Health Care Reform Lawsuit...What's Your Opinion?

Before the ink was dry on the Health Care Destruction Act of 2010, several states began filing lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of the act.

Now, there is no question that the act is unconstitutional. That's not the question. You CANNOT read the constitution (unless you are a lawyer/judge) and conclude after reading it that the federal government has ANY authority to fund health care. Of course, you would also be forced to conclude, if you REALLY thought about it, that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal funding of education and a whole host of other things the federal government does are ALSO unconstitutional.

Of course, lawyers and judges can't read.

Or so it seems. When they read something, they obviously don't read or understand it the same way that you and I do.

Where I have a problem with the Supreme Court's rulings on the constitutionality of ANYTHING is that they don't really look at the constitution and what its original intent was. They look at everything else. Previous rulings, case law, their liberal agenda, etc.

I've always looked at the constitution as a contract. The American people voted on it (in the 1700's) and it's Amendments (in the years following). What were the writers thinking it meant when they wrote it? What were the voters thinking it meant when they voted on it? There is no way the framers of the constitution envisioned our current government. In fact, our current government, and in particular, our current administration, were precisely the thing they were trying to AVOID when they wrote the document.

So, then, the question, really is this: Does this lawsuit REALLY stand a chance of succeeding. Given the liberal nature of the court and the way they tend to rule on these kinds of issues, my feeling is the Health Care Destruction bill will stand as is. I don't think the Supremes will strike it down. But I'm not a lawyer, and, frankly, I don't follow these kinds of things that closely.

What do you think?

Read more...

Laughing At the Left

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Read more...

Military Is the Enemy Camp

Chris Matthews let his true feelings known last night in front of the whole nation. Well, at least all 75 people who watch his program, anyway.

Matthews was apparently at a loss trying to figure out why the Commander-in-Chief might want to announce military plans at a military academy. Of the speech, he said "The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting; he went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case."

Let's put aside the fact that Matthews can't put together a grammatically correct sentence to save his soul. He later tried to cover his treasonous opinions by saying, "Maybe earlier tonight I used the wrong phrase, 'enemy camp.'"

No, Chris. You expressed exactly what you and most of your leftist, liberal, communist, America-hating buddies actually feel about America and the courageous young men who defend it. The Clintons made very little effort to hide their contempt for all things military. Many leftists are right there with you guys.

True patriotic Americans are proud of our military, including the institutions that train our soldiers and military leaders. Without the military, there would be no America. Without the military there would be no freedom; no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of religion, no freedom to assemble, no freedom to elect the leaders we want. And that's exactly why the left hates the military. While giving lip service to freedoms, the left doesn't really like freedom. They want everyone to think and act like them. They don't want anyone to be free to be different from them. They celebrate diversity with their lips, but criticize any diversity that is different from the kind of diversity they want. And Chris Matthews sends a tingle up and down my leg every time he says something stupid that reveals the true spirit of the anti-American left.

Thanks Chris.

Read more...

Too Much Anger

I started to post a reply to my last post in response to a comment left by one "Grey-Headed Brother."  Mr. Brother seems to think my blog contains too much anger and not enough love.

Perhaps he is right.

I've looked back over many of my recent posts and noted that some of them do contain a certain degree of anger.  Perhaps .... and this is just a thought ... but perhaps, it's because .... I'm angry.

I'm angry that the Tele-Prompter is taking us down a liberal-socialist path that will prevent the US from ever returning to the greatness we once enjoyed.

I'm angry that the MainStream Media no longer reports political news, but only reports the Democratic talking points and slants everything toward the left.

I'm angry that the national debt, by the time The Tele-Prompter leaves office (in four years, hopefully, if he's not drummed out sooner) could exceed $100,000 for every taxpaying American.

I'm angry that the Tele-Prompter has broken more campaign promises in the first 60 days in office than do most Presidents during their entire term, without so much as a whisper of anger from his supporters.

Perhaps, as a Christian I should show more love. 

If you met me in person, you'd find me a rather quiet, introspective, and pleasant person.  I'm nice to everyone.  But, I hold things in.  A friend of mine, who happens to have a degree in psychology, told me that it isn't good to hold frustrations and anger inside.

So I have an outlet.   It's called a Blog.  And here I can say what I really think and feel without  worrying about what anyone thinks. 

You don't like it?  Tough.  Big deal.  I don't CARE!!!  It's MY opinion.  You don't have to like it.

If you don't like reading what REAL AMERICANS think, go elsewhere.  CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, and all the other major MainStream News sources have a place for you, where you can go live in a "happy place" and feel good about things.

I live in a world where there are consequences.  And I'm not just going to sit by in my "happy place" and not say anything about what's going on around me.

