"An Empire Ruled By The Majority . . . Ruled By A New Constitution . . ."

Excerpts from the screenplay for "Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith"


"The constitution is in shreds. Amendment after amendment . . . executive directives, sometimes a dozen in one day."

"An empire ruled by the majority . . . Ruled by a new constitution . . ."

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause . . ."

Well, not the end of liberty, exactly, yet...

but the Audacity of Obama continues, and it is noteworthy that they have been forced to twist and trample on the legislative process to pass their unconstitutional bill. Why? Because otherwise (through honest, legal means), it would have died. There is no disputing that. Indeed, the process has been mangled and blended, with 'promises' (that, like most of Mister Obama's promises, will not survive the campaign), to alter the nature of the bill by executive order after it is signed into law. The checks and balances, so crucial to the restraining of hyper-government have been manipulated and side-stepped in a desperate push to pass so-called health care reform. The fake smile on Pelosi's face as she actually used the word 'humility' reminded me of a vampire pressing a crucifix into its forehead. We know now (and every poll backs this up) that the Democratic regime has no respect for the wishes of WE THE PEOPLE, but we also know that it has no respect for our intelligence. Humility? Humility? Ms Pelosi, how dare you use the word humility? We don't want this and we can't afford this. And what's more, based on your sagging poll numbers, we feel the same way about you.

I am glad to see that several states' attorney's generals have already stepped up and announced legal challenges. You see, Ms Pelosi and Mister Obama, there is a third branch of our government, specifically set up to deal with power grabs like this monstrosity. It's called the Supreme Court. It's sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution, and to ensure that legal train wrecks like health care reform don't violate the Constitution. And while you have managed to install an admitted racist judge to that court, you don't own it. Yet.

When Mister Obama was elected, I decided to try to give him a chance. I took note of what he did that I liked (rare though that was), and I admitted here that I thought he had some likable qualities. But no more. Mister Obama and his minions have shown that despite their acting abilities, they have no respect for the Constitution, the American People, or the elected offices that they hold. They have no respect for the rule of law or the simple moral code that says keep your promises. Ronald Reagan was a great President for many reasons, but he was unique in that he understood well that the office that he held wasn't a weapon to be used to beat the Constitution with. It is a privilege. An honor. It's not a platform from which to rule over the American People with an iron fist. It's a stewardship. A promise, not to fundamentally change the country, but to protect us and our freedoms and rights and to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. Someone elected to the presidency is given a sacred trust. They're supposed to respect the office and the people and the terrible terrible price that people have paid to keep us free and safe and strong. They're supposed to respect the incredible hardships and danger and loss that our Founders were subject to in throwing off tyrants and giving us our country. Mister Obama, you don't respect any of that, and you clearly don't respect any of us. And come 2012, you're going to see just how much we respect you.

"Is There A Constitutional Lawyer In The House?"

Fascinating to watch as the Progressives (otherwise known as liberals on this planet) are breaking every rule possible to shove this unpopular and unconstitutional package down our throats. You can't even call it a bill, because the Constitution plainly says that a bill must be voted on by both the House and Senate before it can become a law. So it's a package. But again, it is an unconstitutional package. The Tenth Amendment explains why:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, I'm not smart enough think that we have 57 states, or that it's possible for an insurance premium to drop by 3,000 percent, or to think that it's possible for 500 million americans each month to lose their jobs... but I do know that A) the Constitution does not give the government the right to require a citizen to purchase a good or service, and B) that a bill actually has to be voted on by the House and the Senate before it is a law.

Maybe I'll just repeat for emphasis.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Deemocrats (who love to 'deem and pass') have been asked where in the Constitution they are given the right to do the individual mandate, and they have not answered. They have responded with arrogance (shocking, coming from this regime), indignancy, ignorance. Even a creative grasp of Constitutional law (no, the Federal government does not set the max speed limit or require drivers to carry insurance... yet). But they haven't responded with facts. Oh they've used the mature tactic I tried as a five year old but didn't get away with. (they did it first!) "The Republicans did same thing" they say. The answer to that is, "I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about you." The Republicans did do some crooked things, so it's okay for you? Really grown-up. If the Republicans jumped off a cliff, would you? We can only hope. Just please don't take the rest of us with you.

