to the IRS if they owned a house without energy efficient windows. Under that view, there is really nothing Congress cannot do in extorting certain behavior from American taxpayers, as long as it uses the threat of tax penalties to achieve the desired outcome.

This places us on the same road to tyranny (but perhaps at a slower pace) that we would be on if the Court had upheld Obamacare to expand the authority of the Commerce Clause even further, unless our aversion to tax increases imposes some political checks on its use by Congress. The Framers understood that there are at least some political checks on the use of the taxing power.

The Court did strike down, in a very narrow sense, part of the massive Medicaid expansion forced on the states by Obamacare. The Court held that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. That violation can be remedied by preventing the secretary of Health and Human Services from withdrawing existing Medicaid funds if a state fails to comply with the new requirements.

Justices Antonin Scalia along with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito wrote a very impressive dissent that Chief Justice Roberts should have also joined. As the four justices said, Obamacare “exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting States all Medicaid funding.

These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.” With just one more vote, the entire bill would have been declared null and void as unconstitutional.

This case shows just how important a president’s ability to pick members of the Supreme Court is. Roberts has shown just how disappointing some justices can be to their supporters and those who want judges who will abide by the limits that the Constitution places on our government.

With the failure of the judicial process, the only thing left to do now is to get rid of Obamacare legislatively. Congress passed this monstrosity, and the only path to lifting it from the backs of the American taxpayer is through the legislative process. That means that legislators should vote again to repeal all of Obamacare.

So we have come full circle. Congress is responsible for the mess that the Supreme Court has refused to clean up, and that leaves Congress with the responsibility to clean it up. Otherwise, they can be sure that voters will be watching.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation ( and a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.

Time to suspect is negating many 'anti Obama' internet emails (general)

Time to suspect is negating many 'anti Obama' internet emails (general)

Below sent in by poster 'Harold'

Time to suspect is negating many 'anti Obama' internet emails and calling them 'urban legends'.

Shades of Krystalnacht

Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court's Kagan.

We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya' don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya'?

We've known that it was owned by a 'lefty couple' but hadn't known it to be heavily financed by George Soros!

Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama! In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions.

One poster went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice - Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed; and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets. So he Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep, you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.

This poster emailed this to Snopes:
Referencing the article about Elana Kagan and Barak Obama dockets:
The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, type in 'Obama Kagan' and you'll immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking. Thank You. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it.

That being said, Ill bet you didn't know this.

Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly.

Chicago Politics and the beat goes on and on and on. Once again the liberal Democrat U.S. Senate sold us out!

Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer.

It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.

Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?

Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!

Check out these examples:

If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete. However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution, by all means, PASS it ON!

There truly is tyranny afoot.




@ bibleprobe

And Obama really wants to get re-elected. Read this...

sent in by poster 'Harold'


An old West Virginia Hillbilly saying:

"You can not get the water to clear up until you get the pigs

out of the creek.”



*If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?*

*If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again

within 10 years, would you have approved?*

*If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?*

*If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state
in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?*

*If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like 'Marine Corpse', would you think him an idiot?*

*If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?*

*If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis
of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed
would you support him?*

*If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?*

*If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?*

*If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?*

*If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive
and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?*

*If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America?*

*If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved?*

*If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?*

*If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers
with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?*

*If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the
United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities?*

*If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk.*

*If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to
"Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment?*

*If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go
plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?*

*If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?*

*If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?*

*If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is
happening in America, would you have ever approved.*

*If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?*

*So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?*

*Can't think of anything?

Don't worry.

He's done all this in 36 months – so you have that much time to
come up with an answer.*

*Every statement and action in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama.

Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable *



2012 IS UPON US.


Recent Activity:

All posts should be something you are not ashamed to show to your young people or your clergy. Suggestions, Complaints, Problems, Personal Criticisms and Subjects that could cause debates that could be controversial are to be kept out of sends to the whole alliance. Either send them personally to each other or directly to a ccpga moderator, or the owner at this address:






For a very limited time, you will get 4% back in reward dollars toward your
next order. You must be registered by clicking the link at the top of the

If you are not registered, there is no account to put the reward dollars

Just place your order and the reward dollars will be added automatically to
your account the minute your order ships. These are real ammo dollars that
you use when you place your next order with us.

Our reward points are not like the old time "mail it in for your
rebate"........ we make it simple. Just checkout on your next order and you
will be asked if you want to redeem your reward points. They work like real


Thanks Very Much!


