text:
Posts Tagged 'Are you serious?'
ObamaCare Declared Unconstitutional – Not That Democrats Give A Damn About The Constitution
ObamaCare is unconstitutional. But Democrats could frankly care less what that meaningless moldy old document says.
Twenty-six states demanded that ObamaCare be declared unconstitutional in this decision, not counting Virginia which previously got its own successful decision against ObamaCare.
Federal District Judge Roger Vinson's incredibly well-reasoned Constitution-based decision is available here.
A good article on this story was written by David Whelan for Forbes:
Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled today that the primary mechanism used by the health reform legislation to achieve universal insurance coverage–the individual mandate–is illegal. If his ruling stands it would void the 2,700 page, $938 billion health reform bill passed last year.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson writes.
With this ruling, and a similar one in December by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, it's likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of whether ObamaCare stands. Two other lawsuits–one in Michigan and one in Virginia–were thrown out by other federal district judges last year who ruled the constitutional challenge lacked merit.
Most analysts were expecting a ruling in favor of the 26 states hoping to overturn the bill. Vinson, in an earlier ruling, suggested that the federal fine for not buying insurance is more of a penalty than a tax. If it's a penalty, the legislation relies on a broad interpretation of federal regulatory powers. If it's a tax, as the Department of Justice's lawyers argued, it's much more difficult to make a constitutional objection.
In today's ruling Vinson considered two arguments made by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit. The first was the legislation forces states to expand Medicaid in a way that's unaffordable. Vinson quickly dispatches that legal theory, pointing out that Medicaid is and always has been a voluntary program.
The second argument revolves around the individual mandate. The health reform legislation makes it illegal for insurers to discriminate against patients regardless of their health. With that change there's a risk that only sick people would buy insurance and healthy people would wait or be priced out of the market. To address that problem, the bill forces everyone who does not have insurance to buy it. The combination of "guaranteed issue" and the "individual mandate" is the beating heart of the health bill.
While the new rules banning medical underwriting are popular, the individual mandate has bred resentment. The bill's authors never anticipated the mandate would become a ripe target for legal challenges.
The argument that's had the most traction is based on the limitations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause explicitly allows the federal government regulate interstate commerce. But it also has been used to justify federal laws that affect other kinds of economic activity. The question raised by the lawsuit against the health reform bill is whether refusing to buy insurance constitutes interstate commerce. In his ruling Vinson says that in the past the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate activities like growing marijuana or navigating a waterway, but not used to force someone to do something they weren't already doing. "It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause," he writes.
Vinson rejects the administration's argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: "Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily." If they didn't buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.
Later he offers another analogy: "Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business." Vinson concludes: "The individual mandate exceeds Congress' commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law."
Judge Vinson marshalled quite a few opinions against ObamaCare. Interestingly, one of them was Obama's himself.
From the Washington Times:
In ruling against President Obama's health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama's own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that 'if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'" Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Democrats have established quite a recent history in thumbing their noses at the Constitution.
Charles Krauthammer had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th about Democrats literally boycotting the reading of the Constitution on the House floor:
KRAUTHAMMER: "It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document. The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous. Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.
The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas. For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics."
It wasn't just "bad politics." Krauthammer underscored that better than anyone. It was contemptible citizenship. It was the act of unAmerican people.
One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution "propaganda," adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to "total nonsense." He added that Republicans were reading it "like a sacred text." When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper. Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written "a hundred years ago," and that it is no longer binding. Obviously, liberal Ezra Klein is an ignorant fool.
It is beyond official at this point. We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people. And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.
UnAmericans don't give a damn about America. They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it. They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been. And they call their effort "hope and change."
Mind you, that's "hope and change" in the direction set by Karl Marx; never the one set by George Washington.
A Muslim extremist named Tayyip Erdogan had this to say about democracy, comparing democracy to a bus: "You ride it to your destination, and then you step off." Democrats were elected democratically; and then they started imposing their 2,700 pages of fascism using every procedural gimmick in the book. Nancy Pelosi actually said:
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Let's take another bus tour to how we got ObamaCare shoved down our throat:
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:
(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:
Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.
Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:
Questioner: "If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government's ability to tell us how to run our private lives?"
Rep. Stark: "I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people."
Questioner: "The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states. The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can't they do?"
Rep. Stark: "The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country."
Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:
Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than "penumbras and emanations" discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document. Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition. Because it never was about the Constitution or even about any right to privacy; it was always about using whatever rhetorical argument they wanted to get the result they wanted. So they said we had a right to privacy until the right to privacy got in their way.
If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship? How do you stop tyranny? How do you stop totalitarian big government?
And let's consider a corresponding Democrat's statement on the same subject of government health care:
Democrat Rep. John Dingell:
"The harsh fact of the matter is when you're passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."
And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.
Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:
Carnahan: "We're going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running. And I will tell you no one's going to know who they are, but it's not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you're supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them. And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party. So I'm quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote." […]
Donor: "You just don't sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account."
Carnahan: "What do you think?" (Audience laughter)
Donor: "I think you're right." (Audience laughter)
Here's the Youtube audio of that exchange:
Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats. And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.
And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.
Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on "The Stephanie Miller Show" on 9/30/2010:
"Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
All that stuff that I think that, that that's an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.
They embrace the Tenth Amendment – 'tenthers,' you know?"
The audio of the interview is available here.
That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?
Let's just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for. Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.
Yeah, that's right. Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky. Call me a "tenther" like I'm a "birther" or a "truther" or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people "extreme" because they actually take their Constitution seriously. But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here). This is a woman who said:
"A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer" – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).
Marxism and communism is not extreme. Nope. It's not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy. What's "extreme" is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.
Democrats spent over a year imposing 2,700 pages of unconstitutional "laws" upon a people who never wanted it. And now, amazingly, they're demanding that Republicans merely recognize that it's done and over with, and move on.
Fortunately, Republicans DO care about the Constitution. And they're going to fight Democrats for the soul of this country.
If Democrats give a damn about the American people, they will join Republicans in demanding that this verdict go immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final judgment. Rule 11 of the Supreme Court allows particularly important cases that are of imperative public importance to gain such an emergency hearing. But only if both sides agree. If Democrats don't demand this, they will continue to do even more harm in keeping the American people in the dark about how to plan. Businesses will continue to hold off on hiring, and the economy will continue to suffer until this decision is finalized.
Tags:26 states, adversely impacting commerce, and then you step off, Are you serious?, buy a General Motors automobile, Carnahan, Commerce clause, Constitution, Dingell, economic activity, every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, Florida, food market, George Washington, if a mandate was the solution, imperative public importance, individual mandate, insurers, involuntary, Judge Roger Vinson, Karl Marx, mandate, Medicaid, Obamacare, overturn, Pensacola, right to privacy, Rule 11, Schakowsky, single-payer, taxpayer-subsidized business, Tea Party, Tenth Amdendment, the federal government can do almost anything in this country, to control the people, U.S. district court, unconstitutional, void, voluntary program, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, You ride it to your destination
Posted in Barack Obama, Conservative Issues, Democrats, first Jeremiah Wright term, health care, Politics, Supreme Court, United States | 4 Comments »
UnAmerican Democrats Actually Boycotted The U.S. Constitution
Incredibly, many Democrats actually boycotted the House floor yesterday as Republicans read the U.S. Constitution aloud. Not all of them – Nancy Pelosi was one who joined the Republicans in reading a section of the Constitution – but enough to make it clear that Democrats have a problem with the foundational document of the United States of America.
You would have thought that Republicans were reading child pornography rather than the document upon which our entire political system is based, and which every elected official – and which every soldier, airman, sailor and Marine – takes a sacred oath to defend.
Unlike Democrats, when I raised my hand and swore that –
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" –
I actually meant it.
Charles Krauthammer, brilliant as usual, had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th:
And, of course, it's not just "bad politics." Krauthammer underscores that better than anyone. It is contemptible citizenship. It is the act of unAmerican people.
Too many Democrats despicably wanted nothing to do with this document that made America the greatest and freest nation in the history of the human race. They have a very different vision for this landmass known as "North America" than the great men who wrote the United States Constitution had.
One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution "propaganda," adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to "total nonsense." He added that Republicans were reading it "like a sacred text." When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper. Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written "a hundred years ago," and that it is no longer binding.
Mind you, that's "hope and change" for Karl Marx; never for George Washington.
