Obamacare Is Not Constitutional

Make No Mistake ...


Obamacare is not constitutional.
As a consequence of the court's ruling, Americans ... whether they want it or not, will be compelled to purchase a product- health insurance - or pay a penalty.

The American people can correct 
the Supreme Court’s mistake.

By US Senator Rand Paul   June 28, 2012

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Supreme Court wrongly concluded that Obamacare can stand. But just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be “constitutional” does not make it so. Millions of Americans simply won’t accept it and will act to help overhaul it.

The majority held that this penalty, for constitutional purposes, is also a tax. The dissenting justices concluded that the majority, by its actions today, rewrote what Congress actually intended when it enacted the law: “For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.” The dissent then immediately cited the Stamp Act of 1765.

The Stamp Act was a direct tax imposed on the colonies by King George III. This act inevitably led to the American Revolution. 

Just as the Stamp Act did in 1765, Obamacare should act as a wake-up call. 

Chief Justice Roberts provides us with a similar call to action in his opinion, which states:

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

Political observers have described the 2010 Tea Party wave as an extraordinary assemblage of liberty-minded Americans who rallied around the Constitution in order to reclaim their country. One of the galvanizing forces was the passage of Obamacare — the national government’s takeover of our health care. Millions of Americans were enraged by this and other aspects of the Obama administration’s destructive political agenda, and they were sick and tired of their representatives’ failure to do anything to stop it. 

The 2010 wave election was a direct consequence of Obama’s unconstitutional ideals and czar-like power. And now, with the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare, it is my belief that the American people will be motivated to reorder our political priorities as they did in 2010.

Obamacare exists because Obama is in the White House. This decision is a direct consequence of the American people’s political decisions. And much like Obama himself, Obamacare was deceptively sold to the American people.

In 2009, President Obama firmly stated that the individual mandate was not a tax. Here are his exact words: “For us [the government] to say that you [the American people] must take personal responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.” After the ruling, Nancy Pelosi was asked if these reforms were a tax. Her response: “Call it what you will — it is a step forward for American families.”

Obamacare has caused up to 20 million Americans to lose their health-insurance policies. 

And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health-care-reform law will destroy 800,000 jobs.

An analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation from November 2009 shows that in 2016, three-quarters of the tax imposed by the individual mandate will fall on those making less than $120,000 of income for a family of four or $59,000 for an individual. 

Families of four making $72,000 or less and individuals making $35,400 or less will bear nearly half of the mandate tax.

This is a direct tax on the middle class. It is clear that through its proposed $500 billion in tax increases, the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and the individual mandates and regulations, Obamacare will swiftly harm our country.

It is erroneous for Leader Pelosi to even attempt to claim that Obamacare is a step forward for Americans. The administration sold the bill to the American people under false pretenses, and now the middle class will suffer.

Although the Supreme Court declared that the individual mandate should be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power, there was a minor victory for the Commerce Clause in that the Court did hold that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. This minor victory is not much of a comfort, however, because this ruling essentially grants the federal government the right to legally tax our every breath. And tax they will.

Today the Supreme Court — the ruling body that our Founding Fathers created to protect citizens from tyranny — decided to uphold Obamacare and thus stripped Americans of their personal liberties and freedoms. We have heard the Court’s opinion loud and clear, but now it’s time for them to hear us. It is up to us to reclaim our constitutional rights. It is up to the American people to end President Obama’s political agenda. Obamacare is wrong for Americans and it will destroy our health-care system. This now means that we must fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new president and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.

Obamacare Is Not Constitutional
The American People can correct the Supreme Court's Mistake. 
By US Senator Rand Paul ... June 30, 2012

Freedom ... Yes or no?

Do Americans, do you ... 

do you really understand 
the gravity of what happened 
in the Supreme Court ... 
yesterday? 




The True Impact of the Obamacare Decision

 Neal Boortz  --- Townhall.com  --- Jun 29, 2012

Do you have any idea at all how the power of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States has been exponentially increased?

Answer? No, you probably don’t. 

You really can’t be faulted for that, I guess. After all, our wonderful government school system was designed to educate you, but only to the point that you don’t become a threat to your political rulers. The American people are a product of those schools, and the American people are, by and large, acting in the manner proscribed by those who “educated” them.

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

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

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

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

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

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


*****************************************************************


Our freedoms are under attack!


Obamacare is only one of a number of issues that hang in the balance if Obama is re-elected. 


Although there would be no mandate, unless he wins by a huge margin ... Obama would consider any win a mandate ... even if by the smallest of margins. That's right ... a mandate on higher fuel costs, gay marriage, the legalization of illegal immigrants, strict gun control and confiscation, and any other bright idea that he might come up with to promote his agenda ... whatever that might be.


Our way of life and all of our freedoms are at stake here. The Roberts decision is a horrible error in judgement that goes way beyond Obamacare. This is war against all of the liberties our constitution guarantees.


The court was asked to judge on the constitutionality of an unconstitutional law ... instead, the majority decided to twist that law which into something that the congress who passed it would never have voted upon in the first place ... the largest tax increase in the history of America.


This decision is wrong ... wrong ... wrong!!!


One or two more appointments to the supreme court that allows for Marxists and atheists to determine the values and laws of our nation will bring an end to this greatest nation in the history of the world. ... Bob West

NEWS FLASH ...

Global Warming 

Disaster Alert

The Washington Post:

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulfstream still very warm.  Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found  in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * * * * * * * *

Oh ... I apologize; I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 
89 years ago.

Bob West

The Great Divider

President Obama Announces
the 2012 Launch of African Americans for Obama

I can only imagine the cries of racism that would rightly follow, if the one of the Republican candidates were to announce that he has a website where "white people" were organizing to get him elected. Well Obama has done just that in reverse with "African Americans for Obama".

This is not only divisive but some would call it racist and the opposite of what was hoped for when President Obama was elected. In the message, President Obama explains that African Americans need to organize along with him to get him re-elected.

This would be fine, if he was also speaking to white Americans and those of other races, but Obama can't seem to help himself. He can't help but appear to be anything other than what any fair-minded person would conclude if the speaker were appealing to a whites only group .... RACIST.

Is it a stretch for some to understand that organizing along racial lines is divisive and racist regardless of who is doing the organizing?

It appears to be impossible for Obama to represent the best interests of all Americans.

Nudging ...

A Calculated Confrontation

If you ever wanted to see a clear example of President Obama playing politics as usual ...

the absurd forced contraception and abortion insurance issue is it.


This is a perfect example of the president deceiving the people.

First of all, Obama is being dishonest when he says that his opponents will attempt to play politics with this issue. Not only is he playing politics with the issue, he introduced the issue with the intention of using the issue to rally his far left base, and divide the electorate, and he is deliberately manipulating the electorate.


Apparently, the far left who are in charge of the mainstream media and President Obama, decided to introduce contraception as an issue for Obama to run on in the coming election in their campaign strategy planning. Running on Obama's record is not an option for them. I saw this first in the recent Republican debate when George Stephanopolous asked; "do you believe the states have the right to ban contraception"

It is not a mere coincidence that both Stephanopolous and Obama would bring this issue front and center for anything other than political purposes. In the face of the real problems facing America, this is unquestionably a sham issue. This is the Democrats attempt to change the subject.


MSM and Obama Are Clearly Under
The Control Of The Extreme Left


A Silly Question


The calculation was that Obama would nudge the electorate with the issue, get everyone upset on both political extremes. The far left which is disenchanted with Obama would now have an issue to fight for. This is good for fund raising and getting his base mobilized. He then would offer a compromise and now has has scored a victory on an issue that was not even an issue in the first place. And for sure we won't be talking about unemployment, jobs, putting Americans back to work, or the runaway budget deficits or worse yet Obama's failed policies.

This Cap Sunstein "Nudge" concept may have worked perfectly here unless Obama and the silly game he is playing wakes up conservative Catholics, and the Tea Party Movement is once again mobilized to defeat him.

Obama must think Americans are ignorant.

The problem for Obama is that this is a different electorate than the one that voted for him in 2008. This time around, the people are up to his manipulative skills; and they are mad as hell, and they're not gonna take it anymore.

With our most precious religious and personal liberties at stake, there is much for God loving, and freedom loving Americans to stand up and fight for.

In Contempt

In Contempt: Progressives and the Constitution

Progressives hold the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard.
That’s not a line you hear often outside of a parody or a conversation with someone who has recently suffered a closed-head injury, but it’s true.


Progressives hold the parts of the Constitution they like in high regard but only when applied to other progressives. The rest, particularly the parts they like to use against conservatives, are held in contempt.


I got to thinking about this after reading a piece in The New York Times entitled, “’We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World,” which made the case fewer and fewer nations around the world look to our Constitution as a model for their own.

Frankly, this reminds me of the famous line of parents everywhere: “If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” And the answer for the Times and for many progressives seems to be “yes.” Not literally – I conjured the same thought.

Why has our Constitution fallen out of favor with the rest of the world? Aside from the fact progressives in this country tell the world it’s a horrible document, steeped in racism and inequality, the Times suggests, “The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”

What the Times ignores, what all progressives ignore, but what a 5-year-old could understand from reading it, is our Constitution doesn’t grant or “guarantee” us rights. It prevents, or attempts to prevent, the government from infringing upon rights with which we were born.

The First Amendment doesn’t grant or guarantee the right to free speech or freedom of religion. It says the government can’t infringe upon it. That’s what the “Congress shall make no law” bit is all about.

This confuses the people at the Times. “The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation,” the piece says.

Only progressives could even think such a muddled thought. But then, only progressives could hear we have a record number of people on food stamps, then hear the phrase “food stamp president” and think “racism.” That’s because only progressives could hear that phrase and think, “black people.”

Only progressives could read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and think somehow “the people” means only the “well-regulated militia” mentioned earlier in the Second Amendment. This odd construction, of course, gives them license to infringe on this right as much as they see fit.

In reality, they know exactly what they’re doing. They know they can’t completely ignore the Constitution, so they chip away at the edges. Once one part is chipped off it’s easier to chip away others.

This week, the president wasn’t chipping … he was trying to take a jackhammer to the First Amendment. When he ordered Catholic organizations to provide birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill to all their employees, free of charge, against church dogma, there was outrage. That outrage was justifiable.

Progressives cheered the order as a triumph for women, as if the free birth control pills given out at clinics across the country, the low price of condoms and the in-expense of simply not having sex were not option enough for people. No, the government had to go further. Without any sense of hypocrisy, the “keep-your- religion-out-of-our-politics” crowd lauded the insertion of government into religion.

But the destruction of religion by government was not the goal of this move; that will come later. This was the magician talking and waving one hand around to catch your eye while he slips the “disappearing” coin into his pocket with the other. When President Obama “caved to pressure” from people on both sides of the aisle, it was heralded as a victory for liberty. It was anything but.

So, the First Amendment was not jackhammered this week after all. But our liberty was.

President Obama didn’t force religious organizations to violate their deeply held beliefs. But in its place, he put the onus of providing what he wanted on insurance companies, who now will be forced to provide everything he wants for “free,” then past the cost on to us.

But the cost isn’t the issue. It’s the concept. While we were distracted by the waving of the one hand, we missed the other that had the president mandating coverage, coverage of anything, by health insurance companies. That’s a power that didn’t exist. It’s a power that shouldn’t exist, according to the Constitution.

The federal government has mandates in Medicare and Medicaid, which are both government-run insurance plans. But private sector health insurance is regulated by the states. Or at least it used to be. That’s why there has been a push to allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines. Some states mandate more things be covered than others, which drives up the price.

The news this week isn’t that the president “caved to pressure” and no longer will force religious organizations to violate their teachings. It’s that the president decided he simply could dictate what you, as an individual, need (and now will have to pay for) as far as your health insurance goes. And if he can simply walk off the golf course one day and will this into existence, what can’t he do?

Now that I think of it, what I tweeted out the other day is even more appropriate today. It was, “Obama wants birth control to be free because if he gets a 2nd term he plans on screwing the country even more & doesn't want the kids.” It’s funny because it’s true. It’s sad for the same reason.

In Contempt: Progressives and the Constitution Derek Hunter; Townhall.com 2/12/2012

Economic Chaos

I realize this is not the happy talk the politicians think people want to hear but ...

Let's talk about the REAL mess that we're in.

Federal 2010 Medicare and Medicaid expenditures totaled $800 billion.

The projected annual growth of both programs is about 7 percent.

Social Security expenditures are more than $700 billion a year.



According to the 2009 Social Security and Medicare trustees reports, by 2030, 49 percent of federal revenues will go for Social Security and Medicare payments. The unfunded liability of both programs is already $106 trillion.

But not to worry. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it's possible to sustain today's level of federal spending and even achieve a balanced budget. All that Congress would have to do is raise the lowest income tax bracket of 10 percent to 25 percent and the middle tax bracket of 25 percent to 66 percent and raise the 35 percent tax bracket to 92 percent. That's a static vision that assumes that people will have no response and they'll work just as hard and send more money to Washington. If Congress did legislate such tax increases, it would be the economic equivalent of committing national hara-kiri.

Professor Daniel Klein, editor of Econ Journal Watch, and Professor Tyler Cowen, general director of the Mercatus Center, both based at George Mason University, organized a symposium to promote a better understanding of the U.S. debt crisis. The symposium's title, "U.S. Sovereign Debt Crisis: Tipping-Point Scenarios and Crash Dynamics" (http://econjwatch.org), is a strong hint about the seriousness of our nation's plight.

Professor Cowen introduced the symposium pointing out that in 2011, the major crisis was in the eurozone, where Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland dealt with the risk of default. The survival of the eurozone is now seriously doubted. Cowen added: "When it comes to a sovereign debt crisis, it is no longer possible to say 'it can't happen here.' Right now, we are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar the federal government spends, and the imbalance has no end in sight."

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, associate professor of economics at San Jose State University, says that a default on Treasury securities appears inevitable. He says that the short-run consequences for the economy will be painful but that the long-run consequences, both political and economic, could be beneficial. That's because an economic collapse is the only way we will come to our senses. That's a tragic statement about the foresight of the American people.

Participant Garrett Jones, associate professor of economics at George Mason University, is a bit more optimistic, seeing default as being less likely. But he argues that "default is still possible, and the GOP offers a uniquely American path to default: an unwillingness to raise taxes."

Dr. Arnold Kling is a member of the Financial Market Working Group at the Mercatus Center and tells us that the "U.S. government has made a set of promises that it cannot keep." He says that the "promises that are most important to change are Social Security and Medicare."

Joseph J. Minarik is senior vice president and director of research at the Committee for Economic Development. He argues that a "U.S. financial meltdown today is eminently avoidable. The wealthiest nation on earth, despite a painful economic slowdown, maintains the wherewithal to pay its bills. The open question is whether it maintains the will and the wisdom."

Peter J. Wallison holds the Arthur F. Burns chair in financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He agrees with Kling that "the most likely source of a U.S. sovereign debt crisis ... is a failure of the U.S. political system to address the growth of the major entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."

My translation of the symposium's conclusions is that it is by no means preordained that our nation must suffer the same decline as have other great nations of the past -- England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Ottoman and Roman empires. All evidence suggests that we will suffer a similar decline because, as Professor Cowen says, "the American electorate has dug in against both major tax increases and major spending cuts."
Economic Chaos Ahead; Dr. Walter E. Williams Townhall.com 2/8/2012
*****************************************

The political rhetoric must end. Obama is pretending he has somehow delivered on solving America's Crisis. The Republican candidates are locked in a battle attacking each other. Meanwhile, congress has basically taken the year off.

The only people focused on solving our real economic problems are Paul Ryan and a few other members of congress.

We need for these clowns to debate the real issues!!!