Health Care and the Constitution

Let me expand on yesterday's post. Yesterday, we discussed (I monologued) on the opinion that the federal government does not have the constitutional power or authority to use tax dollars to give to other nations, either for humanitarian aid or for other kinds of foreign aid.

I feel the same way about health care.

Where in the constitution is the authority granted to the federal government to provide health insurance to citizens (and non-citizens, for that matter)?

The tenth amendment to the constitution says simply:

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.

In other words, any power not spelled out as being given to the federal government, is automatically given to the states or the people. If health care isn't a power granted to the federal government, then it doesn't have that power or authority. Am I wrong on this?

As far as I'm concerned, Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaKare are all unconstitutional.

Clearly, all of us who believe in the constitution should oppose ObamaKare in all its forms and any move toward Universal Health Kare. We should also oppose most of the Republican "alternatives," which also grant more power and authority to the federal government than the constitution allows.

As O'Reilly would say.... "Where have I gone wrong?"

Read more...

The Earthquake and the Constitution

Natural disasters are great opportunities for politicians to gain political points and to look good. That, of course, is one reason the left went after Bush so voraciously after Hurricane Katrina. Bush did nothing wrong, of course, during the storm or the aftermath of one of the worst Hurricanes to strike that area, but the left COULD NOT allow Bush to look good in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Particularly one that they wanted to blame on him.

Today (Saturday), Chile was hit by an earthquake of 8.8 magnitude, one of the strongest ever recorded. Obama couldn't wait to get out on the White House lawn and offer his support to Chile. Of course, we haven't actually DONE anything, yet, but we can't waste the opportunity for Obama to LOOK GOOD doing it.

THe point this brings up is one that I feel particularly strong about, and that is the limited powers of government. I just re-read the constitution (again). I have always felt that the federal government has never been given the constitutional authority to take money from the citizens of the US (in the form of taxes) in order to send that money to foreign governments (many of which are run by dictators and warlords, and are full of citizens who dislike us).

Of course, every president since World War II has done that, and I'm not sure how you challenge the constitutionality of that action. Once the precedent has been established, the Supreme Court seems to simply ignore the constitution and just go with the flow.

While it's very "nice" for the US to help out nations like Haiti and Chile and other nations who are in need. But I don't see that the constitution gives the President or Congress the authority to send our troops and our dollars to those nations, even for humanitarian reasons.

If private citizens want to give money to programs and organizations (such as the Red Cross) to assist these nations in time of need, I think that's entirely proper and appropriate. However, my tax dollars should NOT be used to help or build other nations. Our nation is BROKE. We don't have the money to be sending elsewhere.

Am I wrong? Am I heartless?

Read more...

UN learns of Iran's plans to build Nuclear Warhead

The AP is reporting today that the UN believes Iran is developing a nuclear warhead. Thank goodness, they've picked up on the news that has been common knowledge since two years before Bush left office. Here is the story:

The U.N. nuclear agency on Thursday said it was worriedIran may currently be working on making a nuclear warhead, suggesting for the first time that Tehran had either resumed such work or never stopped at the time U.S. intelligence thought it did.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency appeared to put the U.N. nuclear monitor on the side of Germany, France, Britain andIsrael. These nations and other U.S. allies have disputed the conclusions of a U.S. intelligence assessment published three years ago that said Tehran appeared to have suspended such work in 2003.

The U.S. assessment itself may be revised and is being looked at again by American intelligence agencies. While U.S. officials continue to say the 2007 conclusion was valid at the time, they have not ruled out the possibility that Tehran resumed such work some time after that.

Of course, now we have Obama in office, so nothing bad will happen to us. He's made us safer now than at any time in human history.

Read more...

One Year Ago, He Saved the Economy

Yes, one year ago, he saved the economy. Not Barack Obama, but rather, Blogger William Jacobson from Legal Insurrection. Or so he claims in his most recent, clever blog:

Barack Obama is claiming credit for "saving" the economy from a full-blown depression based on passage of the stimulus plan.

As with most Obama claims of success, Obama simply is exhibiting his prowess at using strawman arguments.

Obama compares where the economy is now, versus where the economy would have been on some hypothetical downward spiral assuming government did nothing. The "some say doing nothing would be better" paradigm is classic Obama.

But the alternative to the Obama stimulus plan and ramped-up budget deficits was not nothing, but a lowering of the tax and regulatory burdens on businesses and individuals which would have created real, economically sustainable jobs.

Instead, at most, we had subsidies to state governments to perpetuate completely unsustainable budgets drowning in union-related labor costs and pensions, and infrastructure projects notorious for cost overruns. No jobs were created or saved; unless of course the federal government is going to continue to subsidize these jobs indefinitely.

Obama confuses association and causation. Just because two events occurred (the economy did not go into a full-blown depression and Obama passed the stimulus) does not mean that the stimulus saved the economy. It is the intellectually lazy person's idea of logic, since it is much, much more difficult to compare what was to what could have been.

Now to the point of this post. Using Obama's logic, I saved the economy.

On February 20, 2009, I wrote The Last Bull Capitulates. In that post I wrote about the damaging effects of Obama deliberately talking down the markets to create a crisis atmosphere necessary to pass the stimulus (as in Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste"):

For the first time in my adult life [yes, h/t MO], I am convinced that we have a President who sees capitalism and markets as the enemy. There is no other explanation for the hyperbolic rhetoric Obama has used to create a sense of economic crisis far in excess of reality. We are in a recession, but as others have documented extensively, to compare the current economy to the Great Depression is damaging.

The result of my analysis was that the time had come to take some money off the investment table until Obama stopped talking down the markets (which he did in fact do in April 2009 when he needed to pass his expansive budget).

But I recognized that I probably was a counter-indicator, the so-called "last bull" capitulating, and that my capitulation probably signalled we had hit bottom:

There's an old saying on Wall Street that a bear market has not bottomed out until the last bull capitulates. News flash. The last bull has capitulated. Me....

I hope I'm selling at the bottom, because that will mean the markets and the country will have recovered from the worst economic policies since the Great Depression.

And so it came to pass.

I capitulated, and the economy did not sink into depression. Therefore, I saved the economy.

So please give credit where credit is due.

Unless, of course, we continue to stay at or near 10% unemployment, in which case it's all Bush's fault and there was nothing I could do about it.

Read more...

More Tebow Ad Controversy

This would actually be funny, if it weren't so sick and twisted.

Pro-Abortion groups, such as the NOW gang, have been looking for ways to criticize the Tebow/Focus on the Family Ad since they first heard it was going to air. Unable to see the ad, their initial criticism was focused on its "anti-choice" message.

Well, as you know from my previous post, we've now seen the ad and there is nothing objectionable in the ad at all. No "anti-choice" message. Just a pro-family, charming little scene.

But wait. Maybe there is something to criticize.

Let me ask you this: When you first saw the ad, was your response "I can't believe they would promote violence against women like that!"?

I didn't think so. I don't think that was the first response of the NOW gang, either. Still that is the approach they are taking. They are trying (unsuccessfully, I might ad) to convince people that the ad promotes domestic violence.

Frankly, I'll bet they were all sitting in a room with a TIVO or DVR and had to go back and watch the ad about 328 times to come up with that.

Imagine the setting: Angry, Ugly, pro-abortion women sitting around trying to find some way to criticize this ad. Finally, after hours and hours of watching the ad over and over, one of them says "HEY! I've GOT it! We can say it's promoting violence against women!"

"Are you kidding? Nobody in their right mind would ever fall for that."

"Sure. Look, they fell for Obama, didn't they? They believed he'd be a moderate. They fell for the stimulus package, didn't they? They'll buy it, I'm telling you!"

"Well..... maybe ..... nah."

Laughter around the table.

"Anybody got any better ideas?"

(Silence)

"Okay, domestic violence, it is."

Read more...

Super(bowl) Ad

We all finally got to see the Tim and Pam Tebow ad from Focus on the Family. My first thought after seeing the ad is "What is the fuss all about?"

The ad never mentions abortion, nor does it make an argument for a pro-life position. It simply says that Pam "almost lost" Tim several times (it never says how, why or even that it was during pregnancy), and it says that she still worries about him. The ad is short, clever, VERY pro-family and absolutely NOT controversial in any way, shape or form.

