Thursday, June 28, 2012

King Robert's Court

Instead of issuing a ruling on Obamacare, the Robert's Supreme Court has rewritten the law. The Supreme Court, which is often referred by the name of the main justice, struck down the invocation of the Commerce Clause to justify Obamacare. During the oral arguments the five conservative justice correctly pointed out that such a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, intended to regulate interstate and foreign commerce only, would allow the government to mandate anything. It could promote healthy living by requiring people to buy broccoli, as Justice Scalia pointed out repeatedly.

The four dissenting justices: Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas were ready to strike down the entire law. The four liberal justices were willing to use the Commerce Clause, but settled for a radical re-interpretation of the law with justice Roberts in order to salvage Obamacare. There should be little doubt that these ideologues would have used any excuse to justify this expansion of government into private decisions, such as those involving healthcare choices.

The great irony is that in striking down the expansion of the Commerce Clause the court has itself greatly over-reached its authority. Roberts claimed he was showing deference to Congress. Congress, Obama, and all cases prior to this decision by the Supreme Court have been explicit that this law, as written, is not based on Congresses taxing power. For one justice, John Roberts, to "interpret" the law as based on tax, in contradiction to the intent of Congress is a travesty. It is stark judicial activism. It also begs the question whether there are any limits on the limits to judicial "interpretation".

So, while the Court has struck down government over-reach, it has legislated from the bench. Furthermore, the issue of taxes is strongly restricted by the Constitution -- any tax law is supposed to originate in the House of Representatives, and to be approved in exact form by the Senate. Democrats couldn't manage the votes, so they settle for the illegal application of "reconciliation" to average two different bills passed by the House and Senate. What Roberts has done is a kind of "reconciliation" by the Supreme Court to "fix" Obamacare.

This ruling is not a politically nuanced move by Justice Roberts as some would like to see it. It is mere replacement of Obama's hubris with Roberts' own. This shameful decision by Supreme justices is the kind of lawless action of a Kingly Court, which does as it pleases, not a branch of government with a narrow prerogative of interpreting the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Supreme contempt for the US Constitution

Everybody who guess at the outcome of the impending decision of the US Supreme Court on ObamaCare today -- it's last day in session was wrong. The supreme's didn't rule on Obamacare. Instead justice Roberts joined the four liberal stalwarts on the court to rewrite the law.


Obama has flaunted the Constitution on many occasions -- on the Defense of Marriage act (Congress passed the law Obama ignored it), on the illegal immigration (Congress failed to pass the law Obama wanted so he implemented it by executive fiat), among many other cases, so it is expected for his to ignore the Constitution. Democrats in Congress have also chosen to ignore the Constitution. Today the last bastion of the defense of the Constitution among the three branches of government fell.

It doesn't take long to grasp the enormity of what happened -- it was a blatant violation of Supreme Court's role. The Court's prerogative is to decide the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress. It's a basic tenet of the balance of powers between the three branches of government.

Obama and democrats who pushed Obamacare using all kind of tricks, such as buying congressional votes, such as the Luisiana purchase, and the Nebraska kick-back, have always insisted that the individual mandate for purchasing health insurance is not a tax. That's ironic, because Congress has a constitutional right to tax, however, that would never have passed Congress -- it barely passed with all the trickery while both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. Imagine the response of the public and Congress if Obama leveled with the American people by saying: "I want to tax everybody, in order to insure 30-45 million uninsured. It's the right thing to do, and it's good for the economy." That's why the administration went the other way and defended it's actions through the Commerce clause.

Administration lawyers argued before the court the constitutionality of the mandate. They invoked the Commerce clause, and never spoke about the tax. They couldn't answer the key question asked by the justices, including Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote about the limitations of this interpretation of the law. Commerce clause gives the Federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, as well as trade with other nations. If going to the doctor affects interstate commerce, so does everything else. If the government in its wisdom can pick products of services and deem them necessary for everyone, where is the limitation? Scalia mentioned several times that using the government's logic people could be compelled into any "healthy" or otherwise "beneficial" activity, such as purchasing and eating broccoli.

So, Obama and the Democrats in Congress made a run around the constitution to get their way. The court should have ruled on the blatant unconstitutionality of the resulting law. Using tortured logic it could have attempted to justify this unlimited application of the Commerce clause. That's not what the Court did, however. Today's ruling tops any prior blatant case of legislation from the bench. The court fixed the law in order to deem it constitutional, but invoking Congresses power to tax.

Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito wrote a scathing dissent: 'We cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not".

What makes this ruling particularly egregious is that Congresses power to tax is highly regulated. The constitution requires that any tax originate in the House of Representatives, because that chamber is the most responsible towards the public. (Any law must be approved in exactly the same form by the Senate, which didn't happen with Obamacare either - the Democrats illegitimately used the so-called reconciliation process to find middle ground between two separate bills approved by the House and the Senate. There were not enough votes in both chambers of the house to agree on a single law -- another illegal move on the way to passing Obamacare). For the Supreme Court, which is least responsible to the public, to essentially create a new law, and especially a tax, is particularly illegitimate.

What does this mean for the Republic? To explain my view, I'm going to invoke the other significant event that happened today in the US government. For the first time in history the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder in contempt.

Today's contempt citation is a result of Holder's failure to provide documents regarding the cover-up of "Fast and Furious" operation. In February of 2010 the AG's office submitted a letter to the congressional oversight committee led by Darrel Issa, which claimed  ignorance of this operation, which resulted in gun walking and deaths of US border agents. That letter was retracted 10 months later as erroneous. If a citizen made this mistake, he would be in prison for lying to Congress, but AG managed to stonewall the oversight committee. When cornered, Holder received a life-line from Obama, who invoked executive privilege -- a very dubious call in itself that I believe will backfire. There are some who characterize this congressional investigation as a Republican "witch hunt" -- an attempt to take down Holder. It takes a willful suspension of disbelief to accept that a matter as serious as this was handled lightly by the Justice Department. So, are we to believe it made a simple mistake in a matter as serious as Congressional oversight? In essence Holder, as well as the entire Obama administration hold our Constitution in contempt.

Today's decision by the US Supreme Court says that it also holds the US constitution in contempt. Rather than playing its legitimate judicial role, it rewrote the law.

US can recover from contempt of the constitution by an AG, and to some extent even the subversion of our founding principles by a president. But how can US recover from the blow to its constitutional foundation by the Supreme Court? If we throw out the limits to our democracy, we're no better than the moribund European states.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think it's possible to reverse this trend in the long run. The US has been on a long slide towards European statism, where a popularity contest between politicians have lead them to over-promise and over-spend. Now they face fiscal bankruptcy, although it's the intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy that is more troubling for the Western Europe. The US under Obama has increased our external debt from 60% to over 100% of GDP, while tearing up the Constitution. Even election of a Republican president is likely to merely hold the line against further government encroachment on individual rights, but not to reverse it. We had the president and Democrat-controlled Congress ignore the constitution for several years, and now the Supreme Court has shown it has no regard for it either. The public is growing used or at least anesthetized to its leaders ignoring the Constitution. Meanwhile, almost half of the USA population is dependent on welfare, a number that has greatly increased under Obama administration. If that number tops 50% our unconstitutional democracy will surely slide towards the same abyss that Europe is looking into.

The trajectory USA is on is likely to be an irreversible slide into statism, bankruptcy and general lawlessness. The great experiment of a nation based on human liberty and empowerment of the individual began with a tax -- the Stamp tax of 1765 imposed by a distant king, and it might end with another tax imposed by equally distant and arrogant five people in black robes. The resolution of the impasse these frauds placed USA in may lie outside of the system. It would be much preferable to keep be able to resolve this problem without our current system, but it may no longer be possible. I mean that there were many people in the USA who considered themselves to be loyal subjects of the British crown, until the could no longer work within the system which did not represent them, and opted for revolution.

