Acta est fabula, plaudite!

 What motivates a man to do what he does? Why does he choose to see the world the way he does? The things that he says? The President has maintained his silence since the Supreme Court had started the deliberations on the Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as Obamacare.  Today he has decided to speak for the first time. The President supplied rhetoric that was in the same spirit of Progressive Champion Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he threatened to stack the court with judges so he would get more favorable rulings for his New Deal programs.  If only I could go around, inflicting my will upon people, sigh, but I digress.  He called for the conservative judges not to be activists and overturn the 2,700 paged law that he said "passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." By strong he must have been actually meaning barely passed, as it only made it through the house with a 219-212 vote, with all 174 republicans as well as 34 democrats voting against it.  Or how such things like the bribery used in the  Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase or even having to CBO to distort its math in order to make it look like it saved money but in reality it will raise deficit by over $500 billion and that's only in the first ten years with people paying in the first six and receiving the full benefits the last four.  Or maybe he forgot those facts. Or maybe he believes that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it, much like Joseph Goebbel did with his "Principles of Propaganda" The moment when Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it," told me that this whole wretched affair was a sham from the very start and not one person who voted for this bill actually took the time to read it. That is frightening. That alone should be grounds to overturn the law, for how can a person vote with sound mind if they do not know what they are voting for?  Hell, when the President signed it the next day after it was passed, not allowing for five days of review as per the Democratic Platform mind you, do you think he even knew what was in it? He used phrases such as "lack of judicial restraint" and "unelected" when describing the court in his statement,"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law"  Hmmm.  Does he mean "unelected" like the numerous czars and appointments he has made, with some actions that are seen as dubious, such as his recent "recess appointments." After his unelected justice department sued South Carolina, Utah,, Alabama, and Arizona to stop implementation of their "immigration" laws, I wonder if the citizens of those states wondered the same thing, that how can a group of unelected individuals overturn a duly constituted and passed law?  Or the people of California did after an unelected federal judge overturned Proposition 187. I can still remember when he was against the individual mandate back in 2008 running against Hillary in the primary.  He must have forgotten that too. Or how the Justice Department stopped legal defense of the Marriage Act.  Hey, I guess that is one way to get what you want.  Just stop enforcing the law.  Perhaps it is time that the Justice Department was separated from the executive branch and placed under more congressional power, so selective enforcement of law due to suiting one's own political needs does not continue to happen.  Just a thought.  Perhaps Daniel Webster said it best when he spoke these words "Whatever government is not a government of laws, is a despotism, let it be called what it may"

Judicial Activism comes in many forms it seems.   The Judicial system exists as part of the checks and balances of our government, and is there to stop unconstitutional laws from being implemented.  Judging by the constitution is the whole point of them being there. Regardless if you want this law or not, the judges are supposed to follow these principles.  For the president to send a message by responding to a reporter with what I deem to be a planted question, during a meeting with Mexico's and Canada's president, is not a very classy thing to do, nor was it very presidential to address the court as he did.  But all of that aside, healthcare is very important that needs to be addressed, but this entire thing needs to be scraped and  the better parts be allowed to be voted on as individual bills, since if they are so full of merit to begin with it, it should not be an issue, right?  Like the part of the bill that raises rates on military personnel to force them into buying into the individual mandate. Yeah, that part is soooo worth saving. But be rest assured, Our beloved President will be back on television, rewriting historical events with his scripted words once again.


The play is over, clap if you must.


Remember: Big Brother is Watching You