Obama the Ubiquitous!! We can't get away from this guy! I don't begrudge the President, or anyone, the fun of selecting teams for their brackets for March Madness. It's fun! But for goodness sake, this guy has no concept of the image he is projecting. This is quite paradoxical since during his campaign his image was quite carefully crafted. However, the curtain has been pulled back and we have come to learn that he is ALL image, no substance. Now we see that he is also losing focus on his image. He appears to be unaware of the detatched image he is presenting to the world routinely - Iran 2009, voices of the American people against healthcare in 2009, voices of the voters against govt spending in 2010, Egypt, Bahrain, Lybia, Japan, and a deluge of poor economic indicators within the last few months. Sports are great, some (like football) are even wonderful! Participation by the President should always be welcome. George W. Bush had a little league field constructed on a portion of the White House lawn and sponsored games for kids every year he was in office. Did MLB or ESPN cover that? Did they fawn over the fact that the President was so interested in baseball and the kids? Funny, I don't recall that....do you??
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2011/news/story?id=6222176
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Why so hesitant?
Why is it that Obama is so hesitant to condemn leaders in countries that are clearly our enemies, like Iran and Lybia, but is quick to condemn and demand concessions from an ally like Egypt (albeit run by a dictator that didn't pay attention to the needs of his citizens)? It's disconcerting that Obama rarely defends Israel, and continually shuns Great Britain as well as Australia. But yet he remains mum when people take to the streets in Iran in 2009 to demand some precious God-given rights be recognized by their oppressive government. What seem to be no-brainers appear to be difficult for Obama. So currently we are left with two enemies, which we had already in Lybia and Iran, and one ally that could turn into an enemy in Egypt depending on who eventually runs that country. What kind of foreign policy is that?? Is his reluctance because he doesn't believe in the God-given rights the people are demanding? Does he believe that all rights come from the government? Is his reluctance because he doesn't believe that the United States is the best example to support these freedoms because we are inherently "good" or "exceptional"? Quite concerning that these questions are even being asked about the President of the United States.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Welcome to 1984
The thought police are in full swing in the federal courts. A judge is claiming that your mental decision not to purchase healthcare is activity. Hmmmm. Thoughts of 1984 or Minority Report come to mind. And not only is it activity, if you don't choose the right way, you have to pay a fee or tax or whatever they are calling it these days!! Rich Lowry explains further below. So if I think about buying a beautiful mansion, do I have to pay taxes on it?? And, if a tree falls in the woods, do all non-Sierra Club members get fined?
March 5, 2011
The Scariest Defense for ObamaCare
By Rich Lowry
'I can take care of my enemies all right," Warren Harding once said. "But my friends, my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"
In the sense that so irked Harding, Judge Gladys Kessler is a great good friend of ObamaCare. The US district-court judge in Washington, DC, delivered a more telling blow against the law in the course of ruling it constitutional than critics have in assailing it as a travesty.
At issue is the individual mandate. Two other district-court judges have struck it down on grounds that Congress doesn't have the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to require that everyone buy health insurance. If someone doesn't purchase insurance, he hasn't done anything. He isn't engaged in activity that may or may not affect interstate commerce, but in sheer inactivity. Never before has anyone thought Congress could regulate nonevents.
The easy-to-grasp distinction between an activity and inactivity is one of the most powerful legal arguments of ObamaCare's opponents. But they hadn't yet run up against a jurist as ingenious as Judge Kessler. She brushes aside the activity/inactivity distinction because not doing something is a choice and therefore "mental activity."
Why hadn't someone thought of this before? The sophists in Eric Holder's Justice Department must be embarrassed that they didn't themselves dredge up this killer rejoinder.
The fundamental question in the ObamaCare case is whether there is any constraint on the ability of Congress to regulate economic activity. Do we still live in a system of dual sovereignty, split between the federal government and the states, as set out by the Constitution? Does the federal government only have certain enumerated powers? Is anything beyond its ambit? Judge Kessler's argument is a ringing "no" on all three counts.
Kessler, a liberal Clinton appointee, takes what has been a Commerce Clause case and practically makes it a First Amendment matter. It's the most self-undermining defense of the constitutionality of a dubious statute since then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the Supreme Court that under campaign-finance reform, the government could ban certain pamphlets. Kessler, like Kagan before her, does everyone the favor of clarifying the issue.
Kessler writes, "It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something."
When President Obama is faulted during the next Mideast crisis for his passivity, he can shoot back that he's really quite active -- he's deciding not to do anything. We now know that this constitutes robust -- muscular, even -- activity.
Under the Kessler principle, there's no nonconduct that the federal government can't reach. Every day, most Americans engage in nonactivities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler or not to buy a Snuggie, you've impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We've gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something.
Long ago, the Commerce Clause got stretched beyond recognition. In 1942, the Supreme Court used it to uphold a law penalizing a farmer for growing wheat in excess of his approved allotment, even though it was for his own consumption. At least the poor sap was doing something. According to Kessler, Congress could also punish him for acting on a thought not to grow wheat.
Opponents of ObamaCare say that if it's blessed by the courts, there will no longer be any limiting principle on federal regulatory power. If that seems far-fetched, behold the mental activities of one Judge Gladys Kessler.
March 5, 2011
The Scariest Defense for ObamaCare
By Rich Lowry
'I can take care of my enemies all right," Warren Harding once said. "But my friends, my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"
In the sense that so irked Harding, Judge Gladys Kessler is a great good friend of ObamaCare. The US district-court judge in Washington, DC, delivered a more telling blow against the law in the course of ruling it constitutional than critics have in assailing it as a travesty.
At issue is the individual mandate. Two other district-court judges have struck it down on grounds that Congress doesn't have the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to require that everyone buy health insurance. If someone doesn't purchase insurance, he hasn't done anything. He isn't engaged in activity that may or may not affect interstate commerce, but in sheer inactivity. Never before has anyone thought Congress could regulate nonevents.
The easy-to-grasp distinction between an activity and inactivity is one of the most powerful legal arguments of ObamaCare's opponents. But they hadn't yet run up against a jurist as ingenious as Judge Kessler. She brushes aside the activity/inactivity distinction because not doing something is a choice and therefore "mental activity."
Why hadn't someone thought of this before? The sophists in Eric Holder's Justice Department must be embarrassed that they didn't themselves dredge up this killer rejoinder.
The fundamental question in the ObamaCare case is whether there is any constraint on the ability of Congress to regulate economic activity. Do we still live in a system of dual sovereignty, split between the federal government and the states, as set out by the Constitution? Does the federal government only have certain enumerated powers? Is anything beyond its ambit? Judge Kessler's argument is a ringing "no" on all three counts.
Kessler, a liberal Clinton appointee, takes what has been a Commerce Clause case and practically makes it a First Amendment matter. It's the most self-undermining defense of the constitutionality of a dubious statute since then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the Supreme Court that under campaign-finance reform, the government could ban certain pamphlets. Kessler, like Kagan before her, does everyone the favor of clarifying the issue.
Kessler writes, "It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something."
When President Obama is faulted during the next Mideast crisis for his passivity, he can shoot back that he's really quite active -- he's deciding not to do anything. We now know that this constitutes robust -- muscular, even -- activity.
Under the Kessler principle, there's no nonconduct that the federal government can't reach. Every day, most Americans engage in nonactivities that affect interstate commerce. If you decide not to buy a house, not to buy a Chrysler or not to buy a Snuggie, you've impacted interstate conduct through affirmative mental actions. We've gone from the Constitution giving Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," to regulating on the basis of the mental activities of individuals deciding not to do something.
Long ago, the Commerce Clause got stretched beyond recognition. In 1942, the Supreme Court used it to uphold a law penalizing a farmer for growing wheat in excess of his approved allotment, even though it was for his own consumption. At least the poor sap was doing something. According to Kessler, Congress could also punish him for acting on a thought not to grow wheat.
Opponents of ObamaCare say that if it's blessed by the courts, there will no longer be any limiting principle on federal regulatory power. If that seems far-fetched, behold the mental activities of one Judge Gladys Kessler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)