Why Obama Wants To Be Impeached … And Why That Can’t Happen

I would love little more than seeing Obama impeached, tried for treason, and marched off the world stage in a snazzy orange jumpsuit.  Realistically, though, that’s not the best thing that can happen and could arguably be among the worst things Republicans do (this is barring anything downright insane like his anointing himself Grand Dear Leader Führer Fabulous).

As of now, since the mid-term GOP wave election, Obama has threatened executive action on both amnesty and net neutrality.  On the one hand, he’s a rabid ideologue who believes in both; however, he’s had six years to use his pen and his phone on these and other issues near and dear to his commie heart.  So why now and why the threat instead of the action?

A couple of reasons, and yes, they are political, and more than that, they are rooted in Obama’s Alinsky training and mindset.  Remember Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Rule 9?  It goes like this:

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

And don’t forget, a key part of the Alinsky script was for unions to act so outrageously–threatening to “take over” steel plants, etc.–that when the besieged plant owner or manager responded, they overreacted.  This overreaction is what the Alinskiites seek; it’s what provides them cover and what moves public opinion in their favor.  That’s Rule 10:

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

What Obama is doing is pure Alinsky, and he will succeed if the GOP takes the bait and behaves badly / overreacts.

Now, to many of us, impeaching Obama is not an overreaction; indeed, if you’re like me, you believe it should have happened when Fast and Furious first came to light or when he let an American ambassador and three other Americans (two of whom were heroes) die in Benghazi.  Or any of a hundred other times this POS has shat on the Constitution of these United States.

But believe it or not, any attempt to impeach Obama at this stage will make him the martyr messiah he so longs to be.  The midterms do more than suggest that America is sick and tired of the division, the race-baiting, the identity politics; the Democrats are decimated for now and the foreseeable future (what do they have? Tired old Hillary, clinging to her–and Obama’s–regressive dystopic nightmare and to her husband’s faux centristm?  Radical lunatic Faucohauntus Warren?).  Democrats across the nation are now comfortable, finally, letting leak their deep disdain for and lack of respect for Obama.  We’ve succeeded in whittling away at his self-inflated superman, near-god mythos (well, maybe that wasn’t us so much as his own ineptitude and failures).

The best way to turn that around–to make people who are now (finally) seeing him clearly and those who are hurting because of his policies rally to his defense and side–is to now attempt impeachment.

It’s two more years, he’s impotent right now, let cooler heads prevail, and trust that Obama will be judged eventually and far more meaningfully than by any action available to Congress.

Obots, 0Care, American Values, and Our (Banana) Republic

Obama’s defenders defy logic

One of the most frustrating things about what is going on with 0Care, the numerous and varied White House scandals, the Senate rules change, and the irrefutable revelation that Obama is not only a liar but is completely unapologetic about it is the way that the Obots see all this . . . and dig in to protect and defend him.

I just don’t get it.

In 2007 and 2008. Obama presented himself as post-partisan, a uniter, someone for whom there were no “red states” and no “blue states, ” just the United States.  He repeatedly defended not only the Constitution but also the people; he made it a point of his campaign that he would do so in office while increasing transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of government.  He failed (if you can call not trying at all failing) on each and every one of these promises.  Indeed, he not only failed but actively worked to deepen and entrench partisanship, to divide this nation not only politically but along race, class, gender, religious, and economic lines.  He’s done more to trash our Constitution than any other president (and I’m including the regressives who preceded him: Wilson and FDR), while not only making the very word “transparency” a national joke but steadfastly refusing to hold anyone in his administration accountable for anything.  Obviously, his presidency has called into serious question the efficacy of big government to do much of anything beyond causing undue and seemingly irreparable harm.

He has proven time and again that he is not the man voters elected in 2008, yet many of these same voters either refuse to see it or, if they do see it, defend him with strained logic, bizarre excuses, and insupportable arguments.  For example, there’s a lot of talk on leftist blogs about how the 0Care fiasco is just like Katrina or just like Iraq.  The thrust is that Obama’s sinking poll numbers are like Bush’s (these posts always miss the fact that President Bush’s numbers fell with the conservative base–who would, in 2009 emerge as the TEA Party–because of his big spending, big government, anti-free market policies; Katrina and Iraq were things that the already-incensed and disapproving radical left wielded as battering rams.).  Whatever.  There is no comparison because there has never been such a radical, indefensible cobweb of lies, fraud, and tyrannical devices perpetrated on the American people as 0Care and this administration’s entire destructive agenda.

Sure, some former Obot cheerleaders have noted that Obama is a liar and a control freak bent on not only spreading propaganda and attacking the First Amendment rights of a free press but is also showing a reckless disregard for the Constitution and the American people.  Given the abundant evidence of all this and more, however, these are few and far between.  Go to any leftist website and read the comments, and you’ll see quickly enough that the Obot crowd is doubling down in their support for their Dear Leader rather than pausing to question the obvious fact that he is not anything like the man they thought they elected.

This often unhinged support for a proven liar and fraud is really puzzling to me.  Is this a self-defense mechanism, maybe?  Like those people we all know who can never manage an apology no matter what they do or say wrong: they just use painfully twisted justifications and those backhanded “I’m sorry if you’re upset” non-apology apologies?  Can these Obots just not bear to be wrong, to have been so obviously tricked by a consummate liar and poser?  There’s no shame in being the victim of fraud.  Are they afraid that they’ll seem less-than-intelligent?  It’s far wiser to admit a mistake and to correct it than to continue denying any mistake at all.  And if they don’t want to appear unintelligent by admitting the obvious, why can’t they see how much more ignorant, uninformed, and yes, stupid they seem now?  Why can’t they see that their mindless, useful idiocy wins only disdain from their messiah?  It’s baffling.

Insurance is not health care

Conservatives have been saying this all along, but even though it’s now crystal clear that one of the primary results of the 0Care monstrosity is that while more people may be “covered,” they are not going to be receiving actual health care, and the few who do, will have long waits and have to travel farther to do so (doctors and hospital limitations necessitate these).  With few choices (and often only one) on the exchanges, Americans are finding that they have not only a limited range of plans to choose from (only four: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) but will not be able to keep their doctor or even, often, use their nearest local hospital. They’re also paying more for this “free” “health care.”

Let’s count the broken promises here alone: no, you can’t keep your plan (and this will definitely included employer-based plans, the vast majority of which are projected to be eliminated entirely by 2017); no, you can’t keep your doctor; no, you will not being paying the equivalent of a cable or cell phone bill.  Between premiums, higher co-pays, and outrageous deductibles, most Americans will never be able to pay enough of the out-of-pocket expenses to get their new 0Care policies to kick in–oddly, this is also one of the reasons that Obama and his traitorous horde claim that existing health insurance is “substandard”; and no, most Americans will not be saving $2,500 per year.

Amazingly, the Obot apologists have nothing to say about these bald-faced, strategic (i.e. political only), and willful lies.  Instead, they idiotically pretend that the only alternative is to go back to the previous, admittedly flawed, health insurance system.  Again, this defies human logic, but I suppose it’s right in line with what passes for leftist logic: it’s either our way or the old way.  False choices, of course, but that’s how they “think.”  The fact that their way is actually even worse than the old way is lost on them, of course.  The fact that there are unlimited solutions to the health insurance coverage problem is also lost on them.  Heck, it would have been far less expensive, far less disruptive, and far more effective to simply send checks to the uninsured to buy health insurance.  Obviously, this is a crap solution, but in light of what is happening now, it’s far preferable.

Changing Americans’ values

U. S. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) made a rather astonishing admission, stating that the goal of 0Care is to change our country’s “values system.”  This hasn’t received near the coverage that it should, in part because there are just so many horrors to examine and so little time, but it’s something that we all need to note, question, and push back on.

