Obama on Obamacare and the Supreme Court - Arrogance, Intimidation or Ignorance?

In the aftermath of closing arguments at the Supreme Court regarding the Constitutionality of Obamacare and perhaps with the sinking feeling that his signature legislation is going down the tubes, on Monday 2 April President Obama said "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've 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."

Nevermind the thinly veiled attempt to chastise (or threaten?) the Supreme Court,.......now you be the judge,....Obamacare passed in Congress by a 219-212 margin,...this is "a strong majority?"

This comment of Obama prompted critics to accuse the president of trying to intimindate and bully the nation's highest court. One of those critics was Judge Jerry Smith, out of 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who with two other judges on Tuesday to ask the Justice Department to issue a three-page, single-spaced letter affirming the federal court's authority to rule on the case.

Which we think is appropriate since Obama's Justice Department serves more like an Obama support group than an independent entity enforcing the laws of this country indiscriminantly like they are supposed to. But, adding fuel to the fire, regarding Judge Smith's request, Attorney General Eric Holder went public, defending the President's attempt at intimindating the Supreme Court by stating that Obama's comments were "appropriate."

I think Rusk Limbaugh got it right when he said Obama's strategy is to inflame the uninformed masses, using the theme that the Supreme Court is "taking away your health care rights" in order to get these hand out, entitlist's engaged (and enraged) for the November election.

P.S. I was going to mention how Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, was totally inept in defending President Obama's comments on the Supreme Court, during press conferences, but this butt clown needs no flogging,....he did it to himself with the comment that what the president said was "the reverse of intimidation."

"Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen." - Ben Stein

Obama's Chevy Volt - Busted!!

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." ~ Plato

Cost to operate a Chevy Volt. Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money crew) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors. For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so they looked up what the cost is for electricity.

The cost is approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg.

$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.

So Obama wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more that 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country.

REALLY?

"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money." ~ Margaret Thatcher

Checkpoints - Constitutional or Not?

I am a Law and Order guy. Most people reading this site are Law and Order people. In fact, I love Law and Order the television series, ha ha. But one thing I have a problem accepting are law enforcement checkpoints. I have seen these checkpoints set up to stop motorists and ask to see driver's license, insurance and vehicle registration and truth be told these checkpoints net many drunk driver's which of course is in the public's best safety interest,...but is it in the best interests of Constitutional rights?.

I have been taught and I also believe that law enforcement has to have a reason to make a stop, temporary and non-invasive as it may be. The reason for a stop can be "reasonable suspicion" the lowest standard possible where an law enforcement officer believes that the person he is stopping is engaged in or has just completed a criminal act. The officer's beliefs must be based on articulate facts not just "mere suspicion".

"Probable Cause" is a reason for a stop when the officer has seen a crime or violation being committed. This is the reason you are stopped when speeding,...the officer using a Doppler or Lidar radar gun clocks you at over the posted speed limit - hence the probable cause that a violation is or has been committed. Same thing when your tail or brake lights are out,...proof or probable cause that a violation has been committed.

I just think that vehicle checkpoints are unconstitutional, before there is no reason that you are being stopped, except to go fishing for a violation or for someone who is hot on warrants. I beliefs been "over ruled" of course by the courts who think that for the public good, a short non-invasive stop is in the public's best interests,.....all while Mexican trucks come through the ports of entry as a safety hazard with driver's and vehicles who do not get the regulated training and standards over sight.

While the below video is a set up for law enforcement, but I cannot help but think the Officer is thinking "Give me your DL or ID, I want to run you and see if you come up hot for warrants."

A local lawyer told me that lawyers who argue the constitutionality of a vehicle checkpoint stop resulting in an arrest, more often than not, get the charge reduced or dismissed. Perhaps there are some Constitutional loving judges out there?

From YouTube: In the video below, Teacher Abbie Newman was arrested for not submitting to an unconstitutional, random checkpoint. Narration by Alex Jones. This is of course a planned setup on law enforcement.