Yuval, Andy, Ed and others were quick this morning to point out the shell game of the non-compromise compromise that the Obama administration is unilaterally imposing for the HHS mandate. Anybody who falls for it is indeed either a fool or a tool, and the only possible answer is General McAuliffe’s reply when asked to surrender at the Battle of the Bulge: Nuts.
But there’s a larger issue than goes beyond the usual Lefty Whipsaw, and that’s the sheer unconstitutional effrontery behind this week’s flap. Obama’s feeling his oats, no question, making illegal appointments, simply ignoring swaths of the Bill of Rights and complaining that the Constitution won’t allow him to rule by diktat — yet.
This “compromise” is no compromise at all, but simply more deceit. It’s another attempt to get Hussein’s camel’s nose under the tent — although by now the dromedary is not only in the tent, but rampaging around freely — and insert the federal government into every facet of American life, courtesy of the Commerce Clause and a legion of leftist sophists masquerading as lawyers. All while maintaining electoral viability as the Tribune of the Folks.
Wearing his media-bestowed Tarnhelm, Obama is all smiles and sweet reasonableness while he sends out his hatchet women such as Kathleen Sebelius to insult a sizable portion of the citizenry for no reason other than Yes We Can. But there comes a time when the American people — who are the real custodians of the Constitution, Marbury v. Madison to the contrary notwithstanding — simply have to stand up and say: Nuts.
Back during Watergate, the phony pious Left used to whine that “we’re a nation of laws, not men” as they gleefully gutted Richard Nixon’s presidency. Well, nuts to that too. Except for the Ten Commandments, laws are made by men, not men by laws. The implicit fascism of the Obamacare law needs to be civilly resisted and legislatively overturned, not piecemeal but wholesale, the way slavery and Prohibition were; just for laughs, if you want to see widespread civil disobedience in action — against a Constitutional amendment, no less — check out the years 1920–1933.
In Michael Mann’s great movie, The Last of the Mohicans, there’s this quintessentially American exchange between Hawkeye (Daniel Day-Lewis) and a British officer:
British Officer: You call yourself a patriot, and loyal subject to the Crown?
Hawkeye: I do not call myself subject to much at all.
That’s the kind of men the country used to be made of: citizens, not subjects. It’s high time they and their representatives in Congress stepped up and said: Nuts, without waiting for the Supreme Court to do it for them.
"It’s another attempt to get Hussein’s camel’s nose under the tent"
Earlier today, Mr. Walsh, you wrote:
"and “high hopes” mean nothing to an Alinskyite practitioner of American taqiyya"
Careful - your mask is slipping.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, when I want a good rant with all sorts of innuendo I'll go talk to that slightly crazy, older neighbor of mine who loves to rant about Barack Hussein Obama.
Walsh forgot to slip in a reference to the "Punahou Kid" or that *wink wink* "BHO III" attended a "madrassa."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood call - he actually DID say that today, here:
External Link
One would think that NRO would want it's featured writers to avoid coming off as a racist nutjob. But things have been pretty crazy around here on salty-beer day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHa! I must have missed that earlier rant. He's an Alinskyite bully!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan we get you two a room?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIslam is a sort of religion, not a race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah. If you can't address the point, scream racist and jump around. It beats trying to make the argument you don't have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut he doesn't come off as a "racist nutjob." His post is (a) well thought out; (b) correct; and (c) funny. Nowhere is it "racist." Do you even know what "racist" means? Or, are you just trying to be an Alinskyite who smears others?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing opposed to radical Islam doesn't make one a racist. Islam is not a race and opposing it is not nutty but sane - at least for someone who loves freedom. The author "comes across" in your way only if you disagree with that. It's time for conservatives to stop apologizing for their beliefs and bowing to the PC police.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Careful - your mask is slipping."
A couple rude remarks about a hardened Chicago pol and you go all aquiver? Let’s all smile and be oh so reasonable professionals? Like how reasonable and polite one is will make one iota of difference to a group of practiced offence takers that scream racism at the drop of a harsh word? And you weenies are backing them up on that? It just doesn't seem like most here have any appreciation of just how bad things are about to get. Time to man up guys. This is going to get so ugly you will wish for a time when all one had to worry about was a bit of intemperate language.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCare to address Michael's point? Or is the racism (yawn) slur the best you can do?
If people seem contemptuous of Obama, well, that's because a lot of us are. The loss of our freedoms is a much bigger issue than any offense felt by those on the lookout for any reason at all to be (or pretend to be) offended.
Grow up, people. These are dangerous times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was glad to see Michael Walsh's words, but the case is still not stated strongly enough. If Obitler gets away with the conscience mandate, then no American's conscience will be safe from the state in the future in anything. You bet it's not a Catholic fight. It's an American fight, and if Americans don't fight then we will deserve to lose the freedoms we have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is what the constitution looks like after we let the Commerce Clause grow into a blob that destroys the structure and meaning of the overall document.
By not honoring its text and its structure we leave all our liberties to the mercy of the political process and the calculating sharps who dominate it.
Does anyone think it was an accident that contraception questions were posed in the GOP debates? The Dems intended all along to attack the faithful in order to manufacture this campaign wedge. They know Americans don't have access to the law that was meant to protect them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It’s high time they and their representatives in Congress stepped up and said: Nuts, without waiting for the Supreme Court to do it for them."
Bravo! And that sentiment goes not just for this latest assault or ObamaCare, but 90% of every control the Federal Government (and most States) have put on the citizens in the last 100 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Hussein’s camel’s nose under the tent "
Way to make the entire NRO community look racist. Do the NRO editors actually read the stuff their contributors write?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you serious, or are you being sarcastic so as to sound like the Rev. Al Sharpton? Anyone who runs around crying, 'racist!' is themselves a racist for bringing attention to he color of anyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's nice. Do you actually have an argument or is the distraction strategy of "Look! Over there! Its a racist!" your only argument?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou'll call us racists no matter what we say. We simply call you enemies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe funny thing about Marbury v Madison is that all the language about Constitutional interpretation is mere dicta, since it had nothing to do with the question presented. It's high time to challenge the prevailing, incorrect, belief that only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine Constitutionality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFurthermore, even if the Marbury court explicitly claimed it that would hardly make it so. You are correct: just because one, two, or all three branches are cheerfully violating any given Constitutional provision does not make their policy any less illegal.
That's right, I said illegal: the Constitution is a law and to amend it requires a ratification process. The commerce clause was ratified to permit regulation in narrow portions of the economy -- the open-ended, progressive-tinkering clause was never ratified and is therefore not the license government wants it to be.
Legislation that pretends to regulate outside that scope is illegal, whether SCOTUS says so or not. Same for Bill of Rights violations, which are just as egregious in this case. We have more than three branches, we have three sovereigns: the federal government, the states and the people. It's time for some checks and balances, ASAP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse