The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Penalty Play

By

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

A penalty that’s really a tax.   So decreed the Supreme Court about Obaminablecare this past Thursday.  But President Walking Eagle still decrees the tax is just a penalty.

Could have fooled me.

If it’s not a tax, O Self-Proclaimed Smartest President Ever, then why is the IRS ramping up its ranks by some 16,000 agents and preparing to go through your personal life far beyond just your income?  Why does it now matter to them how many people live in your house?  If someone living in your house for whom you have no legal responsibility (for example, a roommate), refuses to get a health insurance policy, why does this have the potential to impact YOUR taxes?  While they might not be willing to say so now, you can bet dollars to a cop’s donuts that the day will come when the IRS will seize YOUR assets in order to pay for someone else’s choice to not pay for what some government bureaucrat mandates as “adequate” health insurance coverage.  Not to mention the ugliness of the whole snitch aspect of enforcement.

It’s incomprehensible to regular folks just how Justice Roberts managed to squeak out justification of the mandate as a tax when the progressive liberal Democrats insisted from Day One it was merely a “penalty” and continued to argue it as such during the hearing.  Even if they had argued it as a tax, it falls into neither category by which Congress can levy a tax.  Mark Levin put it this way:

“What kind of taxes are permitted under our federal constitution? Well, there’s a tax that is called a direct tax or capitation tax…it is a tax on the individual. The Constitution requires direct or capitation taxes (a head tax if you will) to be apportioned among the states…

Then under the Constitution you can have an excise tax. But excise taxes require some sort of action or activity on the part of the individual. So surely this tax can’t be (an excise tax).

What about an income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment?

Even John Roberts doesn’t attempt to justify the (Obamacare) penalty as an income tax.”

Some are arguing that this can’t go forward because tax legislation must originate in the House.  But they are forgetting that the Senate essentially gutted a House bill to use as the container in which to create their version of Obaminablecare.  So although one might well and should argue this as both an immoral and unethical tack (often) done deliberately to deceive, this wicked legislation did “originate” in the House.

But passed under reconciliation, it may also be repealed (cue liberal progressive squeals of “unfairness”).

This is yet another horrible example that our government is simply and utterly out of control.  When 60% of Americans do not want Obaminablecare, yet the government is forcing it upon us through outright lies and backroom deals, we are living under the same situation that created the War of Independence:  taxation without representation.  We have one election left before we become simply Amerikka the USSA.  If we use it wisely, we can begin to drain that swamp in D.C. and, like other unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions (Dred Scott, anyone?) we can not only repeal Obaminablecare in its draconian socialist entirety, we can seat justices who rule based on the Constitution, not what they think others might think of them. 

 

A Stunning Week For American Liberties

By

It has been a rather incredible week.  In a real “two fer”, the election of Republican Scott Brown to represent the state of Massachusetts as a United States Senator has sent both the ghost of Ded Ted and the unholy trinity’s health care “reform” back down to the hell hole from which they rose.  And then the Supreme Court, voting on straight progressive vs. conservative ideological lines, struck down most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act as unconstitutional.

All of which finds the left staring bug-eyed and slack-jawed.

As the shock wears off, in their anger at being told that their attempts to create a socialist dictatorship out of the Republic of the United States is now seen clearly for what it is and that the American people want no part of it, the spin begins.  His Transparency, in particular, is being, well, rather more transparent.  And it’s not comforting.  Attempting to capitalize on what is being labeled “populist” anger, he went on the stump this week and has started talking “tough”.  But, frankly, it sounds more like stupid to me.  He told George Stephanopoulos:

“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.   People are angry, and they’re frustrated.  Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
 
Yo, put on some clothes, there, Emperor.  This time it really is all about you.  Those last “eight years” you continue to casually toss around as your sole reason d’etre now includes the first year of what sensible Americans have been praying is your own lame-duck presidency.  What happened in Massachusetts is, indeed, the sensible reaction of a free people to your lies and your ideology.  We were angry at the growing deficits and intrusions of the federal government in 2008 and we’re angry at the Obama-led Democrats’ neck-break race to socialism that continues to increase them now.
 
But no matter.  Obama got himself all wee-wee’d up and told a crowd in Elyria, Ohio (where unemployment is now at 10.9 percent — up from 10.6 last month):

“Now, we’ve gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we’ve run into a bit of a buzz saw along the way….”

“…I am not going to watch more people get crushed by costs, or denied the care they need by insurance company bureaucrats, or partisan politics, or special interest power in Washington.”

Astute observers will note that referring to a majority of the citizenry at large as a “buzz saw” when they disagree with him shows again this inexperienced bubble boy hasn’t a clue or, more likely based on other statements, just doesn’t care about the checks and balances foundation of government in this country that secures the power in the hands of the people.  And it is not only my jaded eyes that turn up at the corners from the humor of the blatant hypocrisy contained in his statements.  What we saw, particularly exposed during the month of December, made it quite clear that the Chicago machine of “partisan politics” and the “special interest power in Washington” was gunning at full throttle to create both the House and Senate versions of health care “reform”.  (Corn husk, anyone?)
 
This fighting stance continued as the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision on the upcoming 2010 Congressional mid-term elections quickly began to sink in.
 
 
 
Tip what?  Drown out what?  Certainly Massachusetts just proved the progressive liberal’s need to stifle free speech on behalf of those chosen to be their pet victim de jeur is not only wrong, but unnecessary.  Martha (“Curling Iron”) Coakley flew from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C. to attend a fundraiser for her Senate campaign, and both hosts and attendees included lobbyists for “Big Pharma” and the health care industry.  Monies raised were used for negative attack ads against Scott Brown, but we all know what happened next.  It didn’t work.  The American people knew what was at stake and threw their nickels and dimes at Scott Brown; and the good people of Massachusetts, equally tired of Washington’s special interests, raised their collective middle fingers and gave the Democrats and their lobbyists and their unions a loud and clear salute by sending Brown to Washington to kill the health care Senate bill.
 
It may be too difficult a concept for affirmatively-graduated Ivy League progressives, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that freedom of speech is our most powerful means of controlling special interests and bringing hidden agendas to light.  So what if corporations or the unions now no longer need a middle man (in the form of PACs) to donate to a candidate or a cause?  The Supreme Court did not strike down disclosure and therefore any business that decides to spend their profits on campaigns that go against America’s liberties or against Her best interests will soon find their profits gone MIA as the people cast their votes not only at the ballot box but with their dollars.  Those companies who decide to try and hide behind PACs will continue to be outed by an newly-awakened citizenry who is sick and tired of lies, no matter what the source.  Where the agenda of unions goes against America’s sensibilities, they will lose even more members than they have to date.  Frankly, those who would want to pursue campaign reform in light of this ruling would do better to simply put more transparency into the whole process. 
 
But in a free market economy, advertising can be a form of corporate suicide and where campaign financing is concerned the left believes that this a bad thing.  What they can’t accept, because it threatens their power, is that real equality means the freedom to fail as well as the freedom to succeed.  It is not up to the government to selectively and partisanly choose who may speak and when.  At least it is not up to the government in these United States.  It is the kind of activity belongs in despot regimes like Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran.  That the Obama administration and its progressive liberal supporters are already seeing how to write new laws to corral free speech yet again is yet more straightforward evidence they do not accept the Constitution as it was written and sets the stage for the 2010 mid-term elections to be a bloodbath, ending with Democrats picking up their teeth with the stubs of their elbows.
 

Quote Of The Day

By

Today’s pithy comment, courtesy of particpants on Ed Morrissey’s blog at HotAir about Ralph Nader announcing that we need to amend the 1st Amendment because of the Supreme Court ruling striking down parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation.

Dear Ralph Nader,
GO TO HELL.

Sincerely, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams

cc:  King George III

Sonia Sotomayor’s “Unique”; Just Like All Of Us

By

Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor have begun and the first day was a stereotypical dog & pony show of left-wing / right-wing ideological debate, but for those who not only heard it but actually listened to what was being said, it was an education in the purpose of the Supreme Court and its critical role in protecting America’s foundation of Constitutional freedoms.  It also provided insight into how various Congress critters view and/or defend them.

Democratic senators played to lowest common denominator “enquiring minds” by touting Sotomayor’s overcoming of her “life struggles” as something worthy of an Oscar, while Republican senators spoke to the seriousness of the undertaking for which she has been nominated.

In my mind, that she “done good” for herself is no different than what has been done by millions of Americans.  Indeed, this opportunity to make good is one of the reasons America has been the dream of people around the world since her birth.  This great nation contains far more rags-to-riches stories than it does stories of unearned “privilege” such as the born-to-wealth Kennedy offspring or the married-into-wealth types like Pelosi, Sanford, etc.  That Sotomayor had to earn her way mirrors the path taken by the vast majority of us, and that’s a good thing.  It is the work she has done while following her own, personal path that raises questions about her ability to manifest the blind objectivity required to, as she stated in her remarks to the Senate, maintain “fidelity to the law”.

What she also chose to say in her remarks to the Senate give some insight as to her perspectives as much as do rightful concerns over the opinions she has expressed over the years when not sitting on the bench. 

Over the past three decades, I have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives — as a big-city prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as a trial judge and as an appellate judge. My first job after law school was as an assistant district attorney in New York. There, I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the pain and suffering of families torn apart by the needless death of loved ones. I saw and learned the tough job law enforcement has in protecting the public. In my next legal job, I focused on commercial, instead of criminal, matters. I litigated issues on behalf of national and international businesses and advised them on matters ranging from contracts to trademarks.

What she tells us here is that her past three decades of experience includes a good deal of trial experience that is, in my mind, limited in scope.  She worked as a “big-city prosecutor”, worked as a prosecutor in private practice, and then “litigated issues” and “advised” in what has been shown to be, again, a prosecutorial perspective.   Simply put, she’s made her life’s work going after the bad guys, whether “bad” is defined as a breaker of laws on the books or a breaker of moral law (e.g. the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, now known as “LatinoJustice PRLDEF“, aka “press 1 for English”).  The thing that stands out for me as a glaring ommission that would perhaps have perhaps given her some of the real “wisdom” she claims is that she has never sat at the defense table as the protector of an accused criminal’s rights.

Various analyses of her rulings involving discrimination suits find her quick to dismiss the vast majority of them though only one of them involved having to actually look at the issue of racial discrimination itself (versus ruling because of the more usual legal technicalities).  Whether this is good or bad isn’t yet clear to me but others say it shows her lack of prejudice.  It does explain to me, in part however, why she did not do anything more than coast through the appellate appeal in Ricci vs. New Haven. 

So what does one make of a life perspective being one in which fighting against discrimination by whites has been the primary mission?   Right now, Sonia Sotomayor’s work remains subject to the collective wisdom and avowed Constitutional and blind defense of the United States Supreme Court.  While she has mostly been a herd animal in her appellate decisions, with said herd decisions being overturned more often than not by the Supreme Court, this then unfortunately means there is no evidence to say she would uphold the judicial vow if put on the Supreme Court bench.

This is troubling.

As troubling on the backpedaling she’s now doing about her “wise Latina” comment being nothing more than a bad joke.  A joke so bad she’s repeated it ad nauseum throughout the years like it’s some personal mantra.

Troubling….

The Day America Died

By

No pun intended, but I used to think the day Barack Obama was elected President of the United States would prove to be one of the darkest days in American history.  Today it has come true for, truly, America has descended to a state of lawlessness.  The lives given during the American Revolution and the very best efforts of the most brilliant minds in the history of mankind to create what was once the most powerful nation in the world appear to have all been in vain. 

Today the United States Supreme Court refused to even consider the appeal made by Chrysler bondholders to block the sale of Chrysler to Fiat, an appeal made on the grounds the terms of the sale are unlawful.

The court issued a brief, unsigned opinion explaining its action. To obtain a delay, or stay, someone must show that at least four of the nine justices find that the issue raised is serious enough to warrant hearing a full appeal and that a majority of the court will conclude the lower court decision was wrong.

“The applicants have not carried that burden,” the court said.

I have watched this whole matter closely and I read the appeal sent to the Supreme Court.  The questions it raises about the legality of the actions of the United States government, of the Obama administration forcing all parties into a deal that favors junior and unsecured interests over what American law has always considered first-in-line investors during a bankruptcy proceeding, are serious allegations and by refusing to even consider them, the Supreme Court has now given the Obama administration the green light to run roughshod and at will over any and every private sector entity it so chooses to usurp for its own nefarious purposes.

If you were not frightened before, you should be very frightened now.  Personally, not only am I afraid, I am heartsick.  The housecleaning of mid-term elections in 2010 cannot come soon enough.  Somehow, those who still believe in the American dream must find a way to hold fast until real brakes can be put on the fascists who have taken over Washington.

In the meantime, it occurs to me that no matter how much of OUR money the government intends to spend to induce us to buy vehicles from either version of Government Motors (“cash for clunkers“), the best way to show disapproval for this latest Chicago mafia-style move is to buy our next vehicle from Ford.  And in every other area of our lives, to vote with our dollars in support of private businesses that are run by real grownups, not children who go crying home to daddy to bail them out when they screw up.

Chrysler Bond Holders Go To Supreme Court

By

I personally find it utterly unconscionable that the law of this land has become so subverted by the Obama administration that Chrysler bond holders have now been forced into an emergency filing with the U.S. Supreme Court:

“…a stay of the Sale Orders pending final resolution of the Indiana Pensioners’ forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari—on as expedited a schedule as the Court finds necessary—is essential to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction. Without a stay, the section 363 sale will close as soon as Monday, June 8 at 4:00 p.m., which is when the present stay issued by the Second Circuit will be lifted. Stay App. 74a (Second Circuit Mandate). Under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 363(m)), closing the sale will essentially moot the case.

If that happens, a number of consequences will follow:

(1) The United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), purporting to utilize powers conferred upon it by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) established under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. 5201 (“EESA”), will have been permitted to structure and finance the reorganization of Chrysler without any judicial review of its authority to do so (the Bankruptcy Court incorrectly disposed of the issues by deciding that Appellants lacked standing);

(2) Chrysler will have been permitted to reorganize under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. pursuant to a transaction that was structured and financed by Treasury, without having been required to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Bankruptcy Code for doing so; and

(3) The secured claims of Chrysler’s first lien lenders (including the Indiana Pensioners) and any unsecured deficiency claims they may have if their collateral properly valued is in fact worth less than the amount they are owed, will have received materially less favorable treatment than most of Chrysler’s general unsecured creditors.

As such, absent a stay, the Court will be deprived of the opportunity to decide critical, nationally significant legal issues relating to management of the economy by the United States Government.”

At issue is the structure of Chrysler’s bankruptcy in which bondholders – by law the most secured creditors – have deliberately been given short shrift by the administration in favor of those who have unsecured interests in the company.  The Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher’s Retirement Fund and the state’s Major Moves Construction Fund stand to lose millions of dollars while the U.S. and Canadian governments and the UAW cut blithely to the front of the line and take ownership stakes in a sale of Chrysler to Fiat.

The lower courts have upheld this bizarre and unprecedented bankruptcy construct; as recently as Friday the federal appeals court in New York gave the bondholder shaft its own seal of approval.  Interestingly, and somewhat telling in these days of Pater Obama, this government-beholden court gave bondholders until Monday afternoon to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene.  Unwilling to put on its big boy panties and stand up to the Obama administration by upholding the laws that give those who take the most risk in providing funding to a business the first rights of payback during a bankruptcy, it is quite evident that the New York federal appeals court is pawning off its job.

As part of her job, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will receive the emergency filing today.  I see this as a test; a big test.  For it is the job of the Supreme Court to rule on law, and do so blindly.  There can be no “empathy” nor any partiality to political affiliations, all of which seem to be part and parcel of this Obamastein’s monster of governmental abuse of powers. 

In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), Justice Ginsburg concurred with the dissenting Supreme Court opinion that:

What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by to day’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I find it very troubling that we must now sit and wonder if the confidence in America’s judiciary will continue to remain so shaken.

 

 

Different But Equally Racist?

By

The White House has actually warned folks to “be careful” as President Obama’s choice to replace Supreme Court Justice Souter, Sonia Sotomayor, begins the confirmation process.  It seems that because Sotomayor is a Hispanic woman, that is such a big deal in and of itself it should trump any all legitimate questions and their answers – such as looking closely at her on the job performance – when deciding if she is really and truly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Frankly, boys and girls, I watch this nonsense and shake my head.  Anyone who uses things like race or economic circumstances in an attempt to elevate themselves above others is, at best, a fool.  To claim that your race or gender makes you somehow wiser than those who are different from you is a racist statement.  Kudos to ANYONE who works hard and makes something productive out of themselves.  We all know that a piece of paper from a prestigious university has no bearing on common sense or eventual life outcome; if you want to talk about real wisdom I will bet you can find more in a ditch digger than in some alleged “Constitutional law professors”. 

But I digress. 

Affirmative action and equal opportunity are a direct result of freedoms provided in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  It is on a level playing field that every nominee must be judged; without prejudice, without discrimination, blindly – and those who are found to be lacking in objective judicial abilities must be sent packing.

Judge Sotomayor does not appear to be an appropriate choice for the Supreme Court simply because she is on record as advocating legislating from the bench, and because of her racist statements.  Both are bad news when being considered for a job that calls for upholding the Constitution and doing so without prejudice, meaning doing so blindly.  It makes no difference that she is Hispanic.  It makes no difference that she is female.  Lady Justice doesn’t discriminate, Lady Justice is not divisive, and upholding that literal objectivity is simply a fundamental test that Sonia Sotomayor does not pass.

Stupidity Vs. Common Sense

By

“May the best man win.”  It’s heard all the time when humans decide to compete against one another.

But what does the “best” really mean?  When a test is applied equally, because of our individual strengths and weaknesses there will be winners who meet the criteria, and losers who do not.  But it apparently means nothing when it comes to racial quotas.  Despite situations where lowering the bar simply for the sake of “diversity” can have deadly consequences.

Watch this and weep.  It is a case where stupidity (in the form of fearing lawsuits) trumps common sense.

Get a grip, America.