http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=5142
soule: How much more damage will we Americans allow this administration to get away with? When we wake up one cold Winter morning and find that our kitchen cabinets are completely empty, because the local grocery stores have all closed down because the trucking companies have gone under, that we have no gas or oil to heat our homes, because we didn't "drill here, drill now", and we frantically open our wallets and look at our bank accounts and find out that there is no more money? Or quite possibly could we find ourselves imprisoned behind a barbed wire fence because we dared speak out in defiance of what we see this President and his administration doing? Wake up folks. This is not a dream, this is a real possibility. You know when you see the signs that something is wrong, it generally is. Mr. Obama and his administration are on a one-way mission - the utter destruction of this country.
SAY IT LIKE IT IS.
So, I did.
Listen to the people who have lived under tyranny. People from the former Soviet Union, Poland, Cuba, the Czech Republic, et. al. They came here to escape from exactly what this administration is now trying to do to us.
Do you for one moment think that this country can remain a strong and free nation if we embrace Mr. Obama's Marxist/Totalitarian Change that he touted on the campaign trail?
We need to speak up, get involved in stopping this dark descent into hell and most importantly, for G-d Sake, get out and vote. And this time, let's do it right.
We have a decision to make. Submit to Obamaism or remain a free people, a free nation. We can't have it both ways.
Someone wins, someone loses. It's up to us.
And time is running out.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
"In Absentia"
Forget the Travel Channel. All we need do is turn on the T.V. and there is President Obama, sauntering across the White House lawn, waving another fond adieu to the viewers, as he boards the "people's" helicopter for Andrews AFB, Maryland. Ah, to be whisked away again to another exotic country where the President is far from the "maddening crowd"...who just happen to be a bunch of ticked-off Americans. And forget his Presidential duties, who are taking second place to lunching with a bunch of charlatans chatting Climate Change, bowing to Saudi Princes and apologizing time and again for how "bad" this country is. It must be great to wine and dine and be wined and dined by some of the world's greatest. And all the while, being taken for a dullard. Of course the President doesn't know this, he's too busy enjoying the limelight. Ah, the great Mantra, HOPE and CHANGE...well his HOPE and CHANGE has spent America into oblivion and like a kid with his hand stuck in the candy jar, the President just can't stop, so now we all must kneel at the altar of Stealth Care, and watch as the President and his thugs pound the last nail in our coffin. While the President was away, enjoying sunny Hawaii, we had another Jihadist attempting to blow up an airliner with 300 people on board. President Obama, fawning, in his customary "no big deal way," spoke to the nation (yeah right he had to say something) and used the word "alleged" this and "alleged" that. Is this guy nuts? No, he's speaking the way he believes. Frightening. We are the nuts because we actually fell for his HOPE and CHANGE. But, on the brighter side, at the rate he and Congress are going, I would suggest that President Obama and the Democrats start burying their own nuts as I see a really big change coming and boy am I hoping.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Jihad 101
Center for Security Policy | Dec 28, 2009
www.securefreedom.org
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came in for some well-deserved criticism for declaring over the weekend that "the system worked" with respect to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's effort to blow up the plane he was flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. By Monday, she was backpedalling, acknowledging that "our system did not work in this instance." In truth, for a lot of Americans, Ms. Napolitano has not had much credibility since she tried to ban "terrorism" from the official lexicon of her department. But arguably the most serious indication that she is wholly ill-equipped to carry out her present responsibilities can be found in another - as yet uncorrected - statement she made on Sunday. She told CNN's "State of the Union" that, "Right now, we have no indication [that Abdulmutallab's actions were] part of anything larger." Not "part of anything larger"? Is she serious? Does she take us for fools? Read my lips, Secretary Napolitano: Abdulmutallab's actions were absolutely, positively part of something larger. What they were part of is the comprehensive theo-political-legal program that authoritative Islam calls Shariah.
