Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Ideologues or Just Slightly to the Left?

by j. wright


President Obama met with some Republican Congressional leaders recently and asserted, "I'm not an ideologue. I'm not." Oddly enough that statement took me back to November of 1973 when President Nixon uttered the memorable words, "I'm not a crook." Many of us recall how that ended the following summer.
.
Whether President Obama is an ideologue or not is up for grabs, it's not for me to decide. I do however look at those with whom one associates as one measure of a person's core beliefs. Take some of his more controversial Czar appointments, high level, executive posts not confirmed by Congress and with little to no Congressional oversight.
.
Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones for example, now resigned, an admitted Communist whom presidential aide Valerie Jarret once said, "We've had out eyes on him for a long time." That's comforting.
.
Then there's the Guantanamo Closure Czar Daniel Fried who believes that the U.S. caused the war on terrorism and that terrorists should be granted legal rights above those of our citizenry.
.
John Brennan, the Terrorism Czar has had a ton of face time on TV recently in attempting to explain the Christmas Bombing suspect folly. Brennan has no diplomatic or governmental affairs experience, supports open borders and the disbandment of the U.S. Military. Beyond that, he is anti-CIA. Great.
.
Weapons Czar Aston Carter wants all weapons in the U.S. destroyed and the U.N. gun ban on all firearms put in place.
.
Obama's WMD Czar Gary Samore seeks to destroy all WMD beginning with the U.S. arsenal first, a unilateral move as a "show of good faith." Did I mention that he is a former Communist too?
.
Of some thirty or more Czars, these are just a few of the extremist folks appointed in recent months to oversee our nation's future. Ideologues? You decide.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Rhetoric Galore: No Action

Thursday, January 28, 2010
Rhetoric Galore: No Action
by j. wright

In political forums other than Blogspot.com, I have suggested that it‘s more important to watch what President Obama does rather than listening and taking what he says ‘to the bank.’ Much of the time they are at odds, and for one, I find that difficult to accept in anyone. As another writer posted recently, "Platitudes about America and the American people which, when he says them, simply do not ring true. They are words being mouthed but not believed by him."

Borrowing a paragraph from a blog recently submitted here at: Top of the Ticket, by Andrew Malcolm on 1/29/2010: "A startling new poll just out: It shows that fully 9 out of 10 Americans bought that State of the Union gimmick of President Obama's to impose an alleged spending freeze on parts of the federal budget to carve into the nation's deficit that's expanding faster than a billion bellies at Super Bowl snack time."

May I add, this is one person that didn't buy into it, and here's why:

In the past year, President Obama’s budget increased federal spending by somewhere near 20%… an amazing increase compared to former budgets. Now, supposedly switching to a more populist, or man-on-the-street, pro little-guy approach, he’s now proposing a “freeze” on federal spending. To me, this is akin to locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen.

Noted columnist Charles Krauthammer said on FOX Cable News recently: "It is not a hatchet or scalpel, it is a Q-tip, it is a fraud. This is a miniscule amount. It excludes defense, homeland security. It excludes Veterans Affairs. It excludes all the entitlements, which are 60% of the budget. It excludes stimuli past and future. The two-thirds of the new $1 trillion stimulus that has not been spent. All of that is excluded. It excludes the trillion that would end up being spent in health care, if it were passed. What it is, is a $15 billion reduction in a year, 2011, in which the CBO has just announced we’re going to have a deficit of $1.35 trillion. It’s a rounding error. It’s lunch money."

Scratching away the nine zeros in billions and creating a fraction using the $1.35 trillion weighed against the $15 billion in so-called reductions gives one a fraction that looks like 15/1,350, or farther, 1/90 which is equal to 0.011% if you prefer percentages. As Dr. Krauthammer said: "A Q-tip, a fraud." Or as I say, "Same ol' crap, different day."

$15 billion… ($15,000,000,00.00) a big "savings" in Obama's eyes and in the eyes of 9 out of 10 of those polled. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in discussing one of the Senate Republicans failed health reform amendments, sneered at a “mere” $55 billions in annual savings if real medical tort reform were implemented thereby creating a much needed savings on health providers malpractice insurance premiums. Fancy. I guess it depends on whose billions we are talking about. Actually, all of those billions are either taxpayers dollars or dollars borrowed abroad from foreign interests. The government has no money of its own but our elected lawmakers and President Obama seem to have forgetten that minor detail.

jaq~
.
.
Posted by CadillaqJaq at 9:40 AM
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Health Care Reform? Great for Some; Crappy for Others!
by j. wright


Quoting a CBS News poll in part, “President Obama's approval rating on handling health care is at an all-time low Just 36 percent of Americans approve of Mr. Obama's handling of health care, according to the poll, conducted from Jan. 6 – 10. Fifty-four percent disapprove.”

The Wall Street Journal opined last October ” …it may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.” Since then it has worsened. There is little voter consensus that the reforms under consideration represent the right approach. Only about one in five Americans thinks the reforms strike the right balance when it comes to expanding coverage, controlling costs and regulating insurance companies. Worse, congressional experts say 15 to 25 million Americans will still be left uninsured.

Now the Democrats and some of their special interest supporters are again bickering about a thing labeled “Cadillac Insurance” policies, or blanket coverage that is the very best an individual can possibly enjoy in today’s market. The final bill now being considered would assess a huge tax on the value of those policies. Some special interest groups, financial supporters of Democrat lawmakers, are now discovering that they were not exempted, especially many of the millions of labor union members. They are furious and are making their displeasure known at some of the “Sweetheart” favoritism deals being handed out by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the expense of everyone else.

Curious, why should a law grant some Americans special treatment and force others to pay higher costs? Constitutional scholars in opposition cite the 14th amendment guaranteeing “equal protection under the law.” In real reform, wouldn’t all Americans at the least be provided with improved health care coverage including lowered costs? This bill is allowing “better than equal protection” for a few several special interest groups. How constitutional is that?


jaq~

Republicans May Use USSC to Stop Health Care Reform

Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Republicans May Use USSC to Stop Health Care Reform
by j. wright


Imagine that, the Republicans using one of the liberal Democrats favorite secondary legislative bodies, the Courts, to stop health care reform in it's tracks.


In a recent blog here, I brought up the issue of “standing” as it applies to who can bring, or file a legal suit, with the United States Supreme Court. In order to bring a case before the Justices the plaintiff(s) or ones bringing suit, must have ''standing,'' because apparently the Court is not allowed to open a case on their own even if they suspect that a law, or portion of it, is unconstitutional.


By definition in part, “standing” means, ''...that in the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Additionally, the party suing must have ‘something to lose’ in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.''


Retired Judge Andrew Napolitano on FOX TV News recently confirmed that definition. Any citizen of the United States that will be harmed by the law, in this case, forced to buy health insurance under threat of financial fine or possible imprisonment, can bring suit because they have “standing.”


Judge Napolitano went on to say that if the pending health care reform legislation that is now being negotiated behind closed doors, not on C-Span as promised by Candidate Obama several times, is passed into law, a private citizen can seek relief and have the law deemed unconstitutional. Napolitano added that such action could also open the doors to looking at various other laws whose constitutionality has been questioned.


At this moment, Senator Orin Hatch, R-Utah, is putting this issue in motion. He can’t bring the suit personally but surely he will find an American citizen willing and able to do so. Time will tell.

Hatch and other Senators are arguing that the bill’s requirement that most people buy insurance or face a penalty violates the Constitution’s ban on taking private property for public purpose without just compensation.

Also, that a provision that could treat some insurance companies in Louisianna, Nebraska and Michigan different from others is a violation of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection'' clause.

The AG from Texas just joined in claiming that Congress can't force citizens to buy anything, including health insurance, by saying it falls under the Interstate Commerce clause.

Now it's getting serious, boy and girls. The AGs are using the "law of the land," our Constitution and the protections it affords the citizenry, to take a hard look at this mess the Democrats call reform.
.
.
jaq~

"Standing..." You Either have it or You Don't!

Monday, January 4, 2010
"Standing..." You Either Have It Or You Don't!
by j. Wright
.
Every time I see the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned regarding the possible constitutionality of a new bill that Congress in its infinite wisdom has just passed into law, my head wants to explode; reason being, I don't fully understand the legality of the term ''standing.''
.
Its my understanding that in order to bring a case before the SC Justices the plaintiff(s) or ones bringing suit, must have ''standing,'' because apparently the Court is not allowed to simply open a case on their own because of public sentiment or pressure, or even if they might think in their own minds that a law, or portion of it, is unconstitutional.
.
If we examined all of the laws Congress has passed in the past decade or longer and examined them for constitutionality, I'd wager many of them wouldn't pass muster, but still they remain on the books. Why, because someone with ''standing'' didn't bother to make a federal case out of it? Or if someone did, a liberal federal judge in a lower court threw the case out before it reached the high court in Washington, D.C.

Or, trial lawyers being what they are and whom they support (Read: the liberal left in our politcal family) are not necessarily apt to take up such mundane matters as constitutionality. But I digress.

Definition of “standing” in part says, ''...that in the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Additionally, the party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.''
.
If Congress passes a law next week mandating that all Americans MUST buy health insurance or be fined, and if the individual doesn't pay that fine they will be penalized a much larger amount and jailed, isn't that ''having something to lose?'' Such as one's liberty? Or is our loss of liberty just a foregone conclusion nowadays? Maybe the key word up there is ''imminently.''
.
Imminently we may find out.
.
jaq~