Tag Archives: obamacare

Ohio’s Public Employee Union (OPERS) Loses Spouse Coverage under Obamacare

OPERS
Joe Wilson 2009

Joe Wilson 2009

If Ohio’s public employees are concerned about retirement system changes under Obamacare, it seems no one’s talking. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!“ shout-out to Obama from the floor of Congress in 2009 was indeed prophecy. Obama did lie. State of Ohio spouses cannot ‘keep their health insurance because they like it.’ I am one of those spouses.

Lying to America’s elderly about critical services like medical care far exceeds this president’s phony display of self-righteous indignation at Joe Wilson, for outing his lies. Calling out lies is what we expect of leaders. Well, Michelle, I have never been as ashamed of my American government as I am now … of this phony president, his phony policies, his phony Congress, and his phony peddlers.

Apparently the Ohio Public Employee Retirement System (OPERS) is one of those peddlers. Their seminars effectively blanket the effects of Obamacare in shrouds of economic generality, as if We bear some responsibility for this condition. An economic condition which is, in great part, because of Obamacare and is, in all part, because of Obama.

Reportedly Obamacare made it illegal for health plans to disclose all of the health care services that will no longer be covered. Those can’t be shared until October. OPERS instructs us to call our plan provider. OPERS will gradually increase members’ costs for spouse insurance over the next three years, beginning January 2014, until members bear all spouse costs by end of year three. Then their spouses are thrown to the Obamacare exchange wolves.

Spouse Coverage [excerpted] — Beginning in 2016, spouses over the age of 65 and enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B can use the Medicare Connector to select a plan on the individual Medicare market.

But not to worry according to OPERS, they will guide spouses through the even more expensive Obamacare exchanges to see which plan they can afford. Sorry if your conditions aren’t covered or if you can’t afford the plan you need to cover your conditions. That’s just too bad.

OPERS uses a lot of gimmicky words with special, limited meanings and they cloak the bad news in good feeling concepts so you’re still feeling ingratiated when you read about them. MSteyn“Access” does not mean coverage and it does not mean you don’t pay for having “access.” Go to the OPERS web site for more complete information.

Mark Steyn reports that spouses and children losing health insurance are the ultimate “unintended consequence” of Obamacare. Spouses and children are being taken off of employee health plans nationwide. This is said to leave more millions of Americans uninsured than were uninsured before Obamacare.

Employers dropping coverage for thousands of spouses over ObamaCare costs (includes video)

Forbes just released a Medicare/Medicaid study citing Obamacare is estimated to cost American families $7,450. I don’t know about yours, but our young families are doing good to meet survival needs as it is right now. Given our own senior fixed incomes and increasing risks for ailing health, I know we also cannot afford Obamacare. This is the most viciously corrupt transfer of wealth – and imposition of death sentences – as a free people have ever seen.

Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

Let us hope this family hasn’t already spent or borrowed the $22,500 in savings they might have expected over this same period had they taken candidate Obama’s promise at face value. In truth, no well-informed American ever should have believed this absurd promise.

So that’s three more Obama lies Joe Wilson was remiss in pointing out. Where were the other 534 members of this not-so-esteemed Congress, huh Joe? Not to fear for them, those elitists are covered with expensive, lavish, private health plans outside of Obamacare exchanges, at our expense. I suppose that only matters to tax-payers and even some of those are still dizzy from Obama’s phony Liberal do-gooder ride.

The American people have until this Friday, September 27th, to call and email Senators, asking them to defund Obamacare. Congress listens when they receive thousands of calls. Burn up the phone lines. Call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Senator. Tell them you want them to defund Obamacare and you will remember their vote when you vote again.

On Sunday Ted Cruz discussed plans that are necessary in the Senate this week:

 

A retired Constitutional lawyer – who actually read the healthcare bill – warns (excerpted):

This legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.  Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated  If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and  limiting rights…  Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of  both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the  Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for  this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that  sacred oath or affirmation.  If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

Call. Call Senators every day this week. Go to this link for complete telephone listing.

