I'm getting to this point...

From Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/

Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.
The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.
By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.
The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?
The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).
Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.
If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.
Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address—Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.
Ignoring two centuries of practice, President Obama made four recess appointments in January 2012, when the Senate was not in recess. Three courts have found that his appointments were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case. If the Supreme Court finds against him, what will Mr. Obama do?
We can get a hint by looking at how other parts of his Administration have dealt with Court decisions they did not like.
The Attorney General’s Office is the branch of government charged with enforcing federal laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Attorney General Holder announced that he would use other provisions of the act to get around the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court has defined the standard for sexual harassment as “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” behavior to a “reasonable person.” In open defiance of that ruling, the Obama Department of Education has declared a new definition of sexual harassment for colleges, that is, “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct,” even if it is not objectively offensive—thus reinforcing the reign of terror over sex on college campuses. If a young man’s request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.
The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama administration is manifest. They feel bound by the Court’s decisions only if they agree with them. If they disagree, it is deuces wild; they will embrace any fiction that nullifies the Court’s decision.
The direction in which Mr. Obama is taking us would make possible the following scenario. A Republican Congress is elected and repeals Obamacare over a Democratic President’s veto. The President refuses to enforce the repeal. The Supreme Court rules that the President’s refusal is unconstitutional. The President denounces that ruling and refuses to be bound by it.
If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. Whatever side that was, our national self-esteem would be unlikely to recover from the blow of finding that we are living in a banana republic.
The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?
Mr. Obama is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He has said that he wants a fair country—implying that, as it stands, the United States is not a fair country—an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own leader.
What country does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?
Mr. Obama got his conception of a fair country from his teachers. A fair country is an unfree country because it is regimented to prevent anyone from rising too high. Their ideal is egalitarianism, the notion that no one should be any better, higher, or richer than anyone else. Combined with a dollop of totalitarianism, egalitarianism has replaced communism as the dominant ideal in our most prestigious universities. Mr. Obama and his colleagues are the product of those universities, and they have their marching orders.
The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.
Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”
We are losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way to say “No!” “Not now!” “Not yet!” “Not ever!”

Kinda like ObamaCare - Bronze! Silver! The GOLD Plan!!!

Amazing that this comes out after the election...

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

The report states that several regions of data gathered for the Department of Labor were...FAKED.  And not just "Oh - we couldn't get enough people, so we continued the trend" but "We got this number because it was a good number!"

This has created two major problems:

  • The fake data boosted unemployment from 8.1% to 7.8% in one month - the same month that there was widespread conjecture about an incumbent President never being re-elected with unemployment rates above 8%, and
  • Vital government statistics that the world, Federal Government, State governments, businesses, banks, The Fed, the IMF are... FAKE.
If you want to ruin a country's reputation, you do this kind of political manipulation (for favor of the ruling party). Think China or Venezuela.

Now, government statistics are suspect, and no one - with any certainty - can truly tell which way the economy is going.

This is truly banana republic stuff here...

Romney Was Right



ya think?

FUD is the code word today.

FUD is the code word today. 

If you want to mess with a plan, change it. Often. Randomly. Chase squirrels. Give speeches

If you are a business, you must always have a plan (or you fail).  While being flexible must be part of the plan, governments are not businesses, and their plans are usually law. 

To change a law you have a process and in a republic you need to follow that process or else you are no longer a republic.

The insurance industry is highly regulated BY LAW.  Changing those laws by fiat not only damages the republic, but instills FUD into an industry that they are regulating.
  
Bad for business, bad for the republic.

I don't enjoy thinking that Mr. Obama is bad for the republic and for business, but he is acting more like DEAR LEADER than most want to acknowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Thank You Veterans

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Written by John McCrae on May 3, 1915


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/10/in-flanders-field/#ixzz2kM8CtalP

I blame the Angels!

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/11/08/Study-Terrible-Sports-Teams-May-Make-You-Fat

STUDY: LOSING SPORTS TEAMS MAY MAKE YOU FAT

Sports fans may be more prone to gorging on food--and putting on the pounds--after their team loses, according to a study.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "powerless fans may also find themselves losing self-control after a loss, including the ability to say no to a giant plate of nachos."
The publication cites a study by "Yann Cornil and Pierre Chandon of the European business school" that found that "saturated-fat consumption spikes by 16% for fans after the loss of a beloved NFL team. After a victory, fat consumption goes down by 9%, and overall calorie consumption by 5%."
That study was published "online in August in Psychological Science, looked at intake data from American households in 2004 and 2005 during the NFL season":
"There's research showing that when something good happens to your life, you're more future-oriented," says Mr. Cornil, who studies the link between consumer behavior and obesity. "So if you have good news and you feel good about yourself, you want to keep feeling good about yourself, you have an increased motivation to follow your diet, exercise, to go to the gym." Feeling bad elevates short-term goals like scrambling for comfort food."