Obama: Government 'made this country great' Yeah! Right!

What has made this country great in the past was the relative hands off approach of the government, not government policies. What has placed us on a downward curve are the onerous controls and regulations that government has placed on our "free economy", beginning in the FDR years and accelerating out of control under Obama. Out of control spending has caused our credit rating to be reduced and created talk around the world of replacing the US dollar as the world currency. Obama is out of touch with reality and must be replaced in November.

Excerpt: President Obama attacked Republicans for their desire to cut the government spending that "made this country great," while also faulting them for failing to "balance the budget."

Obama said that Republicans have "one message and that is, we're going to make sure that we cut people's taxes even more -- so that by every objective measure our deficit is worse and we will slash government investments that have made this country great," he argued, "not because it's going to balance the budget, but because it's driven by our ideological vision about how government should be. That's their agenda, pure and simple."

The president should avoid attacking budgets for failing to balance. Senate Democrats have refused to propose a budget of any kind in over 1,000 days. President Obama's budget included $3.6 trillion in new spending this year. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., proposed a plan to balance the budget in five years. The Republican Study Committee has also proposed a plan to balance the budget in five years.

"This president is completely irresponsible," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., told The Washington Examiner in a discussion of Obama's budgetary policies. "He's been in office three years. The problems that are facing us, that have us on the edge of the cliff -- he's avoided. It's a cowardly thing to do as a world leader not to address the big problems . . . I really think it's disgraceful."

Read The Examiner article here.

Limbaugh and Tea Party Remain on Top Despite Left Attacks

I firmly believe that the Tea Party is alive and well and will be a major force in the 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections. All of us know that our very freedom is at stake and Obama and the liberal/progressive Democrats must be defeated for our Constitution to survive.

Excerpt: Conservatism: The White House sicced its meanest attack dogs, Media Matters and MSNBC, on Rush Limbaugh. But they couldn't knock him off the air. Their advertising boycott has failed.

Even the Washington Post admits the conservative talk-show giant has survived a monthlong crusade to cow sponsors and stations into dropping Limbaugh over intemperate remarks he made about a coed fan of ObamaCare.

"Stations are standing by him," the Post reported, and "advertisers are trickling back to his program."

Turns out the ad losses were far fewer than liberal Media Matters claimed in a running tally on its website.

In fact, virtually all of Limbaugh's long-term sponsors stuck with the show, in spite of relentless brow-beating by both Media Matters and MSNBC, which also works closely with the White House.

In fact, there is evidence the left's campaign backfired, as Limbaugh's ratings soared and attracted new sponsors. His 20 million listeners stuck by him. Many are members of the Tea Party, fed up with Obama's government overreach. So, indirectly, Limbaugh's survival also reflects the strength of the Tea Party movement.

Read full Investors.com article here.

Country Rankings of Economic Freedom

The USA is ranked tenth in economic freedom and sinking, with Hong Kong and Singapore ahead of us. What surprised me is that France was slightly better than Saudi Arabia in the Moderately Free category.

See Heritage Foundation rankings here.

Subprime Mortgage Crisis Culprits

Gasoline Taxes by State

In addition to the state taxes, their is an 18.4 cents per gallon Federal tax and 24.4 cents on a gallon of diesel. Estimates of the profit that Exxon receives on a gallon ranges from 2 to 7 cents a gallon. Who is doing the gouging?

Merchants of Despair - The Obama Group

Bill Whittle tells it like it is in this video. Well worth watching.

View video here.

Mega Millions Update: Kan., Ill., Md. tickets share Mega Millions lottery jackpot

Hope you had better luck than we did.

Excerpt: Lottery ticket-holders in Kansas, Illinois and Maryland each selected the winning numbers and will split a $640 million jackpot that was believed to be the world's largest such prize, a lottery official said Saturday.

Mike Lang, spokesman for the Illinois Lottery, said his state's winning ticket was sold in the small town of Red Bud, near St. Louis. The winner used a quick pick to select the numbers, he said.
The Maryland Lottery announced earlier Saturday that it had sold a winning ticket at a retail store in Baltimore County.
A winning ticket also was purchased in northeast Kansas, according to the Kansas Lottery website. A spokeswoman didn't immediately return a message Saturday morning.

Read USA Today article here.

