The Obama Spin Machine Thinks You Are An Idiot
Mar 29, 2012 Political
“The confidence of the people will easily be gained by a good administration. This is the true touchstone.” –Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788
The mark of a good administration is one that tells the truth. Americans are adults and most prefer the truth. We might not like it and we might get angry but we want to know the realties. Unfortunately, politics involves doing and saying whatever is necessary to get elected and then to hold office.
Barack Obama lectured Hillary Clinton on why we should not have an individual mandate in health insurance and once he was in office he pushed for that mandate. After three days of Supreme Court hearings it looks like that mandate could be his undoing.
That is where the spin comes in and that is where they think you are an idiot.
The White House is rebranding the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility clause” of the bill. The White House goes further by claiming that the individual mandate, oops I mean the individual responsibility clause, was a Republican idea.
You read that right. The White House is claiming that the unpopular mandate was the invention of the Republicans. While this should come as no surprise because this White House always blames someone else, it should be seen for what it is. It is a blatant attempt to rewrite history and blame the Republicans for the mess that this has become.
But wait, it gets worse.
The White House is calling this bill a bi-partisan effort. For those with any doubt, bi-partisan means that the two parties involved supported the effort. I guess by some abstract, twisted logic one could call it bi-partisan since Democrats and Independents supported it but that is not what the White House means.
The White House is saying it was bi-partisan in an effort to place equal blame for the mess on both parties so that the damage can be spread out and Obama can be portrayed as a victim of bad Congressional decisions.
If it was a bad decision why did he push it, why did he defend it and why did he sign it?
More to the point though, the bill is not bi-partisan because NOT ONE SINGLE Republican voted for it.
The Democrats made deals, bribed members, and used legislative trickery to get this bill passed and it was ALL done by Democrats.
Keep that in mind folks. The Republicans were not allowed to be part of the negotiations. Their ideas, those that were considered, were voted down or excluded. They were not included in the meetings and they had no say in the process.
The whole thing was entirely a Democrat effort and only Democrats voted for it and they did so in the middle of the night around Christmas while wheeling Robert Byrd in in his wheelchair.
It was the Democrats who made a big show of the issue by parading around with a huge gavel while inventing stories of racist comments. Remember all that fanfare? Remember the show and the big grins on their faces? Remember how proud they were to have passed this thing? Remember it all because they are now trying to change the story.
This mess belongs entirely to Barack Obama (his signature legislation we are told) and his Democrats who rammed it down our throats.
We had to pass it to see what was in it and when that happened people liked it even less. Now the answer to Pelosi’s question is becoming clear.
Remember? She was asked if it was Constitutional and her reply was “are you serious?”
Yes, we were and that issue has been addressed this week. While anything can happen it is becoming very clear that the SCOTUS does not hold the view that the mandate is Constitutional. Even if it does, the end result will spell disaster.
Now the regime is trying to shift blame, rewrite history and implicate Republicans in this total Democrat mess.
So I will have to respond with Pelosi’s words…
Are you serious?
Most of us are not that stupid…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bi-partisan, bribes, Democrats, kickbacks, lies, Obama, obamacare, spin, supreme court
Democrats In Panic Mode
Mar 27, 2012 Political
It looks like it was not a good day for Obamacare and by extension, all those law makers who pushed it. While it is certainly too early to tell and anything can change, it appears that the government had a bad day in front of the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General was so bad that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan interjected to help him out. They were pushing him in the right direction and assisting him in making his case. By the way, Kagan should have recused herself but she is a liberal and they have no ethical principles.
The conservative Justices asked tough and pointed questions that the SG was not prepared to answer. The left has hopes it can pluck one of the conservative justices and win a 5-4 decision (because the liberals will obviously never vote in favor of the Constitution) and they might succeed. Some are left wondering if Roberts or Kennedy will be that fifth vote and most say it is too close to call. I think it will be 5-4 overturning but it would not surprise me to see the thing go the other way.
Our Supreme Court has been a political branch rather than a judicial overseer for far too long and has engaged in social engineering many times. I believe that it is a sad thing that there is not a unanimous decision against something the Constitution does not allow. To see that a number of our highest judges can’t get on board with the Law of the Land is disheartening.
However, I can understand why the Court is confused. The Obama regime called the fine a penalty and then a tax and then a penalty and then a tax and Obama has argued both sides of the mandate. He argued one way as a candidate and another after he won (he was against it before he was for it). This is well illustrated in this video:
This very plainly shows that Obama argued one thing when he wanted you to vote for him (which many of you foolishly did) and then another way after he suckered you into voting for him. This is probably the kind of deception he was signaling when he told the Russians to give him space because he would have more flexibility after the election. Imagine how he could really screw us over when he does not have to worry about reelection…
Like I indicated, it is too early to tell and we really won’t know for sure until the ruling comes out in June but the talking heads were very sure that today was a bad day for the government. The Obama media were all sweating bullets, NPR, CNN, and the rest were in disbelief.
They are already writing the mandate off.
Next up is the severability. If they overturn the mandate will they trash the entire law or just the mandate? There is no severability clause so the entire thing should go but it is unlikely they will do that.
What does it mean? If they only throw out the mandate the other parts of the law will cause private insurance companies a lot of headaches and the Democrats would love nothing more than to have that happen so they could push for a single payer system. Many on the left say that Obama wins either way but I am not so sure.
If it is upheld then it will cause more Republicans to go to the polls to vote in people who will overturn it.
If only the mandate is overturned then Republicans will work just as hard to vote people in to get rid of the rest.
If it is completely overturned then all the people in Congress who voted for this will be painted as people who forced unconstitutional legislation down our throats and the deals and bribes will be brought to bear on them in the election.
In any event, the last two scenarios will cause a lot of Democrats heartburn as they worry about how it will affect their jobs…
It looks now like it might have been a bad idea for Obama to insult the justices during his State of the Union address. It certainly looks like his vote against John Roberts to be on the Court was unwise.
Not that the judges would hold a grudge…
But who would blame them?
UPDATE: The Daily Mail points out much of the same…
UPDATE 2: Kagan helping Soclitor General One wonders if she was not really arguing the case for the government…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: lies, mandate, Obama, obamacare, overturn, supreme court, unconstitutional
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
Then Why Should The Rich Pay Social Security?
Dec 1, 2010 Political
Social Security is a bad program that has gotten worse over the years. It is designed to keep people enslaved to the government by taking money from them while they earn and then giving them a small retirement when they end their working careers. This deprives them of the opportunity to save and invest the money on their own, a step that would actually allow them to earn much more money and allow them to say what is done with it.
The Supreme Court has ruled that no one has a legal right to Social Security benefits. This is a bad decision but it looks like it will play out that way in the long run. Social Security is broke and there is no reasonable way to fix it. There will be no money left for those who are paying today.
A Democrat Policy Group is recommending that Social Security be fixed by denying payments to those who are wealthy when they retire. If you have the brains to put money away and save for retirement and happen to do well then you might not get the benefit that you paid into for all of your working career.
In what world is this fair?
Why should the rich pay into Social Security (or a person who is not particularly wealthy during his working career but saves a lot) only to be denied the money when they retire? What rule allows for the confiscation of a person’s money and then the redistribution of that money to others?
Why should the rich pay into Social Security? To top it off, the plan calls for higher Social Security taxes and raising the income level (the cap) on which it is collected. Why would people pay into this knowing full well that they would not get anything when they retire?
Most Democrats oppose this plan while some Republicans favor it or some variation of it. Who the hell do these people think they are?
As for me, I don’t need them to pay me Social Security. All I want is for them to send me a check for the money I have paid in (and I don’t even need any interest on it) and for them to stop taking Social Security out of my check. I will be more than happy to invest the money myself and I will live quite well in retirement. I am also sure the people who are actually rich (and even those considered rich by the government) would be happy to do the same.
I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I just work hard for my money and I save some of it for the future.
Others would do well to follow that example.
The members of Congress would do well to learn from that as well.
Class warfare is here and they are stoking the fire. Keep it up and things will get ugly as the rich find other things to do with their money.
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: benefits, Congress, lies, rich, social security, supreme court
Is Specter Selling Kagan Vote For Job In Obama Regime?
Jul 15, 2010 Political
Arlen Specter is an opportunist. He was a Democrat (1951-1965) and then changed to Republican and then when it looked like he was going to lose in the 2010 election, he changed parties again and became a Democrat. In fact, Specter ran as a Republican in 1965 after losing the bid in the Democrat primary. He ran as a registered Democrat and then changed parties when he won. Who says you can’t go home?
Ironically, Specter lost the Democrat primary to Joe Sestak so now he is looking for a new job.
In steps the Obama regime. Specter told the White House he would like to continue his public service. Before I go on, he never did public service. He did Specter service as demonstrated by his switching parties in order to keep his job though it didn’t quite work out that way. Specter will be 81 when he leaves office. He has been sucking up a government paycheck for decades and it is time for him to hang it up.
Now, back to Specter and his desire to continue screwing the public. Looks like Obama might be interested in having Specter work on Syrian/Israeli relations and possibly broker some kind of peace agreement. And what would it cost to get such a job? Hmmm, how about voting yes on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court?
Specter, who opposed Kagan for Solicitor General and who was none too happy with her during the Senate confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, has now stated that he supports her for the Court.
Could this be another quid pro quo from the Obama regime? They tried to bribe Sestak to leave the race so Specter could win and now it looks like they might be bribing Specter for his vote.
Whether Specter personally opposes the nomination is of no matter here because Specter only does things to benefit him and if voting yes on Kagan will land him another government paycheck then he will say yes in a New York City second.
Perhaps that was Specter’s campaign slogan:
Putting Arlen First…
Source:
ABC News – Jake Tapper
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: arlen specter, elena kagan, jake tapper, quid pro quo, supreme court