This whole controversy is about lefties who cannot handle a MAINSTREAM religious organization sponsoring an ad of any kind that might influence people in any way.

The group Focus on the Family, while not perfect, is one of the most respectable Christian organizations around. With so many groups and their leaders getting caught in one scandal or another, Focus on the Family has maintained integrity and character throughout their history. James Dobson, the founder has done a superb job of creating a resource for families, marriages and parents, as well as people struggling with personal and spiritual problems such as alcoholism, homosexuality, drug abuse, pornography and other personal and societal problems.

Well done, Focus on the Family. Well done.

Read more...

Racist Sign at NBC?

How do you suppose people would respond if the above sign were posted "in honor of Black History Month" in our schools, homes or place of business?

I don't know about you, but I can see where this sign MIGHT be considered racist.

This sign actually appeared yesterday in the cafeteria at NBC studios.

NBC.

The owners of MSNBC.

The leftist/socialist/enlightened NBC.

The ones who call everyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.

THAT NBC.

So is it racist or is it not? I can't say for sure, but the sign was actually created by a black cook at the cafeteria, who apparently wanted to do her part. In an interview, she seemed genuinely shocked that anyone would consider the sign offensive.

I don't know if it's racist or not, but I will say this .... that's a lot of food for $7.50.

Read more...

The Stimulus is Working

America received two bits of economic news today. The unemployment rate, which has risen every month since Obama took office, actually dropped today. The rate went from 10 percent to 9.7 percent in January. Meanwhile, the same report says that America lost 20,000 jobs in the same period.

Now, that's interesting. How can that be?

Well it seems that while the "official" unemployment rate dropped, that number does not include those who have given up looking for work. Economists are telling us that those who have lost their jobs since Obama took office have been unemployed four times longer than during a normal recession. Because of that, those who have given up looking, the "desperate unemployed," has continued to rise. In fact, the "real" unemployment rate (current numbers not available, but above 17 percent) is higher than at any time since the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The administration is "pleased" with the numbers. At least, that's the official line. The drop in unemployment, according the administration, is proof that the Generational Theft Act (a.k.a. the Stimulus) is working.

I'll have to agree. These numbers are, indeed, a direct result of Obama's policies, including last year's spending spree.

Read more...

Quote of the Day

This one also comes from "The Other McCain"...

"Olbermann? He's about as popular as syphilis."

Read more...

Approprate Response from Ace of Spades

I'm going to do something I don't normally do. I'm going to link to an article with a considerable amount of profanity and references to sexual acts.

Why would I do that? Well, Ace of Spades has a hilarious article in response to a blog by Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan is an extreme leftist/communist homosexual who berates anyone who does not agree with him. Recently, Sullivan wrote (yet another) scathing article castigating Sarah Palin for, among other things, naming her child Trig.

I don't typically like to link to articles containing this kind of language and references. However, the Ace response is appropriate given the tenor of Sullivan's original piece. Yes, Ace stoops low. But it's probably the only language the leftist chistianophobes really understand.

Here is the link, and a sampling from the article....

Again, Andrew Sullivan demonstrates his extreme ignorance about all things reproductive. It utterly fails to crack his Blue Event Horizon of Stupid that mothers must care for young children at all hours a day. Especially if they're breastfeeding, which I am guessing Governor Palin is.

This doesn't even occur to him.

What does Dr. Andrew Sullivan, noted child psychologist recently called "just like Dr. Benjamin Spock, except fat and with a beard and rawmuscleglutes," think mothers do with their 2-year-old children when they need to venture out of the home? Drop them off at Kinko's? Stick them into hypersleep capsules a la Alien?

What? What happens to this kid when Palin is working, in Sullivan's mind? Does he imagine the kid has a hibernate switch like his computer

Read more...

Quote of the Day

"Somehow I feel like Michael Moore just told me to eat more salads."

-- Robert Stacy McCain on Barack Obama lecturing America on federal spending and fiscal responsibility.

Read more...

Make Your Day Brighter

Do you want to make your day just a little bit brighter? Do you want to start off with something cheery and funny?