I think this is a good time to reprint an article I wrote last year:
Just Remember: Democrats Don't Give A DAMN About The Constitution Or Any Limits On Their Power
By Michael Eden
Do Democrats respect the Constitution, or recognize any constitutional limits on their power? You decide.
Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than "penumbras and emanations" discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document. Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.
Take a moment and contemplate the massive gulf in respect for the Constitution and willingness to place oneself under in in two remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts and now President Barack Obama:
Chief Justice John Roberts:
"I had someone ask me in this process — I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, 'Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?' And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath."
President Barack Obama:
I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
Here's the Youtube audio of Obama saying that:
Now, Obama says he doesn't think it's contradictory to say that the Constitution was a remarkable political document, but to simultaneously argue that it was fundamentally flawed and had an enormous blind spot. But he couldn't be more wrong: because he is arguing that the Constitution is a document that is fundamentally flawed, and which can and should be changed. And rather than actually try to change it, he merely ignores it, ignores the spirit of it, and proceeds to impose his own "superior" and "more enlightened" will upon it.
Barack Obama:
"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution..."
And here's the Youtube of that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
And that's what Obama wants: he wants to be that radical who finally breaks free from those "essential constraints" that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. And how does he want to do that? By "reinterpreting" the Constitution in a radically different way that enables liberals to virtually bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their superior, more enlightened, more modern will upon the nation and the people.
Obama acknowledges that the Constitution doesn't permit the "redistribution of wealth." But that trivial, meaningless little detail doesn't stop him from doing it. Constitution schmonstitution. Who really gives a damn about it?
Dinesh D'Souza has a piece on how Obama thinks. And it turns out that Obama thinks exactly like an African anti-colonialist Marxist. And Obama himself implicitly acknowledges that, receiving his "dreams from his father."
Liberal-progressive Supreme Court icon Thurgood Marshall expressed the quintessential liberal judicial activist view toward the Constitution in his statement:
"You do what you think is right and let the law catch up" (see Deborah L. Rhode, "A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up," in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).
But to put it bluntly, that's exactly what Hitler did. Hitler thought it was "right" to kill every single Jew on the planet. And any law and anything whatsoever that got in his way be damned. He thought history would catch up with him in the aftermath of his glorious Reich and judge him wise.
Contrast what John Roberts believed with the liberal judicial activist view: one is under the Constitution, and rules in accordance with it's strict, historical interpretation. The other rules however the hell they want, based on what they "think is right," regardless of what the law says.
And what is frightening is that Barack Obama appointed a new Supreme Court Justice – Elena Kagan – whose most profound mentor was none other than Thurgood Marshall.
It's easy to be "constitutional" when you have a "living, breathing document" view that necessarily forces the Constitution to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any given moment.
I simply want to point out to you that the liberal progressives who now form the backbone of the Democrat Party despise the founding fathers, despise the Constitution, despise individual human freedom, and frankly despise anything and anyone that gets in the way between them and absolute power.
Please remember that fact when you vote this November.
And, thank God, most Americans DID remember that fact. And Constitution-hating unAmerican Democrats experienced the worst defeat of any political party in over 70 years.
The problem is that Democrats are like the leaven that Jesus talked about when describing the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders of His day. A little leaven of Democrat vileness leavens the whole lump of dough.
Let me ask a question: why did the incoming Republicans make it their first act to read the Constitution on the floor of the House, when it has never before been done? The answer is because the Democrats in dictatorial control of the government spent the last two years crapping all over that Constitution. And, yes, it is time we brought that great document back and started treating it like it was something sacred. Because our futures depend on it.
John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Clearly, Democrats are neither moral nor religious, and therefore the Constitution of the United States is now "inadequate" for them.
These people and everything they stand for must be rejected and repudiated. It is either the Constitution or the Democrats, because the two have become fundamentally incompatible with one another.
