Obamacare Unconstitutional

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was just ruled unconstitutional.

The centerpiece of Obamacare is the individual mandate. For those who've been ignoring the news for a while, basically you are compelled by government to purchase health care, and if you opt out, you face fines. Unpaid fines to the government don't result in the government going "shucks, we didn't really mean it", they result in jail time. Try it this year with the IRS.

They give you free health care in there, too.

J.B.H. wrote about the unconstitutionality of Obamacare a while back.

Jake Tapper from ABC asked Obama about the fine system and the president admitted he agreed fines for noncompliance were necessary.

And there are jail time penalties in the bill:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

But for now, a judge has ruled against Obamacare and the "buy it or go to jail" mandate - and invalidating the entire bill. Next step is the government going to the supreme court to push for it again.

Ultimately, the question is one of the scope of federal power and the ability for the government to stretch the commerce clause to encompass any absurd suppression of citizens' rights.

This started in no small part under one of the last giant progressive presidents, FDR. Wickard v. Filburn. Filburn was a farmer who was growing extra wheat for himself to feed his livestock. The government had mandated the amount of wheat that could be grown in order to drive up the price of wheat and "help" farmers.

To begin with, it's Keynesian economics, which are predicated on meddling by a bureaucrat who believes they know more than the person on the ground - and the bureaucrat ultimately using the government's gun against the American person who rejects them. The price was low and that "hurt" farmers. But rather than support farmers growing as much wheat as possible by offering tax cuts for farmers or something - leading to more wheat and fewer hungry people, the government decided to limit the amount of wheat. Supply goes down, demand goes up. Of course, limiting the amount of food results in famines... but the bureaucrat in DC doesn't feel it.

The fedgov is hurting people in California's Central Valley right now. This time, rather than favor the price of wheat over farmers, they favor a fish over farmers.

The EPA hates Americans of Mexican descent. Obama hates brown people!

Anyhow, Filburn was growing wheat for himself, and the government (FDR's supreme court), ruled that the government could regulate crops grown for private use, as they "influence the market". The idea was that since Filburn wasn't buying wheat at government-inflated prices, he could also not use his own land to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, as his act of not buying wheat influenced the price somewhere, no matter how miniscule.

Since he used his own land to grow his own wheat and not buy government wheat he was influencing the price of wheat by taking out his buying power. It's like the government looking at the hooligan in the Broken Window Fallacy and going "we should smash some more windows!"

Filburn's right to his own property and his own enterprise on his own land were violated. The government ruled that through the Commerce Clause that it could tell you what to do with your own assets. This is what Obamacare was doing until it was ruled invalid - except now rather than just growing your own wheat, Obamacare took it one step further. If you didn't spend your money, you were subject to penalties.

The Commerce Clause is thus:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

What does this mean? According to SCOTUS in Gonzales V Raich, which illegalized home-grown marijuana:
The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890.

What's it really mean?
It was set up so that trading between states would be regular. So that if someone in Vermont wanted to sell something in Maine, they didn't have to pay tariffs to cross New Hampshire. That's about it. It was to keep Kansas from telling flights across the state they have to stop selling drinks at the state line. That was the purpose.

The purpose was not to tell a farmer that if he grew wheat for himself he'd go to jail, or to tell you that when you work for your money, you have to buy a healthcare plan or go to jail.

For those who would contend that not being a lawyer means that you, Joe, Jane, Pedro, Shaniqua or Vinh don't have a voice, that's nonsense. The Constitution was not written in some esoteric language. It's pretty plain even now.

You don't get from this:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

To this:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

Without a hefty load of BS between them. If you don't spend you money the way the govt says, you got to jail. Nonsense.

Dropping the Red Kool-Aid for a Spot of Tea

From the New York Post:

President Obama came out yesterday and was attempting to align himself with the Tea Party movement.

Oh yes, a definte laugh, or should this be a sign of concern for the mental state of our leader? This is the same man who TRIPLED the deficit of his not so popular republican predecessor. This is also the man that has spent more money than ALL OTHER presidential administrations combined. This is the man who has done everything he can with the support of the most liberal congress ever to centralize power in the hands of the federal government. The Healthcare bill fiasco, the 2nd stimulus, tripling the size of Americorps, attempting to shackle the populace with cap and trade all belong under this man's name. He now expects you all to believe that he is a fiscally responsible conservative president, that favors limited government and that the populace being wary of the government is a good thing? One word will some that up:

WOW.

Now he says that the Tea Party has misdirected itself. It should be angry with the republicans still in office. Guess what Mr. President.... We are. We are mad at both sides of this mess because it took both for us to be in the situation we are in. But right now YOU and YOUR party have exclusive control of the federal government. You and your party are spending out of control, yes we do know that the occasional RINO votes along with you, they are being revealed and being marked for replacement in the coming November election as well. You and your ilk, Mr. President, think the citizens of this country are stupid and cannot keep up with politics nor understand the arguments. The Tea Party itself, made up of both democrats and republicans sees right through you, your party and your lies.

