Savaging Cruz, As Expected


When you hear the name “Sarah Palin” what is your reaction? I would wager that even among her supporters, the reaction tends toward defensiveness, as though Ms. Palin must be excused, explained or rationalized; all due to the liberal media (a.k.a. mainstream media) carpet-bombing of negativity that she endured, once she appeared in 2008 as a political threat to the liberal establishment and specifically to Barack Obama.

In something reminiscent, we today see the liberal media, as if on cue, attacking Republican Senator, and newly announced presidential candidate, Ted Cruz with all barrels blazing. He is such a threat to liberalism’s status quo that the left uses the flimsiest pretense to accuse him of hypocrisy, obstinacy, and whatever else they can conjure; intending to indelibly brand Sen. Cruz as distinctly unappealing.

Today’s specific charge concerns Sen. Cruz’s purchase of health insurance for himself and his family. Because he is an ardent opponent of ObamaCare and advocates a massive overhaul of the statute, his buying health insurance through a government-run healthcare exchange purportedly makes Sen. Cruz a hypocrite. This despite the fact that the ObamaCare statute requires him, along with millions of other Americans, to purchase health insurance for himself and his family or else pay a fine; and despite the fact that a government healthcare exchange is, due to ObamaCare itself, one of the very few purchasing options still available.

By the left’s perversion of logic, Sen. Cruz might also be called a hypocrite for paying his income taxes. After all, he does advocate a massive overhaul of the U.S. tax code, and he wants to abolish the IRS. If, in the interim, he continues to pay his taxes, as the law requires, does that not make him a hypocrite as well?

If there weren’t this flap about Sen. Cruz and his family’s health insurance, there would be, and surely will be, something else. Ultimately, when Americans hear the name “Ted Cruz” the liberal establishment wants our collective reaction to be – viscerally – a negative one. They succeeded in doing that to Sarah Palin. Past success emboldens them to keep trying.


License to Vote


Did you hear the news? About President Obama recently suggesting American citizens be required to obtain licenses in order to vote? Indeed, if this comes to pass, we may soon have to take a government mandated, online examination every two years. And only those with a ‘requisite knowledge of current events’ and an ‘appropriate constitutional acumen’ would be allowed to vote in future elections.

For the record, I would object. And though it’s not yet April Fools Day, I couldn’t resist an early effort, for the sake of much-needed argument. Indeed, how could Americans take something as sacrosanct as voting and change it from a right, to be exercised freely, into a privilege that must be earned every two years? That would be every bit as objectionable as making voting mandatory, thereby requiring all citizens to vote in every election, whether they wish to or not (sort of like filing one’s tax return). Also for the record, this idea of mandatory voting is one the President has actually proffered, and some on the left have endorsed.

A right is truly such when people exercise it freely. Once voting is decreed either a privilege or a mandate, it can no longer be exercised as a right. Would not such control by the state be the antithesis of democracy? Would it not be something more akin to fascism?

Liberals Fear the Will of the People

For several years now, this columnist has suggested a primary distinction between conservatives and liberals is that the former are more process oriented while the latter focus more on results. This notion is echoed in a piece by David Catron in today’s online American Spectator, contending establishment liberalism’s greatest fear as regards ObamaCare is that the “will of the people” be allowed to determine its fate.

Liberals fear the process by which a Republican-controlled Congress may legislate, perhaps with gumption enough to overhaul the current ObamaCare regime. It doesn’t matter to such liberals that, four months ago, voters awarded Republicans new and newly enhanced legislative majorities in the U.S. Congress, in large part because of an overriding dissatisfaction with ObamaCare. Nor do such liberals care that Congress has the constitutional duty to propose and pass legislation of this very nature. This is all too much process.

Democrats prefer the President continue to prescribe extra-constitutional, piecemeal fixes via executive fiat, to keep ObamaCare from collapsing under its own weight. This would preserve the ObamaCare regime, and America’s relentless march toward authoritarian government control would continue. Such is their desired result.

By comparison, the will of the people and the U.S. Constitutional are seen as trifles.

Hillary’s Political Epitaph?

In her press conference this week, Hillary Clinton purported to address the many issues surrounding her email scandal and put them to rest. In fact, she did anything but, never adequately explaining why she kept private all her official emails during her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, or why she refuses to allow a non-partisan, confidential review to determine whether they are indeed private or part of the public record.

In a tired, defensive and off-putting performance, she offered excuses and rationale flimsier than overcooked angel hair pasta, and most likely signaled the end of her next campaign for the presidency before it officially began. The quote that stood out, against rather stiff competition, was her statement, “The server will remain private.”

Those five words, actually a double entendre, may also end up a political epitaph. Because so long as she hides her public record from the public, Hillary Clinton, the supposedly benign public servant, will likely remain a private citizen.

In a deceptively honest way, however, she was putting her cards on the table, in full view of the assembled press and voting public, to let us know what the next decade or so could look like if she were to become President of the United States. Here, crudely paraphrased, is the blunt thrust of her comments and obfuscations: This is who I am, and this is how I operate. I’m not going to change just to please you schmucks. If you still want to support me, great, we’ve got a deal. And if you don’t want to support me, then don’t. Frankly, I don’t give a damn.

Do we?

What’s at Stake in ObamaCare Ruling

As the U.S. Supreme Court today listened to highly anticipated oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell, one could read commentary on both sides of the issue, suggesting it would be a good or bad thing should the court “gut” ObamaCare when it rules on the case later this year.

According to the plain language of the ObamaCare statute, more formally known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), subsidies are available for certain health care plans purchased through exchanges established by one of the fifty states. The statute contains no provision for subsidies to be made available via federal health care exchanges. If the court interprets the ACA as written, it will rule in favor of the plaintiff and against the Obama administration. But regardless of how it rules, the court will in fact not be gutting ObamaCare.

If they rule in favor of the plaintiff in this case, the justices, far from gutting the statute, will simply be restoring one portion of its original wording, as passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Obama himself. ObamaCare may well be the single worst piece of legislation ever signed into law by a U.S. President, one that, among its many faults, allows for no federally provided subsidies; but that is a problem the Democrats hoisted on themselves, and sadly upon the American people. Still, this would provide an opportunity for the new Republican-controlled Congress to step in and propose solutions to the ongoing debacle that is ObamaCare.

If, on the other hand, the justices rule in favor of the Obama administration, they will legitimize a form of executive overreach whereby America’s current President, as well as future Presidents, can unilaterally make changes to duly passed legislation when they find laws as written to be either too inconvenient or politically inexpedient. The President would ultimately supplant congress as de facto author of legislation. About that our constitution is quite clear – the drafting and passage of legislation shall rest with the Congress, not the President. One is hard pressed to imagine a more fundamental transformation of our constitutional republic than what the Obama administration proposes in this case, or a more disconcerting one.