Tags:a hundred years old, African, anti-colonialist, Are you serious?, Barack Obama, binding, blind spot, boycott, breathing, confusing, Constitution, Constitution Party, Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot, Democrats, dictatorship, didn't break free, Dinesh D'Souza, Elena Kagan, essential constraints, Ezra Klein, federal government can do almost anything in this country, fundamental flaw, health care, Hitler, House floor, Jan Schakowsky, John Dingell, John Roberts, living, mandate, Marxist, my obligation is to the Constitution, Nancy Pelosi, penumbras and emanations, Pete Stark, private life, propaganda, read, reading, redistribution of wealth, Robin Carnahan, sacred text, Stephanie Miller, Tea Party, Tenth Amendment, tenthers, that's the oath, Thurgood Marshall, to come out of your account, to control the people, total nonsense, tyranny, U.S. Constitution, what do you think?, You do what you think is right and let the law catch up
Posted in Conservative Issues, Democrats, first Jeremiah Wright term, founding fathers, Politics, Religion and Culture, Republicans, United States | 10 Comments »
Tags:African, anti-colonialist, Are you serious?, Barack Obama, blind spot, breathing, Constitution, Constitution Party, Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot, dictatorship, didn't break free, Dinesh D'Souza, Elena Kagan, essential constraints, federal government can do almost anything in this country, fundamental flaw, health care, Hitler, Jan Schakowsky, John Dingell, John Roberts, living, mandate, Marxist, my obligation is to the Constitution, Nancy Pelosi, penumbras and emanations, Pete Stark, private life, redistribution of wealth, Robin Carnahan, Stephanie Miller, Tea Party, Tenth Amendment, tenthers, that's the oath, Thurgood Marshall, to come out of your account, to control the people, tyranny, what do you think?, You do what you think is right and let the law catch up
Posted in abortion, Barack Obama, Conservative Issues, Democrats, fascism, health care, Politics, Postmodernism, Supreme Court | 2 Comments »
Note To Democrats From Founding Fathers: 'Please Stop Making Us Spin In Our Graves'
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
I can't help but be reminded by something Thomas Jefferson said:
"The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution."
And what does the 10th Amendment say? Only this:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
You can understand why Nancy Pelosi couldn't care less about the Constitution, or its limitations on the exercise of government power. Thomas Jefferson also said, "Let's hear no more about the confidence in men but to bind them down by the chains of the Constitution." That phrase was intended to underscore the role of the Constitution as chains to any who would try to impose more government on the people. But Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party have thrown off the "chains of the Constitution." They believe that confidence in men is just fine – as long as those men are liberals and socialists who impose massive government and massive bureaucracies through which they seek to empower themselves and control the people. And everything they are trying to do makes a mockery of the Constitution.
And, after all, Nancy Pelosi's president — a man liberals believe is greater than Jesus — has pronounced that the Constitution is deeply flawed.
"I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."
One wonders how Barack Obama could swear to uphold and defend a document that he himself has publicly held to have deep flaws and reflect an enormous blind spot. It would seem that his oath amounted to "just words."
Under Barack Obama and the Democrat-dominated Congress, we are seeing government spending, government debts, and government deficits soar beyond anything ever before seen in the history of the human race.
The excellent work on the Constitution and its history by W. Cleon Skousen entitled The 5000 Year Leap has an amazing thesis in light of what we are seeing from our government today:
Since the genius of the American system is maintaining the eagle in the balanced center of the spectrum, the Founders warned against a number of temptations which might lure subsequent generations to abandon their freedoms and their rights by subjecting themselves to a strong federal administration operating on the collectivist Left.
They warned against the "welfare state" where the government endeavors to take care of everyone from the cradle to the grave. Jefferson wrote:
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."
They warned against confiscatory taxation and deficit spending. Jefferson said it was immoral for one generation to pass on the results of its extravagance in the form of debts to the next generation. He wrote: "…we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life [expectancy] of the majority."
Every generation of Americans struggled to pay off the national debt up until the present one.
Let us see what the founding fathers who wrote our Constitution said that liberals so eagerly and so cavalierly wish to dismiss from the people's attention:
"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt, and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing, by every device, the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing." — Thomas Jefferson letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799
"To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." — Thomas Jefferson
"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible." — George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." — Thomas Jefferson, to Thomas Cooper, January 29, 1802
"[W]ith all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?
