People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Ruth Marcus Disappoints

When I read the headline, "Recovering the Constitution from conservatives," by the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, and read this ...
The rise of these self-proclaimed constitutional conservatives is an ominous development that has received too little notice — and too little push-back.

Until now. Under the banner of “Constitutional Progressives,” a coalition of liberal groups has begun making an important, two-part argument: first, that a progressive government agenda is consistent with constitutional values; and second, that the constitutional conservative approach represents a dangerous retrenchment of the government’s role.
... I thought, all right then. Make the "progressive" case that the Constitution provides for the federal government's intrusion into every aspect of our daily lives, babe.

But babe disappoints.

Not a word is offered up in defense of our current state of affairs as they relate to the enumerated powers granted by We the People to the federal government in that most cherished document, other than the fact that we have been doing things in this country - we being Democrats and Republicans alike - this way for a long time and that's the way it is.

That's a Constitutional argument?

No. That's a status quo argument.

And a shallow one at that.

An argument that We the People are in the process of sending to the scrap heap of history.

Marcus writes:
The constitutional conservative vision is dramatically different. It sees a hobbled federal government limited to a few basic activities, such as national defense and immigration. The 10th Amendment, reserving to states the powers not granted to the federal government, would be put on steroids. The commerce clause, giving the federal government the authority to regulate commerce among the states, would be drastically diminished.
(1) Earth to Ruth Marcus: Those who wrote the Constitution meant for it to be a set of hobbles.

(2) We can argue about how few "basic activities" the federal government is going to be limited to, but it is going to be limited. Again.  That government requiring, at the point of a gun, that We the People buy health insurance? Kiss that shit goodbye.

(3) Ignore the 10th Amendment to the Constitution if you will (defending the liberal interpretation requires a lot of ignorance), but it is going to be given its duly prominent place in our national interaction, for the first time in a long time.

(4) "The commerce clause, giving the federal government the authority to regulate commerce among the states, would be drastically diminished." Yes. Remember ObamaCare? We the People will not accept it.

As Bob Dylan once sang:

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'

Please. Get out of our way. A new world unfolds. As it should.

OK, Now It's a Scandal

This is what had Congressman Morgan Griffith worked up the other day when he was grilling the federal Department of Energy's chief loan officer about the potentially illegal loan guarantees that were made to a company whose primary backer was a person with whom Barack Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party had a close relationship:
Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor
By Matthew Daly, Associated Press

Washington — The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.

Since then, the implosion of the company and revelations that the administration hurried Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he sells his new job-creation program around the country.

An Associated Press review of regulatory filings shows that Solyndra was hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee in September 2009. The company eventually got $528 million.

Given the company's shaky financial condition, Republican lawmakers say the decision to restructure the loan raises questions about whether the administration protected political supporters at taxpayers' expense.

"You should have protected the taxpayers and made some forceful actions here after this analysis," Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., told a top Energy Department official this week. "Because you should have seen the problems. And you should have said, 'Taxpayers need to be protected and this has got to stop.' " [link]
What does all this mean?  This: When Solyndra's assets are liquidated, the first (and only) person to receive restitution is going to be Obama's friend.  The taxpayers - you - are out half a billion dollars.  And as Mr. Griffith pointed out, the loan restructuring that favored Obama's friend was illegal.

This is ugly.  And it's going to get uglier.

Heads need to roll.

One must wonder: How many other "Solyndra loans" are out there?  How many "friends of Obama" are there?

And what's the national debt again?

NPR Twists Itself In Knots

What?  An NPR radio program referred to an abortion doctor as an abortion doctor?

Time for a referee to  step in!

See "The Loaded Labeling of Providers and Clinics in the Heated Abortion Debate."  In it NPR's watchdog gets all bent out of shape explaining that, because he/she performs other services, the person providing the "service" should be referred to as a "provider."  An "abortion provider."

The lengthy explanation was apparently required because some liberal listener objected to the term "abortion doctor."  Like he/she is known for anything else when he or she is killing little children.

Well, Mr. Ombusdman, I have a problem with the term "provider."  Doesn't an abortion provider actually administer?  What exactly is he/she providing and to whom exactly is she "providing" it?

After all, the woman isn't getting aborted.

It's the baby.

- - -

Verb: provide prəˈvīd
1. Give something useful or necessary to
2. Give what is desired or needed, especially support, food or sustenance

- - -

Want to rethink that term too?

I''ll expect a lengthy and ponderous explanation ...