Homosexual Marriage A Failing Of The Church And Believers

March 25, 2013 20 Comments

The Supreme Court will be hearing two homosexual marriage cases this week. One seeks a reversal of California’s Prop. 8 which outlaws homosexual marriage. The second seeks to have the Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional. Our nation has long ago rejected the Christian faith and as such the Supreme Court will not even consider Biblical arguments against homosexual marriage, even though they should. The Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in favor of homosexual marriage, with Justice Roberts being the swing vote. Such would be an unfortunate decision as there is nothing Constitutional about the Supreme Court ordering states to legalize homosexual marriage.

There is nothing conservative or libertarian about homosexual marriage. Marriage is a social institution, created by God in the Garden of Eden. It has historically been between one man and one woman. Homosexuals have never in the history of mankind been granted to right to marry one another. That doesn’t mean homosexuals don’t have the right to marry, in fact they have the same right to marry as everyone else. They may marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no law banning such a marriage. The left is suddenly arguing that homosexual marriage is very conservative because it limits the power of government over marriage when in reality it is a massive government expansion of the definition of marriage.

Our nation is moving further away from God as the years go by. The decision the Supreme Court is likely to deliver should hardly come as a surprise to anyone. A century ago Christians abandoned education, handing it over to the state. Since then we have seen an explosion in the size and scope of government in our lives. The progressive movement knew and understood that to change the future they would have to separate children from their parents and from the church. They have been wildly successful. After just twenty years of pushing homosexuality as normal in the schools, 63% of the country has no problem with homosexual marriage. Among younger people, the number is even higher.

We Christians have erred in focusing on this issue and abortion to the exclusion of the underlying problem. While we’re right on these two issues and we’re right in actively opposing abortion and homosexual marriage, we’ve lost focus on the real problems. These are two fold. First while we focused on abortion and homosexuals, the church got progressively more liberal. This is particularly true at the nation’s Seminaries. To counter act that, many conservative evangelical churches have adopted an anti-intellectual stance. That has only hurt our cause more. We have to stand up to these people on an intellectual level, otherwise we’ll continue to lose the next generation of clergy.

Second, we stopped focusing on education. This is perhaps the bigger issue. We have legions of conservative Christians pretending like their 8  year olds are salt and light in the nation’s government schools. In reality, such parents are handing their kids over to Satan for six to eight hours a day. The notion that such young children can lead people to Christ is ludicrous. In reality, they’re being indoctrinated all day and you won’t be able to counteract that reading the Bible for 20 minutes after dinner. It should hardly be surprising that young people are fleeing the church in droves. When they were taught an anti-Christian worldview in government schools, why ever would we think they’d stick around the church as adults?

As the nation moves down the slow path to Sodom, we Christians have to get our house in order. We cannot allow ourselves to adopt worldly practices or force them into scripture in order to be liked by the world. We have to protect our children by providing them with a high quality, intellectual Christian education. Believers need to reject the last century of progressive education and return to classic Christian education. This can be done at home or in private church schools. Most importantly we need to remove our kids from government schools. If there is any lesson to be learned from the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision and from polling on homosexual marriage it’s that the progressive left gets what it wants by indoctrinating children at government schools. No Christian ought to let their children become a victim of such evil tomfoolery.

Filed under homosexuals Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obamacare’s Attack On Religious Freedom Headed To Supreme Court

November 29, 2012 4 Comments

The next court battle over Obamacare will focus on religious freedom. This week two cases before Federal courts have shown us that it’s likely the Supreme Court will ultimately decide this issue, perhaps in the next term. The Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeals to hear a religious freedom claim as part of Liberty University’s Obamacare challenge. Meanwhile a Federal Appeals panel has issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the contraception mandate as it applies to a privately held Missouri business. The Obama administration’s attack on religious freedom via Obamacare is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.

The Obama administration’s contraception mandate, which requires employers to provide free contraception via health insurance policies, is a direct attack on religious freedom. The Constitution prohibits the Federal government from restricting the free exercise of religion. One of the basic beliefs held by any number of Christians, from Roman Catholics to generic evangelicals, is that contraception is sin. As such requiring a church or other religious organization to pay for contraception via a health policy restricts the free exercise of their religion. The same could be said of a business, especially a sole proprietorship or closely held corporation.

