Re- post from May 2011. Obama Voter Test.


Obama Voter Test. Find Out Where You Stand!

I spend a fair amount of time trying to decide what makes people think about voting for Barack Obama, not to mention time spent thinking about what makes people actually vote for him. Often times I am perplexed, but I suppose that is just another of my peculiar personality traits.

Despite the occasional perplexity I have concluded that there are several distinct groups of Obama voters.

First, there are the free riders. This is a term taught in Economics 101 in college. Therefore, this term will not be well known to most Obama voters. It is actually a polite way of saying, “freeloaders”. Now, that’s something we all understand. But, Obama freeloaders are a subset of normal freeloaders. Obama freeloaders think they are entitled to freeload off other persons. (Most freeloaders don’t actually believe they are entitled to freeload, they are just parasites.) Obama freeloaders think other people, who have strived and worked to be better off than others, owe payments to everyone who has an inferior standard of living. Currently in our society we have somewhere between 40% and 50% of everyone in the U.S. receiving some sort of government payments or benefits. Many of these people are Obama freeloaders and they are all Obama voters.

Second, there are the morons. Morons make excellent Obama voters. These are people too stupid to know any better so they vote for Obama because he can read a good speech from a teleprompter. The morons don’t know what a teleprompter is so they actually think Obama is a good public speaker. They like that. It does not challenge their limited intellect.

Third, there are the ignorant people. They are not stupid but they are too ignorant to actually understand complex issues. Some are ignorant because they are too lazy to actually think things through to a logical conclusion. Others are ignorant because they never recovered from their public school education. Their ignorance allows them to vote for Obama because they simply don’t know any better.

Of course, these groups overlap a considerable amount. But taken together, they account for about 45% of the U.S. voting public. They are heavily concentrated in some states more than others. For example, states like Michigan, Illinois, California, and several others. (You know the ones. Just think of states that are morally and financially bankrupt. Those are the core Obama states.)

Now of course, some people are actually undecided about voting for Obama. These people suffer from a unique sort of identity crisis. They are not sure if they are freeloaders, morons, or just ignorant. Because I am a compassionate person I want to assist these undecided folks. The following test questions should help them decide. These questions are based upon actual Obama policies. See if you agree with him. Answer each question yes or no.

1. It was wrong for President George Bush to order the use of harsh interrogation on captured terrorists to gain information about planned attacks and other terror operations. Yes or no?
2. It was ok for President Barack Obama to order the killing of captured terrorists and the dumping of bodies in the ocean. Yes or no?
3. It was wrong for President George Bush to order U.S. forces to attack a sovereign country like Iraq to capture and bring to trial the country’s murderous leaders. Yes or no?
4. It was ok for President Barack Obama to order U.S. forces to attack a sovereign country like Libya to kill the country’s murderous leaders. Yes or no?
5. It will help the U.S. economy by spending government money to prevent U.S. oil companies from drilling for oil in the oceans and also spend government money to help foreign oil companys drill for oil in the oceans. Yes or no?
6. A nation can be prosperous by borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Yes or no?
7. A nation can be prosperous by requiring every 2.5 people with jobs to pay money to one other person who does not have a job so that the other person can continue to enjoy the same lifestyle he or she enjoyed while he or she worked. Yes or no?
8. It is safer to fly on airplanes in the United States because government employees are allowed to sexually molest children in public before the children are allowed on planes with their parents. Yes or no?
9. Countries that do not allow sexual molestation of children before they fly on airplanes just don’t know how dangerous little children actually are. Yes or no?
10. It would be a good terrorist deterrent to randomly select persons in line at airports to be photographed naked or be sexually molested before being allowed on an airplane. Yes or no?
11. U.S. companies that are profitable should be penalized by raising their income taxes. Yes or no?
12. U.S. companies that are not profitable should be rewarded by lowering their income taxes or by being allowed to pay no income taxes at all. Yes or no?
13. Public schools that have students who are increasingly badly educated should be rewarded by receiving more public money. Yes or no?
14. Private schools that have students who are increasingly better educated should be punished by receiving no public money. Yes or no?
15. An alcoholic who loses his job because of heavy drinking then drives his car into a wall causing serious injuries should be rewarded by receipt of free medical care for life, a social security check every month for life (regardless of age), state funds to pay for rent, a weekly maid to clean his home and run errands, free food, free dental care, and free medical marijuana. Yes or no?
16. A single mom whose husband died from cancer should be denied public assistance so that the person in question #15 can continue to receive benefits because he was in line before her. Yes or no?

If you answered yes to one or two of the above questions you have what it takes to be an Obama voter. However, you should first go back and think about your answers. Perhaps you made a mistake.

If you answered yes to three to five questions you are ignorant enough to be an Obama voter. Please try reading a book or getting some other form of self-help before it is too late for you.

If you answered yes to six to eight questions you are a moron. You will feel comfortable voting for Obama and will be in good company with your moron friends.

If you answered yes to more than eight questions you are: (a) too stupid to talk to and (b) a good Obama freeloader. He’s your man.

I hope this simple test has helped you fence sitting voters find your place in our formerly great republic. If you have found yourself and now know your true place as an Obama voter I wish you luck and hope you enjoy your ride down the slippery slope into serfdom and poverty. You truly deserve it.

Posted in politics, satire | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Chief Justice Roberts Got It Right. Obama and Democrats Lost Big


Why Libertarians and Republicans Should Hug Chief Justice John Roberts.

The recent Supreme Court decision upholding portions of the “Obamacare” health insurance law (also called “The Affordable Care Act” was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee to the Court.

Many people were hoping the Court would strike down the entire law and some of these people are upset, depressed and disillusioned by the Roberts decision. They should not be.

Many others, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and progressives have exclaimed that the Court decision was a defeat for republicans and a great victory for Barack Obama and his cohorts.

That is simply not true. In fact, it appears that the Supreme Court’s decision is a substantial victory for the challengers. I will explain this assertion below. The discussion will be kept simple and mainly deal only with the major points in dispute and an overview of the Court’s decision.  The discussion that follows is somewhat long but please bear with me.  It takes some time to present the truth.

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit were 26 states (represented by 25 republican officials and one democrat), several other groups representing businesses and individuals, with support from a variety of conservative and libertarian leaning organizations. Their main claims were that the law was unconstitutional because the federal government did not have the legal power to require U.S. citizens to purchase health insurance and because the federal government was attempting to use coercion (withholding of federal Medicaid funding) unless the States accepted millions of new Medicaid participants.