Mr. President, the nation is very disappointed with you, even your misguided followers, who think you are not doing even to "fundamentally transform" these United States. Now it is the citizen's turn, Mr. President, on 2 November we intend to fundamentally transform Washington D.C.

Image via Wikipedia

When You're Holding A Hammer

Backstory at HotAir.

Reading Reading!

Arizona SB 1070 (version S - I believe that's the final final version)

It's not very long and doesn't take much time to read. You don't even need to use a speed reader to insult the country with when you read it. AZ's SB 1070 is only about 12 pages, depending on your spacing & font size.

Slightly older version H. Functionally the same thing.

Words from another "Barry"

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - Barry Goldwater

Simply put and to the point, that sentence alone should galvanize the Tea Parties and all freedom and liberty loving patriots around our country. We should not be afraid of the mainstream media and it's government overseers charges of "extremism." America was founded on the principles of individual freedom and liberty. From the recent "Patriot Act" to the government takeover of healthcare, and ensuing increase in taxes, our freedoms and liberties are under attack like never before.

People all over the country for are discussing government and its role in American society. Tea Parties and other patriot groups such as Oath Keepers call for strict adherence of the United States Constitution while the federal government in Washington D.C. gets ready to run it again through a paper shredder after passing healthcare and now turning its attention to giving millions of ILLEGAL immigrants amnesty, to ensure statist hegemony in the federal government for the forseeable future.

So get behind Arizona and its state government, goto a Tea Party meeting, talk to your neighbors about what is happening across the nation. Discuss Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Discuss our founding fathers principles of individual responsibility, belief in God, economic freedom, minimal taxes, and most important minimal government.

Do not fear the labels, after all they are just words. Armed with the truth and principles, we can stay above the petty name calling that the statist agenda in Washington D.C. uses to take good people and good organizatiosn out fo the fight to defend individual freedom and liberty.

Don't be afraid, and don't be afraid to scream at the top of your lungs the words,

DON'T Tread on ME!

Fiction or Reality

Image via Wikipedia

The following quote is from the book, "Atlas Shrugged," see if this doesn't put some things in perspective when considering the actions of our federal government.

"Do you really think we want laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts your up against.... We're after power and we mean it.... There's no wat to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many thing to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

In this quote, Dr. Ferris, a government bureacrat, is explaining to Hank Reardon, an industrialist the intentions of those in power in Washington D.C. For those of you who haven't had a chance to read the book, the world is filled with "People's States," that are socialist in nature. The United States is on the brink of becoming one of these types of nations as well. The government destroys business at every level, while people themselves are entranced by being "progressive" and "socially responsible." Wealth in this world is redistributed by the government and businesses alike and a total breakdown in society ensues.

This quote is important because it reveals that those in power in the book, and those in the halls of power in Washington D.C. aren't really "progessive" nor "socially responsible." It's about pure control and power of those they claim to represent. They want the power and they mean to have it. Look at what is happening, healthcare decisions are going to be taken away from you and your doctor, the government is moving to regulate how much salt your allowed to eat, they continually raise taxes on both alcohol and cigarette's taken advantage of people's desires to use those things.

Mr. Reardon in the quote above is basically being told, that he better comply or they will come for him. Eventually they do with excessive regulations against the steel industry in general and while the steel industry crumbles they blame Reardon himself for their legislation and its failures.

Being regulated and dictated to means loss of freedom. How much more can the citizens of this country take?

(The bold emphasis in the quote is mine.)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, Part II

Take the ten minutes to listen to words that sound like they were spoken yesterday, not in 1961:


Change the names of the Congressmen to Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter, Waxman, Obama, and it's the same push for socialism then as is today.

Except today, the Congressmen don't bother writing back. They'll just do what they want, because they've decided they're the ruling class.

And the media lapdogs play along.

Reconciliation Barney Style

Let's say you want to pass a bill in the US Senate.

To start, a bill requires a majority to pass. It gets proposed and talked about in committees, then it goes to the floor.

In the senate, before they pass a bill, they have to talk about it. If someone wants to delay the vote, they can filibuster. A filibuster is the procedure by which the senate can talk as long as they like (resulting in hours of CSPAN programming of senators reading the newspaper) unless 2/3 votes for cloture. Except the democrats changed it to 3/5 of senators "duly chosen and sworn" in the 1970s. So you only need 60 votes to stop anyone from talking about a bill and push the bill to a vote. Those 60 votes are what's referred to as a "supermajority", because those 60 can override any filibuster and thus put any bill up for a vote and pass anything they wish.

The democrats, up until the election of Scott Brown, had a 60 vote supermajority. They could push any bill to a vote, overriding any filibusters or objections, and then simply pass them. The democrats, up until Scott Brown's election in Massachussetts, could've passed anything they wanted in the senate. Nothing procedurally stood in their way.

The American people, by the tens if not hundreds of millions, opposed the democrats' attempts at forcing government-run health care.

Just a few.

This resulted in a few democrats being unwilling to commit to a vote for health care, because they doubted they'd be reelected in their home districts. Thus there were specific payoffs included in the "health care" bill to provide money for the senators' home districts. Specifically the "Louisiana Purchase" to secure Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's (D) vote and the"Cornhusker Kickback" to secure Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's (D) vote. The purpose of this pork was to help the senators counter their constituents' complaints by saying "look what I got for you".

Even then, the democrats couldn't get it together. Enough democrats were afraid for their own seats. They also may have been afraid of falling out of favor with the administration. Those who would be in favor with the administration might get some cushy job as a department secretary or an ambassador - something they could maintain their personal quality of life and status with.

So what's a democrat set on passing a bill whether the people want it or not to do? Reconciliation.

So what exactly is reconciliation? The short version is that you can pass a bill with 50 votes and ignore the filibuster. It's supposed to be primarily for tax bills.

It seems like it can lead to a tyranny of the majority, by simply overruling the minority. A lot of people oppose it.

Especially racist bigot hatemonger extremist right-wingnut rethuglican teabaggers who hate Obama like these racist bigot extremist right-wingnut rethuglican teabaggers:

Oh, wait.

I guess abuse of power only matters when it's republicans trying to confirm a judge using a rule the democrats created, rather than democrats trying to control 1/6th of the US economy, using the rule they created in the 1970s.

Liberal fascism in action.

Reverend Wright: A Shaper of Obama

Here is a good reason why Americans need to question everything about their federal government. The following are a collection of Reverend Wright's comments from a speech he gave at the Monthly Review. Here we go:

"This magazine unflinchingly has tackled the tough issues from McCarthyism to militarism, from the Chinese revolution through the Canadian revolution to the Cuban revolution, from the lies told by United States presidents to the lies told by the United States media. We celebrate tonight six decades of dedicated service."

The Monthly Review is a socialist magazine here's the link.
I guess progressives make sure to celebrate six decades of service for all socialist endeavors see:

Wait there's more:

"You stayed up front. Your starting point is, quote, no nonsense Marxism, unquote. But you dispel all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word "Socialism" or "Marxism."

Great so we have a news publication that pushes Marxism, I have no problem with free speech but we need to remember who this guy preached to for 20 years. If you need a reminder Rev. Wright preached to the Obama family for 20 years.

More Rev. Wright:

"Grateful for the opportunity to bring you a word of Thanksgiving from those who don't ordinarily get a hearing unless they go along with the program, sing in tune with whatever is the popular tune and stay in lockstep with the political pundits who tell us what is politically correct, what is permissible and what will be tolerated from a person of color in this land, the land of the greed and the home of the brave excuse me, the land of the greed and home of the slave."

If he feels this way he's free to leave the country. I certainly won't keep him here if he hates America so much. America has always been about making your own mark and doing whatever it is that makes you happy. We have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the pursuit of happiness doesn't always result in happiness and I, for one, can attest to the fact.

More from the Reverend:

"For the people. My work with liberation theology, with Latin American theologians, with the Black Theology Project and what the Cuban Council of Churches taught me 30 years ago the importance of Marx and the Marxist analysis of the sociology's of the vulnerable and the oppressed who were trying desperately to break free of the political economies undergirded by this country that were choking them and cutting off any hope of a possible future where all of the people would benefit. My exposure to the FMLN in El Salvador, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and my presence at the 15th Jamahiriya in Libya taught me what I have read in the pages of the Monthly Review which is as Joshua Stanton says, though we need not always agree with one another, we must do the work necessary to at least understand one another.

Only in America can we not always agree with each other yet still have the freedom to do so. Try making your ideas known in Communist China, or in Cuba and see where it gets you. Most likely in prison or shot I would think. All those places Rev. Wright mentions try making your opinion known there. I would also like to see him show me a model of a Marxist Utopia. It doesn't exist nor can it exist. Marxism is about control, it suppresses free thinking, the economy, and religion.

A utopia is funded upon the idea that every person can be the same. When I say same I mean have the same interest, the same aptitude, the same emotional response, the same belief, the and same religion. A common sense, rational person can tell you this can never be. People are different. We all have different interest, beliefs, emotional responses, mental aptitudes and different religions. The Founding Fathers knew this to be the case. That is why they made America to be a land of opportunity. It might not be possible for us all to be a Bill Gates, however, that one Bill Gates gives the American economy thousands of jobs and provides unlimited services to the American population as a whole.

The fact is Reverend Wright doesn't espouse the views of the Founding Father's. He wants to handcuff the many so that the needs of the few are met. His policies are designed to destroy this country's greatness and turn us all into wards of the all powerful state. A member of his congregation for 20 years now sits in the Oval Office as President of the United States. Through our Czar Wars articles you have seen first hand what type of people our president has surrounded himself with in his administration. Now you have had a more in depth look at a man who helped shaped the views of President Barrack Hussein Obama.

What will you do now America. Today votes are being cast across the nation. Whose side are you on? The Founding Fathers or on the side of the totalitarian progressives?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">