The 'Oprahfication' of America

By Cal Thomas

7/5/2012

 

When asked at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 what the Founders had wrought, Benjamin Franklin famously said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
That question might also be put to the five Supreme Court justices who voted last week to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which mandates health insurance for most Americans, based on twisted logic that it is a tax and thus within the power of the Congress to impose on an already overtaxed people.
Even better than the question of what the court has allowed government to do is what its ruling says about us?
Rugged individualists founded and helped preserve America through many challenges. They believed we should first take care of ourselves and help our neighbors with government intervening only as a last resort. Today we are rapidly becoming a collective in which government penalizes achievement and subsidizes failure, thus producing less of the former and more of the latter. Apparently promoting the "general welfare" has come to mean welfare. Food stamp ads run on the radio. The USDA pays for the ads, which encourage more people to apply for the program.
Among the avalanche of postmortems delivered by "experts" and pundits to the court ruling, one may have gotten closest to answering the question about what was in the mind of Chief Justice John Roberts and how it reflects on what our nation is becoming.
Paul Rothstein, a professor at Georgetown Law School, taught Roberts when he was a student. In an interview with Washington, D.C., radio station WTOP, Rothstein said it was empathy for the uninsured and disdain for partisanship that swayed Roberts, making his the decisive vote.
"It's a very odd decision," said Rothstein. "The conservative guy went liberal."
Rothstein further speculated about Roberts' motives when he said that the chief justice's experience with his own health issues and working in big business might have contributed to his decision. Rothstein said Roberts had good health care when he needed it and that "He was probably thinking about the millions of people who are less fortunate than he is."
Rothstein said Roberts needed to land on "the right side of history and morality" and these, too, probably influenced his vote.
Notice in all of this there is nothing about the Constitution. And what's this about morality?
Whose morality would that be? Is it a fixed morality, or one based on opinion polls and wanting to land on "the right side of history," whatever that means? Liberal justices regularly decide cases based on such non-constitutional irrelevancies. Why must a conservative?
This is the "Oprahfication" of America in which feelings trump truth and personal experience and class guilt rule, not the Constitution. Oprah Winfrey, who endorsed Obama in 2008, might head a new cabinet department should Obama win a second term: the Department of Feelings.
The Supreme Court didn't worry about morality and which side of history it was on when it decided to make prayer and Bible reading illegal in public schools a half-century ago and what about the "morality" of ripping constitutional protection from unborn babies? Whose moral code decided that case?
This sounds like selective morality by those academics who will write history. Such reasoning is not based on sound legal principles like the Constitution, much less a moral code created by One more "supreme" than the Supreme Court.
Rothstein said, "Roberts wanted to show that the Supreme Court is more responsible to legal principles than they are to partisan principles. He has eyes on his legacy."
Again, what does this have to do with the Constitution? At future confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, should senators ask questions about legacy, morality and history in addition to the nominee's views of the Constitution and individual cases?
If the majority on the Supreme Court is to continue with such unsound judgments, maybe we should consider changing our national anthem from "The Star Spangled Banner," to that irritating '70s song "Feelings."

Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".

Judicial Betrayal By Thomas Sowell

By Thomas Sowell

July 3, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Betrayal is hard to take, whether in our personal lives or in the political life of the nation. Yet there are people in Washington — too often, Republicans — who start living in the Beltway atmosphere and start forgetting those hundreds of millions of Americans beyond the Beltway who trusted them to do right by them, to use their wisdom instead of their cleverness.

The first President Bush epitomized these betrayals when he broke his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. He paid the price when he quickly went from high approval ratings as president to someone defeated for reelection by a little-known governor from Arkansas.
Chief Justice John Roberts need fear no such fate, because he has lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. But conscience can be a more implacable and inescapable punisher — and should be.
The chief justice probably made as good a case as could be made for upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare by defining one of its key features as a “tax.”
The legislation didn’t call it a tax, and Chief Justice Roberts admitted that this might not be the most “natural” reading of the law. But he fell back on the longstanding principle of judicial interpretation that the courts should not declare a law unconstitutional if it can be reasonably read in a way that would make it constitutional, out of “deference” to the legislative branch of government.
But this question, like so many questions in life, is a matter of degree. How far do you bend over backwards to avoid the obvious: that Obamacare was an unprecedented extension of federal power over the lives of 300 million Americans today and of generations yet unborn?
These are the people that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed when he declared constitutional something that is nowhere authorized in the Constitution of the United States.
John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.
One of the chief justice’s admirers said that when others are playing checkers, he is playing chess. How much consolation that will be as a footnote to the story of the decline of individual freedom in America, and the wrecking of the best medical care in the world, is another story.
There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted ones, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant.
What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.
Those whom he betrayed in a moment of intellectual inspiration and moral forgetfulness were hundreds of millions of Americans, past, present, and future: whole generations in the past who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy; 300 million Americans today whose lives are to be regimented by Washington bureaucrats; and generations yet unborn who may never know the individual freedoms that their ancestors took for granted.
Some claim that Chief Justice Roberts did what he did to save the Supreme Court as an institution from the wrath — and retaliation — of those in Congress who have been railing against justices who invalidate the laws they have passed. Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper “deference” to the legislative branch of government.
But what does the Bill of Rights seek to protect the ordinary citizen from? The government! To defer to those who expand government power beyond its constitutional limits is to betray those whose freedom depends on the Bill of Rights.
Similar reasoning was used back in the 1970s to justify the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. Otherwise, it was said, Congress would destroy the Fed’s independence, as it can also change the courts’ jurisdiction. But is it better for an institution to undermine its own independence, and freedom along with it, while forfeiting the trust of the people in the process?
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Resign CJ Roberts, for you are tainted…

Chief Justice Roberts,

Your ruling on the healthcare case has tainted you and the Court. Your legacy is damaged as is any potential rulings by your court in the future in my eyes and in that of millions of my fellow citizens. You have made the bedrock founding document of this country nothing more than a political tool to be twisted in any way possible to meet any desired standard, which is what you were specifically sworn in to protect me, an average U.S. Citizen from. I care not whether you had underlying motives or not. I care not if it was based on your real opinion or on incompetence. Your job is to rule on the Constitutionality of a law, not to be creative. You have failed the country to perform this most trustworthy of tasks.

I am not bitter the decision did not go the way I thought it should have. Such is life, but your reasoning in your written opinion makes endless circles around the common sense you were supposed to possess and delves into the realm of the illogical. You have made a mistake that is unforgivable in your position. This alone makes you unfit for the duty of the position you hold. You should now do the honorable thing, acknowledge your mistake, and step down. This act alone will allow you any lasting legacy and honor. As it stands now, I believe you will have none.

You have disgraced yourself, the Court, and damaged the Constitution. It is as simple as that.

I demand your resignation on the next inauguration day of a Republican president. I suggest others demand it as well.

Awaiting your reply,

This U.S. Citizen

A tea party battle cry

By Yates Walker  

Some pundits are drawing comparisons between our current political climate and that of America just before the civil war. They’re wrong.

This isn’t 1859. It’s 1775.

A government is a reflection of its people. At the founding, Americans saw freedom as a birthright. To protect that freedom, they designed an accountable government tethered by negative rights and constrained by competing powers. For the past century, Americans have been surrendering, little by little, their freedom for a little promised comfort. A century from now, the emergence of the tea party movement will be seen as one of two things: the death throes of liberty or the moment when Americans began to remember who they were.
If Obamacare is implemented in a second Obama administration, America will never recover. Once an entitlement is granted, it’s impossible to take away. By 2016, the word “repeal” will be considered politically toxic. Some insufferable moderate Republican of the future will label our current insufferable moderates as “right-wing.” Somehow the new normal is always to the left of where we were yesterday.
So what happens?
Two American versions of socialized medicine already exist. We can take a peek into our future by looking at the Veterans Administration and Indian reservations. Despite wonderful, faithful volunteers, the VA is forever undermanned and underfunded. Soldiers get worse waiting in long lines for essential surgery and treatment. Every few years, Americans are horrified by stories revealing how poorly we treat our vets. As for our Native American friends, they have a saying on the reservation that encapsulates their dilemma: Don’t get sick after June.
In brief, neither system can meet its patients’ needs, so they have to ration care. And with government-run anything, bigger is worse.
But that’s just health care. Independence is at stake. Half our citizens now receive some form of government assistance. And President Obama wants to help a whole lot more. His administration is advertising the dietary benefits of food stamps. He wants to pay off America’s mortgages. He wants to buy our cars, insulate our homes, pay for our educations. Barack Obama believes in what he’s doing. He thinks the dismal, pathetic Life of Julia is good enough for Americans. He wants more of our citizens on the government dole. Why? Because dependent people are easier to manage. If he’s re-elected, the mandates won’t end at health insurance.
As a nation with 50% of its citizens on the government dole, we’re about to make a decision. We have two options: one active, one passive. Without radical action, our current nanny-state inertia will choose our future for us. The active option is to kick the tea party into hyper-drive and elect Republicans. Once they’re in office, we have to hound them incessantly to cut spending, slash programs, balance the budget and reduce the deficit. There’s no coasting after a successful election. The mission lasts forever. As George Washington said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Sadly, this decision can’t be put off for another day. Once 55% of the country is dependent on the government, our trajectory is fixed. Majorities don’t vote away “free” money.
We’re at the tipping point of vast societal change. Another Obama term would tip the balance, and there’s no going back.
Republicans need to fight and fight to win. To be honest, the odds are against us. To have any chance, we need to begin with a reality check.
We always lose. Conservatism has a pristine losing streak for the last hundred years. Pristine. This must be understood. One of the biggest and most repeated lies about politics is that Democrats capitulate to Republicans. In the past three months, every late-night host has joked about Obama and his progressives caving into their GOP masters. That has never happened. Not once. For two reasons, Democrats always win: 1) because elected Republicans are wimps, cowards and/or idiots — usually all three; and 2) because the Democrats have a secret trick.

Here’s how it works.

Sally the Democrat wants to teach sign language to baby seals. She asks Bob the Republican for $8 billion to fund a pilot program. Before he can answer, Sally calls Bob a heartless baby seal-hating Nazi sympathizer. Bob publicly denies the charges. He then praises Sally’s program as a worthy cause and asks if she can get by with $2 billion. Sally settles begrudgingly with Bob for $4 billion.
And we let the Democrats call this compromise.
The government always grows. New programs crop up. Old programs get bigger. Inch by inch, billion by billion, Washington Republicans have been capitulating forever. In the battle for limited government, the GOP is filled with weak stewards. The road ends in serfdom unless Republican voters demand something different from their elected leaders.
Many Republicans were counting on Obamacare being struck down. It seemed a sure thing. The law was immensely unpopular. Its mandate was repellant, foreign and an obvious assault on individual liberty. In oral arguments, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli revealed himself to be a double agent, coughing and stammering his way to catastrophe in a pitiful defense of the law. And to put a cherry on top, Justice Kennedy asked all the right questions.
Many were certain of the outcome. Nearly everything else this president has attempted has failed in dramatic fashion. Over the past three years, Barack Obama’s Change Leviathan has been so clumsy, faltering and poorly managed — the signature of big government — that another failure seemed a sure thing. Most conservatives were shocked by the ruling. All were horrified. But as odious as the Supreme Court’s decision is, it will be providential if it reignites American passion for individual liberty.
Nothing is cresting over the horizon. The point of no return is not approaching. It’s here. It’s now. It’s victory or death time. Ronald Reagan said that freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. Like it or not, if you’re reading this, you’re that generation. The duty is yours and if you fail, your children’s America will be a faint and doddering shadow of the land of opportunity you once knew.
Sound the trumpets. Load for bear.
Yates Walker is a conservative activist and writer. Before becoming involved in politics, he served honorably as a paratrooper and a medic in the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. He can be reached at yateswalker@gmail.com.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/01/a-tea-party-battle-cry/#ixzz1zUTGbRxt

America goes Galt. Temporarily?

A Cautionary Tale

Michael Geer

Friday afternoon the day following SCOTUS' ruling on ObamaCare, I spoke with a friend whose business is high end construction work for smaller projects. After the usual "Hey How Are You," he tells me of the five projects he had on his planner; four called that morning and cancelled. 
1. We don't know if we'll be in business after the first of the year. If ObamaCare goes into effect with or without a new President we don't see any way we can go on. The taxes, fees and regulations will destroy us.
2. I'm sorry, man. We've got to put this renovation on hold. ObamaCare will ruin us if it's not overturned. Any dollars we sink into this project might just be totally wasted. We've got to wait and see what happens. If to stands, we're shutting the doors. 
3. I'm sorry, amigo. But with this bombshell from the Supremes, I'm gonna have to close the doors and lay off my people if it sticks on the books. No way I can afford to meet the dollar obligations the Feds are gonna lay on me if this turns out to be real. All my people will lose their jobs and I don't know what I'm going to do.
4. It's off. No point in pouring money down a hole if Obama and the IRS are going to nail me to the floor with all these new regs. I'm going to need the money we would have spent on repairs and renovations if suddenly I don't have a business. Good luck, brother. I'll call you if this gets overturned.
Then there's the dear friend with a highly successful business already suffering terribly at the hands of an economy where durable goods just aren't being ordered any more. He's one inch from closing what was a multi-decade success story with high wages and great benefits for his people, but this change will be the final nail driven in. 
That's four out of five would-have-been turnovers in business and profit gone, like snapping your fingers from the uncertainty and one great business hanging on by fingernails after decades of great business and happy customers. 
I can't begin to guess what this brief glimpse locally might translate to nationally.