Sunday, July 29, 2012

The "Worst President Ever"

Barack Hussein Obama takes the oath of office ...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Alan Caruba

You have to know how poorly Barack Hussein Obama has performed in office when the phrase the "worst President ever” has already become a cliché.

Obama’s first term is frequently compared to the devastation of Jimmy Carter’s first and only term. It left Carter a rejected, embittered man, frequently critical of those who succeeded him.

What did President Reagan do to create an economic boom in the wake of Carter’s sorry record?

Read the complete story here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Could This Guy Hold a Job in the Private Sector?

Barack Obama
(Photo credit: jamesomalley)

 28 Jul 2012, 12:37 PM PDT


The job of President of the United States is one that every occupant until Barack Obama has taken seriously. Every President prior to Barack Obama understood that the job entailed things like holding press conferences, meeting with members of Congress to compromise on budget issues, and learning the latest news about economic and international developments from the nation's best experts. 

These things matter, because the President of the United States must be intellectually prepared to make important decisions about the future of our country. But President Obama has focused on the celebrity aspects of his job and neglected doing much of anything that involved actual work. He's spent plenty of time on the golf course (more than 100 rounds in three and a half years), raising money (163 fundraisers and counting), giving campaign speeches, vacationing, and playing basketball.
Last month, ABC News spelled out the gory details of just how much time President Obama has spent raising money:
In the first 12 days of June, Obama has attended 21 fundraising events.  All told, he has now attended 163 re-election fundraisers for his campaign and the Democratic Party – almost double the number George W. Bush attended in his entire first term (86) and more than any other president in history.
But as for the real work of the job, President Obama has been a no-show.
Consider this evidence:
He’s spent no time whatsoever meeting with members of Congress on budget matters. In fact, in his administration, almost every statutorily required budget submission has been late.
In the last six months, he's not met once with his jobs council.
Almost four years after the American people elected him to hold the office of President, a growing number of Americans are coming to a stark conclusion. Barack Obama is not serious enough about the job to be worthy of it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

A Couple of Quick Reads

Barack Obama
(Photo credit: jamesomalley)
Obama’s Sense of ‘Fairness’ is Unfair to Minorities

It’s understandable that so many people in minority communities identify with President Obama. First African-American president. First person of color to become president. I took personal pride in another one of President Obama’s historic milestones: first mixed-race president. Around the time that Barack Obama was a half-black kid being raised by his single mom in Polynesia (Hawaii), I was a half-Polynesian kid being raised by my single mom in a black neighborhood. I identify with President Obama in many ways, and understand why he inspired so many people back in 2008.
But it’s no longer 2008. It’s 2012, and people are suffering. And as much as people may like President Obama, we have to be honest enough to admit that our communities are suffering because of his policies. How much more pain are we willing to inflict upon our communities just because we want to root for this president? We have to judge this president not by the color of his skin, but by the results of his policies.
President Obama’s policies have been devastating to minority communities and to the most vulnerable in our society. America is suffering through the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression: Unemployment has been stuck over 8 percent for almost three-and-a-half years under Obama, after averaging only 5.3 percent under President George W. Bush. Minority communities have been hit much harder: African-American unemployment is 14.4 percent, and black youth unemployment is an obscene 44.2 percent. Latino unemployment is 11 percent. I recited these figures recently to a gathering of Pacific Islanders in Nevada, which is being crushed by the highest unemployment rate and worst housing crisis in the country. They didn’t need to hear these numbers to know that their community is hurting. If you had tried to tell these folks, three-and-a-half years into the Obama presidency, that their ongoing misery was President Bush’s fault, they would rightly have considered that to be an insult to their intelligence.
Unable to defend his own record, the president has launched an avalanche of attack ads that even the liberal Washington Post has decried as dishonest. With even many of President Obama’s strongest supporters praising the high ethics and excellent track record of Bain Capital, the bottom line is this: If you have a problem with Bain, you have a problem with private equity; if you have a problem with private equity, you have a problem with capitalism; if you have a problem with capitalism, you have no clue what it takes to create jobs and help poor people escape poverty.
READ THE FULL STORY HERE.

