Supreme Court Reviews Obama's Health Care Reform: A Question of the Character of A Nation

by Nomad

As the Supreme Court begins a long review of the health reform plan with a final decision sometime around June, many on the Right are already predicting trouble for Obama. In particular, the justices are giving special attention to the constitutionality question of the individual mandate, a key feature of the program. Without a mandate, the problem of the uninsured citizen will likely continue. As author Rick Newman, writing for USNews, reports:

At the eye of this gathering storm is the "individual mandate," a key part of the law that will require most Americans to buy a minimum level of health insurance by 2014, or ask the feds for an exemption. Those in violation will have to pay a penalty fee that could be as high as the annual premium on a basic insurance plan. The mandate, which some people consider highly intrusive, generated court challenges almost as soon as Obama signed the law, with the Supreme Court now due to decide whether it's constitutional. If not, the whole reform scheme could unravel.

Obama’s Impeachment: Mr. Jones and the War Powers Act 2/2

by Nomad

In the previous post in this series, we examined in detail the resolution put forward by Republican Congressman Walter B. Jones of North Carolina charging President Obama with impeachable acts for his handling of the incidents in Libya last year. For the most part, we have seen them to be specious and without any real foundation. As I mention at the close of that post, there still seemed to be something I was overlooking. We'll begin with a closer look at the law.

The War Powers Act as Written

source:

To understand more about the War Powers Act, we need to take a small step back in time. 

In an attempt to put in practice the lessons learned from the Vietnam War, in 1973 Congress established the War Powers Resolution (later called the War Powers Act) which attempted to limit the president’s ability to wage undeclared wars; more precisely to limit the president’s ability to conduct a protracted military engagement without the authorization of Congress.

The act also attempted to clarify the ambiguity on the Constitution which considers the president the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while at the same time, gives Congress the power to declare war and to provide the funding.

Obama’s Impeachment: Mr. Jones and the War Powers Act 1/2

by Nomad

Republican  Congressman
Walter Jones of North Carolina

Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina recently sponsored a resolution (H.CON.RES.107) “expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.” 

It would all too easy to write off Jones’ resolution as just another time-wasting exercise by a Congress that has already engaged in such foolishness as reciting the Constitution on the House floor. (If Vanity Fair’s calculations are accurate, that political stunt cost taxpayers a cool $1.1 million.) 

Or the embarrassing reaffirmation by Congress of the national motto “In God We trust” a resolution proposed by Rep. Randy Forbes, Republican from Virginia. (Only nine risked God’s wrath and the measure was passed 396-9, with 2 abstentions.) These are merely two examples from a list of proposals and resolutions. This kind of silliness might account for the fact that a New York Times poll in October of last year found that Congress' approval rating fell to an all-time low of 9 percent. The 112th Congress will undoubtedly go down in American political history as the most disliked. 

A Look at the UK Tabloid Smear of Obama's Father

by Nomad

In true tabloid fashion, The Daily Mail in the UK attempts to discredit the president through his biological father- a man Obama met for only a few hours. Behind the tabloid story, there really is a much more interesting tale that deserves telling. 

Time to give credit where credit is due.
The UK tabloid, The Daily Mail, deserves a round of applause from the more bigoted hateful members of American society for its smear campaign against Obama. Not the President of the United States but his estranged long-deceased father. Barak Obama, Sr.
The Mail, amid all of its exposes on Simon Cowell’s sexual preferences and other celebrity non-stories, has taken it upon themselves to print several stories about the president’s father, namely, that he was, among other things, a “playboy” and “a serial womaniser." Here's a snippet from one of the articles:

A memo from a University of Hawaii foreign student adviser said that Obama senior had 'been running around with several girls since he first arrived here and last summer she cautioned him about his playboy ways. Subject replied that he would "try" to stay away from the girls.'

Hardly what one might call unusual behavior for a male university student. It has been suggested by at least one writer, that the actual message was more like a warning to stay away from the white girls. (If true, he didn't seem to obey that directive.)