Obama STIMULIS for EGYPT??!!

Here we go again... another one of many stories of how crazy this administration is and just how far out of touch they are with the American electorate and taxpayers they are supposed to serve and represent.

This government, designed and enacted for the people and by the people at the wisdom of our forefathers, is dominated now by out of touch, socialist, elitists that presume to know what is better for us than we, their masters, do.

Yesterday, on Sunday, July 15, Secretary of State (SoS) Hilary Clinton ended talks with the interim Egyptian "government,” and I use the term government loosely, and she agreed to provide them additional aid of up to $1 billion to help bolster their flailing economy...

Unbelievable, though it is true, and this administration is allowing this to happen, endorsing it wholeheartedly, despite national records in deficit, unemployment and stalled economic growth in all sectors. We are in a major recession, jobs are at a premium, I would find it hard pressed to explain and get buy-in from any large constituency in this country that spending and additional $1 Billion in taxpayer money is in our best interests. That stimulating the Egyptian economy, when our own is stagnant, is in our national best interests…

Egypt currently doesn't even have a true government. At this point they are still being led by a military council that is reluctant to relinquish power to the civilian elected body.

Now did you cue in earlier to when I stated "additional aid", well here's what I was referring to: Back in April of this year, the Obama administration quietly released $1.5 billion in foreign aid to this freshman Egyptian “government”; this government, overseen by the military, which is now dominated by an Islamic brotherhood-led coalition in their parliament. Our President gave this “government” which also does not guarantee human rights, personal freedoms and civil rights equally to men and women and which treats LGBT as criminals; a government whose law that is dominated by religious sectarian interpretation of Sharia law, Obama gave them $1.5 Billion of our American taxpayer money.

So on top of that $1.5 billion given to them just 3 months ago, where it has all gone and whose pockets it is in all now we don't know, now via SoS Clinton, we have given them another up to $1 Billion dollar handout... Remember now, this is a technically a brand new government, in its infancy so to speak, which no declaration of friendship or alliance to the United States. Now, being led by a religio-political coalition called the [Islamic] Brotherhood, one of whose chief aims is the destruction of the Israeli state and another is the subjugation and conversion of all races to Islam.

On top of this, the democrats are continuing the debate of raising taxes on the American "rich" and threatening of raising taxes on all working Americans this upcoming January 1st...

I would say there will be a huge fight, not only from the republicans, but from all working/taxpaying Americans on this additional taxation. Especially noteworthy when this legislative body cannot even create and adhere to a budget for one single year. Why wouldn't we??!!

Why would you let your government tax you even more to extend entitlements, to not only your own unwilling and non-productive citizens, but to other countries (who do not have our country's best interest in hand), in an effort to win their hearts and minds support or is it a payment – are we now paying at a national level the Jizya to Islam?

Why should we let the government continue to raise our taxes without a plan on how they intend to spend that revenue and how those expenditures are in the best interests of all Americans and how they also plan to eliminate the additional debt we have doubled/incurred in the last 3 years of this current administration...

"Incoherent but Brilliant" Healthcare - also known as BULLSHIT!

So here it goes, my recession devalued two cents on a matter that is still being publicly discussed and weighed.  Disappointment for some, elation for others - for me though, disappointing in the extreme, not for a political idealogy but for the United States of America and the integrity of our highest court and our CONSTITUTION.

Fourteenth President of the United States of America, Franklin Pierce, said,

"The storm of frenzy and faction must inevitably dash itself in vain against the unshaken rock of the Constitution."

The sad thing is that this non-partisan view of the CONSTITUTION cost him his second term of office, as the Democrats replaced him with James Buchanan.

Now I understand that the Supreme Court, AKA SCOTUS, has made their ruling and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare will stand (for now). My trouble is that what I had originally believed about Justice Roberts' ruling and his reasoning was actually wrong. His unquestionable integrity is now, in my mind, quite in the opposite, questionable... leaving Pelosi and the lefties to truthfully and arguably "Blame Bush" for the successful passage of that public law.

But in all seriousness, I really believe the dissenting judges got it right. I am aware of the fact that the justices have consciences and must sometimes rule in a manner they personally disagree with, but that is because it is based on law or precedent OR according to the Constitution, the guiding priniciple of law of this nation. But the majority opinion just looks like a mob looking for rationale, a REASON to make the law WORK rather than whether it follows our CONSTITUTION or not, which is the antithesis of what I believed SHOULD be a SCOTUS Justices' view.

