The Barack Hussein Obama Administration entered office with high-sounding platitudes, but they were only a vernier to cover the thuggish Chicago machine politicians that they proved themselves to be. The leopard did not change its spots. Charles Krauthammer said of the Administration's attack on Fox News, "Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a horse's head in Roger Ailes' bed. Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily." (IBD)
The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news."
Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And chief of staff Emanuel told (warned) the other networks not to "be led (by) and following Fox." (Krauthammer)
Is this Soviet Russia or the United States of America?
Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration — from exposing White House czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health care legislation — the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.
The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry — finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox. (Krauthammer)
CAN WE KEEP OUR REPUBLIC?
Under Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution, direct federal taxes on targeted individuals is unlawful. It says that "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states .. . according to their numbers ... ." That's why its enactment required a constitutional amendment — the 16th. However, the Democratic Legislature plans to make healthcare an issue of taxation. This week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, "It's constitutional to mandate insurance coverage. Congress has 'broad authority' to (make us buy things to) provide for the 'general welfare'."
The general welfare, under the Democratic Party's definition means that all Americans will be 'on welfare'/or public assistance by way of mandated healthcare. Don't want health care? Too bad. Pay or go to jail. I'm not making this up. This is precisely what the legislation says.
At his weekly press briefing Tuesday, Hoyer was asked, as we have asked, just where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to force people to buy health insurance or force those who refuse to pay a penalty (or by its true description, a tax.)
Hoyer pointed to Article 1, Section 8, which gives the Congress the power to raise taxes in order to "provide for common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Does that give Congress the authority to buy things like health insurance? Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says, "Yes!"
Broccoli is good for our general welfare, but can Congress make us buy it and eat it and charge us if we don't? Losing a few pounds would help us all and reduce health care costs, but can Congress mandate health club memberships? MARYLAND, your elected representative, Steny Hoyer thinks so.
"Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress, broad authority to effect that end," Hoyer said. "The end we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." Really?
"The Congressional Budget Office concluded in 1994, "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
Nor can it, according to constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin. "Congressman Hoyer is wrong," he said. "The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly because if that's true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything."
Hoyer pointed to Article 1, Section 8, which gives the Congress the power to raise taxes in order to "provide for common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Does that give Congress the authority to buy things like health insurance? Rep Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says, "Yes!"
Broccoli is good for our general welfare, but can Congress make us buy it and eat it and charge us if we don't? Losing a few pounds would help us all and reduce health care costs, but can Congress mandate health club memberships? MARYLAND, your elected representative, Steny Hoyer thinks so.
"Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress, broad authority to effect that end," Hoyer said. "The end we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." Really?
"The Congressional Budget Office concluded in 1994, "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."
Nor can it, according to constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin. "Congressman Hoyer is wrong," he said. "The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly because if that's true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything."
9 comments:
Limitless, Do Anything...
Oooo!
Sweet music to the tyrant's ears!
It's a now trite, but still instructive, exercise to take what the Obama administration is doing and image if the Bush administration had done it. Could you imagine the screams from the left (and middle) if Bush had similarly attacked MSNBC?
Rivkin nails it:
"Congressman Hoyer is wrong," he said. "The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly because if that's true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything."
Precisely, and that is their aim.
Great post!
Yep, I agree, they can use "general welfare" to mean "forced abortions to curb greenhouse emissions" if they really felt like it.
By the way, Under Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution, also seems like it could have protected those AIG execs from being threatened with a 90% tax on their bonuses. That is...unless the Constitution really IS a "living, breathing document"...
The administration’s direct attack on Fox News is a trial balloon attack on the first amendment. If they succeed, the questions becomes, which network falls next? With the exception of yesterday’s incident concerning interviews with the “Pay Czar,” the other networks do not seem to understand this.
The “General Welfare” clause has been abused by politicians for decades. My question is, what would be the unintended negative consequences of amending the constitution to get rid of it, or modify it to limit its uses?
We are in for a world of hurt before this is all over. It will take years to litigate everything this administration is going to force feed us. Then, because of the time duration involved between enactment and judgment, undoing the damage will be largely undo-able. God help us all. We have got to get this guy out of office? Is any of this stuff treasonous?
Just look around.
War on "Poverty", the Great Society.
War on "Drugs"
War on "Property", Private and or Commercial. KeLo Decision.
Department of Energy.
Department of Education.
Czars.
Political Correctness.
War on Christians and Jews. No public displays, work place, Schools.
State established religion, Gaia/Athena; Mother Earth-Earth Day (ecology/environmentalism).
Department of Environmental Protection Agency.
ETC...
The Congress just gets wacky when power grabs them.
"The Commerce Clause", they say, gives them the rite to do anything.
The Constitution-hahahaHAHAHA!
I spent about a week in a comments thread on a liberal's blog, and they were all over this 'general welfare' concept. They also could not understand the difference between medical insurance and automobile insurance.
Quite simply, forced health insurance is only good for an individual. I do not benefit because you have health insurance. What liberals don't get is that the primary purpose of auto insurance is to protect the other person's interests first and foremost if you are at fault in an accident, therefore mandating it is justified.
If liberals are trying to make medical costs an issue of the national budget, perhaps the debate should become why is it that our nation has 'health care' in the budget or is paying for anything related to medicine beyond the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, and care for our active military - all of which one must qualify for and can be budgeted for appropriately.
Is our nation picking up the tab for people who receive medical services and then do not pay? One has to wonder what happens when an illegal is given medical attention. I'm sure the hospital does not give free services. But I shouldn't talk about such issues, lest I be labeled a racist for caring about my nation's security.
Soloman - very well put.
When someone is asked by us all to fight and is injured, we all have a debt/a liability to assist that person, therefore the butcher shop, known as the VA.
People who are merely here by accident of birth do not inherit cradle to grave anything, except the opportunity to strive, work, grow and prosper. The Constitution didn't guarantee an 'outcome' - merely an opportunity.
Obama promised transparency and now we finally have it. The administration's attempts to discredit Fox News are totally transparent and nobody's buying it. BTW, Anita Dunn doesn't know her ass from her elbow.
Post a Comment