Thoughts on Obamacare

on Thursday, June 28, 2012

This morning the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in a 5-4 vote that Obamacare is legally within the bounds of the US Constitution, and that the mandate in question - in which the federal government can force a citizen to buy a product from a private corporation regardless of whether they want it or will use it - is considered to be a legal tax.

The most interesting part of this decision is that the usual wild card, Justice Kennedy, actually sided with the conservatives and Chief Justice Roberts (who was appointed by George W. Bush) defected to the left and sided with the progressives in the court. That means that a supposed Republican SCOTUS justice was the deciding vote in keeping Obamacare alive. Conservatives: Ponder that for a moment...

Let me be clear: This was never a health CARE bill, it is and always was a health INSURANCE bill. The health care act was not written to improve the quality of health care, nor provide better access to it (under current federal law, nobody is denied emergency health care in this country, regardless of citizenship or financial means).

Since day one, Obama and the progressives in congress have repeatedly argued that Obamacare's mandate was not a tax and that the fine for not buying insurance was allowed under the commerce clause (which is a clause in the US Constitution that has been severely perverted from its intended purpose when penned by the founding fathers). Interestingly, however, SCOTUS determined that the commerce clause jurisprudence is too limited to provide congress with this ability, but that the taxing and spending clause of the US Constitution allows them to treat the penalty of not buying health insurance as a tax. In other words, Obama and Pelosi's congress were wrong about why Obamacare is "legal", but they get to keep Obamacare anyway.

A few of my idiot liberal friends have claimed that this has been done before; drivers are required to buy car insurance and citizens are required to pay taxes for public schools even if their children attend private schools. But anyone who spent 5 minutes paying attention in 9th grade civics class knows that these are not the same thing. Car insurance is required by the states, not the federal government, and is not required to be purchased by those who choose not to participate in the system (i.e. those who use public transport, etc). Same with the school taxes; these are state taxes that are allowed under the 10th amendment. Yet here we have a federal government who feels that they can now apply that principle to themselves and then trump the rights off the states, which is exactly the opposite of what the founders wrote in both the Bill or Rights and the federalist papers.

Instead of "enumerated powers" (the founding fathers' words, not mine) we now have a federal government without limits.

Liberals are pretty excited today, but they are so blindly enthused by all of this that they have not taken the time to reflect on the dangerous legal precedent that has been set today by the highest court in the land. What SCOTUS did this morning was to say that congress now has the ability to tax behavior. Inactivity - DOING NOTHING - is now a taxable event. This creates a terrifying slippery slope, and I'll explain why: Imagine if the federal government decides next year that obesity is costing America too much and so they mandate that all citizens buy a gym membership, or else pay a tax. Also, they must buy at least 8 pounds of vegetables each time they shop, or face a tax. And two years from now if GM starts struggling under the burdening weight of union demands again, the federal government can decide that you must buy cars only from GM or Ford, or else pay a tax. Some may scoff at such notions, but such a scenario just happened 9 hours ago - the federal government just told you to go do something you might not have wanted (or could afford) to do, or else they will tax you.

This is not a win for Democrats. Imagine the reaction from Democrats when a theoretical Republican-controlled congress 5 years from now states studies have proven that both gun and Bible ownership reduce crime and so they pass a law which requires all Americans to buy a gun and a Bible, or else face a tax. The same precedent they are cheering today will some day come back and bite them in the butt. It's tragic that such a precedent now even exists in a supposed "free" country. Even Obama once said that such mandates like the one upheld today is not the way to deal with such a situation.

Now, let's take a step back for a moment and understand that just because something is legal, it doesn't mean that it's a good idea. The non-partisan CBO has scored the health care bill and determined on multiple occasions that our country cannot afford it.

And to my liberal friends I ask: If this bill was so great for the American public, why did you have to twist the rules to pass it? If this bill was so great for the American public, why did you have to result to tricks such as changing the language in the bill in order to use reconciliation in the senate chambers which would have allowed the bill to pass with less votes? If this bill was so great for the American public, why did you have to use taxpayer money to bribe congressmen to vote for it? If this bill was so great for the American public, why was the American public repeatedly lied to  by everyone behind this disaster - including the president himself - that this would not raise taxes or insurance premiums... and that this wasn't a tax when that is exactly what SCOTUS determined it to be? You were lied to, but you chose to foolishly buy off on it anyway. And today you are cheering one of the largest tax increases in this country's history.

And to those who feel that the "general welfare" clause in the US Constitution permits this, please answer me this: If the founders felt that congress could do whatever they felt was good and for the "general welfare" of the country, then why did they spend all that time writing all the other limitations to the federal government in the US Constitution? If that's all they intended, why not just write that one sentence and be done with it?

Is there any good news here? Perhaps. While the commerce clause has now been restricted, Democrats in congress can no longer hide behind it to impose their regressive spending agenda; they will now have to be upfront with the American public and admit what they are and always have been - massive taxers. Similarly, Barack Obama has now officially violated his pre-election pledge that he will not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 a year. Let's be honest, this health care law is not targeted towards the wealthy (who have plenty of means to acquire health care). This law is targeted toward punishing the lower and middle classes if they cannot afford (or choose not to purchase) health insurance. Almost all of you reading this can come back to this post 2 years from now and see that you are currently paying more for health care than you were today. Your insurance premiums are about to go through the roof. Along with your bank account, all this bill did was destroy liberty and freedom.

Voters will remember that in 4 months.

Still Here, Still Not a Fan of this Administration

on Friday, May 11, 2012

Since we're coming up on an election season I figured I'd dust off the ol' blog here and re-enlist in the fight to end amateur hour at the White House. You can again expect posts here regularly.

No, I haven't changed my opinion of President Obama's administration since we last met. I still believe the president is and always has been in way over his head, totally unprepared for the challenges he promised to fix 3 and a half years ago. In that same 3 years Obama took an evil, failed, discredited political system - Bolshevism - and mutated it into a 4-year spending spree that bore little fruit. And when questioned on why his plans to fix the economy failed, he often segues the conversation by talking about how rich Mitt Romney is. Apparently I'm supposed to be more concerned about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine.

Barack Obama himself once said, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things." Being a student of Saul Alinsky - the man who dedicated his book to Satan - Obama will embrace this Alinskyian "Rules for Radical's" tactic to the fullest. This is precisely why Obama is doing everything he can to avoid talking about the economy by, instead, endlessly bringing up stupid 30-year-old stories about Mitt Romney's dog. Today's Rasmussen Poll - a pollster who nailed the 2008 election, btw - has Mitt Romney beating Obama at 50-43 (note that the link I pointed you to changes daily). Furthermore, 65% of those polled are "angry" at the policies of the federal government. Even Bill Clinton recently referred to Obama as an "amateur". Obama's re-election chances are in real trouble, folks. And he knows it. Prepare for pointless, daily distractions about Mitt Romney's past until November. You've been warned.

Look, let's face it: It was the young people of this nation who got Obama elected in 2008. They fell for the phony promises of "Hope and Change" which, in hindsight, turned out to be nothing more than "Hype and Lies". Many of these same young people can't find a job. They've lost mortgages, paid higher taxes, and have lost even more freedoms. They have now tasted socialism and seen its evil face and are learning they have no desire for it. Untold scores of people who voted for the president have stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and now have buyer's remorse. And it's their own fault. We tried to warn them in 2008, but this is what they decided to vote for and this is what they got.

November is our one chance to reverse course. And we'll be doing all we can on this blog to help that happen.

Vacationer-in-Chief

on Friday, August 13, 2010

Unemployment is still high. Our country is literally being invaded by illegal immigrants. GDP growth is still falling. Iran is about to build a nuke. The oil spill is still not permanently capped. And this year's deficit ALONE is $1.4 trillion.

