The Forgotten Men Blog
Who is President Obama fighting?
- Saturday, 07 July 2012 06:35
- Written by Mark Kreslins
"One of the things that you learn as president is that what you say matters and your principles matter," Obama scolded in the interview. "And sometimes, you've got to fight for things that you believe in and you can't just switch on a dime."
He's claiming to be "fighting" for something he believes in. To us at TFM, this doesn't seem to be a very necessary fight. Why? Who is the opponent?
Lets examine the possibilities, shall we?
It's not the republican House is it? Sure, they don't like his take on healthcare, but they seem to be okay with the national government being involved in healthcare which I'm having a very hard time finding in the Constitution. After all, they keep spouting off; "vote for us, we'll repeal AND replace" Obamacare! (um, we're for Repeal And Do NOTHING About Healthcare!)
So, if Obama is fighting for his version of the national government controlling healthcare and the republicans are fighting for their version of the national government to control healthcare...is this really a "fight?" They both want the same thing, just a different version, maybe one with a "little" more freedom. But both Obama and the republican party seem to have no problem violating the Constitution regarding healthcare. So, maybe that's what Obama is "fighting" the republicans for..more control vs. a little less control over people. I dunno, doesn't make sense that this would be a fight...perhaps he should have used the word negotiate as in "lets get together and negotiate how much control we want to have over people" That's better than being dishonest by saying he's "fighting" for the belief that the national government should control healthcare. Where's the fight when they both want the same thing?
So, if he's not really fighting the republicans for national government control of healthcare...then who is he fighting?
Maybe it's the States...yeah, that's it. Let's examine that.
Sure, there are a few States out of the gate in tortoise like fashion that seem to be considering, ever so slightly, doing something, maybe. But is this the reaction anyone expected from some of the States? We at TFM had hoped for a least a couple of Governors to say this was a line in the sand that could not crossed. Sure, Rick Scott of Florida belted out that Florida would not setup the exchanges! Makes one wonder though if he would have said the same if the Court held that the Medicaid provision was somehow "constitutional" (wink, wink)? Okay, so no State has really thrown down yet, maybe they will, who knows.
So, if it's not the republicans or States that Obama is "fighting," whom else could he be "fighting?"
Maybe it's We the People he's fighting...that must be it! There are many people who are in despair and angry about the decision last week. But we hardly call that a "fight," do you? People have been complaining for generations about there being too much government and nothing really changes for the better. In fact, not only do things not change for the better, they just get worse. Why? Because the larger majority seems to be content with big government but like to reserve the right to complain. They're unorganized, really uninspired and directionless. They tend to believe they're protesting by "voting the lesser of two evils" or following an "anybody but Obama" strategy. But does Obama really need to "fight" these people. Nah, all he needs to do to most is open the treasury and hand out some supposed "free stuff" and when he does, he only has to be willing to take some heat from the ABO crowd. No big deal for a thick skinned politician like Obama.
Ok TFM, if he's not "fighting" the republicans, not "fighting" the States, and not really "fighting" We the People...who is he "fighting?"
Ready for the answer?
He's worried (as are the big government republicans) about a small but growing group of latter day "Jeffersonians." And not as in this group are Jefferson groupies...not in the slightest. No, this is a fight over Jeffersonian principles as in:
| Issue | Big government politicians | Jeffersonians |
| Unalienable Rights | Against | For |
| Consent of the Governed | Against | For |
| The rule of Law | Against | For |
| Personal Responsibility | Against | For |
| Redistribution of wealth | For | Against |
| Forced charity | For | Against |
| Voluntary charity | Against | For |
| Undeclared wars | For | Against |
| Self-government | Against | For |
| Enumerated Powers | Against | For |
So there you have it...we've discovered who Obama is "fighting!" He's fighting those who support Natures Law or transcendent rights...and so will Romney if he's elected. And so will any other pro-big government politician you vote for.
As we've said over and over and over again...these typically are NOT noble people who occupy elected office...they are ignoble.
And the age old axiom continues...you get the government you deserve by voting for big-government politicians who are anti your interests.
Even though during a campaign, they'll tell you that they're "fighting" for you!
0 Comments
Why written constitutions don’t matter.
- Friday, 06 July 2012 17:09
- Written by Mark Kreslins
It's been nine days now since the Supreme Court "handed down" their decision from on high, reaffirming the continued misuse of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses. But it did not stop there. No, Justice Roberts writing for the Majority declared that while the Affordable Care Act could not survive under even the most expansive reading of the two typical clauses used to expand national government power...wait, wait, wait...here it comes...Roberts and the Majority decided that the Act could survive under Congress's new and improved "Tax and Spend" power linked with the General Welfare Clause!
Now, everyone is either shouting or crying... "how can they do that?" It's really quite easy, similar to what a used car salesman does when he wants to make a sale; make up a reason for you to buy it. And boy, thanks to the wonderful phrase "stare decisis," we know it as the legal term "precedent" the nine politically connected lawyers in black dresses can do just about anything...no, make that anything they want. And this is the tool Jurists intent on building out a national government use to condone their actions.
From the Roberts opinion regarding the survival of the Affordable Care Act under Congress's tax and spend authority:
“The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830).” Page 31
"Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: "[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act." Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion)." Page 31
"The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.
After all, it states that individuals "shall" maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government's alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress's constitutional power to tax."
Here you see stari decisis at work. The Majority doesn't take into consideration what the Framers and Ratifiers said or intended about the tax and spend clause connected with the General Welfare clause; they went to other court decisions and their own sense of "fairness" to answer to how to decide on the claim by the national government.
Stari Decisis enables the Court to decide on its own, arbitrarily, what is and what isn't Constitutional free from constraint as long as they can achieve a majority. Free of any restraints of what the Framers and Ratifiers explicitly claimed during the Convention and the Ratification Debates.
This decision is but another verse in a long developed love song the legal profession has created for itself!
"We, the Justices sing melodically and in unison with other supreme court tyrants throughout the history of this Constitution all the way back to Marshall; we the Justices sing, we know what's best for you little serfs and we will not be encumbered with a clear and simple document like the Constitution. Further you little subjects, when this silly little document is in our way, and an Act of Congress is one of which violates it, we Justices will adopt the meaning (of the Act) that does not violate its meaning and ignore the one that does!"
This, folks, is the sausage making of current jurisprudence.
I’m going to start running my life this way:
IRS – Mr. Kreslins, you owe us $10,000 for taxes
Me – In reviewing the Internal Revenue Code, even though there are hundreds of codes I clearly violate in not paying my taxes, I did observe this one provision that protects me from payment if read a certain way. I believe I’ll adopt that meaning so that my desire to not pay my taxes survives!
How do you think that will work out for me?
1 Comment
We're hoplessly divided...
- Friday, 29 June 2012 08:59
- Written by Mark Kreslins
We’re hopelessly divided
Yesterday, a turning point of sorts appeared on our doorstep.
As we’ve been clear in our clarion call for the last three years…Washington DC will NEVER fix Washington, DC.
We begged, cajoled, encouraged people to stop getting distracted by the goings on in Washington, DC and focus on your State. People called us crazy. We were accused of being unrealistic, not practical.
We offered real solutions such as:
- Nullification
- An Article V Amendment Convention
- Sheriff’s interposition
- Withdrawing from the Compact (secession)
People would say…”oh, there they go again with their stupid ideas!”
Read more: We're hoplessly divided...