The True Impact of the Obamacare Decision - Neal Boortz


Concise and to-the-point.  And not at all hyperbolic: there's some scary precedent here.  "The power to tax is the power to destroy." --R. Reagan

(The scenario I like best is a tax to compel citizens to join a union.  Hey, let's start with doctors!  Wouldn't that tie this all into a nice tidy package.)


The True Impact of the Obamacare Decision

Do Americans – do you -- really understand the gravity of what happened in the Supreme Court yesterday? Do you have any idea at all how the power of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States has been exponentially increased?

Answer? No, you probably don’t. You really can’t be faulted for that, I guess. After all, our wonderful government school system was designed to educate you, but only to the point that you don’t become a threat to your political rulers. The American people are a product of those schools, and the American people are, by and large, acting in the manner proscribed by those who “educated” them.

I spent the better part of yesterday listening to various pundits and reading blogs and columns about the ObamaCare decision. I think a lot of people are missing something here; missing something very important. The Court’s ruling on ObamaCare grants the Congress of the United States the power to command virtually any action – any action that would not in and of itself constitute a crime – of any individual in this country, and to demand compliance with that command or be penalized. The federal government can now regulate virtually any human activity in which you wish to engage, and to regulate whether or not you will be allowed to refuse to participate in that activity, so long as a penalty is attached to your noncompliance.

Perhaps I’m not making my point here; so let me try some scenarios:

Let’s say that you are not a homeowner, but you are wealthy enough to purchase a home if you wished to. Arguably, under today’s ruling the government could force you to purchase that new home. This the government could do in order to promote job creation in the construction industry, and it would be perfectly constitutional so long as a penalty is assessed for your non-compliance. The government would merely say that you are being taxed for your decision not to buy a new home, and our Supreme Court would uphold the law as a bona fide exercise of the government’s taxing power.

The government wants you to change your profession … move to another state … buy more cotton clothing … purchase an American-made car … own no less than a dozen pair of American-made shoes … limit your stock purchases to only unionized companies … put solar panels on your roof … perhaps even start watching MSNBC for a minimum of one hour every night. All of this the government might well be able to do so long as a penalty is levied for your failure to comply with the government directive. The penalty would, of course, be nothing more than a tax, and the regulatory requirement would merely be the government exercising its taxing power. Well … the watching MSNBC requirement might violate the 8th Amendment. They’ll just have to work around that one.

Remember when some reporter asked Nancy Pelosi if the individual mandate was constitutional? Her reply? “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Now she can simply say “Taxing authority, bub. Taxing authority.”

This is a sad day indeed for our Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that Obama’s insurance mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. It’s perfectly fine, though, since there’s a fine for non-compliance. This column is short – because the message is simple. Sit back now and try to imagine anything the federal government cannot require of you – just so long as there is a penalty if you say “no."

Supreme Court Ruling Specifics - all Positive!

 Supreme Court Ruling Specifics - all Positive!


The Fat Lady did not sing

Today, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court declared the “mandate” under Obamacare to be constitutional as a TAX!

In fact, our Constitution states, in Article I, section 8, clause 1:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...”

 Obama always had the ability to fund Obamacare through taxation. The political problem for him now rests with the fact that Obama must admit to Americans that he and his henchmen like Pelosi and Reid, lied to the American people from the very onset of the Obamacare debate! They all represented that the funding of Obamacare was NOT a tax!  They never could have sold it based upon increasing taxes on every American, especially born by the Middle Class.

The main thrust of the ruling today is that the Federal government may not enforce legislation such as Obamacare based upon the Constitutional doctrine of the Commerce Clause. In short, government can not force Americans into “commerce” so they can be regulated. That is the silver lining in today’s ruling.  This is historic and defines the limits of the Federal government from now on.

The second historic part of today’s ruling is that the Supreme Court went on to again limit the power of the Federal government with respect to forcing States to act, threatening to withhold Federal funds if they do not act according to the government’s wishes. This is another historic aspect of today’s ruling again upholding State’s Rights.

When the Supreme Court rules it is generally through compromise and consensus. The “compromise” today was that the Supreme Court upheld the right of the government to “lay and collect taxes” as allowed by our Constitution. The fact that Chief Justice Rogers appears to have sided with the Liberals means nothing more than upholding the law as written in our Constitution. If Rogers had sided with the Conservatives they could have been accused of Republican partisan politics instead of upholding the law.  By siding with the Liberals, Rogers has innocculated the Court against such accusations. Politically, if Rogers had sided with the Conservatives, Obama and the Democrats could have used it as a tool to defeat Romney.

