Terrified AP reporter disguises Obamacare plea as article

By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

The prognostication surrounding how the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually rule, on the constitutionality of the Mandate provision within Obamacare, is reaching a fever pitch.

It seems to be acutely true with an Associated Press article today, curiously posted without a “byline,” which reads more like a final plea to the nine Justices, for a kinder, gentler outcome for the Democrat’s beloved signature legislation–which by all accounts is in serious judicial jeopardy.

AP: “What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty … and allow the administration to push forward with implementing its provisions over the next few years?”

JK: Falsely presumes President Obama, the Senate will be reelected–which although the same mantra Obama has been selling, is unlikely–but, understand the inherent political bias.

Regardless, it can still be repealed or otherwise dismantled by Republicans in 2013.

AP: “What if, on the other hand, the court strikes down the entire law … that would kill a costly new federal entitlement–before it has a chance to take root and develop a constituency of beneficiaries and supporters–at no cost to taxpayers?”

JK: Except for wealthy “limousine liberals,” who don’t care about the cost or penalties, allowing 10 million more healthcare beneficiaries to take root in a costly new federal entitlement, would indeed cost taxpayers, a lot, to subsidize the insurance premiums of most of these people.

AP: “What happens if the court strikes down the individual insurance requirement, but leaves the rest of the Affordable Care Act in place … knocking out the requirement that Americans carry insurance would not be the end of Obama’s health care overhaul–there’s a lot more in the 900-plus pages of the law?”

JK: Actually, as Obamacare lacks a “Severability” clause, if the Mandate is found to be unconstitutional–the entire law would be vaporized in an instant—end of story. It is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to “modify” the law–Justice Scalia has already stated they would not.

In point of fact, contrary to AP reporter’s description of Obamacare (a term conspicuously absent here) as being “900-plus pages,” although technically true, it is more accurately pegged at 2,700. However, I appreciate the AP reporter attempting to minimize the magnitude of the implied job for the justices–hoping the public may consider them lazy if they do not–giving Barack Obama another negative narrative to use.

AP: “What happens if the court decides that the constitutional challenge is premature?”

“The federal appeals court in Richmond said it was bound by the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which … [reads] federal courts may not hear challenges to taxes, or anything that looks like a tax, until after they are paid.

JK: For all practical purposes, this issue was laid to rest when the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari.

“The Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which [it] has jurisdiction and … considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources … the Court normally grants review of [only] one or two questions presented in a certiorari petition … to resolve a “circuit split,” when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled differently in similar situations … often called ‘percolating issues’.”

Accordingly, it appears as though the court will likely only consider the single, most important question petitioned for, to resolve the four-way circuit split regarding Obamacare, and that is the constitutionality of the Mandate–putting to rest this ‘percolating issue.’

Therefore, it appears the AP reporter forgot one last word at the end of the “article”…



Race Card Color Chart

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

We’ve been treated to a display of racism which should make your stomachs turn sour this past week. The same folks seem to find their way into the spotlight while at the same time working their magic to turn an already tragic event into a spectacle of epic proportions based on the color of a man’s skin. I’m referring to Trayvon Martin’s being shot by a lighter colored man of Hispanic lineage whom the media characterized as “white.”

Here in Texas, “State Representative Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, set his sights on revising Texas’ “Castle Doctrine,” similar to Florida’s “stand your ground” law linked to the Trayvon Martin slaying.” This appeared in an article in the Houston Chronicle where it continued:

“Coleman says a 2007 change that eliminated a “duty to retreat before using deadly force” clause in the law makes it too easy for Texans to shoot first.”

Rep. Coleman apparently doesn’t believe individual citizens have the right to defend themselves and should run or hide until properly trained police officers arrive; never mind the chance you might already be maimed or killed. I like the old truism, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

“South Texas College of Law professor Gerald Treece, who believes Coleman’s proposal doesn’t stand much of a chance said, “You can be a man in Texas and stand up for yourself without retreating.”’

I don’t think the race pimps will be happy either way, so maybe a different approach toward media coverage of those killing each other might be in order; a means of determining when a simple killing becomes a hate crime. There needs to be a standardized color chart, something which the news media can use to determine if race may or may not have been a contributing factor when someone of “color” gets shot dead.

Several years ago our home owner’s association sent us a notice demanding we paint our house, an item on my “honey do list” which I agreed was needed. A couple of days later another letter came, a form which I was supposed to fill out to get permission from the home owner’s association to paint the house. I had to wonder, did their left hand know what the right hand was doing?

I called the folks at the home owner’s association and was informed that the house had to be painted in “earth tones” which they approved, but when asked to supply me with a list of approved “earth tones” they couldn’t come up with one. Eventually they dragged their feet to the point where I painted the house the same color as was on it already and told them if they didn’t like it to take me to court. They dropped the issue and never did come up with a list of approved “earth tones.”

This morning, I went by the local Home Depot and grabbed a variety of paint sample cards, twelve shades which come close to human pigmentation, close enough for “government work” anyway. When the State legislature acts on this recommendation, here’s how it might work:

If a person is shot by someone whose skin color is at least 2 shades lighter then it automatically becomes a hate crime based on racial prejudice; however, if the person who gets shot down, blood running from the multiple gunshot wounds, if that person has a lighter skin tone, then it’s just your every day act of violence which is to be expected. This should clarify the insanity which prevails in our society.

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”


Obama Goes On Crazy Socialist Rant: “You’re On Your Own Economics Does Not Work”

Hat Tip: BB

Read more at Gateway Pundit…


“You know, each of us is only here because somebody somewhere felt responsibility, yes to their families, but also to their fellow citizens. Also to our country’s future. That’s the American story. The American story is not just about what we do on our own. Yes, we’re rugged individualists, we expect personally responsibility and everybody out there has got to work hard and carry their weight,” President Obama said at a fundraiser with college students at the University of Vermont.

“We also have always understood that we wouldn’t win the race for new jobs and businesses, and middle class security if we were just applying some ‘you’re on your own economics,’” Obama said.

“It’s been tried in our history and it hasn’t worked,” Obama said. “It didn’t work when we tried it in the decade before the Great Depression. It didn’t work when we tried it in the last decade. We just tried this. What they’re peddling has been tried — it did not work!”