Someone was recently quoted as describing Chief Justice Roberts' opinion as

“incoherent but brilliant.”

You will have to pardon my language, BUT WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?!

in·co·her·ent   [in-koh-heer-uhnt] Adj.
Without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling

The person who put incoherent and brilliant in the same sentence is a dumbass, those two words together in a sentence just do not reconcile at all...

What I had initially understood was that Justice Roberts was exercising personal courage and integrity to call a tiger a tiger by its stripes, by ruling that the law was a tax law BUT in retrospect that doesn't jive with the rest of his opinion...

The fact that since the penalty "tax" hasn't been implemented (makes that judgment moot); since no tax implementation means this should not have been ruled on right now and that since therefore the individual mandate was ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL the whole thing should have been sent back to the body of legislative mentally challenged idiots (we call them CONGRESS) who wrote it. And yes, they are the same dumbasses that never even read it in the first place prior to its initial passing; there they could endeavor to do it over again, without the individual mandate... Since it is not SCOTUS' job to EDIT law but only to adjudicate it as CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT, it therefore should have been nullified.

Roberts' opinion then, becomes not one of CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION but one of a more personal nature; that of VALIDATION OF THE SCOTUS as an institutional body and not a ruling on the actual CONSTITUTIONAL MERIT of Obamacare...

Chief Justice Roberts ended up making a change in his decison, it appears, under duress and pressure, from BOTH the left-leaning press and the public podium scolding of President Obama. Changing his decision into a defense of and defining or protecting the Supreme Court institution from the press or any detractors instead of basing his opinion on the law and the CONSTITUTION. The whole idea for their life term appointments to the Supreme Court is supposed to eliminate any of this kind of strongarming to a decision.

In Marbury vs. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the majority opinion:

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

Obamacare, by the very nature of the individual mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and REPUGNANT and should have been therefore nullified.  The WHOLE legislation should then have been sent back down to CONGRESS to fix it.  It would then have to go back through the whole ratification process over and then sent to the President for signature.

Even Grover Cleveland, a Democrat President, regularly VETOed Congressional legislation that had been championed by his own party  because it presumed too much and overstepped Constitution restraints and enumerated powers.

President Cleveland was known to have said the following:

"A government for the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice, and the interest of the people themselves."

and he also said,

"Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters."

Notably, regarding government entitlements and handouts President Cleveland also said:

"Though the people support the government; the government should not support the people."

Grover Cleveland should be a symbol to Democrats that you can take strong personal positions and yet not overstep the Constitution.  Cleveland espoused a theory of limited government...

The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of the United States Congress. In short, it maps out to Congress the powers they may exercise, granted to them in the Constitution, and they are further restricted by the Bill of Rights and other protections of the individual citizens and states in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states,

"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."

Nowhere in the Costitution or the Bill of Rights, nor in any of the Amendments, does it give the Congress the right of or power to make healthcare a national right or to even define healhcare as an unalienable right to be ensured in universal disbursement WITHOUT CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION; therefore, healthcare in any form is reserved to the States and or the people themselves, which arguably is health insurance in the private sector as we know it now.

As a matter of fact, because of this questionable CONSTITUTIONALITY, quite a few of the states have refused to start financing or funding the mandated exchanges that are supposed to be in effect by 2014 to effect the choices and begin to enforce the mandate... These states are banking on change in the upcoming elections and that the newly seated Congress next year will act to repeal the law...
When Governors of states act that strongly, there is definitely a problem with the law.

Interestingly though, the Court did not bring up Munn vs. Illinois, in 1877, where it was ruled that

"Businesses that serve the public interest are subject to regulation by STATE government..."

Health insurance companies = public interest = State government regulation NOT Federal...

I also find it interesting that in 1990, Cruzan vs. Missouri Dept. of Health, the court found that while the Constitution protects a person's right to reject life-preserving medical treatment ("right to die"), it also left it up to STATES to regulate that interest as long as the regulation is reasonable... Wouldn't it be, following that logic, that in the area of health AND healthcare, that people can reject imposed health care, and if not, that STATES would be in charge of the reasonable legislation of that healthcare - especially being, going back to the Constitution, that healthcare is NOT enumerated as a Federal government power...??

You be the judge... what do you think? What legal or CONSTITUTIONAL precendent do you offer, outside of the unintelligible "incoherent" recent ruling that follows no logical legal precedent or course other than a personal reputation agenda...

Catholicism, Mr. Obama and the US Constitution

So, earlier today, I was on the air, briefly with Mr. Hugh Hewitt, the topic of his radio show was of course the hot potato of the Obama order for the Catholic Church to provide health insurance services for their workers that are contrary to their faith and teaching. The order, I might add, that he has since "modified", through expert smoke and mirrors, that still does not change the essential fact that he is still holding the Catholic Church to providing sterilization and contraceptives to their workers against their theology as a free and long established religion in the United States, as a matter of fact the Catholic Church was on this continent almost 300 years before the Constitution was ratified and in effect.

Well, anways, I called into the show and Hugh's screener patiently listened to me and then Mr. Hewitt graciously allowed me to go on the air and voice my opinion...

To let you all into where I was mentally when I started speaking here's a bit of the background:

Some ignorant callers had the gall to say that Catholics could "choose to use or not to use" those services and some also pointed out the examples (terrible ones at that) of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, and others, even the caller herself, as stating they are "Good Catholics" that believe in the use of sterilization, abortion and artificial contraception...I was personally incensed by this lack of understanding of Catholicism, one held by many igorant people in America and even some Catholics themselves, but not only that but also by the simple fact that these folks considered themselves to be "Good Catholics" yet even as they remain defiantly opposed in word and deed to the theology and dogma of our Church as directed by Its leader, the Holy Father, our Pope in Rome.

Don't get me wrong, and some of you will, and say that I am JUDGING these fellow Catholics and I am not, I am saying they are wrong in their assumption that if they continue to do what is in direct contradiction to the Church's teaching, believing that if they still go to Mass and take their sacraments and tithe, that they are "good Catholics"... Unfortunately its not that simple, the Catholic faith is not an a'la carte menu that we can choose what we want to be part of and what we don't want to be part of. Catholicism by its very nature means UNIVERSAL, one faith through a unified theology. Just like any of the major religions of the world, they and the Catholic Church all have major pillars of their faith that set them apart, part of their root dogma and belief system...

Of course, one of the problems is that American Catholics, in our great freedom experiment of a country; freedom of spirit and action, we have chosen to take a path that has over time become quite a bit liberal to the rest of our brothers and sisters in the Universal Faith. A great deal of our errant path was due to the the liberal bishops of the 70's. American "cradle" Catholics, those born and baptised into the franchise, have largely taken for granted the wonders and tenets that our Church professes and teaches; we dropped what is inconvenient to us by the wayside and only kept that which was personally and politically convenient to us at the time... I say "we" collectively because I was one too. As we got older we lost that wonder and astonishment that the Church had for us that adult converts to Catholicism still have... Some of us, myself and quite a few others, have come back to it, it is relevant once again to us and we accept it in its entirety in intellectual obedience. NOTE: The Catholic Church doesn't want mindless zombie followers, it wants us to think and be critical and then CHOOSE to follow her DESPITE what we think, and that my friends is FAITH.

Ok that was the background that I came into my comments on the air with Mr. Hugh Hewitt.

I wrote down my thoughts on a notepad so that when he let me on the air I wouldn't be a mindless babbler, uuh uhhing my way through it....

((1)) This is not a Catholic issue, this is a fundmental 1st Amendment Issue. The Federal Government shall make no law regulating nor prohibiting the free exercise or expression of a religion and that of religious freedom.

((2)) Liberal Social Legislation and liberal social morality passed by a legilsative body, no matter how officious sounding, still does not trump that 1st Amendment protection afforded to ALL religions, religious dogma, theology or church morality and teaching...

((3)) To use Biden and Pelosi as examples of "good Catholics" is to use Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman as examples of good Marines... yeah, maybe once they were, but they have taken what was pure and later have executed it in a perversion of the original intent. They either accept the Catholic faith teachings as they are intended by the Holy Father or they really need to leave and become one of the many liberal Christian faiths that allow moral flexibility and condone abortion, sterilization and mercy killing. There are special children in this world that are here despite the admonition by some in-laws and other adults to terminate the pregnancy and lives are better for them being here, though not easy, they are enriching for their very presence among us...