I Could Support This Individual Mandate
Feb 2, 2011 Political
I know that Judge Roger Vinson has ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and I agree completely with his ruling. Of course the Obama regime is ignoring the ruling and pressing on with implementing this disaster even though they should be putting an end to it. Judge Vinson made it clear that the federal government was expected to follow a ruling and therefore he did not need to make an additional ruling telling them to do so. Obama and his people do not obey the courts or any other legal entity that interferes with their agenda.
I know that this decision can be overturned in a higher court and it is obvious that it will eventually be decided in the Supreme Court. So while I am happy that this was ruled unconstitutional, I know that it can be back as quickly as it left.
I do find that I might be in favor of an individual mandate. Several lawmakers in South Dakota have introduced a bill that would require all adults age 21 or older to buy a gun:
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”
One of the lawmakers admits that the bill has no chance of passing and he does not expect it too. The bill was introduced to demonstrate the absurdity of the government forcing people to buy things.
Then again, the detailed and well researched decision by Judge Vinson demonstrated the absurdity of the government’s action all by itself…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, gun, obamacare, roger vinson
Obama’s Words Come Back To Haunt Him; For Now
Feb 1, 2011 Political
Federal Judge Roger Vinson struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional dealing a blow to the liberal plan of taking over health care in this country. Judge Vinson wrote a detailed ruling which basically eviscerated the claims of those who pushed this monstrosity on us. Though the ruling correctly dispels the notion that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to force people to buy a product, the most interesting part of it comes in the form of a note at the end where Vinson uses the words of Barack Obama against him:
“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 his 78-page ruling Monday. Washington Times
Obviously this is not a reason to make the ruling (and the ruling was based on the Constitution) it is interesting to see the judge use Obama’s words to remind people that he opposed the idea when running for office. It is a historical record that shows how Obama said one thing as a candidate and then did another. Future historians will see one more piece of evidence of the failure that is Obama.
This ruling is but one step because no matter what happens this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. This might get more interesting because Justice Kagan might have to recuse herself from the issue if she had anything to do with it while Solicitor General. If that is the case then there is a possibility the court will end in a 4-4 tie on the issue (depending on Justice Kennedy). If that is the case then the lower court ruling stands. There have been two rulings that state the law is Constitutional so the first one to the SCOTUS might decide the issue.
If Kennedy rules with the conservative side of the Court (which he does more than not) then it matters not which appeal gets there first.
This law needs to die a quick death and today’s ruling is a first step in that endeavor.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, lies, obamacare, roger vinson, supreme court
Wrap Up From Absurdistan
Jan 31, 2011 Political
Obamacare
If Obamacare is so good then why have hundreds of waivers been granted? The reality is that the law is a bad one and those who are politically connected and in good favor with the regime get waivers so they do not have to comply with the law like the rest of us. A Washington Times article points this out and the line that says it all is:
The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?
Border Security
Looks like the Obama regime has been focusing like a laser beam on border security much the same way it has with jobs. In other words, there is no focus. The southern border is porous and people enter at will. There are untold numbers of people coming here and that includes drug runners and bad guys who have made parts of Arizona the wild, wild west. Recent news is that a controversial Muslim Cleric, Said Jaziri, was captured while being smuggled into this country.
This is the guy who called for the death of the Danish cartoonist who drew pictures of the pedophile Mohammed. He was deported from Canada and has now been captured sneaking into the US. While it is great that he was captured, how many others have made it through because the border is not secured?
TSA Union Reigns Supreme
TSA chief John Pistole put an end to the process of allowing private security firms to perform screenings at airports. Airports were allowed to opt out of the TSA and use private firms but that plan is no longer in place as all applications will be denied.
The union is applauding the move because it has thousands of employees that need jobs groping people (Thousands Standing Around). The TSA has groped untold numbers of people and has, to date, not caught one terrorist.
The TSA had no opinion on the private security option a few months ago but is now opposed. Perhaps Congress needs to get involved to see what favors were traded to appease the union.
Question Of The Day
Is Charlie Sheen really an actor?
On the show Two and a Half Men, Sheen plays a drunken playboy who sleeps with lots of women, patronizes hookers, and dabbles in drugs.
In real life, Sheen is a drunken playboy who sleeps with lots of women, patronizes prostitutes (and porn stars), and more than dabbles in drugs.
So how exactly is he acting? Some years ago there was a show where a kid with Down’s Syndrome played a kid with Down’s Syndrome. He did a good job on the show but how was that acting?
The same applies to Sheen. Acting is portraying something that one is not and doing it in a manner that makes people believe that it is real. Charlie Sheen does not play something he is not and the reason he appears real on the show is because he is portraying his actual life.
The guy needs help or he will end up dead.
How many people added Sheen to their dead pool? (question within the question)
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Nanny Pelosi Knows Best
Jan 5, 2011 Political
The nanny state is alive and well. Nanny Pelosi spoke after a group of Democrats presented their views on repeal of Obamacare. They gave the standard lies and some said how much it would cost to repeal, standard stuff one expects from the nanny state but Nanny Pelosi took the case.
In this video from The Blaze (linked from WBAL Radio) Pelosi states that even if everyone in America was happy with their health care and it was affordable for all, the government takeover was necessary because the system was not sustainable.
Listen to what this moron is saying. She indicates that even if EVERYONE had health care and liked it and it was affordable she and her nanny state Democrats would have had to take it over because it was not sustainable.
Excuse me while I laugh. OK, I am back. If everyone has what they want and they can afford it then the system IS sustainable. The system is and has been sustainable but according to Pelosi even if the system was completely ideal and everyone had coverage they liked and could afford, the government would need to take it over.
This is more proof that the takeover had nothing to do with the stated goals and everything to do with involving government in our lives.
It is absolute proof that this is about one thing and one thing only. CONTROL! They want to control us and they know it will be easier if they control our health care.
I have an idea. Government as we know have it is unsustainable. Spending is out of control and we are 14 TRILLION dollars in debt. We have a bloated government that is simply unsustainable.
So let’s take it over. It is necessary and, according to Nanny Pelosi, the proper thing to do.
We started today and if the Republicans don’t do the right thing we will fire them and replace them with people who will. We will keep replacing these people until we get folks who will do what is right by this country and the people who make it work.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: control, democrat, lie, nanny pelosi, nanny state, obamacare
What If Government Made You Buy This?
Jan 4, 2011 Political
The Republicans are set to introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare and its takeover of health care in this country. The measure will pass in the House but will not pass in the Senate but Republicans there plan on a roll call vote to get everyone on the record. Considering how voting for Obamacare ended the careers of many long time Democrats, some have to be worried about the vote (which might explain why so many Democrats and their allies in the media are saying how bad taking up repeal would be).
One of the things in the law that people oppose is the individual mandate which requires everyone to buy health care insurance. The Democrats have twisted and abused the Commerce Clause in order to force people to buy a product. This is unconstitutional and against what the Commerce Clause was intended for. I think the law will die in the courts as this mandate is ruled unconstitutional.
Without the money from those required to buy health care, the entire law unravels.
Democrats are lining up to tell us, once again, that it is perfectly legal for the government to force someone to buy something. I wonder though, how they would react if a future Congress and president enacted a law requiring everyone to buy a handgun.
I might have written about this before but I think it is worth mentioning again. Everyone is impacted by crime and people can be the targets of crime at anytime. Additionally, crime impacts commerce in this country as it costs us billions of dollars each year. The Constitution absolutely affirms our individual right to keep and bear arms. What would happen if a future Congress said that people were required to buy a handgun because deterring crime impacts commerce?
Can you imagine how the very Democrats who say it is perfectly legal to require people to buy health care insurance would react?
I know that many of them would be screaming about how it is unconstitutional and that the government does not have the right to force people to buy things, particularly a gun.
The government does not have the power to force anyone to buy anything.
And Democrats would soon realize that if people were required to buy handguns.
**This issue involves the federal government. At least one local jurisdiction has enacted a law requiring a gun to be kept in every house. Also, when we were founded all males between certain ages were required to have a firearm and ammunition in case the need to call the militia to service arose.
Related:
Two page repeal bill
Republicans move to repeal Obamacare
I am not the only one who had this thought
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: commerce clause, guns, health care, obamacare, Second Amendment