Bill O’Reilly

Health-Care Mandated Penalties via Commerce Clause Unconstitutional (Classic Ann Coulter Commentary)

Published by Papa Giorgio

“Obviously, I find the two that hold it unconstitutional more compelling, but I mean for logical reasons, Which is to say the interstate commerce clause – there’s no point in having even any limits on Congress’ authority if they can force citizens, all citizens to buy a product,…. By the way, if this is constitutional, then Republicans should turn around and mandate all citizens be forced to purchase a gun and a Bible. And, there’s a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to own health insurance. But, if that’s what Congress has the right to do, we can have all kinds of mandates. The interstate commerce clause says Congress can regulate either something that affects interstate commerce or the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. I think the judge, Judge Vinson makes a good case as apparently the plaintiffs did that simply not buying insurance is not an activity.” ~ Classic Coulter! (video at bottom)


Scared Monkeys has this:

OBAMACARE DELT CRUSHING BLOW….

As speculated earlier today, a second judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that President Barack Hussein Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional. To add insult to “health care” injury, the federal judge used Obama’s past words against him.

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.Hey Barack, words do have consequences don’t they and you do not get to have it both ways. Actually, as stated by Weasel Zippers, some one just got their butt handed to them. During the Democrat primary, Hillary Clinton’s insurance plan required that purchase insurance, Obama’s did not. Since the passage of Obamacare, the president has been singing a different tune and defending the government forcing Americans to purchase a product and claiming regulation authority for inactivity. However,

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

However, Judge Vinson did not just strike down the federal mandate, he struck down the entire health care law, Obama’s crown jewel, as unconstitutional.  Judge Vinson concluded that the federal mandate insurance requirement was so “inextricably bound”to other provisions of Obamacare that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law. OUCH! What is the LEFT to do, as they are all whine and no legal argument?

But unlike a Virginia judge in December, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that the insurance requirement was so “inextricably bound” to other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that its unconstitutionality required the invalidation of the entire law.

“The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker,” Judge Vinson wrote.

(“Like” Scared Monkeys on Face Book.) Here is the ruling that Scared Monkeys linked to:

Vinson Ruling

This ruling may be used almost as is to go to the Supreme Court. It is also a study in original intent as it references many cases from and including the debate on this clause in the Federalist Papers. As such, Constitutional law professors are scrambling to incorporate this in some manner into their class routines. Greta Van Susteren interviewed new Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and made the point that this should go straight to the Court in about 60-days, max. Great great point!

What should be of note is that the Judge used Obama’s own words against his own health-care plan. The Washington Times notes in their story, “Judge rules against health law, cites Obama’s words,” this:

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli. (emphasis added)

…(read more)…

Great Stuff!!

Death Threats Towards Palin at Unprecedented Levels-Left To Blame for Mood of Nation?

Published by Papa Giorgio



HotAir is reporting an aid saying that the death threats to Palin have increased dramatically:

An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.

Since the shooting in Tucson, Palin has taken much heat for her “crosshairs” map that targeted 20 congressional Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was the main target of Saturday’s attack.

Friends say Palin, a possible 2012 contender, was galled as suggestions of her role in the tragedy have swirled.

Is the Left responsible for this spike in hatred? What is — God forbid — Sarah Palin is hurt? Do the pundits, personalities, etc., have any responsibility for this — using their own thinking displayed with connecting Palin to this tragedy? Here is a conversation from FB I had on this topic. I posted the following statement with a link to a post I had:

If the Arizona shooter was influenced by national hatred, which rhetorical side do you think he was influenced by: [quote from story] As we all know, the Tea Party movement is teeming with Bush-hating, 9/11 truther, antiwar, Christian-hating, “Left-wing pothead” zealots

RPT Jared Loughner Opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan~Of Course (LR & Townhall.com h/t)

Here is the first comment I agreed with, so here is the second comment and this kicks off the discussion in earnest. (Keep in mind all people that comment mean no malice and are friends, albeit from the other side of the political — and religious — spectrum) Misspellings included:

sorry, but liberals don’t affiliate themselves with supremacist orginizations like American Reniassance as Jared did – all the “news” agencies that “report” Jared a leftist are extreme conservative sites, while the actual newsworthy sites (AP, even Fox) paint him as unstable with ties to a racist orginization. Being back in college for Biotech we are constantly reminded to vet internet info …But I agree with Reagan, time to STOP blaming society and blame the individual. You gotta admit, when an extremist Right winger goes off the deep end, bombs and guns are involved Federal Agents are killed, Abortion Dr’s are perforated, Federal Buildings blown up, offices and people attacked- when a liberal goes off the deep end, they move to the forest and build a teepee to live in.

Me:

Yes, he was crazy, bottom line. But if he was influenced by something, it was by people who

a) hated Bush

b) 9/11 truther

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

c) antiwar

d) hated Christians

e) was an atheist

f) Left-wing pothead

[added later]

g) fixated with Giffords 3-years ago ~ before Obama, Health-Care, and the like

h) didn’t listen to radio

i) didn’t watch TV

His affiliation with American Reniassance was a “Like” on FaceBook. If I, for instance, went on a killing spree the press would have a field day with all the orgs I “liked” on my FB. Unfortunately, most of the vitriol is on the left:https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2011/01/tony-blankley-schools-ed-schultz-and-bill-press/

Michael Moore hates the following as his movies record:

  • Anti-health care system= Sicko
  • Anti-Capitalism= Capitalism, a Love Story
  • IRS cronyism with businesses= Capitalism, a Love Story
  • Anti-Bush= Fahrenheit 9/11
  • Blames Big Corporations for job issues= The Big One

The IRS plane guy believed this;

  • Hates George W. Bush and his “cronies”
  • Hates Big Pharma
  • Hates Big Insurance
  • Hates GM executives
  • Hates organized religion
  • Refers favorably to communism
  • And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.

I have more bios here:http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/search/label/Crazed%20Gunmen%20Bios

Also see Democrat call Bush a Nazi: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/democrat-calls-bush-hitler-says-behind.html

The commentator that I first agreed with hops in:

you are ridiculous… and stubborn….and obviously care more about pointing fingers and making yourself feel better, than actually taking a step back and looking at what political rhetoric in this country is coming to. in stead of spurring healthy debate, politicos (on both sides) obsession with the mass media outlets, and their attempts to cater to every fringe constituent they can, has created a media monster that has more to do with “I know you are but what am I” and less to do with developing policies and legislature that reflect the peoples’ best interests…. good thing you cant own guns or I else I would be waiting for the day you finally cant take anymore from your leftist friends and the liberal media and make a list and start picking off libs…..don’t get any ideas.

My response:

My point is that the only people making rhetorical attacks — to which my blog (for those not aware of it: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/) is responding to — are from the left. Please, tell me whom on the right that are equal to Senators and MSNBC pundits are making rhetorical claims about Sarah Palin being behind this (via crosshairs) or calling Tea Partiers Nazi’s and fomenting the national mood that makes someone shoot people. YES HE WAS A NUT… but if Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Andrea Mitchell, Sheriff Dupnik, Ed Schultz, E. Steven Collins, Michael Smerconish, Woopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Mark Shields, Bill Maher, Matt Bai, Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva, Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell, Democrat Rep. James Clyburn, Democrat Sen. Bob Kerrey, ETC, ETC

Of course I cannot forget Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (who caucuses with the Democrats) fund raising letter just a couple of days after the shooting:

Given the recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country. I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at www.bernie.org. There is no question but that the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me. Your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated. What should be understood is that the violence, and threats of violence against Democrats in Arizona, was not limited to Gabrielle Giffords. Raul Grijalva, an old friend of mine and one of the most progressive members in the House, was forced to close his district office this summer when someone shot a bullet through his office window. Another Democratic elected official in Arizona, recently defeated Congressman Harry Mitchell, suspended town meetings in his district because of the threatening phone calls that he received (Mitchell was also in the cross-hairs on the Palin map). And Judge John Roll, who was shot to death at the Giffords event, had received numerous threatening calls and death threats in 2009.In light of all of this violence – both actual and threatened – is Arizona a state in which people who are not Republicans are able to participate freely and fully in the democratic process? Have right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions?

Remember this by all the same people and then some?

….On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going “to do good work for God.” There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

“The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

“We cannot jump to conclusions,” said CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. “We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever.”

“I’m on Pentagon chat room,” said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. “Right now, there’s messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam.”

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, “I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president’s remarks.

“We can’t jump to conclusions,” Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a “transparent” investigation into the shootings “so the American people don’t jump to conclusions.” And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN’s John Roberts was quick to intervene. “Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions,” Roberts said to Hoekstra. “By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte#ixzz1AmqNr4AC

My point is that most of the rhetoric I have seen (and still is coming from the Left) are from liberal pundits. And this card often used by them:

The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as “racist.” And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill “xenophobic.”

Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

One-word put-downs of opponents’ ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual — their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors — liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.

This is easy to demonstrate.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

  • Racist
  • Sexist
  • Homophobic
  • Islamophobic
  • Imperialist
  • Bigoted
  • Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

  • Peace
  • Fairness
  • Tolerance
  • The poor
  • The disenfranchised
  • The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

This psychological hatred from the Left towards Bush and now Sarah Palin is what is making the mood of the nation bitter. And it may have bad consequences that I am sure the Left will accept as warranted — ate least some.

Megyn Kelly vs Dana Milbank’s column-Bill O’Reilly

Published by Papa Giorgio

Add to my previous post (FoxNews Election Coverage more fair [and watched] than MSNBC and CNN) the Baltimore Sun:

The Baltimore Sun’s media critic is still fuming about MSNBC’s pathetic coverage on election night.

In his piece published Saturday, David Zurawik called the cable news network a “liberal prep school” while claiming the behavior of folks like Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Keith Olbermann was “so egregious” that the “entire realm of TV journalism was diminished in the public mind”

…(News Busters)…

Tearing Down That Which No One Believes-The Left and the Ground Zero Mosque

Published by Papa Giorgio

This line of defense for a building that was hit with debris and body parts is telling. The Left sets up non-sequiturs and straw-men and tears them down. Not to mention their seemingly un-liberal or feminist ways. NewsBusters h/t:

Charles Kruthammer and some Islamic columnists as well as Dennis Prager show this idea of hallowed ground in action Here are Muslim’s Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah:

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

Krauthammer:

That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign…

…Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero….

Prager:

However, even after these erudite ideas founded in common sense, logic, and history, you still have people responding like the video att he top and this response to me from a FaceBook friend:

The “hallowed ground” of which you speak is home to a strip club and an OTB…sounds like you’re full of…non-sequiturs.

http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

At this sites link you can see these pictures (and more):

I responded in two separate posts thusly:

Those were in place before 9/11, plus, 19 strippers didn’t fly planes into the Towers. (Non-sequitur: you proved my point, guys carrying Qur’ans not whips and chains or cherry flavored undies attacked us.) 3,000 people were killed by people doing it in the name of Islam. In fact, part of the reason they attacked was because of these gentlemen clubs, so I would rather have more of those and less of mosques to foment radical religion. So there should be — like other places where tragic events happen — a buffer zone for sensibilities. That building (besides being funded by “funny money” and being headed up by an Imam that said we were partly responsible for 9/11. There are other places for him to build a Mosque and for conservatives to bury Dems by their support of him as more quotes and radical positions come out. But a building where parts of human remains and pieces of jet were found, is unsupportable. Hell, even Howard Stern gets it. But I love it…. Dems are dying on this:

https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/08/good-news-in-the-bad-and-crazy/

and,

B[y] the way, two more moderate Muslim’s have come out against the Ground-Zero Mosque. I have posted a few of their comments here:

[I] recommend their entire article. You have a choice. Support moderate (reformational) Muslims like you did during the Iranian disputes, or support a more radical version thereof. NO ONE (not Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, or the like) has said Muslim’s do not have the right to practice there religion freely. To say any different is a red-herring. To say people are trying to restrict Constitutional rights is a non-sequitur. I suggest you and others here support these moderate Muslims. These are the voices of bridges and peace, not this mega-mosque Imam.

These pictures prove nothing in the face of such refined arguments. As I already said, 19 strippers didn’t perform these acts. The Hamburgler and Ronald McDonald didn’t plan these attacks in the name of burger wars. Nor did 19 drunk Irish-men kill 3,000 on 9/11. There are no connections with those pictures nor the argument at hand. There is no Constitutional premise under attack… whatsoever. You can see this play out between a Democrat and Bill O’Reilly (the entire exchange if you wish can be found HERE):

Clarity in thought should be the highest principle. As usual, it doesn’t come from across the fence (and as a fellow blogger aptly points out, a  few on our side as well).