Saturday, June 30, 2012

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers - CLUELESS!

Now, folks, this Rodgers woman isn't my congresswoman. Truth be told, she's far more conservative and courageous than my RINO congresswoman, Nan Hayworth (NY-19).

Indeed, Rodgers' relative "conservatism" is the point of this post.

Or, rather... Rodgers' lack of true conservative principles.


At some point in the past (I forget the specifics) Congresswoman Rodgers came to my attention as a Republican to watch. So... I've been watching. In fact, I receive her newsletters.

Rodgers latest newsletter is what sparks this post:

“As a mom with two young children, a wife who helps balance the family budget, and someone who helped run a family-owned small business, I am disappointed the Supreme Court has decided to uphold ObamaCare – especially the individual mandate, which is an unprecedented expansion of government power. 

Wow... she's... er... umm... "disappointed." Why that'll show Obama! Way to go, Congresswoman! Way to lay it on the line in defense of our Constitution and our Freedoms!

The health care law that passed Congress over the will of the American people two years ago was a disastrous law that raised costs, made it harder for small businesses to hire employees, and cut Medicare, among other things. 

And... and... AND... (*PAUSE*)... it was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law!

Now, after months of deliberation, the Supreme Court has ruled that while the law might be unworkable, it’s not unconstitutional. 

It is unconstitutional!

Five members of the nine member Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't. This was a corrupt, political ruling and as such illegal on its face. Their majority ruling is a VIOLATION of the Constitution - NOT a vindication of ObamaCare.

While I do not agree with the Court’s decision, I respect it and encourage others to do the same. 

And thus... this post!

Rodgers and "conservatives" who think like her are as much of the problem as any Leftist democrat. There is simply NO DOUBT that Chief Justice Roberts ruled AGAINST the Constitution and the Rule of Law rather than fulfill his duty to stand firmly in the breech and proclaim "No!" when Congress and/or a president attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

The fact that Rodgers "respects" this indefensible behavior on the part of Roberts and his fellow anti-Constitutionist justices tells you all you need to know about Rodgers as a person.

The fact that Rodgers "encourages other to do the same" tells you that in the final analysis it's not just justices on the Supreme Court who mistake their role and abuse the perception of their power. No. It's members of Congress - like Cathy McMorris Rodgers - who indeed enable the anti-Constitutionists to take our Constitutional Liberties from us one by one.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers is at best "misguided." I pray it's simply ignorance and "pragmatism" which leads her to the path she's taken. Perhaps the "explanation" for Rodgers' disgraceful behavior is lack of education... lack of understanding... lack of courage... (*PAUSE*)... I simply can't say for sure. Indeed, maybe she's just afraid... physically afraid... to stand up to a rogue Supreme Court majority led by a Chief Justice who frankly deserves to be impeached and removed from office.

The Court’s ruling will have no impact on Congress’ continuing efforts to repeal the law. 

The Court's ruling creates new bad precedent that no doubt inspire more bad precedent down the road!

Folks... this is NOT just about ObamaCare. This is about a rogue Court whose attacks UPON our Constitutional Liberties are being "respected" by misguided legislators who refuse to stand up FOR the Constitution because they're afraid to stand AGAINST unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings!

In fact, we are more determined than ever to repeal it and replace it with something better.

Time will tell.

“Instead of celebrating, President Obama should recognize the inherent problems with his law and work with Republicans to find better solutions.  Together, we should implement a series of common-sense, step-by-step reforms that will put patients in charge of their health care decisions and use the principles of choice and competition to expand access, lower costs, and improve quality.”

Rhetoric. Empty rhetoric. Mark my words, people, even should Romney be elected and Republicans achieve control of BOTH Houses of Congress via the coming elections, the RINOs - along with the democrats - will conspire to keep the "popular" parts of ObamaCare, never mind freedom... never mind the Constitution... never mind economic reality and the future of our children and grandchildren.

With "conservatives" like Cathy McMorris Rodgers in our corner... (*PAUSE*) (*SIGH*)... the truth is that we have no corner. At best, our national decline will continue - abet at a slower pace than under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Obama's Ever-Expanding Welfare State - Where Are the Republicans?

From the Daily Caller:

While spending on the food stamp program has increased 100% under President Barack Obama, the government continues to push more Americans to enroll in the welfare program.

But... but... but... where are the Republicans? Haven't Republicans controlled the House of Representatives since January of 2011? Isn't today June 29, 2012?

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has embraced entire promotional campaigns designed to encourage eligible Americans to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

Such programs are FUNDED by Congress... are they not?

Where is Speaker Boehner? Where is my Republican Congresswoman - Nan Hayworth - and where is your Republican Member of the House if you have one?

A pamphlet currently posted at the USDA website encourages local SNAP offices to throw parties as one way to get potentially eligible seniors to enroll in the program.

“Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle,” the agency advises. “Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a ‘true/false’ quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.”

Where's the Congressional oversight...? Where's the outrage out of the Republican House majority and the Senate Republican caucus?

Where's Mitt Romney on this...???

The agency’s most recent outreach effort targets California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and the New York metro area with radio ads.

The ads have been running since March and are scheduled to continue through the end of June — at a cost of $2.5 million — $3 million, CNN Money reported Monday.

I know, folks... it's often depressing reading my posts and analysis. Facing the truth is disheartening. But, still... it is the truth. Today's GOP is nothing more than the Democrat Party... LITE.

Speaker Boehner... Mitch McConnell... all they care about is who steers the deficit spending and thus enjoys the "power" of the debt-jammed "purse."

Will I vote for that scumbag Romney? Yes!

Will I vote to re-elect that scumbag Hayworth? Yes!

I've simply got no choice... and neither do you if you hope to at least possibly slow the decline.

But will I just "shut up" and stop criticizing Republicans out of some misguided "team" loyalty? No. Not on your lives, my friends! Hell... not on my life, my friends!

Beware Phony, Fraud, Cretins Like Charles Krauthammer

Folks... Charles Krauthammer is a bright guy. No doubt about it! 

Furthermore... when he's right, he's right!

The thing is... strip away the rhetoric and Krauthammer is... if not a RINO... an Establishment Republican "pragmatist" willing to employ his God-given gifts to the ill-pursuit of providing cover for GOP degeneracy.

*  *  *  *  *  * 

It's the judiciary's Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

No, my friends... not "the liberal wing" of the Supreme Court... but rather the anti-Constitutionists - those who spit upon the Constitution and the Rule of Law whenever it suits them for whatever ideological or personal gain is at stake.

My friends... one cannot "uphold" the constitutionality of something which is blatantly unconstitutional.

Just as a "show trail" with a pre-determined outcome is not an actual "trial" in the sense of justice, neither is deliberately ruling something constitutional which is clearly unconstitutional an example of upholding the Rule of Law. Indeed, Justice Roberts and his fellow anti-constitutionist have knowingly and deliberately made a mockery of our Constitution and of the very Rule of Law they are sworn to uphold.


By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time.


I'll be honest... when I read that line I fantasized about how satisfying it would be to put a bullet into the head of Charles Krauthammer.

How disgusting. How evil. To portray Roberts' betrayal of our Constitution (and thus of the American People) a "finess" - as in, "The assassin planned the murder with such finesse!"

No, Mr. Krauthammer... there is nothing to admire in Roberts betrayal of the nation.

He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against ObamaCare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law...

Bull. There was no "dodge." There was only betrayal. Betrayal of the Constitution... betrayal of the Rule of Law... betrayal of "We The People."

Damn John Roberts to hell and when you read or listen to Krauthammer in the future never forget these intellectual gymnastics he's willing to employ in order to avoid the necessity of facing reality when the reality reflect shame against the Republican Establishment - against the likes of George W. Bush who appointed Roberts Chief Justice.

...and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

What a sad, sick, distorted way of looking at things through a political lens where partisan gain trumps Truth and Integrity each and every time.

Had Roberts ruled WITH the Constitution as opposed to AGAINST the Constitution then this would have been the perfect springboard to return the High Court to its proper role as a PROTECTOR rather than manipulator of the Liberties given us by our Founders via our Constitution!
Why did he do it?

Because he could. Because he made the judgement that doing so would serve his "legacy."

Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative.

Er... clearly NOT!

Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

Which he has further tarnished!

Again... fellow Americans... there is no honor in dishonoring one's oath of office! There is no honor in trampling the Constitutional Liberties of the American People given us by our Constitution!
As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration's central argument that ObamaCare's individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

Or... he's not... and he simply attempted to "finesse" his betrayal of the Constitution by muddying the waters.
That makes congressional power effectively unlimited.

Roberts betrayal makes congressional power effectively unlimited!

Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the Commerce Clause, what can it not do?
"The Framers ... gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it," writes Roberts. Otherwise you "undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers."
That's Roberts, philosophical conservative.

Does Krauthammer actually believe this tripe? Frankly I find it hard to swallow. Sadly, I can no more view Krauthammer as a man of honesty and integrity than I can Roberts.

Folks... later on I'll be posting the dissents. Until then, though, you can take my word that there's simply no excuse for Roberts actions... no matter how hard Krauthammer tries to take your eye off the ball with these nonsensical arguments of his.

But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary's arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held.


Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, "deferred stable settlement of the issue" by the normal electoral/legislative process.

