Thursday, June 28, 2012


INDIVIDUAL MANDATE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER COMMERCE POWER, but Scotusblog says it survives as a tax. “It’s very complicated, so we’re still figuring it out.”

I feel sorry for the folks on TV trying to read this opinion and talk at the same time.

UPDATE: From ScotusBlog: “The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.” Plus: “The money quote from the section on the mandate: ‘Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.’”

So it was upheld on a basis — the taxing power — that the Administration didn’t advance. In fact, Obama denied that it was a tax. This just supports what Mike Graetz told me in Tax class years ago: “The constitution stops where the Internal Revenue Code begins.”

On the upside, the Lopez revolution, which some believed dead, appears to be revived.

So, liberals, does this mean the Supreme Court is legitimate again?

And what’s next? Republicans will have to push for repeal, or look like losers. Now Romney needs to make an issue of repealing the “Obama Healthcare Tax,” I guess. And, of course, it’s important to note that just because the Supreme Court — barely — found the Act constitutional doesn’t mean that it’s actually a good idea.

Text of the opinion is still not online. But here’s ScotusBlog’s summary:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. . . . Yes, to answer a common question, the whole ACA is constitutional, so the provision requiring insurers to cover young adults until they are 26 survives as well.

So there you are. The Supreme Court has refused to save us from ourselves. The remedy now will have to be political.

(End of article)

John Roberts has made mish-mash of the law and has set the stage for what is to come: a "national crisis" that will preclude elections in November and will perpetuate Obama's "presidency."

What Roberts has done, in spite of the rash of rationalizations, punditry and suppositions, is to have solidified the president's power to side-step congress, the law and the Constitution.

These are solemn times.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012


In his June 14 economic policy address in Cleveland, President BO (the child president) said that if elected for a secnd term he would:  "create strong sustained growth;…pay down our long term debt; and most of all…generate good, middle-class jobs…."

Good! We want all of those things...but!

Right after he said that, he laid out a plan that would do exactly the opposite.

He said he wold raise taxes.

Take more of people's hard earned money, especially if they worked really hard, took lots of risk and created many jobs and thus had lots of money.

Then he said he would increase the number of rules and regulaitons on people, industries and states.

Does he not realize that every single regulation takes away somebody's freedom?  Is liberty just a word that it can be so blatently denied?

He said he would increase government spending.

Imagine! He actually thinks government spending, the money he gets for which is taken from the very people he thinks he's going to help will help. (Let's see...I have $100.00. The government takes $15.00 of it and then gives me back $11.50 in government "serivces." Such a deal!)

He said, "Throughout history, it has typically taken countries up to 10 years to recover from financial crises of this magnitude." In other words, he is telling us the standard of recovery he wants to be judged by, is 10 years to get back on our feet.

Sort of reminds you of the aftermath of the great depression, doesn't it?

Ten years!

He isn't even going to be president in ten years!

Or is he?

Sounds like he's planning on being president to me!

There's a word for that: dictatorship.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012


The attendees of NALEO — a Hispanic voter group — had to surrender their utensils before Obama would speak.

This took place in a ballroom at Disney’s Contemporary Resort at Walt Disney World

The announcement at the Latino officials’ event may have been unusual, but the removal of the silverware sometimes takes place without anyone realizing it’s a security measure.

Still, there are a wide variety of breakfasts, lunches and dinners the president attends where diners still have the full complement of silverware as Obama speaks.

I wonder how this might affect the Hispanic vote in Florida.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

SUNDAY RESPITE-Sometimes He Calms the Storm-Scott Krippayne

Blogger will not let me paste in my Sunday respite. It won't even let me  put a title on this! They're such pros!

Thursday, June 21, 2012


I took speech in college. I was also captain of our debate team, which led the state one year.

In speech class we were taught NOT to use "uhh" in our speeches. We were told its use made it look as though we were trying to think of some way to express or alter our next thought.

"Uhhh" indicated that we were unsure of ourselves. Besides, it was distracting to the audience.

In fact, we got points off for using "uhhh," "look," "you know" and "now."

Turns out our professor was wrong.

Our leader, the most eloquent president since Abraham Lincoln, shows us how it should be done.

Maybe you like this:
And then there's this:

Tuesday, June 19, 2012


The purpose of the Constitution, according to its framers (Google each of the 50+ framers to discover their views), was to lay down the principles of a government that was subject to the people and that governed according to their will.

It laid down six functions of this government: to unite the people; to establish justice; to keep the peace (domestic tranquility); to provide for the common defense; to promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty, now and forever.

So how are we doing with these principles?

List the ways, for instance, the current administration, congress and the judiciary are taking steps to unite us as a nation.

Do those ways include opening the borders between the U.S. and Mexico? Is that a unifying action?

How about providing “stimulus” packages for parts of society that cannot figure out how to sustain themselves. Is that unifying the country?

Do you think taking more and more of the money people earn legitimately to fund such projects as the “bridge to nowhere,” Solyndra, General Motors, etc. is uniting the country?

How are the current administration, congress and the judiciary doing with the principle of establishing justice for all?

Is the interjection of the administration into a case involving a neighborhood watch person and a neighborhood intruder before all of the facts are known a part of ensuring that justice is administered?

Maybe you think that providing fire arms to know drug dealers who subsequently use them to murder Americans on U.S. soil is just.

Perhaps the John Corozine case illustrates how well the system is providing justice for all.

In what way is our government ensuring tranquility?

Is tranquility Constitutionally synonymous with peace?

North Korea, if you don’t count the concentration camps, is a tranquil society. It is also a totalitarian state that exists on threat, power and mind control. It that the kind of tranquility we want?

Do you see Occupy Wall Street gangs breaking store windows, overturning cars, tearing down corporations bill boards and defecating in public as tranquil?

What about the constant race-baiting that comes out of Washington DC? Does that ensure domestic tranquility?

Then there’s “provide for the common defense.”

Notice that this is the only phrase in the Constitution that asks the government to do the actual providing.

Also notice that its job is to defend commonly, that is, the whole of the nation, not pockets of internal unrest.

Explain to me how decreasing our military force helps provide for the common defense.

The next principle in the Constitution is the principle of promoting (not providing) the general welfare.

How dose confiscating more and more of the people’s earned income and giving it to people or corporations promote the general welfare?

Do you believe that a person who will not work, if physically and mentally able to do so, should be taken care of by the rest of the citizens of this country?

Perhaps you can opine as to how paying for an illegal alien at the expense of citizens who need those classroom seats, promotes the general welfare.
Does promoting the general welfare include becoming a “Nanny State?”

Does the current administration’s presentation of “Julia” really represent what you want this nation to be? Does it really fit what the Constitution is addressing in the general welfare clause?

“Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.”

The government is now enslaving our posterity to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars in both debt and budget deficits.

Does this ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?

How does taking money from citizens to use to “invest” in doomed so-called “green” corporations help ourselves or our posterity?

“We the people…do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”

When President BO (the child president) proclaimed that the Constitution was flawed because it told what the government cannot do instead of what it must do, he was totally wrong, either out of ignorance or out of willful ignore-ance.

The Preamble tells us exactly what the government is designed to do…no more, no less.

The rest of the Constitution defines the functions of the various branches of our government and places the limits on what it is allowed to do…by design.

Sadly, we have allowed the government, which is supposed to be accountable to us, to usurp powers which were never intended for it, under the liberal “progressive” guise of it being a “living, breathing” document.

It does live, breathe and change, but by the deliberately complicated procedure of the amendment process, not by executive or judicial decree.

There are four bastions of liberty:

1. Respect for the Constitution

2. Respect for Life

3. The smallest possible government

4. Individual responsibility

God help us achieve all four.

Monday, June 18, 2012


I am having a real issue with Blogger throwing some of my commenters' comments into my spam section, which Blogger has now made less intuitive to get to.

In fact, Blogger has made EVERYTHING about itself less intuitive.

The problem is that IT guys are smart about codes and such, but know absolutely nothing about proper communication, intuitiveness or linear lay logic.

Does anybody know how to get this fixed (not a technical term) so that those who are trying to comment on my blog can do so without being unceremoniously tossed into the SPAM section?

Blogger Dashboard has degenerated into a major league joke.

I, for one, don't want to have to check my spam section every day to see if legitimate commenters' comments might have found their way there.

Also, how do I contact Blogger to tell them how much I hate what they have done with what was a fairly easy place to blog?

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Friday, June 15, 2012


He is either a sophomoric amateur or a complete incompetent.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Tuesday, June 12, 2012


By and Large, the price of oil is determined by Commodity traders.

These Commodity traders bid on Futures Contracts, agreements to buy or sell oil at a specific date in the future for an agreed-upon price.

Most of these traders are representatives of companies that actually use oil.

They buy oil for delivery at a future date at the fixed price, lowering the risk to their corporations.

Three factors help determine the price of oil: 1) current supply in terms of output (greatly influenced by OPEC); 2) available oil reserves, which include what is available in U.S. refineries and what is stored at the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and 3) oil demand, particularly from the U.S.

Demand for oil usually rises during the summer vacation driving season. To predict summer-time demand, forecasts for travel from AAA are used to determine potential gasoline use. During the winter, weather forecasts are used to determine potential home heating oil use.

World crises in oil-producing countries can also dramatically increase oil prices. That's usually because traders anticipate the crisis will limit supply. This is what happened in January 2012, after inspectors found evidence that Iran was closer to building nuclear weapons than had been previously thought.

The result of this, and other turmoil in the Middle East, was that oil prices bounced around $95-$100 a barrel from November through January. In mid-February, oil broke above $100 a barrel and stayed there. Gas prices at the pump went to over $4.00 a gallon.

In 1989, oil prices were hovering around $20.00 per barrel. The Exxon Valdez oil spill dumped 250,000 barrels of oil onto the Alaskan coastline, devastating to the coastline, but only a tiny fraction of available oil supplies.

The explosion of the BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico spewed more than 18 times that amount, but had little effect on oil prices due to a slow recovery from the 2008 financial crisis and recession's slow recovery. It was only about 9 days worth of U.S. oil consumption.

For the time being, oil prices are dropping, and that has finally made its impact at the gas pump.

It is still about one and one-half times what it was when President BO (the child president) took office.

Since the price of gasoline at the pump is determined by the cost of crude, which is cntrolled by the factors listed above, it would make great sense to increase the total amount of oil available world-wide.

This could be accomplished if the U.S. would extract and release a significan amount of oil into the world market. After all, we have well over two hundred years of the entire world's total need for oil available under our own soil at today's consumption rates.

Add to that oil that it is ecconomically feasable to extract from "non-traditional" sources, and we could easily see $2.00 per gallon gasoline or lower at the pump within 6 months to a year.

That will take some political guts, though. Political guts is something that is in short supply in President BO (the child president)'s administration.

For more information you might enjoy a visit to these articles:

Reasons for High Oil Prices

Why Didn't the Gulf Oil Spill Raise Oil Prices?

How Crude Oil Prices Affect Gas Prices

What Are the Strategic Petroleum Reserves?

Commodities - How Commodities Trading Affects the US Economy

Futures Contracts - Definition of Commodities Futures Contracts Including O...

Price of Alternative Fuels - A Look at the Cost Factors that Affect Alterna...

Monday, June 11, 2012


Facts, if they are facts, are facts. They are expressions of something that really is.

But facts can be manipulated and mis-interpreted. They can lead to wrong conclusions.

Here's an example: All living humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide (along with other gasses).

That's a fact.

All people who are deprived of oxygen long enough will die.

That's a fact.

Some people who live and breathe have cancer.

That's a fact.

If you deny those people oxygen long enough they will die.

That's a fact.

If you deny those people oxygen long enough they will not die of cancer.

That's a fact.

Conclusion 1: Oxygen causes cancer.

Conclusion 2: Lack of oxygen cures cancer.

Both of those positions draw the wrong conclusion from the facts given.

That is why this blog is not just about facts, figures and "documentation."

It is about my opinion (ultimately the only one that counts here).

This blog is about the way I see the world, that is: my world view.

Other people have different world views and different opinions.

That's OK.

This is America. They have the right to be wrong.

They are also allowed to express their differing opinions on this blog in the comments section at my descretion, the only one that counts here.

They do not have a right to express their differing opinions here, they are afforded the privilege of expressing their opinions here.

Gotta remember, though, that my opinions, although humble, are always correct.

Arrogant? I don't think so.

So, make me a list of opinions you hold (humble or not) that you think are incorrect.

Go on...I'm waiting.

If they are incorrect, why are you holding them? Let them go!

When I express my opinion here, I am basing it (or them) on what really happened.

I don't feel obligated to (nor will I attempt to) prove them to you, especially if you're a liberal.

If you are a liberal, you just aren't intelligent enough for me to think you could understand my documentations.

I will make statements that are true, quite apart from liberals' evaluations of my statements.

And, if I feel like doing so, I will provide links to articles, videos, audios and/or web sites to back up what I have said.

But if I don't feel like doing so, I won't.

So get over it!

Go ahead. Read and enjoy! Or read and don't enjoy. Or don't read...I don't care.

This is my blog written primarily for me to express myself.

So, don't go jumping to any conclusions.

Just trust me.

Saturday, June 9, 2012


The following is an article from The American Thinker.

June 7, 2012

Grifters on Parade

By J. R. Dunn

The nearly simultaneous exposure of the false claims of Elizabeth Warren to Cherokee ancestry and Obama's to Kenyan nationality is an example of two events that are not quite a pure coincidence. While each of these episodes is causally unrelated, what we're seeing is the same process working itself out in two distinct cases.

As all the world knows, an author's bio written in the early '90s stated that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. There is little or no possibility that it was printed without his knowledge. (One of the similarities between the two cases is that the institutions involved simply repeated what the principals said.) The bio made the Kenya claim because that's what Obama told its fabricators to put down. Furthermore, the claim was allowed to stand for over a decade, being edited out only in 2006.

So what are we to make of this? With anyone else, the case would be open and shut. But as we've come to learn regarding Obama, there are always layers beneath layers, going all the way down to the level of the fabled turtle that holds everything up. While Obama could have made the claim because it was true, it is just as likely that he did so because it was convenient at the time or served some purpose not obvious at first glance. The one undeniable axiom concerning Obama is that he lets no opportunity to help himself out slip past unexploited.

I have always been skeptical of the Kenya birth claim because there is no positive evidence for such an occurrence. All the evidence presented thus far has been circumstantial (when not simply fabricated), pointing in several directions and capable of being matched to a number of mutually exclusive hypotheses. As is often true in such cases, the simplest, most spectacular, and most unproveable theory of them all has seized public attention.

An unfortunate side-effect of the birth debate is that it has served to mask the bulk of the undeniable questions surrounding Obama's record, in particular his college records, which have faded almost to invisibility. In the light of the fake bio, they may well have been transformed into the most critical element of them all.

So we turn to Elizabeth Warren. In comparison to Obama, Warren's case is simplicity itself: she was claiming to be something she was not in order to ease her climb up the academic ladder. Warren asserted herself to be an American Indian, a Cherokee (as is usually the case with such assertions; few whites claim to be Sioux or Ute, and never Crow or Modoc), on grounds that have proven to be flimsy to illusory. Her case rests on a document that research by the Breibart sites has demonstrated to be nonexistent. At best, Warren can claim to be a laughably small proportion Indian (1/32 or even 1/64); at worst, she is exactly what she appears to be -- a member of the WASP tribe putting on the war paint to fool her fellow palefaces.

The reasons for this imposture are straightforward. The '90s were the peak of the political correctness craze, which was centered in American academia. At the time, you had to be something apart from white, male, and straight to get ahead in the academic world. The higher the identity tokens were stacked -- African, Arab, immigrant, gay, disabled, transsexual, and so on, ad infinitum -- the greater the benefits (there were a lot of jokes about this at the time). Warren, already female, decided to throw in the Indian card as well to trump the competition. The record shows that she played it for all it was worth, aiming war arrows at the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and a number of professional associations, as well as reasserting the claim in print in her cousin's damnfool cookbook. And until only weeks ago, it worked out well for her. Warren achieved the highest academic positions, served as advisor to the president, and was a candidate for a powerful federal position, and now she has a shot at the U.S. Senate. All of this is based on a single untruth about her ethnic background. Clearly, Warren is something of a poster girl for affirmative action.

Warren may also have given us the key to the Obama records conundrum. Obama was making his way through the Ivies at roughly the same time as Warren, during the period when PC was becoming dominant. He dealt with exactly the same environment on exactly the same terms, as a privileged minority among many such, seeking any extra edge available to him. Obama was black -- at least in part -- which represents the hole card as regards diversity, trumping feminism, sexuality, and almost any brand of foreign origin. We know he played that to the hilt. But there were plenty of other blacks breaking into academia at the time. Obama faced a lot of competition, the same as Warren did from other females. But Obama, also like Warren, possessed another card. That is...if you didn't look too closely.

That was the Kenya connection. It's quite likely he didn't even have to make the claim explicitly. In the atmosphere of the time, educational institutions were desperate to pad the roster by any and every means in order to demonstrate their "diversity." All that Obama needed to do was simply mention that his father was a Kenyan political personality, and well-programmed academic functionaries would fill in the rest. From that point on, all that was required of young Obama was to silently agree. Everybody knew that Barack Obama was Kenyan. I mean, with a name like that?

What would status as a foreigner, an African in particular, buy him in the academic environment? Authenticity, over and above all. As an African, Obama embodied something that American blacks could not claim. He was a serious third-worlder, in the pure Frantz Fanon sense, within a milieu where third-world figures are automatically granted sainthood. And beyond that, it may very likely have resulted in financial rewards, in the form of grants or scholarships (his father, after all, was a beneficiary of such a program). Without opening the records, we will never know.

As time went by, he grew more casual about it, and began making the claim in things like an author's bio, secure in the assumption that nobody would question Harvard's imprimatur concerning his status.

Then, when the lie became inconvenient -- when Obama began thinking of the presidency -- the claim was either scrubbed or locked up behind academic privacy walls, all except for oddities like the bio in question. He could depend on the functionaries at Columbia and Harvard to say nothing, and if there were few odd bits and pieces floating around -- as, of course, there inevitably were -- it didn't matter. Because he had, after all, been born in Hawaii, and try as they might, nobody could prove differently.

He must have been awfully pleased at how neatly it all worked out.

I'll be the first to admit that this is no more than another hypothesis. But the parallels between the two cases -- academia, ethnicity, diversity, cheating, false claims -- are enticing and structurally impressive. If this isn't the explanation, I suspect it's very close.

I also suspect that Warren is finished. She has become a punchline, something no politician can afford. And Obama?

Claiming that you're a foreigner is not an impeachable offense, not even illegal, as such. But it is perfectly in line with the squalid personality and record of our hustler president. He has failed as a leader, he has failed as a statesman, and he is now failing as a fraud. It's really too bad he didn't choose to present himself as, say, a quarter Cherokee. Was it something about the cheekbones?

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker

Friday, June 8, 2012

Special Interests EXPOSED!!!

Please make your comments relevant to the video and avoid just calling him a "nut-job." If you're smart enough, that is.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

CBO report: U.S. debt will be 2x GDP by 2037

Yet another study pointing to imminent fiscal calamity, while Obama & friends busy themselves trying to convince everyone that the Obama administration hasn’t actually increased spending all that much.

The new CBO report warns that increased entitlement spending driven by the retirement of the baby boomers and insufficient revenue is making the long-term outlook for the national debt increasingly dire.

Under CBO’s most likely scenario, in which lawmakers extend current tax rates and fail to curb entitlement spending, debt held by the public would reach 109 percent of the economy by 2026, and it would be almost 200 percent of GDP by 2037.

Many economists have warned that if debt held by the public approaches 100 percent of GDP, it can bring on the kind of fiscal crisis being felt in European countries today, in which governments must suddenly slash spending and lay off workers in the face of rising interest rates caused by spooked investors.

CBO’s latest prediction is roughly similar to its 2011 report, despite the $2.1 trillion in budget cuts enacted in last August’s debt-ceiling deal between the White House and Congress.

I take pretty much all government ‘estimates’ with a grain of salt — and by that, I mean that I’d usually wager the real situation is worse than the government projects it to be. The CBO report hints that current policies, especially including, ahem, the Bush tax cuts, are what’s bankrupting us, and that getting rid of said tax cuts would be a big help in bringing down the deficit — a point Democrats will assuredly use in arguing for their “balanced approach.”

But the CBO’s more dire scenario also assumes higher “outlays,” which is by far our biggest problem; the effects of the tax cuts are only a small piece of the puzzle here. The best, most effective, long-term way to boost revenue is to foster robust economic growth. Higher taxes in no way ensure correspondingly higher revenue. Maybe we should try not ignoring necessary reforms to our current entitlement programs, not sticking with policies that have our growth rate gasping for air, and then not turning around and making it rain taxpayer dollars with brand new entitlements like ObamaCare.

Here’s what House Budget Committee Chairman and all-around fiscal guru Paul Ryan had to say on the subject this morning:

“On the heels of last week’s dismal jobs report, today’s CBO report on the deteriorating fiscal situation underscores the obvious: The President’s policies are not working. The sobering reality of our economic challenges require leadership and action. The President and his party’s leaders have failed on both counts. The President’s own Treasury Secretary recently told the House Budget Committee: ‘We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to the long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.’ The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget in 1,132 days – refusing to even propose a budget the past two years.

“Americans deserve better than the European-style austerity offered by the President’s broken promises and bankrupt policies. Repeating Europe’s mistakes, the President’s policies call for job-crushing tax increases and harsh disruptions for beneficiaries of government programs as the debt spirals out of control. House Republicans refuse to accept this diminished future. The House of Representatives passed a budget – The Path to Prosperity – that responsibly averts the looming debt crisis detailed in today’s CBO report. The House continues to advance solutions that foster a better environment for economic growth and job creation. CBO’s report is the latest is a series of warnings for policymakers to advance principled solutions that responsibly confront our generation’s most pressing challenges.”

The United States has the largest nominal GDP in the world by a long shot, and the thought of a having a debt twice that big is just a little daunting. After all, countries, just like banks, can qualify for “too big too fail” status.

Friday, June 1, 2012


The bill is H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3.

The law purports to update an old law, Section 1752 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that restricted areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service. The original law was enacted in 1971 and amended in 2006.

At first blush, the big change here is that while the old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter a restricted space, now prosecutors need only show that you did it "knowingly"—that you knew the area was restricted, even if you didn’t know it was illegal to enter the space.