Still one thing more, fellow citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
"He that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing." Benjamin Franklin, from his writings, 1758
"We are endeavoring, too, to reduce the government to the practice of a rigorous economy, to avoid burdening the people, and arming the magistrate with a patronage of money, which might be used to corrupt and undermine the principles of our government."– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mr. Pictet, February 5, 1803
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." — James Madison
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." –Thomas Jefferson
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." –Thomas Jefferson
"I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse." — James Madison letter to Henry Lee, April 13, 1790
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." — Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." — Benjamin Franklin
"Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted." –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791. ME 8:208
"If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air… We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of 'a public debt being a public blessing,' and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper." –Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:423
"It is a [disputed] question, whether the circulation of paper, rather than of specie [gold,silver], is a good or an evil… I believe it to be one of those cases where mercantile clamor will bear down reason, until it is corrected by ruin." –Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:409
"To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones."– George Washington letter to James Welch, April 7, 1799
"The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth." — Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1787. ME 6:192
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. — Thomas Jefferson
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." — Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." — Benjamin Franklin letter to Collinson, May 9, 1753
"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy." — Thomas Jefferson
"I hope a tax will be preferred [to a loan which threatens to saddle us with a perpetual debt], because it will awaken the attention of the people and make reformation and economy the principle of the next election. The frequent recurrence of this chastening operation can alone restrain the propensity of governments to enlarge expense beyond income." — Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1820.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… they may appoint teachers in every state… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America." — James Madison
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." –Thomas Jefferson
"The same prudence, which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public monies." — Thomas Jefferson letter to Shelton Giliam, June 19, 1808
"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. … They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society." — Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations," Book II, Chapter II
"Every discouragement should be thrown in the way of men who undertake to trade without capital." — Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Tracy, 1785. Papers 8:399
"It is a miserable arithmetic which makes any single privation whatever so painful as a total privation of everything which must necessarily follow the living so far beyond our income." –Thomas Jefferson to William Hay, 1787. ME 6:223
Barack Obama and the Democrats have been offering a disingenuous and dishonest thesis: that they are spending insane amounts of money to save money. They touted their massive $787 billion (and really $3.27 trillion!!!) stimulus as an "investment" in jobs. Jobs that never came. And now a solid plurality of Americans agree that massive stimulus pork bill HURT the economy. That realization is coming even as the facts are increasingly emerging that the Democrats have been using the stimulus to reward themselves in pork-style politics EXACTLY AS THOMAS JEFFERSON WARNED.
And now they are touting their health care bill – and the gimmickry they have played to make it appear "deficit neutral" over the long haul – and their cap-and-trade legislation, to say that their massive spending is really an "investment" in the future as well.
Don't buy their spin.
Stop the madness. Stop the depraved and insane spending. Stop the Democrats from imposing a socialist agenda that will take away our freedoms and tax us into oblivion all in the name of helping us.
Stop the founding fathers from having to spin in their graves.
It has often occurred to me these past months that the founding fathers were willing to fight in order to throw off tyranny that were virtually nothing compared to the onerous ones we are being fitted with today.
Tags:10th Amendment, Adam Smith, Are you serious?, Benjamin Franklin, buy health insurance, cap-and-trade, Constitution, debt, deep flaws, deficits, enormous blind spot, foundation, founding fathers, founding fathers on government spending, George Washington, health care, hurt the economy, James Madison, Just words, mandate, oath, quotes, spending, stimulus, Thomas Jefferson, welfare
Posted in Barack Obama, Economy, founding fathers, Politics, socialism | 12 Comments »
Health Care Fascism
Americans will soon be forced by their government to give their money to private companies unless the American people massively rise up as one and shout them into backing down.
William Briggs had this to say regarding how unconstitutional, unAmerican, dishonest, and incompetent the Democrats' plan is:
The new health care tax–which isn't yet honestly called a tax, but a "program"—will almost certainly pass the Senate. Part of this "program" is said to be an "individual mandate", which will require, via the full majesty of the law, that individuals purchase health insurance, even if they do not want it.
That is, you will be forced by implied gunpoint to fork over your money to a private company. You can well imagine these companies' new customer service messages. Listen carefully, for our options have recently changed: Press 1 for "Hahahahahahaha"!
This, incidentally, leads to our definition of mandate: comply, or be jailed, where you will be forced to comply.
The Los Angeles Times (D), was concerned that citizens would be confused about this mandate. It published a "Healthcare Q & A", to explain to its readers why more of their money should be taken from them. Like all good Q & A's, it is in the form of bullets.
"Why require everyone to buy insurance?" The truth is that the new government entitlement, like all entitlements before it, is a beast that must gorge on fresh money to survive. It needs to be fed often and copiously. The LAT's confusing answer said that some people don't have insurance, and that those who do will be "helping pay the costs of those without it." This explanation would have been fine if the word helping was omitted.
"What benefit do I get from being required to buy insurance?" Probably less back pain: your wallet will be significantly lightened, thus relieving stress and strain. You also get to see a few companies, presumably those that have given generously to the reelection campaigns of certain politicians, receive our mandated largess. Surely they will spend our money wisely. The LAT says, "you will get coverage".
"How can insurers afford to cover so many people who have expensive illnesses? Will my premium go up?" Excellent question. They cannot, so, yes, premiums must rise. The LAT said, "Gee, would ya look at the time?"
"Since young people don't cost the system much, would they be allowed to buy less expensive plans?" No. They should be allowed not to buy and only pay for services as needed. Even the LAT had to admit that if that dangerous idea "were carried too far, however, it would defeat the purpose of an insurance plan." The government's plan, that is.
Inexplicably, the LAT's Q & A stopped there. They forgot the most important questions.
If everybody is forced to buy insurance, it isn't really insurance anymore, is it? No, it isn't. Insurance is a bet between two parties, no different than a wager on a football game. It's like buying a lottery ticket you hope won't win. If everybody is forced to pay into a pool, whose monies will be used to fund health care expenses, then that is a tax.
People are a lot healthier now than twenty years ago, and people twenty years ago were a lot healthier than people forty years ago, and so on. So why is everybody calling our current state a "crisis"? Three things have gone wrong: politicians lie, exaggerates or are ill informed, the press lies, exaggerates or is ill informed, and the bulk of the public eats it up, cowers in fear or is ill informed.
After the Democrats pass the health care tax, what can I do? Grip your ankles, baby. It'll be just like going to the doctor to have a "digital" exam, only this time without the Vaseline. Another option is to donate to the DNC and then form your own insurance company.
Update Reid invents new super-super majority:
The bill sets up a supermajority threshold of 67 votes to bring accountability to IMAB decisions, and the rule on being in or out of order can get waived at 60 votes. However, as this battle shows, even getting to 60 is almost an impossibility, let alone 67. Clearly Reid wants to put accountability out of reach with these radical propositions.
As to that last, you see a United States Senator attempting to – in blatantly unconstitutional fashion – dictate the actions and limit the behavior of a future Congress. That's "dictate," as in "dictator."
As to forcing Americans to purchase insurance, even the left says this insane move to force people to buy insurance from private companies is both stupid and immoral.
DNC Chairman Howard Dean recently said:
"This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG," former Democratic National Committee chairman and medical doctor Howard Dean told "Good Morning America's" George Stephanopoulos today. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.
"This is an insurance company's dream, this bill," Dean continued. "This is the Washington scramble, and I think it's ill-advised."
Mind you, these very same liberals would have been cheering if Americans were being forced to buy the exact same kind of insurance from the government. It's not that they are opposed to people being forced to make purchases that they don't want to make. After all, that would make them classical liberals rather than the liberal fascists that they are. Rather, they are simply revealing how profoundly they hate private businesses rather than state ownership of the means of production.
But at least, both the right and the left are in agreement: the Democrats' bill is a terrible and immoral idea.
That explains why the private insurance companies saw their stocks go up massively – hitting a 52-week high – on Friday as this plan was announced. The first article I found is entitled, "Insurance company stocks "on fire" – they're winning, we're losing."
Obama and Democrats have been falsely and maliciously demonizing private insurance companies for months. We particularly saw that in Obama's vicious attacks against Humana. One blogger correctly saw the bottom line and said, "I hope you can see the writing on the wall here. The Obama administration wants to control private industry. They want to control their profits and they want to control what private industry can and cannot say." And now we see that the administration was using all that demagoguery and demonization to create the conditions for an offer that the insurance companies couldn't refuse.
Let me put this development into context by first providing a definition:
Sheldon Richman (of the Foundation for Economic Education) provides the distinction in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics in his entry on "Fascism":
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest"–that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
What we are seeing here is raw, naked fascism.
The insurance companies were first clubbed into submission, then offered something of a carrot in exchange for their compliance. And the result is that they are doing exactly what the administration wants – and as long as they toe the Obama line, they'll even be rewarded for doing what the administration wants.
We used to be governed by a Constitution in which this sort of thing would have been anathema. Not anymore. The Democrats running the country now could care less about the Constitution.
