March 27, 2012

Rejoice Not that SCOTUS Will Rule on ObamaCare!


For many conservatives these are joyous times. Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is going to rule on the Affordable Care Act of 2009, affectionately known as ‘ObamaCare’. Some see this as a historical time and they are giddy with delight that ‘finally’, as they perceive it, the Court will begin to limit the federal government’s power. The tide will turn and the country will be saved. Indeed, we are over a century into a battle within the Court to define the limitations on the federal government vis รก vis the U.S. Constitution. Now, certainly the battle is longer, as it began almost as soon as the iron ink dried on the animal skin (No; it is not hemp Hippie Dude[Dudette]).
The real meat of the battle began with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and subsequent cases such as E.C. Knight (1896) and Lochner (1905) in the early years; followed by West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish (1935) and Wickard v Filburn (1942) in the New Deal era. There are way too many to name them all but the gist of it is that the Court in many cases while attempting to establish limits on Congress or the President, indeed at the same time defined an almost limitless power to Congress in the matter of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It is richly ironic that such is the case, that while the Court was attempting to withhold power, they were in fact opening the door to almost unlimited power. This argument is not new. In fact in commenting on the Northern Securites (1904) case none other than the distinguished Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opined that Congress must have judicially enforced limitations or, “…there is no part of the conduct of life with which on similar principles Congress might not interfere.” Sound familiar?
So it comes down to this my friends; for a century various nine member panels of judges have been trying to define Constitutional powers. In most if not all cases there is on the one hand those that argue that federal powers are severely restricted by the Constitution. On the other hand are those that argue that a freely elected Congress being the embodiment of the will of the People has almost unlimited power so long as it is determined that such power is “…adopted for the protection of the community against evils menacing the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people.” …to directly quote from the West Coast Hotel decision.

Therefore, the questions you must ask yourself are these:

1.     Did the Founding Fathers intend for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all things Constitutional?

2.     Am I comfortable leaving the fate of my Constitutionally protected rights in the hands of nine unelected men or women who may or may not have a political agenda in direct conflict with the protection of said rights?

For the purpose of clarity, and to give you a chance to mull it over, I will leave this for another day.

Hint: You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them.”  - Thomas Jefferson

by: Keith D. Rodebush

March 10, 2012

"Can We All Just Get Along?" -- No.

I was recently sent a link to a blogpost claiming that, "To avoid the politics of self-destruction, we must unite."
I don't know Mark Alexander, but he seems like a good man and thoughtful Patriot, (even if he is completely wrong on the 'Natural Born Citizen' issue...but that is for another day).
While I appreciate the intent, I disagree with the premise. Here was my response:
An interesting statement that is nevertheless, somewhat meaningless.

First, we have never been completely united. Even as we fought for our independence, roughly a third wanted to be loyal to the King and indeed many, including Benjamin Franklin's own son, were so throughout the war. I suppose WWII was probably the closest we ever came to being united though there was a substantial percentage that even then felt that it was not our fight in Europe and that we brought the Japanese attack upon ourselves.

Second, this is similar to all of the calls for 'compromise' as a solution to Washington bickering thereby allowing them to 'get things done'. Well...what is it that they 'do'? They write new laws, new regulations and raise taxes and fees. They then leverage that new power to solicit campaign funds, sweetheart land deals and insider stock trades to enrich themselves, while the People are ever more oppressed, taxed and throttled economically, their Liberty being all but ignored. The entire charge of the federal government at the founding was to protect individual Liberty.

Third, the author laments that the party has a penchant for 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'. He then names three candidates that supposedly did so. All three were 'Moderates'; otherwise known as central planners who aren't Democrats. And...all three lost presidential elections. The author then claims that the way we should come together is to nominate another 'Moderate'. That'll do it. Also, the claim that no other candidate but Romney can win is a Red Herring. If Romney doesn't start increasing his win percentage, his crony money men will get nervous and abandon him. Shortly after that he will drop out of the race. Romney is way too smart to spend millions of his own money on a losing battle. And even he knows that he has failed to excite the base at all. BTW, Romney was a shoe-in last time too; and he lost and bowed out. In fact, he has lost the majority of campaigns he has run.

Fourth, the idea that Barrack Hussein Obama will be a tough opponent is another fallacy. This is the worst president in history. Our economy is the worst since the great Depression, no really, not like when the Democrats called it that while George Bush was sporting a 5% unemployment rate. This is a real depression that is being felt all over America, and hitting most harshly among Obama's supporters; young people and Blacks. Both demographics have double digit unemployment rates. Now the press will try to spin as usual, but Americans feel this depression. They feel gas prices rising as they watch Obama actively defeat the Keystone pipeline and put moratoriums on drilling and go to court to shut down oil exploration. They feel the sting of embarassment as he genuflects to yet another 'King' or dictator. They see him openly embrace Muslim holidays and issues while dismissing Christian ones and throwing Israel under the bus. They refuse to buy his stupid Chevy Volt built by government motors, for government motors and of government motors; even if they come standard with a fire extinguisher. They are even beginning to see more wholly his Marxist upbringing and racist tendencies.

This president will lose in an historic way. Unless of course the public sees no difference between the two when ballot time comes. RomneyCare=Obamacare=Defeat.

Finally, if Americans vote for Obama knowing all that we now know about him and his policies, then America is already dead, has already turned it's face away from God, has already lost it's soul and is doomed anyway. But I don't believe that. Sure we are mal-educated and there are a large percentage who have been brainwashed by Marxist Utopianism, but that will always be. In the end, MOST Americans believe in family, freedom, God and work. They just need someone to stand up for their beliefs unapologetically and they will get behind them. Part of the reason Rick Santorum hasn't sealed the deal is because he hasn't embraced Newt Gingrich's style of brazenly attacking the media and Islamists.

So...stop listening to mainstream media talking points. Look closely at the candidates records, not what they say. Look at how they live their lives and how they run their campaigns and who is backing them. Then pick the best one of the four; that is all we have to choose from. If we do so, the choice is clear, and it ain't ObaMitt Romney. The entire purpose of the primary process is to properly vet our candidates, to allow them all to get their message out and to see who can weather the storm and excite the base. The pretenders will fall to the wayside if we do our jobs and vote our hearts, instead of voting for who we are told 'can win', or who we think 'will' win. The only 'Right' vote is one from the heart.
Additionally, who started this 'in-fighting' among Republicans? That's right, it was ObaMitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses when he used his cronies' millions to saturate the state with negative and intellectually dishonest ads about Newt Gingrich who was surging at the time; ironically, partially due to his call for Republicans to attack Obama and not each other. And now this author wants us to unite behind Romney. No thank you. RomneyCare=ObamaCare=Defeat in '12.
Make mine Liberty, every time.
by: Keith D. Rodebush