Punishing His Enemies: It’s What Tyrannical Dictators Do

In 2010, Obama told a Latino audience:  “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”  We, in the conservative blogosphere were horrified.  This sounded Nixonian, it sounded banana republic unethical.  Yes, the president sounded petty and self-important, but he was also proud in a bizarre way–as if, punishing enemies and rewarding friends was something that was not beneath him, as we might expect from someone in a position of such power, but was instead something that he actually relished.  It was mind-boggling, really, to think that the president’s political “enemies” (not “opponents,” not “loyal opposition,” but “enemies”!) were going to be labeled by the head of state as essentially “‘enemies’ of the state.”

Even those of us who heard it and understood the implications didn’t know how, exactly, these punishments would be doled out, what form they would take.  Perhaps, we hoped, he’d just keep calling us names, mocking and deriding us, sneering down at us from his Styrofoam pedestal.  Maybe he’d lie about us more than usual, urge his sheeple in the tabloid media and regressive groups to attack and attempt to discredit us more often.  Maybe he’d set up another version of “Flag the Fishy” and “Attack Watch” to get our fellow citizens to turn us into the state . . . for some reason, to locate all the “enemies” he has?  And to what end?  After all, this is America, you can’t “punish” Americans for political dissent or on the whim of a president.

You can’t, right?


This president has taken punishing his enemies (and often simultaneously rewarding his friends) and elevated it to an art form that would make history’s worst tyrants and dictators drool with envy:

His DOJ: in addition to suing Arizona for violating federal immigration laws (while ignoring violations of immigration law in “sanctuary” states and cities, of course–after all, what petty tyrant doesn’t pick and choose which laws he likes best?), also has a well-known policy of never prosecuting blacks for crimes against whites.  0’s DOJ also went after Gibson guitar on bogus “wood” crime allegations.

His TSA: in addition to gross abuses of power and zero ability to actually detect an actual terrorist, the TSA considers anyone who “opts out” of their porn scans and gate rapes to be “domestic extremists.”

His DHS: in addition to the unprecedented (and frankly bizarre) stock-piling of ammunition about which they decline to comment, issued a memo in April 2009 telling various law enforcement agencies across the country to be on the lookout for dastardly “. . .. groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority [i.e. that pesky 10th Amendment which protects citizens and states from a too-powerful central government]. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ the warning says.” I.e. conservatives, TEA Party groups, patriots.

His military: in addition to forcing its pastors to perform gay “marriages,” has also targeted Christians in a special effort to silence their free speech.  And the army has been told not to consider actual terrorists (Nidal Hissan, for example) as terrorists, but instead to focus on Christians, Jews, and Islamaphobes.

His press secretary: tried to exclude the “enemy” network Fox News from an interview.  Yes, it was one interview, but if they had succeeded, it would have been the end of Fox in the WH press pool.  It was a baby step to see how far they could go in ending the freedom of the press.

His NLRB: targeted Boeing in a bogus lawsuit in an attempt to bully them into opening a new plant where the administration (and its union thug friends) wanted it.

His DOE joined with his DOJ to effectively revoke the First Amendment on all college campuses receiving federal funding (the majority of them, in other words).

His IRS: the recent revelations that the IRS was intentionally and methodically targeting TEA Party, “patriot,” and those groups or individuals “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” has created deep concern on the right–leftists, not being the targets this time, are perfectly happy to see this gross abuse of power to intimidate and silence opposition.  This isn’t that surprising; after all, if we’ve learned nothing else over the past four years, we’ve learned that leftists are perfectly happy with tyranny and oppression . . .  as long as they are the tyrants and oppressors.  Too bad for them that totalitarian takeovers historically end badly (very very badly) for the regime’s early supporters and apologists.

Not only are we, justly, concerned that political dissent will make us a target of IRS (or FBI, CIA, FDA, DOJ, or any other executive branch agency–keep in mind that the videographer 0 falsely blamed for Benghazi is still in prison.  Sure, he did something unrelated to the video wrong, but odd how he was only picked up after the attack in Benghazi when the president and secretary of state needed a scapegoat.  And believe me, every single person out there is guilty of some crime or violation of some regulation–there are so many that we don’t even know about. You could be harassed for collecting rain water, for growing vegetables or herbs on your porch, for who knows what else. So we are not only concerned about the IRS targeting us as taxpayers), but we also are concerned about what this means with the new role that the IRS has as the 0Care enforcers.  They now have, granted by the 0Care monstrosity, access to our personal bank accounts (actual access, not the power to freeze them–they’ve had that for ages), free reign to monitor our purchases and income, access to our personal medical files, and a list of other means by which to “enforce” the 0Care mandate.  These things could all be used to intimidate, bully, silence, even imprison any person “guilty” of political dissent.

