Talk about chutzpah. The same chief executive who refused to provide a speck of guidance to one branch of government in crafting his signature legislation is now threatening another branch of government not to overturn it.

Does President Obama believe in the separation of powers? You wouldn't know it from his intemperate comments Monday on the legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is now deliberating. Just days after skeptical justices subjected administration lawyers and their opponents to a historic six hours of questioning, and just as the judges were retreating to contemplate the competing claims in private, Obama stood up in the Rose Garden and loudly warned the nine "unelected" rubes that they'd better get this one right.

Obama declared that overturning his health care law would be "unprecedented" and "extraordinary"-which is funny, because that's what a lot of people have been saying about his health care law.

What with his haranguing of the justices over their Citizens United decision and his veiled threats over Obamacare, we haven't had a president interfere this much with the Supreme Court since FDR. (Apparently Obama's intimidation tactics aren't strong enough for Representative James Clyburn, who wants the president to campaign against the Supreme Court this fall.)

Can anyone recall an instance of one faction of the Supreme Court instructing a sitting president which laws to veto? How about a Congressional caucus telling the Chief Justice which cases to turn down?

One federal appeals court is so rattled by Obama's posturing that it is requiring his Justice Department to submit a brief by Thursday noon outlining whether and when it believes the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn federal legislation.

In his address Monday, Obama blithely threw around the term "judicial activism," suggesting that the Supreme Court justices would be guilty of practicing it if they overturned Obamacare. But judicial activism doesn't mean "making decisions the other side doesn't like."

The justices' sworn oath is to uphold the Constitution. Conservative complaints of judicial activism refer to cases in which justices override the Constitution while upholding or striking down laws that suit their political preferences.

Conservatives have focused obsessively on the constitutionality of the law since Day 1, in particular the propriety of requiring people to enter commercial contracts against their will by purchasing health insurance in the private market.

Judicial activists, including Obamacare supporters, ignore the constitutionality of laws, unless they are forced by their opponents to concoct phony, sophistic defenses invoking the Constitution, in which they typically claim that whatever it is they're proposing-banning guns, preventing violence against women-is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause.

When was the last time you heard a Republican legislator respond, when asked about the constitutionality of a law he had proposed, "Are you serious?" as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when queried about Obamacare? How about a Republican announcing, as Illinois Democrat and former Congressman Phil Hare did at an Obamacare townhall meeting, "I don't worry about the Constitution"?

(The left needs to get its story straight on whether the Supreme Court may ever consider the constitutionality of legislation. Liberal Dahlia Lithwick, for example, claims that Congress can pass anything it wants, whether constitutional or not, because the Supreme Court will assess its constitutionality and strike it down if need be. This was two years ago, back when blinkered Democrats didn't think there was any chance the Supreme Court would hear the case against Obamacare, much less overrule it. On the other hand, fellow Slate writer Jamal Greene recently argued that the Supreme Court should eschew its constitutional function and let Obamacare stand, because two branches of government have already weighed in.)

In case the "unprecedented" and "judicial activist" arguments weren't convincing, Obama also crowed that the law had been passed by "a strong majority" of Congress-by which he meant a sputtering, cobbled-together Frankenstein's monster of reluctant coalitions that had to be bribed, deceived, and threatened into compliance. (The 2010 Republican midterm election landslide, though-that was nothing special!)

Meanwhile we've learned that the American public is solidly on the conservative justices' side, with 72% endorsing the notion that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. This includes over 50% of Republicans, Independents, Democrats, voters who oppose the law, and voters who support the law. How's that for "a strong majority"?

Obama's chance to offer input on his namesake legislation has long since passed. It's time for him to get out of the way and accept the court's-and the public's-verdict on the disastrous legislation he recklessly set in motion.

By: Scott Spiegel
http://www.scottspiegel.com

Oh my gosh, it appears that president Obama's approval ratings are down in the dirt, under 35%, and that poll was done by CBS which is generally a left-leaning media news outlet. If it happened on Fox news, I could understand it, but 35% from CBS, that's terrible, I wonder if President Obama has a chance in hell of getting reelected. The news segment and video which accompanied that article was fairly interesting, the news commentary folks were trying to put a good spin on these terrible and dismal ratings.

You see, they seem to reason away that the particularly low and drastically underperforming approval ratings were due to the high fuel costs. One reporter said; "well, how much can a president really do about the high fuel costs." It is interesting, because I know a thing or two about this, and there are a lot of things President Obama and his administration could have done up until now about the high oil costs, but they didn't, and there are a lot of things a President can do. Still, I would submit to you that his low approval ratings have nothing to do with the oil prices, well, maybe a little bit, I will give you that.

Rather, I believe much of it has to do with the GOPs getting out in force, and dominating the news outlets, and reminding people that this individual promised us lots of things, and didn't deliver. Further, their main claim to fame was to pass this universal healthcare, ObamaCare package. It's turned out to be a total disaster, and it is quite possible the Supreme Court will look at this and say forget it. In other words, if that goes away, President Obama has basically done nothing, but deficit spend our nation's treasury into oblivion.

They've made so many mistakes, they haven't done anything right, and now they're lying to us about the job numbers, and the economic numbers, just as they did with the CBO telling us that we were somehow going to save money by insuring more people with universal healthcare at no cost to them. First of all, that's impossible, but it is just this kind of socialist rhetoric which is driven the European Union off a cliff, without a parachute. Now then, I ask you, and this is a simple question, it's not a trick question;

If the elections were held today, would you again vote for president Obama?

Yes or no?

And realize, I didn't ask you for any commentary, I don't want your excuses, it no longer matters to me why, just answer the question.