The federal government made many defensive claims, primary of which were that Congress could rely upon the “Commerce Clause” in the U.S. Constitution for the insurance purchase mandate or alternatively, that the Constitutional power to tax made the law constitutional. The government also claimed that its threats to withhold Medicaid funding were not unlawful.

Simply put, the republicans (and the one democrat) claimed Congress could not command people to buy insurance and that Congress could not use coercion to bludgeon states into Medicaid expansion. The lawyers for President Obama and the federal government disagreed.

There were quite a large number of possible outcomes but only three basic probable outcomes.

1. The Court could rule that fundamental parts of the statute were unconstitutional and without them the entire statute could not stand so therefore the entire Act would be invalid. This, the Court did not do.

2. The Court could rule that the entire statute was constitutional and let it go into effect unchanged. This the Court did not do.

3. The Court could rule that fundamental parts of the statute were unconstitutional but keep in place the balance of the Act and let most of it go into effect. This was the outcome of the decision announced on Thursday, June, 28, 2012. However, the Court achieved this outcome in a manner that surprised observers and experts.

I believe the Court’s decision (as written by Chief Justice Roberts) while legally dubious in some respects is a also a stroke of political genius that will greatly assist the gradual roll-back of democrat and progressive inspired and imposed extensions of federal government power and control. However, this further roll-back will require further action by the people and careful choices of elected representatives, as Chief Justice Roberts made clear.

The erosion of freedom in the united States of America has a long history. Since the beginning of the “progressive” era in the early 1900’s democrats have successfully eroded individual liberty and State sovereignty, in favor of collectivism. One of the most striking examples of this is the fact that during much of our history the term “united States” referred to the group of sovereign states in a political, economic, and social alliance under a system known as “federalism”(Even though the federal government has no legal authority to force someone to buy health insurance the same is not true of the States. They possess the inherent police power of a sovereign government to regulate the activities of citizens. States can impose individual mandates and several have done so.) . (An excellent explanation of Federalism is given early in Chief Justice Roberts’s decision.) Even as recently as the Second World War, Winston Churchill routinely (and correctly) stated that, “The united States are at war with Germany”. We never hear that anymore. (For example, currently, the United States is at war in Afghanistan.) The difference may seem subtle but it is very important.

Unfortunately, progressives and democrats (assisted by republican ignorance, acquiesce, and intellectual laziness) successfully changed this perception of the united States. Today, people routinely use the term “United States” in reference to a single, and enormously powerful government entity, that dominates its member States and constantly makes ever increasing demands (enforced by criminal sanctions) upon the citizens of the member States.

One of the most powerful weapons used by progressives and democrats has been the “commerce clause” of the U.S. Constitution. This clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Roberts’s decision says,

The Constitution authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Our precedents read that to mean that Congress may regulate “the channels of interstate commerce,” “persons or things in interstate commerce,” and “those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” The power over activities that substantially affect interstate commerce can be expansive. That power has been held to authorize federal regulation of such seemingly local matters as a farmer’s decision to grow wheat for himself and his livestock, and a loan shark’s extortionate collections from a neighborhood butcher shop.”

Democrats and Progressives have successfully commandeered the Commerce Clause to substantially expand the federal government and infringe on the rights of the people. In the case of “Obamacare” they attempted to use the Commerce Clause to affirmatively require everyone in the united States to buy health insurance. Had they succeeded in this effort the relationship between we the people and our federal government would have been forever changed in a way not authorized by the U.S. Constitution. The effort to subvert the Constitution is referred to as the “individual mandate” and described by Roberts as follows:

“The individual mandate requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage.26 U. S. C. §5000A. The mandate does not apply to some individuals, such as prisoners and undocumented aliens.§5000A(d). Many individuals will receive the required coverage through their employer, or from a government program such as Medicaid or Medicare. See §5000A(f). But for individuals who are not exempt and do not receive health insurance through a third party, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). That payment, which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A(c). In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). Ibid.; 42 U. S. C. §18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).”

Justice Roberts, joined by four other members of the Court, struck down the “individual mandate” Congress attempted to impose under the auspices of the Commerce Clause. This is a huge defeat for the democrats and progressives who think people exist at the behest of the government, act at the direction of the government, and must do as they are told based upon the wisdom of the government.

On this first and most important point the law’s challengers were clearly and completely victorious. The Court’s decision will now sit as a cornerstone for further lawsuits whenever democrats and progressives in Congress again overstep and attempt to pass laws that go too far past the powers granted by the Constitution. Everyone who opposed the individual mandate should be very happy that the Court clearly and unambiguously struck down the democrat claim that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to command individual citizens to buy a product or service from a private business.

Here’s how Chief Justice Roberts explained it. First, he looked at the social problems caused by the fact that some people do not or cannot pay for their health care and thereby impose the costs of their health care on our society in general.

The Government’s first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. According to the Government, the health care market is characterized by a significant cost-shifting problem. Everyone will eventually need health care at a time and to an extent they cannot predict, but if they do not have insurance, they often will not be able to pay for it…The Government contends that the individual mandate is within Congress’s power because the failure to purchase insurance “has a substantial and deleterious effect on interstate commerce” by creating the cost-shifting problem.”

Then, he examined the application of the commerce clause, based upon previous court decisions in other cases, all of which were centered on the regulation of an activity, not the regulation of an in-activity.

“The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

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.”

After further discussion, the Court held the following::

The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”

The Court decided that the federal government cannot command individuals to buy a product (like health insurance).

This holding will have far reaching effects. It may in future cases serve as a basis for limitations on federal power with regard to other assertions of power based upon the commerce clause, particularly since the Court relied on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. The Court rejected the effort of the federal government to vastly expand its power over individuals because it would,

“… fundamentally change the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.”

This portion of the opinion is extremely good news. It extinguishes the primary argument of democrats and progressives and it sets in place a strong statement regarding the limitations on federal government power.

This part of the Court’s decision is particularly interesting because prior to challenging Obamacare, many republicans favored the idea of a mandate to purchase health insurance. In fact, many Republicans have supported an individual mandate as a means to enforce individual responsibility and limit the cost shifting problem. In 2008 Republican John McCain proposed a mandate that businesses buy health insurance for all employees. (During the 2008 democrat primary campaign Hillary Clinton proposed an individual mandate that like that included in Obamacare.) Ironically, Barack Obama opposed the Clinton proposal and opposed the McCain proposal. He ran strongly against the idea of a mandate to purchase health insurance.

The current presumed republican 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney has also favored an individual mandate for health insurance coverage. He implemented such a plan in Massachusetts while he was governor of that State. He has subsequently opposed the federal government mandate based upon the correct assertion that States have the power to require purchase of health insurance but the federal government does not have such power. (States possess the inherent police power of a sovereign government to regulate the activities of citizens. States can impose individual mandates and several have done so. This position was affirmed by the Supreme Court.)

So we see that many republicans have supported health insurance mandates in the past. But they opposed the mandate in Obamacare because of the assertion that the Commerce Clause was the source of the power.

After deciding that the Commerce Clause did not apply Justice Roberts then went further in his analysis of federal power and examined the authority of the federal government to levy taxes. This is where he diverged from the four justices who agreed with him regarding the inapplicability of the commerce clause as a point of authority for the individual mandate.

Here again, we have an interesting situation. During the passage of Obamacare republican opponents frequently claimed that the law was actually an enormous tax bill with billions of dollars of new taxes that would burden the American people and damage the economy. Democrats and Barack Obama claimed the bill was not a tax law and would not impose new taxes on the American people.

On this point, I believe Justice Roberts showed some particular political and policy genius.

Remember that in the recent past republicans espoused an individual mandate to purchase health insurance and that Mitt Romney implemented such a plan in Massachusetts during his term as governor. In fact, there are good arguments to support the idea. It is a means (although imperfect) to force some measure of responsibility on individuals for their health care expenses rather than simply allowing them to drink at the public trough (as “free riders”). With this in mind, and with the free-rider problem in mind perhaps Justice Roberts embarked on a novel way to impose the individual responsibility and limit the cost-shifting “free rider” problem.

Roberts discussed the taxation question at length in his opinion. He ended up affirming the assertion of republicans that Obamacare is essentially a massive tax bill. Ironically, despite the fact that the President’s lawyers argued to the Court that Obamacare is constitutional because it is an imposition of new taxes (as authorized by the Constitution) and despite the fact that the Court agreed with the democrat lawyers, Barack Obama continues to assert that there are no new taxes in his legislation.

The Supreme Court decision makes it clear that republicans were correct when they opposed Obamacare as an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause and they were correct when they opposed Obamacare because it is a massive tax increase and they were correct when they asserted that the federal government can not coercively force States to take actions they would not otherwise do.

The Supreme Court basically gave republicans everything they have been asking for in the recent past and in past years. It limited Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, it struck down the attempted coercive expansion of Medicaid, and it affirmed that every democrat who voted to enact Obamacare actually was voting for a massive tax increase. However, the Court also found a way to force people to accept some responsibility for their health care costs, essentially affirming the positions of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and many other conservatives.

Some commentators have expressed the ideas that Roberts wrote the opinion is such a way as to placate democrats and progressives. Some have even said he wanted to assure continued friendly acceptance at Georgetown cocktail parties. Others have said his epilepsy medication interfered with his reasoning.

I think these assertions are absurd. Although Roberts’s opinion regarding the taxation power may seem stretched I presume he had something in mind. I presume Chief Justice Roberts is a highly intelligent, skilled jurist, with keen political instincts. I have practiced law for many decades and my observation is that dumb people and irrational people do not rise to the highest levels.

So my thoughts about the Chief Justice’s opinion are that it is well thought out and takes into account legal, political, and social ramifications. With this in mind, allow me to continue.

Once Roberts disposed of the commerce clause argument and put on the brakes with regard to the unconstitutional attempt to regulate inactivity he could have just taken the next easy step and said that without the individual mandate the entire statute could not stand. But he chose not to do so. He actually went out of his way to find a means by which the rest of the statute could stand. He did so by examining the power of the federal government to levy taxes. He decided that the individual mandate and a federal government command to buy health insurance cannot stand but that the federal government does have the authority to levy and collect a tax on anyone who chooses not to buy health insurance.

“Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, iti s necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1.”

The Court ruled that there can be no Congressional “command” for anyone to buy health insurance but the choice not to do so means the person must pay a tax to the federal government. This imposes some financial responsibility on an individual for the decision not to purchase health insurance may help alleviate the cost-shifting or “free-rider” problem.

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.”

Roberts then looked at the language of the statute to see if the penalty for not buying health insurance was a tax allowed by the constitution. The decision is that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s a duck.

…the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.8 It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the “prohibitory” financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37. Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement. Third, the payment is collected solely by theIRS through the normal means of taxation—except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See §5000A(g)(2). The reasons the Court in Drexel Furniture held that what was called a “tax” there was a penalty support the conclusion that what is called a “penalty” here may be viewed as a tax.

The Court decided Congress can tax someone who chooses not to purchase health insurance and then looked at limitations on the power to do so. The taxing power has limitations. Therefore, from now on, if Congress desires some new sweeping regulation of personal behavior it must use its taxing power (not an overly popular tool) and subject itself to the inherent limitations on that power. This is a far different set of circumstances than just claiming (as democrats and progressives have become so good at) that the Commerce Clause is the font of all regulatory power.

 “Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. See, e.g., United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936); Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S. 20. More often and more recently we have declined to closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising measures. See Kahriger, 345 U. S., at 27–31 (collecting cases). We have nonetheless maintained that “‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.

Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.

 The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

 In the next portion of the decision the Court disposed of the Medicaid issues. The law attempts to require States to expand their Medicaid roles to bring in persons who cannot afford to buy insurance. The penalty for failing to expand the Medicaid roles is loss of federal Medicaid funding. States argued that clause is unconstitutional and Roberts agreed, again putting substantial limits of federal power, this time with respect to the States.

 The beauty of the Court’s decision as written by Roberts is that it has an apparently calculated political element that is very favorable to those who oppose the recent extensive expansion of federal government power and it puts democrats and progressives in a rather tight spot. Rather than strike the highly disliked Obamacare statute in whole, the Court preserved it as a significant issue with all its shortcomings and problems on display, front and center. Additionally, now its democrat and progressive supporters must defend a huge looming tax increase during a time of economic trouble, high unemployment, low growth, and vast new regulations. The Court’s decision creates the opportunity to hang this albatross around the neck of every democrat and progressive that seeks election this fall.

 The Court also opened the way for individuals and businesses to choose their course of action with regard to insurance. Under Obamacare insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse insurance based upon pre-existing decisions. Therefore, people can simply choose to forego insurance, pay the much less expensive federal tax and save thousands of dollars each year. Businesses may be able to allow employees to opt out of insurance coverage and accept a higher salary instead and pay the “no insurance” tax each year. In the event that someone with no insurance gets significantly ill that person can simply buy insurance at the time with no fear of being rejected because of a pre-existing condition.

 Such actions will undermine the insurance markets and cause significant problems. But it is not the job of the Court to decide if a statute is stupid or ineffective. It is only the job of the Court to rule if it is constitutional. Congress does stupid things every day. Maybe this time the consequences will be severe enough that people will pay more attention when they vote. Maybe voters need an incentive to exercise better choices. Perhaps the people who wrote and instituted Obamacare deserve to wear it around their neck and be dragged down with it.

 It is possible the Obamacare decision may create a rallying point for opposition to the politicians who created this mess. Remember, it is now crystal clear that every democrat voted for a massive new tax liability during the current rolling economic depression. Robert’s pointedly said that it is not the role of the court to protect the people from their choices at the ballot box but in saying so he is making it clear that the electoral process is the means by which people can relieve themselves of onerous laws.

 Everyone who is opposed to Obamacare, the fascist liberal/progressive agenda, and the assault on individual freedom needs to remember that citizen sovereignty and freedom are individual rights, not collective rights and must be jealously protected by individuals themselves. Roberts is telling us that the Court can help keep the playing field level and advance the cause of freedom but the final push to victory must come from the people themselves.

 I believe that the Obamacare decision by the Court has a football analogy. The Court has put the ball on the nine yard line and it is first down and goal to go. Now it is up to the people who hold the sovereign power to purge government of the tyrants who try to subvert the Constitution.

 I think Benjamin Franklin had it right when he was asked after the Constitutional Convention, “Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?” He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

 Early in the opinion Chief Justice Roberts addressed the responsibility of the people to govern themselves.

 “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

 Late in the decision Roberts again addressed this subject. The second to the last paragraph says the following:

The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.”

 It would be nice if the Supreme Court would step in and fully protect us from our elected representatives. But that is not how our system works. Each branch of government is co-equal and restrained in its relations to the other branches.

 The clear message from Chief Justice Roberts is that if we the people continue to elect ignorant and stupid representatives who lean toward arrogance and tyranny then we will continue to lose our freedoms and our natural born sovereignty. We should all thank him for sending that message.

 The Road to Serfdom is paved with voluntary choices.

Posted in freedom, politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Living in Liberal-ville, U.S.A.


Have you ever had a contract with someone who (you learned later) never had any intention of keeping his word and performing his obligations?

Have you ever had a contract with someone who (you learned later) felt no moral obligation to keep his promises?

What would it be like to live in a world where your plumber worked on your leaky pipes and did not fix a thing but still took your money and then refused any responsibility for the botched job?

What would it be like to live in a world where your auto mechanic pretended to fix your car, then took your money, and then refused any responsibility when the same problem with your car occurred over and over again?

What would it be like to live in a world where people could borrow money to buy a home, or to buy a car, or to go to college, with no intent or requirement to pay the money back?

You would be living in Liberal-ville, U.S.A.  The land of the dis-functional, irresponsible, ignorant, and uneducated where failure is rewarded (and encouraged) and success is punished (and discouraged).

Imagine working hard at two jobs to pay your mortgage, to pay for your groceries, to buy clothes for your kids, to help your elderly parents pay their bills, to pay for your health insurance, and to save a little money for an annual vacation, but 50% of your neighbors don’t do any of these things and don’t have to.

Approximately 7,000,000 Americans work two jobs.  http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat36.pdf so they can make ends meet.

Think about getting up each morning to hitch yourself to a wagon with big inflatable tires, then walking down the street picking up 50% of your neighbors, and then pulling that wagon to a government recreation center (with your neighbors sitting in the back drinking coffee, laughing and joking) so they could spend the day relaxing?

What if you were expected to go to work every day and earn enough money to pay for your neighbors to send their kids to school for free, and to pay for your neighbors to get their groceries for free, and to pay off your neighbors’ second mortgages so they could have a new car or a new boat.  Don’t forget about paying for your neighbors’ health insurance and paying for your neighbors’ retirement.

What would it be like to live in a world where someone else (someone you have never met) borrows money in your name, that you and your children are obligated to pay back with interest, and then gives that money to your neighbors just so they can have the same lifestyle as you?

Would you like to save money to pay for unexpected expenses in the future, or to pay for your own needs when you can no longer work, while your government prints money and creates inflation that cuts the value of your savings in half?

How about paying your taxes every year according to the law while 50% of your neighbors are not required to pay the same taxes.

Then, you watch your neighbors marching, demonstrating, shouting, and sleeping in the public parks you pay for, all the time claiming that you are not paying your fair share of taxes and that you should pay more.

Imagine listening to thousands of deadbeats whining for weeks on end, and expecting you to pay to clean up the mess they leave.  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-30-tons-of-debris-left-behind-at-city-hall-tent-city.html.

This is the world brought to you by liberal politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, and all the rest of the liberal crew.  This is what voting for liberals means.  This is how they shape the nation.  The people who ride in the wagon and complain about how the people who pull the wagon are not doing their fair share are the liberal’s voting constituency.

How much longer are you going to keep pulling that wagon?

Posted in economy, politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Liberal Energy: More Great Ideas to Save Mother Earth


More Liberal Energy Ideas

One of my past literary efforts is an old post, Liberal Energy Ideas.  In it, I review the efforts of liberals in America to create the kind of energy future they want.

Well, I have a confession.  I have been holding out on you.  The earlier post was just a portion of the wisdom I have received from my liberal friends regarding energy.  Therefore, it’s time for an update.  MORE GREAT LIBERAL ENERGY IDEAS!

This year I went to our local Earth Day celebration.  Since I am an old guy I recall the very first Earth Day.  I was a sophomore in High School in a small town in western Americana.  I was concerned about the environment.  In fact, I had just finished reading, “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich and his wife.  (go here for more info.)  The book had my young mind in a state of despair.  According to Ehrlich we were all doomed to starvation in the very  near future.  Ehrlich was a true liberal doomsayer.  Like Algore.  Plus, just like Algore virtually everything he believed and predicted was (and is) wrong.

On that first ever Earth Day our Social Studies class full of young minds had a speaker.  He was a Democrat State Representative.  An early model, late 60’s political liberal.  I asked him a few questions.  He was as dumb as a stump.  Even I, as a sophomore in high school could see how stupid he was.  Therefore, being as dumb as a stump, he enjoyed a successful career as a democrat politician.  He went on to become a State Senator and then held various other elected offices until he finally retired, after which he continued to suck on the public teat with a public pension until he died.  (That experience was my Libertarian genesis.  At the tender age of sixteen I realized it is hopeless to rely on elected morons for solutions to problems.)

Anyway, that was my first Earth Day and last weekend I went to another Earth Day event in our local park.  Wow!  It was great.  Young hippies and old hippies in tie dye shirts and skirts and dreadlocks.  There were lots of old guys with beer bellies, long hair and sandals.  I am not making this up.  Liberals as a group have no idea how ridiculous they look and act.

The whole theme of the Earth Day event was Saving Energy to Save the Planet.  So here are some of the great ideas.

1.  Electric Bicycles.  I got to see my first up close and personal electric bicycles.  Starting at the low, low price of just over $2,000.00 (with a special 10% “Earth Day Discount”) the electric bicycles had a heavy duty battery on the rear rack and were built to resemble the Huffy bikes of our baby boomer childhoods.  Totally overpriced, virtually worthless as a bicycle, but with bright yellow, red and green paint jobs.  Another great liberal energy idea.

But I asked myself?  What is the point of an electric bicycle?.  Aren’t bicycles supposed to us “HUMAN POWER”?  How about some PHYSICAL EXERCISE?  THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF A BICYCLE!!!  Leave it to American Baby Boomer FMI Liberals to invent and promote something as absurd as an electric bicycle.  I suspect they will sell about as well as battery powered cars.

But obviously, the only thing separating electric bicycles from the same success enjoyed by  solar energy companies like Solyndra is the lack of adequate government subsidies.  What we really need is more support for electric bicycles from politicians in Washington D.C. willing and able to spend taxpayer dollars backing this latest great idea.  I’m thinking of some free electric bicycle accessories.  How about a government paid pair of spandex bicycle shorts to go with every new electric bicycle purchase?  Just think how happy these overweight, excess self esteem, 60 something liberals would be riding around town on their battery bicycles in their skin tight shorts?  We could even give away bicycle bumper stickers for the back of every bike that say, “The Moon is out at Noon”.

2.  The Chevrolet Volt From Government Motors. I know, I know, the Volt is no longer a new idea.  But I finally got to see my first Chevy Volt.  (I have never seen one on the road).  It was kind of embarrassing standing there by myself looking at the worst $40,000 car every produced.  Tiny, tinny, uninspired, and boring.  The perfect car for liberals.  It had a big banner on the side saying, “All Electric Car”.

The hood was open, so I could look at the engine just like any typical read blooded American male should.  I gazed in awe at the tiny little gas powered engine.  Then it hit me.  THIS “ELECTRIC” CAR HAS A GAS ENGINE!!  It runs on gasoline.  It needs the gas engine so that when you are driving to the grocery store and the battery goes dead you can use the gas engine to charge the battery so you can get home.  I walked off shaking my head knowing that my tax dollars are being spent to pay for these silly things.   But at least no one else was looking at the car.  The crowds were all over at the used book booth buying old Tom Clancy novels for 50 cents and at the organic oatmeal cookie booth and at the hand knit wool cap booth.  Maybe we should help Government Motors some more and raise the subsidy for G.M. Volts and give away a dozen granola cookies and a free, knit wool hat!

3.  Residential Windmills.  The local Public Utility District had a windmill display.  I have seen this booth before.  Its cool.  Put a windmill next to your house and they will pay you for the electricity.  You can even get a small grant to help pay the $20,000 to $30,000 it will cost to evaluate your site, install your windmill, and hook it to the grid.  Of course, you won’t try and live on the energy it creates.  If you did you would freeze to death in the dark because you would only have electricity occasionally when the wind is blowing.  So what you do is hook it to the grid and then it spins your meter backwards when the wind blows.  It will pay for itself in 30 to 40 years, depending upon your location.  Plus, at night you (and your neighbors) can lie awake and listen to your windmill spinning.

I lie awake at night and wonder why my money is being used to pay for someone’s stupid windmill.  But really, it is not enough to just give away our money to support the free thinking (or is that free loading?) enviros for their windmills.  We should be more generous.  What if we give away free ear plugs for the neighbors and coffee mugs for the windmill owners with the catchy slogan, “I Mill the Wind!  What About YOU?”

4.  Urban Chicken Farms.  I also learned it is now cool to raise chickens in your yard.  Liberals love chickens I guess.  It used to be a sign of poverty if you had to raise your own chickens but now it is a cool liberal energy-saving idea.  You get free range eggs, from happy chickens, who only eat organic chicken food, and who are really cool and intelligent birds.  Actually, that part is a lie.  In fact, the whole urban chicken farming thing is a silly lie.  Chickens are noisy, smelly, dirty, amazingly stupid birds, descendants of dinosaurs.

Where I live some of our neighbors raise chickens, because they are poor.  The roosters wake up the whole neighborhood at 4:00 am every morning.  They crow all day.  They are worse than barking dogs.  But at least these people eat their own eggs and their own chickens.  Some of the liberals who raise chickens try to sell the eggs for $5.00 a dozen.  (They have pretty hand painted egg cartons.)  So not only are they raising stupid, dirty, smelly, noisy animals in their backyards, they are trying to pass off their eggs for twice the price of good free range organic eggs in my local store.  Another great liberal idea.  Save energy by having an urban chicken farm that annoys your neighbors and then try and rip them off with the overpriced eggs.  Liberals make great friends.  Unless they are in your neighborhood.  I wonder if we could have residential zoning that prohibited liberals?  Or maybe I need to be more compassionate and supportive.  I know, lets sell t-shirts that say, “Don’t Take a Lickin’, Hug a Chicken!”  Or better yet, we could distribute free hand made wool hats embossed with, “My Eggs are Firm and Happy!  What about Yours?”

