Here are a few examples of deceptive pieces of legislation:

The American Tax Payer’s Relief Act, also known as the Fiscal Cliff bill does not provide any real tax relief. The way this bill is named one would think it provides tax relief to all Americans. It does not. This bill actually raises taxes on the middle class and adds four trillion dollars to our already 16 trillion dollar deficit. Moreover, it is filled with pet projects and paybacks to people who helped Barack Obama get reelected. This bill does not address the nation’s biggest problem which is spending.

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare makes you think that health care will become more affordable. Unfortunately for the American people that is not the case. In fact, most experts agree that not only does it raise health care costs but it strips away competition and will ultimately lead to a one payer system which was always its original intent. If that wasn’t enough it has had a negative effect on the economy by making it harder for small businesses to succeed due to the mandates, regulations, and new taxes.

The Employee Free Choice Act, also known as Card Check leads one to believe that employees will be given more choices. Once again, the devil is in the details. This bill actually would restrict a worker’s right to choose whether or not they want to join a union. Right now if a company and its employees want to unionize it is voted on by secret ballot. This bill would eliminate a worker’s right to vote in secrecy. By removing the secret ballot process you invite undue pressure from outside groups and union representatives. A more appropriate name for this piece of legislation would be the forced unionization act.

The Respect for Marriage Act once again sounds like it would be respectful to traditional marriage however it is anything but. This bill would completely repeal The Defense of Marriage Act in its entirety. The Defense of Marriage Act states in no uncertain terms the definition of marriage as a “union between one man and one woman.” The Respect for Marriage Act not only changes the definition of marriage, but it also voids other states legislative actions in regards to protecting traditional marriage. It should be named the disrespect for traditional marriage act instead.

These are just a few examples of how the left uses deceptive bill naming to trick the American people. We need to expose this trickery and make sure people are aware of how they operate.

The Democratic Party has remained in power not because of their good ideas or that they are the better choice for America; they have remained in power because they present bad ideas in a good light. They are also much better than Republicans when it comes to political warfare. They are masters at vilifying Republicans as evil, out of touch, and uncaring. They have sucessfully launched a disinformation campaign and convinced enough Americans that they are the party of the working class. The left goes around telling Americans that Republicans want to restrict individual freedoms while they force you to pay for health insurance and restrict your health care choices. They sold Americans on taxing the rich while simultaneously raising taxes on the middle class.

The Democratic Party survives and retains their power by using scare tactics and made up crises. They are not concerned with the middle class; they are only concerned with winning their votes. They want an uninformed electorate full of yes we can zombies. The more we allow the left to operate in this capacity the harder it will become to defeat them and save the country. They have become harder to expose due to a blatant and dangerously biased media at their side. It is up to us the freedom loving people of this great nation to find a way around the biased media and launch a successful counter attack.

Sometimes if you try to reason with a bully you just get punched in the nose. It is time we start hitting back. The time for the moral high ground is over. We have been trying that approach for years and look where it has gotten us. You can’t go to a gunfight with a switchblade and expect to win. We need to become more verbally brave and aggressive and never apologize for our beliefs.

When we allow the Democratic Party to paint Republicans as racist because we disagree with Barack Obama than we lose. When we allow the Democratic Party to paint us as extremists because we care about every human life and they don’t than we lose. When we allow the Democratic Party to paint us as uncaring because we would rather create jobs than dependents than we lose. It’s as though we allow the left to hit us over the head with a sledgehammer and instead of making them stop we ask for a rubber mallet so it doesn’t hurt as much?

Politics is a contact sport. If we are to defeat the left’s disinformation campaign we need to change our tactics. We have got to lose the label of compassionate conservatives and start acting like combative warriors. How do you stop a bully from hitting you? You punch him back harder.

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com

According to a recent study from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Obamacare will make it harder to recruit and pay highly qualified workers. Businesses will have to weigh the risk/reward ratio on whether or not they can afford to expand their businesses past 49 employees. Imagine that. A government law that actually punishes a business from growing? Once a business has 50 or more total employees the Obamacare mandate provisions kick in. Many small businesses will be forced to make critical decisions. Should they continue to offer health insurance for their employees or should they pay the fine instead?

The businesses that decide not to expand and remain under 49 employees do not have to offer health insurance. Dropping the insurance for their employees won’t change the fact that those employees will still get fined for not having insurance. Obamacare has already been proven to be bad for business and will continue to cost small businesses more in production, labor, and manufacturing expenditures. Roughly74% of small businesses have said the main reason they are not hiring is because of the law. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the healthcare law will lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by the end of this decade alone.