By: Lance Winslow

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Future Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net

As our Federal Government continues to blow money on nonsense and the Obama Administration continues the populist message and divide between classes, they have positioned our population in a bitter and angry blame-game perpetual battle over class warfare. Worse, nothing they say or do is bathed in even the least bit of financial reality. Okay so, let's talk.

There was a scary piece in the Wall Street Journal on March 21, 2011 titled; "ObamaCare's Costs Are Soaring," by Ron Johnson which indicated that most employers will pay the fine rather than the increased costs in health care coverage for their employees. It turns out that the architects of ObamaCare promised every family would save an average of $2500 per year after it went into effect, unfortunately it looks as if every family will pay an additional $2200 per year, whoops a $47000 gap in accounting multiplied by every family in the country, according to the Kaiser Foundation.

The CBO's estimates are now found to be faulty in every regard and one stipulation in the law cannot be implemented, the "Class Act" which means ObamaCare will cost an additional $70 billion. And, well, that's just one point, albeit a pretty large accounting error, which makes Enron, Global Crossing, Lehman Brothers, and MF Global look like angles. Okay so, what am I saying here? Well, I am pointing out why we cannot trust anything this administration says, nor can we trust the Congressional Budget Office, or any economic data coming out of DC, or from any Democrat lobbying firm or think tank.

In other words, we cannot trust our government. That's a bummer. Further, remember when President Obama said we should tax the rich to make up for the Federal Budget Deficit? Well, his federal budget proposed is $1.3 Trillion this year above what the government takes in, and even with the so-called "Buffet Rule" taxing those really rich folks as he calls them - that would amount to a grand total of $47 Billion dollars a year? Well, If my math is correct that would leave $1.293 Trillion over budget instead of the $1.3 Trillion in his budget. Give me a break, enough political teleprompter rhetoric.

Am I calling the President of the United States a liar? I don't know, maybe my definition of lying is different than yours. What do you call someone who lies constantly about such important matters, which affect the future solvency of the greatest nation on Earth? The was an interesting article coming from the Associated Press on March 3, 2012, maybe you saw it in your local paper as well, it was titled; "Report: Just $47 Billion from 'Buffet Rule' Tax on the Rich," by Alan Fram.

Look, the President of the US currently went to Harvard, so you can't tell me he's ignorant of the reality here? If he doesn't get it, that sure means Harvard is a big waste of money, and no guarantee that you'll learn anything or even basic math - you see, I really doubt Obama is stupid, although I admit I've never met the gentleman, so, the only other possibility is that. Well you know.

By: Lance Winslow

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank;
http://www.worldthinktank.net

What Does Forty Obamabucks Mean To You?

You gotta hand it to the president: he's got that whole transparency thing going on, big time. He told us four years ago that, if elected, he'd radically transform the United States of America... and, boy howdy, has he ever! You can hardly recognize the place.

Gitmo would be closed, there would be no tax hikes on anyone making less than the millionaires and billionaires who pull down $250k, and energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket." And, as far as you know, that has all happened JUST as the president promised. Why, the most casual glance at the gas pump (if you can still afford to glance at one) tells you all you need to know about O-44. I know every time I fill up the car, I'm tempted to shout "Four more years!" at the top of my lungs.

But lately, the president's really been on a roll. Just the other day, he demanded those sinister Republicans continue the payroll tax cut! Only the near-criminal tea partiers and business owners out there were concerned that the payroll taxes are the only source of funding for things like Social Security, but never you mind about that. The important thing, according to White House blogs at the time, was the FORTY (count 'em, 40) bucks the average worker would still see on her paycheck each month. The web sites asked Americans to respond to the question "What does $40 mean to you?"

Now, $40 is a lot of money (or, at least, it used to be). But in case you're struggling, here are some thoughts about what a quadruple-sawbuck can get you in Obama's radically-transformed America. For instance, if you're an investor, you could get 3/100 ounce of gold... or about one bazillion shares of preferred stock in Solyndra. If your finances are more modest, you could think of $40 as one bank fee in our post-financial-reform world. Or maybe you'd use it for education: $40 could cover one "lab fee" at your kid's public school, or maybe a couple of deep-fried cafeteria lunches for those days when the food inspector drops by.

Do you still have a job, for some reason? Well, your union will probably grab that forty bucks for the re-election campaign... but if they don't, you could use it at the gas pump. By year's end, it'll represent enough gas to get you to... the next gas pump! And $40 is also enough to pay the rent - if you're playing Monopoly and you land on Baltic Avenue with two houses, that is. In the real world, forty bucks would buy you enough energy to power your home for the time it takes to read this sente-.

And, of course, with Obamacare, $40 represents a lifetime supply of contraceptives, with $40 left over to toss in the collection plate at church - kinda like the old "indulgences" system they used to have way-back-when. Don't spend it on beer and cigarettes! That's what food stamps are for.

This is just a partial list - I'm sure you can think of LOTS more you can get for $40. But the main thing Obama's hoping for, apparently, is this: $40 is more than enough to buy your vote for the re-election of the Sugar Daddy in Chief.

By: Michael Hume

Michael Hume is a speaker, writer, and consultant specializing in helping people maximize their potential and enjoy inspiring lives. As part of his inspirational leadership mission, he coaches executives and leaders in growing their personal sense of well-being through wealth creation and management, along with personal vitality.

Michael and his wife, Kathryn, divide their time between homes in California and Colorado. They are very proud of their offspring, who grew up to include a homemaker, a rock star, a service talent, and a television expert. Two grandchildren also warm their hearts! Visit Michael's web site at http://michaelhume.net