And now we know, for a fact, that 0 is not only willing but actually relishes wielding the power of the presidency to “punish” his “enemies” (no, I won’t rant about his insistence that he can use drones to kill American citizens on American soil because he thinks them an “enemy,” but . . . well, not so tinfoil hatty now, huh?).  We, that is anyone who opposes this administration, are 0’s “enemies,” and no abuse of power, no strong-arm tactics, no bullying thuggery is beneath him.

These are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls.  Luckily, we are Americans, and this tyrant wannabe will not intimidate, cow, or silence us.  We are not Germans defeated in spirit and nation, we are not Russian or Chinese peasants–isolated and disarmed, we are not, in other words, easy pickings.  And for that, I am forever grateful.

Obama Must Go ( #OMG ), And No, That’s Not A Free Pass For Romney

As the election draws near, I admit that I am anxious.  I’m certain that the devastation a second 0 term would bring will further harm our country; I’m not sure how much.  We are, after all, Americans and have survived all sorts of assaults on our Republic, the most harmful–excepting perhaps Islamofascist terrorists plotting and organizing overseas–from within (I’m thinking Wilson and FDR here), so yes, we are more than capable of pushing back the commie tide once more.  I’d just rather get started on that in 2013 than in 2017.  One thing about which I am certain is that I will never (again) be duped into supporting totalitarian, fascist, anti- and unAmerican actions from anyone.  The Patriot Act . . . yes, I did think it was a good idea at the time.  What a numbskull I was!  How naive!

Look at what 0 has done not only to add to the power of the executive branch–to powers far exceeding any the Founders had in mind; indeed, to encompass powers the Founders deliberately denied the president.  Actions rooted in the Patriot Act and that were and are cheered not only by leftists but by conservatives.  Violating Pakistan’s national sovereignty to “get” bin Laden? Woot! No problem!  Setting up a presidential “kill list” that directly violates the 4th Amendment, bypasses Congress, and is an affront to everything America stands for?  Woohoo! Let’s do it! shout both lefties and conservatives!  Let’s empower the president to unilaterally decide who lives and who dies–what a great idea!  Only the very best banana republic dictators enjoy such a privilege.

So I’m reading “The Progressive Case Against Obama” over at Slate (yes, that Slate, regressive central), and I’m struck by a few points–quoted in order, but without context (read the whole article for their context—it gets nuts in places, with typical regressive ramblings about the horrors of the free market, individual responsibility, equal justice, etc., but is worth the read):

So why oppose Obama? Simply, it is the shape of the society Obama is crafting that I oppose . . . .

I’d argue that Stoller, the article’s author, leans more libertarian than progressive/regressive, but in this point, he’s spot-on.  The society 0 is creating is more impoverished than ever before, the middle class is shrinking . . .by design.  The society 0 is creating is more contentious, more divided than ever before . . . by design.

It is as if America’s traditional racial segregationist tendencies have been reorganized, and the tools and tactics of that system have been repurposed for a multicultural elite colonizing a multicultural population.

Yes, it’s “as if” that, huh?  How about it IS that?

Yup, you heard that right — the Bush administration was willing to write down mortgages in response to Democratic pressure, but it was Obama who said no, we want a foreclosure crisis.

Yes, he did.  As did Clinton when his administration forced banks to offer mortgages that lendees could never afford . . . never pay back.  That was no accident, and neither was 0’s purposeful decision to encourage a foreclosure crisis.  After all, comfortable, happy people don’t engage in Marxist revolutions.

As Sheth also notes, there is a lot more to women’s rights than abortion. Predatory lending and foreclosures disproportionately impact women. The drug war impacts women. Under Obama, 1.6 million more women are now in poverty. 1.2 million migrants have been deported by the Department of Homeland Security. The teacher layoffs from Obama’s stimulus being inadequate to the task disproportionately hit women’s economic opportunity.

Not many regressives are willing to admit that women are more than the sum total of their reproductive organs, so kudos to Stoller here.