When Nancy Pelosi was asked where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, Nancy Pelosi said: "Are You Serious? Are you SERIOUS?" The Speaker of the House of Representatives couldn't be bothered by such a question simply because she couldn't care less. Diane Feinstein took much the same view – and revealed what a threat to the Constitution these Democrats and their despicable health care bill truly is.
CNS News pointed out this little factoid:
In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.
"The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States," the CBO analysis said. "An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."
This is an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power.
Now we get to the term "Tea Party." Our founding fathers literally started a war when they were forced to pay what was actually a quite modest tax without representation.
We used to be a people who stood up and fought when our freedoms were challenged. But over the last century, we have had piles on top of piles of unconstitutional "laws" that did precisely that.
Now we are being forced to pay massive taxes without any Constitutional authority, and clearly without the support of the people (see here and here).
Our founding fathers would have gone to war to stop this tyranny.
What will we do? Allow this fiasco to pass? Passively purchase our "insurance" and hope the price doesn't keep going up higher and higher while our medical care sinks lower and lower? Sit by and allow our parents and family members to die do to medical neglect from rationing?
Tags:67 votes, Are you serious?, CBO, Constitution, control, demonizing, fascism, forced, government insurance, Howard Dean, Humana, indviduals, insurance industry, mandate, Nancy Pelosi, polls, private insurance companies, purchase, stock, supermajority, Tea Party
Posted in Conservative Issues, fascism, health care, Politics, socialism, taxes | Leave a Comment »
What Happens When A Demagogue's Demagoguery Fails Him?
The Demagogue-in-chief was at it again the other day, telling Charles Gibson on ABC that if his ObamaCare takeover isn't passed, the country will go bankrupt. It's really the other way around, given that this monstrosity will raise costs rather than lowering them, but demagogues don't need facts – only fear.
Mind you, Demagogue-in-chief Obama has made extensive use of fearmongering to sell his snake oil health care poison all along.
And, of course, it was through naked fearmongering that Obama threatened and rushed his now-failed stimulus through Congress. As the Wall Street Journal put it:
President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.
Our economy is now actually suffering a higher unemployment than Obama said we'd experience if we didn't pass his porkulus slush fund. But, being a tried-and-true demagogue, Obama merely shifts the blame on that failure.
Obama is a man who knows his way around fearmongering, demonization, and intimidation. It's the Chicago Way, after all, if only the mainstream media had ever bothered to investigate Obama's Chicago Way (which shall someday be called "Chicago's Obama Way").
Obama demonized the same banks and banking executives his administration was bailing out as he forced them through demagoguery to bow down to his controls. In private his administration has done even worse, using what amounts to blackmail to cow executives. Auto investors were forced to give up far more than they legally should have had to do because of naked intimidation.
And the administration that used a taxpayer-funded website to try to collect the names of people who opposed ObamaCare subsequently attacked private insurer Humana for trying to warn their clients about what was happening in a flagrant violation of 1st Amendment free speech rights.
I could go on and on on the demagogic tactics of this administration. But I think I've demonstrated my point.
There's a single short paragraph in a Hill article that came out yesterday that sums up Obama's "leadership" style. Threatening a liberal Democrat who has not always toed the Obama line, we had this unveiled threat:
"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother," Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.
It was just a couple of days ago that we heard that Barry Hussein had threatened Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) with closing Offutt Air Force Base – which not only employs 10,000 people but serves as the strategically vital location for the US Strategic Command – as a naked threat to force Nelson to support ObamaCare. But incredibly, at the same time the White House was frankly treasonously intimidating a US Senator with a threat against US national security, they were also trying to offer a bribe that would make even Mary Landrieu's $300 million "Louisiana Purchase" look tame.
We're now finding out that Ben Nelson is selling his vote, and just one of the goodies he will collect for his supporters is that the federal government will pay for Nebraska's Medicaid tab — forever. Which means that the taxes for Medicaid will go up in every single other state — forever.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman in opposing the current senate version of ObamaCare, with Schwarzenegger saying the unfunded expansion of Medicaid would cost California an additional $3 billion a year when the state is already deep into a budget crisis. And that is now going to be $3 billion PLUS California's share in paying for Nebraska's exempted share.
You'd think that this kind of bribery and sweetheart dealing would be unconstitutional, but we now know that the Constitution means absolutely nothing to the Democrat Party.
