Sarah Hall Ingram spent three years, from 2009 to 2012, as the commissioner of the tax exempt office of the Internal Revenue service. Instead of being asked to resign, getting fired or perhaps indicted, Ms. Ingram has been made the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office.

According to the I.G. report, the tax-exempt unit started targeting conservative groups in 2010, shortly after Sarah Hall Ingram took charge of the office.

The news for the past two days has been about Joseph Grant being asked to tender his resignation because of the abuse of power displayed by the tax exempt unit. Grant had been the commissioner for a grand total of eight days when the scandal broke and is currently the most visible scapegoat.

During the height of the illegal and unfair treatment of conservative groups, Sarah Hall Ingram was in-charge and Mr. Grant served as deputy commissioner. Ms. Ingram will likely be called before Congress to testify and could be investigated by independent council.

Obama on Thursday dismissed the idea of appointing a special counsel to investigate the IRS scandal.

Now that Ms. Ingram is in-charge of enforcing Obamacare, serious questions are being raised about the IRS’ ability to do so fairly.

On Thursday, House Republicans passed a bill to repeal Obamacare in its entirety.

Another bill up for consideration removes the funding that the IRS would have received to enforce several provisions of the troubled health care law.

Sen John Cornyn (R-TX) said “after the events of last week, I cannot support giving the IRS any more responsibility or taxpayer dollars to implement a broken law.”

Obamacare has been losing popularity steadily since its inception and the scandal surrounding the IRS’ director of Obamacare will likely make more Americans leery of coming mandates.

IRS officials are set to testify at House hearings today.

The White House and congressional Democrats have been hard at-work spinning the March jobs slowdown as an effect of sequestration even though the details of the report show no slowdown in government hiring. As sequestration would first impact government jobs, the correlation is non-existent.

The true culprit in the coming recession is not George Bush, Republican filibusters or slightly slower government spending – its Obamacare.

The President’s marquee healthcare reform law is taking its toll on business owners and families as it is directly causing premiums to skyrocket – some by more than double – and the toll on the economy is just beginning.

An exhaustive study by three congressional committees delivers startling news about the dire effects of Obamacare: President Barack Obama’s signature legislation could increase health insurance premiums by over 200 percent and render insurance coverage unaffordable for millions of Americans.

Insurance companies, states and the federal government have been frantically trying to implement the complicated and costly healthcare law.

Insurance companies have spent millions of dollars installing new software, designing integration with state/federal exchanges and changing their processes to deal with the concept of premium subsidies and premium cost-sharing – two major components of Obamacare. That money has to come from somewhere and its coming in the form of skyrocketing premiums.

States that chose to either implement their own exchanges or work in a state-federal partnership to form exchanges are seeing their costs balloon as well. State taxpayers will bear the brunt of those expenses.

The federal government, realizing that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is too complex, is planning to hire Obamacare Insurance Navigators at a cost of $29-$49.00 per hour. When the government hires, the costs come from taxpayers. Increasing costs mean increasing taxes – just as the President has proposed in his budget plan.

The revenue needed to fund the expense is coming out of the pockets of consumers and going to a massively-expanding federal bureaucracy. More taxpayer money is going to fund Department of Health and Human Services regulation, State and Federal exchanges and now more federal employees – expensive ones.

Consumers are getting hit from another side as premiums affect their paychecks and their employers.

As employers are forced to pay increasing premiums, more revenue must be directed away from pay and hours. Many employers are converting full-time positions to part-time or eliminating them altogether to avoid the overwhelming costs associated with healthcare reform.

Skyrocketing premiums mean less money for workers. As employer-provided health insurance usually splits the cost between the employee and employer, the worker will see a shrinking paycheck as premiums increase.

According to a Milliman Consulting Group study on insurance rates, the pain will be substantial for the middle-class:

the poor are likely to pay significantly less than they do now while middle-class families dig deeper into pocketbooks.

President Obama told the American people that this law would bend the healthcare cost curve down. In just its first few years of implementation it has done the opposite.

Even Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted that “there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market.” When asked about rapidly-increasing premiums.

Some proponents of the healthcare law have made the case that premiums are rising due to increasing healthcare costs. White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest countered that claim saying that “I would actually point to the results that we’re already seeing from the Affordable Care Act, which is a savings of $2.1 billion.”

So if healthcare costs are not causing insurance premiums to rise – there’s only one culprit left and the drain on the economy will likely push the country back into recession.

 I just read a story that made my skin crawl.  Barack Obama has declared that the federal government will send federal agents into states to take over their insurance industry if they don’t surrender to Obamacare and set up the exchanges demanded by the regime.  Obamacare was passed in 2009 using bribery and arm twisting, topped off by a complete perversion of the legislative process.  It was opposed by a huge majority of We the People and reconciliation was used in a total disregard for the normal legislative process. This action led to the TEA Party uprising in 2010 that saw Republicans sweeping elections across the nation.

Now Obama brazenly stands up there and says that We the People have absolutely no voice in how we attend to our own health care.  This is bold, in your face, tyranny.  This is treason!!! Obama and his cadre of Marxists have once again thrown the Constitution out the window and said “I demand this…..!!!!!” or “I will by-pass Congress and do as I wish”.  Now he has decided to by-pass the state governments and the very voice of the people.  Is this not the definition of a dictatorship?

We either live by the Constitution or we live by the dictates of Der Fuhrer and his band of cutthroats.  The sad fact is that the ”leadership” of both political parties, the “ruling elite”, have joined forces with Obama to subjugate the population.  We now find “universal firearm registration” becoming much more acceptable to the Republican Party establishment, no surprise there.  All the noise about the assault weapons ban was a smoke screen for universal registration.  As soon as they know where all the weapons are they don’t need to ban them, they can just come out and confiscate them.  This is tyranny!!

Barack Obama has declared that he will dictate how we obtain and pay for our own health care, and he will send his armed agents to enforce it.  Any guess as to where a lot of the DHS purchases will be going???  The 10^th Amendment doesn’t mean any more to these people than does the 2^nd Amendment.  He will send his Gestapo agents into each state and just take over the industry, he will “nationalize” the insurance industry.

Anyone who opposes this dictator will be dealt with by “federales”.  In 2010, Oklahoma voters rejected Obamacare in a 70%-30% vote.  Obama says what we want doesn’t matter and that he will impose his will on us by using armed federal agents to insure compliance.

This is not a battle between Democrat and Republican; it is a battle between Good and Evil, between We the People and a tyrannical government.  They are already giving massive amounts of military hardware to city and state law enforcement agencies.  Some sheriffs and police chiefs have said they will stand with Obama but many have said they will stand with We People.

The few people in Congress who speak up for the Constitution are pilloried by people on both sides of the political “aisle”.  Personally, I don’t see an aisle between the parties.  The federal government, in the name of Der Fuhrer Barack Obama, has announced its decision to subjugate its citizens.  They no longer make any pretense of “looking out for our best interests” and have gone right to threatening to sending armed agents to impose their will on what is supposed to be a free people.

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Benito Mussolini did this very thing when they seized control of their nations.  Anyone who refused to comply with the dictator was either bribed or intimidated into submission, or replaced (read that: shot).  As of now we have come to the point of “we refuse and they replace”.  How long before they step in somewhere else?  The federal government has been far too involved in our everyday lives for years.  Now that a majority has bucked up and said “whoa Hoss!!”, Obama and his cutthroats are going to just send in their Gestapo agents to enforce the dictate.

The question is, what are the states going to do????  Are the governors and other elected officers of these states going to accede to the demands of the dictatorship or are they going to stand up for the Constitution?  Are they going to honor their oath of office and their pledge to We the People???

Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak has said he does not have the authority to enforce federal laws and will not do so.  What will Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and the Republican controlled legislature do??? Will they step up and use state law enforcement to prevent this act of treason or will they roll over and give in???  If they will surrender our 9^th and 10^th Amendment rights today what happens when the “federales” get finished with the 2^nd Amendment?

If Congress, both political parties, and the governors of the threatened states, allow Obama to get away with such a blatant act of tyranny where will it stop??  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what happens when a small group of people can use force to impose their will on the majority of the population.

And what about those states not directly affected by this?  Do you think this doesn’t affect you?  I remember a quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller  in which he mentioned all the times people were trampled on by the Nazi government and he said nothing because it wasn’t him. Then they got to him and he was alone.  We all must stand together now or there won’t be any standing together later because many of us will be gone.

Now is the time for the governors to get together and create a plan of action against this blatant tyranny.  Many sheriffs have said they will stick with We the People, and We the People will stick by their sides.  The time for party politics is gone.  This is about the liberty of the citizens of the United States of America.  The noose is tightening around our necks and the ruling political class is tightening it as fast as they can because they see the citizens waking up. They see citizens beginning to make serious preparations for an all-out assault on our freedom by a dictatorial oligarchy in Washington, D. C. (De Cesspool) and they are moving as fast as they can to head off any ability of said citizens to oppose them.

The people are mobilizing to fight off the activities of a government overstepping its Constitutional bounds while most of our elected officials, in both political parties, band together to remove our only means of protection, the 2^nd Amendment.

This action by the regime will abolish the 9^th and 10^th Amendments; universal firearm registration will abolish the 2nd Amendment.  The 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure had been trampled to death numerous times in the last few years.  Our Republic is on the verge of oblivion and dictatorship is on the horizon.  Obama, Boehner, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, McCain, Graham, Cantor, Schumer, and the rest are not going to just give up when they are a whisker away from the absolute control they have been seeking.  Their behind-the-scenes handlers won’t allow it either.  The window for a peaceful resolution is rapidly closing.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russsell

Claremore, Oklahoma

March 26, 2013

United States Democrats promised that a government administered health care system would not result in a government that would collect and use information on American citizens – the same promise the English government gave to their citizens.

Suddenly, the U.K. government will require that general practitioners (family doctors) to give lifestyle details to the National Health System – the government.

Once the federal government is on the hook for the administration of citizen health, it has no choice but to acquire information that it can use to minimize its exposure to its naive expectation – that somehow, centralized healthcare is cheaper AND more effective. It cannot be both.

When government takes over healthcare, it does not get less expensive, it only gets less private.

Aside from creepy nature of speaking to the Court decision as if it is an actual person, the basic theme, and overall attitude, of the video is one that expresses a profound, unwavering support of the decision by saying “An anniversary like this is not something you forget, no no no no baby, it is something that you fight for. That’s exactly what I’m going to do, baby. Fight. A few of us – well, actually, a couple hundred thousand of us have chipped in to get you something mighty special, baby. We’re gonna be standing by your side today, tomorrow, and the years to come.”

Don’t worry, though, the Center For Reproductive Rights injected it’s backhanded slap to those who oppose the Roe v. Wade decision right from the get-go with the following line: “All these years, so many people said we’d never make it. They’ve been trying to tear us apart. Take you away. Put limits on you… on me… on us. But every time we’ve proven ourselves stronger.”

See the video for yourself below, and leave your thoughts in the comment section.

h/t FTR Radio

___

It’s Christmas Winter solstice/holiday time – and Governor Corbett seems tepid to reject the federal-state health care exchange program, which will be instituted under Obamacare.  Mitt Romney implemented a similar program, at the state level, when he was Governor of Massachusetts – which explains why conservatives were unable to make the 2012 election a referendum on Obamcare.  As Grace-Marie Turner at Forbes wrote in her column on December 1o, “at least 21 states have said they definitely or probably will not set up state exchanges, with Ohio, Wisconsin, Maine, Nebraska, South Carolina,Georgia and Indiana most recently joining the opposition.”

Furthermore, concerning American enterprise – and the nation’s socioeconomic fabric as a whole – Turner added:

Businesses: Companies with more than 50 employees are searching for ways to avoid the penalties for not complying with the law’s employer mandate. They must either provide government-approved health insurance or pay a fine of $2,000 for each full-time worker. But companies can escape the fines if they make the painful decision to cut workers to part-time – defined in the law as less than 30 hours a week.

Denny’s franchise owner John Metz of Florida said he would “love to cover all employees” with health insurance, “but to pay $5,000 per employee would cost us $175,000 per restaurant, and unfortunately, most of our restaurants don’t make $175,000 a year. I can’t afford it.”

Religious leaders: The Obama Administration’s decision to force employers to provide access to contraception, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization at no cost to their employees has prompted 40 lawsuits by Catholic dioceses and other organizations claiming it violates their First Amendment protection of religious liberty.

Although churches themselves are exempt, the mandate applies to religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges, charities and social service agencies. Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently said the Catholic Church will “not obey” the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate, a policy he classified as “immoral.”

In the Keystone state, Jennifer Stefano, State Director for Americans for Prosperity- Pennsylvania, is holding a rally in Harrisburg this week to support the taxpayers and economic freedom. She’ll be presenting a “taxpayer’s Christmas holiday wish list.”

Americans for Prosperity to bring Santa and “Naughty/Nice List” to State Capitol

Hosting Press Conference to Urge Governor Corbett to Reject Health Care Exchange

Washington Crossing, PA— Americans for Prosperity-Pennsylvania (“AFP-PA”) will host a press conference this Thursday, December 13^th at the state capitol to urge Governor Corbett to put Pennsylvania on Santa’s “Nice” list. The group is joined by Santa Claus, Representative Gordon Denlinger, doctors, and business leaders who want Governor Corbett to reject a state health care exchange and support other policies that lower the state tax burden.

“Americans for Prosperity is proud to bring Santa Claus to the Capitol to present the ‘Taxpayer’s Christmas wish list’,” explained Jennifer Stefano, state director of Americans for Prosperity. “At the top of that list is for Governor Corbett to announce he will fully reject setting up a state or a joint federal-state health care exchange.”

WHAT: Press conference to urge Governor Corbett to opt out of the state health care exchange.

WHEN: Thursday, December 13, at 10:30am

WHERE: Pennsylvania State Capitol Rotunda

WHO: Representative Gorden Denlinger (R – Ephrata)

Jennifer Stefano – State Director of Americans for Prosperity – Pennsylvania

Leo Knepper – Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania

Nathan Benefield – Commonwealth Foundation

Kirby Sensenig – President of Richard Sensenig Co.

Dave Nace – Wickersham Construction

Anna McCauslin – Manufacturer & Business Association

Dr. James W. McManaway III – Pediatric Ophthalmalogist

Twenty other states have chosen not to establish a state level exchange as provided for in the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The deadline for the Governor to inform the federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services if Pennsylvania will be establishing an exchange is Friday, December 14, 2012.

Rep. Denlinger submitted a letter in July, which he re-submitted on December 4, 2012, urging Governor Corbett to opt out of the state level exchange as well as the Medicaid provision of the ACA, which this summer’s Supreme Court ruling made optional. Forty-seven (47) other state legislators signed the letter.

Stefano said of the letter, “We thank Rep. Denlinger and the other representatives who have taken a bold stand for the people of Pennsylvania.  They join a growing number of Governors and state legislators across America who are standing up for working families and small business owners this Christmas season.”

For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Jennifer Stefano at jstefano@afphq.org or call 610-207-7901.

For a while, conservatives have known that Obamacare would be a dose of bad medicine.  However, given the axiom that bog government helps big business, the same could be true with the medical industry.  Tim Carney at The Washington Examiner aptly pointed out today, from Bloomberg, Obamacare favors big hospitals, and smashes small practices.

In his column, Carney wrote that “Bloomberg report[ed] today on how Medicare payment rules have led to hospital consolidation, with small practices selling out to big hospitals.”  Additionally, Carney cited the point about consolidation:

Simon Gisby, a principal in the life science and health care practice at Deloitte Corporate Finance LLC in New York, said the trend fits with changes starting to take place under the 2010 Affordable Care Act designed by the Obama administration to overhaul health care.

This consolidation means higher costs, the article explains. Some academic studies have confirmed that hospital consolidation means higher costs, and at least one has pinned some of the blame on Obama’s Affordable Care Act:

hospitals are able to extract higher private payments when they hold more market power…. Now provisions of the ACA are encouraging further consolidation of hospitals and physicians, and the final antitrust review regulations from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have eliminated the proposed mandatory review of certain prospective ACOs.

So, at the end of the day, it’s business as usual – with a splash of dependency.  Big government helping big business gain more power at the expense of the taxpayers.   Can we all agree that this overhaul of American health care was never meant to curb costs?

It’s time to show appreciation for America’s job creators and investors.  Justen Charters, Founder of Rebooting America, has declared today as Papa John’s Appreciation Day to combat the left-wing hate hurled at the pizza chain for their proposed changes to services in the wake of Barack Obama’s re-election, and the looming imposition of Obamacare.  This included increasing costs on pizza and cutting employee hours, which is the byproduct of the president’s health care overhaul.  It’s about to turn us into a nation of part-time workers.

Nevertheless, in a written statement, Charters said that:

this is about standing up for a business owner who told investors and the American people that Obamacare will hurt profits. This is about turning the attempted boycott by the left on it’s head and supporting free markets and free speech. Boycotts only hurt employees, they don’t help them. The narrative from the left in the elections tried to pushed the theme that conservatives do not care for the poor. We can debunk that, if you simply visit our event page and see that we are asking those who are in the financial position to do so to give a pizza to a homeless person or somebody who is down on their luck. And before I forget, This is not just about Papa Johns. Papa Johns is an easy enthusiasm creator because everyone loves pizza. Other companies like Olive Garden and Red Lobster have also come under attack for taking the same stand as John Schnatter.