So what's Obama doing to fix it all? He'll be taking his fifth vacation since July (remember: it's only the beginning of August!) :

There they go again. For the fifth time since July, the first family has set plans to board Air Force One for a frilly vacation, a 10-day return trip to exclusive Martha's Vineyard where they are expected to stay at the 28-acre oceanfront Blue Heron Farm that rents for up to $50,000 a week.
Nuance!

This from the same guy who once said (referring to Americans cutting back during the recession) "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times."

President Obama is a tool.

Tu Quoque

on Thursday, July 22, 2010

I swear to you, if MSNBC makes reference to racism in the "all white" Tea Party movement one more time, the universe may very well just implode on itself.

They would be wise to recall that the $100,000 bounty that Andrew Breitbart offered for un-doctored proof of accused racism at tea parties has still not been claimed by anyone. Why? Because no such un-doctored evidence exists.

Look, I don't support everything the Tea Party does. But I'm tired of the media dictating that anyone who supports limited, effective government and opposes high taxes and wasteful government spending is a racist. Conservatives have been against spending since the 1970s... if it wasn't racist then, why is it now?

By the way, MSNBC, next time take a look at your own television lineup before spouting out references about the Tea Party movement being "all white"


(click to enlarge the image)

The Ultimate Power Grab

on Friday, June 18, 2010

In the last 2 years the government (who has YET to successfully manage any endeavor of its own) has taken over virtually every business enterprise in the United States. First it was the banking industry. Then mortgages. Then insurance companies. Then the auto companies. Then the health care industry. And right now they are in the process of attempting to take over the energy industry.

...so what's next on their plate? The internet:

The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to take another step toward reclassifying the way it regulates Internet service providers, releasing a plan for public comment that would give the federal agency vast new powers over companies that distribute Web access...

The FCC currently classifies Internet service providers — namely AT&T, Comcast and Verizon — as information services, leaving them largely exempt from regulation. The vote today is the first step toward re-classifying the companies to a new and more restrictive category within the FCC code.
They've hinted at doing this since Obama took office, but knew that the Supreme Court would overrule any such legislation.

Obama's solution to that pesky obstacle called the Supreme Court? Just go around them. By declaring the internet as a public utility, the FCC would then already have the authority to regulate the internet - the last headquarters of free speech left on earth.

Look at the list of business sectors listed in the first paragraph... notice something they all have in common? They are all industries that were either a) failing, or b) experiencing some major problems. But what's wrong with the internet? Nothing. There's no fire. Broadband access has increased exponentially over the last 10 years, consumers have a wide variety of providers at all levels of pricing, and the internet's wide-open access allows for competition without the pre-emption of other competitors (i.e. one website doesn’t preclude another from operating).

So why in the world does the government want to control the internet? It's simple: They want to control the message you are receiving. China does the very same thing when controversial or politically unpopular events occur. When such events arise, they just use their kill switch to shut the entire internet down so that their citizens can't get information.

Obama and his Mao-loving cronies hate the new media (the internet, conservative talk-radio, and FoxNews). He has singled-out and verbally slandered people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity, while saying nothing about the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (on the contrary - he continuously invites them to private meetings and dinners at his home). The government told people not to visit the Drudge Report website on the totally bogus grounds that there was a virus on the site (there wasn't). He actually declared war on FoxNews and even hired (with your tax dollars) Anita Dunn to sit in her office and listen to talk-radio all day in order to combat it (until she was forced out of the White House for saying her favorite political philosopher was uber-communist Chairman Mao - a man who killed 5x more people than Hitler). And just a few weeks ago he told people on the right to read Huffingtonpost, but notice he never asked leftists to read Drudge, Michelle Malkin, Ace, or HotAir.

But none of these methods have worked. So Obama is going all in with every chip he has left on the table. If he can't persuade people to stop reading the conservative perspective, he'll just force them to stop reading it instead.

I used to think that Obama was just an inexperienced leftist who was making dumb decisions based on his naïveté. But now I know that this is all calculated.

