Obamacare: Dead Man Walking ... by Alan Caruba

Obamacare: Dead Man Walking
By Alan Caruba

**********************

Don’t you think, if the Democrats had the votes for Obamacare, it would be the law of the land right now?

I have been telling friends for days that it doesn’t matter if Obamacare is somehow “passed” by the House and sent to the White House for the President’s signature. It is as dead as Marley’s ghost.

The law will be challenged by law suits or possibly nullified because of the manner of passage and elements of its content that require citizens to buy health insurance. That is manifestly unconstitutional.

I know the common wisdom among the Democrat denizens of Washington, D.C. is that once Obamacare becomes law the great heaving mass of ignorant and unwashed citizens will quickly forget about the whole thing. They are wrong.

Obamacare is the equivalent of the Confederate States declaring secession and the first shots fired at Fort Sumter. That time it took a war to restore the Union, but this time a huge majority of people, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, and every other political flag other than the Communist and Socialist Parties USA is opposed to this 2,700-page monstrosity.

Truly, Barack Hussein Obama has brought us all together. Against him!

With regard to the States, one after another is passing resolutions and laws to exempt themselves from the authority of Obamacare and it is likely to reignite and vivify the Tenth Amendment as nothing has in decades.

“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.”

The people. That’s us.

The people who got Prohibition repealed. The people who finally granted suffrage to women. The people who volunteer to be in our Armed Forces. The people in our police and fire departments. The people in the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. The people who drive trucks providing goods to the rest of us. The people who marry and raise kids. You know who they are. They are your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers.

In his iconic novel, “On the Road”, Jack Kerouac (1922-1969) wrote, “This is the story of America. Everybody's doing what they think they're supposed to do.”

That’s how the Tea Party movement exploded out of nowhere and suddenly was everywhere. It’s all those people jamming the phones on Capital Hill, burning up its fax machines, overheating its email system. It is quintessentially American.

And, as for the States, they are all sovereign republics! They have their own constitutions. And they will fight back, too.

There isn’t a governor breathing who (a) doesn’t know his State is broke and (b) knows Obamacare will aggravate that condition to a point where they no longer will have any budget over which they can exercise any control because this “entitlement” is the ultimate deal-breaker.
So let Madame Pelosi babble away about leaping over fences and parachuting in as if America was some enemy nation to conquer. It does not matter whether she gets Obamacare “passed” or not.

For now, I am going to assume that it will be defeated in the House.

Even if Obamacare passes the House and is sent to the President, Obamacare will still be a dead man walking.
*************************
Alan Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Should the District of Columbia be given Statehood?

Should the District of Columbia be given Statehood?

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

**************************

The short answer is NO! The long answer is: NOOOOOOOOOO!

Washington is a city, a government compound, if you please; it is anything but a state! And it should never become a state… unless… the Nation’s Capitol is moved to a more centralized location in the US. Then, I would propose breaking the District up and returning those parts of the district which had formerly belonged to the neighboring states… if they will take it back, which, frankly, I doubt. That portion belonging to Virginia has already been returned. The remaining portion used to belong to Maryland.

George Washington, the nations first president, chose the spot, a swamp named “Foggy Bottom”, upon which to build the city. It was close to his home, don’t you see. Sadly, Washington never served as President in the city, which bears his name. Somehow, I suspect that given a look at what the city has become today, Washington would ask that his name be removed.

Not to worry, those pushing for statehood for the District already have a new name chosen: “New Columbia”. I’ve not heard whether the folks in the Old Columbia, which is the capitol city of South Carolina, would mind, or not. I dare say they haven’t been asked.

The city was created as a “municipal corporation” on February 21st, 1871. And it’s been nothing but trouble and a drain on the US Treasury ever since.

The rambling here is, hopefully, to establish a truth which seems to be very inconvenient for those who want statehood for DC. The truth is: Washington was conceived as a city within which to locate the seat of the US Government. It was not to be in a state, or any portion of a state. It was to be in a district… separate, and apart, from ANY state!

Another inconvenient fact is that statehood for DC would be unconstitutional. That’s right! Unconstitutional!

You see, The Constitution specifies “a federal district not exceeding ten miles square.” It is not to be a part of any state. Today the District is six times as large as the constitution stipulated at over 61 square miles

It is my personal belief that only a constitutional amendment can legally make a state of the District of Columbia.