Stand up for economic freedom, and make your night Papa John’s.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

DoNotLick (CC)

Let’s move on to the meat and bones of this little lesson, to what Medicaid really is, and how it works. Krugman’s so cute when he tries to explain things to the masses. It would be ever so much nicer if he would at least attempt to get the facts, though. It’s really not good when even Wikipedia gets it right, and you don’t. Well, maybe it was the fact-checker’s day off at the Times. Yes, Medicaid is relatively good at keeping medical costs down, but no it is not because of the government. You see, for quite some time now, Uncle Sam has contracted out this part of the government healthcare system to the private sector. Medicaid recipients have private insurance policies with premiums that are subsidized by the government. That also blows a big gaping hold in Krugman’s other claim about governmental largesse – the real reason why the government doesn’t have as much “bureaucracy” in this whole equation is because the government doesn’t actually “do” anything but pay the bills. But, I think that most conservatives already know that. Knowing that Krugman is running about telling liberals this nonsense is useful, though. At least we can point out the errors in their sources.

Now, over at the Independent Women’s Forum, there is something of interest on this issue. They have pointed out that this really shouldn’t be a nationwide ballot issue, but a state one. Now that’s getting back into real Romney territory. That is practically straight out of a Paul Ryan stump speech on healthcare reform – or a Romney one pointing out that healthcare shouldn’t be on the Fed plate in the first place. So, when the whining liberals start claiming that Romney wants to take away their Medicaid, if you’re not just going to smack them (verbally since we don’t want folks going to jail), point out that he wants to let the states handle that program, because they know better what their residents need. It’s simple math and geography here. It’s better to have someone closer to you managing these things, than it is to have some pencil pushers far away, right? Who knows? Maybe you’ll actually get a few fence pole sitters with that logic in the next few days!

We watched our President Barack Hussein Obama have a beer and smoke. He was caught on a few occasions lighting up! He and Our First Lady Michele have been noted and documented in indulging some high priced, high powered, unhealthy lunches and dinners, with excessively rich calories. Yet she has the gall to preach and dictate? These acts are usually kept under wraps, because in the eyes of the bought and sold main stream liberal media press, they only report their positives, hardly ever their negatives.

This debacle is obviously portrayed as a two faced insincerity of shaming the public into submitting to their double standards of lies and secret indulgences. They sacrifice nothing, take everything, give back nothing, yet they look at you with a straight face and accuse you, the people, of being greedy and selfish.

Yet, nothing is being said for the hospitals or healthcare facilities that are constantly padding the bills, while occasionally attempting to charge double payments for the same procedure, and sometime succeeding in collecting? No one investigates their escalated inflated costs that they disgracefully charge to the average patient staying, at their facility? Where are their scruples and morals?

No one legitimately investigates their staff, their administrators, for abuses, mistakes, incompetence or laziness causing harm, injury or even death? Misdiagnoses are being left unchallenged and permitted without any recourse, adding to expenses. This only proves that there should be no Tort Reform; because there must be consequences for their actions. That goes for the Doctors, The Hospital, their Employees as well as the Insurance Companies, Government Workers, Committees, and Politicians.

“Tort Reform” would be a good principle, if we have valid, legal protections, against the ineptitudes. Presently, we have “the fox watching the chickens”. There must be a deterrent to unprofessional acts of complacency with possible injury or death? If not monetary, then there must be another form of retribution to reprimand obvious signs of neglect instead of just another collateral damage statistic?

Now with the additional applicants and patients placed into Obamacare, leaving a shortage of home grown American doctors, more foreign physicians will be recruited, into our healthcare system. If we were taught anything from the past, proper credentials and qualifications verification screening of these individuals will be limited or non-existent, making us easy targets to slaughter! The confidence factor no longer exists! We obviously and naturally can’t trust them to police or discipline themselves. We are defenseless except for the right to sue?

We must never give-up our right in seeking proper retribution, for malpractices even though it gives them another bogus excuse to raise healthcare costs. If they were all diligent, professional, truthful and cautious, in a perfect world, in meeting all proper standards, with no man made clumsy mistakes then maybe there could be a compromise, but they’re not!

Nothing is said for the doctors who are employed by the same hospitals ordering countless needless expensive painful tests to their patients, escalating the monetary responsibility to an already exhausted healthcare system. No one says anything about an unknown doctor to the patient, saying “hello, how are you feeling today”, everyday, while they are in the facility and charging that patient a visit every time?te practice who refuses to accept Medicare or any other legally insured provider. Cash up front, the visit must be “Paid in Full”, before you have the privilege of seeing the doctor. No monetary protective limits or caps are placed, you’re at their mercy, paying whatever they demand, while you submit a claim to your Insurance Provider and wait, hoping and praying that they will reimburse you for some of your expenses. Where is the Hippocratic Oath, I guess money and currency comes before their professional honor.

No one attacks the most unscrupulous Shylocks of them all the Insurance Companies. They seem to have a free reign in determining what claims they are going pay or not, with no penalty for their actions. They charge escalated premiums, and aren’t afraid to discriminately raise them, at a moments notice. They have absolutely no remorse to drop you or your family, without due process. Obamacare presently have encouraged these companies to charge more, not less, adversely affecting their customers, placing them further in debt for proper healthcare coverage. Enhanced premiums with constantly decreasing services!

They look for any and all excuses or made-up loopholes not to acknowledge legitimate claims, forcing the customer to submit time consuming appeals, this is not cost effective. They are the most despicable, with everyone turning their backs on these rodents, allowing them to do whatever they want, relying on their compassion and decency. Did you ever know of a rodent displaying or administrating any human qualities? They are in business to make money, at all cost or suffering.

No one mentions the illegal aliens that cross over into our Country with nothing. They have no job. They don’t pay taxes, but are entitled to our healthcare system free of charge, as well as taking advantages of other generous taxpayer entitlements as well. Some come here to solely to use our healthcare facilities, because their own Country’s healthcare is sub-par with no modern day professionals, equipment, procedures or standards. Who will eventually pay their bill, whether in its in our “Present Form” or “Obamacare”, you the taxpayer!

