Obama, Explained, in ONE PARAGRAPH

Here it is.  You ready?  Because this is Obama, thus the insidious cancer of Progressivism, explained with the most sparkling clarity & brevity as I have ever seen.  Via Kevin D. Williamson at NRO, from whom I always learn something (the highest praise I can offer any writer) Bold text is my addition:

Barack Obama isn’t a policy guy; he’s a personnel guy. An underappreciated aspect of Barack Obama’s politics is that he has been trying to convert the Democratic party from a party that lives in Congress to a party that lives in the White House. The Democrats owned Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, in the postwar era, with unbroken control of the speakership from 1955 to 1995. Until Newt Gingrich came in with the 1994 tsunami, the last Republican speaker had been a man born in 1884 who rode into office on the coattails of Calvin Coolidge. Except for a few brief interludes (January 3, 1947 to January 3, 1949; January 3, 1953 to January 3, 1955; January 3, 1981 to January 3, 1987), the Democrats ran the Senate, too, from the Great Depression until the Gingrich years. That version of the Democratic party was a lawmaking party. (It made a lot of bad laws.) Barack Obama’s Democratic party, the one he is giving birth to, is a different animal. He didn’t give a hoot what was in his signature health-care law — just so long as it empowered him to start putting his people in positions to make health-care decisions. His patron saint is Roy Cohn, who proclaimed the gospel ‘Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.’ Barack Obama doesn’t want to write laws — he wants to appoint judges. He doesn’t want finely crafted legislation — he wants ‘The secretary shall issue.'”

Parenthetically, Mr. Williamson also illuminates why we are $18 trillion in debt. Democrats had the purse at the dawn of the Great Society and did not let go until 1996. That’s not to say Republicans don’t own some of this disaster; they most certainly do. But it wasn’t conservatives who ushered in the welfare state and support it to this day. That’s on progressives. And that’s why we’re $18 trillion in the hole. Every social welfare program they have supported from the New Deal through the Great Society to Obamacare is not just broke, it’s breaking the back of the Republic.  Everything they touch turns to sh*t.


I heartily recommend your read the entire thing, here.

I Don’t Even Play One on T.V.

Once again, gentle reader of my blog, (all 1 of you, you know who you are ;), we cite the excellent writing at American Thinker.  This morning’s piece is on the dusty-old, but, to civics-geeks, exceedingly exciting matter of the Origination Clause, as it specifically relates to Obamacare, and more specifically, a SCOTUS* lawsuit to kill Obamacare.  I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v., but I need help with this  American Thinker piece’s anti-Obamacare legal argument because it reads to me like a pro-Obamacare legal argument, save the last paragraph.

By way of a quick review, since I presume you have a life and haven’t followed the minute particulars like those of us who haven’t seen daylight since Obama showed up, Obamacare was born by (then) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gutting a piece of  revenue-raising House legislation he found languishing in the bottom of a desk drawer, and inserting Obamacare.  Why did Dirty Harry do this?  Because only the House can tax the people and Harry needed a piece of paper with a big “H” on it to morph it into the biggest tax & redistribution legislation in the history of human-kind, Obamacare.   The Senate is allowed, of course, to “amend” House legislation, so Harry decided “amend” meant ripping absolutely e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g out of that piece of paper except the “H” and the bill number.  No… Really.  I mean it.  Literally.  That’s “amending” a piece of legislation in the new America post-January 20, 2009.  The bill could have been on curtain rods, but instead of amending it to include curtains, he “amended” it to include fish-bait.  Does that sound like an “amendment” to you?  An normal person?  No.  Of course not.

Now, I know that’s a quaint, and antiquated matter these days, that pesky Constitution, but Harry’s been around a long time and knows he needs to cross his t’s and dot his i’s down there on the Hill, being without the expansive powers of the magic “pen and a phone” of his consigliere at 1600 Penn.  So he figured as long as the origination bill had an “H-0000” on it, who the hell would notice, right?  I mean… Really?  It’s not like we have an adversarial press, and Obama-voters were watching “American Idol” not CSPAN.

Well, unhappily for Obama, not everyone was smitten with the Black Jesus, nor was everyone was watching “American Idol,”  including the author of this piece who says he is trying to help anti-Obamacare people by dint of his research, in the form of a scholarly article he summarizes for the masses at American Thinker, which I include in full below. But dang it all if it didn’t seem to do the opposite to me!  I read the entire thing, twice, and the ENTIRE article – SAVE the LAST paragraph – tells me how the author’s reading of the past HELPS PRO-Obamacare people – then WHAM! In the last paragraph, based on what I regard as an argument UNSUPPORTED BY EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH PRECEDING IT, says “NO WORRIES! It’s all good! SCOTUS will kill O’care because… non-‘germane’ amendments.”

Can some smart reader here help me? Because to a TOTAL non-lawyer it TRULY seems to me the last paragraph stands unsupported by all the previous paragraphs… Am I wrong here?

*SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States

Obamacare’s Constitutionality and the Origination Clause: New Evidence

April 27, 2015

One of the constitutional disputes triggered by the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is whether by substituting new material for the original House-passed bill (H.R. 3590), the Senate exceeded its constitutional power to amend the original measure. This, in turn, has provoked a debate over whether the Founders considered complete substitutes to be valid amendments.

A recently-republished piece of evidence suggests that they did. The Constitution’s Origination Clause requires that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Because the final version of Obamacare imposed a variety of taxes, it unquestionably was a “Bill for raising Revenue.”

Obamacare’s taxes, appropriations, and health-care regulations did not exist in the House-passed version of H.R. 3590. That incarnation of the bill was only a few pages long and was limited to making minor adjustments to the Internal Revenue Code irrelevant to health care. Under the guise of amendment, the Senate gutted the original language and substituted over 2000 pages of Obamacare.

Some writers argue that complete substitutions were not considered valid amendments during the Founding Era, while others contend that they were. Last year, I undertook a wide-ranging investigation into the subject that will be published within the next few weeks by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public PolicyThe article is summarized at length here.

I found that complete substitutions may have been unknown in the British Parliament, one source of the Constitution’s House-origination rule. I also found, however, that they were occasionally used in several states between Independence and the time the Constitution was ratified, and that they were considered valid amendments in those states.

This year, the Wisconsin Historical Society issued two new volumes of the magisterial Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Those volumes cover the debate over the Constitution waged in Maryland from 1787 through the end of 1788.

The first of the volumes reprints a pamphlet written in favor of the Constitution by “Aristides,” the pen name of jurist Alexander Contee Hanson. Hanson was a respected figure in Maryland, and his pamphlet was read widely both in that state and in Virginia. At one point he addressed the question of whether the Constitutional Convention exceeded its authority on the (substantially false) assumption that the delegates’ commissions had been limited to proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Hanson argued that proposing a substitute was a recognized form of “amendment:”

Amendment, in parliamentary language, means either addition, or diminution, or striking out the whole, and substituting something in its room.

Hanson’s assertion is particularly relevant to the Constitution’s original meaning because his own state legislature is not among those offering contemporaneous evidence of complete substitutions. Hanson was reflecting, in other words, an understanding that extended beyond his own state’s boundaries.

Unfortunately for advocates of Obamacare, the validity of complete substitutions as “Amendments” does not resolve the issue of constitutionality. During the Founding Era, even complete substitutes had to be connected to the subject matter of the original bill — or, in modern language, “germane” to the original. Otherwise, they were new bills, not valid amendments.

For reasons documented in my article, H.R. 3590 as passed by the House qualified constitutionally as a “bill for raising Revenue” (even though it was revenue-neutral) because it amended the tax code. Under Founding-Era rules all the Senate’s revenue changes were germane to the original, and therefore valid. However, the Senate-added appropriations and regulations were not germane to the subject of revenue. By including them, the Senate exceeded its authority to amend a “bill for raising Revenue. This means that by the Founders understanding of the Origination Clause, those additions were unconstitutional and void.

Rob Natelson is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence, Independence Institute & Montana Policy Institute, and Professor of Law (ret.), The University of Montana

Cotton Swabs & Lying-Ass Democrats

Not every politician out of Arkansas is a skirt-chasing sociopath. (I refer to one William Jefferson Clinton for you youngsters joining us today.)

Republican Representative Tom Cotton of Arkansas’ 4th district absolutely SCORCHES the parade of lying-ass Democrats taking to the House floor, one after the other, in advance of voting on the formation of the Benghazi Select Committee.  It’s just 2 minutes, but BOOM.  Think puppies curling their tails to cover their genitals and whimpering. That’s the only appropriate reaction for any Democrat with a conscience (I know, I know…) after hearing this honorable young man speak truth to power.

We salute you, sir! And THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!  On both battlefields; foreign, with lethal bullets, and domestic, with sewage-packed rhetorical ones.

Full text & video of his remarks are below.  Italics & bold are mine.


“Mr. Speaker, couple lessons I learned in the Army were you moved to the sound of gunfire and the most important step in the troop leading procedures is to supervise the execution of you orders.

When Americans were fighting for their lives in Benghazi, Barack Obama did neither. He sent no quick reaction force and didn’t even stay in the situation room to supervise the execution of his orders. We expect more from the lieutenants in the army than our president gave us that night.

For two years he’s covered up this failure of leadership by stonewalling. Not anymore. We will now get to the truth.

But what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say to this? They express great outrage at politicizing this matter.

When I was leading troops in Iraq in 2006, men and women who were being shot at and blown up by al Qaeda, where was the outrage as they fundraised endlessly off the Iraq war?

Where was the outrage as they viciously attacked our commanders?

Where was the outrage when they said soldiers were war criminals?

Where was the outrage when they said the war was lost?

Where was the outrage when they said only high school dropouts join the Army?

Forgive me if I don’t join my democratic colleagues in their fake outrage. Four Americans lost their lives that night in Benghazi. They deserve justice and the American people deserve the truth.

One other lesson I learned in the Army is that we leave no man behind. And we will not leave these four men behind.”

Democrats = Tea Party! Who Knew?

First of all, let’s just get something stipulated:  Democrats will always tell you what they fear. Always. They are the most evolved humans in all of human history in doing what psychiatrists call projection: through their words & deeds they are doing/saying what they accuse their straw men/enemies of doing. Through their words & deeds they tell you what they fear by doing what they accuse their straw men/enemies of doing. It’s 100% reliable. 100%. Every time. Without fail. Consistently. No matter what. Okay? Got it?  Can we stipulate it?

This has been a tour-de-force week of this point in human evolution.  While Democrats stand on the House & Senate floors doing what they reliably do, breaking out the kleenex box, there, on Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid’s desk, are 8 or so House-passed bills to alleviate the suffering they say they want to alleviate, but the creepy-troll won’t even allow the Senate to vote for them.


He just heard speeches from any number of the 54 of the 100 Senators who are Democrats detail how acutely they felt the people’s pain.  Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the House the power of the purse. Harry Reid actually wondered aloud what “right” the House has to “pick and choose.”

This is astonishing.

He is either cravenly mendacious or senile.  Surely the old coot knows that the long train history shows that that’s exactly how government funding gets done.  If I have my history right, I believe there are usually 12 separate appropriations bills which pass through the House, go to the Senate, then possibly to conference, then, ultimately to the President for signature. Oh… Wait… I’ve got it.  I know why Senator Reid can’t remember how it works:

He hasn’t taken up an appropriations bill since 2008.


Yes. That’s right. The last time a budget was signed by this President was April 2009.  It was President Bush’s last budget.


That’s right. President Obama has not passed a budget since taking office, in FLAGRANT violation of the law.  You’d be forgiven for no knowing that since The Palace Guard, er, the mainstream media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, have not reported this dereliction of duty, this unprecedented – unprecedented – neglect of the most basic functions of the federal government, one in such deep, deep fiscal trouble.  It’s unconscionable, but evidently, unworthy of reportage.

Remember: George Bush poured water on Khalid-Sheik-Mohammed.

That’s bad.

That’s worthy of impeachment.  Hell, even a trial at the Hague for war crimes leading to execution.

But back to the here and now, to Democrats on the Hill, and what their actions are telling you:

They’re giving a resounding argument for small government! A treatise on smaller is better. Smaller works.

Case in point:

One Democrat stood – with his figurative kleenex box – on the House floor during a special Saturday session, October 6th, and, while making a plea for what turned out to be a unanimous vote to authorize pay for furloughed federal workers, said he had one of his hard-working staffers stand in his office weeping.  He said she just broke down and cried, wondering aloud how she was going to pay for her two kids’ needs if they didn’t authorize back-pay for time off during the shut down.

My, my. Looky there.  Not only did they get a unanimous House vote for it, they got Harry Reid to take it up for a vote, and the President to signal he would sign it.

But, but, but… What about being “blackmailed” by “extortionists” and “arsonists” and anarchists” with “bombs strapped to their chests” and a “gun held to the American people’s head”?  The President himself and his henchman have used these words to describe their fellow Americans who disagree with them.

Islamic terrorists are just misunderstood, mind you.

But Americans, and their representatives on The Hill, are worthy of this rhetoric from The Leader of the Free World.

So what does it mean? How is this Tea Party?

What you see up close, you feel.  What you feel personally, you act on.

The lesson here is: if you cry in front of your congressman, you get action.

Good luck getting in front of your congressman.

Unless you’re part of a special class of people, either on the inside via working for the federal government, or via a big checkbook, that ain’t happening.  And an email, a tweet, even snail-mail isn’t as powerful as one woman weeping over her children in front of one male congressman.

Men hate it when women cry. They’ll do anything to stop it.  Just ask one. They’ll tell you. They h-a-t-e it.

So imagine, if you will, that that same woman just ran in to that lawmaker at the grocery store. At church.  At the local diner.

That is what Tea Party advocates.

Return the non-defense functions of the federal government to the states.  Defense is the only item in our founding documents specifically enumerated for federal funding and control.  The only one.  Now, we have an enormous transfer payment apparatus in the form of Social Security & Medicare (and now Obamacare) that has to be unwound, reformed, but that’s doable. It’s completely doable without harming a soul. It just takes courage.

But imagine how that would be?  Imagine if the E.P.A. administrator in West Virginia had to risk running into a coal miner at the Piggly-Wiggly? You think she’d be so callous? Hm?  Imagine if the administrator for aged/disability payments had to risk running into a recipient at church? (I know, I know… a progressive at church? Just go with me here…) You think he or she would threaten them so carelessly?

Of course not.

Smaller is better.  Local is easier to keep an eye on. You know what’s going on in your backyard. Harder to know what’s going on in a backyard hundreds or even thousands of miles away.  It’s one hell of a lot easier to get to your state capital or even county/parish/borough seat than it is to get into any building in Washington D.C. right?

These Democrats voted to restore funding for their staffs not just because they cried in their offices, but because they live with them and rely on them every day.  If their staffs hate them, they’re less likely to hold the elevator door, get their faxes out on time, etc., etc. The people who rely on these politicians for their pay can make their lives miserable by their absence when relations are good, and by their presence if relations are bad, if they feel abused by these politicians.

YOU are the people. If they’re in your backyard, you’ve got them by the… well… you know.

Thanks for making the argument for us, Democrats!  Too bad The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, won’t report it that way.

Remember: Khalid-Sheik-Mohammed got wet.

That’s bad.

Chick Thoughts

1. As regards Hillary’s (Benghazi, Libya, dead Ambassador +3) testimony on The Hill yesterday:  The sum total of her testimony was “I didn’t get the memo” which resulted in all progressives & all MSM hailing this as a slap-down of those meanie GOP who questioned her. There were only 2 or 3 GOP who did an even half-way decent job of it, out of some 5 1/2 hours, which was distressing enough, but to hear the liberal media tell it, obfuscating and criminal negligence are praise-worthy talents. (And flat-out lying. She flat-out lied at least three times I counted.  Just flat-out LIED.) I can only imagine if the exact same series of events took place under George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice. I’m guessing “I didn’t get the memo” wouldn’t fly…


2. As regards women in foxholes:  I used to sleep easy at night that none of my children would be drafted, as I have no sons… So much for that.  Panetta, on his way out, overturned that policy so now women can fight on the front lines.  I’ve always thought that if a woman CHOSE to, and her COMMANDER thought it was a good idea, she should be allowed to do it; but as a one-size-fits-all policy, NO.  Men and women ARE different and no matter how much you may want to make that not so, IT’S NOT SO.  That’s not to say they are not EQUAL:  Just DIFFERENT.  Again, if, in certain circumstances, you have a squad member who is uniquely suited to that work whose Commander (likely knowing what his troops think) thinks its workable, FINE.  But this cookie-cutter-we’re-all-equal-progressive-social-engineering-in-foxholes ain’t the way.