This supremacist program requires its adherents to engage in jihad, or holy war, to bring about the triumph of Islam under a global theocracy, one that will impose Shariah on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Pursuant to Shariah, jihad should - wherever practicable - be pursued through the terrifying use of violence. Where violent jihad is impractical or would be counterproductive, Shariah directs faithful Muslims to use other means to advance the same goal. Koran expert Robert Spencer calls the latter "stealth jihad." The question must be asked: Are we seeing a dramatic increase in violent jihadism in America - National Public Radio reported on Saturday that there had been fourteen attempts in 2009 (compared to two or three in recent years) and that they had been increasingly "operational" in character, not just "aspirational" - because violence is now seen to be practicable here? Specifically, could it be that jihadists have been emboldened by what they see as weakness and/or fecklessness on the part of the U.S. administration? Could steps Team Obama has taken - such as the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the release of some hardened terrorists held there to Yemen (where Abdulmuttalab claims he got his plastic explosive device), granting others access to civilian courts and constitutional rights, etc. - actually be emboldening them to believe that murder and mayhem will accelerate the defeat and conquest of the infidel West? The U.S. government was warned by Abdulmutallab's father at least two months ago that his son had been "radicalized" - in other words, that he had embraced Shariah. That being the case, he was transformed from being one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who are not a problem into one of those who are. In the wake of the latest, narrowly averted massacre at the hands of jihadists, we are being promised executive branch reviews of the practice that, in the wake of his father's warning, put Abdulmuttalab on the improbably named Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database - but did not revoke his multiple entry U.S. visa or otherwise keep him from flying. Multiple congressional investigations will be launched, as well. Such reviews will, however, amount to little more than a waste of time and taxpayer resources - and possibly a serious distraction - if they do not address, and henceforth require screening for, the motivation for such attacks. It is absurd to think that "the system" is going to do anything other than exponentially increase the amount of discomfort for airline passengers as long as it does not weed out those who embrace as an article of faith their duty to destroy us.
We need to be equally clear about the menace posed by those who adhere to Shariah but profess to seek to "Islamicize" America through non-violent means. In the wake of the recent actual and averted attacks, the press has, for example, trumpeted the views of parents of five jihadists from Northern Virginia, imams at mosques where they worshipped and prominent fixtures in the various Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. Unsurprisingly, all of them profess shock - shock! - that these young people would want to do as they have been taught to, pursuant to Shariah: namely, follow the way of jihad against the Dar al-Harb (the "House of War" that is the non-Muslim world). Nowhere in these disinformation operations is any mention made of the Muslim Brotherhood's self-declared mission in America. According to an internal Brotherhood strategic plan dating from 1991, that mission is: "A kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." As long as Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, the media and most especially President Obama refuse to acknowledge what animates our enemies, we will never develop an effective strategy for defeating them, let alone successfully implement it. Part and parcel of achieving such an understanding is to stop allowing the stealth jihadists in our midst to blind us to this reality.
www.securefreedom.org
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came in for some well-deserved criticism for declaring over the weekend that "the system worked" with respect to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's effort to blow up the plane he was flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. By Monday, she was backpedalling, acknowledging that "our system did not work in this instance." In truth, for a lot of Americans, Ms. Napolitano has not had much credibility since she tried to ban "terrorism" from the official lexicon of her department. But arguably the most serious indication that she is wholly ill-equipped to carry out her present responsibilities can be found in another - as yet uncorrected - statement she made on Sunday. She told CNN's "State of the Union" that, "Right now, we have no indication [that Abdulmutallab's actions were] part of anything larger." Not "part of anything larger"? Is she serious? Does she take us for fools? Read my lips, Secretary Napolitano: Abdulmutallab's actions were absolutely, positively part of something larger. What they were part of is the comprehensive theo-political-legal program that authoritative Islam calls Shariah.