To listen to the Obama administration any opposition to the contraception mandate is a “war on women.” (all other opposition to Obama policies are simply “racist”) The real war here isn’t against women, it’s against religious freedom. No one is suggesting a ban on contraception. There is no law on the books or even proposed which would prevent a woman from walking into Wal-Mart and purchasing a $5 month’s supply of birth control pills. The issue here is who is going to pay for those pills, because there’s nothing stopping a woman from getting them in the first place. Griswold v Connecticut enshrined that right, for better or worse, in the 60′s.

What is at stake here is religious freedom. Can the Federal government order a church to spend their money on that which they find evil and sinful? Can the Federal government require by law a church to violate the basic tenants of their faith? The issue here isn’t women and their ability to obtain birth control, the issue here is religious freedom. If the answer to those two questions is yes, then we have no religious freedom in this country. After all, if the Federal government can force a church to pay with its own funds for things it finds evil, what can’t the Federal government order a church to do?

This issue extends well beyond the issue of contraception and don’t think the Obama administration doesn’t know it. Contraception is the easy case for them because it’s generally popular. But if religious freedom is lost here what is to stop the Federal government from ordering churches to marry homosexuals or ordain women in violation of their beliefs? Make no mistake, that’s the real goal here. Obama lost at the Supreme Court concerning the application of Federal employment discrimination law to clergy during his first administration. If he wins the contraception mandate, the left will have precedent to attack religious freedom on other matters.

This is a monumentally important issue because it decides the fate of religious freedom for the next generation. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to get caught up over the specific issue of contraception, it’s only a means to an end for the left. Contraception doesn’t matter, it’s a non-issue. What matters here is religious freedom and whether or not we will have in the future a church free from government intrusion. How the Supreme Court rules on this matter is anyone’s guess, I wouldn’t trust Justice Roberts at this point. We can only pray that the Court protects the religious freedom we the people granted ourselves in the Constitution.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , , ,

EPA’s Kiddie Informers, Court Threatens Resale Freedom

October 8, 2012 2 Comments

Stepping away from the Presidential race, at least on some level, there are a couple of stories out there that ought to be cause for alarm. The first involves a coordinated nationwide attack on school children seeking to turn them into little social justice, environmentalist wacko robots. The second involves your freedom to sell things that you own. In both cases we see the potential dangers of big, overpowering government can have on individuals. The Presidential race is a macro, worldview event. But we must never forget that worldview politics is a collection of micro issues. In this entry we’ll take a look at two of these micro issues.

The EPA is celebrating (the term celebration has really been watered down in recent years) something called Children’s Health Month. Rather than throwing a party the EPA is instead encouraging schools to create student energy patrols. The EPA believes kids need to learn “social action” and in order to learn this they’re to report on teachers and students who “waste” energy. What the EPA is essentially doing is teaching kids how to be informers and mini-community organizers. They’re training the next generation of liberal busy bodies, the next generation of adults who do things like ban incandescent light bulbs and three gallon toilets.

There is of course a better way to save energy than creating a patrol of Hitler Youth or a youth Stasi. It’s interesting that the government always goes the socialist route with informers and patrols when there is a capitalist solution. Wasting energy wastes money. Nothing ring true more with Americans than the pocketbook. Rather than teaching kids to be community organizers, social engineers or outright snitches, it seems far better to teach kids the financial cost of wasting energy. Not on the nation as a whole but on mom and dad’s pocketbook. It’s interesting that the EPA doesn’t go that route, perhaps because the liberals working there abhor the idea of talking money with kids.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court is set to hear a case which may limit your ability to sell your own junk.  The Court is reviewing the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons. In that case the Court of Appeals ruled that people cannot sell their junk if it was made outside of the United States because copyright holder still owns the copyright. Historically the copyright holder owns the first sale, once that sale has made people are free to sell a second or third time without permission from the copyright holder. The Court ruled that this only applies to products which were made in the United States.

If the Supreme Court upholds the lower Court you could be prevented by copyright holders from selling electronics, movies, books or furniture made outside of the United States even after you’ve already purchased it. Manufacturing jobs would move overseas because no business would anyone make something here in the US and be limited to only a first sale copyright. Used book stores would likely be shut down. Craig’s List would be shut down, after all you wouldn’t be able to sell your DVD’s 0r other junk if it was made outside the US. You can see how this case could dramatically alter free trade here in the US.

These two cases may be small when compared to the larger issues of the Presidential election. Nevertheless, if we ignore smaller issues like these two we could eventually lose the larger worldview. The government has no business creating energy snitch patrols which do little more than train the next generation of community organizers and insufferable busy bodies. Likewise, the Court would be creating a disaster for capitalism if it bars the resale of foreign made goods. The Court might create a victory for corporatists and other assorted socialists but it would be a disaster for individuals.

Filed under freedom Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Individual Mandate A “Tax?” Romney Given A Major Issue

June 28, 2012 8 Comments

The Obamacare decision is in with Bush appointee John Roberts siding with the liberals in ruling it constitutional. The mandate it appears will be declared a “tax” and thus it doesn’t fall under the Commerce Clause. It’s the most absurd of rulings, a complete cop out that ignores what the mandate actually is. Even Obama said it isn’t a tax. In calling it a tax, the Court suggests that individuals can simply “opt out” and refuse to pay it. And what, have 100 Fed agents on our doorstep demanding money? Ridiculous. So much for President Bush appointing conservatives to the bench. These Supreme Court appointments matter and Bush completely dropped the ball with Roberts. It would have been even worse had Alito not replaced the pathetic Harriet Miers.

With all of this in mind, expect Obama to gloat. But also expect the Tea Party to rise up in protest, backing Romney with vengeance. Romney’s campaign has been doing pretty good so far, they’ve not run into any major gaffes recently. Expect Romney to get a slight boost in terms of support as Tea Partiers who may be sitting on the sidelines suddenly join the Romney fray. Obamacare is still opposed by over 50% of the country, so Romney clearly has an issue to play with here. This could be the issue that puts him over the top, Obamacare remains unpopular.

Also expect Romney to raise a significant amount of cash. The Tea Party isn’t the only group that hates Obamacare, businesses and Catholics hate it as well. It’s caused premiums to skyrocket and we all know what Obama is trying to do to the Roman Catholic Church concerning contraception. If 5% of Roman Catholics who generally vote Democrat swing to Romney because they don’t like what Obama is doing that could be enough to win the election for Romney. That issue is back in play now.

Romney has been given a golden opportunity to campaign on the repeal of a job destroying, unpopular 2,000+ page healthcare law. He has the opportunity to corral all of the Tea Party into his camp. The ruling in the very least didn’t expand the Commerce Clause, we can at least rest on that. But this is truly the best ruling for Romney if he wants to win because now he has a major issue besides the economy to run on. He needs to campaign on repeal and offer his own, clear, concise market based alternative. If he does that, he can win this election.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama Fundamentally Transforming America Through Lawlessness

June 27, 2012 2 Comments

The Obama administration won a partial victory in the Arizona immigration case decided on Monday. They were also defeated on the major point of the legislation. Arizona law enforcement can now ask people they arrest or question whether they’re here illegally. The administration’s response to this defeat has been disturbing. They’ve decided not to respond to any Arizona police agency which tells them they have an illegal. In short the Obama administration lost, so they’re taking their toys and going home. Childish perhaps but it’s the latest in a long line of brazenly lawless actions. We Americans need to decide whether we want to be a nation of laws or a nation of an imperial President.

It’s the President’s job under the Constitution to enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. The Constitution doesn’t allow the President to pick and choose which laws passed and signed by previous governments he will enforce. It also doesn’t permit the President to write new laws on his own. In just the past couple of weeks we’ve seen the President brazenly write new immigration law, creating a whole new class of immigrant worker. All of this was contained in the Dream Act, which Obama wasn’t able to get through Congress even when his party held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Now Obama outright refuses to enforce immigration law as written, refusing to work with Arizona to arrest and deport people here illegally.

This is hardly the first time Obama has refused to enforce the law. The President has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Eric Holder refuses to acknowledge a Supreme Court ruling that explicitly allows states to require picture ID to vote. Holder is likely going to be held in Contempt of Congress this week for refusing to hand over documents in the Fast and Furious case. Obama is claiming executive privilege when none exists. The list goes on and on, we have a very lawless administration.

Obama’s refusal to enforce immigration law has nothing to do with lack of funding, which has long been the excuse for not enforcing such laws. His refusal has everything to do with the fact that he lost at the Supreme Court. Likewise, he couldn’t get what he wanted on immigration from Congress so he unilaterally wrote the law himself. The Constitutional law professor apparently doesn’t like separation of powers. He also doesn’t like enforcing laws he doesn’t like, nor does he like Supreme Court rulings that don’t come down in his favor. If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional tomorrow, would it surprise anyone if Obama decides to unilaterally declare the mandate law?

Let’s say a Republican President was unable to get a tax cut through the Congress. Rather than enforcing the law as written, the GOP President declared that the IRS would no longer be collecting said tax and no one would be penalized for not paying it. This would be a brazen disregard for existing law, it would likely result in impeachment and rightfully so. It’s the President’s job to enforce the law. Let’s say a state instituted tougher laws against bank robbers (bank robbery is a Federal crime) and a Republican President didn’t like the tougher laws and challenged them but lost at the Supreme Court. If that President then refused to work with the state to prosecute bank robbers, the public would be outraged and rightfully so.

These examples unfortunately are exactly what Obama is doing right now with immigration and the Arizona law. Immigration isn’t even the issue here, we can disagree on which policy on immigration is right or wrong. The issue here is what the law is and whether its being enforced by the President. The same is true of the Defense of Marriage Act. We can disagree on whether the law is a good thing or not but that’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s the law and the President is refusing to enforce or defend it. We can disagree over whether picture ID should be required for voting. But the Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional in an opinion penned by the most liberal Justice, Stephen Breyer.

What Americans need to ask themselves is whether we want to be a nation of laws, where Congress passes them, a President signs them and whoever serves as President enforces them or we want to have an imperial President who picks and chooses which laws he wants to enforce. Do we want legal certainty when we elect a President or do we want uncertainty? If we want legal certainty, meaning we want to know that the laws on the books will be enforced, then we must reject the imperial actions of Obama. If we want the President to pick and choose based on his personal whims, opinions or based on which lobbyist or voting bloc offers the most, then we must support Obama. But in doing that we must recognize that we are creating legal uncertainty and we’re bringing down the foundation of our nation. We have always been a nation of laws, Obama is fundamentally changing this. Did Obama’s voters really bargain for this in 2008?

Filed under constituton Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Supreme Court Poised To Destroy Individual Freedom

June 26, 2012 2 Comments

The Obamacare decision is going to be handed down on Thursday. It appears that Chief Justice Roberts will be delivering the opinion. That means it’s either 5-4 to overturn at least the mandate or 6-3 to uphold the law. The liberal press is in borderline freak out mode over the notion that this law might be ruled unconstitutional, they can’t imagine how it can be. That largely stems from their refusal to take conservative jurisprudence seriously. Another like of articles the past few days, both on the left and right, have focused on how bad this decision will be for Obama. The bigger question is what will this decision mean for the American people?

A ruling that Obamacare is constitutional isn’t out of the question. I’d say it’s 60-40 that it doesn’t happen, but that means there’s at least a 40% chance that this law is ruled constitutional. What does that mean for freedom in American though? If the individual mandate is constitutional, is there any essential aspect of life that the government cannot regulate? Keep in mind, this is the argument the liberals have been making on Obamacare. Healthcare is something everyone will need eventually and therefore the Commerce Clause allows the government to mandate that we buy private health insurance.

If having the government regulate commerce means they can force us to buy essential products like health insurance there is nothing essential they cannot force us to buy. It is essential that we eat, therefore the government could regulate commerce by forcing us to buy healthy food. People laughed when Scalia suggested the government could force us to buy broccoli but why wouldn’t the government be able to do this? We all have to eat and government may decide to save money on healthcare the American people need to eat healthy food. Therefore as part of its Commerce power, the Congress could order us to buy healthy food. It’s not out of the question, in fact the argument for this is identical to the individual mandate argument.

We could come up with any number of other products that are essential in this life and because they require us to buy something and are commerce, the government could order us to buy them if the individual mandate is upheld. Funeral services, water, shelter, clothing etc. You may laugh at these suggestions but if Congress may use its Commerce Clause power to mandate the purchase of health insurance because health insurance is essential to living, then government can mandate the purchase of all these other essential products of life. You have to wonder though at what point does the consent of the governed cease.

The Federalist Papers argued for the Commerce Clause and nowhere did the founders argue that this clause could order the American people to buy private products. It’s one thing to regulate commerce between the several states to ensure that the states aren’t placing special taxes, fees or regulations on products produced out of state. It’s another thing for Congress to regulate commerce by ordering the American people to buy products, no matter how essential they may be. If government can order us to buy health insurance, there is no power over us that they don’t have. The government will cease to be of the people but it will have become a dictatorship.

I hope that the Supreme Court will rule the mandate unconstitutional and thus place limits on the power of the Federal government. It would not surprise me in the least though if they rule it constitutional. Kennedy is weak and I fear Roberts isn’t nearly as conservative as we had originally hoped. A ruling of constitutional will likely rile up Republicans and propel Romney into office. But even if he is able to repeal Obamacare, the damage will already be done. The Supreme Court precedent will be in place and the next Democrat, if not Romney, will likely take full advantage of it. What the American people must ask themselves though is whether this is the freedom that the founders wanted for this nation.

Filed under socialism Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

No Outright Winner In Arizona Immigration Case

June 25, 2012 1 Comment

The Supreme Court punted Obamacare to Thursday but they did issue a decision on the Arizona immigration law case. The Court split the baby, allowing Arizona to ask the immigration status people arrested or stop for questioning who they suspect are here illegally. While upholding that part of the law, the Court did not uphold provisions that required immigrants to carry papers on their person, made criminal seeking employment without proper work permits and allowed cops to arrest illegals for deportable crimes if the crimes didn’t occur in Arizona. Interestingly the one provision the Court upheld was 8-0.

No doubt Obama is going to declare victory in this case even though he didn’t win much. Likewise conservatives didn’t win much either. Obama’s victories are overshadowed by the determination that people arrested or questioned in Arizona can he asked about their immigration status. That was a major portion of his public, political argument against the Arizona law. He didn’t spend his time outraged that Arizona ran roughshod over the Federal government’s employment laws, he was outraged that Arizona was questioning folks suspected of being here illegally. On that major issue, Obama lost. No doubt he’ll hang his hat on his victories but politically they don’t amount to much.

The conservatives didn’t win much either. Yes, Arizona can now ask suspected illegals of their immigration status. But the ruling further diminished the power of the states to enforce Federal law or write their own laws with regard to people who are in the country illegally. States rights apparently mean very little to the Supreme Court these days. You would think that a state would be able to require workers in their state to hold valid permits to work. That those permits come from the Federal government should really have no bearing on whether a state can use them to determine an employee’s ability to work. Under this ruling, would it be legal for a state to use a Federal passport as proper ID? Probably not.

Don’t spend much time reading anything about Obamacare from this case. Yes, Kennedy delivered the majority opinion. The one provision held constitutional was 8-0, two of the unconstitutional provisions were 5-3 with Roberts joining Kennedy and one was 6-2 with Alito joining. The issues in these two cases and in the juvenile parole case (which was 5-4, Kennedy joining the liberals) aren’t the same as Obamacare. These cases didn’t involve the Commerce Clause in any meaningful way. Having said that, don’t be surprised if conservatives begin freaking out over Kennedy’s Arizona opinion, assuming Obamacare is now saved. If you’re inclined to play the freak out game, keep in mind Kennedy voted to uphold Citizens United in a case involving corporate spending limits in Montana.

This sets the stage for Thursday’s Obamacare ruling. My prediction is that the individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional but the Court will rule the rest of it severable from the mandate and therefore the whole law won’t be thrown out. While personally don’t believe the mandate is severable from the rest of the Obamacare Act, the court will determine as such in an attempt to split the baby. The fallout both legally and politically from such a decision ought to be completely fascinating. This decision, no matter what it is, will mark the first opportunity for both Obama and Romney to stand out and dramatically shift the fall campaign.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obamacare Ruling Will Renew Call For Socialist Single Payer

June 23, 2012 4 Comments

The Obamacare ruling is expected next week. We won’t know when it is actually going to be handed down, all the speculation on it is absurd. It’s likely that at least the individual mandate will be struck down, if not the entire law. Any ruling that all or part of Obamacare is unconstitutional will be a victory for the Tea Party and the Constitution. It will also be politically disastrous for the President. The big question though is what effect this will have on the Presidential race. There are some on the left who believe a ruling of unconstitutional will open the door for single payer socialist medicine. We must make sure this never happens.

Single payer socialist medicine would not per se be unconstitutional so long as it is based on the taxing power of the Constitution. The Congress could tax individuals or businesses and use the money to fund a massive, nationalized health care system. They already do this with Medicare, though the benefits are only for those 65 and older as opposed to all Americans. This system stands in stark contrast to Obamacare, which relies on the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health insurance. A single payer, socialist system would be easier for the left to get by the Constitution and let’s face it single payer is what they’ve been after all along.

Single payer though is a disaster wherever it is implemented. We forever hear the left telling us about the great health care system in Canada. In Canada you’ll find waiting lists a mile long. If you need surgery or therapeutic treatment you’ll wait an average of 18.3 weeks. Ontario leads the way, their citizens only wait 15 weeks, while Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Soctia have nearly six month waiting lists. Need to see a specialist in Canada? You’ll wait two months on average. You’ll wait a month to see a cancer doctor and God help you if you’ll need to see more than one during your battle against cancer because it’s a month for each doctor. Need a CT scan in Canada? You’ll wait nearly 5 weeks. Need a MRI? You’ll wait over 10 weeks.

Meanwhile in Great Britain they’re knocking off the elderly at the rate of 130,000 per year. They attempt to make excuses for this number (it isn’t denied) but we all know they’re killing these people because they’re a cost burden. Life becomes cheap when taxpayers are on the hook and there’s a deficit. Politicians don’t have to worry about dead people voting in the next election, they do have to worry about angry taxpayers who don’t like deficits.

The reason why socialist medicine is such a mess is because it functions outside of the market. It’s very easy to go see a GP in a socialist country because they are the lowest common denominator. All voters need to see a GP every year so the government props these doctors up and makes them easily accessible. Fewer voters need to see specialists or need special treatment so it pays at the ballot box to fund these people at lower levels than the market would otherwise demand. We have the opposite situation here in the US, we have specialists galore because Americans demand them. It’s why we have the best healthcare in the world and Canada and Great Britain do not.

In the next few weeks the far left will call for socialist single payer healthcare. Odds are the American public isn’t going to be much interested in another massive left-wing healthcare program. But we must be prepared to combat socialist healthcare when they call for it. The numbers from Canada and Britain are chilling. The lack of competition breeds waste. The political solutions to health problems is costly for sick people and the elderly. Do the American people, particularly the 85% with health insurance, really want four month waiting lists for treatment? Do we really want to wait a month or two for basic diagnostic tests that we can get tomorrow or the next day now? Do we really want a system that has incentive to knock off the elderly when they become “too costly”? That’s what socialist single payer will give us. God help us if Obama should ever manage to pass it.

Filed under socialism Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare Ruling Looms Over Obama, Romney Campaigns

May 21, 2012 2 Comments

It’s no secret that we here at Steven Birn Speaks are poll watchers. These days the Obama-Romney matchup is more or less a statistical tie according to Rasmussen and Gallup. That equates to a Romney victory as generally speaking 80% of undecided voters end up voting against the incumbent. Thus a 45-45 tie in the polls is really a 53-47 Romney lead. Obviously the number of people undecided will shift before election day. But on election day, those who are undecided will mostly shift towards the challenger.

Having said all of that, we cannot forget it’s only May. We have just under six months to go before the election. A lot can change between now and November. In fact, a lot will change and not just on the economy which is presumably the number one issue heading into the election. The big elephant in the room is the Obamacare case at the Supreme Court. How that case is decided will set up the 2012 election, even more so than the economy provided there isn’t a massive downturn. (it’s too late for a massive upswing)

If Obamacare’s individual mandate is ruled constitutional it’s a big feather in the cap of Obama. He can run around the country pointing to Obamacare as his big first term achievement and he can tell the people he should be the one to fully implement it during his second term. It’s a solid argument. But we cannot forget that the polls show that 60% of the country wants Obamacare repealed. In other words, Obama may win the argument on constitutionality but lose because his signature piece of legislation is simply unpopular.

A ruling that the individual mandate is constitutional would certainly fuel Obama and his supporters but it could arguably work up Republicans more than any other issue. Nothing may galvanize Republicans more behind Mitt Romney than the threat of Obamacare being fully implemented by Obama. Romney has pledged to sign the repeal of Obamacare, that pledge alone could propel him into the White House on a wave of anti-Obamacare electoral storm. There isn’t another issue that could cause Republicans to back Romney more than a Constitutional ruling from the court on Obamacare.

If Obamacare’s individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional or the whole thing is ruled unconstitutional it would be a major blow for Obama. His signature piece of legislation will have been ruled unconstitutional. A Constitutional law professor’s signature piece of legislation no less. That’s a serious problem for Obama. But he can recover from it based on his reaction to such a ruling. If he spends his time attacking the Supreme Court, he’ll lose. But if he instead pushes for individual bills enshrining parts of Obamacare into law, particularly the popular portions of it like the pre-existing conditions clause, he could come out victorious.

Romney already appears behind the eight ball concerning what to do without Obamacare. He’s talked about vague free market solutions but he doesn’t seem to have a plan. He really needs come up with a solid alternative to Obamacare, since a Romney Presidency will result in the elimination of Obamacare. In fact, Romney could shift the polls by coming out with a solid, free market plan before the Supreme Court rules on the matter. That said if the individual mandate is ruled constitutional, Romney’s response to the ruling will be just as important as Obama’s.

The Obamacare ruling, due out late next month, will be the opening shot in the 2012 election cycle. There will be plenty to talk about before then as Obama attempts to define Romney from his bully pulpit. But in terms of polls, they aren’t going to matter a whole lot because they will shift substantially after the court rules. They may even shift twice depending on how the candidates respond to the ruling. This decision will determine how the fall narrative goes. This election isn’t just about the economy, it’s also about Obamacare or what will replace Obamacare.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

Photo ID A Must To Prevent Voter Fraud

April 10, 2012 Leave a comment

In 2008 liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens authored an opinion upholding Indiana’s voter photo ID requirement. It’s important to note that the 6-3 Court decision was authored by what was at the time the most liberal Justice. That hasn’t stopped Attorney General Eric Holder from trying to stop photo ID requirements in Texas and South Carolina. Apparently Supreme Court decisions don’t matter to the administration, which would be keeping in line with Obama’s Supreme Court rant last week. The fact is, it is necessary and prudent to require photo ID of voters.

James O’Keefe has produced dozens of videos of people intentionally asking for ballots for dead people, famous people and people who are otherwise not the person requesting the ballot. In his latest stunt, he sent a white kid to ask for a ballot for Eric Holder in Washington DC’s recent election. The DOJ shot back that the evidence was manufactured. Well of course it’s manufactured, the point of it is to show how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Whether it is happening on a grand scale or not cannot be known because many states don’t require photo ID and when they do the Justice Department ignores the Supreme Court and tries to invalidate the law.

We require photo ID’s to board airplanes, we require them to cash checks, we require them to drive a car, we require them to enter and exit the country, you even need a photo ID to rent a video. In fact, Obamacare requires photo ID to obtain medical services. Yet the left doesn’t want to require photo ID’s to vote. They cry racism, yet majorities of blacks and Hispanics consistently support photo ID requirements. Pew has shown that there are around 1.8 million dead people still registered to vote. We know that in any given major election half of registered voters don’t vote. Is it that far of a stretch to suggest that without ID requirements it’s easy to vote illegally and likely this happens?

I’ve heard any number of objections, all of which are unfounded. The first claim is that the poor won’t be able to obtain a  photo ID. Yet in every state that has such a requirement offers free photo ID’s for those who do not have a drivers license. Keep in mind, most adult Americans have a drivers license. In fact, because a photo ID is required for so many things the overwhelming majority of adults have a government issued photo ID already. We’re talking 98% or more.

The next objection seems to be that those who are poor and who do not already have a photo ID may have to produce a birth certificate in order to obtain an ID. I will refrain from wondering whether Obama ever produced such a birth certificate to obtain a photo ID in his youth. The fact though is that it’s relatively easy to obtain a birth certificate and there’s no reason why state’s cannot make this free in order for citizens to obtain photo ID’s to vote. For anyone under the age of 70, the likelihood that a birth certificate has been lost to time is highly unlikely and even if it does happen for generations there have been other ways of proving birth. That ought to be sufficient.

The fact though is that we’ve never been given a single example by the left of someone unable to obtain a photo ID. We hear law school style what if’s but we never actually see any people. Meanwhile, any of us can walk up to a polling place in a state that doesn’t have an ID requirement and request a ballot using any name on the list. It begs the question why the left so strongly opposes ID requirements. Perhaps the left wants to protect its monopoly on voter fraud.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers