Obamacare Visits The Nine

So today is the day, the start of several days actually, for the Obamacare Supreme Court Appearance.

All 9 justices, no recusals, will be present for arguments over the next three days. So even though Kagan is firmly in favor of the law (you can't argue she isn't) she hasn't had to recuse herself. That screams conflict of interest, foul play, red flag, penalty box, do not pass go do not collect $200! How can there be no mechanism for forcing a justice to get out of the way when they are so completely biased? Appalling.

I lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of Congress for confirming her in the first place. She has the worst resume of any justice on the court and she still made it there. Politics sucks.

Today, the Court will hear 90 minutes of argument on whether a federal tax law bars any challenge to the mandate requiring all individuals to purchase or obtain health insurance. Tomorrow, the Court will hear two hours of argument on the main event: the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate that requires all Americans to buy a health insurance policy or be subject to a penalty imposed by the IRS. Then early Wednesday the Court will hear 90 minutes of argument on the issue of severability: can any part of the ObamaCare Act survive if the Court were to strike down the individual insurance mandate or any other part of the law. Finally, Wednesday afternoon the Court will hear a final hour of argument examining the constitutionality of ObamaCare's expansion of the federal Medicaid program

The supporting arguments are going to be one huge pile of crap to wade through. The White House et al have surely prepared the best arguments they can to try and prove the government has the power to do anything it wants, of course in the 'best interests' of the people.

Yeah .. right. Hope the coffee pots are working.

I think prayers are in order. Dear Lord, I pray that the Constitution of the US is upheld, that the Supremes are not swayed by their conscience but follow the letter and ORIGINAL intent of law. And finally that the rule of law is upheld. Amen.

All I have to say is health care isn't a right. Just like food is not a right. You better find a way to provide it for yourself or you won't be around too long. But it is still your OWN responsibility and choice to do so or not. No one else.

Gun Owner's Rights

I have to make a comment about gun owner rights. I get legal alert emails from the NRA so I can stay informed on what's going on today in that particular arena and the email I read this morning got my back up.

I firmly believe in free exercise of a right, no matter which, on the grounds that it is a right and if someone so chooses they may exercise it. Neither you nor I need to provide anyone else a reason. That is the nature of a right. Logically it follows that means the negative side of exercising a right is not limiting it, it simply is choosing to NOT exercise it. It's an on/off switch, not a thermometer.

Here's an excerpt from today's NRA email:

Unquestionably the hottest issue in Second Amendment litigation today is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms outside the home for personal protection—and if so, what might be the limits on that right. Until recently, far too many courts have wrongly claimed that because the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago only struck down bans on handgun possession in the home, that’s all there is to the Second Amendment.

Now, there are signs that this resistance is weakening. In a big win for gun owners’ rights in Maryland, on March 5, a federal judge ruled in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan that a key provision of the state’s gun laws is unconstitutional.  Judge Benson Everett Legg declared that Maryland's requirement for a "good and substantial reason" to obtain a concealed-carry permit violates the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Though this is not an NRA-funded case, both the result and the reasoning give hope for future progress on the issue.

"The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home," Judge Legg wrote in his 23-page ruling. "In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and 'self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.'’'

Judge Legg added, "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

Good job Ludge Legg! That is exactly the type of logic that should be applied in this, and any other rights exercise situation.

Maryland's laws currently allow the state to deny a permit if the requester can't produce evidence "to support apprehended fear (copies of police reports for assaults, threats, harassments, or stalking). So if there is no evidence of a 'current threat' the state can stop you from protecting yourself in public. 

So let me get this straight. I have to wait to be threatened to be able to carry a handgun? Are you kidding? What if I need to protect myself before that permit comes through? Am I supposed to submit and be a victim until I can show that I am one?

Geez I'm glad some folks in Maryland challenged this.

Now of course Maryland has already filed a motion to find out if Legg intends to file an injunction to prevent Maryland from enforcing current law. Hopefully Legg follows through and files that injunction.

Marylandites get ready for unrestricted legal possession on handguns outside the home finally!

Obamacare demystified - video style

"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." --James Madison, Federalist No. 44, 1788

Whenever I think of Obamacare this is the statement that comes to mind. Madison makes it plain that if our leaders get to big for their britches and legislate beyond the power granted them in the Constitution then we as a people have the power and ability to fix it. Vote out all the offenders and bring in responsible legislators to strike down the offending legislation.

We talked to Dr. Jill Vecchio last year about Obamacare and it's effects on the health industry. She now has a series of videos that address the issues of this legislation.

Check out her channel here.

In fact .. here is the first video .. http://youtu.be/U_O7XV3OpmU.

Take the time to understand what is wrong with Obamacare and WHY it needs to go. Why couldn't Hillary Clinton get universal health care passed? Nobody wanted that piece of junk. Nobody needs the current piece of junk either. It's just the majority currently doesn't care what folks want. They want more control of you, the people, and the only way to get it is to ram so much legislation down your craw you can't breath right. That way you can't complain loud enough.

Folks, get out there in November and take this country back. Vote out anyone who is in favor of big government. THEY all need to go.

Big government cripples our economy, minimizes opportunity, crushes freedom. There's no 2 ways about it.

Make a real change this year. Please.