Okay, I’m always skeptical about conspiracy theories, but c’mon! This video of Obama steadying a woman about to faint and saying, “I gotcha–you’re okay” is just too symbolic of Obama coming to the rescue of people needing medical attention.
It’s odd that the woman didn’t wobble until Obama turned his attention to her. Also notice that the two people at her side didn’t seem to notice any problem. And why did Obama suddenly turn around to catch her?
Strange. Very strange.
I thought he was flubbing it all along. He was too tenative and wishy-washy, and he let Ted Cruz get way out ahead of him. He voted no on the final bill, but at that point his no vote was an easy call.
Steve Deace agrees. His thoughts are very similar to my thoughts. The Rand Paul part is one of ten “Lessons Learned.” The whole article is worth a read.
Rand Paul is still not sure who he is
He almost always votes the right way, but Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is certainly not his father—for better or for worse. He gets much closer to gray areas than his father ever did, flirting with disaster before eventually choosing the right side. He did on both the big fights this year—first with scamnesty and now with the defund Obamacare effort. He appears to be trying so hard to make himself a national figure in time for a 2016 presidential run that the identity that launched him in 2010 is being lost in the process. Is he the heir to his father’s revolution or has he become Ditch McConnell’s sidekick? You can’t be both. It appears he has yet to decide, but he better decide quickly. The passive-aggressive act is wearing thin with many liberty people I know, let alone dampening his efforts to successfully reach out to social conservatives.
Even Paul’s post no vote statement was weak and uninspiring.
Sen. Rand Paul today voted no on H.R. 2775, as amended, that will suspend the debt ceiling until February 7, 2014 and fund the government thru January 15, 2014.
”Tonight, a deal was struck to re-open the government and avoid the debt ceiling deadline. That is a good thing,” Sen. Paul said. “However, our country faces a problem bigger than any deadline: a $17 trillion debt. I am disappointed that Democrats would not compromise to avoid the looming debt debacle.”
And this is after he had already tried to straddle the fence. See here and here.
I’m not a fan of Ted Cruz’s foreign policy, but Rand got played by Cruz here.
Rand is being too cautious for his own good. Someone needs to remind him that he’s an Eye Surgeon. He’ll still be able to make a living if he loses his current job.
Why were all the hand wringers fretting about a default? You knew the spineless Republicans would cave. You just knew they would.
They got nothing, and Obama gets to look like he stood them down, which he did. Have they no shame? Have they no self-respect?
Let’s primary these wusses!
I sometimes have to help my daughter with here math homework. The most common type of problem she needs help with are word problems. That has got me thinking in that mode. So here is an ObamaCare word problem:
There are 46 Republicans in the Senate. Only 19 Republican Senators voted against cloture on ObamaCare. Therefore, how many Republicans are RINOs? (Or alternatively – Therefore, how many Republicans deserve primary challenges?)
Ted Cruz is filibustering (sort of) ObamaCare at this moment. The technical details of why this isn’t an actual filibuster are here.
There will be a cloture vote tomorrow (Wednesday 25 Sept 13). All that is needed is 41 votes to defeat cloture. There are more than 41 Republican Senators. This should be an easy victory. No Republican Senator should want to be responsible for supporting cloture and foisting ObamaCare on their base which hates it. But alas, we still have a lot of Establishment Republicans who are more interested in staying in the good graces of Beltway centrists than they are the good graces of their base.
Call or e-mail your Senator and tell them to vote against cloture.
There is a Nullify Obamacare press conference in South Carolina tomorrow. In addition to announcing the press conference, this is a useful article because it gives the case for nullification and lists several incidences of nullification in the past.
Conservatives have the same problem as DC’s garrison in Afghanistan, and that’s enemies claiming they’re on your side. When you least expect it – Wham! – you’ve been back-sided.
Previously, we’ve talked about Neocons posing as conservatives while pushing their neo-imperial agenda of open borders and endless war. One of the worst is Andrew Sullivan, who also advocates same-sex “marriage” as part of what he calls a “conservative” platform – see here and here, for example.
