After Action Reports

To say, for most of us, that yesterday was not a good day, is a large understatement.  I cannot describe how I felt. I listened to the usual pundits, Rush, Hannity, Levin, FOX, and never really got a good feel about Robert’s motivation. From some reports, Kennedy’s dissent had been the majority opinion until recently. some time in the last couple of weeks, Roberts changed his position.  I don’t know the validity of those reports and we probably won’t for a long time. If ever.

Roberts had a solid conservative record until this week. He upheld the 2nd Amendment and appeared to be an Originalist like Scalia, Alito and Thomas.  Kennedy frequently sided with the Originalists, too. On Monday, in the Arizona Immigration suit, he dealt a blow to state sovereignty. Yesterday, Thursday, June 28, 2012, he appeared to side with the liberals on the Court.

Or, did he?

The Independent Journal Review has a different opinion on Robert’s thinking and motives. The IJ Review believes that Roberts dealt a death-blow to several controversial issues.

  • Limited the “Commerce Claus.” He ruled that the mandate, under the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional.
  • That contrary to Obama’s claims, the penalty for failure to acquire healthcare is not a penalty but is, in fact, a tax. Obama and the libs must now defend that fact.
  • The Federal government cannot penalize states, by blocking other federal funding, who do not choose to comply.  This was the Medicaid component. Yes, the feds can block Medicaid funding but no other federal funding.

The article below is interesting. I am not a lawyer, just a curious citizen who reads a lot. The opinion in this article does bear some consideration.  And, we must remember, we can still repeal Obamacare—if we have a filibuster and VETO proof majority in the Senate.

June 28, 2012 3:59 pm

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

The article above does have some appeal among all the doom ‘n gloom being spread by others. But it all depends if the dems will observe—and follow the law. Their record so far is poor and gives no assurance they will in the future.

If all of the positives in the above article is true, why do I feel like I’ve been raped? I can see no good coming from this.  Roberts could have nailed the Commerce Clause by ruling that the Mandate was unconstitutional under the Clause and therefore the entire law was unconstitutional.

There is one solid result of the Court’s decision. We can no longer rely on the Court for redress to our grievances.

A memorable day (Updated)

Today could be a historic day.  The US Supreme Court is expected to lay down some rulings on ten issues before the end of this month.  The two most discussed is Obamacare and the AZ Immigration law.  Rumor says those two may be announced later today.

One decision has already been announced—a decision about unannounced union dues increases.

Court: Union must give fee increase notice

AP 6/21/2012 2:12:50 PM

(AP) Court: Union must give fee increase notice. WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court says a union must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court on Thursday ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union’s Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.

The remaining issues, Obamacare and AZ excepted, are:

First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards. A suit whether lawsuits under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which allows homebuyers to sue banks and title companies when they pay kickbacks for the closing of a mortgage loan, are constitutional if the kickback does not affect the price or quality of the services provided?

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox. This concerns whether the Federal Communications Commission’s standards for indecency on television are too vague to be constitutional. (Update: SCOTUS has ruled against the FCC declaring that the rules were too vague.  The justices said the FCC is free to revise its indecency policy.AP)

Knox v. Service Employees International Union. Another union issue whether a state can require its employees to pay a special union fee that will be spent for political purposes without first giving the employees information about the fee and a chance to object to it.

United States v. Alvarez. This is better known as the “Stolen Valor” case. It decides whether a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military medals or honors violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech.

Southern Union Company v. United States. An interesting jury issue whether the Constitution requires that a jury, rather than a judge, must find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that leads to a higher fine for a criminal defendant.

Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs. This concerns whether a sentence of life without parole for someone who was convicted of murder when he was fourteen violates the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. If I remember correctly, an earlier case prohibited life sentences for juveniles in non-homicide cases.

Dorsey v. United States and Hill v. United States (consolidated). I heard this one called a positive Ex Post Facto case. The key factor is whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the sentences for defendants who are convicted of crack cocaine offenses, applies to defendants who were convicted before the Act went into effect but sentenced after it.

The details above were scraped from SCOTUSBlog.

As the Chinese proverb says, today through next week could be interesting times.

United we stand. Divided…

Those who really know me understand that I’m not a talker.  I listen. You can pick up jewels by listening. One phrase I continually hear is the hyphenated-American—African American, Mexican-American, Asian-American and many others.

Every time I hear one of these I wonder why they believe they’re only half American?  My Father was born in the UK. My paternal grandparents were too. On that side, I’m a second generation American.  Some on my mother’s side were from Germany. We’re not sure about the rest although family lore says one of my great-grandmothers was a Blackfoot.

The point is that none of my parents nor any of my extended family thought of themselves as anything but American.  I remember seeing my Grandfather knock a man down for calling him a “Johnny Bull“. My Grandfather said he was an American and had the papers to prove it!

When the great Immigration, as some call it, occurred during the last half of the 19th Century and the first decade of the the 20th, immigrants fled their homelands coming here for a variety of reasons.  Most came here for a fresh start. They came to this nation to start anew, create and grow families. Many sent funds back to the Old Country to bring other family members to the United States. Few returned home.

My ancestors were no different. They fled a life to make a new one.

The common pursuit, once here, was to become an American—not German-American nor Polish-American nor Swedish-American, just an American. It was a personal insult to imply they were only half-American. My Grandfather didn’t hesitate to make his displeasure known with his fists.

All that has changed. For sixty years, progressives, liberals, have been working diligently to divide our people. We’re no longer Americans, no we must now be something-American. Half-American.

Historians  look at that period of our country, from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of WW1 as the period of greatest growth of our nation. People came to the United States to renew themselves and seize the opportunities available through diligence and hard work. The only thing they expected was the freedom to make the best of those opportunities.

Look at the difference now, since the end of WW2. What was once a united country is being Balkanized. There are forces within this country, call them Socialist, Marxist, Progressives, or liberals, who believe that dividing this country provides an opportunity for them to seize control. They believe they can reform the country into an image of central control—with them at the top controlling everyone else.

If one can receive favor via “entitlements” or other benefits, by being half-American, that increases division. Being different is now a benefit. And increases division. Divisiveness disrupts the common American culture. The half-Americans feel alienated and unable to relate to the core beliefs of the immigrants of a century ago…the ones who built this nation. It is easy to manipulate those alienated from the common culture.

The progressives, the elitists, cannot seize control when the country is united. No, it must be divided into groups and factions, factions who view themselves as half-Americans. They are disunited and vulnerable…and easily controlled and ruled. The country must be Balkanized for them to succeed.

United we stand. Divided we fall. I am not a half-American. I am united with that vision of our Founders and of my Grandfather. I am an American. What are you?

Friday Follies for July 29, 2011

Wow!  Another week has gone by and we still don’t have a solution to the debt crisis.


The democrats are incapable of curbing their spending.  They can’t.  If they stop with their various payoffs to special interests and dependency groups, they’ll lose their power.  Also, Obama’s socialist plans would come to an end.

Can’t have that.

I’ve lost count how many ‘Pub plans have been submitted. Three? Four?  How many have the dems and Obama submitted?  Zero.

They think the ‘Pubs will cave as usual.  It’s beginning to look like they will.  McConnell’s “Plan B”, that he foolishly announced while the House plan was being negotiated, sunk any further efforts.  Why?  It gave Obama and the dems what they want.  Higher debt ceiling. An extension past the upcoming federal election and any cuts would be determined later—read that as never.

Boehner’s plan is a little bit better.  It only runs through the end of the year.  It counts on future cuts that he and his plan cannot enforce.  It does have some cuts this year but the actual amount is yet to be determined.  Some say $1billion, others say less. No one really knows and the worse of all is that it only cuts THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE!  No real cuts.

As far as I’m concerned, Boehner and the establishment ‘Pubs have zero credibility.  At least there are some Tea Partiers in the house standing by their commitments. 

I was listening to Laura Ingraham on the radio this morning.  She was attacking the Tea Party for having the guts to stay true to their constituents.  Ann Coulter has been doing the same.  

A Pox on both of them.

What we are seeing is the formation of a third party.  The establishment pubs are showing they are no better than the dems. It’s not about saving the country, nor about limited government, nor about conservatism.  It’s solely about political power and not looking bad to some nebulous voting blok.

The Republican Party is about to go the way of the Whigs.

It seems there is one area of education that must observe immigration law—the University of Northern Virginia, a private, for-profit school that boasts it is the largest private university in the country.  Too bad the state operated and funded schools don’t have the same requirement.

Dozens of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided offices at the University of Northern Virginia’s Annandale campus Thursday.
The University of Northern Virginia is an unaccredited, for-profit private university that calls itself the most popular American university for students from India. Thousands of students are registered at three locations in northern Virginia.
Agents have removed boxes of documents from a building on Little River Turnpike where the university leases two suites.

The university temporarily can’t accept any foreign students, reads a notice posted on the door of the offices. UNVA students must leave the country immediately if they are unable “to continue to attend classes and maintain their active status in a manner required by federal government regulations,” the notice reads.

Here’s something I found happening in the Czech Republic.  They want to ban the Communist Party.  If we did that here, we’d be banning the democrat party.

PRAGUE (AP) — They’re the Czech Republic’s fourth-largest political party, but the hardline Communists could soon be outlawed if the center-right government has its way.
It’s more than two decades since communism collapsed here, but the survivors and ideological heirs to the party that ruled from 1948 until the “Velvet Revolution” of 1989 are under increasing political pressure.

The party, which is vehemently opposed to NATO, brands opponents “terrorists” and maintains friendly ties with the ruling Communists in Cuba, China and North Korea.
Unlike most other communist parties in the region that have joined the left-wing mainstream, the Czech party has maintained its hardline stance.
Supporters of the ban say it is a direct successor of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, whose members killed more than 240 political prisoners while thousands of other opponents died in prisons.

With the killing of political opponents aside, they sound just like members of the democrat party.  They have advocated harm to their opponents, though, on numerous occasions.
As the economy worsens, who is being hurt worse?  Apparently, many are those who voted democrats into office.

African-American Middle Class Eroding As Unemployment Rate Soars

Published July 28, 2011
The unemployment situation across America is bad, no doubt. But for African-Americans in some cities, this is not the great recession. It’s the Great Depression.
Take Charlotte, N.C., for example. It is a jewel of the “new South.” The largest financial center outside of New York City, it’s the showcase for next year’s Democratic National Convention. It was a land of hope and opportunity for many blacks with a four-year college degree or higher.
According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, in Charlotte, N.C., the unemployment rate for African-Americans is 19.2 percent. If you add in people who have given up looking for jobs, that number exceeds 20 percent, which, according to economists Algernon Austin and William Darity, has effectively mired blacks in a depression.
Of course if you ask them, they’ll claim it’s all a racist plot not the purposeful mismanagement by their own party.

This weekend will be interesting.  Will the Tea Party hold out and force changes in Boehner’s plan to include some real spending cuts?  Will they take up another plan such as that put together by Rep. Connie Mack and endorsed by Sen. Rand Paul?

That’s the question. What will happen between now and next Tuesday, August 2nd? We’ll have to wait and see.