The historical parallel may appear extreme, but is fitting, even the main slogan: "taxation without representation" applies very well to the justices of the supreme court. After all, Supreme Court justices are not elected by the people and serve for life. It's ironic that President Obama, fearing the overturning of his signature legislative achievement by the court, has cautioned that "un-elected" officials should not overturn laws passed by Congress. It's alright to overturning the Constitution though. Nancy Pelosi said told her liberal cohorts they should take "yes for an answer" from the Supreme Court", apparently ignoring the blatant unconstitutionality of the Court's move. Obama was also pleased, declaring arrogance tearing up the Constitution by the Supremes a "victory".

The US was a Constitutional Republic, but is rapidly becoming a banana republic.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

A liberal mind is impervious to responsibility

"Obama denies responsibility" is an accurate title for this article, but it is so trite! Saying Obama denies responsibility has about as much news content as "dog bites man"    both happen every day, and are not newsworthy.

The latest attempt by Obama to shift blame to Bush, however, takes this blame game up a notch.  Obama officials last week pointed to rising costs under the Bush administration to suggest that the $820,000 Vegas conference could have been avoided  if only the Bush-era  General Services Administration (GSA) had acted. In other words, out-of-control spending is still Bush's purview. 

Obama's creative adaptation of Truman's dictum.
Why do we need Obama occupying the oval office? I mean, we have teleprompters and Carey or another spokesperson can say "It's Bush's fault". Where's the news content? If the administration has nothing new to report, they could at least sell the airtime and pay down our crushing debt, which increased from about 60% GDP when Obama took office to over 100% GDP in a mere three years.

Blaming Bush for the Vegas bash was too much for the former head of the GSA, Lurita Doan, blasted the Obama administration Monday for blaming his predecessor over the lavish Las Vegas. Doan, headed the agency under then-President George W. Bush until her resignation in 2008, told Fox News that President Obama's team is trying to "divert attention" from its own scandal

Harry Truman had a famous dictum as a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here". What has Obama taken responsibility for? Whenever economy perks up a little, Obama takes credit for the "right direction", but when the news are bad, it's "we didn't realized how bad it was", which translates as "it's all Bush's fault" from Obama-speak. 

Who still believes this buffoon? There are some true believers. Van Jones, Obama's former "green czar", recently opined that "even if Obama came out as gay he would not lose the black vote". Not much concern with merit there. What about the white voters? They seem to be still enamored with Obama's race. How else do you explain the enthusiasm and the dominance of white twenty-somethings in Chicago, IL in the photo below? They still believe. Based in what? That's a wrong question. They believe in who, they have bough the personal story. I can understand how Obama's victory in 2008 was a result of  the help of mass media, which helped Obama to avoid difficult questions, and he was not properly vetted. I thought Obama's background as a socialist was enough to suggest his dreams were empty rhetoric about hope. Hope triumphed over historical experience. By 2012 Obama's agenda has failed all around, so what's the excuse of placing hope above experience now? 
Chicago office of Obama 2012 reelection campaign
 — young, white and clueless.
Here's how I feel about such gullible sheep: they are ignoramuses and hypocrites who are generous with other people's money. Obama's policies have fleeced our country  he has added more debt than ... anyone in the history of civilization. The ignorant youth do not know history, and do not even understand the contemporary politics. Who's going to pay for all these goodies? Other people who make money. That makes these supporters hypocrites. They are ignorant of the fact that a large portion of this debt will fall on their shoulders in the form of higher taxes and Social Security payments.
Have they read "Fleeced" by Dick Morris?
According to MSNBC, young “voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent — the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976.” How's that "hopey, changey" thing working out for them?

Less than 50% of the people 16-24 years old are currently employed - a record low. The unemployment among the black youth is almost twice the rate of whites, so Obama has not even had a positive impact on his favorite demographic. The official unemployment, of course, underestimates the reality, but is useful as a relative measure. According to these official data below, the average rate of youth unemployment during Obama's term has been nearly double that of Bush's entire two terms.

Forgive them, oh Lord, for they know not for whom they vote.

It's ironic that Obama's young supporters are among the people who're doubly "fleeced" by his policies  — presently through the loss of employment opportunities and in the future through higher taxes to cover the debt Obama incurred on their behalf. 

There is a saying that "a liberal mind is impervious to experience". In my humble opinion to vote for Obama in 2008 could be excused by ignorance (a triumph of hope over experience), but to vote for him in 2012 is simply irresponsible. My upgrade of the above dictum is: "a liberal mind is impervious to responsibility" - that's why the seek to "spread it around".

Monday, April 9, 2012

Social justice, according to DOJ

Zimmerman family challenged the Attorney General Eric Holder on New Black Panther Party (NBPP).  One of the family members wrote in an open letter to the Holder:
I am writing you to ask you why, when the law of the land is crystal clear, is your office not arresting the New Black Panthers for hate crimes?
The Zimmerman family is in hiding because of the threats that have been made against us, yet the DOJ has maintained an eerie silence on this matter. These threats are very public. If you haven’t been paying attention just do a Google search and you will find plenty. Since when can a group of people in the United States put a bounty on someone’s head, circulate Wanted posters publicly, and still be walking the streets?
The letter concludes that the lack of interest in this matter Eric Holder and the DOJ is ‘based solely on your race’.

A black leader who actually has integrity, Allen West, has called this bounty a hate crime, and urged the Justice Department to prosecute the NBPP for the bountyThe Department of Justice, however, said it had "no comment" on the on  the bounty on George Zimmerman.

Spike Lee had originally tweeted an incorrect phone number for George Zimmerman, causing an elderly couple to flee their house in fear of their lives. Then, he apologizes for getting the old couple in trouble, and retweeted the correct address for Zimmerman. The couple is still fearing to go back to their house and is asking for Spike Lee to issue a formal apology to ensure their safety.

Why is Spike Lee not charged with reckless endangerment, and a hate crime?

The irony is that Zimmerman can justifiably claim claim that Spike Lee, Black Panthers, and the NBC, which admitted to putting a falsified audio tape on the 911 call on air, are all potentially responsible for any harm that could come to Zimmerman or his family. What about a fair trial? Considering the bias projected by mass media's representation of George Zimmerman, he would need to go to Mars to get a jury which is not biased one way or another in this case.

Holder has no shame and is unlikely to do the right thing -- to execute his duties as Attorney General without regard to race, by protecting the "due process", and ensuring the safety of Zimmerman's family. Hopefully, this case will show very clearly the the reality of the so-called "social justice" -- it is a euphemism used by a bunch of racists in power to justify their selective application of laws.

US economy: lies, damn lies and statistics

The unemployment report released last Friday showed a nominal decrease of unemployment from 8.3% to 8.2%. However, the mere 120,000 jobs created created broke the pattern of robust job creation during the last two months that was boosting Obama's reelection chances. The economists were expecting over 200,000 new jobs.  The real numbers reflect a worse reality - in March, the number of unemployed dropped by 133,000, but the overall labor force declined by 164,000. That means the economy shed a total of 31,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the government reports lower unemployment.

There's a saying about the malleability of statistics: there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". Only by discounting a large number of discouraged job-seekers can the government report a statistical reduction of unemployment, in stead of an actual reduction of employment.

The labor non-participation has reached a record 88 million. The issue of how this rate the unemployment rate is officially calculated is becoming a part of the political discourse. A Republican congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.

For example, the most recent unemployment rate released on Friday, at 8.2% unemployment, is the so-called U-3 rate calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). It also calculates more inclusive measures U-5 and U-6. The more realistic U-5 rate of 9.6% it includes the “total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force."

Thus, the measure proposed by Representative Hunter would not require any additional numbers to be calculated; it would simply elevate the statistic that the BLS already calculates each month. That would add a lot of realism to the discussion, and not allow the statistical unemployment rate to decrease, while the number of actual employed people is falling.

The lack of realism in official statistics is obscuring not clarifying the direction of the economy. The Dow ended below 13,000 and logged its fourth straight daily loss. One of the reasons may be that during the weekend the traders had a chance to  reevaluation the latest unemployment report, which was released last Friday. The stocks tumbled heavily at the open, clawed their way up to recover some ground, then finished near their lows by the end of the day.

Yes, you did, Barry.
The job gains of the last couple of months were helped by unseasonably warm weather, and may have cannibalized job gains of the spring. It has given an entirely unrealistic perception of an accelerating recovery.

