Obama Care in the Supreme Court

Wm. Hennessy Jr./CourtroomArt.com

The Supreme Court has decided many landmark cases that have had a generational impact on our society.  The Dred Scott vs. Sandford Case (1857) determined whether all Americans would be protected by the constitution.  Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) declared state laws that segregated blacks from whites in the public school system were unconstitutional.  The court agreed in Roe vs. Wade (1973) that the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment extended the right of women to choose to abort their babies.  These momentous decisions determined the projectile of the future of cultural America.  Decisions of the Supreme Court have impacted the income tax system in 1895, the Social Security Act in 1937 and the Civil Rights and voting Rights Acts in 1964 and 1965.

The docket of our land's highest court will include: immigration, voting rights, gay marriage and affirmative action in 2012.  Perhaps the most important case to be considered by the court this year has been the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which was passed into law on March 23, 2010.  The importance of this review is enormous considering its effect on the future of all Americans.  Proponents of this law get back slaps for attempting to offer insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans. The methods chosen to enforce the new law have been debated for months.  The Supreme Court's decision pertaining to the constitutionality of the law will have repercussions on the re-election campaign of our sitting president as well as the power of our Congress to regulate commerce.

There are certain provisions in the law that would seem to be very beneficial and humanitarian at face value.  Seniors would benefit from free wellness exams.  Children up to age 26 (why are 26 year olds being categorized as children?) may be covered on their parent's policies.  Proponents of the law will argue that it is justified by the right of -Congress to "regulate commerce" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3).  It is their opinion that this bill will improve the general welfare of Americans.  The constitution states that the imposition of taxes is necessary and appropriate in order to reach the goal of improving the lives of American citizens. So why have 26 states coalesced to oppose the measure?  

The authors of this bill determined that it could not be effective unless all Americans participated.  The majority of Americans are troubled by the fact there is no provision to opt out.  Many consider the requirement for all to buy healthcare to be a contradiction to the principles of our capitalistic, free enterprise system.  Beginning in 2014, everyone must have bought into the health insurance plan or pay a tax penalty of $95 in 2014 to increase to $695 in 2016.  The penalty for a family that hasn't bought in by 2016 will be $2,085.  The fee is identified as a 'penalty' in an attempt to avoid using the word all Americans have learned to hate, 'tax'.

The solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., representing the government in the Supreme Court, has made the argument that Congress clearly has a right to regulate commerce.  Healthcare must be provided.  It must be financed and an 'individual mandate' that requires the purchase of healthcare is necessary for the physical and financial health of the nation.

Opponents of Obamacare will question the government doing something it has never done before; requiring Americans to participate in commerce.  Our constitution was written to limit the powers of the government.  They see the passage of this law as a trespass of the government into the pastures of individual liberties.  

The Supreme Court generally leans slightly conservative.  Justices Antonia Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts are more likely to vote against the bill while Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan can be trusted to support it.  To pass muster in the Supreme Court the bill needs to convert at least one conservative to acquire a 5-4 vote.

That may prove difficult considering Mr. Verrilli was only three minutes into his defense of the mandate when Justice Kennedy began some strong questioning:  "Are there any limits?", he asked.  If the government can make us buy health insurance what else might the government make us buy?  Will we be forced to buy Chevy Volts to save on the consumption of oil?  Will we be forced to buy healthy vegetables and prohibited from purchasing donuts to insure we don't draw too heavily from the nation's health insurance plan?  Will the purchase of cigarettes become illegal by penalty of law?

Adam Smith would be spinning in his grave if he could see the amputation of his 'invisible hand'.  The government has already wrested control of our public education system from the American people.  Will Americans allow their healthcare system, which represents 18% of the entire U.S. economy, to be hijacked by their government?  We are no longer creeping toward socialism, rather, we are leaping and bounding toward a socialistic, government controlled society.

The justices must finally decide if the bill is constitutional.  If it is not, is it only the individual mandate that makes it unconstitutional?  If the individual mandate is cut from the bill does it then become Constitutional?  The court's decision regarding Obamacare will be known near the end of June, just in time to influence the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.  It may be a lose/lose situation for Obama.  If the bill is struck down, his greatest achievement as president will go up in smoke. If the Supreme Court affirms the bill it may be the impetus for unifying a divided Republican Party which may then be feel a greater motivation to run a winning campaign against the incumbent president.

Kevin Probst - Teaches History, Government and Apologetics at the high school level in Columbus Georgia.

Difference Between a Liberal and a Conservative

I have taught Government for many years now.  Every year my seniors want a clear explanation of the difference between a liberal (usually Democrat) and conservative (usually Republican).  One of my more thoughtful students sent me this today.  An excellent analogy discribing the difference between liberal and conservative thought.  Thank you, Sally Key:

Found this in an email and thought you might find it intersting!!

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily
fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard
for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

Kevin Probst - Teaches History, Government and Apologetics at the high school level in Columbus Georgia.

Occupy Wall Street…Connecting the Dots

It’s hard to discover just what these protesters want. Interviews of the tent dwelling squatters seem fruitless. Most cannot articulate why they are there. They seem to be frustrated and angry but they are not sure why they are directing their anger toward Wall Street. They are much like a high school student who sees a crowd rushing toward the school courtyard. He doesn’t know why the mass is bolting but he joins them, fearful of missing something big. He gets taken in by the emotion that is driving the mob but he doesn’t have the slightest idea what is going on.
The occupiers of Wall Street make some valid points. They seem to oppose the Federal Reserve. This organization is neither federal nor is it reserving anything. It is private and secretive and stirs great suspicion among American citizens.
Other occupiers are like puppets on a string. They carry a list of talking points but seem to have only a surface understanding of what they are saying. They rage against capitalism failing to understand that though this system is imperfect, it has worked far better than socialism. They rail against the government like spoiled children insisting they be pampered by Big Brother. If they are unemployed the government should give them a job. If they can’t afford a house the government should make a home affordable to them. They insist that the government pay for their education.
What they seem to be calling for is Cooperate Fascism, a merger of government and business. They don’t seem to grasp what happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Government was interfering with the system of free enterprise by developing policies for an economic organization to provide loans for those who could not afford them. Politically it looked appealing. It satisfied the desire of politicians to placate their constituents by putting “a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage.”
Let’s call a spade a spade. The occupiers are protesting against capitalism and calling for socialism. The only way to bring about the promised “hope and change” is to rebuild the system. You can’t rebuild a standing structure unless you tear it down first. Perhaps, inspired by the Arab Spring movement, the protesters are hoping to start a revolution that will result in radical change.
It may appear that these people just showed up on Wall Street randomly one day. This is not so. It is an organized movement. The cattle are trusting and they follow faithfully though often in ignorance. But the men driving the herd know exactly what they are doing. Many of those interviewed indicated that their trip to New York was financed by their union. Thousands of these people have been bussed in from hundreds of miles away. Have community organizers used the unions in an attempt to spark a revolution that would bring about societal change? Lenin taught that infiltrating unions was necessary to deconstruct society before it could be reconstructed. (1)

Are the occupiers true Marxists or are they “useful idiots”? In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, 1971, he wrote that “A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into the new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage—the political paradise of communism.” (p.10) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were both greatly influenced by Saul Alinsky. Hillary turned down an offer to come work for him. She titled her senior paper at Wellesley College "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.
Richard Cloward and Frances Piven were a husband and wife team influenced by Alinsky. They were sociologists and political activists in the 1960’s. They called for an overload of the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to replacing the national welfare system with a system that would guarantee an “annual income and thus an end to poverty.” (2)
It is necessary to collapse the system before reforming it. Considering so many of our leading politicians were trained by radical socialists one must ask if the collapse of our banks, our industries and Fannie and Freddie were intentional in order to destroy the old capitalist system in order to replace it with socialism?
Yuri Bezmenov, a Russian born KGB defector was a KGB trained subverter outlines the four stages the Soviets use to bring transformation to a society. First, the nation must be demoralized, then destabilized. Chaos is necessary to make the people weary enough to accept a new plan that will bring relief from the chaos. The final stage is normalization. A life with less liberties and freedoms becomes the new norm.
Is it so hard to believe that the “occupy movement” might be a manipulation of a well organized group with a grandiose scheme to bring radical change resulting in a strong lean toward socialism?
Works Cited:
1. “Left Wing” Communism, Lenin
2. The Nation, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”, Cloward and Piven

Class Warfare: Problem of the Free Stuff

Class war at its best. The Problem of Free Stuff (Author Unknown)

The folks who are getting the free stuff, don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff,

Because the folks who are paying for the free stuff,

Can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff,

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff,

Want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff,

Want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff, have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff, that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff, are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff, have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff, by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff, and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason:

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff.
How long will our republic last? It depends on whether we can solve the problem of the Free Stuff.

Kevin Probst - Teaches History, Government and Apologetics at the high school level in Columbus Georgia.