Mandate or Tax?

Chief Justice Roberts threw America a big curve ball today by joining the left-leaning justices in affirming that the individual mandate contained within the health care bill is simply a tax, and thus within the powers of congress to regualte. I have two major issues with the latter statement.

First, Obama promised over and over that passing his sweeping health care overhaul would not present any tax increases on the middle class: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv9iueuI3Sw&feature=player_embedded) The "no tax increase" was a big reason why Obama was able to garner so much support behind the bill. However, as soon as the argument was presented to the Supreme Court, Obama's lawyers flip flopped and tried to argue the mandate simply was just a tax increase on those people who happen to not have health care. They knew that calling it a tax was the only way they had a shot at having the bill pass as constitutional. Forget that over 50% of Americans still want it repealed, or that the bill passed as a "reconciliation" since the Democrats couldn't overcome the filibuster. Basically, the whole passage of the health care bill has been full of backroom deals, non- transparency, and straight up lies.


My second problem lies in the mandate (let's call it what it really is). Through a very loose interpretation of the powers of Congress to levy taxes, the Supreme Court now maintains that congress can essentially force you to either buy a product or be penalized. Obviously in this specific case, the product is health insurance. I find it very scary that one of the liberal Supreme Court Justices said "It is not your free choice" to stay out of the market for life... As a young healthy adult it is completely my decision whether or not I decide to buy health insurance. Here's another interesting way of looking at the whole health care debate: If the governement can regulate health care and demand everyone buy health insurance through implied powers , then by the same logic could they mandate everyone buy a hand gun as well? After all, having that extra protection would be nice wouldn't it? I don't mean to pander to the slippery slope fallacy, but it truly is pivotal that the justices realize the U.S. Government can't force me, as a free citizen, to purchase something, even if they call it a "tax".

Having said that, the only way to get rid of Obamacare is a full scale repeal at this point. Even though Eric Cantor already reports the House Republicans are drafting a repeal bill, it's a complete waste of time with Obama still in the White House. However, the bill being declared constitutional actually might help Romney's campaign. Consdering that every major poll shows that the majority of Americans still want Obamacare repealed, they now know the only way that will happen is electing Romney.

Why do Liberals Hate the Rich So Much?

Once Romney became the official GOP Presidential candidate, liberals everywhere started looking up dirt to try and smear him with. Remarkably though, up until now, there has really only been one main attacking point: his wealth. The Left is ridculing Romney for coming from a family with a lot of money, and then becoming an extremely succesful business man by buying and seeling companies with Bain. Is this really all they can come up with? His wealth and religion?
 What I find even more humorus is the fact that before becoming President, Obama was a millionaire as well. But since he's a democrat, I guess it's ok for him to make a lot of money being a "community organizer" in Chicago. (Side note: any records of what Obama accomplished while in that position? Anything to prove he earned his pay check and turned the deprived community into a better place? Oh, there isn't?)...Even further hyprocrisy is displayed by the Hollywood liberals: almost every single late night host (Leno, Letterman, and Conan just to name a few) have been making jokes about Romney's wealth as well. Isn't that ironic: multi millionaires attacking a rich person for his wealth. Is there something wrong with being succesful? The hypocrisy is laughable; I don't even see how Romney's money is a valid attacking point in any way...
Well I'll keep my comments to a minimum here, I dont want to belabor the point. However, I will share with you Neal Boortz's opinion on the matter, seeing as he can articulate it better than I ever will be able to:

"The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.

Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.” The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more “fair.”

You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government’s own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor .. there’s an explanation — a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor."

The Ludicrous Liberal Response to Holder's Contempt Vote

In my previous post I explained how I didn't believe anyone with a "sound mind" could defend Attorney General Holder. If he is innocent, then just turn over the documents that PROVE your innocene (seems pretty straight forward, even for a liberal!) That being said, Pelosi has displayed an utter disregard for, well, common sense and any sense of polticial knowledge. I'll delve into her argument soon, but first, a brief digression about understanding how a liberal ends up at these ridiculous conclusions time and time again.

Now I used to be a huge Glenn Beck fan, I tried to watch him everyday for the full hour, as well as read every book he released. As time went on though, I realized watching his show wasn't turning me into an "informed conservative" ,per se, but rather just an arrogant one. The way Glenn presents his points is through a dichotmoty of either "go the conservative route and propser" or "listen to the left and the whole world will end." Although he placed a great emphasis on history and past presidents, he rarely presented the actual Liberal argument. For example, he assumed that there was no legitimate reason that anyone who wanted America to thrive would vote against the extension of the Bush Tax cuts at the end of last year. Honestly, I really couldn't comprehend either, and that's when I turned to Sean Hannity. On his show he routinley invites Democratic Strategists such as Joe Trippi, Democratic pollsters, and then liberal fox news contributors as well. His whole show's premise is basically him presenting his argument (i.e. the conservative view point) and then inviting a liberal to straight up debate the topic. I was immeaditely drawn to this rubric because now I can at least see where the left is coming from on certain issues, even if I don't agree. It helped me better understand the vast differences in political philoshpy between the right and left.

On a side note, wonder why you never hear any liberal trying to smear Hannity or critizing one of his quotes? It's because he backs up everything he says with facts and logic, and then proceeds to win debates against the toughest liberal opponents he can find. He is easily my favorite conservative pundit and demands an enormous amount of respect.

So why the digression? I just wanted everyone to view Pelosi's response with an open mind first and at least see where she's coming from. The point is, you won't be able to. Her argument is so laughbly bad that there is no way I can even begin to comprehend how the hell she arrived at the following conclusion. Pelosi actually believes that the reason why Republicans want to hold the Attorney General accountable is "because of his department's crackdown on State Voter ID laws".... Yes, you read the correctly. Pelosi thinks that Republicans are angry at Holder because he wants to increase voter fraud by making sure people don't have to show an ID at the polls. So what's the perfect way to get back at him? Hold him in contempt of course!!!

Now, while that is an EXTREMELY good argument (HAH!), this proves that Pelosi might indeed just be more out of touch with the American people than Obama. Does she not realize that an American border patrol agent died? Or that his parents are looking for an answer? Or that by Obama issuing an executive privilege, he's basically admitting that the "White House officials were involved in decisions that misled congress and covered up the truth", according to Speaker Boehner.

It's still just unfathomable to me that Pelosi somehow reached the conclusion she did. Really? Voter ID laws are the cause? Obama has remarkably created probably one of the most partisian adminstrations to the point where even when one of their own is clearly in the wrong, all liberals jump to his defense and blame Republicans.

When it comes down to it, I could care less if you have a "D" or an "R" in front of your name, we are all Americans. And as Americans we should come together and demand justice for Brian Terry and the family he left behind. Enough blame games and ridiculous accusations, just turn over the documents and be done with it.

The Fast and Furious Decline of Obama's Adminstration

Over a year ago, an American hero, Brian Terry, lost his life because the U.S. Government was selling  untraceble illegal firearms to the Mexican cartels. The latter statement is indeed fact, and yet somehow Obama thinks an Executive Privlege will somehow save Holder? If the White House is guilty in anyway, having the president cover up hundreds of thousands of important documents that pertain to Terry's death is not the way to go about it.

Issa is right to bring up a vote of contempt for Holder. It is unbelievable that there hasn't been more outrage from the media regarding this scandal in the first place. During one of the GOP primary debates, I believe it was Rick Perry who rightly said that Holder shouldn't be asked to resign or even be held in contempt, he should be fired immeaditely (Where is Donald Trump when you need him?)

That being said, I really can't comprehend how anybody with a sound mind can be defending Holder's contempt vote. If he is not guilty then he should just turn over the documents, end of story. But instead, you have reps like Cummings and Maloney somehow trying to twist this against Republicans with statments like calling the vote a "political witch hunt" or saying that Issa is simply trying to "overrule" the presdient.

The bottom line is that Brian Terry is dead, and Holder is withholding docuemtns that could very well bring about unaswered questions that Terry's family and the rest of America eagerly await. This scandal is a disgrace to the Obama adminstration and a symbol of the vast corruption permeating through the White House.