Saturday, July 2, 2011

Obama and the Supreme Court


Something to ponder as you go about your Independence Day weekend.
There is a battle being waged between the United States Supreme Court and the Obama Administration over several Obama questionable decisions that are borderline constitutional.

This report from the Red White & Blue Website.


According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable. Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.
Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.
And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’
Apparently, the Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.
A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.
And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.
The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’
Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.
The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.
And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.
Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.

More can be read here of the brewing battle. 
(H/T to Chicago Ray)

Friday, July 1, 2011

And They Say Fox News Lies

The other day, Chris Matthews on his "Let Me Finish" segment of his MSNBC show Hardball, came out and out-n-out lied to his viewers and any American who happened by this liberal News station (Which isn't much these days).
He, like other lefties, continue to blame Bush for the housing market crash that led our nation in to our current economic situation we are all experiencing right now.

But that would be the lie of the century.


Where is Media Matters on it fairness and truth agenda about the American Media?
Oh thats right, to busy trying to destroy Fox News and Conservatives, with tax breaks, no less.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Durbin Dream Act Hearing... Gaff?

After using illegal immigrants as props to push the DREAM Act, Sen. Durbin (D-IL) made the following statement at a Senate committee hearing:



Now was this a mistake, a gaff, you know, a slip of the tongue? The kind that they love to hound Michele Bachmann on?

MAYBE OUR PRESIDENT?
I would say probably a gaff... But NOT from a prepared statement!

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution says: 
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Leaderless Nation: Obama at the Helm

Today, President Obama called upon the Republicans in the Congress to get seriously going on the Debt reduction negotiations and to get it done before August 2nd. Which the Treasury Dept says is our drop dead date to avoid default on our $14T Debt.

President Obama said Wednesday that Republicans need to
"drop their opposition to tax increases, saying "everybody else" is sacrificing their "sacred cows" for deficit reduction, GOP lawmakers should be willing to do the same."
But of course when brought forth the biggest spending cuts needed, entitlement, and they are liad on the table, Obama and the left don't want to give up their "sacred cows."
What a hypocrite.

Speaking of hypocrite, check this out.
The president was showing frustration Wednesday with being called on to resolve the debt dispute. (Isn't that the sign of Leadership?)
He suggested 'Congress should stop going on recess and stay in Washington through the summer until a deal is done.'

"You need to be here. I've been here,"



Now.... Time to hit the links'


Or maybe take a few weeks off and get away from work.


 

Monday, June 27, 2011

National Debt: Is it Constitutional


As we reach $15T in debt, and congress ponders raising the debt ceiling, I began to ponder the constitution and what it really says about the United States Government  HOLDING ANY kind of debt.

Article 1; Section 8
The Congress shall have 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
To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

Article 1; Sec 8 grants Congress the power to collect taxes… To pay the debt it incurs and to borrow money.
Now as I see it, Art 1; Sec 8 tells us that tax collection and borrowing money on the full faith of the US is allowable. But the taxes collected must be used to pay the debt, which also includes money borrowed, for that is also debt.

Next- 14th Amendment; Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The 14th came about after the civil war and that the losing side cannot claim war retribution, nor can former slaves make claim on the US Government to pay them lost wages under their slavery.
So this doesn’t fit in to the question of whether the US Government can HOLD debt.
However, one could claim the the President could order the Secretary of the Treasury to continue selling bonds to fund the debt. By citing the Fourteenth Amendment, Obama could claim that Congress cannot constitutionally deny the payment of the public debt. Since the revenues are not enough to cover all the expenses in the federal budget, the White House would continue to raise funds to pay for the debt by selling Treasury securities.
But then again, Obama would be wrong for only Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, can be used to pay the Debts.

Democrats see Art 1; Sec 8  two ways. The Government can tax to its hearts content and that the government responsibility to provide for the common defense is ignorant. The founding fathers rejected Kings George abuse of tax collection on them. But the Dems don’t use it to pay the debt, as required by the constitution. The Government borrows money, and uses it to pay some other debt.

The talks happening right now with regards to the US debt and it’s ceiling have hit a brick wall.
Republicans want to reverse spending and pay down the debt. The latter being in the Constitution.
Democrats are now claiming they want to pay down the debt also, but by laying and collect more Taxes and their 2nd demand is cutting military spending.
Democrats love the first part of Article 1; Section 8 “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes” but ignore that taxes must (also) “provide for the common Defense “
It’s the US Government first and foremost responsibility to provide for the common defense and pay the debt from tax collection.
It cannot HOLD debt because it has no such power within the Constitution.

So there for, I will refer you to the 10 Amendment.
“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.”

That’s pretty much sums it up, in my opinion. Our nations debt IS un-constitutional.