Thursday, June 28, 2012

Why Employers Will Dump Health Insurance


Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | June 28, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: I'm blue in the face saying this, too. So for those of you who have heard it and understand it, please indulge me. If you're a small business, if you are a corporation, a major corporation... Let me put it a different way. If you are an employee of a small business or big company, and you have your health insurance via your employment. The president went out there today and said (paraphrased), "Nothing's changed. You get to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you get to keep it."

No, and here's why.

What was upheld today was the concept that you must buy health insurance or pay a fine for it, just not under the Commerce Clause. And the way that was arrived at was a tax on behavior. If you refuse to buy, there is a tax. Now, as the law is written, the tax for not buying health insurance is much cheaper than the cost of a policy. So if you work for a business, large or small, that wants to save money -- and which business alive today doesn't because the economy? If that business has an opportunity for the next year or two, maybe three...

I don't know when the numbers change, but certainly for the next two to three years after implementation. If the fine is $800 or $900 and the cost of an insurance policy for an employee is $5,000, what are you gonna do? You off-load coverage, and you say to the employee, "Sorry, I've got no choice. I have to stay in business. I'm paying the fine. You're on your own. Now, you can go to the state exchange down there at the government office and you can buy health insurance from them. And you can try to get into a pool there, but it makes no sense for us to offer these expensive policies any longer."

Now, that's not the case for the entire length of the law.

It's very seductive.

The fine is much, much cheaper than the cost of a policy. But only for two or three years, maybe four. At that point, they catch up with each other because the thinking among the people who wrote the law is it'll only take two or three years for businesses to off-load their health care coverage as an employee benefit. Then it all evens out. And then the fines for not having a policy get larger than the cost of a policy. This is all written into the law. It happens in elements. It doesn't all happen in one year, but as each year goes by, the fine goes up.

For two or three years, it's much lower than the cost of the premium is. Then they catch up with each other and then the fine overtakes the cost of the premium. But all of this is by design to get people out of the private insurance market. TheHill.com: "CBO Report Says Health Care Law Could Cause as Many as 20 Million to Lose Coverage." That was from March 15th of this year. "As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of President Obama's healthcare reform law," said the CBO. And precisely for this reason.

This is also where the threat of jail time enters the discussion. In the original bill, there was a possibility of jail time with the fine. I remember Pelosi was asked about this, and she thought throwing people in jail for not having health insurance was very fair. Because she believed in the "incentive" of staying out of jail to cause people to go out and make sure they're insured. I don't know what this decision has said about that. It's 194 pages, and I haven't talked to anybody yet who's read the whole thing. I haven't read it myself.

I have just gotten the PDF file but I haven't obviously had a chance to go through it all. That 20 million figure, by the way, the CBO is admitting is very low. It's gonna be many more than 20 million people who will lose employer-provided health insurance and who will then be forced to go elsewhere to get it. And if you don't? If you don't, there's the fine. That's what happened today.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to go back to March of 2007. We played this bite before. If you haven't heard it, I want you to hear it. Nothing has changed. It's Barack Obama speaking to employees or union members, the Service Employees International Union. The unions want and wanted single-payer health care, national health care, government pay it all, government provide everything, they wanted it overnight, they've wanted it for a long time. Here's Obama, he's campaigning for president, this is during the primary, the run-up to the primary, trying to get their votes, trying to tell them he knows what they want. He's telling them he knows and he agrees, he wants what they want, but he's telling them how it must happen.

OBAMA: My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President. I would hope that we set up a system that allows those who can't go through their employer to access a federal system, or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we are gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.

RUSH: These are the people he doesn't lie to. These are the people he tells the truth to. Union people, his number one donors, supporters. I'm gonna get universal health care by the end of my first term, but we're not gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. I want to, eliminating employer coverage is the key. Getting rid of you having health insurance through your job, that's the ultimate goal, it's what he was telling them five years ago. He told them we can't do it overnight. It's gonna take some time. And the reason for that is that if people find out what we're doing there's gonna be opposition to it. We have to structure it in such a way that the people have no choice in the matter. We have to structure it in such a way so that turning to the government is the only option they've got, and that's why the fines, i.e. the taxes, are much lower starting out than the cost of the premium.

They want people to pay the fine. They want young people and others to pay the fine rather than buy the policy. They want employers to off-load their coverage, they want this. That's why the fines are so small, at first, to make that happen. That way, when it happens, guess you who you end up hating? You hate your employer. You get mad at your employer. And guess who you end up loving? Government, your savior, your salvation. Your mean, rotten to-the-core employer canceled your coverage because he doesn't care about you. All he cares about is profit, and he saw a chance to off-load your health program, instead pay just a cheap little fine, doesn't care about you, doesn't care your family, doesn't care about your health care, only cares about himself.