5.  Urban Organic Salad Gardens.  Liberals think you can save lots of energy by growing your own organic salad greens.  There was a booth with a grizzled old hippy wearing a hand knitted vest over his beer belly, selling organic lettuce, romaine, tomato, pepper, herb, and other plant starts.  The plants were about 5 times the price of the same type plant starts at Wal Mart but these were obviously better.  Some people bought them but most just walked on by.  I guess they just don’t appreciate the advantages of growing your own organic herbs in your yard.  Think of the gas that is wasted driving to Safeway to buy lettuce when you could simply dig up your grass and grow your own?  Your kids will be happy eating nutritious salads along with the little green horned worms that thrive on your plants.  Better yet, you could brag to your friends how much more spunky you feel now that you have organic protein in every salad!  Our new gardening motto could be, “Be Green.  Save the Earth.  Eat a Grub”.

6.         Urban Composting.  This is a great way to save energy.  Spend a couple hundred dollars for a round, human powered compostor for your yard.  You save your egg shells, potato peels, apple cores, coffee grounds, uneaten grubs, the chicken shit from your nasty backyard chickens, and all the other garbage you want to get rid of, put it in your compostor with some enzymes sprinkled on the top and in 30-40 days you have excellent compost to spread on your organic salad garden to keep the worms healthy.  Just go out every couple days, dump in some garbage, and turn the crank to rotate your nifty compostor.  I think this would be fun to do while listening to some Neal Young on my I-pod.  No more shopping at the farmer’s market for fresh vegetables grown by someone who knows what he is doing.  You will save lot’s of energy by reducing the volume of your weekly garbage and get fit while working out in the yard spinning your composter.   Think of all the compliments you will get as the weight disappears and your gut or boobs stop sagging while you save the planet from the horrors of wrongful disposal of re-usable common garbage.  You will feel every bit as self righteous as the hybrid car drivers!

7.  Urban Earth Worm Farming.  This is a real sleeper in the liberal backpack of great energy ideas.  Every year billions of barrels of oil are wasted raising farm animals to feed greedy gut Americans.  All those farms and ranches for cows, pigs, turkeys, and chickens (except the one’s in your back yard) are huge consumers of oil and gas.  Now there is a simple, healthy alternative.  Just purchase one of the new, improved earthworm habitat kits (only $599.00 complete and ready to assemble).  Think of it like “Condos for Earthworms”.  Then, you add your quality compost (and a few organic green leafy veggies from your garden and a bit of chicken poop from the coop) and “PRESTO”, great gobs of chewy earthworm protein that your kids will love.  We all remember the fat kid at the bus stop that ate earthworms on a dare.  Now, all your children can be that same dorky kid and feast on your home grown, organic earth worms from your own backyard.  Millions of barrels of oil will be saved as Americans eat healthy on their own supply of delicious worms.  Cut ’em’, grind ’em, fry ’em, bake ’em.  Save the Planet!  Dump the red meat!  Love a Cow!  Eat Worms!  You could have a sweat shirt that says, “I Learned about Earth Worms at Earth Day” and everybody would know how Green you are.

You are probably thinking all these great liberal energy ideas are just pie in the sky, unrealistic, shop worn, re-cycled nonsense from the sixties aren’t you?  Well, stop being so selfish.  Think of the hundreds of new, high paying green jobs for college graduates inventing, designing, and building bigger and better electric bicycles.  Think of the hundreds of indebted college students who will have a way to pay the interest on their student loans while working the rewarding new green jobs generated by earthworm condos.

Come on America.  Raise a Chicken.  Eat a Worm.  Hug a Windmill.  Cast aside your stodgy, fossil fuel past and embrace the future!  Hope and Change is here at last!

Posted in energy, humor, satire | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Women Voters Favor Democrats


Here’s the latest report from our undercover undisclosed location with the liberal democrat’s 2012 election machine.

Are you wondering why women (especially women with children) overwhelmingly favor liberal democrats?  Well, here is the inside scoop, reported directly from the beating heart of the democrat machine in mid-America.

There are a few primary issues that are overwhelmingly important to women.  Democrats have honed in on those issues like flies to feces and they have (for decades) developed policies that are irresistible to women.  Now, for the first time, the liberal playbook is revealed.

  1. Children.  Democrats know that women really care about their children.  But women don’t just worry about their children while they are young and in the home.  They also worry about their well being as the little tykes become young adults and seek employment for the first time.  But jobs and working are fraught with dangers and the hazards of full time work are a major focus for liberal politicians.  This is why they have worked for decades to protect young adults from gainful employment, using enlightened policies such as minimum wage laws and federal regulation of small businesses by swarms of zealous bureaucrats to limit job opportunities for young adults.  They have been especially successful at raising unemployment among high school graduates without college degrees.  This means that women get to continue to enjoy the company of their young adult children well past their 21st birthday as it becomes increasingly difficult for the kids to find jobs.  Mom’s love this.  The unemployed kids stay at home and the agony of the “empty nest” is delayed for years and years.
  2. Education.  Moms also worry about primary K – 12 education and public schools and liberal democrats really have this one tied up.  They work hard to ensure that everybody’s kids are forced to attend neighborhood schools no matter how bad they are (except that the liberals all get to send their kids to expensive private schools).  Moms can be sure that little Jack or little Jill has an equal opportunity to a really bad public school education full of liberal indoctrination on subjects such as gay and lesbian rights, global warming, environmental protection, the evils of big oil, and the liberal doctrine that only government can provide prosperity and happiness.   Moms all across America know that their kids have full equal access to a crappy education free of learning to read, learning to add and subtract, learning to reason, learning history or philosophy, or studying economics.  Liberals know to keep the focus off anything that might help the kids get a good paying job, knowing that nothing makes Mom happier than serving meals and washing clothes for a 26 year old son or daughter.
  3. Higher Education.  College education is another hot issue for Moms.  They want to be sure that their kids can go to college and finally start learning something useful after 12 years wasted in public elementary schools and high schools.  Knowing this, liberal democrats have made sure that state colleges and universities can charge whatever they want for tuition, room and board, and textbooks while allowing professors and lecturers to earn high salaries and get tenure while teaching 8 – 10 hours a week.  To accomplish this, liberals have designed a system where students are freely given education loans to pay the exorbitant costs of higher education.  The kids get to borrow tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars, often with parental guarantees, and the colleges get the dough.  The kids graduate and immediately realize all the wonderful benefits of being hopelessly in debt, including the inability to buy a new car (thereby helping prevent global warming), the inability to buy a home (thereby preventing more urban sprawl and destruction of our forests), and the inability to afford children (thereby alleviating overpopulation).  Plus, with the debt burden a lot of college grads can’t afford to rent an apartment so guess what?  Mom and Dad get to have them move back home again!!   Moms love this.  But wait, it gets better.  Due to their compassion for women and kids the liberals have designed, implemented, and defended a loan payback system that extends the payments over 25 years.  This way, a college grad gets all the benefits of making interest payments until he or she is 50-60 years old!  This is the kind of compassion for children that women really like!
  4. Working Outside the Home.  Not all women voters are stay at home Moms and liberals know this so they have not forgotten to shower benefits on working women, especially the married ones.  Here’s how that works.  Liberals have designed, implemented and defended a special aspect of federal income taxes called the “marriage penalty”.  It works like this.  Say a woman and man get married and he has a decent job paying $50,000 a year or so.  Then, after they have a couple kids they want to buy a house so Mom decides to go to work to supplement the income and pay down the college debts so they can get a home loan.  The tax rate on their income from Dad’s job will be in the 15% bracket.  But when Mom gets a good job her income is added into the pot and her income falls into the higher marginal income tax bracket.  (The liberals call this their “progressive tax” system).  So, while Dad’s income is marginally taxed at 15%, Mom’s income is taxed at 25% (or higher).  What a deal!  Mom gets to work harder and keep less money.  (This is because liberals have so much compassion for their women voters.)   Women love this.  Working harder for less, that’s the ticket.  Plus, they still get to take care of the kids when they get home from work so they can be the butt of liberal jokes about women who take care of their kids.
  5. Birth Control.  The final issue that liberals know women are really worried about is contraception.  The $10.00 per month cost of birth control pills is really hard to bear, especially when you are paying $4.50 per gallon for gasoline.  Think about it.  That $10.00 could buy over two full gallons of gasoline for the mini van!  Liberals know that if Mom could just get those darn pills for free from the local planned parenthood clinic she would not have to worry so much about the skyrocketing cost of fuel for the car, electricity for the home, food for the family, clothes for the kids, and health care for everyone.  Just give her some free pills (and give Dad some free condoms) and all those other things will fall into place.  Women can sure count on liberals to help them out don’t you think?