The case against Obama is that the people themselves will be better citizens under a Romney administration, distrusting him and placing constraints on his behavior the way they won’t on Obama. As a candidate, Obama promised a whole slew of civil liberties protections, lying the whole time. Obama has successfully organized the left part of the Democratic Party into a force that had rhetorically opposed war and civil liberties violations, but now cheerleads a weakened America too frightened to put Osama bin Laden on trial.

Now this, this I find interesting.  Leftists have always been more effective shrieking shrilly from the sidelines, speaking “truth to power,” whining and whingeing about “the man.”  When they become “the man,” they don’t know what to do.  Leftists are, by their actions and ideology, outsiders, complainers, radical outcasts stomping their feet to be heard.  That’s what they do best.  That’s actually the only thing they do well.

Leading is just too much for them, they get confused, bogged down in their own rhetoric (we HATE “pigs”; gee, you upstanding policemen and women are whom we are fighting for because you are union!  We hate wiretaps [or insert any Bush policy 0 continued]; gee, those wiretaps [or whatever] are freaking fantastic!), and ultimately, they lose their moral and ethical compass.  They can rage against inequity, but they don’t actually dislike it–they just don’t want the current “dominant” group to have power, wealth, whatever.  They can rage against war, but they don’t actually dislike it–they are more than happy to support 0’s war in Libya, even if it was/is illegal.  They can rage against . . . well, you name it, anything, everything.  But they cannot offer viable solutions.  They are best, are “better citizens” when they play watchdog not big dog.

Over at The Atlantic another regressive expresses his outrage at the 0 kill list in an article entitled “What If Mitt Romney Inherits Obama’s Killer Drone Fleet?“:

So to sum up, Obama has implemented a global killing program with zero checks and balances; he’s operated it out of the CIA rather than the Department of Defense; he invokes the state-secrets privilege to avoid defending it in court, even as he brags about its efficacy . . . .

And yes, if Romney is elected, he will indeed “inherit” this power.  Only now are regressives worried, however, only now do they suspect that an American president should not have the power to unilaterally and unconstitutionally order the deaths of American citizens. Short-sighted?  Stupid?  Yes, and yes.  But that’s the trouble with conservatives, too.  We supported (or at least I did) The Patriot Act against all logic.  But look what 0 has done with that power.  Look what the next president, whomever that may be, can do to expand it, to enshrine dictator-like power in the executive branch for all time.

Good-bye Congress.  Good-bye Supreme Court.  Good-bye Constitution.  Good-bye Republic.  Good-bye America.

And what are 0’s solutions to the very real problems in America?  Straight out of the commie handbook:  regulating salaries and establishing a “secretary of business.”  If that sounds familiar to you, you must be a student of history and know about the German Labour Front and the Reichsarbeitsdienst.  As I’ve written before, everything old is new again. 0’s solutions are communist solutions (call it “Marxist” if you prefer, but Marx co-authored The Communist Manifesto . . . not by accident. Well, okay, kind of by accident, but what Marx thought of his failed, hastily-written crap doesn’t really matter to today’s leftists/regressives/communists), and 0’s not just using Hitler’s playbook, he borrows heavily from Lenin, too.

American can and will survive . . . no matter who wins on November 6th.  But wouldn’t it be better if we could stem the communist tide and start rolling back harmful, anti- and unAmerican policies?  Wouldn’t it be better to change course now than in 2017?  I believe Romney will change our course, and I believe that with our insistence on his maintaining Constitutional values, he’ll not only do the right thing but will do so with dignity and humility.  If I’m wrong, I will be the first to say so, and I will be the first to hold his feet to the fire, call him out on every single thing he does that I would object to if 0 did it.  Every. Single. Thing.  I will never support Romney if he does the wrong thing, if he continues down the path of tyranny . . . even under a conservative banner.  I will not sell my soul for partisanship; I will not sell my morals and ethics for political points.  I will not, in short, be a hypocrite.  Regressives have lost whatever voice, whatever gravitas, they had before they got power by doing just that, and making that mistake is not something I will be party to.

This constitutional conservative is done being a patsy for big spending, big government tyrants.  Period.  But the first step to restoring our Republic is to get the most dangerous one of all out of office.


Scarborough’s “Truth” and the TEA Party’s Promise

Joe Scarborough defends the TEA Party . . . cue “Twilight Zone” theme.  In a jaw-dropping article entitled The Truth About the Tea Party (yes, I’m linking to hack rag Politico for a change), Scarborough writes:

Let’s simply review how terrible the tea party has been for the GOP.

— They energized a conservative movement battered by eight years of bloated Republicanism,

— they shocked the political world by taking Ted Kennedy’s seat,

— they put Obama Democrats in a constant defensive crouch,

— they led the resistance against “Obamacare,”

— they helped bring about the largest legislative landslide in U.S. history in 2010,

— they grabbed six seats in the U.S. Senate that year,

— they helped elect six governors,

— they helped win 700 seats in state legislatures, and

— they helped elect a Republican majority that included the largest number of Republicans elected since 1946.

With a track record like that, the Republican Party had better watch their backs. If this trend keeps up, they might just win the White House and the Senate.

Regardless of what happens in the next few weeks, the general theme that the tea party has been bad for the GOP is pure malarkey.

That’s a short list of TEA Party accomplishments, of course, but it’s a good, meaty one . . .  “gob-smacked” doesn’t cover my initial reaction.  Scarborough is a well-known RINO (whom I consider a progressive–aka regressive), so this defense of the TEA Party is unfathomable.  What is he doing?  And why?

I’m not really sure, of course, but I can guess.  His article always uses lowercase for “tea party” rather than more correct Tea Party or the still more correct TEA (taxed enough already) Party.  Is this purposeful?  Sure it is, and it may also be a Politico editor’s choice, so we can’t make too much of that . .  editors are funny creatures, but I tend to think that Scarborough chooses the lowercase on purpose, to diminish the “tea party” next to the nice, bold caps of “GOP.”

Scarborough makes an interesting (for lack of a better word) observation that may provide clues:

CNBC anchor Rick Santelli’s 2009 rant from the Chicago Mercantile Floor created a viral video that launched a national movement that created a new focus among conservatives. Before that, Republicans had little to rally around.

Before their 2009 formation, their GOP president had just spent $700 billion baling out Wall Street. Their GOP Congress had spent the Bush years driving up the deficit to record levels. The national debt doubled during the Bush years, and their so-called conservative party had shoved through a $7 trillion Medicare drug plan without paying for a dime of it.

Hmmm . . . . Scarborough misreads the TEA Party here, massively.  We are not “GOP” or “Republican,” not by a long shot.  As I’ve said often enough, we would have responded to a McCain big spending, big government presidency in like manner.  We all know that.  Perhaps even Scarborough knows that.  So why, we might ask, is he stating that the TEA Party is, essentially, GOP?  He acknowledges that the TEA Party was a response to Bush’s big spending, big government ways as much as it was to 0’s, but in doing so, he also suggests that we are angsty Republicans, not the Constitutional conservatives that most of us are.  Why work so hard to paint us as GOP?

Here’s the end of his article:

But all in all, most Republicans I know prefer having the largest GOP majority since 1946 instead of Pelosi. We also liked having 700 new Republican state legislators elected in 2010, a national debate focused on less spending and a Democratic president who is now fighting for his political life.

No one knows what happens next. But we can at least start telling the truth about what happened over the past three years. Whether opinion leaders like it or not, the tea party helped engineer a Republican landslide, reframed the national debate and put the president so far back on his heels that even Mitt Romney has a chance to be president.

And that in itself is pretty damned remarkable.  All true, of course, but all wrong at the same time.

The long and short of it, then, is that Scarborough’s article is yet another attempt by “establishment GOP” (i.e. RINOs, progressives/regressives) to turn the tables, to “embrace” the TEA Party, to try–in essence–to control us.  It’s not unexpected, of course, they’ve done this off and on since ’09, but this is the groundwork phase of trying to corral us into the GOP fold, to ensure that we act against our principles as so many progressives have happily done since 0 took office.  We’re supposed to be proud and pleased to have “helped” the GOP; we’re supposed to, should Romney win, sit back and be quiet.  We’re supposed to look the other way should the GOP establishment carry on with their big spending, big government ways.  We’re supposed to see a Romney victory as “mission accomplished” and shuffle back to our couches and back to our long sleep.  Or perhaps they hope we’ll act as regressives have and defend the indefensible out of some crazed partisanship rather than acting on our principles . . . something that regressives left in the dust the second they embraced 0’s “kill list,” drones, war in Libya, continued Bush wiretaps, TSA indignities, deportation of illegals in record numbers, and on and on.

Isn’t that the most hilarious, out of touch, delusional hope since that “hopeychangey” nobody became president in ’08?  Regressives, when they took over the Democrat Party, made the mistake of putting party before principle; we are not that stupid, not that devoid of a moral and ethical core.

Newsflash establishment/RINO/regressive GOP: the TEA Party is not at all interested in the GOP except as it furthers our agenda of limited Constitutional government that gets out of the way of the free market and that supports liberty and personal responsibility in a fiscally-responsible manner.  Should the GOP fail in this regard, then the failed members will be replaced in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and beyond. And that absolutely includes Romney should he be elected on November 6th and then go off the rails into big spending, big government craziness.

That is not a threat, that’s a promise.

Fuzzy Shorthand: The Supremes’ Decision

Okay, like everyone else I was and am intensely disappointed that the Supremes didn’t strike down the individual mandate and–due to the regressive commies’ intentional removal of the severability clause–strike down the entire 0Care travesty.

I had intended to write a long, probably rambling and riddled with curse words, post about the decision, but I’ve found that everything I have to say about it, I’ve been saying on various blog posts.  So lazy Fuzzy has decided to shorthand the post and link to a few of those posts and to copy and paste (the horror!) my comments.  Thus, through this patchwork, will you know what I think (if you care), and we can discuss the ramifications of Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion . . . and more importantly how we can win war.

So let’s start where I start most of my reading, commenting, and general daily reading joy: Legal Insurrection, presided over by the inimitable Professor Jacobson.

In his “Stop the self-delusion” post, he reminds us (quite rightly) that we freaking lost:

We live to fight another day, but don’t tell me we won because someday possibly in the future in some other case with some other set of Justices we maybe might achieve some doctrinal benefit from the Commerce Clause ruling.

So please don’t delude yourselves.  Today was a bitter loss because it was one we should have won.

Aye, no arguments here.  Well, you know, much.  Here’s my comment there:

You’re right about the takeover of 1/6 of our economy, the incredible growth of government, and the death panels, all of it. But if, as many thought would happen, only the mandate were struck down, we’d still have all of that and still need to work our cute little butts off to hold the House, and win both the Senate and the WH in November.

Without the mandate, the hope (I guess) was the dems would just give in and redo it. What a joke, you don’t think for a minute that would have happened; we’d still have the bulk of the badness that is the ObamaCare monstrosity (including the student loan takeover, the long list of new agencies and new powers to existing agencies, the death panels, the other zillion taxes built into it, all the assorted horrors and affronts to limited government and liberty), and we’d still have to insist on full repeal.

The next post that I found compelling was over at the fabulous Just A Conservative Girl‘s place.  She wrote, in part:

Our job now is to educate the people in this country to what their choices mean.  When we go to the ballot box we are not voting for prom king/queen.  We are voting for people who will be handling very serious issues that do effect our everyday lives.  Obamacare may seem good to some on the surface.  After all they are getting all kinds of “free stuff”.  But all these free things have a cost.  These costs will be seen in higher premiums, and entire new class of the uninsured.


Chief Justice Roberts clearly states in his majority (ack!) ruling that the Court is not in place to protect the American people from themselves.  We elected those idiots, we have to deal with what they did.  It’s true.  No deus ex machina will be employed, no plot device will swoop in and exonerate the people from bad electoral decisions or from decades of voter apathy and disengagement.

My comment:

Like you, I have mixed feelings about the ruling but accept it. I’m VERY pleased that Chief Justice Roberts reigned in the Commerce Clause, and even okay with the whole “tax” thing because this will force pols to say what their “mandates” actually are, and to explain to the American people that their newest stroke of socialist genius is going to actually TAX us for NOT buying something.

It’s unclear to me, from what I’ve read, if we even have to pay the tax at all. It sounds rather like we cannot be fined, jailed, etc. for refusing to comply. But I wouldn’t push that one 🙂

Anyway, raging against the Supremes is useless. Most people agreed the most likely thing would be the mandate being struck down, and as onerous and horrible as the mandate is, it’s nowhere near as truly tyrannical as the rest of the bill. We’d be in the same place . . . we HAVE to win in November. There are no two ways about that.

And last but by no means least is the fun (and civil!) discussion over at Sentry Journal.  The ever thoughtful and thought-provoking John wrote:

Below are five reason why I think this ruling empowered the states, shackled the government, will not only bring an end to Obamacare, but will ensure Obama is a one term President.

  1. President Obama promised not to raise taxes on the American people making under $250,000.  Democratic leaders promised that the individual mandate was not a tax.  Well because of Justice Roberts and the court’s decision that’s exactly what the individual mandate is…a tax.  Congratulation President Obama, your lawyers made their case!  It’s a tax.  Not only is it a tax, it’s the largest tax in American history.  And for those who are worried this opens up a whole new way for the government to control our behavior through a “penalty” well it’s nothing new.  They’ve been doing it for years with “sin taxes” on tobacco and other undesirable products.   The only difference now, the SCOTUS has clarified that anything congress attaches as a penalty to can be viewed as a tax and it’s much more difficult to push bills through congress as a tax increase than bills that hide behind the commerce clause.  Additionally because the individual mandate has now been ruled a tax Republicans can use the budget reconciliation process to repeal the mandate with a simple majority.
  2. Judge Roberts’s argument against using the commerce clause not only brought more clarity to it, he greatly reduced the ability of congress to use this line of reasoning again to force us to engage in any activity they may be view as commerce.  His opinion reflected the following:  “People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.  That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The Federalist No. 45, at 293. While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.” Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196 (1968). The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its author­ity, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Feder­alist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do.  Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.”  This line of reasoning in essence shackles congress and expands liberty.
  3. Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer all agreed that it was unconstitutional for the government to deprive a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion.  Roberts wrote the following.  “As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Af­fordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Af­fordable Care Act.”   So as you can see the states now have a choice.  This conclusion blazes the trail to limit the expansion of other federal programs imposed by the government on the states.  This was clearly a win for the states and states’ rights.
  4. Obamacare still remains a very unpopular law.  In fact those who oppose it still hover over the 50 percentile mark.  Mitt Romney raised more than $4 million within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare and we have Justice Roberts to thank for this.  While the Kool-Aid drinking liberals celebrate the Tea Party movement is charging up.  Once again average Americans are waking up and they are rallying around the battle cry to repeal Obamacare.  I personally received 10 emails from Tea Party Patriots; welcome back to the summers of 2009 and 2010.  This is the last thing President Obama and Democrats wanted to see four months out from a major election.  They wanted Obamacare to quietly fade into obscurity and be a nonfactor in 2012.  John Roberts threw a wrench into that machine and now once again it’s hanging around their necks going into November.  And you can’t tell me that Justice Roberts doesn’t read the polls.
  5. The last thing to mention is that the left is so caught up in the moment they didn’t even see this coming.  They didn’t even see how masterfully Justice Roberts played them.  And by the time they do Obama will be a one term President, Republicans will control the Senate and House, and 2016 will seem like a million years away.  Bub bye Obamacare and President Obama.

Mr. President…you’ve been punk’d and you don’t even realize it yet.

Ah, yes, such goodness!  There’s some back and forth in the comments (always such wonderful fun to bat around ideas with fellow conservative patriots!), but here’s what I wrote (for context, hop over and read the whole article and all comments):

I have to agree with your excellent assessment, John. Not only is it really not the Supremes’ job to save us from our apathy and bad choices, but it’s really put the onus on we, the people. The very thing we claim we want. Well, we got it. Let’s roll!

Oh, and I think it’s worth pointing out that from most commentary from legal observers, the only (pre-ruling) likely outcome was that the mandate was struck down while the rest of the monstrous power grab remained in place.

I’m rather shocked that so many conservatives seem to think that would be preferable (especially with the gifts Roberts gave us in his opinion). The mandate is totally unacceptable, don’t get me wrong, but there are over a dozen OTHER taxes, death panels, dozens of new government agencies, the student loan takeover, illegals covered (including abortion), the religious freedoms HHS mandate (that’s the first of many this law will spawn), and literally thousands of other liberty-stealing, power-grabbing nightmares written into 0Care. There are mandated “nutrition” courses in schools, mandatory abortion advice services in schools, really, if you can think of something that’s a regressive commie’s wet dream, it’s in that nightmare of a bill. Striking down the mandate wouldn’t have destroyed that, and anyone who thinks that the dems would suddenly want to redo health care without the mandate is truly delusional and/or hasn’t been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything that’s gone in the last 3 and half years.

NOW, at least, we have a chance to get rid of not only BO but the entire law by holding the House and taking the Senate. It must be repealed–that’s always been the only way to get rid of it (Michele Bachmann was right on that–and woe-betide any GOP, RINO, or TEA Party “republican” who defies the will of the people on that. They’ll have the shortest political careers in history as they get voted out in the next election. Honestly, I think that the GOP would die as a party if they don’t repeal immediately. A third, truly Constitutional party will rise, and I’ll be on board with it. Fast.


[quote]It’s definitely a tough call, John, but to me if your thesis is correct, this is a short term gain for a long term agony of never ending behavioral control via taxation that the American people may never be able to rectify and I differ in that it wasn’t worth it.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, Michigan, but keep in mind that a LOT (if not all) of taxes are behavior modification through taxation, so let’s not fool ourselves. And I don’t just mean the cigarette taxes that Chief Justice Roberts cited in his ruling, either, but everything from tax credits for home ownership (the government wants you to buy a home) and over-taxing the rich (to discourage success and the American Dream, a key commie goal) to BO’s tax structure built to discourage marriage (individuals as $200.000, couples at $250,000–so two people making $200k are actually better off NOT getting married, from a taxation perspective). What better way to undermine our culture, society, and religion? So yeah, it’s “behavioral control” or ”social engineering,” but all existing laws, at rock bottom are, including tax laws. [insert: I’ve written at more length about this previously.]


Very true, Michigan. The difference here is that without the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses to hide behind, regressive commies will have a much harder time selling their tyranny-by-taxation BEFORE acts pass Congress, and long before they hit the president’s desk. Again, the onus is on the people, where, arguably, it belongs.

Do we stay awake and perform the civic duty our Founders envisioned or do we slouch back on the couch while the Republic burns and tyranny takes hold? I think we agree on the answer to that one :)


In some ways, Jim, the Citizens United case is a perfect representation of what we can now expect. The lawsuits brought by the states against 0Care focused on the Medicaid funding and the mandate. Because of this narrow challenge, there are still many many things that can and will be litigated about 0Care (should it survive, which I hope to God it does not).

With Citizens United, originally upheld under one lawsuit, we saw the Supremes actually overturn their earlier ruling. This will happen with 0Care now that the Chief Justice Roberts has stripped the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of their 100 years of muscle.

In short, we’d have been screwed if only the mandate had been struck down and the rest of the law upheld.  The only real win for us was the Supremes throwing out the entire law, and very few believed that possible, much less likely.

Chief Justice Roberts, through whatever wily and illogical means, has thrown the ball back into our court.  And yes, it belongs there.

Let’s roll!

Open Letter to Mitt Romney and (Other) Establishment GOP

[insert salutation],

There seems to be some general, and perhaps understandable, confusion among both leftists and the establishment GOP about the TEA Party and its very real role in national politics.  I thought I’d take a few minutes to explain a few home truths to you so that you don’t misread a potential White House win as some sort of “mandate.”  That would be a big mistake.  Big.

Here’s why:

People–particularly fear-mongering, mentally-incompetent leftists, but also you establishment types–seem to be under the mistaken impression that the TEA Party is a reaction to 0.  It is, in part, but mostly it isn’t.  We’ve always been here, watching with varying degrees of horror as you, along with your progressive buddies across the aisle, spent this nation into oblivion, piling up entitlements we couldn’t afford and forking out our hard-earned money on your pet projects.  We watched as government expanded and the Nanny State ballooned under both GOP and leftist stewardship, and we didn’t like it.  At all.

Remember when President Bush (43) had the highest approval ratings of any president (92%)?  And then remember when he had the lowest approval rating of any president (22%)?  Why do you think that happened?  Surely, you aren’t naive enough to imagine that was all leftist and libertarian opposition to the war in Iraq or their stellar “hate Bush” communication campaign (that never bothered us, just so you know, we were getting tired of that by the summer of ’03).  No, that happened because We, the People, watched the government take control of K-12 education with arbitrary and ridiculous national “standards,” blanket standards dreamed up in DC and then forced on every state; added an unwieldy and, as we’ve since learned unnecessary, monstrous bureaucracy (the DHS) that does more to limit our freedoms and create distrust in the people than it does to fight Islamic terror; and peddled socialist policies to us in the form of the MediCare prescription drug boondoggle (socialist policies, by their very nature, are never sustainable, but certainly not when they are unfunded right out of the gate).

Oh, we were disgruntled going into the ’08 election.  Very much so, and we’d been slowly stirring from of our long, long slumber and starting to question so many things: the role of a rapidly-expanding government, the nature of government spending and taxation, the political correctness and failed “multicultural” experiment that were (are) undermining our liberty and our very culture and national identity.  All things that you support, propagate, and profit from . . . at our expense.   At the expense, really, of the fundamental principles on which this Constitutional Republic was formed.

So if you think, as so many leftists do, that we are a reaction to 0 and HIS overreach, please think again.  Yes, the 0Care debate and disgusting politics, the hubris of the Dems in particular, got us off our couches, but I would venture to guess that we’d have been motivated by some equally-offensive McCain overreach, as well.  Of course we’ll never know that for sure, but I rather think it’s true.

Or perhaps we WILL know that for sure.

If you, Mr. Romney, win the White House in November, and sink back into the “compassionate conservatism” of the Bush (43) years, you’re in for the surprise of your life.  And don’t think you can play the typical progressive “renaming” game; we didn’t fall for it when Bush did it, and we won’t should you decide to do so.  We will not blindly defend you and your policies, and perhaps more importantly, we will not stay silent and essentially–tacitly, by our silence–support you and your policies.  Those days are over.  Don’t doubt it, not for a minute.  When we say we want a return to our foundational principles, we aren’t just talking to hear ourselves talk.  We mean it. And we mean it no matter what letter follows the name of any politician (that means you). You’ll notice, if you’ve bothered to pay attention, that very few (if any?) TEA Party patriots refer to themselves as “Republicans”; most of us call ourselves “conservatives” or “constitutional conservatives,” and that includes libertarian and democrat TEA Party patriots.  “Conservative” does not mean “GOP” or “Republican” even if we are registered to vote in that party; we are bound by principle, not party.  You may want to take some time to think about the implications of that fact.

“Principle” is a word that I’ve used quite often thus far, isn’t it?  Do you remember what those are?  Did you ever know?  Well, rest assured that we in and of the TEA Party do remember and do know.  Unlike leftists who refuse to speak out against 0, no matter what he does or how they hated it when “Bush did it” and unlike leftists who, as admitted by Chairman of the CBC Cleaver, would be “marching against the White House” if 0 weren’t president, we actually have and stand by our principles and values.  No matter who is in the White House.  If you continue in the vein that you likely wish to, you won’t find us making excuses for you or defending you or bashing the other side to “distract” them from your failings.  And you will not find that we slump back into “silent majority” mode, awaiting the next election to shuffle listlessly into the voting booth and regretfully vote for the best of two bad options.  What you will find is us marching on you, protesting, blogging, tweeting, and oh yes “organizing” (we’ve become so very good at that, haven’t we?) against you and your administration.  Presidents and members of Congress are not our rulers, our “betters,” or our nannies.  Read the Constitution.  Your roles are clearly spelled out, as are the limits on your power.  We’ve read it, and we’ll be holding you to it starting on January 20, 2013.

Count on it.

A quick word on being a RINO in 2012 and beyond:  Not. a. good. idea.  Now, most of you are politicians–slick, wily, savvy, grasping–so you’ll probably understand this. The TEA Party is not going away; we’re everywhere, we’re the American people, you can’t stop us . . . but you CAN get on board with us.  We’re not just going to watch Mr. Romney should he win in November, but we’re watching–and have been watching–very closely all of our representatives and senators (actually all pols, right down to our local dog catcher).  We’ve been watching and noting what’s going on with all of you, and we simply won’t keep electing you.  It’s not because we know that you have been subverting our efforts, trying to marginalize us since 2009; it’s because you don’t represent us and our American values in the (too) powerful positions you hold.  You’ve forgotten who you are, you’ve become so bloated by your own sense of importance, that you dismiss and diminish the people.  That’s not acceptable.

We know very well that our work won’t be done should Mr. Romney win or even if we keep the House and take the Senate in November.  Please note: when I say “we,” I don’t mean you, I mean the American people who respect and uphold the Constitution; you’re just the vehicle for that at the moment.  That’s something you should probably understand before you start going off the rails thinking you have a “mandate” to carry on undermining America with your big government, nanny state spending, regulating, and legislating every detail of our lives.  Our work will never be done, not in our lifetimes, not in yours.  Each election cycle, we will replace politicians who do not hold and champion Constitutional values; we’ll be successful most of the time, we’ll fail some of the time, but we will never stop voting out failures.  If we miss you one year, we’ll get you the next time you’re up for reelection.  Take a good look at the TEA Party caucus you mock and belittle and try to flick away like pesky gnats; their numbers will grow.  Yours will dwindle, and yes, that includes TEA Party pols who lose their way.

We are “awake,” and that means so much more than you can conceive.  We are embracing our civic responsibility, taking it seriously as our forefathers did, being the informed and watchful citizenry our Founders knew was key to keeping our Republic.  We’re passing that on to our children, so they, too, will know the import and keep watch.

Do let me know if any of this confusing or unclear.

So very sincerely,

Fuzzy, TEA Party Hobbit and American Patriot