Businessmen vs. Bureaucrats
There are generally just two ways people deal with each other: with reason or with force.

Reason is the businessperson's approach. Regardless if he is a trader, a CEO or lemonade-stand operator, the capitalist understands that if he wants something from you, he's got to offer you a value in return. He can't force you to buy his real estate, "green" energy, or failing auto company, he can only try and convince you though discussion and trade that it's in your own self interest. The choice is always yours.

That basic fundamental negates the cliched and commonplace assertion, popularized even by our own elected officials, that trade is destructive and that profit-seeking businessmen are evil. In reality, just the opposite is true: Regardless if it's for a share of stock, an education or a sandwich, voluntary trade is productive as both parties' needs are satisfied. After all, that's why they're trading.

Force is not the tool of businessmen, but of bureaucrats. Whereas a businessman must appeal to your mind, government bureaucrats effectively put a gun to your head. They force you to you pay for banks, insurance companies, and deadbeat homeowners. They also force businesses to sell certain types of products, offer certain types of wages and operate in a certain fashion.

If a hooded thug stole your savings or tied your arms behind your back, we'd call it a crime. It's still a crime even though it's a suit-wearing bureaucrat doing the stealing.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Did the State Make You Great?

Image representing iPad as depicted in CrunchBase
Image via CrunchBase
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | The Washington Post


"If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
— Barack Obama, Roanoke, Va., July 13
And who might that somebody else be? Government, says President Barack Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It "created the Internet." It represents the embodiment of "we're in this together" social solidarity that, in Obama's view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.
To say all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.
Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.
Absurd. We don't credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein's manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he conceived and built the Mac and the iPad.
Obama's infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What's variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.
But the ultimate Obama fallacy is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives. More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers.
The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It's about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It's about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It's about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.
What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia's world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It's a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all-giving government of bottomless pockets and "Queen for a Day" magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she's on her own is at her gravesite.
Julia's world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She's married to the provider state.
Or to put it slightly differently, the "Life of Julia" represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.
Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.
Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.


Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/column/guest/article_be259242-d511-11e1-b6ef-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz21Zc7GoCL

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 21, 2012

The Rich are Not Getting Richer

Tax
 (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012)

The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us.

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false.

Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period.

Read the full story here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Obama's Rhetoric

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 5: U.S. President Ba...
(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Barack Obama's great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound.

His latest verbal triumph was to say on July 13th, "if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own." As an example, "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Let's stop and think, even though the whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

Even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that 90 percent of what a successful person has achieved was due to the government, what follows from that? That politicians will make better decisions than individual citizens, that politicians will spend the wealth of the country better than those who created it? That doesn't follow logically — and certainly not empirically.

Does anyone doubt that most people owe a lot to the parents who raised them? But what follows from that? That they should never become adults who make their own decisions?

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists — which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent — Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."

Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.

All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should "give back" to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people.

Take Obama's example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to "give back"?

Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?

What about the workers that businesses hire, whose education is usually created in government-financed schools? The government doesn't have any wealth of its own, except what it takes from taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. They have already paid for that education. It is not a gift that they have to "give back" by letting politicians take more of their money and freedom.

When businesses hire highly educated people, such as chemists or engineers, competition in the labor market forces them to pay higher salaries for people with longer years of valuable education. That education is not a government gift to the employers. It is paid for while it is being created in schools and universities, and it is paid for in higher salaries when highly educated people are hired.

One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience's attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about "giving back" distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom.

Even the envy that politicians stir up against "the rich" is highly focussed on those particular high income-earners whose decisions the politicians want to take over. Others in sports or entertainment can make far more money than the highest paid corporate executive, but there is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Roger Federer or Oprah Winfrey, so highly paid sports stars or entertainers are never accused of "greed."

