SilverVigilante.com | The investigation lasted six-months. The first of its kind, it held public hearings with former Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Tokyo Electric Power Co’s ex-president .
You are browsing the archive for disaster.
1:24 pm in AZ News, Congress, constitutional provisions, court opinions, diversionary tactics, fence, illegal immigrants, immigration enforcement, logic, logical assumption, oral arguments, sellout, silence, sori, supreme court, The Tea Party, Views by TPTsubmissions
Op-ed: And so we wait…
By: Diane Sori
This week should be quite interesting as ‘We the People’ sit and wait with baited breath for the Supreme Court’s ruling on the disaster known as ObamaCare, and also on Obama’s immigration enforcement policy.
It’s logical for us to assume that those on the Court must either endorse Obama’s policies in full or strike them down in full as unconstitutional. It’s a logical assumption on our part because at oral arguments both cases were presented under a specific banner based on Constitutional provisions, and the Constitution is quite clear in its meanings.
But notice I used the word ‘logical’ when it applies to ‘We the People’ and NOT when talking about those who rule in Washington. It seems that most times logic flies right out the window with anyone who must decide anything that goes against the wishes of Barack Hussein Obama.
So even though ‘We the People’ want a cut and dry ruling AGAINST both ObamaCare and his immigration enforcement policy, there is another possibility that many on our side have overlooked, and that is that the justices could very well try to straddle both sides of the fence. This would allow some parts of both policies to stand while throwing out other parts, thus allowing both sides to claim victory.
And that would be the ultimate sellout of the American people.
While the Supreme Court truly values and demands silence from all concerning upcoming court opinions and rulings, some word has leaked out (or could this be just another of the famous DC diversionary tactics) that the Justices might very well strike down ObamaCare in its entirety, and also rule that Arizona (and other states) can indeed arrest and jail ILLEGAL immigrants. Now that would be the right thing to do but again, do those in Washington always do what’s right. Again, the answer must be NO they don’t.
In simple terms, the ObamaCare ruling boils down to one thing and one thing only…can Congress, under its power to regulate commerce, require citizen’s to buy health insurance. Personally, I don’t believe they can.
Before the Court, Team Obama argued that in reality the mandate was NOT commerce but was actually just a tax law and as such was indeed backed up by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the Taxing and Spending Clause, “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes…to provide for the common defense and general welfare.”), and as such must be ruled Constitutional.
But does the federal government really have the power to mandate (force) people to buy something they don’t want. Again, I don’t believe they do but then I’m not a lawyer, just someone who’s using common sense and common sense tells me that by forcing this mandate on us what Obama’s really doing is raising taxes, something he and his legal team have claimed over and over that this bill does not and will not do.
Yeah, like we can ever trust Barack Hussein Obama to tell ‘We the People’ the truth about anything.
But what happens if the Justices do just strike down the mandate and leave the rest of ObamaCare in place, where does that leave us. I’ll tell you where it leaves us, it leaves us in the toilet is where as Obama will gloat that his changes to healthcare, albeit without the mandate, still will allow the expansion of Medicaid for the so-called poor (can you say ILLEGALS), thus allowing him to say he’s providing better medical care for millions of Americans. Yeah, even more care for his ILLEGAL hanger-ons is what this will do as the rest of us are forced to pay for it.
And horror of horrors, if the Justices vacillate and only strike down the mandate, the so-called ‘death panels’ and rationed medicine would stay in place. This alone should convince the Justices that straddling the fence is NOT an option.
Now as to Arizona’s immigration stance, at question is when the police stop someone can they legally check the immigration status of those stopped, and can they then detain someone found to be ILLEGAL or does that power rest solely with the federal government. Here again the justices could very well water down their decision on the basis that state law conflicts with federal law in the fact that states still have the power to decide whether to hold or release someone who breaks their individual state laws.
Decisions, decisions…I wonder which way they’ll go. Will the Supreme Court Justices side with ‘We the People’ and the Constitution or out of fear of the race card being used against them, will they cater to the man who is determined to lead our country down the path to socialism…or worse.
It should be an interesting week for sure.
Source: The Patriot Factor.blogspot.com
History records that we Americans are exceptional — a nation of out-of-the-box thinkers who are can-do in spirit, superior in ability and indefatigable in defense of our “don’t tread on me” liberties. But despite our strengths, here we are in the winter of 2011, in the suffocating grip of a failed federal government that has pushed us to the brink of financial disaster. Unless the planned rescue attempt by the new Republican
See the original post here: A Manual For New-Style Republicans
Ok. I’ve been acting like a political coward, and need to fix that. Here is my feeble attempt.
I am a Conservative with definite Libertarian leanings. If the Tea Party were a political party it would be closest to my views. Mostly because the Tea Party philosophy emphasizes liberty first, well ahead of government intrusion.
Most of what I hear on the news is Obama’s failure to deal with the oil disaster (granted I am partial to Fox). I disagree.
On the one hand conservatives bark about government intrusion. It appears that the talking heads prefer government intrusion into BP business over liberty. I don’t. Whether it is Mitt Romney pontificating, or Bobby Jindal taking charge I find it offensive that they demand the president to something, Anything, to show leadership.
In other words the conservative aspirants to the White House are prepared to temporarilly give Obama any authority to do “something”. Sorry, but I want neither of them, the pretend conservative or the lying liberal expanding their power into private matters (I will address that in a moment). The price of oil is never sufficient lower the value of liberty.
Now, as to BP. Yep, sure as the sun rises every day they are probably substantially to blame for the disaster. They ought to pay. But not at the hands of a president’s discretion, rather at the hands of an honest court. I believe that within this whole mess there is a partially hidden cause that the politicians evade like they avoid accountability for decisions they make. That cause is years of government intrusion into private business for the purpose of protecting the environment. Those regulations make virtually every business venture more expensive and far more complicated.
In those complications tremendous risk of flaws are introduced. Many of the flaws we see in automobiles are associated with those elements required by some government officials pandering to a special interest group, not America as a whole.
BP is not the sole culprit. Our own government interlopers share some degree of blame, maybe a major share.
Should BP pay a price for the damage caused? Yes, without any hesitation. But it should be determined through an honest and just court. Now the court we have today! Both BP and the presumed victims should be entitled to a speedy trial under the Constitution. The current system is not just, because IT drags proceeding on for endless months and years. Everyone suffers.
Rather than seeking out ways to give Obama and his comrades more power we ought to be focused upon fundamental changes to our Legislative, Executive and Judicial practices. Fortunately we have a wonderful example that was in place for a few decades after 1787, until corrupt men began molding it to meet their deception rather than embracing it in order to circumvent all deceptions.
My perspective is that we still have candidates that swear with crooked tongues. They swear at other and swear they are better.
We will know they are better when they speak of principles and demonstrate them. The ability to judge is actually quite easy.
That’s the Way I See It.
Originally posted here: BP Obama