The arrogance of this President, His Administration, the Socialist Marxist Liberal Democrats and The Progressives, authorizing the vicious destruction of Medicare, by robbing from Peter to pay for Paul is an abomination. Remember more than a Half Trillion Dollars will be removed from the Medicare budget to pay for Obamacare. This will coercively compel all those Medicare recipients, to submit to the inferior control of Obamacare, whether they like it or not! Anyone with a half a brain must realize this will adversely affect anyone on Medicare, and the Medicare system?

There is no rhyme or reason to Obamcare, and there was no rhyme or reason to our present day healthcare situation, both reek with the stench of greed, corruption misstatements, mismanagement and abuses unchained. Don’t allow them to blame us for their own self induced faults of using our life and death situations into a money making scheme. The first thing anyone does who is guilty is to spread the blame, taking the spotlight off of them. So we are constantly fed this non-sense, of believing that we are the number one culprit for the high cost of healthcare instead of these gluttonous, voracious maggots, mentioned in this article.

We the people must have a say in our own destiny, especially healthcare, don’t allow them to fool you twice, if they do, shame on you. Always question authority, always ask for a second opinion, and especially don’t blindly trust. We are Americans, and it’s about time we start acting and living as free proud Americans? God Bless America !

William P. Frasca
Copyright 2012

On October 11, The Federalist Society held a panel discussion at The National Press Club on Lilly Ledbetter (who lost her pay discrimination case in the Supreme Court because she failed to comply with a statutory deadline) and the media’s oversimplification of gender issues.  It featured Jennifer Braceras, a columnist and former Commissioner for the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights, Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment at the National Women’s Law Center, Marcia Greenberger, co-President of the National Women’s Law Center, and Sabrina Schaeffer, who serves as the Executive Director for the Independent Women’s Forum.

The discussion, moderated by Curt Levey, President of the Committee for Justice, was more policy based and how it influences our political discourse. Levey asked all four panelists how they felt about Lilly Ledbetter and the Paycheck Fairness Act.  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act expanded the statute of limitations concerning lawsuits related to discriminatory pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act  mandated that employers must detail why they have a discriminatory pay scale.

According to Fatima Graves, a liberal on the panel, it’s a question of fairness.  If employers were able to hide documentation of discriminatory pay, then no new remedies could be enacted to combat this issue.  She feels that this is what resonated with the American people.  After all, Ledbetter was passed on a bipartisan basis in Congress and is supported across party lines publicly.  Sabrina Schaeffer had a different assessment.

While she acknowledges that the Obama administration and liberals feel this is a victory for women, it’s merely a political strategy aimed at attracting voters for coalitions. However, given that 51% of the U.S. population is female, it’s wise, especially for Republicans, not to make any comments or construct policies that are viewed as “anti-women.”  Sadly, some folks, like Todd Akin, don’t seem to comprehend this concept.

Regardless, Schaeffer was adamant that Ledbetter’s expansion of the statute of limitation isn’t a preventative measure to stop pay discrimination.  She also reiterated other pieces of legislation, such as the Equal Pay Act, which has a three year statute of limitations for pay and two year statute for sexual discrimination, that deal more directly with discriminatory pay.

However, she noted how Ledbetter will make costs to employ women, especially to working mothers, making this another episode in the annals of how government regulation makes it more expensive for American enterprise to operate. Additionally, Schaeffer is skeptical of the law’s impact since only forty lawsuits have been filed under Ledbetter proper.

Jennifer Braceras was more forceful in her analysis, and declared that there is no “war on women.”  It’s a “silly” and “absurd” narrative since women are outperforming men in many areas of the economy.  She claimed that Ledbetter is a case about a technicality and when the clock on the statute of limitations starts running.  As for the socioeconomic health of women, she reiterated the notion that the “world is their oyster.”

The “war on women,” according to Ms. Braceras, is a political catchphrase meant to scare young and single women.  Lastly, alluding to the Sandra Fluke apologists within American liberalism, she noted that no one is trying to restrict access to birth control. It’s a question about who should pay for it.

Marcia Greenberger, who also represented the liberal view, prevaricated in her analysis and said that there is ” a war on policies critically important to women.”  She recollected Ledbetter’s story on how she would have never have know about the pay disparity if it weren’t for an anonymous note.  It was forbidden to discuss salaries and compensation at Goodyear.  Now, under The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the statute of limitations begins 180 days after the last discriminatory paycheck.

Greenberger mentions the Family Medical Leave Act, which she says is popular, but limited in its application.  It’s only good for companies with 50 or more employees. She implored that a discussion was desperately needed to analyze the policies and how they effect the day to day lives of these women in question.

Ms. Braceras retorted by saying that it’s how the media frames the issue. And in this case, it’s a deliberate messaging strategy that is pushed by the liberal media and disseminated by their allies within the feminist movement and other left-wing affiliates.

She also noted liberals’ penchant to ignore facts.  She recalled the past Democratic National Convention where Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick praised President Obama for his work in accomplishing equal pay for equal work.  However, such a law has been in place since 1963.  Obama didn’t make that happen.

Concerning the pay gap, which Ms. Schaeffer countered by saying that when you factor in single, urban women – they make 8% more than their male counterparts.  When you include all college educated women, the pay gap shrinks from 77 cents to a man’s dollar earned to 97 cents for women.  Yet, Ms. Graves pointed out that any one of these statistics could be fudged to convey any particular point of view.  In the end, you can “slice and dice” the data all you want – women still experience a pay disparity when compared to their male counterparts.

As the discussion moved from pay disparity to contraception and health care, Mr. Levey asked do we want judges making the distinctions and becoming the ultimate deciders in these areas?  Ms.Graves stated that it’s not from thin air that judges make determinations.  It’s not a judge determining what are appropriate practices for business, but reasons why a business has a pay disparity.  At this point, Ms. Greenberger interjected and noted the disparity within women in the workplace regarding their health care coverage from their employers.