If we are so easily distracted by self-serving political rhetoric, we are not only going to see our money, but our freedom, increasingly taken away from us by slick-talking politicians, including our current slick-talker-in-chief in the White House.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

20 Reasons Why It's Great to Be Barack Obama




1) It's all the golf you can play and as many free vacations as you want. The teleprompter tells you what to say to the crowd and if anybody makes a joke about you, someone calls him a racist!
2) You get a Nobel Peace Prize just for showing up.
3) No matter how much worse black Americans do under you than George W. Bush, Kanye West is never going to say, "Barack Obama doesn't care about black people."
4) You can eat a dog and PETA will still love you.
5) No one seems to find it odd that you simultaneously repeat Harry Truman's famous line, "The buck stops here" -- as you blame George Bush, Republicans in Congress, greedy corporations, the European economy, and even ATM machines for your many, many failures.
6) The Occupy Movement still loves you despite the fact that you've shoveled billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street firms via bailouts and loan programs.
7) You can have a net worth of 11 million dollars, go on multiple 6 figure vacations per year, and hobnob with the wealthiest Americans at swanky 40k a plate fundraisers; yet no one bats an eye when you criticize Mitt Romney for being rich.
8) The press doesn't incessantly repeat the body count in Afghanistan in every article about the war, like it did when George Bush was in Iraq.
9) You get to keep Gitmo open, sign on to the Patriot Act, fight in Afghanistan and kill terrorists with drone attacks while leftists complain that you haven't tried to go after Bush for committing "war crimes" because he did the same things.
10) The mainstream press judges you not on what you've done, but on whatever you happen to be saying right this moment, even if it's different from what you were saying yesterday.
11) After creating jobs overseas with stimulus money, you can criticize Mitt Romney for having a Swiss bank account without being laughed at despite the fact you're holding fundraisers in Switzerland, Sweden, Paris and China.
12) The same press that was utterly uninterested in your background when you ran for office in 2008 considers Mitt Romney's religion, what date he left Bain Capital, and how hard his wife worked when she was taking care of their kids much more important than anything you did over the last 3 1/2 years as President.
13) You can simultaneously block the keystone pipeline and ANWR while you hold up offshore drilling in the Gulf and demonize oil companies, yet claim with a straight face that you're trying to reduce gas prices.
14) Despite the fact that you're conducting war across the globe and have never served in the military, nobody calls you a chickenhawk.
15) Even though your administration helped kill 300 people with guns, including an American citizen, gun control advocates have zero interest in getting to the bottom of it.
16) You have the single most important job on earth and yet, most people seem to be thrilled that you're spending more time campaigning for reelection than you do working.
17) The mainstream media is much more concerned with the possible racism or bad motives of anyone questioning you than it is with whether your policies actually work.
18) No matter how much of an utter failure you are, most black Americans feel compelled to pretend you're not a disaster because they're afraid everyone will judge them by how incompetent you turned out to be.
19) You have a National Debt Charge Card with a limit of "Infinity" and you're not scared to use it.
20) Your biggest accomplishments so far after killing Osama Bin Laden are ending the manned space program, having the longest string of over 8% unemployment of any President since WWII, putting more Americans for food stamps than any other President in history, killing the work requirements in welfare, giving up on stopping illegal aliens, adding more debt in three and a half years than Bush did in eight, and decimating America's health care system with the least popular entitlement program in history. Yet, you still have a chance to be reelected. It doesn't get any better than that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Obamalini


BENITO OBAMA OR OBAMALINI?
by JOSEPH FARAH

Liberals won’t like this column.

But they should read it.

Because they keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Maybe they’ll learn something.

Liberals and “progressives” loved Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator, who achieved power as a socialist and delivered on his promise in the form of fascism. His political maneuvering proved an inspiration to a younger German protégé by the name of Adolf Hitler – who allied with Mussolini in a bid to conquer all of Europe and much of the rest of the world.

Today, liberals hurl the “fascist” expletive around at people like me – freedom lovers, those who value individual freedom, personal responsibility and self-government.

But back in the 1930s, Mussolini was their darling. If you doubt me, take the time to read Jonah Goldberg’s seminal study of the subject, “Liberal Fascism.”