Yup.  You bet.  There’s no “war on women” by the liberals.  They are really helping out.  Keep the kids unemployed and at home, drive the kids hopelessly into college loan debt, give the kids food stamps so they can afford to eat, tax married women more when they get a good paying job, and give them some free birth control.

It’s no wonder these cunning liberal democrats get the women’s vote.  They really have it locked up.  But maybe the reason the liberals want to give women free birth control pills is because the liberals know they are constantly screwing the women in America.

Posted in humor, politics, satire | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Election 2012. The Liberal Strategy Revealed.


Its been a few weeks since I have made a post.  I can now disclose that I have been working undercover among liberals across the nation, investigating the campaign 2012 strategies.  It has been interesting work.

I traveled undercover posing as a FMI voter and visited a number of liberal strongholds across the country.  It was dangerous work with constant challenges.  Impersonating an FMI voter  is not an easy task.  Every morning I downloaded talking points from MoveOn.org, MediaMatters.org, and the national DNC website.  I watched hours of MSNBC every evening and listened on satellite radio while traveling by car.

(If you unfamiliar with the subject of FMI, please read the following:  https://caughtinavortex.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/obama-voter-test-find-out-where-you-stand/)

Perhaps the most grueling was listening to daily talking point updates from the DNC National Chairwoman, Debbie Shultz.  As you all know, she is a font of liberal wisdom.  An  underground agent must master the ability to quote her verbatim.

Finally, I spent hours studying the comments and wisdom of our Dear Leader, Barack Obama.  It was brain numbing at times but I survived.

I visited more places than I can publicly reveal.  (I must protect my underground identity.)  But I can say that I spent time in such liberal paradises and strongholds as Olympia, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Sacramento, CA.; San Francisco, CA.; (the most populous FMI concentration on the planet), New Orleans, LA.; Miami, Fl.; Washington D.C.; Boston, MA.; and New York, NY.  In each location I was able to infiltrate the highest FMI echelons.  Posing as an OCCUPY supporter with a large trust fund I was able to insert myself with a combination of simplistic understanding and promises of cash donations from wealthy (fictional) parents.  Let me tell you, liberal leaders and politicians like nothing better than ignorant supporters with money.  Its the ticket to their inner sanctums.

So here in a nutshell, is what I learned about the liberal 2012 election strategy.

They fully acknowledge the democrat record of failure since 2006 (the year democrats took control of congress) and particularly during the years 2009-2010 (the two years of total democrat control of the federal government).  However, liberals are confident that the FMI voter base will not remember the failures of policies and programs (such as the failure of stimulus spending to reduce unemployment, the wall street bailouts, and the subsidies of bankrupt businesses) the unfulfilled promises (such as millions of new “green jobs”, lower health insurance costs, and 50% reduction in deficit spending) and the foreign policy disasters in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia.

The liberal strategy in 2012 will be focused on the KISS principal.  (Keep It Simple Stupid).  This is ideally suited for the FMI voter base.  With this in mind, I will reveal the 2012 election talking points.

1.         Health Care.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans will deprive the most vulnerable among us (poor people, single mothers and their children, disabled veterans, and the elderly) from health care with the hope that these people will all die.  They will claim that Republicans intend to end Medicare insurance and force the elderly to die  from common, curable illnesses such as the flu.

2.         Taxes.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans will cut taxes for the rich so the rich can afford to hire more illegal immigrant moms to clean their houses.  They will say that tax cuts for the rich will make it impossible for poor families to pay rent so they will be forced into homelessness by the greedy, rich landlords.

3.         Spending cuts.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans will cut spending so that there will be deadly air pollution, horrible water pollution, poisons in the food supply, no heating oil for the poor and elderly, dangerous schools, more rapes, more murders of black children, higher unemployment, more bridges that fall down, no electric cars, flooding of coastal cities from global warming, devastating hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunder storms.  They will say that spending cuts will cause trains to crash, planes to collide in mid-air, ships to crash onto rocks and spill oil and kill helpless baby seals, dolphins and whales.  In addition, levees will crumble and floods will ravage the heartland.  Crops will die due to lack of federal bureaucrats telling farmers how to farm.  Companies like GM, Chrysler, Boeing, and others will fail because they will not have the guidance and knowledge of federal regulators helping them run their businesses.

4.         Immigration.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans hate immigrants and want to force them all into the oceans so they will drown, particularly the immigrant children.  The will claim that Republicans intend to round up all immigrants that don’t speak English and force them to learn how to sing country western songs.