In a cruel and ironic twist, Obamacare will also disproportionately affect the people it was designed to help the most; the poor. According to a recent joint study by Harvard and the University of Chicago, the workers most affected by Obamacare will be younger workers, minorities, and entry level or labor heavy workers. This is the exact group of people who can least afford to pay anymore for their health insurance. Instead of hiring and training new cashiers, receptionists, and customer service representatives small businesses will be forced to cut costs. They will develop new techniques such as automated kiosks and scanning machines instead of live workers. The end result will be fewer jobs for the people that need them the most. So when the poor get sick and suffer health problems from the added stress of not being able to find a job they can take comfort in the fact that they will be taken care of with government run healthcare.

Here are a few examples of what type of decisions job creators are now asking themselves.

John Schnatter, CEO of Papa Johns Pizza said Obamacare will force him to raise his prices between 11 and 14 cents per slice. Under the law, the company which is the third largest pizza chain in the United States will have to offer healthcare coverage to its more than 16,500 total employees or be subjected to a fine. In order to offset the additional costs associated with the law many businesses like Papa Johns are passing the costs on to their customers by increasing their prices.

Here is a quote from Judy Nichols, a small business owner, “I have two options. The cost for providing health insurance per-worker per-year is approximately $4,000. I can stop offering coverage and pay the $2,000 fine, or I could not expand my business and keep my number of employees under 50 so the mandate does not apply. It unfortunately is a no win situation for me. Obamacare will cost me between 20,000 and 30,000 dollars per year in new taxes. Many businesses owners, including myself are leaning towards dropping the coverage and paying the fine.”

Even a committed liberal like Jim Cramer of CNBC admitted that Obamacare will hurt most businesses. On his Mad Money show he said this, “What I’m telling you is that most of the business leaders that I have spoken with have a real fear of Obamacare. They don’t want to hire, this is part of the underground economy that is going to develop, because nobody wants to put people on the books. People have to recognize that this issue is front and center to every CEO I speak to. They tell me it is less expensive and less burdensome to hire and place workers in other countries. As a result of the law a lot more businesses will set up operations in China, India, or even Mexico.”

On July 16th, 2009 at a rally in Holmdel, New Jersey President Obama said something that we now know is not entirely true. In an attempt to solidify more support for his healthcare bill the President said this. “Let me be clear. If you have health insurance that you like, a doctor that you trust, you can keep your current plan.”

First off, we have learned these last four years that when the President starts a sentence with let me be clear it usually means he is not. His proclamation that you can keep the insurance you have is in many ways the political equivalent of former President Bill Clinton’s ambiguous statement ‘it depends on what the definition of is is.”

The Affordable Care Act, which is the epitome of an oxymoron, was never intended to be anything but a single payer system. The President and the Democrats knew if they could just get their foot through the healthcare door that over time it would become a single payer system through attrition. The law was purposely designed to be so cumbersome, so complicated, and so expensive for businesses that they would get frustrated and just stop offering insurance and pay the fine. Most independent studies have concluded that nearly 70% of privately insured carriers will eventually end up on the government plan.

Another potentionally dangerous stipulation included in Obamacare is known as the Independent Panel Advisory Board. This controversial provision of the bill creates a 15 member panel of unelected bureaucrats in charge of controlling costs. These officials are appointed by the President, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Minority Leader.

Once the board members have been chosen they must be confirmed by the Senate and are appointed for a term of six years. Perhaps what is most chilling about these appointees is the fact that they do not even have to have a medical background! And if this wasn’t enough, they will also be paid a salary of $165,300 per year.

The President and the Democrats insist this panel is not allowed to ration care. There is language in the bill that specifically forbids it. But lets be honest here, they are paid to control costs.

Suppose you have two equally infirm patients. One patient is 25 years younger than the other. Both patients need a life saving operation that would immediately improve their long term health and quality of life. The board realizes that if they authorize both operations it will put them over their proposed budget. Do you really think they’re going to authorize the older patient for the operation? Not a chance. They would instead more likely try to justify their decision by saying to patient A that he/she has had a longer life than patient B. It is time to discuss other means of treatment such as end of life practices and pain management for patient A instead of authorizing a budget busting life saving operation.

Since when is it ever acceptable for the government to play the role of God? What if that was your mother or father? How would you feel?

This is the insidious part of Obamacare that many Americans have a major problem with. Healthcare decisions should only be between the patient, the family, and the doctor. Healthcare decisions should never be between the patient, the family, the doctor, and some unqualified, unelected, government bean counter.