Do this ....

Create an empty file on your computer and name it "Barack Obama." Go ahead, it's okay. Now, move that file to your trash can. Your computer will say "Do you want to get rid of Barack Obama?"

Emphatically click "Yes".

At that point your computer will put Obama in the trash.

Now, don't you feel better?

Tomorrow, we get rid of Nancy Pelosi.

Read more...

You Lie

President Obama's misplaced budget priorities may be the result of his misdiagnosing the cause of the deficits. During his State of the Union speech, the President asserted that "by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."

This is simply not true.

The policies mentioned by President Obama were implemented in the early 2000s. Yet even with all those policies in place, the 2007 budget deficit stood at only $162 billion. The trillion-dollar deficits did not begin until 2009 (driven by financial bailouts, stimulus, and declining revenues) as the recession hit its trough.

And the policies mentioned by the President certainly could not be responsible for most of the trillion-deficits over the next decade, given that most war spending will phased out by then and the tax cuts and Medicare drug benefit are expected to cost a combined 2 percent of GDP over the next decade--even as the baseline budget deficit rises past 8 percent of GDP.

Still, it is hypocritical of Obama to rail about ANY deficit spending under the Bush administration, when his own policies will create more debt than has been created by all of the presidents who held office before him ... combined.

Read more...

Spending America Into Oblivion

From American Spectator (Spectator.org)

By Peter Ferrara on 2.3.10 @ 6:08AM

At the invitation of the Republicans, President Obama spoke at the Republican retreat last Friday. During the following Q & A, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas rose to ask the final question: "You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy."

Rep. Hensarling's statements regarding President Obama's budget last year, supported by almost every Democrat, including those supposedly fiscal conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, were completely accurate, taken directly from the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That 25% of our economy refers only to the cost of the federal government. State and local government adds over 50% more, increasing the total cost of government in America to almost 40% of GDP already.

But President Obama responded as if the question were completely illegitimate, saying, "I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign."

On Monday, President Obama publicly submitted his new budget. That budget forthrightly answers Rep. Hensarling's question, even though President Obama would not in the light of a national TV broadcast. President Obama's own budget confesses that it would more than triple the national debt from $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008 to $18.6 trillion by 2020.

Indeed, it would almost double the national debt in just four years from 2008, to $11.5 trillion in 2012. The budget also confesses that under President Obama's first three years, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow over $4.2 trillion. As the Wall Street Journalreported last week, "That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history."

During the glorious 2008 campaign for hope and change, then candidate Obama harshly criticized George Bush for running $3.3 trillion in deficits over his eight years in office. But President Obama's new budget confesses that he will run up that much in deficits in just two years and three months. Moreover, as Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reported on Monday, "President Obama would run up more debt over his eight years than all other Presidents in American history -- from George Washington to George Bush -- combined."

But at the Republican retreat, when he was on national television, President Obama refused to take responsibility for any of this. Further responding to Rep. Hensarling, who had said, "what were the old annual deficits under Republicans became the monthly deficits under Democrats," President Obama said that "had nothing to do with anything we had done." He went on to repeat basically what he had said during his State of the Union Address earlier in the week, "By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."

Heritage's Riedl corrected President Obama on Monday, saying, "This is simply not true. The policies mentioned by President Obama were implemented in the early 2000s. Yet even with all those policies in place, the 2007 budget deficit stood at only $162 billion."

President Obama's budget admits a federal deficit for 2010 of $1.6 trillion, ten times as much as that 2007 deficit of $162 billion, which was the deficit for the last budget adopted by Republican Congressional majorities. This was where Hensarling got his statement that the annual deficits under the Republicans had become the monthly deficits under the Democrats, to which President Obama wrongly responded, "that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true."

But the truth is that President Obama's $1.6 trillion deficit for 2010 is the largest in world history, rising still more from last year's record $1.4 trillion deficit. And this record 2010 deficit assumes continued record low interest rates this year on our gargantuan national debt. If interest rates rise, then federal spending and deficits will explode still further due to interest costs on that debt. The Obama budget already projects that net interest spending will soar to $840 billion by 2020, more than four times current levels.

read more

Read more...