Tonight, President Barack Obama will deliver his third State of the Union Address–and his sixth address to a joint session of Congress. That’s more than either President Bush or President Clinton had addressed in any single term.

Despite his purported skill as an orator, none of Obama’s addresses to Congress has been particularly successful. They are typically remembered more for the rancor they caused than for any positive effects.

Obama is expected to make inequality the focus of his address. That’s an important campaign theme, as well as a refrain of the Occupy Wall Street movement that Obama supported in the fall of 2011.

Yet it is not a significant departure from the tone of previous addresses, in which Obama bullied opponents and Supreme Court justices; fabricated health insurance horror stories; and called upon “millionaires and billionaires” to pay.

For reference purposes as you watch tonight’s State of the Union, here is a concise summary of Obama’s five previous speeches to Congress, and how they were received:

Obama's first address: February 24, 2009

***

Address to Joint Session of Congress, February 24, 2009

In his first speech as the 44th President, Obama wanted to put his stamp on the presidency and introduce his ambitious policy agenda–one “that begins with jobs,” he said. The highlight of his address was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act–i.e. the stimulus–which he promised would receive “tough, unprecedented oversight” under Vice President Joe Biden.

Obama also announced a government lending program to ease credit, a new housing plan to prevent foreclosures, and assistance to struggling banks. He asked for “long-term investments” in green energy; for a commitment to health care reform; and for new funding for schools, along with education reforms. And he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, partly by letting “tax breaks” for the wealthy expire.

In addition, Obama touched on national security, reiterating his promise to close the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay, hinting that he would press for civilian trials for terrorists, and promising to “defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism.” On foreign policy, Obama declared “a new era of engagement” through negotiations with hostile powers, and announced the appointment of a new envoy to help end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The reaction to Obama’s speech was somewhat negative: he apparently intended to govern from the left, not from the center (as some had hoped). Stock prices fell sharply the next morning, recovering by the afternoon but ending firmly in the red. In retrospect, though Obama kept his promises on assisting banks and fighting al Qaeda, he broke many other pledges, and saw many of his policies–especially the stimulus–fail badly. (more…)

For nearly three years as Americans have struggled through this Great Recession, President Obama has given speeches that relied on failed Keynesian economic theory and the politics of class warfare and envy. As his big government policies have spent this nation to the brink, the employment picture continues to worsen.

Tonight, President Obama will deliver a major economic address before a Joint Session of Congress. The MacIver Institute expects it will be more of the same rhetoric and promotion of government solutions we’ve been hearing for the last 3 years.

The timing of the speech also conflicts with the pomp and circumstance surrounding the kickoff of the 2011 NFL season. As a Packers’ fan and in the spirit of public service, I directed our staff to comb through the hundreds of speeches President Obama has already made to give you a concise two-minute preview of his latest ‘big speech.’

(more…)

It’s been one helluva weekend for President Obama. Last Friday, he received two separate smackdowns via the Judicial Branch of government, and by Sunday, everyone was talking about his dismal polling results as his approval rating dropped below 40% for the first time. Whether he realizes it yet or not, what this weekend really showed was that the Constitution matters. Trampling this founding document as he has done for over two and a half years triggered that precious parchment’s checks and balances, and it caused the citizens of the country to express their disapproval of his performance.

On Friday, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional Obamcare’s individual mandate, ruling that it represented an overreach of Congress’s authority. The court stated the health care law was “breathtaking in its expansive scope.” Further, it wrote:

“The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power.”

Although the fate of Obamacare ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision (with one of the two ruling against the law a Clinton appointee), is an early harbinger of the Judicial Branch’s view of the matter. The Constitution’s system of checks and balances – hopefully – will ensure the Legislative and Executive Branches of government are kept in check when our nation’s highest court weighs in.

(more…)

It’s been popular lately for GOP Presidential hopefuls and many conservative pundits to declare that we can’t afford four more years of Barack Obama in the White House. I agree, but I would take it a step further. I don’t think we can afford even another year and a half of this big government, economy-busting wrecking ball. It’s time for the President to cut his losses and resign.

It took a lot for me to say that, especially considering I’m essentially calling for a President Joe Biden (hey, when hair plug Joe looks better than the incumbent, things are really bad). The catalyst came in the June 29^th news conference in which Obama discussed the debt ceiling impasse. During that odd, sometimes off-teleprompter rambling address, Obama delivered one of his typical un-Presidential cheap-shot, demagogic speeches. He chastised the Congress (the GOP) for failing to reach a deal and contrasted them with his preteen daughters (who always get their homework done early).

He also read aloud from the worn-out progressive playbook:

• Class warfare
• Raising revenue via tax hikes
• Saving children and seniors from the evil clutches of the GOP
• Yadda yadda

He called for the two sides to come together, but by laying out his vision for ending the impasse, he essentially defined compromise as the GOP agreeing with him and the Democrats. Then he showed he’s been spending his time on Planet Hypocrisy by scolding the Congress for even thinking about taking a vacation during such a crisis, while virtually practicing his golf swing at the podium.

(more…)

Labor unions and leftist activists are expected to once again descend upon the Captiol in Madison, WI on Tuesday. They plan to protest Governor Scott Walker’s first 2-year budget proposal, which seeks to cap entitlement programs and make cuts in education while expanding school voucher programs, in an attempt to close a $3 billion budget deficit. Republicans also expect to add the collective bargaining provisions that were passed in March, unless the State Supreme Court issues a ruling before then.

Opponents of Walker’s proposal view their side as an issue of human rights and a statement against corporations, and have not surprisingly ratcheted up the rhetoric. On its website announcing Tuesday’s protest, the Wisconsin state AFL-CIO posted:

Debate will be limited, democracy will be circumvented and the balance will greatly tip in favor of ramming through an anti-worker, anti-family, anti-community agenda. Come bear witness to this denial of democracy… Please take part in democracy and bear witness to the extreme attack on the people of Wisconsin. Join us tomorrow, Tuesday, June 14, as we continue to stand strong against a budget that guts public schools, attacks health care, raises taxes on workers and seniors, and jeopardizes public services like police and fire. All while handing over $300 million a year in tax breaks to the rich.

Oh, the drama….

(more…)

Indiana resident Scott Womack understands the effects of Obamacare on small-business better than most. As the owner of 12 IHOP restaurants in Indiana and Ohio, Womack employs nearly 1,000 full- and part-time employees and he already offers health insurance to his management staff.

The Heritage Foundation recently interviewed Womack for the latest installment of our “Impact of Obamacare” series and found what he had to say further evidence that the law won’t fix the problems it’s supposed to solve—but, instead, will create new ones.

Take just one example. The new health care law will require him to provide insurance to all full-time employees beginning in 2014. Womack would like to be able to do that—but he simply doesn’t know how he’ll be able to generate the revenue. He estimates the cost of the law to his company to be 50 percent greater than his company’s earnings—in other words, beyond his ability to pay. That means Womack will have to make other changes to compensate for his increased costs—changes that might affect the number and quality of jobs he’s able to offer.

(more…)

The obvious question is why?  Why would the Obama administration who boasted open and transparent discussions of such a sensitive subject as healthcare close the door to the opportunity to present its factual case to the American people?  Messaging anyone?  Nope.

Complying with the records request from the House Energy and Commerce Committee “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking” and could “implicate longstanding executive branch confidentiality interests,” White House lawyer Robert Bauer wrote the committee. Translation: Nice try.

Before the Democrats rammed through the Obamacare bill (and don’t think for one little ol’ minute that our narcissistic President doesn’t love that branding), Obama and WH officials met with several high-profile insurance executives as the WaPo lists:

The list included George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist representing Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, then head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association; and numerous others.

The most concerning is George Halvorson as he was the only executive to meet with Obama.  And here is why:

(more…)

Last May, after millions of barrels of oil had been pumped into the ocean, Barack Obama issued an order to halt all U.S. deep sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.   Immediately, constitutionalists began to rail against the moratorium, which appeared to be a severe abuse of Presidential authority – a quick grab for powers that the commander in chief simply doesn’t wield.  The courts agreed, and on June 22, an injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman, who argued that Obama’s directive was “overly broad.”

A few hours after their defeat, U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar issued a statement stating that the Obama administration would be presenting a “new order in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is needed, appropriate, and within our authorities.”

A second drilling ban was enacted last July, only to be rescinded in October – before Judge Feldman could rule on it.  Since then, the government has used a cadre of regulators to deny drilling and enforce a de facto ban.  In fact the government has not issued a single drilling permit in the last 9 months.

Two weeks ago, Judge Feldman found the Obama administration in contempt of court.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman ruled. “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt.”

(more…)

OBAMA:  Serendipity.   Egypt couldn’t have blown up at a better time.  Judge Vinson’s ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act got just a paragraph on A18.

ROBERT GIBBS:  Damn the Times!  It was supposed to be two sentences on B37.  Well, the distraction won’t last forever, sir.  It’ll be big news when the courts finally kill the PPACA. We need to deflect responsibility for the fiasco from you.

OBAMA:  Agreed.  Bob, at your next briefing, blast Republicans for goading me into signing the bill before I was able to study it.  Consigliere?

BILL DALEY:  Won’t do, sir.  Let’s get ahead of the wave.  Order Holder to join Virginia in seeking an expedited review of the health-care overhaul before the Supremes.  We take our medicine, lose 5-4, and walk away.

JOE BIDEN: Bad idea. We’d still be twisting in the wind for months. I say, throw your weight behind immediate Congressional repeal, Boss.  Cauterize the wound.  Start over fresh.

VALERIE JARRETT:  But . . . without the House, we can’t pass legislation covering the 145 million uninsured Americans and proto-citizens with preexisting conditions.

BIDEN:  Who’s sayin’ we wanna actually pass another bill?  The whole shebang blew up in our faces only after the Big Guy signed the original into law.

OBAMA:  Hmm.  So, when the act’s repealed, Democrats initiate another health-care debate and fight the good fight with no hope of a second devastating success in a divided Congress.  Stalemate.

(more…)

Remember when President Obama signed into law The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as ObamaCare, surrounded by grinning Democrats? Before approaching the podium, Vice President Joe Biden whispered to Obama, in a gaffe picked up by open microphones, “this is a big @$#*ing deal!” Naturally, Biden was wrong.

Today, US District Court Judge Roger Vinson decided ObamaCare wasn’t really that much of a big @#&*ing deal after all. Judge Vinson, a Reagan appointee (may peace and happy birthday be upon the Gipper), found ObamaCare violated the commerce clause in the Constitution by creating an individual mandate forcing Americans to purchase health insurance.

Judge Vinson wrote:

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.”

Judge Vinson even used President Obama’s own words against him:

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.’”

Monday’s decision can only be viewed as great news for states and should encourage more anti-ObamaCare legislation and lawsuits. Over half of US states have already filed suits to halt ObamaCare on its anti-Constitutional encroachments. Others states have passed legislation that prohibits the federal government from forcing ObamaCare on their citizens. The judgment today is also a huge opportunity for states to drastically slow preparations for upcoming ObamaCare mandates. Since Judge Vinson stayed his decision because ObamaCare does not become active until 2014, the final decision on its constitutionality will come from the Supreme Court. However, this is the second ruling by a federal judge against the big government takeover of America’s healthcare system.

(more…)

In a Department of Justice (DOJ) legal brief in the case of the “State of Florida v. The Department of Health and Human Services,” the Obama Administration argues the individual mandate (requiring Americans to buy a government-approved insurance plan even if they can’t afford it) is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to collect taxes.

But recently, when asked at a Ways and Means Committee hearing examining the impact of the Democrats’ health care law on the economy and the nation’s employers, an Administration Cabinet official gave a different answer – not only about whether the individual mandate was a tax, but the witness went so far as to challenge whether the 10 percent indoor tanning tax was actually a tax.

(more…)

While the new Congress deliberates over ways to repeal or defund the Obama Administration’s “healthcare reform” law, twenty states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have filed suit in federal court arguing that the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down immediately. This is the largest of several legal challenges to Obamacare across the country.

Lawyers for NFIB and the states will appear in a Pensacola, Florida federal court this Thursday, December 16th.  They will ask U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson to rule that the heart of the law – and “individual mandate” that obligates private citizens to obtain health insurance whether they want it or not – is unconstitutional.  NFIB and the states will accordingly ask that Judge Vinson to strike down Obamacare in its entirety.

The Constitution does not allow Congress to force Americans to purchase a product solely because they are alive and the federal government’s claim of such authority contradicts more than two hundred years of Supreme Court precedent.  Yet the individual mandate, which would obligate private citizens to obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, does just that.

Counsel for NFIB and the states will make the following arguments:

1) The Individual Mandate in Unconstitutional

Under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate people when they engage in an economic activity that affects interstate commerce.