And you don't have to be a powerful Senator to get hundred million dollar bribes to vote "the Obama Way." Take a look at virtually unknown Democrat Jim Costas' sudden good fortune and ask yourself how many other Democrats have had their votes purchased:
To get as far as the bill did so far, it appears the administration might have spread some money around. California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.
When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he'd been offered the dollars he was looking for — $128 million in federal money.
"He responded to me by basically saying that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced," Smittcamp told Fox News.
Now we officially learn, according to a study of Obama's stimulus by George Mason University, that the Democrats are using the stimulus as a slush fund. The study found no correlation between unemployment rate and stimulus funding; rather, Democrat districts have received DOUBLE the money received by Republican districts as the most partisan president in the history of America proved his true colors again.
Mind you, we've pretty much known that all along. We can go back to July, when Obama directly threatened Arizona to cut off federal stimulus money unless the state's leadership saw things his way. So the study merely proved what everybody should already know. But there is another lesson as well: that the flip side of using taxpayer stimulus money to bribe Democrats is using taxpayer stimulus money to intimidate Republicans.
And of course, that is why Americans should be terrified by this administration: a president who can pay bribes to buy political behavior can take money away to discourage other political behavior.
In any event, we have our answer to the question posed by the title: "What happens when a demagogue's demagoguery fails him?" Answer: a ton of naked bribery and insider-politicking using taxpayer stimulus money that was supposed to be used to create jobs, but is instead being used to buy Democrat's votes for a federal government takeover of the health care system.
Tags:Are you serious?, auto industry, bankrupt, banks, Ben Nelson, blackmail, bribery, California, Chrysler, Constitution, DeFazio, demagogue, demagoguery, Democrat districts, demonization, don't think we're not keeping score, double, Economy, executives, fearmongering, forever, George Mason University study, health care, Humana, intimidation, Jim Costa, Louisiana Purchase, Mary Landrieu, Medicaid, Obama, Obamacare, Offutt Air Force Base, Republican districts, Schwarzenegger, stimulus employment, unemployment
Posted in Barack Obama, Conservative Issues, Democrats, health care, Politics | 2 Comments »


A few years ago I had never used a computer, sent an email, or been on the internet—and certainly never expected to have a blog.
For years I had lived off-grid in the woods, spending most of my time backpacking all over the mountains—12,000 miles in all. Considering all the places I had hiked, I set down roots in the best place I had found; the mountains along the Tennessee–North Carolina border, just a little ways north of the Smokies in Flag Pond, TN.
I chose this spot carefully due to the large amount of protected land with only one missing piece: the 10,000-acre Rocky Fork tract. It was soon to be acquired by the government, completing a huge swath of protected land that would now be my backyard. I quickly purchased property within walking distance of the tract and built a little homestead.
Four years ago, a lovely new wife joined me in the off-grid cabin—bringing with her electricity, computers and the internet. That and the realization that protecting a special place would require continuous diligence ended my laid back, never-been-on-the-internet, just-grow-my-garden-and-hike-in-the-woods lifestyle.
Rocky Fork has a great deal of interesting natural and cultural history to be explored, but finding information about it all can be a challenge. And so I have started a blog, the Rocky Fork Journal, to help others learn more about my chosen backyard—the wild, remote, unspoiled Rocky Fork watershed.
Please check out the journal. It's a work in progress and I welcome your feedback. Feel free to forward this to others who may be interested.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Cherokee National Forest, Rocky Fork Journal, Rocky Fork State Park, Rocky Fork Watershed, Tennessee State Parks on January 6, 2019 by jpbodacious.
Thanks Paul for following along, nice to know our friends are with us even if they are far away.
Welcome to the world of technology John. Looking forward to hearing more about Rocky Fork.
Thanks so much for your photography Joye, it really makes it look good. I owe you one, again.
Really happy that we have you to inform us of what's happening in that neck of the woods. It's a good thing you're doing. Regards to you and the lovely Frances.
Thanks Scott, we sure need to see and catch up with you sometime!
I grieve, I grieve, your loss of innocence. But I dance for Rocky Fork, noble master of the SOYD patrol.
I held out as long as I could.
John, Thanks for doing this and thanks for all you do to protect the amazing Rocky Fork State Park.