Barack Obama has been the undertaker of this economy, but he refuses to accept any responsibility. It's time for him to ask: "Did I do that?" ask Steve Urkel from TV show Family Matters used to do after causing some mishap. He won't. So, I've asked and will now answer:

"Yes, he did."

Egalitarian fraud

The Democrats often complain that requiring IDs for voting is an intolerable burden, and disproportionately affects minorities.

The conservative activist James O’Keefe decided to demonstrate to the Attorney General Eric Holder, just why he should be concerned about lack of voter ID laws – by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s ballot. Literally.

In a shocking new video from Project Veritas a man (picture below) voted on Eric Holder's behalf.
Is that you, Eric?
Didn't recognize you with the sunglasses.
Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case. When a white bearded dude came to vote in the primary on April 3rd and claimed to be Holder and used his address, the poll worker didn't hesitate and promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.

Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, and they have registered celebrities like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota. Now - Washington DC. The voting there lies in a federal jurisdictional area. Will the federal government take up the challenge?

Probably not. Looking incompetent doesn't seem to bother DOJ or the Obama administration enough to overcome their love for "social justice".

Social justice in the USA

There is a confluence of the arts with real events, which illuminates the some serious challenges for the society in the USA. The case of Trayvon Martin has captured the airwaves, and the mass media has rushed to judgement to label the man that shot him, George Zimmerman a bigot and a murderer, in contradiction to his claim to self defense and without deference to the several ongoing investigations, including one by the FBI.

NBC news had to apologize for editing George Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call that made him appear to be racially profiling Trayvon. ABC initially reported no injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head, until it stopped covering his head with its logo in the video, and reported that enhancement of the video of Zimmerman in police station did show injuries. In other words, ABC also tried to obfuscate the issue.

The main culprit in the mass media is the prime-time show host on MSNBC, Al Sharpton, who called for "occupation" of Sanford, FL. He demanded immediate arrest of Zimmerman and has led rallies, blurring the line between activism and journalism.
Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton - the usual suspects.
President Obama has issued a call for "soul searching" in relation to Trayvon case. Why did he single out this case, and what effect did it have?

According to Obama the answer to the first questions is: "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". As for the effect of  a president getting involved, in addition to race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- it has elevated the importance of an issue that was already national news, and being prejudged by the mass media.

A comedy, “Neighborhood Watch” by 20th Century Fox intended for release in early summer is in unexpected trouble, because of it's name. The Zimmerman has not even been charged, but the name "Neighborhood watch" is already seen as sullied!

Is that where we are as a society? Not only will we rush to judgement, we will destroy the legitimacy of neighborhood watchmen?! That would be bad enough, it it was not for the racial issue.

The only evidence of racial profiling in this case is the lie put forward by the NBC. Obama's outspoken concern with the possible racial profiling in the Trayvon case, flies in the face of his silence in the recent black-on-white hate crimes? Why did the mass media and the president not speak out against a the crime against a white kid who was dosed with gasoline and set on fire on his own porch, while his attackers yelled: "You get what you deserve, white boy"?

Why the silence on the recent attack of black teenagers on a white cabbie and his white passenger in Philladelphia? The coverage of the mob attack of seven black teens on a white teenager just blocks from Independence Hall, failed to mention the races. The white teenager went to the hospital, while Fox showed a a purposefully grainy video of the event, and other news organization failed to mention it at all.

Then there's an attack by a black an Atlanta street gang on a Hispanic "faggot" videotaped by the perpetrators themselves? Will this brutal attack be prosecuted as a hate crime?
Social justice is not blind.
That's social justice for you. There are favored groups, and less favored groups. If you're "white" or a "faggot" an assault on you is not as important an issue as an assault on blacks - a group favored by President Obama by default, as his previous jump to conclusion regarding professor Gates showed.

Obama is a racist, so his reaction is predictable, we just have to deal with it. That means not giving up, but the opposite. We need to fight the bigoted pre-judgement in Zimmerman's case, and not allow the concept of "Neighborhood watch" to be destroyed by race-baiters, even if they occupy the highest office. If the country falls prey to the siren song of "social justice" you can kiss regular justice good-bye.