Follow my blog if you like.  And if you don't like it and want to take your name off, that's fine by me.  I don't care if I have any followers or not.

I'd rather have a blog, than prozac.

Read more...

Budget Deficit Will Be Higher than Obama Wants to Admit

President Obama's $3.55-trillion budget has stumbled into a series of economic and political pitfalls that threaten to undercut his grandest ambitions.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on Thursday projected deficits far higher than the Obama administration had calculated, possibly as much as $1.6 trillion higher over the next 10 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to issue a similar assessment today.

That bad news, combined with other recent developments, portends a rocky road for the Obama budget, which was initially hailed by congressional Democrats for promoting such liberal priorities as expanded access to health insurance and curbs on global warming.

In the three weeks since the budget was unveiled, fiscally conservative Democrats have raised concerns about proposed spending increases. Leaders of the House and Senate tax-writing committees have criticized some of Obama's proposed tax increases on wealthier Americans. And influential Democrats are backing away from using a legislative shortcut that may be Obama's best hope for passing his far-reaching health and energy policies.

An additional multibillion-dollar bailout for banks and other financial institutions, which the administration will soon propose, is expected to add more pressure to the federal government's finances.

Into that tinderbox, a lit match has come from new deficit estimates.

Where Obama's budget foresees rolling up $7 trillion in cumulative deficits over the next 10 years, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Thursday pegged the deficits at $1.6 trillion higher over that period.

Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the figure was calculated by his panel's Democratic staff members.

The Congressional Budget Office report today is expected to reflect a worsening deficit outlook in part because economic conditions have deteriorated in the two months since the administration set its budget assumptions. The office is expected to project lower revenue and higher spending than what Obama's budget assumed.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), one of about 15 moderate Democrats concerned about Obama's spending levels, said the White House might have to reassess its priorities in light of the new estimates.

"That will influence what we might think is the appropriate level of spending -- what might be put off to another budget, what we can pursue incrementally," said Nelson, a member of the budget panel.

"I think this budget is in for some tough sledding," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "Some components of his budget are going over like a lead balloon."

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) won't let facts and projections get in the way of her liberal agenda.

"Our priorities are the same," Pelosi said. "You can't say we are going to do less because those numbers are pessimistic."

The White House also said the projections would not force a change in the socialization of America.

"It's not productive to constantly be chasing your tail and, as things change every day, revise your numbers," was the spin from Kenneth Baer of Obama's budget office.

In other words, "Bush spent too much money and had huge deficits.  This is all his fault.  In order to get us out of this mess, we're going to have to spend even more money and have even bigger deficits!"

Read more...

Let Them Eat Cake!

In these recessional times, we find it often uncomfortable to watch TV or read the newspapers; especially when we recognize that our fellow citizens are too often influenced by the propaganda that daily issues forth from them. Given their almost unanimous support of all things liberal, our media have furnished the socialists in Washington the ability to hide their agenda in plain sight; a heretofore unheard of development in the U.S. of A.

From inanities like our president predicting a "catastrophe" if his stimulus bill fails, to insanities like Nancy Pelosi calling abortion and birth control good for the economy, the feeling that we are no longer living in the America we knew grows day by day.

So where then are we? Many have opined that we are sliding into the realm of socialist Europe, but my sense of alienation is more specific: I feel as if in the middle of the French Revolution, or at least the Dicksonian rendition of it. We have now reached critical mass on the battlefield of class warfare; we have become a nation of Madame Defarges, with Nancy Pelosi wielding the big knitting needles, weaving together the names of the enemies of the State.

Not a day goes by without some corporate schmuck being held up in derision for his salary, his bonus or even his office décor. Derision is his lot; he is to be despised by the masses, as we are often reminded by our betters in the entertainment field, whose possessions and net worth are, of course, never questioned by a fawning press.

Yet, the notion of class warfare should be a laughable premise in a society whose governing system was and is designed so that there would be no permanent class distinctions. The proof of this is all around us, not the least of which is the life story and election of Barack Obama.

But the specter of the modern-day guillotine is all around us, ready to fall on the neck of those who dare speak the praises of Capitalism or worse; that a man is entitled to make whatever the market will bear. Such radical ideas, once the bedrock of our economy, are now the stuff which causes millions to cheer when the next CEO takes the media perp walk.

Now, none of this is new. Resentment of the rich dates back to Biblical days, and although used as a weapon here from time to time, it has always been tempered by the sure knowledge that with a lot of hard work and maybe a touch of Divine Providence, the sons and daughters of immigrants might be raised to great wealth in a generation or two.

The way we got in this mess was a well-intentioned, if misguided attempt to circumvent that long, hard road to the American dream. The idea that home ownership is a right; that everyone with a foot on American soil must be given access to funding that they had very little hope of repaying, is what put our banking system under the hobnail boot of the socialists who seek to gain the power they so urge the rest of us to disdain.

But just as in the case of repentant aristocrats during the Reign of Terror, some American rich folks have managed to escape the tender embrace of Madame Guillotine. One need look no further than the case of Tom Daschle, who's made a killing in the private sector since being sacked by the people of South Dakota, hauling in over $5 million as a lobbyist-like "consultant."

Yes, woe be unto the greedy corporate biggie whose life of luxury comes at the expense of his shareholders. But, when an ex-public servant uses the influence granted him by his constituents to amass wealth and then avoids paying taxes on his hired cars and drivers, the message is unmistakable: Let them eat cake!

It is a regrettable paradox that in today's America, its citizens are being urged to bite the hand that feeds them. After all, as bloodthirsty as were Mme. Defarge's acts of vengeance, she at least had a legitimate beef with those she sent to an early grave. But today's blade is sharpened for the only ones who can supply the jobs that will rescue our nation from the shadow of a domestic reign of terror. It's time to reconsider who and what really deserve the ax. 

Read more...

Obama: Government is the Answer

As if we didn't already know that Obama was an anti-American Socialist, recent remarks have confirmed his lack of faith in the American people and his faith in Big Government solutions to problems.  Obama arrived at his first White House news conference with one primary message:  Only Government can fix the economy.

"At this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life."

To the extent that Big Government got us into this mess with excessive taxation, overspending, and excessive government regulation, particularly in the financial industry, I'd have to agree with Obama.  Unfortunately, his solution is "more of the same thing that got us into this mess should get us out."  I wonder how much sense that makes.

He also took issue with those of us in the blogosphere (primarily) who have recently criticized FDR and his New Deal policies that, according to a recent study by UCLA, extended the great depression by seven years.  

"They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago," he said.

If by that you mean that liberal journalists and historians see FDR as the nations First Messiah and Obama as the Second, then yes, you are right.  Liberals have been "feeling a tingle down their leg" over FDR for decades, in spite of evidence that flies in the face of conventional wisdom. 

Obama insisted that he did not really want to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money (yet), but that was what was required.  

"I would love not to have to spend money right now.  That wasn't how I envisioned my presidency beginning..." He said.

Of course, the implication here is that he would loved to have spent it later when he could target the money more toward the socialist liberal humanistic agenda that the Democrats have tried to push in this bill.  He would gladly have traded our current situation for one in which he could spend a trillion dollars on Socialized health care, a larger amount for abortions and planned parenthood, and other liberal, socialist causes.

While his sales pitch was focused on job creation, much of the Pork Barrel Spending Bill avoids job creation.    He said "My initial measure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs."

Using that standard, he most certainly will be able to claim success no matter what happens, given the numbers of expected job losses predicted by Nancy Pelosi.

Read more...

Can We All Be One, Now?

I just finished reading an article by a nationally syndicated author (I'm not going to say who) that referenced the Festivities of the Coronation of The One.  In that article the author asked the question "Can we all be one, now?"  It expressed eternal optimism that now, finally, our country can and should come together.  That we can and should unite.  That everyone can finally love this country and be proud of it.  That finally, we can all ... agree ... agree with Obama's agenda ... because .... it's perfect. 

Can't we, finally, all be one?

Uhhmm.... In a word ... No.

What I want to know is why couldn't we all be one eight years ago.  

Why couldn't we get behind George W. Bush in the pre-9/11 days when he wanted to improve our Education System and leave no child behind.  No, standards and testing to improve our schools wasn't what the liberals in the education system wanted.  They just wanted more money thrown at the system to use without accountability.

Why couldn't we all stand behind George W. Bush when he wanted to reduce taxes for everyone in order to stimulate the economy?  No, the liberals were afraid that some people might become wealthy.  We can't have that, now, can we?

Why couldn't we all get behind George W. Bush when the terrorist attacked us?  Why couldn't we stand behind the war on terror?  No.  The liberals wanted to paint our president as a criminal and a war-monger.  They wanted to portray the war on terror as a war for oil.  They wanted to portray Bush and Cheney as cowards.

But NOW .... now, everything is different.  Yes, roses are growing spontaneously throughout America.  Hope is alive.  And everyone should get behind the Obama agenda.  Why?   Well .... uhhm .... just because.  Because we should.  Because that's what the liberals want.  Because Obama is The ONE.  Because he wants special rights for Homosexuals.  Because he wants everyone to have an abortion (and kill their unborn child) any time they want.  Because he wants the government to be more powerful.  Because he wants to take away the voices of those who oppose the left, including Christians.

And you can bet the liberals are going to be shocked when some of us don't jump on the bandwagon.

Read more...