Many disagree. A number believe that the government compound could be shrunk down to contain only those federal buildings, which are a part of the government and the remainder of that 61 square miles turned into a state.

The Democrats, especially, love the idea of statehood for DC. They know they would get three liberal democrat members of the Senate, and Congress, right off the bat. According to the 2000 census there are 343,312 Blacks in DC. Whites account for only 176,101. That’s 60% Black and 30% White. The median age is 34.6 years old.

Right now, when numbers mean so much for the Democrats, you can bet they are looking, and lusting after, the District of Columbia.

Why do I bring this up now? I refer you to the paragraph immediately preceding this one. You can bet that should the democrats manage to win the Congress, or just the US House, a new push for statehood for DC will be introduced, almost immediately. And, another thing you can bet on… if they can figure out a way to get the job done, short of a constitutional amendment, they will see that DC becomes the 51st state of New Columbia ASAP. I mean, 93% of the voters casting ballots in DC in the last election, voted democrat. That fact alone should tell you all you really need to know about the “Statehood for DC” push.

So, if the Congress wishes to diminish the size of the District say, down to the constitutionally mandated ten square miles, that’s fine by me. But, I would insist that the remainder of the current District be returned to Maryland and/or any other state from which the land was originally appropriated.

The final answer, so far as I am concerned, is no statehood for the District of Columbia, no matter its size and population… ever.

J. D. Longstreet

Are Obama’s Czars Constitutional?

Are Obama’s Czars Constitutional?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*************************
OK. Let us “tell it like it is!” Obama’s Czars are simply a way for Obama to get around the Constitution. There. I’ve said it.

We have noted many times in the past that the Constitution is only an irritant to the political left and they will do almost anything to get around dit. They consider it an outdated “suggestion” if you will, and not The Law as the political right considers it.

With the Obama Regime, America has a government being run, for all practical purposes by a bunch of unelected officials who answer, not to the American people, but to the benign dictator Barack Obama. Oh, may I remind you that even a benign dictator is still a dictator.

One of the finest military men this country has ever produced, a republican, and a man in line to receive his party’s endorsement as a candidate for president, Douglas MacArthur, once said: ““I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” — General Douglas MacArthur. If General MacArthur could see the US today, he would be spinning in his grave!

A friend admonished me many months ago because I referred to Obama as a socialist. My friend told me I was wrong. He went on to say that Obama was not a socialist; he was, and is, a communist! I must tell you now, that I am slowly coming around to my friend’s way of thinking. Why? It is primarily because of Obama’s Czars.

Alan Caruba in his commentary entitled: “Obama’s Unconstitutional “Czars” says the following: “As I read it, the Constitution is very specific about whom the President may appoint and he can do so only within parameters “established by law” and this applies specifically to the “heads of departments.” I interpret this to mean Cabinet Secretaries, all of whom must be vetted and approved for their positions by the Senate.” Mr Caruba goes on to say: “Obama’s appointments are clearly “principal officers” though it will be argued that they are only advisors to the office of the President. Clearly, Obama’s appointments are not heads of departments, but they appear to have been granted an unknown degree of influence and control as regards their responsibilities. They function “in the dark.” You may read the entire article HERE.

Looking at the Constitution we find this: “Article II. Section 2. “He (the President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

Clearly, The Founders gave no thought to CZARS when writing the constitution. Clearly they did not intend for any unelected group to weild authority over their fellow American then or now. But that is what we have with the Obama Regime and its Czars.

Many times in the past we have warned of a “Shadow Government” wielding the REAL authority in the American government. We have taken a good bit of ribbing for that. But, not so much these days as readers begin to understand what a shadow government is. It is a group of Czars operating, as Mr. Caruba says: “… in the dark.”

Why should we fear this group of 30 odd czars? As usual, Mr. Caruba’s insight has nailed it for us. He says: “There are now some thirty or more of these “czars” and they represent a threat to the authority of the Congress and could be utilized in some manufactured “crisis” to take control of the federal government, dispensing with the rule of law.”

I don’t know about you, but I am convinced that Americans have a “Shadow Government” in place and ruling America today.

But – is this "Shadow Government,” this group of Czars, constitutional? We need a ruling from the Supreme Court on it and the sooner the better -- before irreparable harm is done The Republic.

J. D. Longstreet

***************

Socialist+Obama+Shadow-Government+Unconstitutional,Czars