So it should surprise no one that the big-government Neocons are now pushing for socialized medicine. In a New York Times op-ed entitled, Why Obamacare is a Conservative’s Dream, J.D. Kleinke of the American Enterprise Institute – the Death Star of Neoconservatism – argues conservatives should embrace Obamacare. After all, says Kleinke, government economists who call themselves “conservative” approve of Mr. Obama’s ambitious plan:
The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system – principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton plan in the early 1990s.
The real problem with the health care plan – for Mr. Romney and the Republicans in general – is that political credit for it goes to Mr. Obama. Now, Mr. Romney is in a terrible fix trying to spin his way out of this paradox and tear down something he knows is right – something for which he ought to be taking great political credit of his own.
It’s bad enough we have to fight the overt leftists without having to watch our backs from infiltrators claiming to be on our side. Of course, the best defense against being fooled by these ideological hucksters is to know what we believe in and why.
I suggested state nullification here. I had more in mind state legislative nullification, but perhaps this state executive foot dragging is a start.
“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government,” Perry said in a statement Monday. He sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announcing his opposition to the law.
Perry joins a growing list of GOP governors who say they won’t implement the two provisions, including Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Scott of Florida and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
The federal government, however, will implement the health insurance exchanges for the states if they don’t do so.
There is too much reaction to the Obamacare ruling to cover it all so I’m just going to start this links thread. I will be adding many more links as time goes on. I encourage our readers to add interesting links in the comment section, and my fellow bloggers to add links to the post.
Was Roberts bullied into changing his vote? I don’t know if he was “bullied,” but the decision sure does look like it took politics into consideration.
There is much discussion on what Roberts legal mental gymnastics means for the Commerce Clause. See Slate.
Professor Knippenberg at First Things.
From Michael Peroutka’s website.
James Antle on “John Roberts’ Betrayal”
Here is Antle’s Obamacare Wrap-up.
Rod Dreher doesn’t get what conservatives are so upset about. I don’t get why The American Conservative doesn’t change it’s name.
And speaking of the misnamed American Conservative, Scott McConnell thinks the SCOTUS decision was just dandy.
And still more Antle.
Doug Bandow: Did Romney surrender?
Pat Buchanan on the scoundrel Roberts.
Many more to come…
The Supreme Court Has Spoken
|by Darrell L. Castle
The Supreme Court has announced its ruling in regard to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly known as Obamacare. My purpose in this article is to point out that those of us in the Constitution Party endeavor to return America to the rule of law as expressed in the US Constitution. That’s why we carry the name Constitution Party. We also seek to restore a concept fundamental to Western Civilization and that is the understanding between government and citizens that the law applies equally to all. The question for us then is where do we go from here in furtherance of our goals.
From a negative standpoint calling Obamacare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is like calling a new intercontinental ballistic missile the Peacekeeper. The system this act purports to establish is certainly not affordable, at least not by those who will actually pay for it, and it doesn’t offer much patient protection either. The majority opinion takes some interesting twists and turns to arrive at who will pay. For example how do you justify a fine for being unwilling to buy health insurance—just redefine the fine into a tax and everything is OK.
In arriving at its justification for placing its stamp of approval on Obamacare the majority stated “It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income but choose to go without health insurance.” “Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.” From that statement, one can conclude that it will be those among the 50 per cent who actually pay income taxes and who choose not to buy the insurance, that will be paying the fine, or tax. This twisted logic appears to be a legal fiction created by the Court to escape the failure of the Commerce Clause to expand enough to cover Obamacare.
Taking a Stand for Freedom
Atlanta, GA – June 28th, 2012- “Not if we have anything to say about it!” said Ricardo Davis, Chairman of the Constitution Party of Georgia. That’s Davis’ reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that has stunned and angered many Americans – that the widely unpopular legislation known as Obamacare is constitutional. “Our nation has taken another step downward in our devolution toward socialism,” Davis said, adding that he is “saddened” by the ruling.
Even more stunning perhaps is that the majority opinion of the 5-4 ruling was written by a member of the court who had been expected to vote against President Obama’s signature health care bill: Chief Justice John Roberts. In it, the court upheld Obamacare’s most controversial provision, the so-called individual mandate, which forces most taxpayers to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The court ruled the mandate is a tax, falls within the powers of Congress and therefore is constitutional. By ruling the mandate is a tax the court sidestepped the controversial issue of whether Congress could impose it under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
But Davis praised the four dissenters on the high court, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who unexpectedly voted with conservatives Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Their opinion, Davis said, “really brought the salient constitutional issues squarely into view.”
So all you state attornies general who challenged Obamacare, now that the Supreme Court has gone against you what is your next move? Do you just roll over and take it, or do you put your money (actions) where your mouth is and seek to nullify this abomination in your state? The ball is in your court.
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.
“Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”
Hey mainstream conservatives and Bushbots, how’s that John Roberts appointment that y’all were so crazy about looking to you now?
If a guy has a cryptic and non-controversial record, he has a cryptic and non-controversial record for a reason. Because he’s cryptic and non-controversial.
When are you people ever gonna learn? (O’Connor, Souter, etc. etc. etc.) You should insist on a controversial track record that gives you reasonable certainty about how that judge is going to think/rule or you should withhold your support.
And now for the shocker of the century:
The majority writes: “We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.” Key passage:
By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of the judges who voted to uphold the act, clerked for Scalia, and was nominated by George W. Bush.
Actually, this is two shockers in one! Not only has the Commerce Clause been used ONCE AGAIN to grant the central government powers never contemplated by the people, a Bush-appointed judge sided with Obama.
Still think electing Republicans makes any difference?
I can’t resist quoting my blog post from last September, on a court ruling that said the Commerce Clause gave DC final say on gun laws:
I mean really — you ask the Feds how much power they have over you and the answer is “lots!” That’s a surprise? And they base their authority on the commerce clause, which lovers of big government have turned into Silly Putty. Yawwwn. …
Guess what will happen when Obamacare faces the exact same challenge? Think the commerce clause can be stretched to cover that, too?
Anyone out there care to make a little bet?
Yep. That’s some Clause, that Commerce Clause.
From the NY Times:
Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.
…“This really wasn’t an effort to poke the president in the eye,” said State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican. “First and foremost, this was about defining the role of state government and the role of federal government. Whether it’s here in Missouri with health care or in Arizona with illegal immigration, the states are going to get together on this now.”
This is a perfect microcosm for how the right and left view how a constitutional republic should work. Opponents of Obamacare took to the appropriate venue and spoke at the ballot box. And what instrument do proponents of Obamacare hope to utilize to thwart the will of the good people of Missouri? Where will they wage their battle?
“While we’re disappointed that Missourians didn’t vote against this, we think the courts will ultimately decide it,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association.
I found this piece from the liberal website The American Prospect interesting. Apparently one way around the individual mandate of the new health care law is basically join religious organization and groups like the mentioned. A very interesting bit of resistance against the individual mandate of both the government and the insurance companies.
Here are some other articles for your consideration:
Chuck Baldwin’s latest: “Army Report says Christians Threaten U.S. Foreign Policy.”
From the American Spectator: “How Romney Could Kill the ObamaCare Repeal Movement.”
J.J. Jackson’s latest at Liberty Reborn.com: “What I Fear I am not Afraid to Speak Of”
Clyde Wilson over at Chronicles: “On Being America’s Red-Headed Stepchild.”
Justin Raimondo’s “Populism, Left and Right” over at Antiwar.com
Michael Boldin at Lew Rockwell.com “We Refuse!”
And Pat Buchanan’s latest over at TAC: “The Tea Party Tribe.”
Cokie Roberts sees popular resistance to ObamaCare growing — especially in the South — and she doesn’t like it one bit:
You have these fourteen states attorneys general saying that they want to have the court overturn the recently passed health care law. I must say, I was just with my grand kids at Fort Sumter, and the notion of nullification made me extremely nervous because it was, of course, the first step toward the Civil War. But that is going to be a huge question before the court this fall…
The assumption is that ANY resistance to Federal power-grabs forces the central government to hammer uncooperative subjects. For their own good, of course. And it’s the victims’ fault when the government resorts to violence.
Cokie sounds like one of the Manson women defending her psychopathic idol.