Will the Obama Administration Drop its lawsuit Against Arizona?

Arizona Flag
Arizona Flag

President Obama’s well publicized comments from Monday, discussing or  even lecturing, the US Supreme Court on judicial activism seems to bode well for the State of Arizona.  Obama infers that the court has no standing and no precedence in striking down a law, either in whole or in part, created by a democratically elected legislative body.  No matter that the Court has taken this same action over 150 times.  Precedent is obviously something that needs to be defined for The President in this case.

Obama’s comments, “Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”

Where does Arizona come in to play?  The Obama Administration is currently and vehemently fighting the Arizona immigration law in court.  The effort, tax dollars, and demagoguery arrayed against Arizona are for what, if not to ask the court to over turn a law enacted by a majority of democratically elected legislature.

Today, Obama walked himself back a little and brought up the origins of the Healthcare Mandate.  Stating that it was the Heritage Foundation that originally proposed individual mandates- well yes, in the 1970’s under a completely different law. It was later abandoned because of the obviousness of its failure.  Yet lets contrast that with the Arizona SB1070 law, taken directly from the Federal law on immigration; certainly that  has more bearing in the Arizona case.

Set aside for a moment the audacity that it takes for a sitting president to lecture, and even attempt to shame a court, into not judging the merits of a case on legality and constitutionality, but rather on humanity.  The President spoke of letters he receives every day from people helped by Obamacare.  These individual letters matter, yet hundreds of thousands of people voicing their opinions on the steps of congress are ignored by lawmakers and the Administration.  Ironically one of the objections that Tea Partiers had to the original bill was the fact that it usurped the Constitution.  There really should have been no surprises here.

It is still far from decided as to how the Court will rule on Obamacare, but the reaction of the President clearly shows where he thinks it is going.  If not, why put the myriad of lawsuits his Administration brings against their own citizens at risk.  Called into question as well is the Defense of Marriage Act.  Whether one agrees with it or not, the Act was certainly passed by a democratically elected Congress.

Before leaving this discussion, there is one more glaring tip of the hand in the President’s quote.  The use of the phrase strong majority shows that the President has an uncanny ability to delude himself and no regard for the intelligence of his audience.  The President’s party held a 75 person majority in Congress at the vote, and it passed with seven votes.  In the Senate, Massachusetts lawmakers had to pass a special law to place an appointed (not democratically elected) Senator into office in order to the get the 60th vote and pass the bill by the narrowest of margins possible.  In fact, when the people of Massachusetts did democratically elect a Senator; that Senator made of point of running as the the 41st vote against Obamacare.

Obama, being the fine constitutional scholar the press believes him to be, will certainly site the commerce clause as giving the Federal Government free reign in passing laws that affect commerce.  But, Justice Kennedy eloquently answered that question and explained why the individual mandate is much more than the Congress exercising their duty to regulate commerce.  Justice Kennedy asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” The Justice went on to question, “federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act — and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”  So much for precedent, yet the Tea Party understood the difference; to bad the blinders the President, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid put on did not let them understand this.  Unfortunately, the extreme practice of partisanship on the part of the Administration may have set us back years in solving the healthcare issue.

Back to Arizona, the one question you will never hear the mainstream media ask is, will you now vacate current rulings and drop further litigation against a law passed by a democratically elected legislature.

In Full Campaign Mode, Obama Calls Out GOP as “Flat Earthers”

Obama calls flat earthers outPresident Obama in full campaign mode today called out “Flat Earth” Republicans for not having vision. He referenced an adviser to Henry Ford who said, the automobile is a fad and the horse is here to stay. Again, Obama uses campaign rhetoric to show his incompetence in all matters economic.

The example Obama uses to point out the folly of the GOP is such a glaring example of everything wrong with the current administration’s view of that which drives a successful economic engine. Take the example of the car and horse; the late 19th century saw cities plagued by a horse economy. The beasts were essential to the function of the economy, but the waste they created was a burden, yet on the horizon a new promising energy source used to power a new form of transportation emerged. The automobile would stand as an example to the “non flat earthers” of a future free of horse poo. The problem; the industry did not exist and the infrastructure for drilling and refining was not there. It would take another quarter of a century for Henry Ford to refine manufacturing techniques to make the automobile economically viable as a full replacement for the horse.

Yet, put President Obama in a time machine and he would have looked about and decided that the answer to economic growth and the way out of the tough economic times that existed at the end of the 1800’s is no less than an effort to kill all the horses. In fact, no need to kill a horse, we could have just stopped producing hay. Thank God Obama and his enlighten crew of “round earthers” were not around for the automobile revolution or certainly the economy would have been destroyed before the first cars rolled off the assembly line.

The economy is not piano to be played by touching individual keys, it is not school yard where the popular crowd gets to pick which kids get to play. More and more our administration tries to pick the winners to manipulate the engine of our success by adding a governor of social engineering, or pulling the brakes on certain wheels while expecting the car to continue forward.

A healthy economy is more akin to well controlled camp fire kept within it’s bounds, regulated to prevent abuse in the system, and fed a constant supply of labor and capital. But within the confines of that fireplace, that fire is non-discriminate. A healthy economy rewards good ideas and hard work, if we start putting out individual parts of that fire, we are eventually left with wet coals.

Obama’s comments show that he has no understanding of the economy, and no understanding of history. To buy into his rhetoric, you have to believe that he and his round earthers alone know the future, that they can reach into that fire and pull out a winner strong enough to drive the economy forward while they dowse the flames of innovation.

NBC edits Perry Comment, Makes Claim of Racism.

Governor Rick Perry
Governor Rick Perry

And so it begins.  When a candidate has a record of success to run on, what is left in the arsenal of a liberal?  NBC is the first mainstream media outlet to falsify a racism claim against new presidential candidate Rick Perry of Texas.  With the election 15 months away MSNBC’s Ed Schultz dedicated an entire segment to self satisfying and nonsensical political flatulence.  The lesson for GOP hopefuls, don’t use the word black in any context.  Just imagine if Perry had claimed to give his opponent a black eye.