Mega Millions Numbers - $640 Million - Largest Jackpot Ever

Bought every combination. Cost me $176 million and heavy writer's cramp. Great return on investment. Yeah, don't I wish.

Excerpt: Across the country, Americans plunked down an estimated $1.5 billion on the longest of long shots: an infinitesimally small chance to win what could end up being the single biggest lottery payout the world has ever seen.

The numbers drawn Friday night in Atlanta were 2-4-23-38-46, Mega Ball 23. Lottery officials expected to release details about possible winners a couple of hours after the 11 p.m. Eastern drawing.

Forget about how the $640 million Mega Millions jackpot could change the life of the winner. It's a collective wager that could fund a presidential campaign several times over, make a dent in struggling state budgets or take away the gas worries and grocery bills for thousands of middle-class citizens.

Read AP article here.

Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest

Every time President Obama opens his mouth any more, he is trying to mislead, create racial and class warfare and distort the facts. How can anyone have faith in his so-called leadership?

Excerpt: Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.

The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!"

There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing.

Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon."

Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?

Read full WSJ article here.

Paul Ryan Reminds Debbie Wasserman-Schultz What She's Already Done to Medicare

House rejects Bowles-Simpson, Obama budgets

As with president Obama's prior attempt at budgeting, his 2013 budget received "0" votes, not even 1 vote from his own Democrat party. This shows the hypocrisy of the President in that he does not take the budgeting process seriously. This is most likely intentional in that he can rely on demagoguery by blasting Republicans when they object to new taxes and increased spending each time continuing resolution bills are voted on. Those bad old Republicans want to shut down the government again. Democrat Harry Reid has not allowed a vote on any budget bill since Obama's 2012 budget went down to defeat 97-0, again receiving no Democrat votes.

The reason for the lack of Republican support for the Bowles-Simpson plan was the inclusion of increased taxes with no action to tackle entitlements, something Obama and many Democrats oppose, but something that Ryan and the Republicans believe has to be addressed in order for out economy to survive.

Excerpt: The Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan went down to a crushing defeat in the House late Wednesday night in a vote that damages the one bipartisan proposal that just a few months ago had seemed like a possible solution to the country’s debt woes.

The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.

“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs.”

The debate came as the House worked its way through its fiscal year 2013 budget plan, which Mr. Ryan wrote.
The Bowles-Simpson plan was offered as an alternative on the chamber floor.

Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.

“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”

Read full Washington Times article here.

Obama goads Congress to end tax breaks for large oil companies

This is just a tax increase on the oil companies that will be passed along to the consumer. The smaller exploration companies will be hit the hardest and possibly be put out of business. Tax breaks to Obama's cronies in the wind, solar and renewables far outweigh those of the oil industry. And yes, the high profits are a result of humongous investments made by ordinary people, pension funds, IRA's, 401ks etc. Do you think those people fall for this crock that Obama is shoveling? Yes, his uneducated base will believe it. They would believe all his lies.

Excerpt: President Barack Obama on Thursday pressed Congress to repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies that are pulling down record profits, arguing that Americans hit with soaring gas prices should not also have to prop up firms that can easily "stand on their own."

The president's remarks came as the Senate, in a procedural vote, beat back a measure that would have rolled back the tax breaks. The bill fell shy of the 60 votes needed to advance, getting a 51-47 margin that saw Democrats join Republicans in opposition.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell mocked what he derisively referred to as the Democratic majority's "brilliant plan on how to deal with gas prices: raise taxes on energy companies, when gas is already hovering around $4 a gallon. Then block consideration of anything else—just to make sure gas prices don't go anywhere but up."

"Somehow they thought that doing this would set up some kind of a political win for them, which I never really understood," he added. "I mean, I can't imagine anybody giving them any high-fives for not lowering the price of gas. But anyway, that was the plan."

High gas prices pose a potentially serious election-year threat to Obama, threatening the fragile economic recovery and hitting Americans in the wallet. Experts blame the pain at the pump on soaring demand in fast-growing economies like China, India and Brazil, as well as instability and uncertainty in the Middle East. But public opinion polls show Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the issue.

The proposed repeal "would increase tax collections from the oil and natural gas industries and may have the effect of decreasing exploration, development and production, while increasing prices and increasing the nation's foreign oil dependence. These same proposals, from an alternate point of view, might be considered to be the elimination of tax preferences that have favored the oil and natural gas industries over other energy sources and made oil and gas products artificially inexpensive, with consumer costs held below the true cost of consumption, when the external costs associated with environmental costs and energy dependence, among other effects, are included," the CRS said.

Read YAHOO News article here.

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

You have to give credence to a news source like the LA Times ceding to the Conservative dream of the demise of a liberal policy triumph. Don't know that I believe it yet, but the signs are good.

Excerpt: The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

Read full LA Times article here.

Atheist Holy Day

Rev. Jack Preston
Basin-Hyattville United Methodist Churches

I know God is giggling!

A FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY

In Florida, an atheist created a case against Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood and objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays..."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counselor, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fool’s Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.

Court is adjourned..."

You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!

Obamacare - "Individual Mandate: Obama v. Obama"

EPA moves to cut power plant carbon emissions

Read my post in Examiner.com here.

Government proposes first carbon limits on power plants

World Electricity Generation by Fuel

The USA has 27% of the worlds proven coal reserves, a carbon fuel that currently provides 49% of the electricity here. The EPA did back down on their intended regulation of current coal fired plants and those that are to be built within the next 12 months. Senator Joe Manchin of WV sees this as a direct attack on a major resource of his state.

It appears that the EPA believes that the technology will be available in 10 years that will allow new coal plants to be built. This must make the people of WV very happy.

Excerpt: The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal would effectively stop the building of most new coal-fired plants in an industry that is moving rapidly to more natural gas. But the rules will not regulate existing power plants, the source of one third of U.S. emissions, and will not apply to any plants that start construction over the next 12 months.

The watering down of the proposal led some ardent environmentalists to criticize its loopholes, but a power company that has taken steps to cut emissions praised the rules.

While the proposal does not dictate which fuels a plant can burn, it requires any new coal plants to use costly technology to capture and store the emissions underground. Any new coal-fired plants would have to halve carbon dioxide emissions to match those of gas plants.

"We're putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can't leave to our kids and grandkids," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters in a teleconference.

Jackson could not say whether the standards, which will go through a public comment period, would be finalized before the November 6 election. If they are not, they could be more easily overturned if Obama lost.

Republicans say a slew of EPA clean air measures will drive up power costs but have had little success in trying to stop them in Congress. Industries have turned to the courts to slow down the EPA's program.

Some Democrats from energy-intensive states also complained. "The overreaching that EPA continues to do is going to create a tremendous burden and hardship on the families and people of America," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.

REGULATORY CERTAINTY

The EPA's overall clean-air efforts have divided the power industry between companies that have moved toward cleaner energy, such as Exelon and NextEra, and those that generate most of their power from coal, such as Southern Co and American Electric Power.

Ralph Izzo, the chairman and CEO of PSEG, a utility that has invested in cleaner burning energy, said the rules provide a logical framework to confront the emissions. The rules provide the industry with "much needed regulatory certainty," that is needed to help guide future multi-billion dollar investments in the U.S. power grid, he added.

Under the new standards, coal plants could add equipment to capture and bury underground for permanent storage their carbon emissions. The rules give utilities time to get those systems running, by requiring they average the emissions cuts over 30 years. Still, the coal-burning industry says that carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, is not yet commercially available.

Jackson said the EPA believes the technology will be ready soon. "Every model that we've seen shows that technology as it develops will become commercially available certainly within the next 10 years".

The National Mining Association said the rules can only hurt industry. "This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA's regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop

The portion of U.S. electricity fired by coal has slipped from about 50 percent to 45 percent in the last few years as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and other drilling techniques have allowed access to vast new U.S. natural gas supplies.

Read full Reuters report here.

Eating lots of chocolate helps people stay thin

Being a confirmed chocoholic, I just had to post this. Study after study appear to support these findings.

Excerpt: The study found that people who frequently ate chocolate had a lower body mass index (BMI) than people who didn't.

Is it time to ditch fat-free for fudge?

For the study, published in the March 26 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers examined more than 1,000 healthy men and women who were free of heart disease, diabetes and cholesterol problems. They were all enrolled in another study that measured the effects of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, but for this study researchers assigned them questionnaires that gauged how often participants chowed down on chocolate.

The researchers found that the participants - who were an average age of 57 - ate chocolate for an average of twice of week and exercised roughly 3.5 times per week. But the more frequent chocolate-eaters had smaller BMIs, a ratio of height and weight that's used to measure obesity.

What explains the effect? Even though chocolate can be loaded with calories, it's full of antioxidants and other ingredients that may promote weight loss, the researchers said.

"I was pretty happy with this news myself," study author Dr. Beatrice Golomb, associate professor of medicine at the University of California-San Diego, told USA Today. "Findings show the composition of calories, not just the number of them, matters for determining ultimate weight."

Does that mean all diet regimens should include a daily chocolate bar? The researchers say it's too soon to tell.

"Our findings - that more frequent chocolate intake is linked to lower BMI - are intriguing," the authors wrote. However, "It is not a siren call to go out and eat 20 pounds of chocolate a day," Golomb told HealthDay.

This isn't the first study to suggest a daily dose of chocolate can do the body good. Last summer, a study of more than 100,000 people found those who ate the most chocolate were 39 percent less likely to get heart disease and 29 percent less likely to have a stroke, HealthPop reported. Months later a 10-year study of 33,000 women found a 30 percent reduced risk of stroke among chocaholics.

Read full Health Pop article here.

President Obama - 'After My Election I Have More Flexibility'

After this, how can we believe anything he says? Come to think of it, he also said his father fought in WWII. Both his father and step father were in their early teens at the time. Anyway, you have to be very naive to believe anything this President says, except maybe something he says when he thinks the mike is off. Oops, my mistake, he also said energy prices must necessarily increase for his policies to work. Honesty reigns, and gasoline prices are now over $3.90 a gallon.

Excerpt: SEOUL, South Korea - At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him "space."

The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Read full ABC News article here.

View video here.

Trayvon Martin case

Read full Examiner.com article here.

Lawmaker warns of 'disagreeing with the government'

Those that voted for the law and Obama, who signed it, are guilty of ignoring their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution. We should be extremely concerned for our freedom and they should all be removed from office.

Excerpt: “It’s kind of a dangerous time for people in America who might wind up disagreeing with the government,” Missouri Rep. Paul Curtman said during a conference telephone call regarding organized opposition for the National Defense Authorization Act.

After serving in the Marines for 10 years, he said, he realizes that under the federal government’s definition of “potential terrorist,” he qualified by virtue of his status as a combat veteran and his conservative political views.

But it’s not just conservatives who are raising concerns about the legislation that includes provisions appearing to authorize the no-warrant detention of American citizens under certain conditions.

The law was signed by Barack Obama Dec. 31, 2011, and among its sections is 1021, “which purports to authorize the president of the United States to use the armed forces of the United States to detain American citizens who the president suspects are or have been substantial supports of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces, and to hold such citizens indefinitely,” according to an analysis of the federal law.

The Tenth Amendment Center said lawmakers in 11 states now are working on some form of limits on the federal government at this point. Ten local governments already have adopted resolutions.

Rhode Island Liberty Coalition director Blake Filippi represented the Tenth Amendment Center on the call. He spelled out the urgency involved.

“In the spirit of the heroic abolitionists in states like Wisconsin, Maine, and many others – today, we call upon states across the nation to pass the Liberty Preservation Act – to reject the so-called ‘indefinite detention’ powers of the NDAA,” he said.

“We hope to expand this effort … and blanket the entire country with a defense of liberty until ‘indefinite detention’ is thrown to the dustbin of history,” he said.


Read full article here.

Read "Election 2012: Why should we care?" here.

Obama? INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!

For what it's worth.

Excerpt: NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.

The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.

This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa

Read full article here.

Obama Assumes Dictatorial Powers by Dick Morris

Why should we trust Obama. He has already said that if Congress will not act, he will. That sounds like a dictators rhetoric to me. We have a reason to be concerned with Obama and the MSM that refuses to report on these atrocities buried in otherwise reasonable bills.

Excerpt: With two presidential signatures — one on New Year’s Day and the other issued last week — President Barack Obama has assumed the right to assert dictatorial powers over almost all aspects of the U.S. economy and to hold American citizens indefinitely without trial!

(This is not some “Space Aliens Invade” story. It is really happening).