Jabberwonky ObamaCare Edition – September 22nd

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Sunday, September 22nd, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: Everyone’s talking about how the GOP is bound and determined to defund ObamaCare. We’ve all heard about the negative effects of the legislation, and what horrible things are on the horizon if it’s not stopped. How about listening to a couple girls that have a clue from the trenches? Tonight, Bailey Connell (@BailofRights) joins us, so you can hear from a nurse, and your host, a former emergency medical technician. Also, there will undoubtedly be at least a little talk about music! Yes, it is “girls’ night on CDN Radio.”

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

TRIFECTA – Defund ObamaCare? Will GOP Efforts Succeed or Fail?

trifectadefundocare

While the House has passed a short-term budget that also defunds ObamaCare, it’s not likely that the measure will pass in the Senate. So, it’s still worthwhile to explore the options for the GOP. Here, the Trifecta crew talks about the “not-so-nuclear” response being offered by Senator Toomey, and the pros and cons of the current options being pushed by conservatives.

Cleveland Clinic to make drastic cuts in response to Obamacare

obama speech

Blaming the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Northeast Ohio’s largest employer is making severe cuts. Even worse – it’s a major medical institution.

According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, the Cleveland Clinic announced that it is cutting $330 million from its budget.

The cuts will force thousands into early retirement, cause a reduction in economy-stimulating business spending and will cause layoffs.

A Cleveland Clinic spokeswoman says that the cuts are to prepare for increased costs and decreased revenue due to President Obama’s signature health care reform.

Grit and Grace on CDN – September 19th

gritandgraceCDN2

gritandgraceCDN2
When: Thursday, September 19th, 9pm Eastern/6pm Pacific

Where: Grit and Grace on CDN on Blog Talk Radio

What: Please join Jennifer Meadows and Josh Bernstein every Thursday night from 9 -11 pm Eastern for one of the hardest hitting and content rich Conservative talk shows that takes an honest look at the issues affecting our nation. The Grit & Grace Radio Show promises our listeners no talking points, just real solutions.
~ Grit & Grace Radio Show ~ “Talk radio without talking points…”

Tonight: Obamanomics continues to wreak havoc on the Nation as more and more Americans find themselves in poverty. We will discuss the latest numbers. Also, did the House Republicans finally discover their backbone? We will update you on all the latest in the battle to defund Obamacare. At 8:30pm CST John W. Gaissert, former subcommittee member on Intelligence and Terrorism risk assessment as well as Chief of Police from Commerce, Georgia joins us to discuss the Al-Qaeda aligned “Rebels” and the crises in Syria.

After our 9:pm we have another segment of “On the Corner with Joe Newby” who will give us the latest on the Navy Yard DC Shooter as well as a host of other issues.

If you would like to get involved in the conversation, we take callers after the first hour and would love to hear from you! (424)220-1807

The Grit and Grace Show is live every Tuesday and Thursday night from 8-10pm CST on Blogtalkradio.com

“Talk Radio without the Talking Points”

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

The Case for Liberty and an Article V Convention – Part III

US Constitution - We The People

Parts I and II of this US Constitution - We The Peopleseries briefly described what an Article V Convention is, and some compelling reasons for the States to call for one. This missive will propose ideas for numerous amendments to our Constitution, the purpose of which is to restore the principles embodied in the document when it was first ratified.

Founding Principles

The United States of America was intended to be a land where the principles of liberty and justice for all were paramount. What is meant by liberty? Merriam-Webster defines liberty as:

1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

The right of ownership of one’s labor and property is implied in the concept of liberty, as is the concept of personal responsibility. When labor and property are confiscated at the point of a gun, whether by burglar, tax collector, or slave owner, liberty ceases to exist. When it is possible for one group of people to take by force, the fruits of the labor of another simply because the first group says they need it, or an intermediary says so on their behalf, we have returned to indentured servitude. It matters not how well-meaning the intermediary may be. Neither should the intermediary be able to use the threat of confiscation of property or labor to manipulate behavior, yet the current mishmash of federal tax code does just that. Neither Congress nor the Administration will ever voluntarily give up the power to control via the tax code. Yet ultimately, it is the power of the purse that allows the people to control the government, or the government to control the people.

Taxation and Spending

Ultimate control is why the US Constitution gave the power of the purse to “The Peoples House”, the House of Representatives, rather than the house of the States’ Representatives, the Senate.

An additional protection against a tyrannical government was in the area of taxation. Prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, any tax on income had to be of the flat-tax variety, apportioned equally among the states, thereby preventing redistribution and manipulation.

Ideally Federal revenues would be voluntary, giving the people the direct power of the purse. Voluntary contribution, however, would lend itself to abuse by allowing the wealthy to manipulate the government. The closest the country could hope to get to an all voluntary tax would be a tax on consumption, or something akin to the “Fair Tax”.

Consider the following Amendments;

  • Repeal the 16th Amendment.
  • Congress shall not levy any tax on income or property, regardless how derived, nor shall congress impose any tax on estates greater than 5%. Congress may levy a tax on sales, the total of which shall not exceed 15% of the national economy. Such sales tax must be uniform across all products and services except that food necessary for living be exempt. Also the first $500.00 (indexed for inflation) of any single purchase of clothing be exempt, the first $250,000.00 (indexed for inflation) of the purchase of a primary residence or the first $1,500.00 (indexed for inflation) of monthly rent on a primary residence shall be exempt.
  • An amendment requiring a balanced budget. The text of S. J. Resolution 10 from the 112th Congress would do as it requires super majorities in both houses to raise taxes or borrow money and limits expenditures to 18% of GDP.

 

Representation

The original intent for Congress was that one house, The House of Representatives, should represent the people while the other house, The Senate, should be the voice of the State Legislatures. That system worked well for 100 years. It was thought, correctly as it turns out, that for the States to retain their power and sovereignty, their legislatures had to be represented directly in the Federal Government. If not, the Federal System would encroach on the States’ rights and eventually overwhelm them. To safeguard the States, the Constitution required Senators to be elected by the legislatures in each of the several States, thereby dividing power between the State Houses and the people.

To insure the people were properly represented, each member of the House of Representatives was to represent no more than 30,000 voters. By limiting the number of voters a congress person could represent, it was thought that people would have adequate access to their representatives and would be better represented. Today one congress person represents roughly 700,000 people. Is it any wonder they spend all their time chasing campaign contributions?

The campaign season has also extended to the point where it is continual. Politicians who have been in office for decades have built up massive war chests of campaign cash and have entrenched themselves with constituent service to the point where they are very difficult to defeat. Our politicians were meant to be public servants for a limited period of time, and then return to private life.

Consider these possibilities to correct some of the problems;

  • Repeal the 17th Amendment.
  • Limit the terms of Congressional Representatives to four terms for House members and two terms for Senators. Additionally, House members who become Senators, may serve only one term in the Senate.
  • Extend truth in advertising, libel, and slander laws to campaign advertising and speeches outside of congressional sessions.
  • Re-apportion congressional districts and extend the House of Representatives to 870 seats.
  • Except as expressly provided for in the Constitution, Congress shall pass no law which exempts members of Congress or any of their staff from any law.

 
Executive Branch Overreach

Increasingly, the administrative departments of the Executive Branch have been putting in place rules and regulations that have the force of law. The bureaucrats making the rules were not elected nor have they been accountable to anyone, other than the President.

Congress has abdicated its responsibility to legislate, happily passing on this function to the aforementioned agencies. Often these rules have adversely affected large segments of the population, yet the people have been powerless to stop them.

Congress has also abdicated its responsibility with regard to military action. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, not the President. Even the War Powers Act, which many believe to be unconstitutional, requires the President to seek advise and consent from Congress within sixty days of beginning hostilities, yet two years later bombs are continuing to drop in Yemen. The President has yet to seek approval from Congress for that action.

Possible amendments to return power to its rightful place might be;

  • No rule or regulation issued by any Federal Agency and having the force of law shall take effect unless it has been approved by both houses of Congress by up or down vote.
  • Congress shall have the power to repeal any rule or regulation put in place by the Administrative branch by up or down vote in both houses.
  • Excepting the event of a direct attack on the United States or its territories, the President shall not initiate any military action without a Declaration of War, or Letters of Marque and Reprisal issued by Congress. In the event of direct attack, the President must seek and receive such declaration or cease hostilities within ninety days. No funds from the US Treasury shall be used to conduct military operations past ninety days if no declaration or letters exist.

 
Obama Care and the Commerce Clause

The original intent of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution was to make commerce regular between the States, that is, to prevent one State from charging tariffs or duties on the goods of another. Yet this clause has been used repeatedly to justify whittling away at States’ rights. The most glaring case has been The Affordable Care Act. Justice Roberts had to, in effect, re-write the law; calling a penalty a tax to avoid the abuse.

Here is a suggested amendment to end Obama Care;

  • Congress shall pass no law requiring any citizen or entity to purchase any commercial product or service, and any such law in existence at the time of this amendment’s ratification shall become null and void within six months after ratification.

The Supreme Court

Often the Court has taken it upon itself to ignore the original intent of the framers of the Constitution when making its decisions, thereby creating new law where none exists. This has almost always been done by a five to four vote. Matters of such weight should require substantial unanimity among the members of the court.

Therefore consider these amendments;

  • The Supreme court shall consist of twelve members, appointed by the President and ratified by the Senate.
  • Supreme Court members cannot be removed from office except by impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
  • Court members terms shall be limited to fifteen years.
  • All constitutional decisions by the Supreme Court shall require at least a two-thirds majority.

 
States Rights

Prior to the Civil War, the United States was a collection of sovereign States who agreed under the Constitution to do together what could more easily be done collectively. The Constitution was clear in Article I Section 8 what the powers of the Federal Government were to be. All else was left to the States. This intent was emphasized in the 10th Amendment.

Through federal mandates on everything from light bulbs to toilets to school curriculum and lunch requirements, from healthcare to voting to immigration enforcement, the US government has been usurping State sovereignty and dictating policy.

Consider these amendments to return power to the States;

  • The Federal Government must enforce immigration and naturalization law. If the Federal Government fails or refuses to enforce said law, the States have the right to enforce the law in lieu of the Federal Government, and to pass the necessary State laws to carry out said enforcement.
  • The States may require such reasonable proof of citizenship as they deem necessary in order to vote.
  • Any State has the right to peaceably secede from the union upon passage of a resolution by three-fourths vote of the State legislatures, signature of the respective Governor, and ratification by three-fifths vote of the people of the State.
  • No funds shall be used from the Federal Treasury to mandate State behavior as a condition for receipt of said funds.

 
Religious Freedom

Freedom of religion was never meant to be freedom from religion. In fact the First Amendment specifically states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ;”. Yet the court system has prohibited the free exercise of religion in many circumstances and locations, and has all but established Atheism as the National Religion.

The following changes to the First Amendment are offered for consideration;

  • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, regardless of venue, and including the display of religious symbols in the public square and on Federal Property; or abridging the freedom of speech including politically incorrect speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 
Conclusion

The forgoing suggestions are offered for the reader’s consideration. What is important are the ideas expressed. There may well be other amendments worthy of inclusion, and the wording and inclusion of those offered in this article are certainly open for discussion and debate.

The purpose of an Article V Convention, after all, is to debate ideas in order to mold our founding document into a basis of government that works for all of the States in the Union, and their citizens. To do nothing in the current climate is to continue down the road to Totalitarianism at warp speed.

The next installment in this series will discuss the necessity of great diligence in choosing the delegates to an Article V Convention and suggest some possible conferees.

Government Shutdown?…Blame Obama & Reid

sankar govind (CC)

There are two statements one can make with certainty about the current situation inside the beltway. First, truth is a rare commodity. What was promised to be the most transparent administration in American history has proven to, by comparison, make Richard Nixon’s Administration look like Wikileaks. And second, the Republican Party, at its highest level, has a lethal messaging problem. These two truths combine for a moment in time when the United States government is not only susceptible to Progressive despotism, but well down the road to succumbing to it.

Where the transparency and honesty of the Obama Administration is concerned, the examples of dishonesty are many. From using the Internal Revenue Service to cripple their ideological and political opponents to advancing fiction as the cause of the slaughter of four Americans by al Qaeda operative in a quest for an election victory, the list of matters ringing dishonest emanating from this administration is profound:

▪ The IRS scandal
▪ Benghazi cover-up
▪ The NSA surveillance scandal
▪ Spying on the media
▪ Fast & Furious
▪ Being able to keep your current coverage under Obamacare
▪ The Pigford debacle
▪ Sebelius violating the Hatch Act
▪ The use of secret emails by agency heads
▪ Solyndra
▪ Dropping prosecution of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation

The list goes on and on and on, all the while the mainstream media provides cursory coverage at best, even as they provide rhetorical cover for the administration’s misdeeds.

But perhaps the most dishonest misinformation emanating from the Obama White House – and from the Democrat and Progressive controlled Senate, for that matter, is that Republicans want to shut down government. This out-and-out lie was false in 2011 and it is false today.

Since Republicans wrestled control of the US House of Representatives from the talons of Nancy Pelosi and her Progressive coven, the House has satisfied its constitutional obligation to craft and pass a budget, on time, each and every year, including for 2014. Conversely, Democrats and Progressives in the Senate have manufactured gimmicks and excuses to elude their budgetary obligations.

On January 7th, 2013, The Washington Examiner’s Byron York wrote:

“Tuesday marks the 1,350th day since the Senate passed a budget. The law requires Congress to pass a budget every year, on the grounds that Americans deserve to know how the government plans to spend the trillions of taxpayer dollars it collects, along with dollars it borrows at the taxpayers’ expense. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, who last allowed a budget through the Senate in April 2009, has ignored the law since then.

“There’s no mystery why. The budget passed by large Democrat majorities in the first months of the Obama administration had hugely elevated levels of spending in it. By not passing a new spending plan since, Reid has in effect made those levels the new budgetary baseline. Congress has kept the government going with continuing resolutions based on the last budget signed into law.

“While Reid has forbidden action, the House has passed budgets as required. Senate Democrats have been highly critical of those budgets, designed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. But under Reid’s leadership, Democrats have steadfastly refused to come up with a plan of their own.”

Yet the narrative advanced by Reid, his Democrat Senate cronies and the White House is that it is Republicans who exist as “the party of ‘no’” in the US Congress. The facts, as they present, prove otherwise.

Which leads us to the current misinformation spin being advanced by the Progressives in Washington, DC: The Republicans want to shut down government over Obamacare. Truth be told, even the staunchest TEA Partier in the House and/or Senate has gone on record as not wanting to shut down government.

Article I, Sections 7, 8 and 9, respectively, of the United States Constitution states mandates that the “power of the purse” resides solely with the US House of Representatives:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”

“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

A plan being advanced by the fiscally responsible in the US House proposes to fully fund the US federal government, devoid of any funding for the notorious and ill-crafted Affordable Care Act. The facts surrounding the proposal are thus:

▪ Government funding through the Continuing Resolution will expire on September 30th.

▪ The House should pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the entire federal government, except for Obamacare. To do so, the Continuing Resolution should include the Defund Obamacare Act (HR2682/S1292) to explicitly prohibit mandatory and discretionary Obamacare spending.

▪ If Republicans stand together, with 218 votes in the House and 41 in the Senate, we can win. House Republicans should send the Senate a Continuing Resolution that fully funds the government without funding Obamacare, and Senate Republicans should ensure that no Continuing Resolution providing Obamacare funding is signed into law.

▪ If Republicans do this, President Obama and Harry Reid will falsely accuse Republicans of threatening a government shutdown. But only they control whether to shut down the government just to implement their failed law.

To date, more than 60 House Republicans and 14 Senate Republicans have joined in this effort. The likes of Richard Shelby (R-AL), John McCain (R-AZ), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Roy Blount (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Orin Hatch (R-UT) have come out against the measure for what can only be construed as purely political reasons.

Given that the Progressives of the Obama White House and the Reid Senate have no issue with crafting falsehoods to advance their political power, Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and fiscally conservative Democrats should admit this inevitability. Whether fiscally responsible Republicans fund government devoid of Obamacare or not, Progressives and Democrats – including their sycophants in the mainstream media – are going to blame the GOP for any and all push back on the budget, the debt ceiling and the implementation of Obamacare, no matter what Republicans do.

This makes it all the more frustrating, if not infuriating, that Republicans at the national level – both elected and not – are miserable at messaging. In the last decades Republicans have shown not only a weakness in being able to message; to convey simple cognitive thoughts, to the American people, they have displayed a complete inability to craft and take control of “the narrative,” pre-emptively.

And while “establishment Republicans” (many of whom are Progressive elitists in their own right) blame their inability to communicate to the American people on a “facture within the party,” this avoids the stark truth that the national Republican party hasn’t had a coherent message or employed a potent counter-measure to the Progressive message since the days of Ronald Reagan.

(A note about the “facture within the party: It is more a confrontation between moderate Republicans who have allowed the party to be “nudged” to the ideological Left continuously and without reciprocation during their tenure, and those loyal to the party’s charter and tenets circa 1856; those identified as the TEA Party faction of the Republican Party; those advancing the “Defund Obamacare” movement in Congress. To wit, establishment Republicans didn’t want Ronald Reagan as their nominee either. He would have been considered a TEA Partier had the movement existed in his day.)

That said, the only thing keeping the Defund Obamacare initiative from saving the country from economic devastation and a nation devoid of individual rights is intestinal fortitude; courage and conviction.

On August 21st, 2013, a gunman, armed with an AK-47 and over 500 rounds of ammunition, entered a Georgia elementary school. Michael Brandon Hill, a 20-year-old man with a history of mental health issues, proceeded to take the school bookkeeper, Antoinette Tuff, hostage, in what could have been yet another senseless tragedy; another murderous rampage. Instead, the situation resolved in Mr. Hill being taken into custody unharmed, the children of the school safe and sound, all because Ms. Tuff had the courage to try to do the right thing. Ms. Tuff talked the would-be gunman into surrendering and seeking medical attention. Because of Ms. Tuff’s courage, because of her willingness to put the good of the children before her own self-preservation, everyone involved in the incident lives to see another day: Hill gets the help he needs and the children live to embrace their futures.

That the “establishment Republicans” on Capitol Hill would display the same courage as Ms. Tuff when it comes to doing the right thing; when it comes to making a decision to take a stand; when it comes to placing the good of the people about political self-preservation. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuffs on Capitol Hill. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuff’s in the Republican Party.

But there was a time when this was not the case.

Dispensing with the ‘It’s the Law’ Rhetoric

Over the past few months, Progressives and Democrats who favor the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) – both elected and not – have insisted that the new and expanding entitlement will go forward as planned because, after all, it is “the law of the land.” When I ponder this statement I find myself less inclined to laugh and more inclined to succumb to sadness. That a faction that holds the Constitution in such disregard would so disingenuously foist the hypocrisy of this statement in defense of what is arguably an unconstitutional law, defies humor.

A cursory recollection of how this horrific, economy-killing piece of legislation came to be, not only illustrates a fundamental transgression of the spirit of American government, it shows how the Progressive movement executes an “ends justifies the means” political game plan. Because Progressives believe that the United States should provide socialized healthcare to every living being existing legally in the United States (and some who do not), they purposefully circumvented the legislative process, crafting the legislation with special interest groups – including labor unions, Progressive think tank operatives and foreign aligned special interest groups, behind closed doors and excluding members of the minority party. They then moved the legislation forward – at times threatening to “deem it passed” – along party lines, ignoring the protests of the minority party and howls of discontent from the American citizenry, and into law.

Today, as Republicans in the US House, which has the constitutionally mandated power of the purse, threaten to exclude any aspect of Obamacare from the funding of government operations – which is their constitutional right to do, Progressives and toady Democrats protest that the ACA is “the law of the land.” The proclamation would have even the slightest bit of weight if these same hypocrites always acquiesced to “the law of the land.” The fact is that they transgress the “law of the land” as a matter of policy; to advance an agenda that is often times anathema to the American system of government and the rule of law.

One can look back to the first Obama Administration’s abdication of the rule of law when newly installed Attorney General Eric Holder approved of political appointees at the Justice Department quashing the prosecution of New Black Panther Party members who executed one of the most egregious instances of voter intimidation in modern history. The “law of the land” mandated that the DoJ prosecute these constitutional transgressors to “the fullest extent” of the law. If “the law of the land” was so precious to these Obama-ite Progressives and Democrats, they would have been exploring ways to include charges of racial discrimination (as the perpetrators were Black and targeting White voters) and hate crimes. But, “the law of the land” wasn’t so important as to be followed in this instance.

One could look into the non-enforcement of immigration laws by the Obama Administration to evidence their selective support of “the law of the land.” For the entire tenure of Mr. Obama’s presidency we have witnessed border patrol members and their union representatives catalog a litany of directives emanating from DHS obfuscating efforts to secure our nation’s borders and hold to justice those who have broken our laws to exist here. Yet, in a post-911 world, when we hold proof-positive in our hands that Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda are working with Mexican and South American drug cartels, the “law of the land” isn’t so important to the Progressives and their sycophant Democrats so as to be honored.

The several Congressional investigations into operational and political malfeasance executed under the Obama Administration provide ample evidence that the Executive Branch Progressives have little use for “the law of the land” when it does not suit their need or the advancement of their ideological, globalist or social justice agendas. The US Constitution gives the power of oversight – including subpoena powers – to Congress. Yet today the Obama Administration routinely obstructs congressional investigators, usurping “the law of the land”:

▪ Fast & Furious saw the Holder Justice Department illegally facilitating the movement of banned weapons across the Mexican border. And even in the face of the deaths of US Border Patrol Agents, the Obama Administration – to this day – thwarts efforts to fully investigate the program.

▪ The politically motivated use of the Internal Revenue Service to target what can only be described as opposition groups, i.e. TEA Party, Conservative and Libertarian advocacy groups, stands as one of the more serious misuses of a federal agency to affect politics in the history of the country. In fact, it was the second count in the impeachment indictment leveled against former-Pres. Richard Nixon. Yet, the Obama Administration shows little interest in assisting congressional investigators in their pursuit of protecting the American citizenry from their own government’s unlawful actions. (Note to Mr. Obama…President Nixon at least had the nobility to resign).

▪ The expansion – not just the continuation – of the NSA domestic surveillance program arguably usurps the Fourth Amendment protections provided the citizenry, but under the guise of protecting the country, even some members of Congress who have Top Secret clearances are kept in the dark on the program by members of the Obama Administration.

▪ And as four brave Americans – Amb. Christopher Stevens, Ty Woods, Sean Smith & Glen Doherty – lay cold in their graves, exclusively because Mr. Obama and his Progressive crew couldn’t be exposed for their putting politics ahead of protecting American assets overseas; American soil in the form of Embassy grounds, the “most transparent” administration in American history hides behind anything that will give them cover so as not to act in the spirit of “the law of the land”; so as not to afford the justice “the law of the land” is owed those four dead Americans (Note to former-Secretary of State and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Yes, it does matter, to every American but the Progressive elected class, evidently).

But getting back to Obamacare being “the law of the land,” and the fact that these Progressive ideologues intend to inflict this economy-killing, divisive, wealth-redistributing program onto the American people, regardless of the fact that it has never – never – been popular with over half of the nation, and that it now falls well short of providing health insurance to “every American,” I have two questions:

1) If “the law of the land” is so very important to follow, then how is it that these same people ignore the fact that “the law of the land” allows the House of Representatives to refuse to fund the entitlement program?

2) If the “law of the land” is so sacrosanct then how can these Progressive elitist oligarchs decry any part of the US Constitution – the literal “law of the land” – as malleable; as subject to dictates of the day?

The truth be told, the only time “the law of the land” means anything to Progressives is when it serves their purpose. In any other case it is an edict to be scorned, rebuked, castigated and/or ignored. That Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the White House Communications Office and President Obama himself shamelessly hide behind the “It’s the law of the land” declaration in their defense of the legitimate House effort to save the country from this legislative mistake would be laughable if it weren’t so deadly serious.

So, let’s dispense with this rhetoric, shall we?

“I inhaled”… Apparently, He Never Stopped!

YesINHALE

In 2006, Senator Obama declared that he had “inhaled, that was the point.” In a moment of total unadulterated truth the now-president admitted to doing something illegal. But none the less he told the truth and admitted to it. Something, it seems, he has not been able to do for at least 5 years now.

The president said this past week in several “campaign-like” speeches that Washington has taken its eye off the ball. They are obsessed with phony scandals! Did he really say that? Phony scandals?

Now look, we can have two sides of the aisle. We can have different viewpoints on what went down. But you can’t have different facts on the same issue. I have to believe my friends on the left haven’t chugged so much Kool-Aid or inhaled so much of the funny weed, that they won’t admit the truth.

Which “phony scandal” is he referring to? Benghazi? The one where several military brass have been moved or shifted around and witnesses to the event aren’t allowed to speak? Where they have had over a year to produce reports on what took place and have received basically nothing?

Or is it the “phony scandal” involving the IRS where two rogue agents out of Cincinnati decided, “on their own,” to push back on a “few” conservative groups? Then, as the situation heats up, the two rogue agents come forward refusing to be thrown under the bus and divulge that the direction actually came from Washington. Wasn’t there a memo encouraging agents to be on the lookout for groups with names using words like “tea party”, “patriot”, or “9/12” that criticize how the country is being run? If that’s not a scandal then it must be just standard operating procedure for you Mr. President.

Or is it the “Operation Fast and Furious” scandal, an ATF program intended to track weapons bought in the U.S. and “walked” into Mexico? Unfortunately, the ATF lost track of hundreds of firearms, some of which were used to kill a U.S. Border agent and God knows how many Mexican citizens. And again, this “phony scandal” was back in the news on July 5th when the Los Angeles Times reported that “A high-powered rifle from Fast and Furious was used to kill a Mexican police chief in the state of Jalisco earlier this year, according to internal Department of Justice records.” To stop further investigation of the program, Obama issued an executive order! Why? If it’s a phony scandal then nothing would be found Mr. President.

Or is it Obamacare? Is it a scandal when the president says, “Nothing will change for you and it won’t cost you one dime more or add one dime to the deficit” but there’s no shred of truth in it? The GAO now says it will cost the average family almost $2000 a year more in health care costs. Additionally, most companies report they will be canceling their insurance carrier’s policies and replacing with government policies, moving us closer to that single payer system the Democrats want so badly! And if you think it won’t add one dime to the deficit… really?

Then there are the not-so-well-known “phony scandals”, like the green energy mess. This administration has made billions in green energy loans and grants, only to watch the money and jobs go overseas. For example: The manufacturer (owned by a Chinese company) that was given over $360 million to open a plant in the U.S. to make the battery for the Chevy Volt closed down without producing one battery for use. Why? Partly due to regulations and partly because it was simply cheaper to produce and import from overseas.

No one with an IQ above a single digit can say that there is not some semblance of truth in each of these “phony scandals”. This president and his staff have spit in the eye of our founding fathers, disregarding many of the truths that made this a great nation, all the while sweeping the truth under the rug and attempting to convince the American public that what they are doing is what’s best for all of us.

Mr. President, it’s time to exhale, allow the fog to lift, and get this country back on track to being the strongest nation in the world. Richard Nixon crimes were “penny larceny” compared to the theft you have perpetrated on this country.

Oh, and once, just once, I would love to hear you say that you love this country and are proud of its accomplishments around the globe.

From a very, very, very concerned citizen.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »