Free Republic

Since the bill originated in the Senate (didn't it?), it is unconstitutional by virtue of the above clause.

Apparently not according to Hot Air's post about this. See Say, doesn’t the Constitution require tax bills to originate in the House?

SNIP..."The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. In fact, the conservative opinion today specifically mentioned Article I, section 7 at one point while raising no objection to Reid’s sleight of hand.."

SNIP...The silver lining here procedurally is that, now that the mandate’s officially a “tax,” it falls squarely within the parameters of budgetary matters than can be dealt with in the Senate via reconciliation. That means the GOP will only need 51 votes to get rid of it, not 60.

Via HotGas:

Update: Bobby Jindal: “A lot of people thought it would be a late night in Wisconsin. I think it’s going to be a late night in Chicago.”

Ha!

Since George is a big Lib with an R (compassionate!) by his name perhaps he should use this portrait? Marx certainly inspired W with so very much, including his “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save to save the free-market system” idiocy. George “saved” the “free market “ with BIG GOVERNMENT??? Yes! And he created the fabulous Medicare part D! No child left behind. Patriot act. Marx would be so PROUD! Way to go "compassionate" republican George...

Barf Alert...via the DailyMail

Sarah Parker said:

For me, this election is even more important than 2008.

As a woman, a mother, and an entrepreneur, I need to believe our country can be a place where everyone has a fair shot at success.

This November's election will determine whether we get to keep moving forward, or if we're forced to go back to policies that ask people like my middle-class family in Ohio to carry the burden - while people like me, who don't need tax breaks, get extra help.

LMAO.

If she wants to support a Marxist/Communist like Obama, then she needs to lead by example. Why not live like a true communist, and give up every dollar, property, and everything else she owns, and "redistribute the wealth"! She can work for free!!! But, no, she's just another empty headed limousine liberal who's massively confused.....

Rough transcript below: 0:43-18:33

Well, we have this executive order that’s been updated. Issued by the White House, apparently late on Friday, called the National Defense Resources Preparedness. I’ve taken a close look at it as have many others.

You know, I knew there was something like this out there, but I have to confess, I never read it before. This is atrocious. This was in place in 1950 for the Korean War and subsequent wars I guess, um, but I don’t like it.

This could, in the wrong hands in fact, be abused by a President. This is not new to Barack Obama incidentally. I said 1950. But this is an awful amount of power to convey to a President under any circumstances.

And the question is. After that power is used in some “emergency” circumstance how do we get back to a situation in which that power devolves back to the People, back to the different branches of government, back to these private industries and so forth? And to ignore that is foolish. And even though there is a statutory basis for what this executive order says….Congress does not have statutory authority to change the balance of power under the Constitution. No branch of Government has that authority under the Constitution.

Now, I can understand some emergency powers for a President if we’re attacked in the case of war and so forth, but there’s two problems with this. I don’t like this notion of a standing emergency order, that’s number one, and number two, it’s one thing for a President to act quickly when the usual deliberative processes can’t work, but it’s quite another to authorize a president to so thoroughly upend the Constitution. I just don’t like it. And let me say this. I especially don’t like it under this president. Because in my view, this president disrespects the Constitution to begin with. So he’s not a Ronald Reagan who would after asserting authority if he did, which he didn’t , and say OK now, we’ve got to put things back in order. I don’t think this president would do it for a second. Given his long track record in three years, long enough, and I won’t go thru the gory details, you’re well aware of it.

These utopian statists, are hostile towards Constitutionalism, as I’ve said over and over again, and they must be. Because the Constitution limits their power and yet the power of the presidency increases every time there appears to be an emergency or at least a claimed urgency. And to some extent today under this President, I’ve said this before, we have an imperial president, this president is trying to rule by Executive fiat. By Federal regulation. And so in the hands of a President like that, with that kind of a mindset, I’m extremely troubled with this Executive Order. And now that we can all see it and we all know what it is, it’s problematic, again particularly in his hands.

The government generally and the president specifically does not normally have this kind of power. The president today exercises more power than his predecessor. And so I would argue that a republican congress should we take the Senate, needs to pull this back. Or needs to reform it in a significant way. Particularly, if Obama is re-elected. Fingers crossed that he won’t be. I don’t want this kind of, what should we call it, latent, because it’s sitting there, this kind of latent power in the desk drawer of this president. I don’t trust him. I don’t trust him with all of this power. I don’t trust most presidents with all of this power. And neither did the framers of the Constitution. There’s nothing in the Constitution like this. In case of emergency, you know, you can make claim to these resources, and those resources…nothing in there like that.

Then I’m thinking to myself, have we ever fought a war, short of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, where anything of this sort would even be necessary? If it was even necessary in those instances. And the answer is no. I don‘t believe even in WWII this executive order didn’t exist in World War II, or the act, the Defense Production Act of 1950.

Now if measures need to be taken, urgent measures, they should have a temporary timeframe, statutorily I mean. There has to be a way with modern technology if a president needs certain powers, to act for invative for instance, or some third world country fires off a bunch of nuclear weapons, because we didn’t stop them in the first place from building them, there needs to be a plan to address that, but you address that on a temporary basis. Why do you have to trash the entire Constitution over this? So this is alarming to me.

And when you read this, I printed it out and its twelve pages long based on my printer, we’ve got, I’ll read you some of the headlines, Mark what are what are you talking about, well, prepare and coordinate, priorities and allocations, expansion of productive capacity and supply. I mean, you’ve got an entire top down control of a great deal of the private sector. Um. Strengthening domestic capability and uh and it’s just uh late(?) requirement goes on and on that the defense production act committee, the various cabinet officers, director of Hum Be (8:29 Sp?), they address civil transportation, farm equipment, fertilizer, food resources, food resource facilities, health resources, offsets, special projects, strategic and special materials, water resources, and it goes on and on.

That’s an extraordinary amount of power and it’s not Constitutionally based. I’m not one of these guys that rings alarm bells all the time, but this troubles me. I don’t like it. I don’t care if it was adopted in 1950 or not and I urge Congress to take another look at this. Particularly given this President’s brazen statement about “fundamentally transforming America, particularly given this President’s brazen conduct in office with his Czars, with his unconstitutional appointments, with his efforts to uh to rule by regulation, and so forth. This requires a new (?), and yes, I don’t believe this president can be trusted with a much power as this statute provides him with. ….I mean his mindset. Given his approach to governing.

My buddy Shawn Hannity today was talking about Woodrow Wilson….I spoke about this at some length at the Reagan Library which was played on CSPAN twice yesterday, and I’ve talked about the (?)…I’ve written about them. Woodrow Wilson rejected the most important line in the Declaration of Independence:, the line of unaliable rights, I have it right here. I have it right here. Constitutional government in the United States this represents a number of lectures, Columbia University lectures, put together in 1907, later in 1911 (?)…Columbia University Press that I cited in Ameritopia, and just to sum up, Woodrow Wilson not only attacks the most important line in the Declaration of Independence, that involves your individual sovereignty, he brutally attacks the Constitution, he rejects the notion of Federalism and state sovereignty, he rejects the idea of divided government with three branches and enumerated powers, he talks about the government as if it’s a human being with organs and he makes the point over (?) they have to work together. And he talks about (my words) creating a judicial oligarchy with master minds who know best. Congress should take a much power as Congress can. Ther president above all the others ….should use as much power as he can get away with. That’s the bottom line. That is the basis today of the modern Democrat party under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. We have a Woodrow Wilson institute in the nation’s capitol, the Woodrow Wilson Institute. I guarantee they’re not teaching Constitutionalism and the Declaration. The notion of individual liberty and the nature of man and all of these things that are crucial to our founding. And to our liberty. But Obama embraces this notion that Wilson talked about as did FDR. More on this when we return.

So this executive order and the statute that underlays it, need to be revisited in my view because I don’t believe a statute of this sort which claims to confer this kind of power on a president is constitutional. I really don’t. And I don’t believe it is necessary. A president has certain inherent powers I believe in times of war particularly when war reaches our own beaches; it’s got a lot of power that’s not inherent as a matter of fact, a lot of direct and numerated authority in the Constitution, that’s an act of war, so I am somewhat uncomfortable about all of this. And it grows out of the mindset that of the new deal as well, at a time when centralized all powerful government was the fad and apparently has never stopped. So it’s something that needs to be addressed in my view. Now, on the other hand, I wouldn’t panic everybody, became this has been around a long time in it’s essential form. But, I think a lot of us weren’t quite – weren’t quite aware of it – I certainly wasn’t aware of a – the extent of it – and I don’t like it. I don’t like it at all. How do we put his back into the box if its unleashed? What are its limits if its unleashed? And I think that’s what concerns a lot of you. Particularly under this president and it’s perfectly legitimate to say so. Well other presidents ok, but this president is different. THIS president wants to fundamentally transform America. THIS president has already, in my humble opinion, abused his powers. And if he were a conservative republican or if his name was Richard Millhouse Nixon, um, then the democrats in Congress would be going all kinds of wackoo to deal with. Uh. But not now. All power is good power when it’s in the hands of a lib apparently. Now, that’ s my view anyway.

There’s also an individual who Franklin Roosevelt relied on. His name was Henry Segar. And he was a professor at Columbia. And he was part of the Kennedy lectures series 1910. Henry Rogers Segar. And he was a big proponent of Social Security as a matter of fact, he was relied on by the Roosevelt FDR brain trust, as they were developing unemployment insurance and social security. And one of the tings that troubled the late professor Segar (sp), was this whole notion of American Individualism. He says it’s in their blood. It’s in their system. They had it before they had a declaration. I’m paraphrasing. They had it before they had a Constitution. It persists to this day. It’s a powerful force. And he essentially argues that until we delude the individual of this kind of value – that they’re on their own that they are independent, until we change the psychology in America – and he referred to it as the psychology in America – until we change the thinking of the individual in America – to be thinking about community – about cooperation – about consensus…Until we start that process of changing the psychology of the American people he wrote, then we can’t have progress. We can’t have progress. SO he was basically mouthing with the Fabian Socialists in Europe had been mouthing and others in the United States had been mouthing. And this was very alluring to Franklin Roosevelt and his brain trust. These utopians. This is the mindset that continues to this day, the attack on the individual. The attack on the individual’s private property rights, the attack on successful individuals. You see, YOU stand in the way of paradise ladies and gentlemen, that is why an executive order like this in the hand of somebody who is essentially embracing this attitude is problematic to me. He has no more respect for the Constitution and its limits than he would for a statute like this under the wrong circumstances.

THANK YOU Mark Levin (the Great One)for opening your show with a very valuable disussion of the NDRP EO. I was VERY concerned and upset about this EO when it broke on FR and over the Internet this weekend. My first though was to listen to you on Monday for your informed opinion on this matter. Thankfully you addressed it in your show opening. You confirmed many of our warranted apprehensions about this EO instead of dismissing it (Hot Air - Ed Morrissey and American Thinker) and ignoring it (Rush, Drudge et all). Thank you Mark for speaking up and for addressing this in a thoughtful and rational manner. *** For those that missed Mark's show, I will post a rough transcript below or you can go to his site and listen to the 3/19 show.***

And this comment:

Ed, I think you could have done some more research before posting this “all clear.” Specifically, look at the language change in Section 201, part b.

It now says:

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.

The 1994 document you linked to says nothing of “non-emergency” conditions. This is a broad and frightening expansion of the Executive Branch’s power to ration food, energy, health care, water, and “all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials” whenever the president deems it necessary, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. What non-emergency conditions would merit such rationing? Emergency political conditions, that’s what.

This is a stunning grab for power over the nation’s resources and its people’s liberties.

Wake up, Ed. Really. Wake up.

Hey PJ - You might want to check out Vook if you decide to publish a MOBI/EPUB ebook. It's supposed to be better than Smashwords. I *think* they still have a free beta testing trial up. I signed up for it, but I haven't gotten around to using it yet. But, it looks promising! Good luck with your Dummies book!

Here it is.

http://www.therightscoop.com/full-speech-sarah-palin-at-cpac-2012/

FL ping!

I received this email from AFP about the proposed Florida Internet sales tax today. Has anyone else heard about it? I sent an email via AFP to oppose the bill, but I'm not holding my breath. It's infuriating that they keep adding more fees and taxes instead of reducing spending.

Does anyone have a link to the full Pam Bondi clip?

I live in FL and would like to send it out to as many people as possible. Pam Bondi should resign NOW if she wants to impose RomneyCare in FL.

Isn't RINO Mitch too busy trying to increase taxes via the Marketplace Fairness Act to run?

Via HotAir on 1/21/2012:

"Indiana government officials and the nation’s largest online retailer have reached an agreement to begin collecting Indiana sales tax on Internet purchases.

Indiana will become the fourth state to reach such an agreement with Amazon.com, but Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) said he wants federal legislation to address the online sales tax issue.

“The only complete answer to this problem is a federal solution that treats all retailers and all states the same,” said Daniels in a statement.

Glenn Beck explains why he is organizing the three day Restoring Love three day event in Dallas next July. For more information see:

Glenn Beck announces “Restoring Love”, a three day “Celebration of Service” in Dallas, TX

Levin: What the hell good is John Boehner? None!

Levin blasted Boehner for his Balanced Budget Amendment, saying that if it had passed it would have been the biggest spending and taxing tool in American history since it didn’t cap spending as a percentage of GDP or force a 2/3rds majority to raise taxes. Levin proclaims “Thank God the liberal Democrats didn’t vote for this and ram it through!”

Romney is a PROGRESSIVE with an R by his name. Does he really think the R by his name fools us? He’s a big government, huge statist progressive. End of story.

A blistering reality check on Newt Gingrich

{snip}

• He promoted the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
• He was for a federal individual health-care mandate, the lynchpin of ObamaCare.
• He was practically spooning Nancy Pelosi in commercials about the need for government action on global warming.
• He supports green energy projects [Solyndras] and farm-subsidies.
• Even as late as this year he was pitching for more government intervention in the health-care system at the progressive Brookings Institution.

How is Gingrich an improvement on Mitt Romney?

An outstanding speech by The Great One. (Video: 30:39)

GB ping!