"" Running Rabbit: July 2012

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Obama Revisionist Book of Genesis

You Didn't Build That

Readings from the Book of Barack
1 In the beginning Govt created the heavens and the earth. Now the economy was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the ATMs, and the Spirit of Govt was hovering over the land.
And Govt said, “Let there be spending,” and there was spending. Govt saw that the spending was good, and that it separated the light from the darkness. Govt called the spending Investments, and this he did in the first day.
Then Govt said, “Let there be roads and bridges across the waters, and let dams divide the waters from the waters.” Thus Govt made the infrastructure and the patronage jobs for eternity under the firmament from the Potomac which was above the firmament; and it was so. And Govt called the firmament Washington. This Govt did on the second day.
Then Govt said, “Let the regulations and the guidlines under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the Bureaus appear”; and it was so. 10 And Govt called the Bureaus demigovts, and the gathering together of them He called AFSCME. And Govt saw that it was good.

It continues, both at the link and in Obama's deluded mind.

a carrot to SDA

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Senator Rand Paul's Take On Roberts' Obamacare Decision

Roberts' ruling isn't final

By Sen. Rand Paul

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, can you still argue that the Constitution does not support ObamaCare? The liberal blogosphere apparently thinks the constitutional debate is over. I wonder whether they would have had that opinion the day after the Dred Scott decision.

While it is clear to anyone who was awake in high school civics class that the Supreme Court has the power to declare whether a law is valid under the Constitution, that power is not a pronouncement set in stone.

Think of how our country would look now had the Supreme Court not changed its view of what is constitutional. Think of 1857, when the court handed down the outrageous Dred Scott decision, which said African Americans were not citizens. Think of the "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, which the court later repudiated in Brown v. Board of Education.

I have a similar opinion on Roe v. Wade. Constitutional scholars such as professor Robert George of Princeton still dispute the constitutionality of Roe: "The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate state laws prohibiting or restricting abortion lacks any basis in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution."

The clause that the court majority used to justify the constitutionality of ObamaCare is one that has been subject to debate over the years.

Hamilton and Madison argued over it. Madison maintained that the powers to tax and spend were limited by the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Because what purpose is there to enumerated powers if a general power — the power to tax — could eclipse them?

In U.S. v. Butler (1936), an earlier Justice Roberts (Owen) got it right when he wrote: "The (tax) invades the reserved rights of the states. (The tax) is a statutory plan to regulate and control … a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. … (The tax is) but (a) means to an unconstitutional end."

Sounds like ObamaCare to me. I'm starting to like the first Justice Roberts more than the current Justice Roberts.

Senator Paul does not say it, but all nine Supreme Court Justices found the mandatory healthcare bill unconstitutional; only five of them then decided to re-write the Bill to what they would have it do.  So, they allow an unconstitutional bill through with their legislative edits, so much for separation of powers.

If you would like to donate to Senator Paul's political action committee

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

On Andy Griffith's Death: Well Said OP

Ironic that this poster to the the Naples Daily News' report on the death of Andy Griffith, aka Sheriff Taylor, calls them self OP.
OP writes:
Never knew the man, enjoyed watching his art. I no longer confuse the characters he played for the man. The characters are part of the American fabric, and with the Sheriff Taylor personae we witnessed how a responsible and sensible authority can promote the health of an entire community without controlling the populace. Were it possible that all communities are so blessed. I can not reconcile Griffith's politics at the end of his life with the character he portrayed in the fictional Mayberry. But, as far as I know he never hurt anyone, generally led a good life, had many friends, and in keeping the public perception of who he was a positive experience he performed a great service through a period of turmoil. Jimmy Stewart was the real deal, Andy Griffith an echo of that real patriot. But, Griffith did okay, deserves notice at his passing, and I am grateful that he had a long and rich life and trust that he went without suffering. We mourn the loss of the image, we regret that such innocence does not endure, we pray that in these times the people seek reason and practicality over personality. A life has been extinguished, countless others born, if one achieves the latter the former will eventually follow. So it will be for us, so it was for Andy Griffith. We honor the man, we honor the life, we wish both well in the future.
 The Jimmy Stewart reference is spurious in that it lacks details, though one can infer that Stewart's military service along with his other personal characteristics inspired affection for the author. Stewart was a great American, I agree, but does the comparison need to be made in notes on the younger Griffith's passing?

Otherwise, I can have no complaint with what OP writes, we do confuse the artist and the art. We do clutch to imaginings that popular media is reality, if only real in small pockets. And, it is only right that every life is given respect and that we recognize the loss when a life ends. Andy Griffith did us a great service with his art. And, we say too say fond farewell to the man.

Reaction To The Supreme Court Voting 9-0 The The Mandate is Unconstitutional

Imagine that it were possible to remove all of the piers, connections to land,  and other underpinnings of a bridge, and yet the bridge still stands. It still stands because five out of nine judges say it stands; even though the structure invented to support is stripped away. Welcome to the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare.

The vote of five to four is the official result of the Supreme Court's decision on the Obama healthcare bill, but while there were only five supporting the constitutionality of the bill overall; all nine Justices agreed that the lynchpin on which the Bill's promoters advertised the bill, the mandate, all nine agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional.

Congress removed a provision of the bill before passage which would allow that if part of the Bill were found unconstitutional the rest could stand. Sever-ability. The Supreme Court took the liberty of adding that clause back in, because, well, because they forget that it is not the job of the Judicial branch of our government to write legislation.

I heard the news of the decision just before noon that day, and I have not watched or listened to any news shows since for more than the time it takes to determine if they were talking politics at that moment. I now officially give up on the American experience, the Constitutional form of government it once promised is dead. I wish it were not so.