Close, but no coronation

Well, I had a few details wrong in the last blog, though the main points were all correct.

It was three judges in Texas who asked Eric Holder to explain the policy of the executive branch regarding the judicial -- asking for a 3-page response outlining exactly why it is that the judicial branch can and has struck down legislation that violates the strictures of the Constitution.

FYI, the three branches of government, Congress, the Supremes, and the White House, have equal authority. None of them rules the other, though they each have the power to undo what the other does. The framers set up the government this way so that it would likely destroy itself long before it destroyed the nation as a whole -- and WE, THE PEOPLE, would have time to make a few of our own corrections before the situation got too desperate.

Apparently Holder complied with the Texans' demands -- I mean you can buy academic papers about this online -- admitting that the Comrade was simply strutting his marxist stuff and pretending to be a dictator for the benefit of a bunch of editors and publishers from the AP wire.

Curiously enough, the Comrade himself made a feeble effort to take back his attack on the Supreme Court. Unusual for him to admit to any errors in judgment. Apparently his ego can't stand to be corrected.

Showed his hand, huh? His blind ambition for absolute power and and his contempt for the United States showing through.

He's wise to wait until if and when he wins a second term to put that kind of stuff on display. Then, at least in his own mind, he can do whatever he damn pleases with the nation because he won't have to pay any attention to voters at all. Not lilke he  has so far.

On Fox yesterday, Judge Napolitano noted that the Comrade is moving dangerously close to seizing dictatorial power. Like... hmmm... Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez.

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.

Anyone who votes for the Comrade in November very likely has masochistic tendencies or suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. That's pretty clear.

Save the Republic.

White House assaults the Supreme Court

Let me tell you, the Comrade puts Hitler to shame in terms of sheer audacity, as well as powerlust.

That's not name-calling or exaggeration. Goebbels, one of Hitler's peeps, crafted what's called "Big Lie" propaganda -- something the Comrade practices routinely. The Comrade has invented a new twist on it -- tell some monumental Big Lie, or launch some huge assault on the nation, then accuse your opponents of exactly the same thing.

For example, apparently the Comrade observed the rather pathetic showing the pro-socialist attorney put forth in the Supreme Court to attempt to defend socialized medicine. It was sort of like, "Well, some people like socialized medicine." And let me have another sip of water.

You know, as anyone who even had a slight brush with law school knows, or even people who just occasionally watch "Law & Order" or TruTV (formerly Court TV), when you argue a case, you have to introduce some sort of structured and credible logic into your statements.

There is no logic in the socialized medicine bill, hence, no argument to support it. Just an over-priced guy standing there with egg all over his face. He must get paid an awful lot to play whipping boy for the White House marxists.

Realizing that socialized medicine is unconstitutional and actually totally destructive to the United States government, the Comrade has made a move that I first laughed at. I mean, I thought the TV news guy was joking. But no, it's true. Jay Carneybarker confirms it.

The Comrade wants a statement from Eric Holder (there's a crack attorney, or an attorney so addle-brained you suspect he's on crack) about whether or not the "unelected" Supreme Court can strike down a law that was passed by a "majority."

I still have coffee shooting out my nose. But the thing is -- this is serious. I mean, the Comrade really did this. It's really stunning. It makes the Reichstag fire look bumbling and crude.

And Comrade Butthead supposedly taught consitutional law? No doubt he worked at one of those schools that sends out email blasts about "earning your degree in six weeks." I hope his one-time students are demanding a refund.

Apparently the Comrade has never read the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court judges are not elected. Hey, 'Rad, remember -- you even got to appoint a few yourself. Or did you get in the head with a golf ball and it just all left your mind?

Then he's also claiming that the Supreme Court can't strike down legislation. Well, so he doesn't know any American history, either. But we already knew that. Seems to me that it's the JOB of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation -- or even crazy-ass schemes hatched in the White House -- that violates the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND -- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

The Supremes aren't "making new law" as the term "judicial activism" suggests. That might apply if they actually went through the socialized medicine bill and determined what parts of it should stand -- if they rewrote the bill, in other words. And the judges don't seem inclined to do that.

And Congress can change the Constitution -- there's a procedure for that -- which was in no way part of the sausage-making process that produced the socialized medicine bill.

Yeah -- this is the straw that broke the camel's back... that the socialized medicine bill was passed by a "democratic majority."

Only democrats voted for it, and only after Pelosi, Reid, and Max Baucus bought off congressional whore Mary Landrieu ("It wasn't $100 billion, it was $500 billion she crowed loudly on the floor of the Senate, with bed-hair, and sucking on a post-coitus cigarette), and bribing and extorting people from Nebraska (Cornhusker kickback) and Florida to get their votes. God only knows what they did to Joe Lieberman -- that was behind closed doors. We can only imagine. Apparently he's not going to run again.

This is a "democratic" process? Only if you accept mafia tactics as legitimate persuasive tools. And perhaps people do, in Iran or Venezuela, but it doesn't work well in the United States.

WHAT A CROCK OF B.S. THIS IS. And it just stinks of utter desperation. Did the Comrade really believe the USA was ripe for his marxist takeover? Poor fool.

But go ahead, Comrade -- take on the Supreme Court. He's all kinda broody and hurt that they don't love him the way Tatiana Ali and Hugo Chavez do. That's very cute. What next? Get your ragtail OWies out there to stink up the Mall and insult us all by claiming to "represent" us? Put on some kind of show that convinces no one but Chris Mathews and the other lamebrains at MSNBC?

Go ahead. You'e only assuring a monumental landslide for Republicans in November.

And I just can't wait.

Save the Republic.

Supremes take up socialized medicine

Big day today. The Supreme Court heard arguments pro and con on the socialized medcine bill. By several accounts, it didn't go well for the feds.

Apparently at one point, Justice Scalia questioned the way the feds (and dems) define the "health care market." See, they say everyone needs health care at some time or another, and if people don't have insurance and can't/won't pay for the care/insurance themselves, then the rest of the country has to pay for it. So, somehow that means that every US citizen is a member of the "health care market" and needs to be regulated, pushed around, robbed, browbeaten, and generally treated like peon laborers and slaves to the state. All for the privilege of waiting in long, long lines for substandard health care and/or to be bundled up and cast upon an ice floe in our senior years.

So Scalia asked, "What about food? Don't we all need food? So does that mean the government can mandate that you buy broccoli?"

Good point. Of course, the guy from the feds said, "No, no. That's a completely different thing."

Yeah? Why? I didn't hear an answer. And I don't see the distinction.

I guarantee, if this crappy law is not struck down or repealed or done away with somehow, we'll all be eating broccoli or whatever kind of garbage this week's popular health freak feels is beneficial. (Even though, personally, I love broccoli... with lots of butter and salt.)

And we'll all have to buy electric cars to further support the UAW, I suppose. The UAW, who apparently truly are little obedient slaves to the state and happy as pigs in poop. They're an example for us all, apparently. (So I guess we should all go out and beat up and harrass people who don't want to pay us dues every month.)

By the way, don't the UAW and SEIU members share the common need for health care? Yet they've been exempted from this stupid law -- which exemption is, by the way, another constitutional violation, but who's counting? I suppose they won't have to eat the broccoli, either. 

Then there's also the fact that no one -- no doctors, no hospitals -- have to provide you with free health care... EXCEPT THAT THE GOVERNMENT MANDATES THAT.

So, you see, the government creates an unsustainable social and financial problem, then creates an ever larger social and financial problem to "solve" the first problem. Meanwhile, the government seizes control of everyone's life. Because they know what's good for us better than we do, right?

Is there something here I'm just not understanding? Like what, exactly, makes fascists tick? I mean why is that some people just can't stand to let other people alone? Sounds like some kind of monumental ego problem. Perhaps the dems and other pro-socialists really do NEED to see a doctor.

Save the Republic.