President Obama Violates Constitution

April 5, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

Although I disagree with President Obama’s policies, and his political agenda, until now, he has not violated the Constitution.  (The Stimulus and the Healthcare bills are definitely arguable) However, that has now changed.

During a scheduled recess of Congress, President Obama used the opportunity to make 15 recess appointments to administrative positions that would normally require Senate confirmation.

In a written statement, the President declared, “The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis,”

The President is quoted by FOX News as saying, “At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months,” he said. “I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government.”

President Obama went on to note that former President George W. Bush made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, then claimed that the former President was not facing the same level of obstruction.

Does the President have the authority to make “recess appointments?

In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution, we find that,

“…and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, goes on to state,

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So let’s take the Constitution for what it actually says for once, instead of what some want it to say for their own political purpose, or as a method of promoting their personal agenda.

According to the Constitution, as quoted, “the President shall have the Power to fill up Vacancies THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING a Recess of the Senate,”

The Founders did not intend this sentence to serve as a method for the President to get around the authority of the Senate to provide “Advice and Consent” of Presidential Appointments.

The sentence was put in place for the President to make temporary appointment to key administrative positions when they become vacant during a recess of Congress.

The vacancies filled by Obama’s ‘recess appointments’, have existed since the President took Office.  They did not happen during the “Recess of Congress”.

The fact that the President does not like “partisan politics” holding up the advancement of his agenda, or that some may be doing so to “score political points”, has no bearing on the subject.  The President needs to get over it.

The fact is, there is NO provision in the Constitution for the President to override the authority or the responsibilities of the Senate.  That would have opened the door for a dictatorship, and that was one thing the Founders were attempting to avoid.

The idea of pointing out the errors of his predecessor does not make the action legal under the Constitution.  These appointments, made by President Obama, are a direct and blatant abuse of the Power of his Office, and a willful violation of the Constitution.

Is this an impeachable offense?

According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8,

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Accordingly, the President must take the ‘Oath of Office’ to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability.  President Obama has publicly reminded the nation, on several occasions, that he taught Constitutional Law at the University level in Illinois.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that the President should be fully aware of the intent of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.

Article II, Section 4, states,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article VI, Clause 2, states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, as part of the Constitution, is Federal Law. Any action that willfully and purposefully violates the Constitution, by using the provision to usurp the Authority of the Senate, is a Federal Offense.

It is time for the Government to understand that the ‘Powers of Government’ do not lie solely in the three branches of Government.  The Constitution provides for the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches.

However, under the ninth and tenth amendments, the Constitution also provides for the Several States and the People to be active participants in shaping our Government and legislation

Therefore, it is part of our civic responsibility to monitor the actions of the individuals elected to Office, and take action when necessary.

Amendment IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X – 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.

It is time for the President to be introduced to the Power of the People.

The Constitution points out, in Article I, Section 1, Clause 5,

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article VI, Clause 3, states,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I am sending a letter, defining the points of this article, to my Representative in the House.  I am demanding, under the Authority of the Constitution, that my Representative formally begin the process of forcing the President to rescind his “Recess Appointments”.  If the President refuses to act accordingly, I am demanding that my Representative begin the process of impeachment for the willful and deliberate usurpation of the Authority of the Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

Please join me and do the same.

To receive a copy of the letter I wrote to my Representative, make a request in the comments box.  I will reply to all that I can.  Thank you.


The Real State of the Union

January 29, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

President Obama gave his first State of the Union Address yesterday evening. For the most part, I must say, the speech was far from impressive; just more of the same dribble we have come to expect.

We listened to him attempt to recognize the hardships faced by the middle-class, cite to some letters, or experiences which were personally related to him, as he demonstrates his compassion for the little guy, and then claim he is working diligently to solve the problems of the nation.  I may be too critical, but I thought he ran as a candidate for change.  I thought he promised to shake things up in Washington.  For some reason I seem to recall that he was not going to get caught up in “politics as usual”.

Then why was the content of his speech so predictable?  All we heard was the same old, same old.  The list goes something like this;

  • I understand the problems of America.
  • I inherited a mess that is worse than we expected.
  • I have outlined a plan to solve your problems and the Republicans are fighting us every step of the way.
  • America is tired of “partisan politics”; more is expected from us.
  • Feed the “class envy monster” to keep the societal divisions strong.
  • The American Spirit is strong but the government is not responsive to the needs of the country.
  • It will be expensive, but I am here to fix the nation and blame everyone else for not heeding my advice.

Sound familiar?  We hear the same speech every time President Obama stands up to the teleprompter.  He even went into the standard “rope-a-dope” tactic of trying to identify with his opposition, citing the following points.

  • A need to cut taxes.
  • Comprehending that small business is the backbone of America and is vital in solving the unemployment.
  • Need to allow off-shore drilling.
  • Need to develop nuclear power.
  • Pursue alternate forms of energy but that they need to be profitable instead of just another form of taxation.
  • Institute policies to keep large companies here instead of taxing them into moving to other countries.
  • Seeking more marketing opportunities. (this almost sounds like embracing a free market)
  • Increase the excellence of education instead of rewarding the failures of the NEA.

Of course, President Obama rattling off these points, as reading from a depth chart, only served to highlight that all of these issues, sought by Conservatives for years, is what is right for the country.

However, it was only a feign.  Immediately the President slipped back into his comfort zone, taking on a “never say die” mentality in regards to Health Care Reform, we have a deficit because Bush failed to pay for two wars, and I know I added more than $1 trillion to the deficit, but it was the right thing to do.

This was a nice way to lead into pretending to identify with “average America” that is forced to tighten their belts, by announcing that “like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t”.  Therefore, the President is proposing a Congressional Spending Freeze for next year.  Not now, like you cash-strapped families must do.   The President promised to do this next year, after America has forgotten what he said. And besides, cuts to save an estimated $25 billion, which we all know is terribly optimistic, and in no way begins to compare to the $1 trillion he has already added to the deficit.  Do you have any idea what that actually costs the taxpayers after calculating the interest we will pay on the additional spending?

Alright, I cannot go on any further.  I listened to the President attempt to revive his socialistic ideology, refusing to recognize that America is rejecting it.  So, I will take the opportunity here to explain a few points the President and Congress need to figure out, according to me.  Then he can get back to us about truly moving the country forward.

  • This President has increased the deficit by over $1 trillion, and until he assumes absolute transparency, and details how he intends to make his plans work, he is simply trying to spend America into a form of socialism.  If you truly want to help America recover, cut taxes, stop irresponsible, unconstitutional spending, and get out of the way.  Other than that, it is not your job.
  • The President still wants Socialized Health Care and views the recent rejection of it as a “political kink”, just a minor setback.  The fact is, most Americans agree that we need Health Care Reform.  We want affordability, accessibility, transportability, and a true referendum on Tort Reform.  What we do not want is government involvement.  Legislate these four issues, and leave it alone.  Quit trying to use our Health Care as another way to usurp our liberty and assert control.  We are NOT having any part of it.
  • He claims he is persistently trying to keep our country secure from terrorism, while in practice he is behind giving terrorists the protection of Miranda Rights after failed attacks on our citizens.
  • The President claims to support our military, yet he dragged his feet in authorizing additional troops to reinforce those deployed in Afghanistan.

The President does not support our military.  He sees the military as a “social experiment”.  You want proof?  The President said he wants Congress to repeal the law banning openly gay military service.  Anyone who understands the military knows the military is a fighting force, in place to protect our country.  There is no place for open homosexuality within the ranks, just as there is no place for heterosexuality in the military.  The military is NOT a social experiment, it is a protective service provided for the defense of the country.

Now he wants First Lady Michelle Obama along with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to military families.  The fact that they are to “forge” this commitment identifies it is a new concept to the President.

Most of America has always been committed to our military.  What we want from the Commander in Chief is a clear and definite purpose for the mission he sends our military to accomplish, what constitutes victory, how he intends to be victorious with the least cost of American Lives possible, maintaining an allegiance to those being sent to face a declared enemy, instead of appearing to protect the enemy.

  • The President is quick to announce his willingness to work with other countries through the United Nations.  This makes sense due to his obvious support of subjecting America, and our citizens, to a form of “Global Authority”, regarding environmental policy, thus diminishing our sovereignty as a nation.  What will it take to convince this President that the policies being bantered about, at the UN, are proposals to punish America for our exceptionalism?

What this President, and the Liberals in Congress fail to understand, is that America is truly a sovereign nation of great People.  What makes us great is that we all believe in a common belief, Individual Freedom, established by the Declaration of Independence, and protected by the Constitution of the United States.

America is suffering today, because too few politicians read the Constitution for what it actually says, and instead read it for what they want it to say, or pervert it into something other than that which it was intended.  Modern politicians believe they are elected to legislate “one size fits all solutions” to every issue known to man, while the Constitution was implemented to limit Government to very specific functions.

If the President, and Congress alike, truly want America to succeed, might I suggest they read our founding documents, understand them for what they say, and do it.  Pretty simple, actually.


Squeaky Harry Reid is at it again!

December 9, 2009

They old adage says, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

In Senator Reid’s case, more media attention, for which he has shown a willingness to do anything, including the proposal, and intentional attempt, to force-feed socialist style, nationalized health care down the throat of a free nation.

For Senator Reid, the fact that the majority of Americans want nothing to do with what he has to offer has no merit.  The only thing that matters to this self-absorbed, wanna-be dictator is that some form of “health care reform” get passed before he gets ousted from the Senate.  A legacy, if you will.

So, what is he up to this time?

Senator Reid called a press conference to announce that he has a health care bill, but cannot divulge the details until after the CBO is finished analyzing it.

“We have something good.”  Squeaky said, of the bill he is concealing from the public, and anyone who differs from his opinion.  “But, I cannot give any details at this time.”

Why does this sound oddly familiar?

It spurs memories of the times my dear, sweet mother told me, “Here you go.  Eat up, Honey.  It’s good for you.”  As she served that piece of unseasoned shoe leather, she called “liver”, and tried to convince me it was a prime cut of meat.

Compared to nationalizing our health care, and allowing some self-promoting idiot, like Squeaky Harry, the authority to make all my medical decisions, I’d rather have the “shoe leather” and pretend it’s meat.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand there are a lot of people that like liver, then again, not 100% of Americans are against nationalizing health care either.  But, just because some would rather have liver, instead of steak, is not my problem.

The fact here, is that Senator Reid must be taught that he is not representing the United States of Obama, and that we, the People, have an absolute right to know that he is attempting to convince us that the mud covered rocks he is serving, is actually left-over stew.

What happened to “transparency in government”?  Or, was that only while he was still relishing the short-lived popularity of his Lord and Master, Big Barry?

After all, the motivating factor is the promise he made to get a bill on the President’s desk before New Years.   Looks to me like Squeaky his vying for a position in the Obama Administration after he gets ousted from the Senate, regardless of the cost to America.


Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

October 16, 2009

Part 3 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

Part of the problem with the Proposed Health Care Reform Act is that we cannot expect to hear the truth of the issues in “honest debate”.  For instance, the “Death Panel” was adamantly denied, until it was removed from the proposal.

The proposal will allegedly cover the health care of illegal immigrants.  Supporters repudiate this, claiming the language forbids coverage of illegal immigrants.

However, there is nothing in the proposal to allow verification of any recipient’s legal status.  When Conservatives offer legislation to amend the discrepancy, Liberals reject the amendments.

Liberals forget there are laws prohibiting illegal immigration; yet they are here.  Because illegal immigrants ignore our federal immigration laws, it is logical to assume they will ignore any legislated restrictions to “nationalized” health care.

In his speech to the Joint Houses of Congress, President Obama claimed to promote “choice and competition” by officially announcing a “Public Option”.

The president declared, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors.  I just want to hold them accountable.”

Ironically, that is similar to President Obama’s comments about not wanting control of General Motors, Chrysler, and companies affected by the “Financial Bail-Out”.  In the aftermath, we find that the opposite is true.  The president, and his administration, have asserted unprecedented control of “Private Industry”.  Why should we expect Health Care to be treated any differently?

The president went on to say, “… it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance…  In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.”

Remember, I wrote to begin with, “we cannot expect to hear the truth”; you decide.

The president first cites to the falsely inflated number of 15% of Americans being uninsured at some point, and then exaggerates the number by doubling the time period, erringly assuming that doing so automatically doubles the number of people affected.

How so?  He claimed that one in three Americans goes without coverage at some point; that is more than 30%.   Then something closer to the truth slips out when he cited the CBO saying, “…only 5% will sign up”.

Mr. President, is it 15%, 30%, or 5%?  You referred to, or quoted all three percentages in the same speech.  With all due respect Sir, annoying little facts, known as the truth, will come back to bite you when they are misrepresented.

President Obama promised the following points in his “sales pitch” for the “Public Option;

1.  No tax subsidies for the “Public Option”.

2.  No additional deficit spending.

3.  Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for the “Public Option”.

4.  Greater security for the middle-class, not higher taxes.

Ignoring the fact that President Obama contradicted every point in his speech, and assuming the president intends to abide by these four points.  Logically, to accommodate the “Public Option”, the president is proposing another Government Subsidized Entity, similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Who, along with GM and Chrysler, the newest GSE’s, are going bankrupt)

Think about it!  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and the financial industry staggering under the weight of the government…These are prime examples of what to expect for our health care system under a “Public Option”.

The only way for a “Public Option” to abide by the four points in his “sales pitch”, and maintain “choice and competition”, is to mandate that the ‘Public Provider” abide by the same laws enforced on “Private Providers”.  This means, among other things, the “Public Provider” would be required to establish “security holdings”, (typically 70 – 80% of their policy values) to ensure the financial ability to cover claims.

In order to stay in existence, insurers must guarantee the principles, which are the premiums paid by the people.  To do this, insurance companies invest the premiums they collect to cover claims that may exist on their policies and for their own business returns as well, including operating costs.

This means, the government, through the “Public Provider” would necessarily purchase stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities to amass profits. (Not a far stretch after the Auto and Financial Bail-Outs)

Politicians engaged in such activities create obvious potential dangers.  In short, your tax dollars would be risked, or “invested”, in the stock market to cover the costs of the “Public Option”.

Keep in mind, during his speech, President Obama informed us that nationalizing health care through a “Public Option” is only a part of his plan; he reminded his “Progressive Friends” that, “The ‘Public Option’ is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goals.”

What are the “ultimate goals” of the presidents “Progressive Friends”?

Government “investing” tax dollars in “Private Industry” is a one-way ticket to corruption.  It will not be long before politicians assume massive control of the market through legislation, to “protect” the investments of the “tax payers”.

Considering the government prints money at will, this creates an environment in which private insurance companies cannot compete.  In relatively short time, financial pressures will force “Private Providers” to file for bankruptcy.

There is no better “investment” than to acquire failing competitors.  Therefore, through “free market capitalist investing, “private assets” would end up in the government’s possession.

DANGER! The president is proposing a “hostile takeover” of our nation.  He is simply using Health Care Reform as a vehicle to reach a more sinister destination.  The “Public Option” creates a potential “enemy from within”, using Capitalism, to accomplish Socialism.

Nationalized Health Care is, by its nature, another form of Socialism being introduced to a “free” society; another attempt to gain control of all major methods of production in an effort to confiscate wealth and dictate the lives of individuals through mandates and distribution of means.

Redistribution, or the practice of taking from one societal group to provide for another group, is Socialism.

The government dictating compliance by mandating involvement of private individuals in government run programs is Communism.

America was created, by design, as a Capitalist Society; a social system based on individual rights through the separation of the economy and the Government; with a limited government, relegated to the duties of protecting the rights of the People.  America is founded on the rights, of individuals, to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.  Americans enjoy the right to possess private property, and maintain the right to individually contract to, and profit from our own labor.

The right to Life and Liberty guarantees us to freedom from oppression, freedom from burdensome government, and the right to freedom of actions in our individual Pursuit of Happiness, so long as no person or group infringes or violates the rights of another.

Previously, in “The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion”, I disputed the “facts” the president termed “undisputable”.

In “National Health Care and the Constitution”, I called the president out, defying him to present an argument, giving him or Congress the Constitutional Power or Authority to legislate “National Health Care Reform”.

Now, I am declaring the potential dangers of a sinister agenda.

I reject giving the President, or Congress, the Power to implement legislation that could, so easily, be used as a means to anything as sinister as what I have described.

The Founders intended to create a nation of “free men”, fundamentally rooted in societal and economic capitalism, to preserve the natural rights of each individual.  Any attempt to vilify capitalism, or provide support of socialism is, in a word, un-American.

I maintain, that if America allows the nationalization of our health care system, we are only a step away from saying goodbye to our Representative Republic, and hello to a Socialist State; in essence, saying goodbye to Liberty, and welcoming Tyranny.

So long as a single Patriot fights for Liberty, Freedom lives.  Never stop fighting.

Part 1 of 3:  The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

Part 2 of 3:  National Health Care and the Constitution


The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

September 29, 2009

Part 1 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

In his speech to the joint houses of Congress on September 9, 2009, to stump for National Health Care Reform, the President compared our health care to that of other nations saying, “We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people.”

What President Obama failed to point out is, while other countries may provide medical coverage to all their citizens, many of their citizens come to the United States seeking the medical treatment they cannot obtain at home.  What good is medical coverage, if you cannot obtain the necessary medical treatment?

Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals are unifying against “Nation Health Care Reform” for the aforementioned reason and others, a few of which I will identify here.

The premise of the “crisis” false.

The President claimed that Health Care Reform is “central” to the future of our nation, and that Congresses failure to meet the challenge for the past six and a half decades has led us to the breaking point.  This claim bolsters his statements, citing health care as a primary cause of the National Deficit. (Remember, Congress spending more money than is available is the cause of the deficit.)

While painting a grim picture of the future, due to the exploits of the “Greedy Health Care Industry”, the President resorted to “scare tactics” attempting to play to the emotions of the American People.  The President argued that a large number of people are “one accident or illness away from bankruptcy”, that the cost of health insurance is unaffordable, and that Americans who are willing and able to purchase health insurance are routinely denied.

The President manipulated the facts when citing a 2006 census estimate, stating, “There are more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage.  In a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point”.

The claims, provided by the Census Bureau, assert that 15% of the U.S. population, or approximately 50 million people, were uninsured at one point during the calendar year 2006.  Contrary to the President’s claim, the report did not identify this group as unable to obtain Health Care; nor did the report identify this group as uninsurable.

Furthermore, the President conveniently failed to point out a fact detailed in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, by conservative radio talk show host, Mark Levin; the 15%, to which the report refers, includes illegal immigrants, people between the ages of 18 – 35 who opted not to obtain health care, and yet another group that qualifies for medical coverage through Public Assistance and did not apply for it.  When the truth is considered in the equation, we find less than 5%, of Americans unable to obtain health insurance; less than half of the number the President claims.  To clarify the results, another detailed study would be necessary to determine why the effected people are without insurance.

I will be first to agree, every American citizen should be able to obtain minimum health coverage.  However, with a population of over 300 million, the needs of less than 5% of the people, while meriting serious consideration, does not qualify as a “crisis”.  Logically, this means approximately 95% of the population, or more than 285 million people, are happy with their current health care, or at least have coverage available.

To determine that “one in three Americans goes without health coverage at some point” President Obama simply doubled the numbers for dramatic impact.  His statement assumes that if approximately 50 million people were not covered at some point in one year, then 100 million would be left uncovered in a two-year period, thereby camouflaging his claim of “one in three”.

Though the number of people experiencing periods of being uninsured would probably increase in the second year due to the rise in unemployment levels, the President chooses not to consider that a large number of the same people are counted a second time in the subsequent year.  The President’s skewed approach of simply double the time period, equals double the effect, misleads the nation, using “fear tactics” to manipulate us into accepting Health Care Reform.

There is no true intention to cut costs.

The President said, “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”  He goes on to admit that, “those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care”.

How much of what we are forced to pay, goes to providing care for the above-mentioned people?  Remember, Federal Law prohibits refusal of treatment to any person, regardless of ability to pay.  Other than using it as a talking point, how much wasteful spending is due to fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid systems?  What steps have been proposed to identify and correct the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs?

How much of what we pay goes to wasteful costs due to excessive, bureaucratic red tape, unnecessary tests, and the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance to protect Doctors from litigation, because the Government refuses to enact Tort Reform?  Instead, the President is directing his Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward with an initiative to set up “demonstration projects” on Tort Reform.  If Tort Reform is a “good idea”, why not recommend that Congress legislate it?

How much more must Private insurers pay for the treatment of their Policy Holders, to offset the amounts left unpaid by the Government?  The President failed to tell us that the Government only pays approximately 20% on the bills they receive for the treatment of those covered under Medicare and Medicaid; health care providers are expected to write off the remaining balances.

Additionally, what about the excessive, confusing, redundant paperwork, required by the Government, and insurance companies, as a means to provide excuses to deny payments for services?  The Government practice of short paying bills and denying payment due to improperly negotiating the maze of “red tape” encourages fraud.  Correct these issues first.  We may be possible that the entire health care system is in need of Reform.

In trying to force compliance, the President’s proposal sets a “minimum cost of insurance coverage”.  A minimum cost is the effect of the proposed tax penalty, of up to $1900, charged to those who do not purchase health care insurance, otherwise referred to as an “incentive”.  Insurance companies will set that amount as a minimum rate.

Additionally, the tax penalty does nothing to correct the alleged problem; if health coverage is not purchased, and a person needs medical attention, under the President’s proposal, they would have the $1900 less to put toward their medical bills. The whole process of using tax penalties to force compliance is a “protection racket”, a tactic used by organized crime where damage is inflicted, then followed with an offer of protection for a fee. (I hear this was one of Al Capone’s favorite tactics of extortion.  Wasn’t he from Chicago too?  It must have something to do with the water.) If the President’s proposal were the “right thing”, he would not need “bully tactics”.

In conclusion, I agree that the current health care system calls for serious consideration.  Therefore, the Federal Government should promote legislation that assists the several States in rectifying health care in their independent States, just as the President agrees to do regarding “Tort Reform”.  Because he is a former Constitutional Professor, I would think this should have been President Obama’s first inclination.

Mr. President, you said, “These are the facts.  Nobody disputes them.”  You warned, “If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.”

Sorry, Mr. President, I am calling you out!

I reject your “undisputable facts”, and the logic demonstrated in manipulating statistics to coerce the nation into reconfiguring our nation’s health care system by falsely declaring a “Crisis”.  Like a “snake oil peddler”, you have misrepresented the facts to sell America on your flawed, socialistic plan.

With all due respect, every President must earn the respect and trust of the nation.  Mr. President, you are far from accomplishing this task.  Now is a good time to start.

Part 2 of 3 part series:  National Health Care & the Constitution


President Obama’s Commencement Address to Notre Dame

June 5, 2009

It has been about a week now, and I have listened to the traditional media praise President Obama’s commencement speech to the graduating class of 2009, at Notre Dame.  There has also been scathing criticism from other sources in the alternative media.  Now I will offer my humble opinion of his comments.

President Obama held true to form, wasting no occasion to trumpet his ideology.  Instead of maintaining a congratulatory attitude and speaking to a future of great aspirations, the President seized the opportunity to attempt to reinforce his political agenda.

The President opened with a few bits of humor, and then used a congratulatory sentence to lead into those subjects nearest and dearest to his heart.  He began by espousing his belief that we are at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world.  He claimed we are at a rare point in history where the size and scope of the challenges require a remaking of our world.  He declared that we should align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age, citing it as a privilege and a responsibility afforded to only a few generations.

I’m thinking, “Not bad so far.  He is laying out the future challenges for this graduating class as he sees it.”  Not so fast.  Would the real President Obama please stand up?  Then suddenly he emerged.

President Obama comingled American Values with Global Citizenship, asserting that the global economy has left millions behind, that greed and short-term thinking are rewarded at the expense of fairness, diligence, and an honest day’s work.  He argued that the strong, too often dominate the weak, and that those with wealth and power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice.

There he goes, denouncing success as something detestable.  I wonder if he and Michelle gained their wealth and power by the same of poverty and injustice as he accuses others.  Painting a picture of humanity with such a broad brush is a grave mistake as not all nations share the morals, values, and standards as that of America.

The President professed that we should seek peace, while admitting there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm.  He expressed a desire to find a way to reconcile an ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief; and to find a way to live together as one human family.

I know the President considers himself as a “citizen of the world”, but this is beginning to sound a lot like a desire of a “One World Order”.

He conceded that no one person, religion, or nation can meet the challenges of global recession, violent extremism, the spread of nuclear weapons, or pandemic disease alone. He claimed these societal negativities do not discriminate or recognize borders.  He went on to avow that our very survival requires greater cooperation and understanding among all people, from all places, than ever before in history.

I dread to think that I am the only one that sees the only item in his laundry list that is truly unyielding to borders or discrimination is pandemic diseases.

President Obama used an encounter during his Senate Campaign to fly in the face of the Catholic Church, which is staunchly anti-abortion.  The President referred to a letter from a doctor who claimed he would have trouble voting for, then Candidate Obama, because of the wording on his web site.  The doctor ended his letter with a call for “fair-minded words”.

The President then demonstrated his willingness to alter his rhetoric in attempts to appear as though he is seeking common ground with those that oppose him.

Through this presentment, the President introduced a desire to “honor those who disagree with abortion”, and “draft a sensible conscience clause”, “grounded in clear ethics and sound science”.

President Obama had the audacity to address a college steeped in Catholicism, traditionally in strict opposition to abortion, and consider them in need of ethical grounding.  His comment clearly asserted that opposition to abortion involves the lack of clear ethics or sound science. Furthermore, I find it amazing that the audience cheered so vigorously for anyone presenting an opinion so contradictory to their own.

Hang in there Notre Dame.  I got your back, even if you will not stand your ethical ground; there are those of us who will.  As to the drafting of a “conscience clause”, forgive my dissention, but I relish my personal liberty and freedom, and therefore do not wish for the government to dictate my conscientiousness.

The President’s arrogance was on full display when, in the same speech he attempted to equate the resolve of man to the power of God declaring, “We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it.”

The assumption that we truly have the power to save the planet from climate change is ludicrous.  After all, if I am not mistaken, the Christian belief teaches that God created the climate too.  Not to mention, that a brief study of geology reveals that the world has a rich and constant history of climate change, which I personally attribute to something beyond our capabilities, namely a divine plan.

I have a news flash for you.  Compared to God, man is created in his image, not equal to his power and ability.  I understand that we owe it to our posterity to try to protect our natural resources, but saving the world from its own climate, people please.  When they figure out how to create a clump of clay from gas, cover seventy-five percent of it with water and the rest with loose rocks, have it spin a thousand miles per hour of its own volition and not lose any of its contents, then we can talk.  Our purpose here is to enjoy the ride and try to make life better for those who follow; not so complicated.

The President did finally deliver a commencement for the later part of his speech, which I must admit, was quite inspiring for the graduating class.  He briefly mentioned potential futures for the attendees.  He inspired them to meet challenges head on, and to never shy away from voicing their opinions and beliefs.  He urged the graduates to become part of the future, encouraged them to allow their faith to guide them in their journey, and cautioned them to remain humble and to temper their passions.

I must also admit that I appreciated his advice to the young audience that they should be part of their community, join the common effort toward the common good, and learn from one another, that in doing so, all things are possible.

I assumed it would be smooth sailing to the finale when the President had to end his speech by throwing another monkey wrench into the works by incorrectly referencing the Constitution regarding America’s “journey towards a more perfect union”.

The issuance of this statement from someone who taught Constitutional Law causes me more than a little concern.  The preamble of the Constitution states, “…in Order to form a more perfect Union… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  There is no reference of a “journey toward”, nor could there be.  The Founders accomplished their mission of creating a more perfect union through the ratification of the Constitution.

It is my opinion that referencing a “journey toward” a more perfect union relegates the Constitution to a “living, breathing document”, subject to whimsical change, depending on which way the societal, or political, winds are blowing.  The Constitution of the United States is not a weak, spineless opinion; it is the centerpiece of the law of the land, an affirmation of the power of the people, and a detailing of the limitations of authority for our government.

Finally, I congratulate all of the graduating classes of 2009.  Your accomplishments are commendable, and I concur with the President when he said, “Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved”.  You have obtained a solid foundation on which to go out into the world and begin building your life.  Always remember, you did not succeed alone.  Each of you required support and encouragement in you scholastic ventures.  You will eventually learn, the greatest gift to receive, is the personal gratification you will experience in supporting and encouraging others in their ventures.  Because, like you, nobody accomplishes greatness alone.   Salute.