Liberals delude themselves into believing fascism is a “right-wing ideology.” It isn’t and it never was. Mussolini was a leftist. So was Hitler. They were both socialists.

The definition of fascism is quite simple: “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry and commerce.” It sometimes encourages racism.

Sound familiar?

It should.

We have a modern-day practitioner of fascism in Barack Obama.

We should really call him Benito Obama – or maybe just Obamalini.

Obama fits the bill:


  • He has appointed a record number of “czars” to implement his aggressive, top-down management style. “Czar” is the Russian form of the Caesar, which is where Mussolini got his inspiration for fascism – ancient Rome.
  • He has flouted the Constitution by assuming sweeping powers not only unassociated with the office of the presidency but strictly forbidden the occupant of the White House.
  • He has ruthlessly suppressed and demonized his opposition – defined by his administration as liberty lovers and Americans who take the Constitution literally.
  • And most of all he has regimented industry and commerce – wheeling and dealing in ways that extorts special favors by bestowing special favors in a way that would make Mussolini blush.
  • Mussolini was known reverentially by his supporters as il duce, which means dictator. Obama, too, is worshiped by many of his supporters – mostly members of the controlled corporate media, which understands the way to seek favor in a fascist society.


But the similarities hardly end there.

More and more, I am noticing some physical traits of Obama that remind me of Mussolini.

Have you noticed the posturing, the affectations, the attitudinizing?

Make no mistake about what we are seeing in America today. It is not liberalism, in the traditional sense, the Jeffersonian sense. It is a mean-spirited, vicious, hateful, vengeful and dangerous form of fascism in its infancy. It’s not even “left-wing communism,” which V.I. Lenin described as “an infantile disorder.”

What is developing in America today under the leadership of Obamalini is a bid for brute government force – a political system devoid of the checks and balances our founders so meticulously crafted to avoid tyranny and foster self-government.

If Obama wins re-election in 2012, there will be no stopping him or his fascist ideology – replete with its own form of anti-white racism.

It will be war. Obama and his minions will know no limits to their ambitions. They will have nothing to lose with four more years of power – and perhaps more given their contempt for the Constitution and the law. Their enemies will be persecuted – hunted down like dogs.

This is the way it always begins.

History is repeating itself.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 9, 2012

Liar, Liar

Barack Obama
(Photo credit: jamesomalley)
Never in my lifetime have I seen a President as purposefully deceitful as the current occupant of the White House. Sure Presidents have lied to the American people before but Obama shows a consistency that is unmatched. Peter Wehner over at The American Standard penned the following piece that sums it up as well as any I have read.


Promises, Promises


Barack Obama has an accountability problem. It’s not simply that during the 2008 campaign he made extravagant promises to heal the planet, slow the rise of the oceans, end political divisions in America, and usher in an era of hope and change. It’s that as a candidate and in the early days of his presidency, Obama and his top aides made a series of very specific promises on a range of issues.

As a candidate, Obama promised to create five million new energy jobs alone, claimed that by the end of his first term his health care plan would “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family,” and guaranteed that his financial rescue plan would help “stop foreclosures.” As president-elect, Obama informed us that he had asked two of his top economic advisers, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, to conduct a “rigorous analysis” of his economic recovery plan. The report that he released predicted unemployment would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus plan was passed. And in the first year of his presidency, Obama pledged to “cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office,” “lift two million Americans from poverty,” and “jolt our economy back to life.”