My friends... again... it's not "liberal vs. conservative." It's Constitutionist vs. anti-Constitutionist. Ideology should play no role in Supreme Court rulings. The only question the Supreme Court has the responsibility to fulfill is to PROTECT the Constitution and its Amendments as written and intended by the writers and enactors to be read! This ruling BETRAYS this responsibility! It doesn't uphold the Court's reputation - it further blackens it!
More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Bush vs. Gore was the right decision. Not because it put Bush into office, but because it upheld the Constitution!
Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court.

Because far too many conservatives refuse to fight for the Constitution! Because far too many conservatives refuse to explain the constitution and make the case for the Rule of Law according to the Constitution!

Folks... Krauthammer stands as an example of my point! To him it's all about politics! Note: So far he hasn't once joined with me in stating the obvious - that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed his oath of office by knowingly and deliberately refusing to strike down clearly unconstitutional legislation (ObamaCare) in defense of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and "We The People."

My friends... sad to say, it is the Krauthammers of "conservative" punditry who are to blame for ongoing decline of the American Republic almost to the same extend as we can blame the Left. Indeed, the faux "Right" - such as Krauthammer - deserve more of our scorn simply because they KNOW better yet refuse to do what's right! The Left on the other hand... at least they have the self-respect to openly acknowledge that they don't believe the Constitution as written deserves allegiance!

Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with ObamaCare.

I have no idea what Krauthammer is babbling about here.

Hence his straining in his ObamaCare ruling to avoid a similar result - a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

Again... I'm fantasizing about beating Krauthammer to death... this time with a two-by-four...

Folks... this is nonsense! Even if Roberts knowingly and deliberately upheld a clearly unconstitutional law out of the "best of motives" the fact remains... he betrayed his oath! His job is to rule ACCORDING to the Constitution - not in spite of it... not even with "the best of intentions."

Krauthammer is an enabler - nothing more. Krauthammer should be ashamed of himself, but clearly he's not. Krauthammer long ago made his decision as to where HIS loyalty lay... and unfortunately... it "lies" with the GOP and not with "We The People."
National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts' concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

The JOB of the Supreme Court is to ensure that "sweeping legislation" that DOESN'T pass Constitutional muster is stricken! Instead, Roberts and his anti-Constitutionist colleagues have enshrined clearly unconstitutional legislation into law!
How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

No. (And Krauthammer KNOWS better!) Krauthammer's scenario would have made sense had Kennedy been on the anti-Constitutionist side on this one, but... KENNEDY WASN'T! Kennedy was on the side of the Constitution on this one! Kennedy would have been in the majority CORRECTLY ruling ObamaCare in its entirety unconstitutional! It was Roberts who betrayed the Constitution! Indeed, as will be shown when I post the dissents, Roberts PROACTIVELY sought to betray his oath and stab his Constitutionist colleagues and the American People in the back!
Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation.

Thus... WHAT...?!?! 


And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in.

Folks... you're gonna be hearing and reading a bunch of self-serving GOP spin - propaganda - echoing Krauthammer's fairytale. Don't buy it. Don't be fooled. Even taking Krauthammer's scenario at face value... what's to stop the next Supreme Court decision from once again expanding supposed "Commerce Clause" powers? The answer? Nothing! BUT IN THE MEANTIME... the Roberts decision expands taxing power beyond any reasonable Constitutional scope!

Folks... to borrow an old Vietnam War "joke"... Roberts burned down the village (our Constitution in this case) in order to "save" it.

Folks... Roberts has betrayed us... pure and simple... end of story. Krauthammer is allied (bought and paid for) by the Establishment "conservative" media. His loyalty is to the GOP and his own career advancement - not to you... not to me... not to the Constitution... and not to the country.

By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf.

Folks... ObamaCare was upheld. Upheld by John Roberts conspiring with Ruth Bader Ginsburg... with Stephen G. Breyer... with Sonia Sotomayor... and with Elena Kagan (who probably should have recused herself). Try as he might to paint a happy face on this, Krauthammer is simply making a ridiculous case. ObamaCare was upheld.
Law upheld, Supreme Court's reputation for neutrality maintained.

This is what I mean, folks... Krauthammer just doesn't get it! The Supreme Court's ROLE is not to be "neutral" in the sense that half the time they uphold the Constitution and the other half of the time they don't...

The Supreme Court's JOB is not to "let" the Left win half the cases and the Right win the other half!

The Supreme Court's JOB is to protect the Liberties of the American People by upholding the Constitution EACH and EVERY time a case comes before it!

My God... what has become of our country? I shouldn't have to be telling people this! Americans should KNOW this! Americans should DEMAND this!

Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

Not hardly.
That's not how I would have ruled.


Ya gotta give ol' Charley credit for at least HAVING... NO... SHAME...!

My God, folks... can you believe after all he's written that NOW he's gonna try and weasel out of it? AMAZING...!

I think the "mandate is merely a tax" argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that.

By "dodge" he clearly means "unconstitutional." Yet he doesn't have the courage to say that. What a disgusting human being. What a reprehensible excuse for a human being...

(The "tax" is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.)

Umm... YEAH! Not to mention that both President Obama and the Leaders of the Congress that passed ObamaCare (arguably "passed" it illegally... the "deeming" and all that; but that's another posting for another day) under the clear, publicly recorded "intention" that it was NOT a tax! Indeed... if memory serves the word "tax" isn't even in the actual legislation!

Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice, and not the chief. But that's how he did rule.

Frankly I have no idea what Krauthammer's point is here. Is he saying that it's excusable for a Chief Justice to spit on the Constitution - knowingly and deliberately refusing to strike down clearly unconstitutional legislation - but that as an associate justice one must... er... should... er... actually abide by one's oath of office?

Seriously, folks... is this ass Krauthammer actually laying out the groundwork to criticize Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg for their votes while "excusing" Roberts his...??? (So it would seem!) (Unfriggin'believable!)
ObamaCare is now essentially upheld.

And the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and American Liberties are essentially trashed.

There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress.

ONE... MORE... TIME...


It is the JOB of the Supreme Court to UPHOLD the Constitution and to rule any legislation that violates the Constitution null and void. In this case... as in so many others... the anti-Constitutionists - led by John Roberts - did just the opposite.

That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won't make it easy for you.

And regardless of what Roberts "is saying" he's WRONG! He's a traitor. He's betrayed his oath and betrayed our nation.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

What Can One Say About Justice Roberts?

He's a traitor?


He's knowingly and deliberately violated his oath and spit on the Constitution?

Yes. (File that under "traitor.")

I was out all day and frankly I'm shell-shocked. Yes, I always knew this was a possibility. But Kennedy being willing to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional in its entirety and Roberts rushing in to "save the day" for the anti-Constitutionists? No... I never contemplated this sick, obscene reality.

Had Kennedy voted with the anti-Constitutionists I would have understood Roberts tagging alone for the sole purpose of then exercising his right (as Chief Justice in the majority) to write the majority opinion. But to have Kennedy do the right thing only to have Roberts stab the nation in the back... I'm still stunned... still literally physically shaky over it.

I would wish Roberts dead... but if Roberts died this very day the situation would remain that Obama will be President for the next near-seven months no matter what happens in November. While no doubt Republicans in the Senate could delay any Obama appointment this year, a dead Roberts would still leave the Supreme Court of the United States with four sitting anti-Constitutionist justices and Kennedy against three Constitutionists.

There is no "one" straw which I can point to as being the straw that broke the back of the American Constitutional Republic... but Roberts' betrayal of his oath and his country will surely go down in history as one of the "nails" in America's coffin.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Jackie R. Whiton of Antrim, NH - American Hero!

Read it and weep, my friends... 
Weep for our country!

Jackie R. Whiton of Antrim had been a six-year employee at the Big Apple convenience store in Peterborough, NH., until a single transaction sent her job up in smoke.

The store clerk was fired after she refused to take a customer’s Electronic Balance Transfer card to pay for cigarettes.

Whiton said a young man came in to the store to buy two packs of cigarettes on May 29. When she asked him for his ID, he handed her his EBT card.

EBT cards are used for both food and cash assistance programs. There are two types of cards: one can only be used for food. The other can be spent on anything and used just like a debit card.

Whiton said she did not think EBT cards could be used to purchase cigarettes and refused to sell to him. The two “had a little go-around” as the line got longer behind him, said Whiton.

“I made the statement, ‘do you think myself, that lady and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?’ and he responded ‘yes,’ ” Whiton said.

The next day Whiton said the customer’s foster mother came to the store to complain. Whiton received a call later that day from the company’s home office in Maine, telling her it had received a complaint about her and reprimanded her.

“I said I would bow out gracefully and give my notice because I didn’t want to be a part of it. I’m 65 years old, you know?” Whiton said.

Charles E. Wilkins, the general manager of the C.N. Brown Co. that runs the stores, said the EBT cards in the cash phase could be used for any items, including alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

Wilkins said the company gave Whiton the option of staying but she said she would not accept the cards anymore.

“She didn’t think it was right and just wasn’t going to sell to people in that program anymore,” Wilkins said.

Whiton said when she came to work the next day, her manager asked her how much notice she was giving. When she responded “a week,” she was told the home office had just called and fired her.

Wilkins said she would have had to accept the cards within that week.

Whiton said she was not looking for another job.

Whiton said she does not object to using the programs for food assistance, but does not think a person should be able to use public funds to buy cigarettes.

“They can’t even buy toilet paper with the EBT grocery cards but they can buy beer and cigarettes with the EBT cash cards,” Whiton said, “Go figure.”