Upon hearing about this news yesterday, a colleague remarked that Obama is just like Jimmy Carter. But I disagree: Jimmy Carter was stupid, but Obama is evil - there's a big difference.

As far back as the 1960s Ezra Taft Benson, who was serving as the Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower, recalled an experience he had with communist leader Nikita Khrushchev who remarked that his (Benson's) American grandchildren would one day live under communism. When Secretary Benson challenged him, Khrushchev replied, "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright. But we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism."

Taking over the internet; this is how freedom dies.

Obama: Nikita Khrushchev's hero...

US Constitution Now Shipping with a Disclaimer

on Thursday, June 10, 2010

...cuz, you know, it's just some old document that has no meaning today, or something.

Wilder Publishing is now adding the following disclaimer to copies of the United States Constitution on Amazon.com:

This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.
Here's a screenie if you need to see it with your own eyes to believe it. Question: According to this work's publisher, what could be better than placing a disclaimer on the Constitution? Answer: Adding the same disclaimer to the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, Thomas Payne's Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and several other historical documents and works.

I've long believed that political correctness will be the downfall of this nation, I just didn't think it would happen so quickly. Although at the same time, I cant say I'm surprised. After all, we DID elect as president a man who was voted as THE most liberal in the entire United States Senate; a progressive free-thinker so obsessed with political correctness that, instead of honoring D-Day this past Sunday, he chose instead to throw his second party in the past week at Ford Theatre to honor anti-Semitic pro-Arab Muslim terrorist Desmond Tutu, who once had this fun Hitler-esque ethnic cleansing quote to say about the Jews:

Territorial ambition is equally illegal [when] it occurs in slow motion, as with the Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories...

The United States has a distinct responsibility to intervene in atrocities committed by its client states, and since Israel is the single largest recipient of U.S. arms and foreign aid, an end to the occupation [of the Jews in the Middle East -ed.] should be a top concern.
With disclaimers now shipping on copies of the Constitution, and with our Commander-in-Chief skipping D-Day to instead honor a terrorist who consistently trashes America, I'd say this nation is now officially completely backwards. And who can say they're surprised? After all, didn't Obama promise his entire campaign that he was going to "change" America?

Final thoughts: President Obama, trying to quell accusations that he's emotionally UNinvolved in the recent oil spill in the gulf, had this rather childish, immature, and non-presidential attack on a singled-out private entity the other day in an interview on NBC's Today show:

I was down there a month ago, before most of these talkin’ heads were even paying attention to the gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standin’ in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. and I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.
If President Obama is looking for someone's "ass to kick", he should start with his own.

Obama's Priorities

on Friday, June 4, 2010

President Obama promised Americans that the gulf oil spill was his "singular" priority and that it's "what [he] wakes up to in the morning" and "what [he] goes to bed at night thinking about".

But Kevin Kristy over at PolitiPage doesn't agree - and has the pictures to prove it:



In case you weren't able to tally all that up, here is the unofficial count of Obama's activities since the oil spill began:

  • 7 days of golf
  • 6 sports events
  • 6 days of campaigning
  • 6 days of vacation
  • 4 commemorations (graduations, Cinco de Mayo, et al.)
  • 3 days of fundraising for his Democrat pals
  • 2 days of media events (White House Correspondents Dinner and meets with Bono for some reason - and that doesn't include the VIP dinner with Paul McCartney he had the other night)


  • Could you imagine the seizure the left would have had if, during Katrina, Bush went golfing 7 times, went to half a dozen sporting events, and hosted several parties - all while squeezing multiple vacations into the mix?? Had Bush done what Obama has done, the left would have wet straight through its pants and there would not be enough voltage on planet earth to electroshock them back into coherence. Clearly a double-standard is being showcased here.

    Now, in all fairness, perhaps Obama spent a few hours during some of those days discussing the oil spill with his staff before heading off to a BBQ... But that list of recreational activities above isn't going to convince the American voters that the oil spill has been his "singular" priority meme. After all, it took him 36 days before answering any questions from the press about the matter, and only did so because he thought the "top kill" method had worked and wanted to claim the victory for himself. But only after it was revealed that the "top kill" method had actually been halted the night before he claimed its victory did he begin to distance himself from the relief efforts again (which begs another question: How is it, Mr. President, that you claimed that BP didn't act unless it got approval from your administration first, yet you went on TV and didn't even know that "top kill" had been stopped roughly 12 hours earlier?)

    Quite frankly, I don't think the right would be hounding him on this so hard if he (and the rest of the left) hadn't been pulverizing Bush into a fine paste over Katrina for the past 5 years. But let this be a lesson to the left: You can't set the bar at 9 feet for President Bush, and then expect to lower it back to 3 feet once your party gets elected to the helm. If your argument over the past 5 years was that Bush was at fault for the mishandling of Katrina, then you reap the fruits of your labors when Obama gets to face the music while today the oil spill is just as bad as it was 45 days ago.

    I Win

    on Tuesday, March 2, 2010

    I have taken a lot of flak over the years for not believing in anthropogenic global warming. But after the series of devastating blows to Al Gore's religion over the last few months, I can't help but enjoy the schadenfreude as I watch crazy ol' uncle Al still try to espouse the validity of his global warming Bible after the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were just tossed out.

    Here's a recap of the last few months in case you missed it:


    A series of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that the scientists at the Climate Research Unit intentionally manipulated data and used "tricks" to "hide the decline" and even threw out their data so that they couldn't be fact-checked (a direct violation of England's Freedom of Information Act 2000). The East Anglia CRU was also caught using sub-par computer modeling methods to further skew their findings (terms like 'fudge factor' were explicitly written right into their BASIC code)

    • NOAA “homogenization” data falsified climate facts by turning the declines into increases

    • According to the University of Bristol, there has been no rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years. They also make the point that most of the CO2 we emit does not reach the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems

    • The IPCC withdraws its claim that global warming will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035. Furthermore, IPCC frontman Rajendra Pachauri later admitted that he knew that the Himalayan claim was a lie for months, yet intentioanlly failed to mention it in the weeks leading up to the international Copenhagen climate summit

    • Data showing that mountain glaciers were melting was actually based on unsubstantiated college student theses that were not peer-reviewed, as well as anecdotes from a mountain climber magazine (hardly what one would call "scientific sources"). Once this was discovered, researchers looked into the IPCC's footnotes more carefully and found that close to a dozen more college student dissertations were cited as authoritative scientific research

    • Reports that 40% of the Amazonian rainforests were going to become extinct due to climate change were actually falsified by the WWF (a climate advocacy group), and came from a magazine instead of an authoritative scientific source. The original scientific data stated that 40% of Amazonian rainforests could become extinct because of loggers, before the WWF replaced the word "loggers" with the words "climate change"

    • The disgraced head researcher at East Anglia's CRU was forced to admit on record that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Furthermore, scientists believe that the medieval warming period temperatures may have been global, thereby undermining entire anthropogenic global warming argument

    • The Siberian dendroclimatology tree ring study which, according to global warming advocates, quantified their belief in the hockey-stick graph, actually came from only one single cherry-picked tree (dubbed YADO61) because it supported their claim. And if that's not enough, there is also mounting evidence that the practice of hand-picking only the data that supports global warming has been occuring for years now.

    • The report claiming that African crops were going to wither has since been exposed as a completely false claim

    • IPCC scientists purposely excluded Southern Hemisphere data in order to exaggerate the effects of global warming on hurricanes. Peer-reviewed research has since cast even further doubt on global warming and its relationship with hurricanes


    Al Gore and his fraudulent accomplices have desperately tried to discount this devastating series of blows by arguing that "well, while some human errors have been made, it still doesn't disprove global warming, right? Right??"

    To this rather asinine retort, I counter: How can that hold true if EVERY SINGLE CLAIM that was intended to quantify anthropogenic global warming over the past 10 years has being debunked one by one? More glaciers are growing than are melting. The polar bears are still around. The sea level hasn't risen. Crops aren't burning up. And countries all across the globe are experiencing their coldest, snowiest winters on record.

    Face it, Al. If it walks like a Winter, talks like a Winter, and feels like a Winter - it ain't Summer. And there's nothing you or your Nobel Prize can do to change that fact.

    Heh

    on Sunday, November 1, 2009

    Barack Obama, November 2008: "Change We Can Believe In"

    Barack Obama, November 2009: "Change is Hard"

    Underpromise, Overdeliver

    on Thursday, October 29, 2009

    ...at least that's what my father always taught me. Yet it seems that this administration has consistently done just the opposite. They promised to be the most transparent administration ever. They promised to post each bill on a website for several days before allowing Congress to vote on it so that the pubic would have the chance to properly vet it first. They promised to be decisive in Afghanistan. They promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.

    And yet now, a full 9 months after that sweet quesadilla-flavored "hope and change" reached the White House, we have yet to see the president keep a single one of those promises. This White House has been more secretive than any in modern history, with Congress going as far as to not even allow Repubicans into the room when bills are being drafted. They have not yet posted any major legislation online, nor allowed the public sufficient time to read it (in fact, even Congress themselves haven't been reading the bills before signing them). It's been over a month since General McCrystal begged Obama to send additional troops to Afghanistan "lest we lose", but Obama has yet to act (I guess he's been too busy spending more time on the golf course in 9 months than Bush did in 3 years and making commercials for George Lopez's new show on TBS). And as for taxes, the cap and trade (global warming) legislation that passed this past summer is expected to increase the average American's taxes by $1,800 a year - including everybody making less than $250,000 a year. And don't forget to carry the one into the next column when adding into that figure the fact that Obama is going to intentionally allow the Bush tax cuts to expire...

    ...and now we have the economy. Obama and crew promised that, if we passed his crappy $1 trillion stimulus (yes, that's trillion with a 'T'), unemployment would not exceed 8% and that millions of jobs would be saved. Yet unemployment is now expected to be at 10% before year's end with the possibility to go even higher. And according to the White House's own estimate, the stimulus only saved a measly 30,000 jobs - a figure that even the AP admits is actually an overestimate to the tune of about 5,000 jobs.

    But if all you did today was watch MSNBC or follow any other sycophantic Obama-loving media outlet, you'd think that today's news that the GDP grew by 3.5% last quarter signals that Obama has healed all.

    You couldn't be more wrong.

    Home sales fell (again) last month and home inventories are not growing. Reconcile that with the fact that the housing tax credits expire in a few weeks, and you've got a recipe for disaster in the housing market for the next few quarters. And according to the Reuters column linked above, business investment fell 2.5% while investment nonresidential structures dropped 9%. Jobless claims are still holding steady as well.

    "But Mike, why you gotta so pessimistic, man? This president has done some good things for the economy. Like Cash for Clunkers, man. That was a success. LOL"

    You mean the Cash for Clunkers program that took billions of taxpayer dollars and sent them to Japan and Korea? Read what Edmunds has to say today about Cash for Clunkers:

    A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com...

    The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales.
    Read the whole article if you wish to know how they calculated which cars "would have sold anyway". But basically Edmunds sums up to the fact that we spent almost as much as the cost of an average new car to incentivize each legitimate new sale. How in the world is that smart economics? And now that those who were in the car market have purchased, new car inventories will sit stale on the showroom floors this next year. And instead of allowing lower income families to purchase the old clunkers, the government just destroyed them instead to keep Al Gore happy, meaning that 700,000 less cars are available on the market right now for families struggling through the recession. Brilliant, Washington.

    So to those who voted for hopenchange last year I ask: Is this the kind of change you can believe in?