Does Obama Care Violate the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

In the three years that President Barack Obama has held office, he and his minions have done a great job of trampling the Constitution of the United States. He has consolidated much power in a few executive offices, bypassing and hamstringing Congress; he has given carte blanche to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate pretty much every facet of our lives (pollutants released, vehicle MPG, light bulbs, etc.); passed a health care bill that many traditional Constitution scholars consider illegal; and has usurped immigration policy with little to no consent of Congress.

Up to this point, he and his gang of left-wing ideologues have pretty much left religion alone. Some of the more far-left have nibbled at the edges (Gay Marriage), but basic freedoms have been left untouched.

No longer is this the case.

El Presidente Obama

Ran across an interesting article on whether this election could be our last if President Obama should win a second term. Please read the article and then read my post. I also recommend you bookmark this site.

Over the past three years as I have watched President Obama with an obviously critical eye, a nagging feeling has been scratching at the back of my mind.

Would President Obama either try to make the 2012 elections null and void if he lost or, if he won, would he takes steps to ensure that he never had to step down, ala FDR (his hero BTW)?

President for Life?

Before you all start sending me tinfoil for my conspiracy hat, please hear me out.

Calls for Kagan, Thomas to Recuse

In an earlier post regarding the SCOTUS finally placing Obama Care on the docket, I mentioned there are two justices that should consider recusing themselves from this debate as they had a hand in shaping the bill. I must back-track slightly. Apparently, Justice Sotomayer was really not a part of the debate. I think she might have had a ruling at some point but I can’t seem to locate it. But that alone should not disqualify her as most of the Justices sitting on the SCOTUS have ruled, in lower courts, on matters that have come before the Supreme Court.

Of course, there is a call from the left that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from the arguments because his wife was involved with a lobbying group that is opposed to Obama Care and later started her own lobbying firm. Apparently, the efforts began early this year when it looked likely that the bill was headed to the SCOTUS.

Seventy-four House Democrats, led by New York Rep. Anthony Weiner (pre Wiener-Gate), sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas Wednesday (9 Feb, 2011) calling him to sit out deliberations on the Affordable Care Act because of his wife’s ties to a lobbying group that opposes the health care law.

“The appearance of a c conflict of interests merits recusal under federal law,” the letter said. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of the healthcare reform is blurred.” (Source: ABC News)

Of course, this letter did not request that Justice Kegan recuse herself from the hearings even though it had been a point of questioning during her confirmation hearings. If they had really wanted to send a statement to Justice Thomas the letter could have mentioned that Justice Ginsburg has also been involved with cases where her husband has had a financial stake and, to their disappointment, she didn’t step aside.

As for the monetary gain, I do think this might be worth exploring, but not as much as the stake that Justice Kagan might have with the bill. As evidenced by the recently released e-mails, Justice Kagan was a huge supporter of the bill. “I hear they have the votes Larry!! Simply amazing.” Based on those simple words in an email she has already clearly played her hand. Of course she won’t set aside, but maybe she doesn’t need to attend the arguments since she has already clearly stated her position. Maybe there will be a softball game.

If you think she'll step aside don’t hold your breath, you’ll turn blue.

SCOTUS To Review Obama Care

Not sure if this is good or bad news, but the SCOTUS has decided to rule on Obama Care in 2012.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear challenges to President Barack Obama’s health care reform law – but it’s not all clear that the court will decide anything soon.

Although the court set the stage for an epic, five-and-a-half-hour oral argument in the midst of the 2012 presidential race, it also signaled that it could punt a decision on the individual mandate until 2014. In accepting the challenges to the law, the court said it would devote an hour of the argument to the effect of the Anti-Injunction Act – a law that, in the view of some courts, could prohibit a ruling on the individual mandate until the mandate goes into effect in 2014. (Source: Politico)

While on one hand I really look forward to getting a ruling on this bill that is most likely unconstitutional, I have concerns. Two members of the Court should most likely recues themselves as Justices Sotomayor and Kagan both had a hand in engineering the bill. While those two Obama appointees didn’t really shift the balance of the court, those they replaced didn’t have a dog in the Health Care fight and might have actually ruled on the side of the bill being unconstitutional.

Of course, the biggest concern is Justice Kennedy. He is considered more on the conservative side of the court, but has thrown an occasional curveball. Essentially, he is the swing vote.

As Obama’s signature piece of legislation for President Obama, popular opinion says the SCOTUS’s decision could make or break his run for a second term. I have a slightly different view. If the court rules against Obama, then I think we can put a fork in his campaign and call it done (as in over). If the court rules in his favor, I really don’t think, as some believe, that it will clear the path for his second term. Personally, I think there is better than good chance that if the court rules in his favor, it will cause a significant ground swell that will really turn the tide against his reelection. The Health Care bill is already quite unpopular as evidenced by the pounding democrats took in 2010 and if the individual mandate is ruled constitutional, I really do think Obama will be even more Jimmy Carteresque than he is now.

But I could be wrong. Obama might still have some of that magic he had in 2008 when he overtook the presumed nominee, Hilary Clinton, then pounding John McCain in the election. The guy does have a way with words, even if those words are written for him and projected on a tele-prompter. Plus he has something many of the Republican nominees don’t have, and that is an ability to energize his base. If the 2012 turnout is lackluster, that energy could overcome a lot.

If you one of the many who wants to see Obama gone in 2012, please make sure that you get your butt to the polls, even if the nominee is (yuck) Romney.

Obama Care Dead -- Round One

Along with the “must purchase insurance” mandate, the fiscal viability has always been at the core of opposition for those who think the Health Care law was seriously flawed. No matter how often book-people looked at the costs and the expected benefits paid, the numbers just didn’t balance the way Obama and his crew promised.

All one had to do, even if they weren’t an accountant or bean-counter, was look at two central themes of this law. First one was the no disqualification due to a pre-existing condition. While trying to get everyone covered and to reduce the financial burden of health care, especially care needed for things like cancer and other horrific diseases, was admirable, there was no way it could be sustained, especially since insurance companies couldn’t charge those folks more than healthy people.

The other financial burden of the health care law was a little more difficult to ascertain. The Community Living Assistance Services (CLASS) was going to be voluntary insurance plan that would pay a “reasonable” daily cash benefit for anyone who became disabled. The problem was since the program was voluntary (unlike regular insurance under Obama Care) and was not subject to denial due to health reasons. There was a significant question whether or not it could be sustained and not become a burden on the taxpayer.

Well, it looks like it was going to be a burden;

But a central design flaw dogged CLASS. Unless large numbers of healthy people willingly sign up during their working years, soaring premiums driven by the needs of disabled beneficiaries would destabilize it, eventually requiring a taxpayer bailout.

After months of insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally acknowledged Friday she doesn’t see how.

“Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time,” Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.

The law required the administration to certify that CLASS would remain financially solvent for 75 years before it could be put into place. (Source: AP News)

I will admit to a little amazement that someone from the spend-at-all-costs Obama Administration would actually admit that their “dear leader” might actually be wrong. I am also amazed that they are willing to throw a portion of Obama Care under the bus for something as small as not being able to pay for it. Heck, what’s another couple hundred billion dollars slung around the necks of the American taxpayer.

Oh, and one more thing: transparency, whodda thunk it?

Obama Still Pushing Jobs Bill

Tonight, President Obama held a press conference in which he once again pushed his jobs bill which he introduced nearly three weeks ago. His $447 billion jobs bill would supposedly reduce payroll taxes, increase spending on schools and start on infrastructure projects. This would all be funded by raising taxes on “the rich.” While the bill has languished on The Hill, there really still aren’t any concrete ideas within the bill, other than the 5.5% tax increase on “the rich.”

Watching the presser I was amazed at just how feisty he has become over this bill, almost daring the Republican to not pass the bill. He urged Congress to pass the bill or “be ready to get run out of town” by voters.

I really do think he is missing the mood of the country. In the past three years, he and his Congress (2008-2010) passed spending programs in excess of $2.5 trillion. I think people are tired of the spending.

Do We Want A British Style Health Care System?

Is this the future of our medical system? Some in the Obama administration are on record as being in favor, or admiring of, the British health care system, the system that brought about the fiasco linked above.

Obama Care to SCOTUS

In a move that was probably not unexpected in some quarters, the Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to review the Affordable Health Care law (Obama Care).

President Obama is taking a sizable risk asking the SCOTUS, through the DOJ, to review the decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal. In that decision the 11th ruled the “must purchase insurance” individual mandate is unconstitutional. Obama’s risk comes because he is asking the SCOTUS to rule on his one and only piece of legislation of any significance. If the SCOTUS rules that the mandate is constitutional, then Obama can rack that up a big win and campaign on how he is allowing even more people to suckle at the teat of government. If he loses, he runs the risk of his one landmark piece of legislation being rendered moot. This would more than likely end any serious run for a second term (we can only hope).

Stephanie Cutter, Deputy Senior Advisor the President Obama, posted this on her White House blog:

Just as challenges to the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act all failed, challenges to health reform are failing as well. The Administration has already prevailed in cases heard in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the FourthCircuit Court of Appeals. (Source: White House)

Well, why don’t we take a very quick gander at these rulings they feel are precedent. First of all, none of these laws and subsequent judgments were laws that dictated inactivity. In essence, the individual mandate requires people to participate, i.e. purchase insurance. This is the first time in our history anyone has actually required someone purchase something. While the White House points out the Social Security Act passed all legal challenges, remember that it passed through a SCOTUS that was packed with FDR appointees. You think those judges were going to go against a president that appointed them? In the case of the Civil Rights and Voting Acts, these did not require people to move from inaction to action. It required a change in action (the right to vote in federal elections and the stopping legalized discrimination). Totally different ball game.

The bottom line here is that the individual mandate requires people to purchase something. It is no different if the federal government said we had to buy a GM car. The Commerce Clause of the 10th Amendment prevents the government from dictating our purchase choices.

Obama for the Middle Class? Not So Much

President Obama and the democrats have always put out the narrative that they are the party of the working man, or middle class while denigrating Republicans as only for the rich. I must say that I do take exception to that kind of talk, especially when that sentiment is not supported in anyway except for the rhetoric.

Let’s take a look at a few “for instances” and see what we can come up with.

Republicans only care about the rich. The other day Rep Henry Waxman said that Jews are starting to move over to the Republicans, not because of Obama’s (and the progressives) fierce opposition to Israel’s right to exist and defend herself, but because they want to protect their wealth. See, Waxman thinks that Republicans are so protective of wealth that they will bury all other classes.

As I was reading that line, I couldn’t help but think that some of the richest men in this country are Obama supporters. Warren Buffet, of Berkshire-Hathaway, has towed the democrat line when it comes to taxes. He has said many times over that he supports an increase in taxes on the wealthy. If that isn’t a democrat platform, I don’t know what is. Steve Jobs, basically the founder of Apple, has many times expressed his support of Obama and his policies. Same thing with Bill Gates. Heck, Gates’ dad was the most visible supporter of an income tax on the wealth her in Washington State.

Obama's Job Speech

Been watching the jobs speech by President Obama and there are a few things he said that stood out to me.

“…loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded…” Does anyone think that maybe it was the workers who have lost their loyalty? Obama makes it seems as if this was a one-way street. I don’t see it that way. It goes both ways. When a worker thinks the job the company provides to them belongs to them (the individual), then loyalty begins to erode. When a worker show more loyalty to the union rather than the company that hired and provided them the job, then that loyalty has eroded. If I were a business owner, I too would feel I could do better overseas or just plain shuttering the doors.

His American Jobs Act is a boon-doggle from the word go. He said the Act would be paid for, but that was also said about the health care act and that has proven to be false, so I take this with a grain of salt. But his Act further proves that he actually has no idea how American businesses work. In the Act is a provision to give a $4,000 tax cut to any business who hires someone who has been unemployed and searching for a job for at least six months. Does he not understand that for an employer to hire someone it take WAY more than $4,000. On average, it takes about $60,000 to hire a worker who will make a little less than $40,000. That $4K is small potatoes.

“…we can restore the fairness…that has defined us from the beginning…” To someone like Obama and his supporters, fairness is just another is just another word for income redistribution. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Which segues very nicely with this little gem: “…should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires or should we put teachers back to work…?”  A few moments later he said this wasn’t class warfare. BS! He actually went about comparing those who makes tons of money living in gated communities with teachers, most likely a person who has had an impact on your life. If this wasn’t class warfare all dressed up for the dance, I don’t know what is. Plus he kind of left out the little nugget that he thinks those who make more than $250,000 are in the millionaire category. He wants to tax them right along with all these “rich people”.

I’d write more, but I can only listen to the guy for so long before I start to bang my head against a wall. And it now hurts. Have a great day and I’ll catch up with you tomorrow night.

An Obama Care Win

A court stacked with Clinton and Obama appointees has ruled that the suit against Obama care cannot proceed forward. The Virginia 4th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that because the laws governing the mandate to purchase insurance had yet to take effect, the suit basically had no grounds.

This effectively ends the suits brought on by the state of Virginia and Liberty University.

Free Birth Control for Everyone

Not sure if you guys have seen this, but the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has dictated that insurance companies must provide birth control to women free of charge. That means zero out-of-pocket dollars. A woman who wishes to be on birth control will not be required to pony up a co-pay.

In a column at The Daily Beast, writer Amanda Marcotte can’t seem to understand why those with conservative ideals would reject this. She goes on, blathering about reduced costs as pregnancies are supposedly reduced and all that. I think she either misses the point or intentionally has her head buried in the sand. I will agree there is a morality issue here but that is not part of the argument from the point of view from most on the right. It has to do with money and the federal government’s lack of it and it also has to do with the feds sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong.

SIDENOTE: Bill O’Reilly can be a knucklehead at times.

I really have no issues with women obtaining birth control in any form. I am also not so much a prude as to say that pre-marital sex is a bad thing and that it can or should be controlled. This is a personal choice. I do counsel my boys on the responsibilities of sex before marriage and do tell them the wise decision is to wait at least to a point where you are able to either get married (don’t support “shotgun” weddings) or at the very least, provide for the child. And I always counsel them that until they are married, birth control should be at the forefront of their minds. The responsibility lies with both, not just the woman.

Obama Care Getting More Expensive Everyday

The cost of Obama care has just gone up. Of course, no one really has any idea just how expensive Obama care will be eventually. Estimates are north of one trillion, some well north. This health care is supposed to be fairly inclusive as well as expensive for the American taxpayer.

Guess what, it is about to get even more expensive. The Institute of Medicine is suggesting that contraception and some other woman’s health care be considered preventative and must be covered by insurance. If you are a single 25-year old male, you are going to be required to pay for this through higher insurance premiums. A one-sized fits all approach.

Obama Stretches The Truth

This might qualify as a bit of old news.  However, if you get most of your news from the main stream media, you might not have heard about it.  While Barack Obama was campaigning for president, he often told a story about how his mother had to fight with insurance companies while being treated for cancer.

Turns out President Obama might have been stretching the truth for dramatic effect. It is true that his mother had cancer, and it is true that she had to deal with insurance companies. There were forms to file, and justifications that had to be delivered on the insurance claims. But Obama made it seem like she was without insurance and was a close to destitute as one can get.

Not quite. Obama’s mother did have employer-provided insurance and it covered most of what you would expect insurance to cover. Like the rest of us, she had to cover deductibles and other the usual “stuff”. But to claim that she was without insurance due to the big, bad, heartless insurance companies was nothing more than a story told to get folks believing a universal health care plan was needed. What she was not covered was disability, which her insurance company deemed as preexisting and not coverable under the policy she was given through her employer.

Her situation did stink as she had to cover her living expenses while essential dying from cancer. But for a presidential candidate to make it seem her health coverage was lacking was a fabrication of the first order. And it wasn’t the last time Obama would use this tactic to scare people. He has done it before.

Court Favors Obama Care

To me, this decision is just dang scary. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the most controversial part of Obama, the mandate that basically forces people to purchase health care, as constitutional.

What makes this so worrisome for me is the now the door is open to a completely repressive government telling you what you can and cannot do. Congress could conceivably use the Commerce Clause to mandate anything they wish. Even going as far as overturning other amendments. You want to purchase a gun? No, sorry, you already have one. You want to purchase a bag of M&Ms? Don’t think so because you had a candy bar last week. You want to drive your car to visit your parents? Nope, we, the federal government, deem it is better that you ride the train or bus.

Loophole to Add to Costs of Obama Care

During the “debate” over Obama care Nancy Pelosi infamously said “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” Never have truer words been spoken. OK, that is an exaggeration. Lots of people have said truer things, but I don’t think anyone has said anything quite so stupid while at the same time being so amazingly prophetic.

Well, it looks like now that the bill has been passed, we are finding out more and more about what an absolute disaster this bill is going to be. It seems that a loophole would allow middle-class families to receive a provision of Obama care for free.

For how much longer will people in the lower income bracket going to continue this president? His policies continue to be anti-middle class. His health care bill is going to force many people into the government run health care system at a higher cost than they are paying now. If they don’t wind up on the government rolls, then private insurance will go up as they will be forced to cover procedures not everyone needs. Several companies are already on record as stating they are going to drop employer sponsored health care coverage. This will force those employees into Obama Care (which I think is the progressive’s plan all along).

During the campaign he famously said that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” His Cap and Trade program was designed to force companies to retro-fit their natural gas and coal fired electricity, which would increase generating cost, which would have to passed along to the consumers. Fortunately, the majority in the Senate listened to their constituency, and the bill died a slow death. Well, leave to dictator Obama. Rather than following the constitutionally mandated way of controlling the American people, he decided to use the EPA and act unilaterally. The EPA installed regulations on gas and coal burning plants will begin to take effect over the next few years and will drive up electricity costs an estimated 40-60 percent.

Read the full story over a Weasel Zipper. (h/t: Doug at Director Blue)

Obama Care Continues to Be Not So Good

Michelle Malkin has a very good roundup of the impact that Obama care is going to have, and is already having, on us regular Joes. Make sure you click on the links, since this gives you more details than she has on her site. This is good information for you to have during those conversations with Obamites who insist Obama care is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

AARPs Corrupt Ties to Washington DC

If you are over 50 and are either a member or contemplating a membership with AARP, then this is a must read article. The level of corruption and downright dishonestly outlined in by Chuck Roger is quite stunning. I recently turned 50 so I am eligible for AARP membership but unless there no alternatives, I have no plans on joining this corrupt enterprise that walked hand in hand with Obama and Pelosi in getting Obama care passed.

AARP was recently awarded a waiver from provisions of Obama care. One of the mandates of the mandates of Obama care was that insurance companies had to provide justification for premium increases. AARP is now exempt from this requirement. Essentially, this allows AARP to raise insurance rates as they see fit rather than through a government appointed panel.

The article goes on to point out the cherry picked data used for studies of prescription drug costs and the outright lies when presenting this and other data.

The longer we go with this current administration the more it becomes apparent that Chicago style kickbacks and back scratching are more often the rule rather than the exception.

Favoritism, Nah it Can’t Be

Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner has a great take on the possible corruption that is part and parcel of the Obama administration. He does an admirable job of pointing out how democrat supporters are receiving special favors, like the unions be granted waivers from provisions of Obama care. In another example he shows that some non-profit organizations are being targeted by the IRS, which happen to have Republican moral and monetary support.