The Obama Administration argues that choosing not to purchase something (like a health insurance policy) is somehow an “activity” that affects the economy.  The federal government’s theory that a decision to do nothing is “activity” that may be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause is unprecedented. The Administration’s lawyers have been unable to identify a single pre-Obamacare decision upholding a law that forces a private individual to enter into a market for goods or services against their will.

(more…)

As Epstein told Reason in a 1995 interview, “I took some pride in the fact that [Sen.] Joe Biden (D-Del.) held a copy of Takings up to a hapless Clarence Thomas back in 1991 and said that anyone who believes what’s in this book is certifiably unqualified to sit in on the Supreme Court. That’s a compliment of sorts…. But I took even more pride in the fact that, during the Breyer hearings [in 199X], there were no such theatrics, even as the nominee was constantly questioned on whether he agreed with the Epstein position on deregulation as if that position could not be held by responsible people.”

Born in New York in 1943, Epstein splits faculty appointments at the University of Chicago and New York University; he’s also a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a contributor to Reason. In books such as Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws (1992) to Simple Rules for a Complex World (1995), and Skepticism and Freedom: A Modern Case for Classical Liberalism (2003), Epstein pushes his ideas and preconceptions to their limits and takes his readers along for the ride. A die-hard libertarian who believes the state should be limited and individual freedom expanded, he is nonetheless the consummate intellectual who first and foremost demands he offer up ironclad proofs for his characteristically counterintuitive insights into law and social theory.

Indeed, Epstein’s enduring value may not be any particular legal or policy prescription he’s offered over the years but rather his methodology. He believes in robust and unfettered argument and debate as a way of gaining knowledge. If you don’t put your ideas out in the arena, you can’t be doing your best work, he argues. “The problem when you keep to yourself is you don’t get to hear strong ideas articulated by people who disagree with you,” he says.

(more…)

A talk Before a Tea Party rally sponsored by the Cecil County (Md.) Patriots in Elkton, Md., 10/23/10

Twenty months ago, on February 19, 2009, business reporter Rick Santelli of CNBC took to the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to deliver his famous rant against government bail-outs, and call for “a Chicago tea party.”

Santelli may have sparked the Tea Party movement. But he only tapped into outrage that had been growing in many of us for decades.

For too long, you and I have watched helplessly as a clique of politicians, intellectuals, activists, and bureaucrats from both parties have tried to obliterate our Constitution, our capitalist system, and our personal liberty. This “bipartisan Ruling Class”—as scholar Angelo Codevilla describes it—sees itself as a moral, cultural, and intellectual elite. Codevilla says that “Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits.”

Oozing sanctimonious arrogance, viewing the rest of us as coarse, unsophisticated rubes who cling bitterly to guns and bibles, this class seeks to impose its own supposedly superior values and visions upon the rest of us, by force of law.

As we know too well, the ultimate goal of our Ruling Class is power. They exist—not to produce, not to invent, not to create—but to manipulate and master others. Ronald Reagan memorably summed up the Ruling Class’s governing outlook this way: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

By contrast, the rest of us Americans seek power over circumstances, but not over each other. We acquire our personal sense of identity and self-esteem through productive work—not through imposing our will, values, and visions on our neighbors. We accept a “live and let live” philosophy.

(more…)

With the midterm elections right around the corner, Rasmussen reports that most voters oppose the reelection of anyone who voted for the health care law, auto bailouts, and stimulus plan. For this reason, polls show the GOP with a lead of seven percentage points on the generic ballot, 50%-43%, up four points from a month ago.

Due to the impact of Obamacare on voters, we at Eyeblast.tv went out to get the thoughts and opinions of ordinary people in Alexandria, Virginia on Obamacare and the individual mandate. Here are their responses:

(more…)

Health care reform is playing a role in a northeastern Pennsylvania Catholic hospital chain’s decision to sell by the end of this year.

Mercy Health Partners has served the Scranton area since the Sisters of Mercy opened Mercy Hospital the city in 1917, but the new law may have influenced the timing of its decision.

The hospital chain runs three hospitals and three outpatient centers.

The law’s burdens mean more spending and reduced federal contributions for the hospital chain over the next five years.

“Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely,” Mercy Health Partners President and CEO Kevin Cook told WNEP, a Scranton-Wilkes Barre TV station.

The hospital chain’s finances remain in the black, but Cook said Mercy Health Partners lacks the resources to keep up with the local community’s projected needs over the next five years.

(more…)

By Reps. Marsha Blackburn, Darrell Issa and Peter Roskam:

Last January, President Obama declared, “Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010.”

Since that time, more than 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs and unemployment stands at 9.6%. Some focus. The President and his Democrat allies in Congress instead chose to unleash a torrent of bills that do anything but create jobs, like the so-called financial services reform bill that didn’t fix the real problem of government meddling in mortgages, and another round of “stimulus” spending that only deepened states’ addiction to Washington bailouts. Last week, Congressional Democrats canceled a vote on tax relief for all Americans until after the November elections, creating more economic uncertainty while delaying private sector job creation.

The primary job killer is the trillion-dollar folly of ObamaCare. The bill hits America’s struggling small businesses and their families with 2,801 pages of new taxes and complicated rules, creating a climate of hyper-regulation and uncertainty that the nation’s most important small business alliance – the National Federation of Independent Businesses –has called “death by a thousand cuts.”

Just a couple of those painful wounds: by 2018, self-employers and small firms will be hit by a $14.3 billion health insurance tax, while a projected $17 billion will be raised by taxing every business-to-business deal over $600. Washington insiders pushing ObamaCare appear to ignore these truths and clearly don’t understand the negative impact the law is already having on entrepreneurs.

(more…)

Last week on the PBS NewsHour, Judy Woodruff asked Nancy Pelosi if the GOP would take back the house.  Pelosi replied “We take it one district at a time.”

“Will the Republicans take back the House?” is perhaps the most frequently asked question in Washington, and is usually followed up with “By how much?”  Regardless of what you think about Speaker Pelosi, the lady didn’t get to be Speaker of the House by not being able to count votes. So lets have a look “…one district at a time.”

Republican challengers and open seat candidates lead in at least 51 House districts currently held by Democrats, according to public polling.

Following Nancy’s methodology, if the election were held on October 9 instead of November 2, the GOP would gain back the majority with 230 seats, assuming all tied races and races where Dems cling to a narrow lead break against the Republicans. Note that 17 more seats are within the margin of error of a standard poll.

Thanks, Nancy, for the vote of confidence.

(more…)

I don’t know why presidents agree to interviews with Rolling Stone. The mag is biased against presidents and you never come off well. Remember how it treated Bush?

Bush Apologizes: The Farewell Interview We Wish He’d Give -W. comes clean – on his dad, Condi’s farts and the time Dick waterboarded the house boy

That is some high class comedy. No wonder Rolling Stone does so well in the “teenage boys who can burp the A-B-Cs demo.”

Then there was the cover photo showing Bush as a dunce. Ha! I get it! Bush is dumb. Hilarious. Never heard that one.

With that history, Obama had to be ready for a grilling. Here are some of the bare knuckles, no holds barred questions The One had to face:

When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side. When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy?

How do you feel about the fact that day after day, there’s this really destructive attack on whatever you propose? Does that bother you? Has it shocked you?

What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s a good institution for America and for democracy?

(more…)

I recently attended in Washington, D. C. an insightful debate, “How to Interpret the Constitution.” I asked each of four panelists to opine on the constitutionality of the individual mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health care beginning 2014.  Two thought the mandate constitutional; two did not.

John Yoo, a former official at the U. S. Department of Justice and presently a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, predicted that the U. S. Supreme Court would rule “5 to 4” against the constitutionality of the mandate.

Stephen Markman, now Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court, did not make a prediction, but implied hope that the mandate would be ruled unconstitutional.  He argued that never in its history has any federal court ruled that the Commerce Clause permits the government to regulate economic inactivity and to require all individuals to buy a certain private sector product or service.

Mark Hall, professor of law at Wake Forest University and a conservative, predicted that Justice Antonin Scalia would rule the individual mandate constitutional.  He based his view on what he had learned in taking a law class from Scalia and on Scalia’s position in the Raich case (2005).

Angel Raich argued that she grew marijuana in her own back yard for personal medical use only.  Nonetheless, Scalia sided with the majority against Raich, concurring that her personal, noneconomic, noncommercial activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce” and therefore can be regulated by the Commerce Clause.  If others grew marijuana, in the aggregate commerce in the future would emerge.

(more…)