5          Education.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans will force all students (from kindergarten to college) to pay for their education and their condoms and their birth control pills so the students will have to drop out and go to work as indentured servants or sex slaves for the rich 1%.  Also, they will say that Republicans hate women (even women republicans hate women) and that a Republican president will declare war on women and force them to have babies and work for nothing in sweat shops that make NFL jerseys.

6.         National Parks.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans will sell the national parks to mining companies who will kill all the wild animals, cut down all the trees, dam all the rivers, rent all the buildings for $1.00 to Donald Trump, and strip mine all the open areas.

7.         Weather.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans will cut spending on programs to control global warming because Republicans want more tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and forest fires.  Also, Republicans will cut funds for weather forecasting so poor people and children will not have advance warning for tornadoes and hurricanes so that they will all die.  They will say that Republicans intend to round up any poor people that survive and make them swim to Haiti.

8.         Food Stamps.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans will cut food stamps for anyone under 12 years of age or over 65 years of age so children and old people will starve.  Also, for everyone else Republicans will make food stamps only applicable to cheap cat food in 25 pound bags or larger and dried celery.

9.         Race Relations.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans will try to reverse the Emancipation Proclamation and make all black people under 10 years old slaves to the rich Republican 1%.  Also, Republicans will make all other black people surrender their driver’s licenses so they can’t drive to the grocery store so they will all starve.

10.       Border Protection.  Democrats intend to claim that Republicans want to eliminate all funding for border protection so that terrorists can enter the country and bomb poor neighborhoods.  Republicans will use this as an excuse to launch drones over black communities and bomb their churches.

11.       Religion.  Democrats will claim that Republicans are all secretly satanists masquerading as christians (especially the mormons like Mitt Romney) who wear white hoods and black robes and who dance naked and howl at the moon in secret basements beneath catholic churches.

These are the issues that liberals believe will most motivate their FMI base and convince the Obama supporters to vote.  They have tested the talking points with focus groups in Detroit, Miami, Chicago, Milwaukee and Washington D.C.

So stay tuned and keep notes.  It will be an interesting election.

Posted in humor, politics, satire | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court to Rule on Obamacare. Is Obamacare Constitutional?


As regular readers of caughtinavortex know, our basic approach on important political and social issues is to use humor and satire to highlight absurdities.

However, some issues defy even our very best efforts to use humor and satire to make our point.  The legal challenge of “The Affordable Health Care Act”  (ObamaCare) is a perfect example.

Twenty-six States brought the challenge that will be heard by the Court .  Numerous other parties have filed briefs.  The Court will hear oral arguments in March.  A decision will probably be announced in June.

The Supreme Court decision in this case may dramatically and possibly unalterably change the basic structure of our Constitutional Republic.  The issues are both complex and simple.  On the simple side the basic question is whether or not the Federal government is limited in it’s power to regulate and compel individual citizens.  On the complex side, there are sophisticated legal issues regarding standing to sue, injunctive relief, and the abrogation of portions of the law versus the entire law.

It is important for interested citizens to get logical and accurate information versus emotional and biased propaganda.  Therefore, we will use this post and edits to this post to provide links to information regarding the Supreme Court review of the federal law commonly referred to as ObamaCare.  The following links are a good place to start if you are interested in really understanding what is going on, what will be happening in the months to come, and how the Supreme Court decision will affect your life, your children, and our nation.

The following link will take you to a PDF file that gives an excellent, in depth look at the Constitutional issues surrounding ObamaCare.  It is 21 pages of explanation in normal language and 4 pages of legal citations.  If you really care about understanding what is going on, this is a good place to start.   http://blog.pacificlegal.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Obamacare-ebook-11-15-113.pdf

Additional links below are further discussions, beginning with an overview of the process in the Supreme Court.  Each article is relatively short, written in plain language without a bunch of legalese, and easy to understand.  Links to the newest articles are at the bottom.

The following is a quick review of the procedure for the Supreme Court decision. http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2012/what-to-look-for-in-the-obamacare-arguments/

The following is an argument why the entire Obama health care law should fall.  http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2012/supreme-court-must-strike-down-all-of-obamacare/

The following is an argument that the U.S. can’t afford Obama health care.  http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2012/obamacare-the-power-to-spend-must-have-limits/

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama health care will cost much, much more than initially estimated.  (Imagine that.)                                                             http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html?ugccmtnav=v1%2Fcomments%2Fcontext%2F1c3a509e-e885-3cbb-ae4b-11fc10973eaa%2Fcomments%3Fcount%3D20%26sortBy%3DmostReplied

The following is a review of the legal issue of “standing” (the the legal right to challenge a law).   http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2012/first-things-first-obamacare-and-standing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PLFLibertyBlogHealthCare+%28PLF+Liberty+Blog+%C2%BB+Health+Care%29

3-15 Update:  Here’s an explanation of some of the legal contortions that the Obama Administration will use to try and prevent the Court from throwing out the entire law.

http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2012/obamacare-and-the-anti-tax-injunction-act/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PLFLibertyBlogHealthCare+%28PLF+Liberty+Blog+%C2%BB+Health+Care%29

3-19 update:  One of the arguments made by the Obama administration is that the individual mandate is authorized by the federal power to tax.  The theory is that the penalties for failure to buy health insurance are a tax and therefore, constitutional.   This is a difficult proposition to assert because at several stages of the legislative history proponents of the law (including Barack Obama) specifically stated that it contained no new taxes.  See the following article for more info:  http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2012/is-obamacares-individual-mandate-an-exercise-of-the-taxing-power/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PLFLibertyBlogHealthCare+%28PLF+Liberty+Blog+%C2%BB+Health+Care%29

Here’s some discussion about the economics of the individual mandate.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577285991632128670.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

If the Supreme Court decides that the federal government does not have the power to demand that citizens purchase a product or service deemed necessary or appropriate by the government, it is possible the Court will strike down the entire law.  The following is a discussion of this issue of ‘severability”.  http://blog.pacificlegal.org/category/health-care/?utm_source=Sentry+-+3%2F21%2F12+Healthcare&utm_campaign=3-21-12+Healthcare+SENTRY&utm_medium=email

If you like videos this one is instructive.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQSKZUQgKg&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=Sentry+-+3%252F21%252F12+Healthcare&utm_campaign=3-21-12+Healthcare+SENTRY&utm_medium=email

Another look at the Obamacare issues.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291883293776326.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Posted in economy, politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment