Part I

By Gary P.

Let me just say this, the democrat/communist party is openly carrying out a coup d’état right in front of us. I have written on many occasions how many of the provisions of ObamaCare are nothing more than a complete and total usurpation of the Constitution that will forever destroy states’ rights, and severely restrict individual rights in this country.

ObamaCare is completely and totally unconstitutional. This is pointed out, yet again, in the Wall Street Journal op-ed co-written by Orrin Hatch, Ken Blackwell, and Kenneth Klukowski:

Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional

If the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, it can do anything.

President Obama’s health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may becoming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress’s powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.

Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the “general welfare.” Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.

A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states’ obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed “cash for cloture” because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.

A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

This hardly exhausts the list of constitutional problems with this legislation, which would take the federal government into uncharted political and legal territory. Analysts, scholars and litigators are just beginning to examine the issues we have raised and other issues that may well lead to future litigation.

America’s founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality.

*Mr. Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow with the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law. Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.

This piece hits on all cylinders. Never, in our nation’s 233 year history, has the federal government attempted to mandate that a United States citizen purchase a product or service, whether that product or service is welcomed by the citizen, or it is forced on them against their will.

And if you look at any poll out there, 70 to 80 percent of the citizenry do not want the current health care schemes that the most corrupt president in the nation’s history and the most corrupt Congress in history plan to forcibly impose on them.

Now I know, the democrat/communists use the excuse that states require that owners of automobiles are required to maintain liability insurance, under the penalty of law to justify this.

But this argument is fatally flawed in several ways, and shows a willful ignorance of how this nation is fundamentally structured.

The automobile insurance example they use is laughable on its face value. Driving an automobile is a privilege not a right. You must earn a license in order to drive.

Also, driving a car is a matter of choice. There are millions of Americans who live their entire lives having never driven a car. The insurance you are required to maintain as an owner of an automobile is not to protect you, but to protect others from you, should you have an accident.

You may chose to buy insurance to also take care of repairs or medical issues that effect you in an accident, and if you are financing a car, your bank will require this. But every step of way, all of this is based on the fact that you voluntarily chose to drive a car.

Congress intends to force you to buy health insurance simply because you are alive.

First and foremost, the United States is a Representative Republic, and as the very name of our nation implies, we are united STATES. The entire United States Constitution is centered around the fact that the founders, in their wisdom, planned America as a loose confederation of separate sovereign states that are joined together for mutual benefit. While you certainly find the mention of the duties of the federal, or central government, the Constitution places more effort in protecting the rights of the several states, as they are called. In fact, the 10th Amendment was written solely to protect both the American people, AND the several states from an overreaching central government:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment is so important to the concept of America it is the final right included in the Bill of Rights that were ratified by the several states in 1791.

To put it another way, the United States is 50 separate sovereign entities, independent from each other in most matters. This was a genius move by our founders, as it allows maximum local control by the people, the citizens who make up these states, and ultimately make up this great nation.

Now, for practical purposes, the states are united for a common cause, and with good reason. The founders saw the need to pool resources for things like national security. The also saw a need for uniform trade laws between the several states. It was quite common before the nation was founded, and even when the nation was in it’s infancy, to see trade wars between states. Obviously, a uniform system of trading, and a common currency, were of benefit to all parties involved.

Now over the years, especially since the “progressive era” that began with Teddy Roosevelt, and went into overdrive with FDR, we have seen many usurpations of states’ rights “for the greater good.” Now, not all federal law….law that binds all states, and all citizens to a uniform rule or regulation is bad. But each and every one of these laws erode precious rights of our citizenry and must be strongly considered before becoming law. We’ll go into just how much of this has hurt the nation and the negative impact it has on American citizens in future writings, but for now, let’s stay focused on what is going on right here.

The democrat/communist party does not agree with any of the concepts of our Constitution, or the path our founders laid out for us. A path, by the way, that has made America the nation with the most durable civilization, the most stable, mankind has ever known.

The democrat/communists have been openly saying for generations now that our Constitution is “obsolete” or, better yet, that it is a “living document.” I guess they think that sounds better when they ignore it, which is something they do daily, and have since FDR. Not that “progressive” Republicans haven’t done their fair share, as the trend really first took hold under the Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Many transgressions there.

The bottom line is this: The democrat/communists simply do not trust the citizenry to “do as they are told.” Americans, by their very nature, and birthright, are an independent people. We don’t need or want anyone to tell us what to do, or how to live our lives. We are a people that feel we should be able to do anything we wish, so long as it doesn’t harm someone else, and we feel that government should not only not be seen, but not be heard!

For the most part, other than providing for a strong national defense, and protecting us, we see little or no need for a federal government. At best, the federal government should be a referee of sorts in case of disputes between the several states, period.

Yes, I know that’s sort of idealized, but it is in line with the vision our founders had.

The rest of governing, of setting rules and regulations are to be left up to each of the several states, which in turn, should be weaker than the local, city governments, in most cases, only creating statewide rules for uniformity and fair practices, or setting minimum standards for things like education, law enforcement, and the like.

We also need state government, along with local government to plan and build major infrastructure, like roads, bridges, and water and sewer systems.

Again, the democrat/communists see government in an entirely different light. They see government as the end all, be all of civil society. All other nations of the world are set up the way the American democrat/communist wish to see America, though what the democrat/communists offer is a more harsh, more severe lifestyle that will rival that of the most brutal dictatorship, and will severely limit, or completely eliminate most of the basic natural rights, God given rights that all of mankind possess. (Though most governments take away)

You see, this is the real problem these evil people have. What most Americans do not realize, and that’s by design as they no longer teach this in government controlled schools, is this: Unlike any other governing document in the world, the United States Constitution assumes the people have unlimited rights, natural rights, rights given to them by their creator. Our Constitution is designed to protect those rights, and the people, from a tyrannical government.

To the democrat/communist, this is a serious impairment to their cause, to their goals. Barack Obama was the first though to just come out and say what all of these corrupt people have been thinking for decades.

Obama has called the Constitution a set of “negative rights” because it limits what the government can do to you and doesn’t say what it must do for you!

Of course, this is the point!

Obama, like pretty much every democrat/communist, especially the Ivy Leaguers, is educated well above the level of his actual intelligence. Like the old saying goes: “Just smart enough to be dangerous!”

BTW, this applies to the Ivy League “progressive” Republicans, as well.

In short, the Constitution seeks to limit government, not people. As a person, you are assumed to have no limits on your rights. Now obviously, to hold civil society together, there are any number of common sense laws that we all must abide by. Some are rules of conduct, like those that restrict driving to only those who have been granted permission, or set building standards. And of course we have laws against stealing, or murder, and so on.

But in the end, the Constitution is all about protecting the citizen from government, and limiting the federal government severely. This is what frustrates the “progressives”; the democrat/communists to no end.

Of course, they can’t just come out and say that they want to do away with the form of government that is the envy of the world! So, slowly but surely, for about 100 years, they have methodically, and deliberately, undermined the Constitution.

We are now at a tipping point in history though. The democrat/communists have become incredibly unpopular as America has finally awaken to the fact that these people are truly the enemy within, and we will see the next several election cycles completely and totally remove most, if not all of those currently in office. And they know it. In fact, many of the most evil, the most corrupt, are already announcing retirements. Dozens will no longer seek office.

As you will read, they are seeking ways to forever prevent this from happening though.

Of course, having the worst of the worst go away is a tactic as well, as they believe if they bail out, and move on to jobs promised to them by democrat/communist leadership, outside of government, the people will vote for whatever democrat/communist decides to run in their place.

Oh, one thing you must know, all of these “retirees” are leaving seats that have been safe and reliable democrat/communist strongholds, and all of them are losing in the polls to Conservatives. This is why they believe by tactically stepping down, they will once again fool the people with a little bait and switch. Somehow I don’t think that will work, but only time will tell.

All in all, the democrat/communist is an over educated, arrogant, elite, who think it knows best for everyone else. These people also have an insatiable lust for power and unlimited greed.

The American republican system of federal government simply does not allow them to exert the control over mankind they lust for. This almost maniacal, psychopathic desire to exert dominance and control over others “for their own good” is the hallmark of the “progressive” movement. And while it is not exclusive to the democrat/communists, there more than a few “progressive” Republicans, this disease is more dangerous when combined with the democrat/communist ideology.

But for all of this to work, America as we know it, must be destroyed, forever.

Continued in Part II

About the Author:

“Gary P. is editor and publisher of A Time For Choosing as well as a contributor to Red State, Digital Journal, The Sarah Palin Web Brigade, The Sarah Palin Information Blog, and other conservative sites. A Time For Choosing is a website based on solid Ronald Reagan/Sarah Palin conservatism. We give no apologies, and accept no substitutes.”

14 responses to “SHOCKING, DEVIOUS, AND EVIL Part I

  1. Who is your Governor?

    Who is your Secretary of State?

    Do these people answer your concerns? Do they send you canned letter responses? Or do they ignore you?

  2. Oooookay

    Beware of any organizatio with the word Common. Its not in your best interest. Common is getting to quite Common these days.

    Commonwealth has become an oxymoron in the 20th-21st Century.

  3. Harry Reid doesn’t plan to seat Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts if he wins the election. Brown has made it known he will vote against the Health Insurance Reform…as they are now calling it since it does nothing for healthcare. Hill buzz had the following message for the Democrats if they don’t seat him.

    “Hear us now Harry Reid.

    Mark our words Deval Patrick.

    Listen up William Galvin.

    Pay attention Martha Coakley.

    Tremble at the thought Nancy Pelosi.

    If you dare defy the will of the people of the state of Massachusetts and indeed, as threatened, block the seating of Senator Scott Brown should he win the special election on January 19th, in your suicidal and insane quest to ram your unconstitutional and bribe-riddled Healthcare Rationing bill through the United States Senate, WE THE PEOPLE in order to establish a more perfect union shall MARCH UPON WASHINGTON to setup an office for UNITED STATES SENATOR SCOTT BROWN on our own.

    On the steps of the Capitol if we have to.

    Where Senator Brown will become the 41st vote of reason against your madness, and throngs of Americans of all walks of life will travel to the capital to stand with him as we begin our quest to drive every last Liberal from Congress like the snakes from Ireland.

    Your schemes will not work.

    Your plot won’t go unchallenged.

    Your usurpation of the will of the people will not be tolerated.

    If you have any gods, pray to them now, because a reckoning is coming.

    We here at HillBuzz are moderate Democrats who want all of your heads on a platter at this point. We can only imagine what people who never liked you to begin with are feeling now that it’s been announced you wish to disregard the Massachusetts election and lock Senator Brown out before he’s even elected.

    If you think we’re a pain in your collective ass on the Internets…just wait ’till we come to Washington to scream at you in person.

    On the steps of the Capitol if we must…

    which will become Senator Brown’s Office in Exile if it needs to be.


    Awake, slumbering giant!


    • Yeah, and if Maaaathuh wins, we can expect her vote at 4:00 a.m. your time.

      Criminals. How long before indictment? One by one. They’re are so right when they amplify warnings of domestic terrorism. (The Enemy from Within is a fragment of your imagination, Racist.)

      The dog always knows its own hole is to :: The guilty speak first.

      Listen. Ear to the ground is to :: nose to the grindstone.

  4. The Next Dirty Dem Trick In The Scott Brown Race
    Jan 9, 2010 Snips

    Where to freakin’ start with the dirty tricks the Democrats use to win elections and keep their opponents from being seated in the congress? ACORN, Dem Secretaries of State, Harry Reid barring senators from being sat? You know something is happening inside a race when the Dems start talking about “taking a long time to certify an election”.

    History’s most notorious Georgian-turned-Russian, the politically astute Joseph Stalin once remarked, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

    Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform

    Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

    “Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

    Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

  5. Hey I am witcha B.

    We need to concentrate on our own backyards right now.

    We need to examine our own States’ hierarchy and who are the incumbents in our very own districts. We need to identify Nepotism as a #1 flaw — and discard IT at first opportunity.

    Cheers and Bravo to the source on SITE who brought to us “Paul” on We The People.
    — for bringing Home to the forefront:

    misrepresentation andthe chronology of the dismantling of our Homeland, Nation, Empire, Source of Goodwill Toward All Men.

    May we all live long enough to watch the hearings and trials on our Droids and Iphones.

    Gratitude to you on this endeavor. It takes a little kiss to say the word Paul.

  6. Hot from Citizen Wells !
    Scott Brown election certification delayed for Health Care Bill vote?, Nancy Pelosi swore in Bill Owens early, Niki Tsongas precedent, William Francis Galvin, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, State Ethics Committee, MA Election statutes
    January 10, 2010 · 105 Comments
    Scott Brown’s election certification will be delayed to allow temporary Senator Paul Kirk to vote for the Health Care Bill. Sound familiar? Nancy Pelosi did just the opposite in November 2009, to allow just elected Representative Bill Owens to vote for the House version of the Health Care Bill.

    Reported here yesterday, January 9, 2010.
    “From The Boston Herald, January 9, 2010.
    “Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform”
    “It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.
    The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.”
    MA Democrats will delay Scott Brown’s certification

    Nancy Pelosi chicanery from November 12, 2009

    “John Charlton of The Post & Email just brought a breaking story to our attention.

    “It looks increasingly that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her zeal to get the Health Care Federalization Bill passed, may have sworn in an unelected candidate for the NY-23 Congressional District, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and New York State laws.

    As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State of New York has not certified the election, in which Dough Hoffman and Bill Owens vied in a special election, nearly head to head, after Scozzafava retired in humiliation, having lost the support of conservatives in her district.”
    “It turns out that Pelosi’s swearing-in of Owens had the political effect of garnering the addition Republican vote, of Cao, in the vote for the Health Care Bill, which passed narrowly, 220-215. The election fraud therefore puts in doubt the legitimacy of that vote also.””
    Nancy Pelosi swears in Bill Owens before he is certified

    On November 19, 2009 we learn of election night irregularities and voting machine viruses

    “We already knew there were election night irregularities in the New York District 23 congressional race between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens and that Nancy Pelosi prematurely certified Owens as the winner. Now we find out that some of the voting machines had computer viruses.

    From The Gouverneur Times, November 19, 2009.

    “VIRUS in the VOTING MACHINES: Tainted Results in NY-23″””
    New York voting machines had viruses

    The Democrats have a history of using the voting process not as it was intended, to echo the will of the people, but to further their own agenda.

  7. Better read this one too ! 2 hot potatoes in a row !

  8. Setting this down here since it pertains to global warming, economy, etc. and now the Pope believes ….a “World Political Authority” is necessary in order to manage global economy. Hope this does not offend any Catholics here, as Friday stated, “Just stating the facts, maam.”

    Acting more like a politician than a religious leader, the pope complained about the failure at the Copenhagen conference to come up with a new treaty to punish Western nations, led by the United States, that have used fossil fuels for industrial development. Referring to “the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment,” he said, “This problem was evident even recently, during the XV Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December last. I trust that in the course of this year, first in Bonn and later in Mexico City, it will be possible to reach an agreement for effectively dealing with this question. The issue is all the more important in that the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.”

    The Pope, therefore, is going to use his influence to get a treaty written, passed, and imposed on the world.

    The Pope went on to embrace other aspects of the global “progressive” agenda, endorsing the holding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York in May, so that “concrete decisions will be made towards progressive disarmament, with a view to freeing our planet from nuclear arms.” This is Obama’s goal as well.

    Zero nuclear weapons sounds good in theory, but what does it mean, practically speaking, when the world is confronted by a fanatical regime in Iran determined to acquire them? All that the Pope said about this was, “Concerning Iran, I express my hope that through dialogue and cooperation joint solutions will be found on the national as well as the international level.” Not even President Obama treats the Iranian problem with such platitudes. Obama at least talks about sanctions against Iran.

    In reality, the Pope’s recipe for a nuclear-free world means appeasement of Iran, its acquisition of nuclear weapons, and a more dangerous world with more nuclear weapons.

    Read more:

  9. Guess they haven’t informed the Pope yet that we have all been duped. Someone should send him copies of the emails exposing the sham on the world. Does the Vatican invest in anything related to Global Warming? They are into real estate, but what else?

    You bet those other undeveloped countries want us to pay them…they need the money for their coffers…yet we are hated for being capitalists. How often do those countries thank the USA citizens for our generosity?

    • Bridgette, I believe that also applies to these other countries who are having “problems” with known terrorists in their land. Help us, help us!! And so it goes, the USA sends millions/billions of funds to assist their “police/security” and just like in DC, we have no idea where it is really distributed!!

  10. The following is a MUST READ opinion article by Dana Perino, a great lady whom I think needs to be in the next Administration (if we get the chance to have another conservative leader). Please read the rest of the article, as she explains how this plan would completely federalize the student loan process and do away with any private option!!!

    While Americans were becoming increasingly disenchanted with the health care reform proposals passed by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, another government takeover proposal was in the works. — This time the Democrats want the federal government to be in charge of student loans.

    After health care, families point to education as the most important part of a family savings plan. Some families are not able to afford the tuition and fees at many of our colleges and universities, and so they have to turn to lenders to help them out. These loans are seen as a good investment because by getting a higher education the student will improve his or her earning capacity that will allow them to pay off the loan when they land a good paying job after school. A wide range of options has existed for a long time to help families choose the right option for them, but those options are on the chopping block.

    Last fall, the Democrats passed legislation to create a “public option” for student loans and the next step in its passage is in the Senate. The only think that’s holding Democrats back from passing this legislation is the tricky business of trying to get the health care bill passed in time for the president to have a grand signing ceremony before his State of the Union address.

    If you thought the public option — as it was proposed for health care was bad, get a load of this: the student loan legislation does not just set up a government-run option for student lending, the bill makes the government the only option! It promises to bring complete federalization of the student loan process to a private marketplace. Iowa Democrat Sen. Tom Harkin’s plan for the bill is to jam this single-payer student loan system through an unpopular process known as “reconciliation,” all the while ignoring any of the bipartisan alternatives that have been presented. — A truly odd decision coming off a contentious health care fight that’s left the majority of Americans with a bad taste in their mouths.

  11. Evil is knowing for a Fact that no one who is not 100 percent American is
    Eligible to be President or Commander-In-Chief and then swear in the Oath of Office anyway. Twice?

    One can not be a Natural Born Citizen if they’re not even 100 percent American to begin with.

    Its a given that you have to be 100% American, plus be of the age 35 and have lived in America for 14 consecutive years.

    Who do they think they’re kidding?

    No wonder they are building underground suites for themselves. Who said they could anyway?

    Evil, indeed.

    Happy Anniversary Barry whoever you are!!! Man, I swear it feels like a million years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s