In what ways does 0Care change our country’s values system?  Regressives are fond of intentionally misunderstanding the core American values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.  They twist these beyond recognition, casting them as “selfish” and lacking in “compassion.”  Of course, neither is true, but that’s their argument.  How, then, do they force people into a collective?  Force Americans to (however grudgingly) tow the statist line?  Look no further than the 0Care Tax travesty.

Nicole Hopkins’ Wall Street Journal article about her mom being forced into Medicaid garnered a lot of attention last week.  As it should.  Any American who qualifies for Medicaid will be auto-enrolled in it . . . whether they like it or not.  There is no opt-out, there is no choice.  And once you are on Medicaid, you’re stuck, and this is particularly worrying for Americans 55 and older.  But all Americans should be horrified by this.  Not only will the government–one way or another, before or after your death–collect on all monies paid out by Medicaid, whether you use it or not, but this is anathema to American values.

While Obama’s horrendously destructive domestic policy is forcing more and more people onto welfare, food stamps, and other tax-payer funded entitlements (and there is no shame in that, as I’ve noted in the past), a great many Americans living at or just above the poverty level take great pride and derive self esteem and dignity from refusing government assistance.  Forcing people onto Medicaid who are willing to–who insist on being “allowed” to–pay their own way (and simultaneously auto-enrolling them on food stamps!) is not only a budget-breaking mistake but is incredibly destructive to the American spirit, to our foundational values system.

Other values attacked by 0Care include forcing pro-life Americans to pay for abortions and birth control in violation of their own religious beliefs, using Americans’ personal and private tax and health information as political weapons in elections, carrying a “marriage penalty,” and attempting to tie patient care to disclosures of one’s legal gun ownership.  These and other “hidden” aspects of 0Care are key reasons that Obama is not going to relinquish this tyrannical law without a fight.

Obama and our new banana republic

I’ve written repeatedly about Obama’s endless attempts to silence any and all dissent and his utter disdain for and dismissal of the United States’ Constitution, so I won’t revisit them here, but there are a few new developments in our shiny new banana republic that I do want to note:

Apparently, the Census was manipulated to reflect a lower unemployment rate right before last year’s election.  Republicans, back in 2009, actually warned this would happen.  It did.

Obama himself is behind the Senate’s filibuster rules change.  Bizarrely, again, his Obot apologists argue that more of his nominees have been filibustered than those of any other president.  Well, of course they have.  We’ve never had an actual, antiAmerican, Constitution-hating, dyed-in-the-wool radical in the White House before.

With Charles Rangel calling, yet again, for Obama to seize dictator-like powers, it’s amazing that any American on the left or right supports this administration at all.

It’s going to be a very long three years.

Conservatives vs. Leftists

Like you, I was horrified by the results of November’s presidential election.  And I was dispirited.  And not a little angry.  I’ve not been sure how (or even whether) to continue a political blog because it seemed so pointless and that all our work was for pretty much nothing.  But then I remember that it was apathy, even more than ignorance, that got us into this mess, and slinking back onto the couch in disgust really isn’t the answer (tempting though it is).  Worse is staying home and not voting at all (that is not in the least bit tempting. To me, anyway.).

So then I started thinking about what went wrong for conservatives and what went right for leftists, and I had these inchoate thoughts swimming around amidst the other emotions and thoughts.  There seem to be a few of key problems on the conservative side, and these are being heightened and played quite ingeniously by leftists.

First, I think we really need to figure out what we want.  Do we want more government and less freedom?  Do we want what we have now, to maintain the status quo in terms of the government-freedom ratio? I was talking with a friend the other day, and he laughingly brought up the time when we, in Florida, could buy drive-thru beer, wine, even mixed drinks.  I’m not talking about bottles and six packs, here, I’m talking about draft beer.  In a cup, in your car.   Sounds nuts, right?  Even I think it sounds nuts.  But then we got to talking about other Floridian responses to new laws, particularly the seat belt law that coincided with serial killer Ted Bundy’s death penalty appeals.  The bumper sticker of the day was “I’ll buckle up when Bundy does” (referring, of course, to Florida’s electric chair).  He did.  We did.

And no, I’m not saying that we need to all be drinking drive-thru brew, with or without our seat belts.  What I am saying is that we adapt to encroachments on our liberty, so much so that we are (or least I am) horrified at the thought of not only buying a glass of wine in my car but of leaving “park” without my seat belt on.  Frog meet pot of water.

The more laws we have, and this is the foundation of regressivism, the fewer freedoms we have.  Regressives are about totalitarian control, right down to who can have children and how many they can have.  Remember, it was progressives who brought us prohibition, eugenics, and a host of other equally intrusive and/or downright evil threats to our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.

When it comes to the economy, we seem to agree that the entitlement culture is a big big problem, but then we defend massive programs that will bankrupt us if they are not reformed.  I’ve written recently about entitlements and how I think that conservatives are essentially shooting themselves in the foot on this one.  Part of that, I think, is that we tend to get defensive when “called out” as hypocrites by the left.  We are not hypocrites for taking social security, medicare, etc.  Were the first wave of feminists hypocrites because they still depended on their fathers and husbands?  Were the Founding Fathers hypocrites before the American Revolution?  They rejected tyranny but lived under it, after all (so goes the crazed leftist logic on entitlements and conservatives).  You get my point.  Any change requires living in the existing condition until that change occurs.

When it comes to politicians, we want fiscal and some of us want social conservatives . . . so much so that we are willing to let die-hard commies be elected if we can’t have our way.  Obama did not win by a landslide, nowhere near one, and he definitely would have lost if conservatives–yes, conservatives–had their act together and not played into the hands of the leftists (newsflash: they have their best interests at heart, not ours).  Some conservatives, especially libertarian-leaning ones (by the way, I lean libertarian with the noted and huge exceptions of foreign policy and defense), voted for “anyone but Romney” not “anyone but Obama.”  This boggles the mind, and has had me spinning since November.  I just didn’t get it (actually, I’m not sure that I do now, and yes, I’ve read all the crap about how they are practically the same person, blah blah blah. What tripe!).

Then I read J. R. Dunn’s article at American Thinker, and it sort of clicked for me.  We need to break out of this mindset that we must have the most pure conservative on every issue or on our own pet issue.  If we don’t, we will continue to lose, and worse, our losses strengthen the very people who are destroying this nation.  Let’s look, as Dunn does, at the Akin horror show.  I was right there with everyone calling for that silly silly man to withdraw from the race, so I’m not pointing fingers here, or if I am, I’m including myself at the end of my pointy pointy finger.  I must have tweeted 30 (or more) Akin-related tweets that mocked him, urged him to withdraw, etc.  And I was right.  He should have withdrawn.  But I was also wrong because guess who won that race, Air Claire Corrupt Lying Commie McCaskill.   Yeah, that’s a much better choice than some guy who doesn’t know much about the woman’s body or how to answer questions and avoid obvious errors and is guilty of general idiocy.  Um. No.  It’s not better.  It’s a thousand times worse.  She’s a freaking communist, people (including myself here, what the heck was I thinking?).

But that’s the ploy, right.  The left hammers on one slip, one thing, until conservatives are beaten down, backed into a corner that is painted for them.  But look what the left does, it rallies around pedophiles, tax evaders, philanderers, liars, fake Indians, druggies, drunks, murderers . . . you name it, and there is some Democrat in Congress or at the state level who is up to his or her eyeballs in that crime.  Crime, people, not stupidity–actual crime.  No wonder they are so gleeful when we turn on some numbnut who made a stupid statement, they are laughing all the way to tyranny.

Now, I am in no way saying that we should send our own list of criminals to Congress nor that we need to moderate our own views or values, but what I am saying is don’t listen to them anymore.  It’s not even hypocrisy from them; they truly believe that a murderer or a pedophile is better than a conservative.  But here’s the thing, we have to stop caring what they think.  I think that a screw up like Akin is ten times better than Air Claire, but they clearly don’t care what we think, and pandering to their standards is killing not only us but our country.  They are heavy into Alinsky, right?  And they are busily holding us to our own impossible standards, and it’s working.  Like a charm.

Second, once we figure out what we want, we need to work for it in every area of our lives.  Where’d the TEA Party go?  Are you working in your community to keep that fire alive?  Our Second Amendment rights are under attack; this is far bigger than the 0CareTax, so where are the rallies?  Are we waiting for a bill to be introduced?  If so, fine, but plan on rallying because something IS going to happen on “gun control.”  Count on it.

And what about those of us who are appalled by the leftists’ repeated victories in the culture war?  Are we still forking out our money for their propaganda?  Financially supporting actors and companies who hate us, our country, and everything we stand for?  What about those of us who are appalled by what is happening in our schools and universities?  Are we involved, making our voices heard?  Or are we doing what generations of conservatives have done (up until ’09, anyway) and sitting on our couches muttering in impotent frustration and anger?

Third, we need to focus our attention on 2014.  If we lose the House, it’s over.  Heck, it may well be over already as so many conservatives proclaim, but it doesn’t look over to me.

Not yet.

But it will be if we don’t stop this litmus test stuff and start supporting candidates who may not be perfect in every way but who are . . . yes, I’m going to say it, better than the alternative.  That is really all we can do now that we’ve lost so much ground; we don’t have the luxury of choosing the very bestest conservative the planet’s ever seen for each and every office (or for any office).  Does that mean that we have to “compromise our principles”?  Sure, I guess so, if you want to think of it that way.  I prefer to think of it as electing people who are not known communists.  Because guess what, our choices are often going to be some nutter like Akin versus the corrupt commie Air Claire or a moderate like Romney versus the corrupt commie Obama.  By sitting home or voting for some obscure loon who will never ever win (what the hell was that guy’s name again?), we are electing corrupt commies.  We, conservatives, are doing that.  Let’s not.

Fuzzy Rant: Todd Akin. Grrrr.

There’s an old saying–oft attributed to Katherine Hepburn, Dorothy Parker, and / or Charlotte Whitton– that “women have to work twice as hard as men to be thought half as good.  Luckily, this is not difficult.”  This entire Todd Akin debacle reminds me that the same can be said of Republicans, with the added caveat that they not only have to work  twice as hard but be twice as moral, ethical, and decent as Democrats.  Now, normally, that’s not at all difficult, especially given the incredibly low bar set by the leftists in today’s Democrat Party, but every now and then, we run into an asshat like Akin.  At first, I felt sort of sorry for the guy (even though I don’t believe he “misspoke”; I am pretty confident that he actually believes what he said), but he said something he shouldn’t have, told the truth as he saw it.  Who hasn’t done that?  How unfair that he has to go down for that!  But he does.  He will.

The only question was whether or not he’d take us down with him.  Looks like he’s dead set on doing just that.  He wants to stay in the race.  He knows full well that the dem smear machine has already cranked into full gear to tie his ridiculous, childish, stupid comments to Romney and Ryan.  He knows full well that we need to beat Air Claire to win the Senate in November.  He knows full well what is at stake in this election, not just the presidency but the balance of power in Congress . . . the future of our country, our very Republic.  And you know what he cares about?  The now long long long-shot that he’ll win.  He cares about himself, his power, his career.

It turns my stomach.

Twitter is abuzz with people on both sides: those supporting Akin and those who want him to step down.  Let me say, in response to his ad (at link above), that I absolutely forgive him (not that it’s my place to do so).  That’s not the point.  He’s a jackass, but so are most members of Congress (especially on the Dem side, we can spend all day quoting their asshattery). The logic seems to be that it’s worth losing not just one Senate seat in a crucial swing state but also the entire Senate (well, you know, the possible Senate majority) and possibly even the presidency to defend this guy’s right to say ignorant crap.

Um. No.  He’s not one of “us”; he’s not TEA Party, he’s obsessed with himself, not America.  If he were the sort of person I’d defend . . . I wouldn’t have to.  He’d have stepped down by now.

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.

And:

[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.]

And:

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 :)

And:

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!