Obama Wasn’t Looking All that Pleased to See His Name on History’s Largest Tax Hike

| Comments (2)

I watched Obama’s response to the Supreme Court ruling this morning, and I have to say that, despite what I expected, the man wasn’t gloating.  As expected he offered a bland recap of the glories of the law that carries his name, pleased, he said, to see it declared Constitutional by “the highest court of the land” (first time he has ever valued the Constitution, of course).  And as expected he told the same tired and insipid story he always tells about some fictional victim who “played by the rules” but got screwed by America until he rode in to the rescue.  But through it all, he appeared a bit strained, a bit tight in the jaw.  The reason for this, I think, is that he really didn’t expect this cornerstone of his presidency actually to be called what it is: a “tax,” and a tax attributed to him and him alone.

Today’s ruling has set a dangerous precedence for our nation’s future, but so will it illustrate quite vividly to the left the old axiom: Be careful what you wish for.  I have a feeling this president and the many congresspeople who have done his bidding, who voted for him, who carried his water, took his bribes — especially those who now face tough races in their home districts — started to regret their wishes the moment Obamacare, the law upon which they staked their careers, explode into what within minutes was heralded as the largest middle-class tax hike in America’s history.

I realize that many of our elected officials have suffered some deficiencies in their understanding of American history, but most of us do understand, even if only on a rudimentary level, that our nation was founded on a hatred and defiance of taxes.  To see the jewel in this president’s crown be named a tax by “the highest court of the land” merely five months away from what already promised to be an earthshattering election, well, I think that’s why the pres’ jaw seemed a bit tight this morning.  And I have a feeling we will see it grow even moreso in the months to come, especially as the footage documenting his insistance that Obamacare is anything but a tax becomes part of the American lexicon.

The One Question No One is Asking as Obamacare Goes on Trial

| Comments (1)

The monstrous healthcare atrocity known as Obamacare has at last reached the United States Supreme Court.  By all accounts, left and right alike, the news coming out of the Chamber is not boding well for the monster’s prospects.  And thank God for that, say those of us who cherish the U.S. Constitution, those of us who cherish liberty, and, by extension, those of us who still wish to see our America remain the greatest country this world has ever known.

But with every news account, every interview, every commentary I see regarding the current Supreme Court hearings on the Constitutionality of Obamacare, I find myself begging the talking heads, begging the lefting interviewees, begging the Supreme Court Justices to ask one singular question:  Why are members of Congress and various and sundry union leaders and leftwing Obama/DNC supporters exempt from Obamacare?

I have yet to hear anyone covering the story this week on either side of it address this question.  I would suggest that the very existence of this question, coupled with the silence that surrounds it, is all the answer we, and the Supreme Court of the United States, needs.

At Least Five Supreme Court Justices Believe in the Constitution

| Comments (2)

We who believe in the Second Amendment, and, by extension, the U.S  Constitution, are supposed to look at today as a big day for gun rights. Our opposition probably assumed we would be dancing in the streets right now, celebrating wildly in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 vote, ruling that local governments (such as Chicago and Washington, DC) cannot pass laws denying gun ownership that override the second amendment of the Constitution that grants we the people the unalienable right to bear arms.

But I’m not celebrating, and I’m not hearing many whoops and hollers from others who happen to believe in the Constitution as the law of our land, either. Instead, I am feeling sad, confused and, not surprisingly in our nation’s current climate, angry yet again. I don’t happen to see why there is even a question here. I don’t understand how this case ever found a place on the docket in the first place.

Until further notice, and despite the current administration’s and Congress’ efforts to change this, our nation is governed by the laws set out clearly in black ink and parchment on that legendary document assembled and signed by our founders more than two centuries ago. Stated clearly, alongside our rights to assemble, to speak freely and to practice our chosen faiths, is our right as Americans to protect our homes, our families, and our country, by whatever means necessary. And the Mayor of Chicago, the City Council of Anytown, USA, nor the President of the United States can’t change that. Period. Case closed. No interpretation necessary.

But today four so-called Americans assigned the duty to ensure our nation remains true to its rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, made clear their hostility and disregard for this great document. They announced clearly to all who would listen (and it’s a safe bet, I think, that if confirmed, Elena Kagan, would have joined their chorus, as well) that they are willing shamelessly to cast the Constitution aside in favor of their own leftwing worldview (without forfeiting their own armed bodyguards, of course). This is nothing new, I know, but today’s ruling just seems somehow more blatant than other more subtle, obscure, even complicated rulings of years past.

If I didn’t know plenty of people, including my own son, who have seen the Constitution in person over the last few months, I would guess that if we looked, we would find it in shreds at the bottom of the White House paper shredder having been replaced by an angelic portrait of Barack Obama. But in truth it has been shredded. In spirit if not in fiber. And it leads us to yet another sad day for America. I just don’t know how many more of these we can take.

The Morning After: Watching an Angry President

| Comments (0)

January 28, 2010 | Comments

Last night I felt we had just witnessed the spinning of a desperate man offering up a glorified campaign speech under the guise of a State of the Union Address. Today I awaken with a truer insight. What we actually witnessed last night was the pathetic tantrum of an angry President who does not understand – or simply does not want to understand — the basic tenets of the magnificent country he serves.

As someone on our local talk radio station said yesterday afternoon, this President needs to learn the difference between a leader and a ruler. I say that even if he does understand this, he has convinced himself that he was ushered into office with a landslide mandate (which he was not), an event, he seems to believe, that endows him with the title “ruler,” and, perhaps, “supreme being,” as well.

But last night’s disconnected, disjointed performance gave evidence that he realizes he is being regarded as mortal after all. Thus the root of his anger. He has forgotten, or simply chosen to ignore and disparage, the basic foundation of our nation – the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government – a separation that in every way offers us the ultimate safety net. Last night he lashed out at that safety net like a spoiled child, revealing to us once more how little he thinks of this nation, her system, and, yes, her people, who have had the audacity to stand in the way of his transforming America in his own image.

In one of the most inappropriate moments of all presidential history, he blasted the Supreme Court Justices seated as a group at his feet. With a nasty sneer, he berated their majority for daring to pass down a ruling that upholds our sacred right to free speech, a ruling with which he disagrees. He then urged the Congress to fight this ruling (by whatever means necessary, perhaps, Mr. President?). The members of the legislative branch in attendance who are in his camp responded with a rousing ovation.

But he berated the legislative branch, as well, scolding them for failing to push his agenda through swiftly and secretly. As a result, he found himself standing before the nation, unable to announce his long-coveted government takeover of the American health-care system. And now, it just won’t be that easy. The democratic supermajority has been squelched, he whined, thanks to the election of a man he did not name. His dominance of all three branches of the U.S. government has been destroyed, he said in so many words, and the republicans can now take the blame for standing in the way of progress.

Which led him to the target of his most ardent anger. He is angry at us, folks, the American people, and he didn’t even try to hide it. We dared to steal that supermajority – and, in turn, the unfettered power it offered him as a ruler. He bared his hostility toward us loudly and clearly, essentially obliterating any other message he tried to cloak in false sincerity and folksiness. And we will not forget that. I don’t think those Supreme Court Justices – particularly Justice Alito – are likely to forget either.

So I suggest the President consider, perhaps, getting himself to an anger-management class. Even more importantly, though, he needs to go back to school for a basic civics lesson. Time to refresh his understanding of the separation of powers, a concept he swore to honor when he pledged on his inauguration day to uphold that “flawed document” (his words), the Constitution of the United States.

If, as we hear, this President truly was a lecturer on constitutional law in his former life, this certainly makes me wonder what he taught his students in those classes. After hearing last night’s lecture to the American people, if I were the parent of one of those students, I’d be asking for my money back today.

Betsy Siino | Comments