Greenberger noted that married men and single women could get health coverage, with employer paid contraception, but such a policy is denied to married working women since it’s assumed their husbands would provide for them.  She noted the religious connotations in this decision process that centers on the male being the head of the household.

While Greenberger noted the inherent unfairness, Braceras mentioned the HHS mandate, which Greenberger supported, by saying it forced religious institutions to pay for something that went against their doctrinal beliefs.  It’s shameless. If a particular policy bothers you at the workplace, you are within your right to leave that employer.

Schaeffer returned to false narrative of the war on women to show how this wouldn’t have been an issue if the Republican Party didn’t win the women’s vote in 2010. After all, women aren’t a homogeneous voting bloc.  The largest bloc of voters in the female demographic are married women, which McCain won by 4 points in 2008.  However, Obama won singles by a margin of  72% to 27% – which prompted the political left to pour resources into political messaging to solidify that constituency.

Braceras reiterated what pollsters have been saying and that is women will decide the upcoming presidential election. But noted that the war on women messaging strategy would still have been executed by liberals.

Greenberger noted that polls depend on how the questions are asked and noted that a majority of the public feel that contraception should be included in all health care plans.  She then recollected Sandra Fluke’s denial to speak at the House Oversight Committee hearing of contraception.  The reason she was denied is because she’s a law student, not an expert.  Second, she’s a left-wing hack.  For Sandra Fluke, this isn’t her first time to the dance.  Although, Greenberger felt otherwise.

She later testified at the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee about the hardships women face obtaining birth control, including it’s prohibitive costs, which Braceras noted could be easily ascertained at Walmart for $10 a week.

Last night’s Vice Presidential debate did put more pressure on Vice President Biden, who was tasked with delivering the same old progressive talking points about taxes, foreign policy, abortion, and health care – albeit with a little more spiritedness.  However, the pervasive grinning, smiling, and interrupting came off as egregiously arrogant and condescending.  Biden conveyed a “I’m gonna kill that kid” demeanor with his impatience and exuded the same entitled disposition that plagued President Obama in his first debate with Gov. Romney.  You don’t get bonus points for being the incumbent – or at least you shouldn’t.

Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post wrote last night that:

…Biden’s aggressive performance is a sure winner for him (and the president) within the Democratic base. But, it felt to us like he went a little bit overboard and, at times, bordered on bullying Ryan.  Biden’s derisive smiles and laughs while Ryan tried to answer questions weren’t great optics for the vice president and his repeated interruptions won’t make those who think politics should be more civil happy. Biden’s agenda was clear during the debate: he was set on erasing the passive performance of Obama last week. That he did, but in so doing it felt like he went a bit overboard.

However, while Cillizza admitted that the Vice President acted like a ‘tool,’ that commentary was tempered since he also rated Biden’s last fifteen minutes in the debate as a win. Guy Benson cited The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan in his post on Townhall this morning reiterating Biden’s obstreperous demeanor.

Another way to say it is the old man tried to patronize the kid and the kid stood his ground. The old man pushed, and the kid pushed back. Last week Mr. Obama was weirdly passive. Last night Mr. Biden was weirdly aggressive, if that is the right word for someone who grimaces, laughs derisively, interrupts, hectors, rolls his eyes, browbeats and attempts to bully. He meant to dominate, to seem strong and no-nonsense. Sometimes he did—he had his moments. But he was also disrespectful and full of bluster. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy!” he snapped at one point. It was an echo of Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, in 1988. But Mr. Quayle, who had compared himself to Kennedy, had invited the insult. Mr. Ryan had not. It came from nowhere.Did Mr. Biden look good? No, he looked mean and second-rate. He meant to undercut Mr. Ryan, but he undercut himself. His grimaces and laughter were reminiscent of Al Gore’s sighs in 2000—theatrical, off-putting and in the end self-indicting. Mr. Ryan was generally earnest, fluid, somewhat wonky, confident. He occasionally teetered on the edge of glibness and sometimes fell off.

[...]

[Furthermore,] CNN’s Gloria Borger and NBC’s David Gregory both said Biden was condescending.

When you interrupt your opponent 82-96 times throughout the debate, you certainly deserve this criticism.

Paul Ryan, like Romney, had command of the facts that demonstrated how the Obama/Biden ticket had policies that are anathema to American business.  He showed that the Obama administration have no plans to deal with the looming fiscal crisis we face.  For all the left-wing agitation over the Ryan budget, it received more votes in Congress than Obama’s alternative and is empirical evidence that Republicans have a plan.  Obama’s secret weapon to pay down our debt and deficit still centers on raising taxes on the job creating and investing class. As Congressman Ryan said, if these individuals were taxed at 100%, it would only fund government for 98 days.  We would still have a $300 billion dollar deficit.  As many in the conservative movement have noted, increasing taxes on an incrementally shrinking base of  taxable recipients, while not reforming our welfare state, is the flawed logic of leaping a chasm in two bounds.

On taxes, Biden hurled ‘malarkey of his own.  As Human Events’ David Harsanyi wrote on October 12,  Biden “continually swatted away claims that small business would be hit by President Obama’s tax hikes, even though an Internal Revenue Service recently found that Bush-era tax rates would mean around 1 million companies would be hit with new taxes.There aren’t enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending,’ Mr. Ryan said, attacking the central promise of a second term – tax hikes. ‘Watch out middle class, the tax bill is coming to you.”

However, Biden pivoted by invoking the middle class and defended the 47% of Americans ,who don’t pay any federal income taxes, who have been labeled as freeloaders.  Everyone knew this jab was coming, but when Biden said “it shouldn’t be surprising for a guy [Mitt Romney] who says 47% of the American people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives,” he forgets that there is some truth to Romney’s remarks.  American liberalism is centered on destroying responsibility and filling that void with the government.  You saw this when the Obama administration called unemployment benefits and food stamps a form of economic stimulus, instead of viewing it as a temporary solution to keep economically hard hit Americans from becoming destitute.

Concerning health care reform, Harsanyi wrote that “Biden also claimed falsely asserted that the Obama Administration had not raised taxes on the middle class, when in fact there are over a dozen middle class hike in Obamacare alone. Relying on a single left-wing study, Biden continued to make the Obama campaign’s case that Romney’s tax reform plan was mathematically impossible, despite the fact that other studies find that it’s feasible. And Ryan laid out the job numbers in proper perspective – as stagnant.”

On the 15% of Americans living in poverty and the 23 million struggling to find employment, the vice president asserts that the Obama administration will focus on “leveling the playing field.”  Again, showing that American liberalism has radically shifted away from emphasizing equality of opportunity and towards equality of outcome.   In doing so, we must sacrifice more freedom to achieve that goal. This is an aspect progressives omit when they, for example, push for the expansion of social programs, which they feel enhances the public good.  By the way, the Dependency Index has increased 23% under President Obama – which is a whopping 67 million Americans who are sustained by at least one federal program.

On foreign policy, the vice president was again mistaken.  Regarding Syria, the vice president feels that Assad will fall.  However, with Iran flying over Iraqi airspace with impunity with supplies to keep Assad in power – that’s a presumptuous statement.  Assad’s army is still strong and there is a chance he can survive this insurrection, which we should stay out of at all costs.  Although, if the Obama administration wanted to ensure such an outcome, they shouldn’t have pulled out of Iraq.  Iraq doesn’t have the capability to protect its skies since we provided for their air defense.  Yet, we shouldn’t be surprised by Biden’s foreign policy inaccuracies.  He, after all, advocated to partition Iraq into three semi-autonomous countries along racial lines that would be “held together by a central government.”  It was an Iraqi version of the Articles of Confederation and we know how that turned out.

On Benghazi, some are saying Biden has damaged the administration irrevocably.  Instead of saying it was a terrorist attack, Biden decided to throw the State Department and the intelligence community under the bus. Oh – and did I mention that he lied about the need for security. He said last night “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

Well, Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy magazine wrote yesterday that:

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. “In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.”

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department’s reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Pat Buchanan called Romney’s “the finest debate performance” in 52 years “with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan’s demolition of Jimmy Carter in 1980.”

Indeed, when all of CNN and MSNBC – to include Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow – hysterically admit that President Obama got smoked; he got smoked. Bad.

Liberal blogger and Obama sycophant Andrew Sullivan captured the universally shared “progressive” panic as the brutal mismatch came to a close: “How is Obama’s closing statement so f—ing sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.”

For those of us who have long recognized the messianic myth that is Barack Hussein Obama, the debate was especially gratifying.

The world had fallen prey to a cartoonish hoax. This media-crafted Iron Man has proven a mere mortal, a tin man, an international embarrassment.

The jig is up.

In just 90 minutes, Mitt Romney stripped away the Iron Man costume and exposed, naked beneath, a man more closely resembling Robert Downey Jr.

Recall the image, so often seen, of a young Robert, head downcast in shame, standing before the judge to rationalize why, yet again, he’d screwed up magnificently. Last Wednesday was Barack’s turn.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Robert Downey Jr. – I’m glad he turned his life around. But he’s an actor. He reads his lines. He’s not Iron Man. And he’s not qualified to be president.

Neither is Barack Obama.

And so, lost with no teleprompter binky, and, thus, suffering a debate trouncing unparalleled in history, it would seem that the president’s not so good, very bad week couldn’t get worse.

It got worse.

Just two days prior, the U.S. Supreme Court revived hope – long thought dead – that Obamacare, the president’s signature achievement, might yet be ruled unconstitutional. The High Court shocked the legal community by opening its new term with an order giving the Obama Justice Department just 30 days to respond to Liberty Counsel’s petition for rehearing. Liberty Counsel filed the petition on behalf of Liberty University and two private individuals.

An appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act, or AIA, barred the court from addressing the merits in Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, which challenged the individual mandate (Section 1501) and the employer insurance mandate (Section 1513) of Obamacare.

In addition to the constitutional arguments that Congress lacked authority to pass the law, the suit also raised the Free Exercise of religion claim because of the forced taxpayer funding of abortion.

You may recall that the first day of oral argument was dedicated to the AIA, the issue that Liberty University’s case placed before the High Court. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the AIA does not apply to Obamacare. Therefore, Liberty Counsel asked the Court to grant the petition (because Liberty University prevailed on the AIA claim), vacate the Court of Appeals ruling and remand (send back) the case to the Court of Appeals to consider the Free Exercise claim and the employer mandate, neither of which were decided by the High Court.

Long story short: If the Supreme Court ultimately hears the case on appeal – which is highly possible as the claims are unique – and rules that the employer mandate and Free Exercise claims are legit, Obamacare dies on the vine. It’s effectively overturned. It’s like a shiny new Chevy Volt without the exploding battery. It goes nowhere fast and is towed to the junkyard of really, really stupid ideas.

This means, among other things, that people who value human life won’t be made complicit in abortion homicide on the taxpayer dime.

“Obamacare is the biggest funding of abortion in American history,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. “Under the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, Obamacare will, for the first time, require employers and individuals to directly fund abortion.

“This abortion mandate collides with religious freedom and the rights of conscience. I am very pleased with the Court’s decision today,” concluded Staver.

During the debate, Mitt Romney took Obama to task over Obamacare: “I just don’t know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the – at the kitchen table and spent his energy and passion for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the American people. It has killed jobs.”

Obama was left stuttering and stammering – sheepishly defending his grossly unaffordable, wholly unsustainable and wildly unpopular Obamacare monstrosity.

I was left encouraged.

Whether by legislative repeal, or through Liberty Counsel’s ongoing case, freedom-loving America should be confident. This freakish Frankenstein monster will, God willing, be soon laid to rest beneath the cold, clammy earth from which Democrats dug it up.

Obama’s shovel-ready debate performance was the groundbreaking.

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

Romney took Obama to school Wednesday night

We all got a shot of life Wednesday night from Mitt Romney.  I received a lot of flak, and some insults, for my previous post castigating Romney for lacking joie de vivre, but he came out swinging and left the president looking for his teleprompter.  While some posted polls in the comment section to show Romney’s campaign wasn’t in trouble since we’re in a dead heat – we should all be thanking Obama’s poor economic policies for that buffer. Regardless, Romney was prepared for battle, while the president was utterly unprepared and began to ramble towards the end of the debate.

Romney was animated.  He was, as Steve Schmidt put it, “clear, cogent, and concise.”  He also delivered his remarks in a tone we haven’t heard before. It displayed a sense of confidence that is a critical quality for the position Obama currently occupies.  In all, it was polished and presidential.  One could easily see Mitt Romney in the Oval Office with his cool delivery that seemed to make the president very uncomfortable.  However, detractors will say that he’s had plenty of debate preparation concerning the grueling Republican primaries, although I’m not sure how being prepared can be construed as a negative.  After all, the president called his own debate preparation a “drag.”  Even though it was made with facetious overtones, it conveyed a sense of arrogance and unseriousness that has been one of the main criticisms hurled at the president.  He assumed he would get bonus points for being the leader of the free world and he was grossly and ignominiously mistaken after his first bout with Romney.

Concerning Romney, I think it was for the first time that we saw him begin to understand what it means to be a conservative.  The comparing and contrasting between private markets and government-oriented programs within the health care market was a good example.  The notion that states are the “laboratories for democracy” was one of my favorite lines of the night.  However, when the question about the role of government was asked – Romney successfully channeled his inner Madison and reiterated that the role of the state is to”promote and protect the principles” outlined in the constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Furthermore, he stated that our rights come from our creator, not from government.  Our founders, especially Madison, believed that rights preceded government and drafted a constitution to embed those rights so that other may not take them away.  Adhering to that notion is a  ”severely” conservative affirmation.

While the president may have had a brief moment of exuding his presidential attributes with Medicare, he was often dominated by the litany of facts thrown at him by Romney highlighting the economic pain his presidency has inflicted upon the nation.  The right hooks Romney delivered on jobs, the economy, and the crony capitalism connected to green energy rendered Obama’s statement on corporate welfare for oil companies moot.  Furthermore, Obama seemed to sabotage his own efforts to scare seniors with the false narrative that Romney wants to destroy Medicare.  He agreed that Romney’s reforms to our entitlement programs aren’t that much different from his policies.

As a result, the president gave Romney the death stare midway through the debate.  There’s no doubt that the stare, coupled with the puckered up lips, were indicators that Romney got under Obama’s skin.  In an ironic twist, Obama seems to have become John McCain concerning the feelings of indignation towards those who dare to have opposing views on the issues.  For Obama, Romney disagreeing with him isn’t just wrong – it’s somehow reprehensible.

However, there are still some conservative critics, who agree that Romney crushed the president, but ceded policy ground.  Philip Klein of The Washington Examiner posted a buzzkill column on October 3 reiterating the:

…two reasons why for conservatives to keep their exuberance in check. In past elections, it isn’t uncommon for the rusty incumbent to come off lousy in the opening debate. This was the case when Walter Mondale won the first 1984 debate against Ronald Reagan and John Kerry won the first debate against George W. Bush. In both cases, the incumbents recovered in the subsequent debates, and ended up winning the election.

Another reason for caution is that Romney, as part of his efforts to disarm Obama’s criticisms, made a number of policy concessions that could box him in and make it more difficult for him to govern as a limited government conservative if elected. At various times during the debate Romney said that he wasn’t interested in cutting taxes, particularly on the wealthy; that he would cover individuals with pre-existing conditions; that he wouldn’t touch Medicare and Social Security over the next decade and would be willing to give more money to seniors for prescription drugs; and that he’d be open to hiring more teachers. Should he be elected president, all of the major fights – repealing Obamacare, overhauling the tax code and reforming entitlements – will trigger a massive campaign by liberals to portray him as trying to hurt the poor to the benefit of the rich. If he is so willing to concede policy points during the campaign, will he fight for limited government as president?

However, as Joel Pollack wrote on Breitbart, “on health care–which might have been Romney’s weakest issue–Romney argued for the repeal of Obamacare as the best Tea Partier might have done, attacking the board that the law sets up to ration care as a cost control mechanism. The best that Obama could do was remind voters–as if they did not already know–that Romney had passed a health insurance law in Massachusetts. He had to concede one of the best arguments Romney offered–that Obamacare has actually increased the cost of insurance so far.”

Furthermore, if you go to Mitt Romney’s campaign site, coupled with his support for the Ryan budget, you can see that not only will taxes be lowered for everyone – he’ll eliminate the death tax and push for tax reform.  However, the deductions he’ll eliminate has been a rather nebulous subject. Lastly, with an active and vocal Tea Party contingent in Congress – Mitt, if elected, would have to operate as a small government conservative since (a) he owes us and (b) nothing would get done with Democrats and Tea Partiers forming an unintentional coalition to block his agenda.  Democrats obstructing because he’s Mitt Romney and tea partiers obstructing because it doesn’t cut enough spending, reform the welfare state enough, or does enough to pay down the national debt.  Politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows.  Lastly, the reaffirmation to uphold the principles of the constitution is a tacit agreement that Romney would adhere to the Madisonian ideals of limited government.  If he’s elected president and becomes squishy – he should be prepared for a primary challenge, despite the historical ramifications of such an action.

However, while Republicans rejoiced, Democrats must have felt like the world was ending.  It brought on reactions of disbelief and abject anger from MSNBC.  Chris Matthews, Obama’s number one fan, was quite agitated during MSNBC’s post-debate coverage.