If Obamacare is fully implemented in America our country and our healthcare will never be the same. If you think healthcare is expensive now just wait until it is free and run by the government. Our premiums will sky rocket because there will be less competition. The overall quality of the healthcare we come to expect will also diminish over time. There will also be a shortage of good doctors and specialists as many will leave the profession. What is the best way to ruin the greatest healthcare system in the world? Hand it over to the government to run.
..

Suggested by the author:
Why John Roberts betrayed America and changed his vote
Warning: Barack Obama may be intentionally destroying our economy
The battle between traditional conservatism and secular liberalism in America

The popular pizza chain has come under attack by liberal media and activist groups for holding true to its promise made before the recent election to reduce employee hours in preparation for the Affordable Care Act regulations set to take affect in January 2013.

I had the pleasure of discussing the event and the purposes behind it with HuffPost Live host Ahmed Shihab-Eldin.

Friday, November 16th has been dubbed Papa John’s Appreciation Day complete with its own Facebook Event Page and Twitter Hashtag (#NationalPapaJohnsDay). The group credited with the idea is Rebooting America, a start-up activist organization still in its planning stages.

A point missed in much of the media attention circling Papa John’s Appreciation Day is that it began with the intent to encourage pizza enthusiasts and lovers of capitalism to show with their actions that the free market is charitable. Organizers of the event are asking that when you buy a pie on Friday, consider buying an additional pie for a local charity, church group, afterschool program, or even a neighbor that may be out of work.

_______________________________________________
Follow me on Twitter!

Interestingly, some think states that are most against the Act will benefit the most. “Red states have, in general, done less than blue states to cover their residents, so they’re going to get a sweeter deal under the terms of the Affordable Care Act,” said Ezra Klein, a blogger for The Washington Post.

The federal government currently pays 57 percent of Medicaid costs, meaning the Affordable Care Act offer [100% for the first few years, then reduced to 90% federal payment] is “an incredibly, astonishingly, unbelievably good deal” for those states, Klein said.

So what are states doing? Many are still reviewing the law, the Supreme Court ruling, and their options. Here is a quick review of nine states across the country who made the news this week:

California

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed: “I have always supported the need for comprehensive health reform. However, for healthcare reform to succeed, states must either have the flexibility to live within the revenues that are available to them or the federal resources to fully fund its mandates.”

The big cost to the state will be for a generous expansion of Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid.

Because California can’t even afford its current Medi-Cal program, it has been cutting back on poor people’s care in recent years. The 2012 state budget passed last month included more than $1 billion in cuts to Medi-Cal and other health programs.

Still, the Brown administration is moving toward the act’s implementation. In fact, it already has begun covering 280,000 people. “This is a very great day,” state Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley declared. “We are in the full-go mode here.”

As George Skelton of the Capitol Journal writes, “But it’s another state cost that no one is considering how to pay for — not nearly as extravagant as the mostly unfunded bullet train, but the same basic idea: meritorious, but moneyless.”

Texas

Gov. Perry: Texas Will Not Expand Medicaid or Implement Health Benefit Exchange.

“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare,” Gov. Perry said. “I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.

From Governor Perry’s Webpage: “Gov. Perry has frequently called for the allocation of Medicaid funding in block grants so each state can tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of its unique challenges. As a common sense alternative, Gov. Perry has conveyed a vision to transform Medicaid into a system that reinforces individual responsibility, eliminates fragmentation and duplication, controls costs and focuses on quality health outcomes. This would include establishing reasonable benefits, personal accountability, and limits on services in Medicaid. It would also allow co-pays or cost sharing that apply to all Medicaid eligible groups – not just optional Medicaid populations – and tailor benefits to needs of the individual rather than a blanket entitlement.

Gov. Perry has consistently rejected federal funding when strings are attached that impose long-term financial burdens on Texans, or cede state control of state issues to the federal government. In 2009, Texas rejected Washington funding for the state’s Unemployment Insurance program because it would have required the state to vastly expand the number of workers entitled to draw unemployment benefits, leading to higher UI taxes later.”

Florida

In an editorial to the Washington Times Florida Governor Rick Scott writes:

“I think everyone agrees there are far too many who want health insurance and can’t get it. But the truth is, the real problem isn’t with health insurance. The underlying cause is the rapidly increasing cost of health care.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s stunning pronouncement on Obamacare, all 50 governors face two big decisions:

1. Do we let the federal government impose a massive Medicaid expansion on us?
2. Do we establish a state insurance exchange or let the federal government come in and run it?

My answer is simple. No. We just can’t afford it.

