The 0Care Monstrosity and the Supremes
First, let’s be clear, BO was never a “Constitutional law scholar” nor was he ever a “Constitutional law professor.” He was a (part-time) lecturer at the University of Chicago who never published so much as one piece of scholarship in any field, let alone in Constitutional law, and who, for whatever reason, voluntarily gave up his license to practice law in the state of Illinois. He never presented at or sat on/organized any panel at any academic or professional conference (and probably never even attended one). His academic credentials are pretty much nil.
Now, this does not mean that he doesn’t understand the Constitution, it’s pretty straightforward, after all. We used to teach it to 6th graders, and they managed to grasp things like “separation of powers,” “three co-equal branches,” and “checks and balances.” It’s not rocket science. It’s not even political science. Yet somehow BO feels that it is his place not only to undermine our very Constitution but to “call out”–in typical BO Chicago thug style–the Supreme Court of the United States, trying to bully and berate and guilt them into a ruling that is patently contrary to the spirit (and the letter) of the Constitution.
BO seems to believe that the Supreme Court should consider, even for a moment, all his sob story whining about all the people who don’t have insurance (blah blah blah). This sentiment was echoed by Sotomeyer and Kagan during the three days of 0Care hearings, and it makes me want to vomit. No court should ever consider in ruling on the constitutionality of a law (as the Supremes are being asked to do by the majority of states) whether or not its intent is “good” or in line with being “my brother’s keeper.” Nor should it consider whether or not people will be helped or even if the number of people being helped somehow outweigh the Constitution of the United States of America.
And this was essentially the administration’s stance. When the attorney for the government wasn’t metaphorically foot-stomping and saying “It just is! So there!” when asked why the mandate is acceptable or “It just won’t! So there!” when asked about the potential for the new powers granted by a Supremes’ ruling in favor of the mandate leading to future misuses and abuses of the Commerce Clause, he was pretty much just saying “but but but look at the people this unConstitutional law may help!” Hmph! And horse-hockey! The court is not charged with “helping people.” It’s charged with ruling on the law, as the law is written. To me, this is clear as day. BO, however, is in “the ends justify the means” mode. As usual. Unconstitutional? So what!
BO’s Charles Mansonesque “Helter Skelter” Ideology
Remember good ole Charlie and his fun plan to start a race war by slaughtering pregnant women and other (white) innocents, while placing the blame firmly (he thought) on black people? Manson’s loony tune, diabolical, and pure evil plan was to enrage whites against blacks and create racial strife to the point of an all-out bloody and murderous race war within the United States. He had some bizarre notion that he was the Messiah and that after the heads rolled and the dust settled, he’d slither out from under some rock and rule the “new” black America (all of the non-blacks, except Manson and his devotees, having been slaughtered in the race war).
This is pretty much BO’s plan, too, only his idea is to create such intense racial tensions, and I do mean “create” them, that there is blood flowing in the streets as indignant and outraged and vengeful black people “rise up” against the racist whites who are responsible for their plight, and who clearly use race to gin up legal charges and to keep them down in innumerable ways and through everything from “hidden code language” to outright (almost always invented) racist violence. I don’t think that BO wants to rule a new black America, he just wants a new, “fundamentally transformed” America, with himself, of course, as ruler. Black people are his pawns, used and manipulated with as much skill as the psychotic Charles Manson brainwashed his hippy dippy acolytes.
Like BO, Manson promised “hope” and “change,” and like BO, he demanded unswerving loyalty and mindless devotion from his minions. We’ve seen the seeds of BO’s “helter skelter” labors in the unbelievably unethical and truly slanderous NBC “editing error” of the Zimmerman 911 tapes, in the race-baiting lunacy of the organized leftists’ race complex, in the New Black Panthers’ bounty on Zimmerman‘s head, in the comments of the president as he inserted himself (yet again) into a local issue that had nothing to do with the presidency, and in countless other leftist attempts to create from thin air a powder keg of racial unrest and violence.
Leftist Femisogynists Really Do See Women as the Sum of Our Reproductive Organs
Projection. I say it often, but when it comes to “feminisms,” it’s something that I know only too well, having (much to my own shame) bought into 1980’s “feminism” for much of my undergraduate and graduate careers. The whole point of feminism, we were indoctrinated to believe, was to . . . oh, blah, blah, blah, you know the schtick, “the personal is political,” “gender is a social construct,” “the domestic sphere is oppressive,” “women will not be silenced,” yadda yadda yadda. One of the main, arguably the only, tenet of this craziness is that women have the “right” to their reproductive organs, that the misogynist, white male-dominated western culture reduced us to “bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen” status and that we had an obligation to demand more.
Feminism, as I’ve discussed previously, was not originally about women being manly, shaped in the image of the revered and envied white male (that’s just what it became); it was about actual equal rights in voting (suffrage), property ownership, and employment. It got twisted, savagely and unrelentingly, by leftists who understood that women, like black people and every other invented and segregated “group,” could be manipulated to work against their own best interest.
“Women’s health.” We hear about this non-stop from leftists, and what they mean by that is always and only related to reproduction: free and frequent abortions and free birth control. When a leftist says “women’s health,” they never ever mean heart health or cancer prevention/treatment or . . . anything not related to abortions and birth control. Okay, sometimes they mean breast cancer and hand out pink ribbons. But that’s it. Women, for leftists, are nothing more than the sum of their reproductive/sexual organs and the management thereof. They harp on about how “being a woman isn’t a preexisting condition,” but what they really mean is that it is, that being a woman means that our “health” is only related to how many abortions we’ve had and how easy and cheap (or free) birth control is.
In this relentless attack on women as human beings, leftists crank up a phony “war on women” based solely on who pays for abortion and birth control (both are legal and readily available to women in this country, they just want tax payers to fund it, regardless of our own personal and/or religious beliefs). But as the recent video from Smart Girl Politics notes, women care about the economy, the Constitution, and a myriad of other issues (aside: one of the things that turned me off ’80’s feminism was an article about “women’s issues” that focused–and you can’t make this stuff up–on things that “issue” from a woman’s body. Reading that I became convinced that “feminism” was dedicated not to equality but to oppression, not to seeing women as people but to seeing them as “other”–the very thing that all the “isms” claim to reject but actually embrace–and exploit–with wholehearted and gleeful gusto.):
So, no, BO and leftists, you don’t speak for me, not as a woman and not as an American.