On New Year’s Day, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act to fund the Pentagon. But smuggled into its language is an explicit authority “allowing him to indefinitely detain (U.S.) citizens,” according to Jonathan Turley writing in the U.K. Guardian newspaper.

While the story was buried in the American media, Turley notes that it is “one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties” in American history.

At first, Obama “insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops.” But Turley reports, “that spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., disclosed that it was the White House that insisted that there be no exception for (U.S.) citizens in the indefinite detention provision.” Turley is critical of “reporters (who) continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review.”

Perhaps even more terrifying is the executive order President Obama signed on Friday, March 16, giving him vast powers to control every aspect of the U.S. economy in the event of war or even during a peacetime “emergency.” Edwin Black, writing for the liberal-oriented Huffington Post, says that the order “may have quietly placed the United States on a war preparedness footing” possibly in anticipation of “an outbreak of war between Israel, the West, and Iran.”

The Order entitled “National Defense Resources Preparedness” gives the president the power “to take control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, and control and restrict all civil transportation,” according to Black. It also even allows a draft “in order to achieve both the military and non-military demands of the country.”

Obama’s order would be effective both during times of war and times of other emergencies. It says the purpose of the order is to assure that “the United States (has) an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.”

The far-reaching order authorizes the president “in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements.”

Read full article here.

‘Democrats, Socialists and Communists…We are all together’: Frances Piven

A change we can believe in - oust Obama.

Excerpt: According to Frances Fox Piven:

The Occupy Movement is made up of “All parts of the Left.”

That includes proudly: “Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists.”

Must all work together because of the “Huge task of transforming America and the world.”

“We are all together”

At last weekend’s Left Forum 2012, the annual pep-rally for liberal thought, renown leftist professor and activist Frances Fox Piven shown some light onto the makeup of the current America Left. In this minute of audio, Piven tells the packed auditorium which worldview philosophies embody their movement:

“There is room for all of us. Religious leftists, people who think peace is the answer, those who think that wholesome food is what we really need, ecologists and old-fashioned Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Socialists and Communists.”

Piven goes on to discuss the major undertaking that the leftist movement is working on and why these ideologies must unite:

“We can work together because we have a really huge task before us, transforming America and the World.”

See The Blaze article here.

The 10 Cases You Must Know To Understand The Obamacare Case

The more I read about the precedents that will be used to decide this case, the more I am convinced that Obamacare will be deemed Constitutional. I hope I am wrong. After reading about each of the cases that will be used as precedent, we can only hope that the five-member conservative majority will make their own determination of Constitutionality rather than relying on "stare decisis". Liberals do it all the time.

Excerpt: The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a nearly unprecedented three days of arguments beginning Monday on Dept. of Health and Human Services vs. Florida, better known as the Obamacare case. Conservatives hope the five-member conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, will strike down the healthcare act as unconstitutional, while supporters of the law hope swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy and possibly Roberts himself will join the liberals in upholding it.

Key to understanding the arguments for and against the law are a string of cases going back to the early years of this country, when memories of how the Constitution was written were still clear and the precise roles of Congress, the President and the judiciary were quite murky. The fundamental question is whether the Commerce Clause in Article I of the Constitution, which restricts Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” restricts Congress from passing a law requiring all citizens to buy health insurance.

Conservative justices, in particular, feel bound by the principal of stare decisis to honor the decisions of the judges who came before them. But when it comes to Obamacare those past decisions — particularly the ones upholding economic regulations from the New Deal era — will make it hard to invalidate a law that was fully deliberated by Congress and passed to regulate an interstate industry that accounts for 18% of the gross domestic product.

Sutton offered some hope to conservatives, saying it wasn’t the job of an appeals court to make the final statement on the limits of Congressional power. That job, he said, lies with the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court can decide that the legend of Wickard has outstripped the facts of Wickard—that a farmer’s production only of more than 200 bushels of wheat a year substantially affected interstate commerce. A court of appeals cannot. The Supreme Court can decide that Raich was a case only about the fungibility of marijuana, not a decision that makes broader and more extravagant assertions of legislative power more impervious to challenge. A court of appeals cannot.

And Obamacare foes can only hope a majority of Justices will take up Sutton’s invitation to revisit old decisions.

Read full Forbes with full discussion of the ten cases here.