This supremacist program requires its adherents to engage in jihad, or holy war, to bring about the triumph of Islam under a global theocracy, one that will impose Shariah on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Pursuant to Shariah, jihad should - wherever practicable - be pursued through the terrifying use of violence. Where violent jihad is impractical or would be counterproductive, Shariah directs faithful Muslims to use other means to advance the same goal. Koran expert Robert Spencer calls the latter "stealth jihad." The question must be asked: Are we seeing a dramatic increase in violent jihadism in America - National Public Radio reported on Saturday that there had been fourteen attempts in 2009 (compared to two or three in recent years) and that they had been increasingly "operational" in character, not just "aspirational" - because violence is now seen to be practicable here? Specifically, could it be that jihadists have been emboldened by what they see as weakness and/or fecklessness on the part of the U.S. administration? Could steps Team Obama has taken - such as the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the release of some hardened terrorists held there to Yemen (where Abdulmuttalab claims he got his plastic explosive device), granting others access to civilian courts and constitutional rights, etc. - actually be emboldening them to believe that murder and mayhem will accelerate the defeat and conquest of the infidel West? The U.S. government was warned by Abdulmutallab's father at least two months ago that his son had been "radicalized" - in other words, that he had embraced Shariah. That being the case, he was transformed from being one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who are not a problem into one of those who are. In the wake of the latest, narrowly averted massacre at the hands of jihadists, we are being promised executive branch reviews of the practice that, in the wake of his father's warning, put Abdulmuttalab on the improbably named Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database - but did not revoke his multiple entry U.S. visa or otherwise keep him from flying. Multiple congressional investigations will be launched, as well. Such reviews will, however, amount to little more than a waste of time and taxpayer resources - and possibly a serious distraction - if they do not address, and henceforth require screening for, the motivation for such attacks. It is absurd to think that "the system" is going to do anything other than exponentially increase the amount of discomfort for airline passengers as long as it does not weed out those who embrace as an article of faith their duty to destroy us.
We need to be equally clear about the menace posed by those who adhere to Shariah but profess to seek to "Islamicize" America through non-violent means. In the wake of the recent actual and averted attacks, the press has, for example, trumpeted the views of parents of five jihadists from Northern Virginia, imams at mosques where they worshipped and prominent fixtures in the various Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. Unsurprisingly, all of them profess shock - shock! - that these young people would want to do as they have been taught to, pursuant to Shariah: namely, follow the way of jihad against the Dar al-Harb (the "House of War" that is the non-Muslim world). Nowhere in these disinformation operations is any mention made of the Muslim Brotherhood's self-declared mission in America. According to an internal Brotherhood strategic plan dating from 1991, that mission is: "A kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." As long as Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, the media and most especially President Obama refuse to acknowledge what animates our enemies, we will never develop an effective strategy for defeating them, let alone successfully implement it. Part and parcel of achieving such an understanding is to stop allowing the stealth jihadists in our midst to blind us to this reality.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
How To Save the United States and the Other Free Countries?
From the WorldTribune.com, May 7, 2009, written by Lev Navrozov:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/lev.asp
-----
"Mr. Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns today are read in both English and Russian".
-----
soule: I urge you to check out this website. There is a good storehouse of archives that are also worth reading by this author. The astounding clarity and depth with which this gentleman has written about the inept nature of our own United States foreign policy decision makers is truly alarming. It simply appears we do not have any or maybe our leaders have simply put the blinders on? In any case, their actions/nonactions have left us in a very precarious situation.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/lev.asp
-----
"Mr. Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns today are read in both English and Russian".
-----
soule: I urge you to check out this website. There is a good storehouse of archives that are also worth reading by this author. The astounding clarity and depth with which this gentleman has written about the inept nature of our own United States foreign policy decision makers is truly alarming. It simply appears we do not have any or maybe our leaders have simply put the blinders on? In any case, their actions/nonactions have left us in a very precarious situation.
Monday, December 14, 2009
"The Boston Tea Party, 1773," EyeWitness to History
From TeaPartyPatriots:
It was December 16, 1773,
George Hewes was a member of the band of "Indians" that boarded the tea ships that evening. His recollection of the event was published some years later. We join his story as the group makes its way to the tea-laden ships:
"It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.
When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew. We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship, appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging. We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.
In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.
...The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable."
References:
Hawkes, James A, Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party, with a Memoir of George R. T. Hewes... (1834) reprinted in Commager, Henry Steele, Morris Richard B., The Spirit of 'Seventy-Six vol I (1958); Labaree, Benjamin Woods, The Boston Tea Party (1964).
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2002)
It was December 16, 1773,
George Hewes was a member of the band of "Indians" that boarded the tea ships that evening. His recollection of the event was published some years later. We join his story as the group makes its way to the tea-laden ships:
"It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.
When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew. We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship, appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging. We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.
In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.
...The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable."
References:
Hawkes, James A, Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party, with a Memoir of George R. T. Hewes... (1834) reprinted in Commager, Henry Steele, Morris Richard B., The Spirit of 'Seventy-Six vol I (1958); Labaree, Benjamin Woods, The Boston Tea Party (1964).
www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2002)
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Letter from a Young Man Just Before the American Revolutionary War....
"It's been another long and arduous day," he wearily thought, as he sat at his desk, with head in hands, staring out the kitchen window. The young man, with tattered cream colored shirt and stockings to match, and grey blue breeches, rubbed his legs together, trying to keep warm. The heavy glass panes were covered in frost and the cold winter air emanated off the panes, swirling around him. He blew on his mittened hands and watched his breath crystalize into a white vapor. Just a short distance away a wooden split rail fence criss crossed back and forth, marking the long winding road into town. The road was lined with majestic tall oaks. But now it was getting late in the day. The sun was barely to be seen, just a brilliant white starry light here and there, moving slowly among the branches of the furry pines and peeking out, every so often. Snowflakes were making their way through the air, settling softly on the many oak leaves that covered the grass. Soon it would be time to light the lamps. His soft brown hair askew, he had hastily pulled it back with a dirty piece of linen. As he lowered his head to continue writing, a small lock of it dangled in front of his eyes. Patiently he pushed it back and, shivering, took to writing once more. "My Dear and Most Consummate Friends, as you well know my beloved wife and companion of many years, hath passed away. It was not without warning, as she hath lain ill for many days. Our youngest, Todd, hath not taken kindly to this circumstance. I hath found him on more than one occasion, not wanting me to comfort him. Instead, he hath pushed me aside. My other two, Emily and Dottie, are coping as best they know how and, I am certain, in their own way. I hope this will not linger much longer, as I am growing very weary. But I believe that the good Lord hath His own timetable and, therefore, I must be stout not only for my children but for other reasons, as all of us painfully know all too well. May God help me with my own grief and that of my children. As to our meeting the other eve, it meant much to me to be with friends, all of whom it seems are in very calamitous situations, and anguish, and broken-hearted as to what they see befalling their country. It appears that God Almighty hath turned on us and wrested what little we did have, from us. Sometimes I am faint of heart. Sometimes I hath even doubted as to how this situation we find ourselves in, can be remedied. I am ashamed to say that I hath even argued with and lashed out at Him and then in a drunken stupor, fallen to my bed in such a frightful stage, unable even to comfort or be comforted, all the while trying to keep my sobbing quiet so that my children do not hear my mournful dirges. Yet when morn awakes me, I am somehow different....I somehow feel stronger, more resolute, more direct in my being and in my heart. But, Lord I ask You, how much more? How much more shall Thee place upon us? Were it not for you--my companions, there would be much more despairing. So much so I could not last but one more day. Did we bring this upheaval upon ourselves? Did we do something to God to awaken the Almighty's anger against His Creation? My head is throbbing with many a question, yet no answer comes. I believe they will, in time. At our last meeting we at least laid out some topics for discourse and the recourses before us and agreed to certain things. We shook hands and there was a bit of uplifting of spirit there among us. I felt we did indeed make progress. We hath certainly met on many an occasion, and some close to a ruinous situation what with the British spies and their troops nearby! But last eve I felt a true spirit of kinship with thee Brethren, that we had truly become a "Band of Brothers." Brothers All united in spirit and with one belief....to see that This Tyrant King and his feudal lords no longer are able to do as they wish, when they wish. To assail us at every occasion! To steal our livestock, raze our fields, despoil our women, kidnap our young men, enslave them and sail them off to England to be put on trial, kill and tax us into oblivion. Enough. The chains of bondage hath never felt so binding. They are strangling us. We must not let this go on any longer. We CANNOT let this go on. I know that there are others who are meeting, just as we, in hidden locations, reflecting on what they are seeing happening all around them. I know because I hath met with them and they all feel the same. Yet one question they raise which I believe must be pondered very deeply......What price liberty? What price freedom? What price are we willing to pay to dislodge this despot and his minions and remove this tyrant's yoke from around our necks? When I look at my children and see fear in their eyes and their hollow looks, as our food supply is wearing very thin, I think of my deceased wife, and her very last words to me.....'you must not give up, you will find a way, all you need do is bow down on your knees and to Him you must pray. After deep reflection, I believe we hath our solution. The answers we seek do not always come when we want them too. But if we continue to be forthright, stout of heart and earnestly seek Him, then they WILL come, and none too soon".
Saturday, December 12, 2009
For All of You Who Don't Want To See Your Country Go Down the Drain....
http://theburningplatform.com/economy/brave-new-world-2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Good Question
December 10, 2009 | By Amanda Reinecker
Is Obamacare Constitutional?
A reporter recently asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) where in the Constitution Congress is given the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, she responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Responding to a follow-up question to this non-answer, Pelosi's press secretary said, "That is not a serious question."
We think otherwise at The Heritage Foundation. So should all Americans who value the liberties which our Constitution protects. And once the mandate question is thoroughly examined through the lens of the Constitution's original meaning, the answer is inescapable: it is not constitutional.
"For those with a traditional understanding of the Constitution as a charter of liberty (as opposed to the 'living version'), the list of Congress' powers in Article I, Section 8, grants it no authority to require any such thing, "writes Heritage expert Bob Moffit. To defend their unprecedented expansion of federal power, Obamacare's proponents rely upon excessively broad interpretations of Congress' powers -- namely the powers to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes.
Commerce and taxing power don't support mandate
In a recent legal memorandum, Heritage legal scholar Todd Gaziano, joined by Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett and Nathaniel Stewart, LLP, argues that the individual mandate is both unconstitutional and unprecedented.
Neither the power to regulate commerce nor the power to impose taxes grants Congress the power, they write, to "mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service and…no decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power."
Though many on the Left overlooked it, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service even recognized the constitutional obstacles to the individual mandate:
Whether such [an individual mandate] requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.
The Supreme Court has long held that there are limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. An individual mandate would require stretching these limits. Although this has been done in the past, "the current Supreme Court is unlikely to stretch the commerce power further than it already has," explain Gaziano, Barnett and Stewart.
Congress' power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...." also does not validate an individual mandate. The Constitution requires that a tax be apportioned on the basis of the census population, and not vary based upon factors such as the financial condition of the state's residents. "[But] this [constitutional] requirement will be impossible to meet based upon the variety of exceptions provided in the mandate," write Gaziano, Barnett and Stewart.
Interpreting the Constitution to support an individual mandate would open the door for future abuses, as Heritage's Conn Carroll explains:
If the individual mandate is Constitutional, then Congress could do anything. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; require us to grow wheat (10 bushels each), or pay someone else to grow your share; require us to buy whatever they want.
"Politics may tell us what we want to do, but the Constitution tells us what we may do and we must keep those separate," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said yesterday at a Heritage event on the Constitution's role in the health care debate. An individual mandate that forces all Americans to purchase health coverage or incur a penalty would blur this separation horribly. And that's a serious problem.
> Other Heritage work of note
Are you a fan of The Heritage Foundation on Facebook? We're nearly at 100,000 fans—so join the conversation today!
Two factors are leaving the unemployment rate at its highest rate in decades, writes Heritage labor policy expert James Sherk: businesses are creating fewer jobs; and people without a job are remaining unemployed longer. In an effort to correct this, President Obama has proposed eliminating capital-gains taxes on small businesses and extending write-offs for small-business investment. This alone is a step forward, Sherk writes. Unfortunately, other elements of the President's "pro-employment" strategy rely on more government spending to create more taxpayer-funded jobs. "Bigger government doesn't encourage entrepreneurs to create jobs," Sherk notes.
"Americans take many things for granted: our high standard of living, our low infant mortality rate and our democratic government, to name a few," writes Heritage expert Israel Ortega. "Witnessing firsthand the 2009 Honduran presidential election reminded me of all these things." By turning out in massive numbers despite threats of violence, the Honduran people exhibited "bravery in defending the rule of law and a democratic form of government," Ortega explains. And for this they deserve our support.
Good reviews continue to pile up for We Still Hold These Truths, the new book by Heritage scholar Matthew Spalding. Writing in the Washington Times, former speechwriter John Coyne praises the book. "In this splendid, strongly written study, Mr. Spalding sets out to halt the slide toward mindless collectivism by setting out a strategy for restoring America's defining principles and reincorporating them into the social, political and economic life of our nation."
Order your copy of We Still Hold These Truths today.
> In other news
A Congressional committee has passed legislation that would mandate a playoff system for college football. While replacing the current BCS system with a playoff might be a fine idea that plays well with voters -- particularly those who feel jilted by the current system -- it certainly isn't the business of the federal government.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson is urging the administration to target economic aid at specific ethnic groups. To his credit, President Obama is rejecting this idea, the Washington Post reports.
President Obama, accepted the accepted the Nobel Peace prize today, just nine days after he ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan and less than one year after taking office. The President is the third sitting president to ever to win the prize.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced that the Obama administration will extend the $700 billion TARP bailout through October of 2010.
President Obama has expressed interest in a third "stimulus" program that would have the government spend even more money in an effort to prop up the economy.
> Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other events at Heritage please RSVP at Heritage's website. Or you can view these events live online. All times are Eastern.
On Monday, December 14 at 10:30 a.m., a panel of experts will explore The Threat of Islamist Terrorism: Have We Become Complacent?
Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report.
Is Obamacare Constitutional?
A reporter recently asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) where in the Constitution Congress is given the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, she responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Responding to a follow-up question to this non-answer, Pelosi's press secretary said, "That is not a serious question."
We think otherwise at The Heritage Foundation. So should all Americans who value the liberties which our Constitution protects. And once the mandate question is thoroughly examined through the lens of the Constitution's original meaning, the answer is inescapable: it is not constitutional.
"For those with a traditional understanding of the Constitution as a charter of liberty (as opposed to the 'living version'), the list of Congress' powers in Article I, Section 8, grants it no authority to require any such thing, "writes Heritage expert Bob Moffit. To defend their unprecedented expansion of federal power, Obamacare's proponents rely upon excessively broad interpretations of Congress' powers -- namely the powers to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes.
Commerce and taxing power don't support mandate
In a recent legal memorandum, Heritage legal scholar Todd Gaziano, joined by Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett and Nathaniel Stewart, LLP, argues that the individual mandate is both unconstitutional and unprecedented.
Neither the power to regulate commerce nor the power to impose taxes grants Congress the power, they write, to "mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service and…no decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power."
Though many on the Left overlooked it, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service even recognized the constitutional obstacles to the individual mandate:
Whether such [an individual mandate] requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.
The Supreme Court has long held that there are limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. An individual mandate would require stretching these limits. Although this has been done in the past, "the current Supreme Court is unlikely to stretch the commerce power further than it already has," explain Gaziano, Barnett and Stewart.
Congress' power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...." also does not validate an individual mandate. The Constitution requires that a tax be apportioned on the basis of the census population, and not vary based upon factors such as the financial condition of the state's residents. "[But] this [constitutional] requirement will be impossible to meet based upon the variety of exceptions provided in the mandate," write Gaziano, Barnett and Stewart.
Interpreting the Constitution to support an individual mandate would open the door for future abuses, as Heritage's Conn Carroll explains:
If the individual mandate is Constitutional, then Congress could do anything. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; require us to grow wheat (10 bushels each), or pay someone else to grow your share; require us to buy whatever they want.
"Politics may tell us what we want to do, but the Constitution tells us what we may do and we must keep those separate," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said yesterday at a Heritage event on the Constitution's role in the health care debate. An individual mandate that forces all Americans to purchase health coverage or incur a penalty would blur this separation horribly. And that's a serious problem.
> Other Heritage work of note
Are you a fan of The Heritage Foundation on Facebook? We're nearly at 100,000 fans—so join the conversation today!
Two factors are leaving the unemployment rate at its highest rate in decades, writes Heritage labor policy expert James Sherk: businesses are creating fewer jobs; and people without a job are remaining unemployed longer. In an effort to correct this, President Obama has proposed eliminating capital-gains taxes on small businesses and extending write-offs for small-business investment. This alone is a step forward, Sherk writes. Unfortunately, other elements of the President's "pro-employment" strategy rely on more government spending to create more taxpayer-funded jobs. "Bigger government doesn't encourage entrepreneurs to create jobs," Sherk notes.
"Americans take many things for granted: our high standard of living, our low infant mortality rate and our democratic government, to name a few," writes Heritage expert Israel Ortega. "Witnessing firsthand the 2009 Honduran presidential election reminded me of all these things." By turning out in massive numbers despite threats of violence, the Honduran people exhibited "bravery in defending the rule of law and a democratic form of government," Ortega explains. And for this they deserve our support.
Good reviews continue to pile up for We Still Hold These Truths, the new book by Heritage scholar Matthew Spalding. Writing in the Washington Times, former speechwriter John Coyne praises the book. "In this splendid, strongly written study, Mr. Spalding sets out to halt the slide toward mindless collectivism by setting out a strategy for restoring America's defining principles and reincorporating them into the social, political and economic life of our nation."
Order your copy of We Still Hold These Truths today.
> In other news
A Congressional committee has passed legislation that would mandate a playoff system for college football. While replacing the current BCS system with a playoff might be a fine idea that plays well with voters -- particularly those who feel jilted by the current system -- it certainly isn't the business of the federal government.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson is urging the administration to target economic aid at specific ethnic groups. To his credit, President Obama is rejecting this idea, the Washington Post reports.
President Obama, accepted the accepted the Nobel Peace prize today, just nine days after he ordered 30,000 more U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan and less than one year after taking office. The President is the third sitting president to ever to win the prize.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced that the Obama administration will extend the $700 billion TARP bailout through October of 2010.
President Obama has expressed interest in a third "stimulus" program that would have the government spend even more money in an effort to prop up the economy.
> Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other events at Heritage please RSVP at Heritage's website. Or you can view these events live online. All times are Eastern.
On Monday, December 14 at 10:30 a.m., a panel of experts will explore The Threat of Islamist Terrorism: Have We Become Complacent?
Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Yes We Can
I long for the past, I guess I'm just getting old. The normal, familiar, the sweet fairy tales told. A small round child's table with four little chairs, there's Beatrice and Clarence and brown Teddy Bear. We sit in a circle, not one voice is heard as we sip Ginger Tea and enjoy whey and sweet curds. But then Teddy speaks, his voice is real low. His brown eyes well up and the tears start to flow. "What happened to goodness and hu-mility? What happened to conscience and credibility? What happened to love and compassion and such? Where did it go? Is it stuck in the muck?" Then Beatrice chimed in, her red hair aglow, she looked at us all as she picked at her bow. "It's here, all around us, it's not gone away. We only need waken it so it won't from us stray." Clarence, with glasses atop of his nose, chose his words carefully, he was a "Poet of Prose." "I see it this way, we all have a role, to fight the good fight with body and soul. We are all up against a most formidable force, one that is Evil, the head of its source. Reach out with your hand, reach out with your heart, your wallet, your home, refer to your charts. And love we need make no longer "lost art." He balled up his fist and the small table jumped. He surprised all of us by the depth of his thump. And then he grew silent, fell back in his chair. No longer poetic, his face was blank stare. The sun drew her lines on red checkered cloth. The small lacy curtains stirred slow back and forth. We all knew the answers they were staring at us. We gathered our courage, our strength and our must. We decided that Teddy would lead the small band. So together the four of us linked hand in hand. And we strode out of that small room and into the Light, where demons and goblins and beasts fear to bite. We stood in a circle and vowed that we would, do all that was needed, all that we could. To make this world better for everyone here. To do what was right and not turn to fear. With G-d as our leader and listening to Him, we could all make a difference through thick and through thin. We looked at each other and what faces there were! Beatrice and Clarence and of course Teddy Bear. And for me, I was happy, the happiest I've been. For we all had one purpose and our purpose was Him.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