Medicaid is the fastest-growing part of our state budget. And unlike the federal government, which isn’t required to balance its budget, we could only pay for expanding Medicaid by increasing taxes or cutting from other parts of the budget. Expanding Medicaid puts other vital government functions, such as education, public safety and infrastructure, at risk. That is not something I am willing to do.”

Wisconsin

Governor Scott Walker released a statement last week, “Wisconsin will not take any action to implement ObamaCare I am hopeful that political changes in Washington D.C. later this year ultimately end the implementation of this law at the federal level.”

Walker indicated over the weekend that he will wait until after the November election before announcing whether Wisconsin will participate in the health care exchange program. Walker has shown no signs that he is interested in implementing the Affordable Care Act and has returned a grant from the federal government intended to help get the exchanges off the ground.

Louisiana & Virginia

“We’re not going to start implementing Obamacare,” Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. “We’re committed to working to elect Governor Romney to repeal Obamacare.”

“Here in Louisiana we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we’re not implementing the exchanges. We don’t think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana. We’re going to do what we can to fight it.”

On the same conference call on Friday, McDonnell, said he would evaluate the options for Virginia. “We don’t even know exactly what that federal exchange would look like so there’s still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is, and in the next days and weeks we’re going to be evaluating the case as well as the options for Virginia,” McDonnell said.

Maine

Gov. Paul LePage used his weekly radio address Saturday to further his long-running criticisms of the federal Affordable Care Act and explain why he is delaying its implementation in Maine.

LePage said his administration would resist implementing the Affordable Care Act, particularly an expansion of Medicaid, because of debt Maine already has on the books — including $500 million due to the state’s hospitals — and what he characterized as a welfare program that is already too generous.

“Our welfare costs are among the highest in the nation as a result of some of the lowest eligibility requirements. Maine has increased its spending by more than a billion dollars during the last decade because of expanded welfare programs,” said LePage “We cannot afford our current programs, so to require Maine to expand coverage even more is fiscally irresponsible.”

Illinois

Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law HB5007, which allows the Cook County Health and Hospitals System to immediately increase Medicaid eligibility for 100,000 county patients and pay for it through increased federal funding. The money will allow the counties to continue treating needy people  who have not been on the Medicaid roles but now to be reimbursed through a direct federal waiver.

Oklahoma

“In light of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the (act), Governor Fallin believes it is her responsibility to thoroughly and thoughtfully review the state of Oklahoma’s options regarding the future of both Medicaid and the creation of a health insurance exchange,” Fallin spokesman Alex Weintz said. “Her priority is not to make a decision soon; it is to make the right decision. The governor will continue to review how the state of Oklahoma can best meet the health care needs of its citizens.”

It appears many states’ budgets will dictate their actions and many will wait until the November election before making any further commitments.

Since last Thursday, Mitt Romney has raised more campaign funds than President Obama, leaving the President to make desperate campaign calls from Airforce One, asking for donors who maxed out there campaign donations last time, to do the same for him this time.  Over that same time period multiple emails went out from the campaign asking for supporters to donate now and fast, and soon to Obama/Biden 2012.  Most likely this was sparked by the fact of Mitt Romney raising over four million dollars last Thursday as a result of the Supreme Courts decision.  In addition to the one day massive money bomb that Mitt Romney received, CNN Politics is reporting that;

the presumptive GOP nominee appears to hold an eight point advantage among voters who live in the 15 states considered in play in the race for the White House.

However according to that same poll, President Obama is actually leading Mitt Romney 49% to 46%, which is within the 4% margin of error, putting both men in a dead heat for the November General Election.  In a different poll taken by Rasmussen, in their Daily Presidential tracking poll, that was taken on July 2nd 2012, Mitt Romney is leading President Obama 46% to 44%, with 4% wanting another candidate and 5% undecided.

After the Supreme Court released their decision on ObamaTax, has seen a decline in their job approval rating according to Rasmussen, who reported that;

A week ago,  36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

It is not surprise than that a large portion of Americans see that the country is heading in the wrong direction, as well as less than half of American citizens believing that America is the last best hope.  In addition to Americans see the country slant in the wrong direction, no matter who is President, 60% of American citizens “don’t believe the United States is better off today,” according to another poll taken by Rasmussen.  In regards to the Affordable Care Act passed last week all current politicians in office have seen a dip in their approval ratings, with Congress always having the lowest rating.

However, that being said, there is still some hope.  Many Americans believe that the size of government matters to the health of this nation.  According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 58% of  “Americans feel a government that is too powerful is a bigger problem than a government that is not powerful enough.” In addition to 51% of “Americans continue to believe that the government is more of a threat to individual rights than a protector of them.” With an even larger percent, 57% of ” American Adults think the Constitution should be left alone,” and “no one thinks the United States should scrap the foundational document and start over.”

The actual hope that Americans STILL love this nation, is shown in this poll from Rasmussen stating that 70% “of American Adults agree with”  governments derive their only just powers from the consent of the governed.  In addition to all this hopeful statistics, Rasmussen reports that; 63% “feel U.S. society is generally fair and decent.”  All of these positive polls show that American citizens are the key to the future of America, and not the Federal Government.
.

When: Thursday, June 28th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Grass roots activist Andrew Xifos (@FigDrewton), United Liberty contributor Jason Pye (@jaseliberty) and Conseravative Daily News contributor Tj Thompson (@_TjThompson) join the discussion.

This is an absurd argument that contradicts even President Obama’s own reasoning that the individual mandate is “not a tax.” Nowhere in the healthcare law itself was the individual mandate ever labeled as a tax, and for a member of a court to imply that the law is feasible under such an arrangement, boggles the mind.

But here we are America, on the cusp of seeing the biggest tax on the middle class in the nation’s history. All in the midst of an economy the Vice President recently called “a depression for millions.” And the market will continue to tank. The jobless rate will continue to rise. And insurance premiums will continue to soar. That has been the plan all along; to force us into the single payer system that Obama supports by hook or by crook.

It is inconceivable that the Congress has the authority to “tax” individuals into buying private health insurance or else be forced to enroll in the so-called “public option.”

What America is experiencing is a complete breakdown of our system of laws, devolving into a government ruled by a unified cohort of self-interested men. The law is being deformed to suit predetermined political ends, which are directed towards dissolving individual liberty and strengthening centralized power.

Thomas Jefferson was prescient when he declared of the argument that the judiciary is the final recourse against tyranny:

If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se [suicide pact]. [...] The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted no where but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law.

And indeed, nine men in robes had their say in court today. But we concerned citizens will have our final say in the court of public opinion via the ballot box come November. For today’s ruling should not be taken as a demoralizing rejection of the Constitution’s principles, which live so long as they survive in our hearts.

But it is a sad day that one of the institutions of our government has so debased itself as to become a trivial appendage of tyrannical men. The Supreme Court has lowered itself to the same standard as politicized courts around the world, making the United States that much less exceptional.

It is not the first time the Supreme Court has sided with the abusive power of government over the freedom of the citizens, and it will not be the last, so long as the unvarnished progressive Justice Roberts presides in the court.

But this is a rallying cry to raise the American flag, and to reassert with all force that can be mustered to oppose growing tyranny in our once great country. Whether by the ballot box, or by state nullification, or by civil revolt, tyranny will be opposed in this nation. And a Supreme Court ruling is not going to change that political reality.

In the words of the SCOTUS blog:

“The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read,”

Details are still emerging, however, this ruling can be read as nothing but an overwhelming defeat for President Obama and his big government policies.

The on the  pivotal health care law had been expected to be included in releases this morning, but it was not. The decision is expected no later than the end of the month and may surface as soon as the Thursday press event.

On Monday, three decisions were released: Williams v. Illinois was affirmed, Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter was overturned, Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. was upheld, and Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak was upheld.

Now for the waiting, will Americans hear whether all or part of the Affordable Care Act will be deemed unconstitutional on Thursday or will the court make a decision at all before they go on summer recess at the end of the month?

Smith believes that the main supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “ObamaCare”) have already achieved their main objectives, and so may be indifferent to whether the U.S. Supreme Court overturns it.

One huge beneficiary is the health information technology industry. Physicians and hospitals were presented with a carrot (subsidies to purchase government-approved systems) and a stick (progressive fee cuts If they fail to implement electronic medical records or EMRs). Billions of dollars have already been made, and since the subsidies were in the HITECH Act that preceded the ACA, overturning the ACA might have little effect.

Hospitals favored the costly EMR requirement. The additional overhead cost makes physicians more vulnerable to hospital takeover offers. And once physicians become employees, the EMR provides the hospital the tool it needs for remotely controlling their practices.

Central planners get most of what they need with the EMR, as they will be able to identify high-cost patients. Overturning just the individual mandate would not affect the “death panel” or rationing feature, as the enforcement tool — the EMR — would remain.

The medical loss ratio provision of the law, which requires insurers to pay out all but 10% to 15% of premiums in claims, will do the same thing to small insurers that the EMR requirement does to small hospitals — drive them out of business. For relief from competition, “big businesses are more than willing to pay big money,” Smith writes.

The political theater at the U.S. Supreme Court may serve mainly to divert attention from the real objectives of the biggest proponents of the ACA.