With respect to electing Romney, Romney and the Republicans win this battle as Romney will use the huge tax increase as a wedge issue to elect him to repeal Obamacare thus killing the largest tax increase in American history!  As we all know, the IRS is in charge of enforcing tax law. If Obamacare is not repealed, it will be up to the IRS to go after every American to collect the Obamacare tax! Voters will not like this!

In conclusion, the ruling today accomplishes several things:

 1.      It forces Obama and the Democrats to finally admit that they LIED about Obamacare from the onset knowing full well that it would be upheld as a TAX!

2.      It prevents the Federal government from threatening States with losing existing Medicaid funding if the States do not comply with catastrophic increases in Medicaid demanded by Obamacare!

3.      It gives Romney and the Republicans a huge election wedge issue to elect Romney to repeal Obamacare killing the largest tax increase in American history!

Do not be disheartened by the Supreme Court ruling!  If Romney is elected the Fat Lady will sing the deathknell for Obamacare!  We MUST elect Romney!

Krauthammer - Why Roberts did it

This is also consistent with the theory that maintaining the law will make it more likely obama is tossed out on his  ear ass in November


Why Roberts did it

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, June 28, 3:11 PM

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration. 

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature. 

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce. 

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do? 

“The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.” 

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process. 

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president. 

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political. 

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. 

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress. 

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf. 

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed. 

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule. 

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Chief Justice Roberts's Folly

Chief Justice Roberts’s Folly - The Editors - National Review Online

In today’s deeply disappointing decision on Obamacare, a majority of the Supreme Court actually got the Constitution mostly right. The Commerce Clause — the part of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states — does not authorize the federal government to force Americans to buy health insurance. The Court, by a 5–4 margin, refused to join all the august legal experts who insisted that of course it granted that authorization, that only yahoos and Republican partisans could possibly doubt it. It then pretended that this requirement is constitutional anyway, because it is merely an application of the taxing authority. Rarely has the maxim that the power to tax is the power to destroy been so apt, a portion of liberty being the direct object in this case.

What the Court has done is not so much to declare the mandate constitutional as to declare that it is not a mandate at all, any more than the mortgage-interest deduction in the tax code is a mandate to buy a house. Congress would almost surely have been within its constitutional powers to tax the uninsured more than the insured. Very few people doubt that it could, for example, create a tax credit for the purchase of insurance, which would have precisely that effect. But Obamacare, as written, does more than that. The law repeatedly speaks in terms of a “requirement” to buy insurance, it says that individuals “shall” buy it, and it levies a “penalty” on those who refuse. As the conservative dissent points out, these are the hallmarks of a “regulatory penalty, not a tax.”

The law as written also cuts off all federal Medicaid funds for states that decline to expand the program in the ways the lawmakers sought. A majority of the Court, including two of the liberals, found this cut-off unconstitutionally coercive on the states. The Court’s solution was not to invalidate the law or the Medicaid expansion, but to rule that only the extra federal funds devoted to the expansion could be cut off. As the dissenters rightly point out, this solution rewrites the law — and arbitrarily, since Congress could have avoided the constitutional problem in many other ways.

The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy.

The Court has failed to do its duty. Conservatives should not follow its example — which is what they would do if they now gave up the fight against Obamacare. The law, as rewritten by judges, remains incompatible with the country’s tradition of limited government, the future strength of our health-care system, and the nation’s solvency. We are not among those who are convinced that we will be stuck with it forever if the next election goes wrong: The law is also so poorly structured that we think it may well unravel even if put fully into effect. But we would prefer not to take the risk.

It now falls to the Republicans, and especially to Mitt Romney, to make the case for the repeal of the law and for its replacement by something better than either it or the health-care policies that preceded it. Instead of trusting experts to use the federal government’s purchasing power to drive efficiency throughout the health sector — the vain hope of Obamacare’s Medicare-cutting board — they should replace Medicare with a new system in which individuals have incentives to get value for their dollar. Instead of having Washington establish a cartel for the insurance industry, they should give individuals tax credits and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. Instead of further centralizing the health-care system, in short, they should give individuals more control over their insurance.

Opponents should take heart: The law remains unpopular. Let the president and his partisans ring their bells today, and let us work to make sure that they are wringing their hands come November.

Supreme Court gives conservatives a consolation prize

Conservatives’ consolation prize

By George F. Will, Thursday, June 28, 11:56 AM

Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.

The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.

The case challenged the court to fashion a judicially administrable principle that limits Congress’s power to act on the mere pretense of regulating interstate commerce. At least Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance:

“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. ... The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. ... Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”

If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power — the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit. Instead, the court rejected the Obama administration’s Commerce Clause doctrine. The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: “Under our written Constitution ... the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.

The court held that the mandate is constitutional only because Congress could have identified its enforcement penalty as a tax. The court thereby guaranteed that the argument ignited by the mandate will continue as the principal fault line in our polity.

The mandate’s opponents favor a federal government as James Madison fashioned it, one limited by the constitutional enumeration of its powers. The mandate’s supporters favor government as Woodrow Wilson construed it, with limits as elastic as liberalism’s agenda, and powers acquiring derivative constitutionality by being necessary to, or efficient for, implementing government’s ambitions.

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asked where the Constitution authorized the mandate, exclaimed, “Are you serious? Are you serious?,” she was utterly ingenuous. People steeped in Congress’s culture of unbridled power find it incomprehensible that the Framers fashioned the Constitution as a bridle. Now, Thursday’s episode in the continuing debate about the mandate will reverberate to conservatism’s advantage.

By sharpening many Americans’ constitutional consciousness, the debate has resuscitated the salutary practice of asking what was, until the mid-1960s, the threshold question regarding legislation. It concerned what James Q. Wilson called the “legitimacy barrier”: Is it proper for the federal government to do this? Conservatives can rekindle the public’s interest in this barrier by building upon the victory Roberts gave them in positioning the court for stricter scrutiny of congressional actions under the Commerce Clause.

Any democracy, even one with a written and revered constitution, ultimately rests on public opinion, which is shiftable sand. Conservatives understand the patience requisite for the politics of democracy — the politics of persuasion. Elections matter most; only they can end Obamacare. But in Roberts’s decision, conservatives can see that the court has been persuaded to think more as they do about the constitutional language that has most enabled the promiscuous expansion of government.

After Election Surprise For Seniors, The President's $8 Billion Coincidence?


This has to do with the coming elimination of Medicare Advantage for Seniors. It is timed to come in 2 weeks AFTER the November election. Surprise.........We just lost 500 Billion from Medicare by the Supreme Court ruling. The second ruling in a row that greatly favors Obama. In order to come up with that ruling they had to declare the new “forced” purchase of insurance a TAX, instead of a forced purchase. If you do not watch the entire video, please watch at least the first ten minutes. I have said for a long time the Supreme Court is part of the problem and working for the demise of the the United States. Why???.....Because they have been using World Law in their Rulings and findings for ten years or more. That is directly against the Constitution of the United States, which is suppose to be the ONLY consideration for their conclusions. They are favoring more and more the NWO Agenda, probably even Agenda 21. We have a few good Judges, but they are out numbered.........Dale

To all seniors and they who have ederly reletives living in or near you and so whether you are an elderly person or not, you all need to be advised as to what the president has in store for all elderly well after the 2012 Nov. elections........XX

Send this to everyone you know on or about to go on Medicare.  

This video is worth watching – Obama has another surprise waiting for all seniors!

Check out The President's $8 Billion Coincidence from Col. Jack

Is this surprising?

Forward this to every senior you know and ask them to pass this along. Very important they all know what is going to happen.....


John Roberts-Sensible analysis from Erick Erickson

Dear RedState Reader,

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision.  Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

Read my full thoughts here.

Sincerely yours,

Erick Erickson

The Ball is in Our Court


----- Original Message -----

The Ball is in Our Court

Posted: 27 Jun 2012 07:17 PM PDT

As the day of judgment approaches, half the country sits waiting for a small group of men and women to decide how many of our civil rights we get to keep. After two flawed decisions that draw not from the Constitution, but from policy and opinion, we wait hopefully for a third opinion that will set us free.

Today the Supreme Court is slightly tilted in our favor, which is to say that it has a few members who believe that the Constitution is more than blotting paper for their opinions, and that individuals and states have rights, rather than just being troublesome cogs in the mighty machine of the national policy apparatus bent on tackling one growing crisis or another.

How long will that tenuous state of affairs endure? Who knows. In the meantime we are caught between an omnipotent executive who believes that he is above the law, an unelected court which includes two of his appointees, one of them his lawyer, and a Congress which does little except spend gargantuan amounts of money. And our best bet is the court, because it is the hardest to bribe and some of its members believe in the law, rather than in the almighty policy ends that justify all means.

When the highest official in the land decided to sell the American people into slavery to insurance companies to get his landmark legislation passed, we took to the streets to protest, we changed the composition of Congress, and here we are waiting for the Supreme Court to decide that maybe we aren't the property of the Executive Branch, warm bodies to be traded at the slave market of policy to get a bill passed.

147 years after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are back to debating slavery. But it's not a debate that began today. Everyone who pays taxes can calculate how much time they spend working for their masters in Washington, D.C. How much of their income the serfs are obligated to send home to the barons in the white palaces who will decide how much of it to hand out to their friends and how much of it to use on the endless expenses of government.

Around the same time as the evils of racial slavery were being fought, the building blocks of economic slavery were being hammered together with the Revenue Act of 1861, the first Federal income tax and the first attack on the Constitution, that concluded with the Sixteenth Amendment. One hundred years before the election that brought Obama to power, the Democratic platform called for an income tax, "to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government".

The burden has grown vastly since then. It has grown out of all proportion. And to achieve its goals, the government began selling off its assets. Its chief assets are us.

The ObamaCare Mandate is a fairly simple trade between health insurance companies, which largely owe their existence to government tinkering with the health care market, and its government patron. In exchange for giving the government what it wants, the government gives them what they want, us.

Supporters of the Mandate have been legitimately confused by all the protests. As they understand it, we are property-- so why are we complaining about being rented out to another master? If Obama and Congress own us, why can't they lease us out to their supporters in the insurance industry? Especially when it's for the greater good.

Today we're being leased out to the health insurance industry. Tomorrow we might be sent out to go bring in the harvest, the way that citizens were compelled to in Communist countries. Once we have been designated as warm bodies for sale to the highest bidder, when there is, what politicians can describe as, a legitimate concern, then there is absolutely no end to it. And when China finally decides to recoup some of its investment, there will be a mandate for that too.

The Constitution has been so comprehensively violated and we have been deprived of so many rights that defending any right becomes a rear-guard action. After so many violations, we take a stand on the chalk outline of the latest outrage, while having to argue that this is the red line. This is the one that is too much. And we put our faith in a Supreme Court that occasionally respects the Constitution and occasionally creates its own Constitution. And we sit here waiting to find out which it will be this time. Freedom or slavery.

Even a Supreme Court defeat for the slavery of the state mandate will not be the end of the story. 

The policy machine that grinds on in Washington, in state capitals, in municipal city halls and in the halls of a thousand think-tanks and the banquet rooms of a hundred forums is built to deprive people of their rights. It is not easily stopped. Even when the Supreme Court rules against it, it studies the ruling and attacks it from another angle until it gets its way.

Many of the modern violations of our rights went through this process, losing a Supreme Court decision and then finding another way through the door. Once the policy apparatus has agreed on something, the mere objection that it is against the law will not halt them for long. The only way to stop the machine is to break the machine. To tear out its levers and gears, to fill it with sand, spill out its oil and turn it to grind uselessly facing a wall.

A Supreme Court of Constitutionalists might deal it some serious setbacks, but it has become clear that we are headed into dark territory where the laws don't matter anymore. Obama has shed most of the pretense of legality, doing things because he wants them done. The legal rationale for ObamaCare never existed. Those who wrote and passed it did not believe that such a rationale was even needed.

Their only argument has been the policy argument, the ends justifying the means. The policy ends which justify the oppressive means is their argument for every one of their endless streams of abuses. It is a position that places them and their actions completely outside the law. Anything they do is justified because it is for the greater good, to meet one "growing crisis" or another, whether it's health care, obesity, racism, bullying, profiteering, homophobia, high prices or anything you see discussed with serious faces and even more serious hairdos on the evening news.

Even Supreme Court rulings depend on executive compliance. Obama has demonstrated several times that he will simply not comply with the law. And a showdown between the law and an executive backed by the media and a parade train of experts, not to mention a completely corrupt Attorney General, will not be a pretty sight.

The mere willingness of the executive branch to operate outside the law acts as a restraint on the Supreme Court's willingness to challenge the executive. That is what FDR managed to accomplish by alternately terrorizing and bypassing the Supreme Court. Obama has shown every sign of being willing to do the same thing. Some liberals are already proposing their own court packing schemes. The Washington Post has an article calling for upping the number of justices from 9 to 19, which is certainly one way to gain a majority.

The left has gotten this far by subverting institutions and it is being increasingly open about not caring for the forms or for anything that interferes with its objectives. As a defense against it, the Supreme Court is a fragile entity. It is meant to serve as a final review for a law-abiding legislature, not for a thuggish executive and a legislature that passes bills without knowing what it is in them. In an era in which the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches have all been warped, none of them can be relied on to do the right thing.

We are in the midst of another Civil War. Not a war of bullets, but a war of laws. And the lawmaking apparatus is a tool for depriving people of rights, not a tool for creating safe spaces for rights. In the firefight, those who want to limit rights through government mandates will have the upper hand. The Supreme Court, as a reviewing body, is less vulnerable to the seduction of legislation than the legislative and executive branches, but it has done its share of legislating, and activist Federal judges are a reliable way of subverting democracy and states' rights.

We can't depend on the Supreme Court to do the right thing, though it can occasionally be an important ally in the struggle to restore the Constitution, the rule of law and the rights of the individual. The ball is not in their court, it is in ours. And it is important that we understand what is at stake. Behind all the policy debates is a simple question. Do we want to be free men and women or will we agree to be slaves?

The final review of every act of government does not come from within the government, but from the people, who have to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable. This is a law of human nature that is not subject to any higher court, only the court of the conscience. Rights and freedoms do not come from government, they come from the people. We have seen how in Egypt, the people chose slavery. That makes it all the more vital to remember that, no matter what we are told, we have a choice, and the greatest power that we have is the knowledge that the choice and the final decision are ours.



A Government of Men, Not Laws 

Shapiro: A Government of Men, Not Laws

By Ben Shapiro

"There is no good government but what is republican," John Adams wrote. "(T)he very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'" Adams meant that a government in which law is applied at the discretion of powerful people is a bad government. The law must be applied in a straightforward, nonarbitrary fashion or the entire governmental system should be called into question.

This week, the Supreme Court called the entire governmental system into question.

A couple of weeks ago, President Obama unilaterally declared that he would cease to enforce major provisions of federal immigration law. Now he's campaigning on that reckless disregard for the constitutional structure. "You can decide whether it's time to stop denying citizenship to responsible young people just because they were brought here as children of undocumented immigrants," he told an audience in Boston. "I know where I stand on this."

Actually, we can't decide. That's because President Obama decided for us. And when we try to decide for ourselves via state governments, we are told that we're violating the constitutional order.

That's precisely what happened in the Supreme Court's decision about Arizona's SB 1070. Essentially, the Court found that the state of Arizona couldn't enforce immigration law, even if the federal government refused to enforce its own immigration law. By this logic, if the federal government passed a law regarding kidnapping across state lines, then refused to enforce it, a state which decided to arrest people for kidnapping at all would be in violation of the Constitution. As Justice Antonin Scalia put it in dissent, "(T)o say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

It does boggle the mind. But not the liberal mind, which is far more interested in placing dictatorial power in the hands of a massive federal government than in preserving the constitutional structure. Every time someone has the gall to mention states' rights, liberals imply that America's just a few steps away from reinstituting slavery; each time somebody has the temerity to suggest that states -- which absorb virtually the entire cost of illegal immigration -- ought to be able to police their own borders when not in conflict with federal law, liberals raise the specter of racial profiling and lynch mobs.

It's sheer nonsense, but it plays into the liberal agenda: maximization of federal power, by any means possible. And the easiest means to maximize federal power is to place unlimited power in the hands of the president of the United States.

There is a danger for liberals, however: What happens if a conservative gains the reins of power? If the executive branch can simply ignore implementation of any law a president doesn't like, how about Obamacare? How about the vast and growing entitlement system?

Liberals don't want to think about this possibility, because theirs is a politics of expedience rather than of principle. While conservatives worry about institutional power, liberals flit from position to position on the issue, depending who is in power. That's a recipe for governmental disaster. Because sooner or later, somebody no one likes will be in power -- and armed with a government free of all checks and balances, he or she will do something truly outrageous. That is, if President Obama hasn't already done so.


Question Posed By Publisher Causes Stir In American COP Magazine

COP Magazine


June 28 : 2012

Question Posed By Publisher Causes Stir In American COP Magazine

San Diego, Calif. - "Would you personally, go out and confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens - even if it goes against your personal opinion regarding the constitutional rights of citizens - and do it on the order of an administrative leader of your agency?"

Appearing in "Will You Do It?" of the July issue of American COP, this contentious question from publisher Roy Huntington is causing quite a stir, and has generated a flurry of comments and emails from police officers at every level.

In response to this query posed by Huntington, Chief D. Crowley of the Winona (Mo.) Police Department wrote, "I will not follow nor issue an order that is unconstitutional, and until the Constitution is amended - and I hope that day never comes - I will continue to protect the gun rights of the citizens I serve."

Sgt. James B. Wielgus of East Stroudsburg, Pa., answered, "We know there are lawful orders, and there are unlawful orders. I would feel no duty to obey what I would know to my core was an unlawful order. I don't care if they discipline me or fire me; I have every faith I would eventually prevail in court."

These steadfast responses represent the majority of emails that Huntington has received, which he considers an encouraging sign.

"I remain impressed by the quality of today's law enforcement officer," Huntington said. "The response we've received regarding my short article once again shows me the depth of thinking going on among the professionals 'out there' policing us."

Huntington promises a follow-up article in a future issue of American COP. Visit to weigh in on this emotive topic.

The July issue also takes a look at vehicle accessories, examines the debate surrounding the death penalty, discusses SIG SAUER maintenance and more.

The Heckler & Koch P200 V2 9mm highlights July's Gun of the Month giveaway, part of an HK Defensive package valued at over $1,350. Outfitted with a universal rail system and modular grip panels the HK P2000 V2 amounts to a premier defensive handgun. The July giveaway also includes the Grayman Dua folder, NcStar's model AQPFLS 120-lumen flashlight/laser, and a VISM Discreet Rifle case, capable of subtly carrying a complete AR-15 A2. Enter for a chance to win the July giveaway at

The American COP all-digital edition is reaching more readers than ever before. For exclusive online content and access to previous editions all the way back to COP's debut issue, sign up for a free digital subscription by visiting

Media Contact:
Roy Huntington (858) 605-0243



Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Obama’s Weakness and the Muslim Brotherhood

Obama’s Weakness and the Muslim Brotherhood

by Kris Zane

Barack Obama is often compared to Jimmy Carter in regards to weakness on the world’s stage (Carter’s signature event of course being the Iran Hostage Crisis.) Obama has literally bowed to Arab leaders and abjectly went around the world apologizing for America, with his apology to Hamid Karzai for the accidental Koran burnings being the height of groveling. Not only was it unseemly in the light of U.S. troops being murdered by Afghan rioters, but it has led to the United States being perceived as weak as well as stoking Arab hatred.

In some ways, we are thankful for Obama’s weakness. In most cases, it has wreaked havoc. When Obama unilaterally demanded Israel return to its 1967 borders, creating an indefensible position, Netanyahu lectured Obama in front of the world. Obama looked on sheepishly as Netanyahu detailed why a return to the 1967 borders would be suicide for Israel. Days before, Obama had vaunted himself before Congress, shocking the world at his demands of the 1967 borders while Netanyahu was en route to the United States. Netanyahu’s scolding exemplified Obama’s weakness, but in this case conservatives cheered as it would have been like signing a death warrant for Israel.

When civil war erupted in Libya and Obama called for Gaddafi’s removal, instead of showing himself to be a strong leader and requesting of Congress approval to engage in a bombing campaign, he sought approval from the UN and even put U.S. forces under NATO rule, implying that the United States was subservient to world bodies.

When huge crowds in Egypt called for Mubarak’s head, Obama was the first to jump on the bandwagon for his removal, even though what it amounted to was mob rule. As many pointed out at the time when Obama stated that “the people have spoken” in regards to the huge crowds in Tahir Square, although the crowd may have been as high one million people, this consisted of 1% of the population. Therefore, it was ludicrous to consider this a public mandate.

Obama’s weakness in regard to throwing Mubarak under the bus, with Mubarak having been a friend to Israel and the United States for decades, has resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood winning the presidential election. The Muslim Brotherhood makes no secret of their desire to annihilate Israel, and Obama, along with the rest of the media, were tone deaf to conservatives’ siren song that Mubarak’s departure could precipitate a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. Muhammed Musri hasn’t even been sworn in, and the Muslim Brotherhood has already attacked Israel. What will happen once they take power?

But we find ourselves in an odd situation, in which the Egyptian military has dissolved parliament- in which the Muslim Brotherhood had won majorities-and are postponing naming Musri the winner of the presidential election. Let's set aside the fact that the grassroots Arab Spring "revolution" was, like our Occupy movement, orchestrated by radicals. Putting aside the fact that we will probably find massive voter fraud, we have to ask ourselves an important question. Is a democratically elected body that literally wants to annihilate Israel and all those who support her preferable to what we had before (a dictatorship that is friendly to both the United States and Israel)? For all of those who are not part of the radical Left-who put ideology above everything else, including possible annihilation-a dictatorship is preferable, which is probably why Obama has kept his mouth shut after the Egyptian military has taken a high hand with the Muslim Brotherhood. If we could have seen what Hitler had planned, even as he was elected democratically, would we have preferred a dictatorship that didn't want to annihilate every Jewish man, woman, and child on Earth? All but the insane and the radical Left would answer in the affirmative.

Obama’s weakness has gone beyond potentially placing Islamic radicals in power in Egypt. His weakness has reached our own shore, whereby he has gutted our military, made us financially dependent on China with $5T owed to a communist government, and refused to allow drilling for oil (which has made us more dependent on Arab and South American dictators for our energy supply.) We all remember Obama going around the country blathering about how the U.S. only had 2% of the world’s oil, when experts now say we are sitting on levels that could rival the total reserves of the entire Middle East.

Obama’s weakness is an anomaly, as Marxists tend to rule with an iron fist—Stalin being the one most call to mind when thinking of a Marxist dictator. Contrary to Obama’s denials from 2008 on, he was a member of the Marxist's New Party, and we now know the exact date he joined. The New Party was run by individuals associated with everyone from the “moderate” Democratic Socialists of America, to Communist Party spinoff Committees of Correspondence.

Why then is Obama so weak on the world stage? Why, at the recent G20 Economic Summit in Mexico, did Russian president Vladimir Putin slap down Obama’s demands for Russia to back the U.S.’s call for Syrian President al-Assad to step down and Russia to stop arming and supporting Syria? Putin not only lectured Obama like a wayward school boy (where at one point Obama has a look on his face like a child that has had his ice cream taken away) but plans on conducting war games with Syria that will include Iran and China! Jimmy Carter’s weakness in regards to the Iran Hostage Crisis, compared to Obama creating a powder keg in the region, makes Carter look like a Mafia strongman.

The reason is that Obama is part of the “Democratic Socialists” variety of Marxists, which means people get to vote on what Marxists policies they want—that is, when the elites decide they can vote. This brand of Marxism gives the illusion of tolerance and democracy, when in fact it is not the tyranny of one, but the tyranny of an oligarchical body. Thus, we have Obama’s shadow government of unaccountable czars with unlimited power and Cabinet members that rule by regulatory fiat, exemplified by the Western European countries that are crumbling before our eyes. That is, rule by technocrats and bureaucrats combined with Marxists ideology leads to the slow demise of a country and abject weakness, most notably in the leader of the country.

We see Democratic Socialism in action with the HHS mandate that Catholic Church organizations should pay for condoms, sterilization, and abortifacients, where Congress got to vote on the source of this abomination—i.e., ObamaCare—but didn’t get to vote on the regulatory apparatus that was spawned from the 2400 page law. Nor, after the Catholic Church and public backlash, when Obama deemed that insurance companies should pick up the tab for “free” abortions, etc., to salve Catholics’ consciences, which was an equally repugnant assault on private enterprise.

The anomaly is that in regards to the American people, in regards to Congress, even in regards to the Supreme Court with Obama’s veiled threats associated with ObamaCare, Obama is ironfisted, unstoppable, and unaccountable. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, has repeatedly lied to Congress. Fast and Furious has sent hundreds of guns to Mexican drug cartels and is responsible for hundreds of dead Mexican citizens, and at least one American citizen. Yet Holder is still the chief law enforcement officer in the land because Obama continues to support him through an iron fist.

That is the anomaly.

That Obama is so weak on the world stage, but so strong to be able to stop his removal from his throne for everything from destroying our economy, usurping Congress, leaking national secrets, gutting our military, and even presenting false identity documents.

If the United States survives Obama’s destruction of this country, scholars will long study the anomaly known as Barack Hussein Obama and why America kept him in power so long.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath


   See all comments