The problem for Obama is that his predictions were not only wrong; they were terribly wide of the mark. For example, since the president was sworn in, America has suffered a net decline of roughly half a million jobs. According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average annual premium for family health coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011—an increase of 9 percent, or $1,303, over the previous year. The 9 percent increase in family premiums between 2010 and 2011 followed an increase of 3 percent between 2009 and 2010. Under Obama, the number of foreclosures was the worst in history. In addition, last year was the worst sales year on record for housing, while home values are nearly 35 percent lower than they were five years ago.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has been above 8 percent for 41 consecutive months. The deficit was around $1.3 trillion the day Obama took office in the midst of the financial crisis; according to the Congressional Budget Office, in the current 2012 budget year, the deficit will be around $1.25 trillion. And a record 46 million Americans are now living in poverty.
In addition, during the Obama years we’ve experienced the weakest economic recovery on record. America’s credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. The standard of living for Americans fell more steeply than at any time since the government began recording it five decades ago. Income for American families has actually declined more following the economic recession than it did during the official recession itself.
Adding salt to his self-inflicted wounds, Obama, in the heady early days of his presidency, invited accountability. In February 2009, for example, the president told NBC’s Matt Lauer that if he didn’t have the economy fixed in three years, then “there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
Given that Obama’s key economic promises haven’t been kept, what possible excuse can the president offer? Easy. The president’s explanation goes something like this: By the time he took office, the economic situation was far worse than anyone, including Obama, imagined. The deficit was far larger than anyone predicted. The president therefore can’t be held accountable for his failed promises. He was operating on a false set of assumptions. The crisis was much deeper than he knew when he made those promises. “We didn’t know how bad it was,” is how Obama put it last year.
Here’s the problem: If you go back and examine the record, you’ll find that Obama was fully aware of the depth and severity of the recession. As a candidate, for example, he said we were facing “the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.” As president-elect, Obama said we faced “a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.”
Prior to being sworn in, Obama knew—in fact, he went out of his way to warn us—that we were shedding more than half a million jobs per month, the worst job loss in over three decades. That in 2008 we had lost more jobs than in any year since the Great Depression. That manufacturing had hit a 28-year low. That the stock market had fallen almost 40 percent in less than a year. That credit markets were nearly frozen. That businesses large and small couldn’t borrow the money they needed to meet payroll and create jobs. That home foreclosures were mounting. That credit card and auto loan delinquencies were rising. That the economy was “in a global crisis.” And that he was inheriting an “enormous budget deficit—you know, some estimates over a trillion dollars. That’s before we do anything.”
In other words, Barack Obama knew full well how bad things were when he promised he’d cut the deficit in half, when his economic team said that if his stimulus package passed, unemployment would not rise above 8 percent, and much of the rest.


What this means, then, is that Barack Obama’s only excuse for his failures is a myth and a mirage—a manufactured, after-the-fact effort to escape accountability for his own words, his own commitments, and his own failings. 


The “We Couldn’t Possibly Have Known How Bad It Was” narrative is an understandable one for Obama to resort to. But like so much of what the president says these days, it’s simply make-believe. The president has run out of excuses, which explains why for many Americans he’s just about run out of time.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 7, 2012

The Old Bait and Switch

Who Benefits from Obamacare? Democrats, Republ...
(Photo credit: watchingfrogsboil)
Don’t Blame SCOTUS,
It Was the Obama ‘Bait and Switch

Frank Salvato, Managing Editor, The New Media Journal


I have become increasingly depressed about the fact that “truth” has become subservient – if not non-existent – in our culture today, and especially in our political culture. The recent US Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare – or the Affordable Care Act, if you will – is a perfect example. While many on the Right, and people who I respect greatly, condemn the SCOTUS – and especially Chief Justice John Roberts – for their decision to uphold the individual mandate, not under the Commerce Clause but as a tax, they misdirect their ire. SCOTUS ruled constitutionally and honestly on the argument presented to them. The Right’s anger – the American people’s fury – should instead be directed at the Obama Administration and its Progressive minions for executing one of the most egregious “bait and switch” schemes ever perpetrated on the American people.

If you take a moment to think back to when Congress was debating Obamacare, you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a congressional Democrat or an Obama Administration mouthpiece that wasn’t adamant in their denial that the Affordable Care Act was a tax. President Obama himself is quoted on numerous occasions as saying, without reservation and with clarity, that under no circumstances and in now way, shape or form, was his signature agenda item a “tax.” And as we approached the vote on Obamacare in Congress, congressional Democrats, Obama Administration operatives, union activists and special interest groups flooded the media with specific declarations that stated clearly that the Affordable Care Act was not a tax. Bottom line, the American people were assured that this initiative was not a tax, “cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye.” Well, everyone who ever made this claim lied, and it didn’t take the SCOTUS ruling to prove it.

As soon as the Obama Administration’s lawyers took to the podium at the US Supreme Court to defend the Affordable Care Act against the myriad lawsuits brought against it, the Department of Justice lawyers immediately identified the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – as a tax in order to avoid the SCOTUS striking the entire law under the Commerce Clause, which SCOTUS did in their June 28, 2012 ruling.

The singular act of Justice Department lawyers presenting the Affordable Care Act as a tax before the US Supreme Court, while politicians and the Obama Administration continued to insist to the electorate that it was not, serves as proof positive that the Obama Administration recognized the legislation as a tax from its inception and chose to deceive the electorate in a very concerted and deliberate manner; to lie, to betray the public, in its lust to see this contentious, unpopular and ideologically driven legislation brought to law.

With regard to US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s ruling, it cannot be said that he did not serve the United States Constitution in his opinion:

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause...That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

It needs to be noted – and through eyes of honesty – that Roberts stressed on several occasions during the reading of his opinion that the decision does not speak to the “merits” of the law, saying:

“We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders.”

If we who embrace constructionist constitutional values are to live up to that moniker, we cannot chide Chief Justice Roberts for refusing to be activist. Would Chief Justice Roberts have struck Obamacare on the grounds that Congress did not have the authority to levy this tax, he most certainly would have been practicing judicial activism. Remember, the question posed to the SCOTUS defended “a tax” and Congress’s “power to tax.” Congress has that authority per the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

This is why it is intensely important to recognize the purposeful “bait and switch” scheme that the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats perpetrated on both the American people and the SCOTUS, doing so with the hope that Americans of all stripes – Conservative and Liberal – who disagree with socialized medical insurance, would place blame at the feet of the High Court. Truthfully, it is a grave error to place blame on the US Supreme Court. Truthfully, it is appropriate to punish and penalize congressional Democrats and President Obama himself for deceiving, for lying, to the American people in their pursuit of this indisputably ideological piece of legislation.

The debate over a national health insurance is just beginning. Congressional Republicans will move in days to come to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, with Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), saying:

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.”

Additionally, the issue of the Affordable Care Act is now equally as potent as the anemic economy where 2012 presidential politics is concerned and has, without doubt, served to re-invigorate the TEA Party Movement, which was born of this issue, exclusively.

To me, and many that I know and respect, the issue of “truth,” of “honesty,” has become a pinnacle issue, not only for this Presidential Election cycle, and not only as a general political issue, but as a societal crisis of epic proportions. For too long Americans have both rolled their collective eyes and chuckled at the many political spin doctors and operatives who contort the truth in order to paint their political champions in a favorable light. For far too long we have allowed many charged with the public trust to manipulate the truth and/or omit issue substance where that substance changes the meaning of a situation’s reality; or an issues reality. Because of this, we have arrived at a time where the President of the United States – along with his representatives – and members of Congress can purposefully and intentionally deceive the very electorate they are supposed to serve in an effort to fundamentally change the relationship between government and citizen to the benefit of the government.

In 2009, President Obama, in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, when asked if the ramifications of Obamacare presented in a tax increase, said:

“No. That’s not true, George. The...for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.”

And when Stephanopoulos responded, “But it may be fair, it may be good public policy,” President Obama looked him directly in the eye and said:

“No, but...but, George, you...you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”

Today, June 28, 2012, the Unite States Supreme Court essentially called President Obama and congressional Democrats on their disingenuous and deceitful rhetoric. If the SCOTUS ruling were to be summed up on a bumper-sticker it would read:

“They fed us lies, and our taxes rise.”

In the end, Mr. Obama was correct in his 2008 campaign rhetoric. Words do matter. Something tells me he is going to understand the raw power of that truth in November.


Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy and the threats of Islamic jihadism and Progressive neo-Marxism. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention.
Enhanced by Zemanta