teabagWe have been working for it. Just the same, when it finally happened, I suspect I wasn’t the only one who was pleasantly surprised.

House Republicans said Wednesday that stripping funding from the health-care law championed by President Barack Obama would be their price for keeping federal agencies open after the end of this month, a move that sharply increases the risk of a partial government shutdown in two weeks.

GOP leaders said the House would vote Friday on a bill to fund federal agencies for the first 2 1/2 months of the fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, but strip all health-law funding.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) had been trying to avoid such a tight link between the issues out of fear that it would lead to a stalemate and trigger a shutdown, but he reversed course under pressure from conservatives working to make “defunding” the health law a litmus test in this budget fight. (continued here)

What is the risk? In politics, the corporate news media keeps score. Whereas we should vote based upon principles of right and wrong, we tend to see things as President Bill Clinton wanted us to visualized the matter.

It’s the economy, stupid. (from here)

Thus, electoral victory involves seizing credit and blaming our opponent.  That makes politics about information warfare, not protecting the rights of the people.

Therefore, here is the latest from Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi adoration for John BoehnerDemocrats want us to picture them as noble defenders of the poor and Republicans as irresponsible Scrooges. If Tea Party activists want to win this battle we must fight it on moral grounds.

  • Obamacare is wrong. The Democrats sold this unconstitutional program by telling us repeated lies. Because it is such a rotten mess, Obama has already delayed much of the program. That he has done by issuing executive orders. And where does the legislation give him that authority? No one knows.
  • America does not want Obamacare. America never did want Obamacare. Therefore, when Congress refuses to fund the Obamacare, Congress is just doing its job, obeying the will of the People. What does that imply? Democrats do not serve the People. If the Democrat-run Senate refuses to approve and the President Obama refuse to sign a continuing resolution that defunds Obamacare, Democrats must be holding the economy hostage for the sake of their sacred cow.

Unfortunately, Democrats own the biggest corporate news media outlets. Therefore, Tea Party activists must add their own voices. We must encourage Republicans to speak clearly and forcefully. We must work to remind our people that this battle is not about our pocketbooks. This battle is over whether or not we can hold our leaders accountable, both to our Constitution and to us. Do we want to be ruled by tyrants, or do we want to remain a free people? Do we have both the courage and fortitude required to remain free? Will we choose to place our faith in government or in God?

Please write letters to both your Congressmen and Senators. Let them know where you stand, and please encourage your neighbors to do the same.

10 thoughts on “SO WHAT’S THE MESSAGE?

  1. The Constitution speaks (quite deliberately) in rather general terms. Over time the Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judiciary cooperate or clash in ways that make the meaning clear when applied to things the Founders had no means of foretelling. The system works imperfectly, but, on balance, rather well over time to clarify areas of uncertainty that arise as new technologies, new programs, new external and internal conditions are examined under the constraints and authorizations of the Constitution.

    You missed my point about who has the burden of proving that a measure or governmental policy is constitutional or unconstitutional. My answer was one that explained that, in our system, a challenger to a law has the burden of going forward to prove his theory of unlawfulness. That is a “fact” (using the term in a way everyone understands). I was not making a political point about “might makes right.” Many a law or policy have been invalidated following a legal challenge in which relatively insignificant plaintiffs have taken on some element of the government.


    1. scout – The Constitution does not mention setting up a welfare state, not even in the most general terms. Our leaders just began setting up a welfare state because we let them. If that is how the Constitution is suppose to work, then the document serves no purpose.

      When you speak of clarifying areas of uncertainty, what does that mean in this context, with respect to constitutionalizing the welfare state? Where was the uncertainty? Was it not how much could our leaders could get away with? When we allow our laws to become just a matter of self-serving interpretation (i.e., a living constitution), then we have fallen back from the rule of law to the rule of powerful men.


  2. The founders spoke only most generally of welfare programs, stating that one of the reasons the Constitution was necessary was to promote the general Welfare of the People. It then gave Congress the powers necessary and proper to meet these general goals.

    I’ve litigated Tenth Amendment cases on behalf of States, and I’ve also litigated cases where I have asserted the primacy of federal authority over the states. The metes and bounds of a federal republic under the Constitution is a subject with which I am not unfamiliar.

    To answer your question about who bears the burden of proof to challenge the constitutionality of a law, the answer (in general terms – there are some nuances to this, depending on the basis of the challenge) is that those attacking the law have the burden to establish its unconstitutionality. So, tag – you’re it.

    I do not follow your theological argument. I think you’re saying that, according to St. Paul, the Justices on the Supreme Court sinned when they disagreed with your opinion. I don’t see that. We are all awash in sin, and at times I am quite unsure of God’s greater plans for me and my fellows. Nonetheless, disagreeing with our friend CT is not going to be on my account at the Pearly Gates. Of that I am most certain. I feel I can speak not only for myself on that point, but for the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.


    1. To answer your question about who bears the burden of proof to challenge the constitutionality of a law, the answer (in general terms – there are some nuances to this, depending on the basis of the challenge) is that those attacking the law have the burden to establish its unconstitutionality. So, tag – you’re it.

      That just another way of saying elections have consequences and might makes right.

      If politicians want to use the words in the Preamble to justify a welfare state, then they just have to get enough people to vote to dissolve the meaning of the words in the Constitution, and that they have been doing. Nonetheless, the words in the Constitution have not changed, and we can still read them. The Constitution plainly says what it says, and you have yet to show otherwise.

      Consider the irony. Your comments are full of “I” this and “I” that. Yet where do you end? It is just CT’s opinion, but it’s not. The Constitution plainly says what it says.


  3. What is unconstitutional about “Obamacare”? You say that that is a “fact”. I spend a lot of time with the Constitution in my work, and I sure can’t see it. The Court couldn’t see it. Even in that context, the constitutionality of the health care program was challenged only on one aspect of it – the individual participation tax penalty. If the health care system is unconstitutional, it is no more so than the previous system it augmented, a system that virtually no one challenged.

    I’m not sure I follow you on your distinction between mandatory and discretionary spending, particularly as you describe it as being rooted in the Constitution.


    1. You can’t see it, and the Court couldn’t see it? I suppose that is because the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about setting up a massive welfare state.

      Consider the argument appropriately. Is it up to its opponents prove Obamacare unconstitutional, or is up to its advocates to prove that it is constitutional?

      Check out Article 1, Section 8 lists the powers of Congress. Look carefully at how Article 1, Section 8 begins.

      The Congress shall have Power To

      Consider also the Tenth Amendment.

      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Because Article 1, Section 8 says what Congress can do, not what it cannot do, Article 1, Section 8 says nothing about setting up a massive welfare state. The Founders did not want the Federal Government to run welfare programs.

      So why didn’t the Supreme Court rule Obamacare unconstitutional? Why do men do that which they should not do? The Apostle Paul considered that question better than I (Romans 7:14-25). When we do not put our faith in God, when we take our eyes off Christ, we sin.


  4. I interpret your last paragraph to say that you would not have a national health care system and that people should be left to their own devices. I think if you took that to the People, it would be resoundingly voted down. I also suspect that the overall health standards of the country would be markedly diminished from even the not-too-impressive levels we have now. Those who are trying to dismantle ACA probably fill a number of positions on the spectrum between yours and mine, but they should be very precise about their end game. If they are with you on this, the American People should know that.

    In my view, this is public health policy. How does an industrialized 21st century nation of several hundred million people ensure that its citizens are healthy enough to avoid mass illnesses and general conditions of ill heaIth that can wreck the economic and security vitality of the country? I don’t see constitutional implications. The Constitution is a broadly worded document that gives the national government a lot of general power to operate in areas affecting interstate commerce and the general welfare. Social Security is no more authorized in haec verba than is health care. I give you credit for enough consistency to anticipate that you feel Social Security should be rubbish-binned also. Ditto Air Traffic Controllers, the CDC and the FDA.


    1. Change sometimes comes rapidly, and sometimes change comes slowly. Something as complex as our healthcare system should not be changed rapidly, but the Democrats want power, not a good healthcare system.

      When the framers wrote the Constitution, they sought to gradually end slavery. Because slavery was not especially profitable, they did not think slaveholders would fight vigorously to defend that peculiar institution. The cotton gin did not exist then. The cotton gin and the greed of men ended any chance of a gradual end to slavery.

      Some how, some way, some men always find it profitable to force other men to bend to their will. Hence, we have a ruling class bent upon dominating the rest of us. You, however, apparently think I exaggerate. Nonetheless, there are certain stubborn facts.

      1. In their extraordinary wisdom, our leaders regard most federal spending as “mandatory.” Yet oddly enough, the spending the Constitution clearly authorizes our leaders regard as discretionary. As Shakespeare might have observed, methinks they protest too much. When they have to break their oaths to do it, why do our leaders insist upon spending so much money? They think it honorable, or do they think their control over that money commands great power and demands fear and respect?
      2. After the Constitution was written, the Federal Government operated for many years as a relatively small concern. During the FDR administration, the Federal Government grew monstrously. The Supreme Court at first resisted, but then succumbed. Why did the court give in? Don’t know, but Justice Roberts comes to mind. We cannot explain his vote either.
      3. The Constitution lists the powers of the Federal Government. No matter how broadly you may wish to construe the words in the Constitution, Obamacare is unconstitutional. The mere fact a lie remains unadmitted does change the fact of a lie. Men lie. To get what we want, we are tempted to lie, and sometimes we do. For years whites convinced themselves of the inferiority of blacks. It took centuries to put down that lie. Have others risen it its place? Of course. Why else would constant vigilance be the price of freedom?


  5. What we call “ObamaCare” is a modification of the pre-existing system. What do you see as the alternative to the federal health care system if we were to abolish ObamaCare? Would it default back to the pre-existing system (which was completely deficient) or would we simply have nothing? Should there be a federal health care system? Or would you advocate leaving everyone to their own devices on this? If the answer lies anywhere in between the present law and a complete dismantling of federal health care programs, I’d be interested in what you think would work well for the nation and its individual citizens.


    1. Modification of the pre-existing system? Isn’t that true of every change?

      What’s the alternative? The Federal Government has no constitutional charter to be in the healthcare business. We made the mistake of letting our leaders seize that power. Whenever we do that, we make the Constitution more useless. When We the People do not enforce the Constitution, we give our leaders less reason respect it.

      What is the alternative? What was the pre-existing system to the pre-existing system? Was that not free enterprise and private charity? If more free enterprise and more private charity is what it takes to eliminate leaders who lie and pretend the Constitution says what it quite clearly does not say, then I am for free enterprise and private charity.


Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life



PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom


Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: