Obamacare a Fraud from the Start

Obamacare was passed as a budget reconciliation bill, a bill that saves money.  The fiction that the bill saves money is blown out of the water by now.  So, in legal terms, this was fraud in the inducement for the bill.  Our Dear Leader has exempted Employers from their mandate, but has preserved the Individual Mandate.  If George Bush had done that, there would be Occupy Everything protests and riots across the country.  The Pravda Press would be screaming.  Since The One We Were Waiting For did it, it's fine with everybody except the Tea Party crazies who actually read the Constitution.  The Constitution says all spending bills must originate in the House.  There is no Constitutional Mandate that Congress must fund any bill that was previously passed, particularly if the budget estimates were off as badly as Obamacare's were.  It also says the President "must take care that the laws are faithfully executed."  So no matter how smart The Smartest Guy in the Oval Office Ever happens to be, he is not allowed to suspend the collection of taxes on business because his administration is not ready to do what the law requires.  He should have to ask Congress to change the law.  For obvious reasons, this was inconvenient for the former Constitutional Lecturer who made the decision.  Has anyone noticed that the number of people who have successfully used the Federal website for Obamacare to get coverage is not something normally talkative "senior administration officials" want to talk about?  They blame it all on the unexpected hordes of citizens who need insurance from the exchanges.  I guess they really believed their own propaganda that "If you like your insurance, you can keep it."  Since that was a lie, too many people tried to register?  Or perhaps the whole thing is one big government overreach?

No Ignorance on the Left?

I guess that a corollary of no enemies on the left is, axiomatically, no ignorance on the left.   If George W. Bush "flubs it," it's evidence of his ignorance.  If "The One" flubs it, it's evidence of his absent mindedness.   The Dear Leader is, by definition, brilliant.  Republicans are, by definition, ignorant, stupid and often malevolent.  When BHO acts like a Stuart King of England, ruling by decree, it is by definition not comparable.  That the Constitution was framed with the behavior of Stuart Kings in mind, is ignored or unknown to Liberals (Progressives?).  This is convenient, because they can claim they are just trying to preserve the spirit of the Constitution by flouting the letter of it.  Liberals who want to buy a clue should Google "Charles I, of England" and look at the Wikipedia entry, particularly the "Personal Rule" section.  

  

Liberals may accuse me of borrowing vocabulary from George Will.  Sorry. I guess my conservative ignorance is so great that my Mathematics MS degree did not include axiomatic assumptions. Since I graduated in 1972, and had never heard of George Will at that time, I guess we can assume I read George Will for vocabulary words so that I can sound erudite while speaking to Liberals. Sorry, big word. I'll correct it to smart. Does that dumb it down enough for "liberal" education?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355786/dont-know-much-about-geography-victor-davis-hanson

Racist History of Democrats

Democrats regularly pat themselves on the back for their liberal positions on race.  They then turn around and say all Republicans are racist.  This certainly forgets history. 

George Wallace and Lester Maddox were both Democrats.  In the 1950's and 60's, the Republicans were more Northern and progressive on race.  The Democrats were more Southern and much more segregationist than Republicans.  This alignment held from about 1855 to about 1968.  The Democrats bought black votes with the welfare part of the "Great Society" program.  They also successfully demonized Barry Goldwater in 1964.  Wikipedia says, "In 1964, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that emphasized states' rights.  Goldwater's 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives since he opposed interference by the federal government in state affairs.  Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation and had supported the original senate version of the bill, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do or not do business with whomever they chose." So he had a radically Libertarian position on Federal government interference with states and individuals.  Democrats successfully portrayed his record as racist, and traded white Southern votes for black Northern ones.  I lived through this as a child and young man.  My family was all Republican, but we were unpopular in Montana because we paid Native Americans white wages.    It was Republican President Eisenhower who ordered the National Guard into Little Rock in 1957 to force desegregation on Central High School there.  While I'm not saying there was and is absolutely no racism in the Republican Party, Democrat descriptions of the comparative positions of the two parties are now, and have been since 1964, wildly exaggerated in order to force black voters away for the Republican Party which was their political home for over a century. 

Liberals also like to say that blacks were uniquely victimized by discrimination.  This is also both self- serving and false.  Chinese and Japanese immigrants were systematically excluded, were not eligible for citizenship and in some cases were forbidden to own or lease land.  See for example the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 or the California Alien Land Law of 1913.  For a general survey, Google "History of Us Immigration Law." Also, look into what happened to Japanese residents of the Continental US during World War II.  (Hint: They we "interned,") 

“Progressives” like to disown the old Democrat party by saying the historical Democrats were not progressive.  As a "Progressive" or "Liberal," you are of course always right.  Us ignorant Conservatives defer to your superior wisdom.  Of course, they just say that they were not "Progressive" so they're not your problem as a "Progressive Democrat." ("Liberal" is so passe.) The fact that they were Democrats doesn't count unless they were "Progressive." Since Progressives  can define any historical Democrat as not "Progressive," let's try someone who defines himself as "Progressive" currently.  Let’s consider Al Sharpton, who supported an anti Jewish riot in Crown Heights where the mob stabbed and killed Yankel Rosenbaum.  He has his own TV show on MSNBC and calls himself "Progressive." I guess he's not anybody's problem (except maybe Yankel Rosenbaum's friends and family) because his heart is pure? And he can't be an anti semitic bigot, can he, because he's black.

The fact that inner city blacks do not have the opportunities of suburban whites is whose problem exactly?  For example, the schools are unionized, so charter schools and vouchers are not allowed.   By definition, stop and frisk is racist, so crime is rampant.   Families are subsidized to break up, so they do.   People who create jobs are taxed out of the inner city.   And who supports all of these oppressive policies?  Liberal Democrats.   

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356776/poignant-anniversary-thomas-sowell

Kerry Advocates War? LOL

In Vietnam, the Democrat Congress cut off all funding for ammunition for the South Vietnamese Army in 1974. The subsequent result was thousands executed by Ho Chi Min and friends. Over 500,000 Vietnamese fled Vietnam in leaky boats to escape the slaughter. John Kerry testified before Congress in April, 1971, that American war crimes were frequent in Vietnam. There was lots of coverage. I got spit at for wearing an Air Force uniform as a result of his testimony. Coverage for the communist slaughter after overrunning South Vietnam was negligible. It was the same level of coverage for the executions and mass graves that were discovered after the failure of the Communist Tet Offensive in 1968. Maybe Communists killing people was a "dog bites man" story? As a result, how should we view John Kerry's advocating Syrian intervention? Since we know he's a political opportunist and liar from his Vietnam escapades, he has no credibility now. Now some liberal commentators want to talk about Vietnam? Ludicrous.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358013/syria-and-specter-iraq-michael-barone