The Founding Fathers were very careful about limiting the power of the Federal government. Very careful. The founding of our country was based on limiting the power of a corrupt central government. There is no more important purpose to our Constitution than limiting the power of the Federal government.

"...governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

Again, for emphasis...

"...deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

Congress cannot grant themselves power. They cannot 'deem' that something not voted on is law. And yet they are. Please, can a Constitutional lawyer explain that to me?

"Haiti, "Kennedy's Seat", and Forgiveness"

I'd like to start off by mentioning the terrible, terrible tragedy in Haiti. I can offer no words as eloquent as those that have already been spoken. So many countries and organizations have contributed through money, goods, and services, and it is truly a testament to the goodness of the world's citizens that during these times of a world-wide recession, people and governments still find a way to give. Crises seem to be almost a dime a dozen these days, and that is a shame. But this is a big one. Too big to ignore. I am proud and touched to see in this country that we can actually (with a few notable, embarrassing exceptions) put aside our political differences to make a difference: http://clintonbushhaitifund.org . Indeed, people of all faiths and beliefs seem to be coming from all corners of the globe to help the people of Haiti.


And I'll just point out that the murderous thugs who claim to work on behalf of God (or Allah, as they call him) have been noticably silent. We know you have the means. How about working for the God you claim to serve and saving and creating rather than killing? You won't, because you are cowardly thugs who truly care nothing for religion. It means something when you feed off of death and chaos and desperation rather than life and truth and light. Just like cockroaches, you only thrive in filth.

I am pleased to see that what our liberal friends still like to call "Ted Kennedy's Seat" is actually back in the hands of the people, to whom it was actually always supposed to belong. That magical 60th senate vote may well be going to Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown. This is very important, because for one thing, it needs to go to someone who represents not just the people of Massachusetts, all Americans, because he'll be voting on something that affects us all. It's also important because we need a reminder that these seats belong to us all. Something else. I feel sorry for the Kennedy's who no longer have Ted. Nobody should have to lose a family member. But it gives us a preview of what life would be (indeed, how it should be) with term limits. The Founding Fathers well understood the dangers of government out of touch and out of control. When people can run for term after term and gather more and more power and money, until they are so entrenched that they are untouchable, we find that we are no longer represented. We find ourselves ruled by distant (not geographically, but culturally), out of touch despots. Despots who regularly submit to show-elections that rank with Cuban and North Korean elections for real challenge and suspense. Truly, there is no greater threat to true democracy in this country than politicians who are so powerful that they have, for all intents and purposes, lifetime appointments. This is how we find ourselves with a government shoving illegal programs down our throats. Illegal programs that are so heinous and crooked that they can only be crafted in secret meetings. Certainly there are exceptions to the lifetime appointments. Sometimes they are so foolish and crooked that they run before they're arrested (so long, Chris Dodd!). But the old axiom still stands. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits now.

Finally, I'd like to talk about forgiveness. I have been guilty of holding grudges many times in my life, against many people. Any real or imagined slight, and I'd decide that they were not only bad people, but that I would never forgive them. Why should I? Why should I let them get away with what they'd done? But I finally realized (and way too late in life for my own taste) that when you refuse to forgive someone, you are really hurting yourself more than anyone else. You are robbing yourself of happiness. Especially if the object of your anger doesn't know or care that you don't forgive them. It's like a house in wintertime where you heat every room but one, and you force yourself to live in that cold room. The only person living in that cold is you. When you forgive, you are freeing yourself of a burden of your own making. And that goes for forgiving yourself. We all do things we regret. We all make mistakes, and it is easy (and probably seems virtuous) to condemn ourselves. But if you can admit to your mistakes and learn from them, it is okay and important to forgive yourself. Nobody can say that they've never regretted anything that they've done, so you've got lots of company. Give yourself a break. Throw it off. Be free. Live your life as fully as possible. The tragedy in Haiti is a good reminder of just how short and precious life can be. Don't waste it.

Don't Tread on We The People

Now that the hubbub of the holidays is over, we need to get back to the real
honest-to-goodness crime and/or incompetence going on in our nation's
capitol. This health care bill that nobody has read, and that we can't pay
for, is not only a real step towards full-blown socialism that Hugo Chavez
admires, (yes, he admires it. He has said that, at the same time that he is
laughing at us for falling for it), it is also illegal. Unconstitutional.
There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives Congress the power to require that people purchase a good or service. Insurance is a state concern, and therefore doesn't come in under the laws regulating
interstate commerce, nor is it connected to the authority that Congress once exercised to regulate the speed limit. And our liberal congress members seem to think that they can grant themselves this power. They forget that their power does not come from themselves, or any bills that they propose. Their power comes from We The People. If you'd like to see an example of this shocking mix of ignorance and arrogance, consider that at least two (in fact, many more) Congressional leaders cannot or will not explain where in the Constitution they are given the power to require that people purchase insurance. I have here information from CNSNews.com, quoting, amongst other places, the Conservative Action Project. Here is the information, which really speaks for itself:
Aside from constitutional questions about Sen. Ben Nelson's deal with Democrats on behalf of Nebraskans, conservatives are eyeing the bill's individual mandate the requirement that every American citizen must
purchase health insurance. "Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any
penalty, civil or criminal, on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution," says The Conservative Action Project, a group of prominent conservative activists. "As such, [the bill] is unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge on that issue." Supporters of the Democrats' health care bill have incorrectly contended that the individual mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Conservative Action Project said. But since the federal government has limited jurisdiction having only
enumerated powers, unless a specific provision of the Constitution empowers a particular law, then that law is unconstitutional. There is no authorization for the individual mandate, the group said. The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care bill, "because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance," The Conservative Action Project said. The Commerce Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in voluntary economic activity. "Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce," the conservative group said. Nor is the bill's individual mandate authorized under the General Welfare Clause, which applies only to congressional spending. "It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause." And finally, the Conservative Action Project says the individual mandate is  not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause or Income Tax. The
Constitution only allows certain types of taxation from the federal government, and the health care bill does fall in those categories. As for the argument that the health care bill's individual mandate can be compared to laws requiring auto insurance an argument President Obama has made such arguments are invalid:
"Only state governments can require people to get car insurance," the Conservative Action Project said. "While the federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the states have a general police power. The police power enables state governments to pass laws for public safety and public health. The federal government has no general police power, and therefore could not require car insurance."
Moreover, states require auto insurance only as a condition for those people who voluntarily choose to drive on the public roads. "If a person chooses to use public transportation, or use a bicycle instead of a car, or operate a car only on their own property, they are not required to have car insurance, and cannot be penalized for lacking insurance."

'Where in the Constitution...?"
In recent months, CNSNews.com has asked various members of Congress where specifically the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate. Many had no idea. (CNSNews.com) Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do. Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that "nobody questions" Congress' authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"
Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"
CNSNews.com: "I'm asking--"
Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that."
When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government's ability to set speed limits on interstate highways--before turning and walking away.
CNSNews.com: "But where, I mean, which"
Sen. Leahy: "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
CNSNews.com: "The states do that."
Sen. Leahy: "No. The federal government does that on federal highways."
Prior to 1995, the federal government mandated a speed limit of 55 miles an hour on all four-lane highways. The limit was repealed in 1995 and the authority to set speed limits reverted back to the states. Technically, the law that established the 55 mile-an-hour limit--the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974--withheld federal highway funds from states that did not comply with it. The law rested on the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress' authority to dole out federal tax revenue. Someone who does not buy health insurance, critics have argued, is not by that ommission engaged in interstate commerce and thus there is no act of interstate commerce for Congress to regulate in this situation. All versions of the health care bill currently being considered in Congress mandate that individuals buy heatlh insurance. Americans who don't would be subject to a financial penalty.

Attorney David Rivkin Jr., who worked in the Justice Department under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that Sen. Leahy's response about the constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance "is wrong."

"None of Congress' enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate," said Rivkin. "We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'"

"This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers' vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers," he said. "If the federal government can mandate an individual insurance purchase mandate, it can also mandate an unlimited array of other mandates and prescriptions, including the mandate to buy health club memberships or even to purchase a given quantity of fruits and vegetables."

"This state of affairs would completely warp our constitutional fabric, vitiate any autonomous role for the states and eviscerate individual liberty," said Rivkin. "It is profoundly un-American." This is not the first time Congress has considered forcing Americans to buy health insurance. In 193-94, an individual mandate was a key component of then-President Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a 1994 report that for federal government to order Americans to buy health insurance would be "unprecedented," adding that the government had "never required" Americans to purchase anything. "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," CBO found."The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a
condition of lawful residence in the United States," said the CBO report. "An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Although Sen. Leahy said that "nobody" questions that Congress has the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee did question whether Congress had that authority when the health-care bill was being debated in their committee. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) tried to offer an amendment that would expedite judicial review of the bill were it enacted, but Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled that Hatch's amendment was out of order.
(CNSNews.com)

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the "Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform," that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.
Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami."Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force
Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?" CNSNews.com asked the speaker's office. "If it is the Speaker's belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?" Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the  Speaker's office entitled, "Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.'" The press release states
that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production." The release further states: "On the shared responsibility requirement in the
House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions."

That is the end of the piece I obtained from CNSNews.com. I didn't write this report myself, but I found it so honestly astounding and frankly terrifying that I felt it needed to be passed along.

While you can buy votes in Congress (something that once would have shocked even the worst of them), you can't buy them from We The People. This arrogance... this hubris demonstrated by what has got to be the most corrupt government this country has ever known, is not only an embarrasment, it's dangerous. Because while they are waving this smelly (and very expensive) bottle of snake oil under our tortured nose, our enemies are working, and very hard. It doesn't pull our president home from vacation (heck, it didn't
warrant a response for three days!), but it is war, and it is real. If you understand that the Cold War was in fact World War Three, then what we have now, that doesn't interrupt Mister Obama's golf game, is World War Four. Sorry to say (because I try to see the best in everybody), but Mister Obama would react quicker to losing his socialist takeover of the government than he did to someone trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day.

Who Does Your Shopping For You?

Imagine if the government decided that it was going to buy all of your
groceries for you. This is to make sure that everyone gets the amount of
food that government decides you need. It's to make sure that nobody does
without, regardless of their income. Such a noble, compassionate idea, and
only the cold-hearted rich could oppose such an idea.
But wait. In this program, just to make sure that everyone got groceries of
equal quality and freshness and nutritional value, the government will pick
out the fruit and vegetables, as well as the brand of cereal and milk, and
the size of the eggs. They'll even decide whether you get jumbo,
farm-raised, free range, etc. In short, as a part of that program, Uncle Sam
will make all of those decisions for you. And if anyone else tries to sell
you groceries, Uncle Sam will use the power of Congress to make sure that
those questionable grocers obey every regulation that can be squeezed into a
two thousand page document. You'll be able to use any grocer that you want,
but rest assured that your grocer won't sell anything that Uncle Sam doesn't
approve, or charge less for your groceries than Uncle Sam charges. If the
private grocer steps out of line, don't worry. Uncle Sam will take care of
them. Oh, and don't be foolish enough try to stay out Uncle Sam's grocery
plan. Because if you don't go with someone's plan, you could actually get
fined more than the price of a years' worth of groceries. Never mind that
Uncle Sam doesn't have the legal right (which by law MUST be specified in
the Constitution) to require you to subscribe to a grocery plan, they're
going to do it anyway.
This is obviously ridiculous. Nobody would allow the government (which
couldn't run a grocery store), to pick out their groceries for them, nor
would they want the government to put smaller, more efficient, less
expensive grocery stores out of business. I mean, when was the last time the
government ran a business better than the private sector?