But then there's a light way down at the end of the tunnel. And it's the light of Obama. And even though your mean, rotten-to-the-core boss decided to cancel your health insurance, guess who's there to help you out? Government. And you, at the end of this process, are to be thanking God for government, because without government, you might get sick and die. Or you might get sick and go bankrupt before you die. That's the plan. It's how they think, it's how they strategize, and it's the plan that has been implemented, and now it has been found constitutional. And the way they get there is the power now to tax what you don't do. And that is, buy health insurance. This is taxing your behavior, and whatever they want to end up taxing in the future. No more complicated than that. No limits.

I asked Snerdley, as just a little exercise during the break, I said, "Hey, Bo, stop and think for a minute, tell me what are the federal taxes that you pay right now?"

"Well, let's see. Income."

"Right."

"Property."

"No. No. Those are state, local."

"Oh, yeah. Well, you got user fees out there, the National Parks."

"Yeah."

"Gasoline."

"Yeah."

The point is, there's not a whole lot. And it took an amendment to the Constitution to authorize the income tax. It took an amendment to the Constitution to authorize the income tax. Just to put into perspective what's happened today, without a constitutional amendment the government can tax anything now, not just your income and not just the sleigh ride at Jellystone Park, and not just gasoline, not just a user fee for walking into Yosemite or whatever. Now, my friends, it's your behavior, whether Obamacare's tossed out, repealed, or not.
END TRANSCRIPT

California Bill Proposes Extending Pilot Program for Non-Doctor Abortions!


LiveActionNews ^ | 6/28/12 | Laura Peredo



Back at the end of April, Senate Bill 1338 swept across the headlines in California. This bill would have made it legal for non-doctors to perform abortions and would have brought industry standards to an all-time low. Pro-lifers hailed the halting of this bill in early May as a victory for life, but the victory is short-lived.

SB 1338 was born out of the pilot training program titled the “Health Workforce Pilot Project No. 171″ – a project where non-doctors were legally allowed to perform over 5,000 abortions in California. Through the program, the hope of many favoring abortion was to demonstrate and collect data supporting the safety of non-doctors performing abortions and, ultimately, to make the practice legal. While the bill was slapped down previously, California State Senator Christine Kehoe isn’t quite ready to admit defeat.

This week she introduced a new bill, SB 623, which would extend the pilot program through January 1, 2012. While this would not legalize abortion by non-doctors in California, the bill poses a huge threat to women’s health and to the standards of the medical industry. This bill was originally a proposal for regulation of toxic paint used on boats, but it has been twisted into an under-the-table attempt to get this passed under our noses.
As Dana Cody, president and executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, said:
This is no more than the use of parliamentary procedure to pull a bait and switch. Any data forthcoming from this legislation will doubtless be used to expand non-physician abortions in the State of California, to say nothing of the risk to women currently undergoing these ‘pilot project’ abortions.
Pro-life advocates who wish to make their voices heard are being encouraged to contact their members of the California State Assembly and Senate and ask them to vote “no” on SB 623.

How to Cure Health Care


Hoover Institution/Advancing a Free Society ^ | July 30, 2001 | Milton Friedman



Since the end of World War II, the provision of medical care in the United States and other advanced countries has displayed three major features: first, rapid advances in the science of medicine; second, large increases in spending, both in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars per person and the fraction of national income spent on medical care; and third, rising dissatisfaction with the delivery of medical care, on the part of both consumers of medical care and physicians and other suppliers of medical care.

(Excerpt) Read more at hoover.org ...

The biggest scandal in U.S. history: Ann Coulter explains how Dems' '90% lie' tied into Fast and Furious!


author-image by Ann Coulter 

It All Boils Down to November


Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | June 28, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, the politics of this. I was thinking today, folks, right before the show began, how many days have there been in my 23-year career like this. Of course, the first big one was Clinton winning in 1992. The day after that election, I remember how depressed everybody who did not want Clinton to be elected was. I remember how depressed the audience was, and I remember my task that day and how I chose to go about it, which was to be as honest as I could and as positive as I could without abandoning reality. And to keep people engaged and in the game. And there have been, I forget how many, I couldn't think of them all, but there have been many days like this throughout the course of this program where a decision or an election has had a devastating impact on the attitudes of people.

How do you keep people engaged? Of course there are obvious ways to do it from my standpoint in this circumstance. You can talk about the campaign, for example. I touched on it briefly mere moments ago. We know that had this decision gone the other way, as it should have, that Obama was salivating to run against the court, a court that was arrogant and out of touch and disrespectful and had no concern for the plight of the average downtrodden America, four white guys and an Uncle Tom, four rich Republican white guys and an Uncle Tom just took your health care away from you, but they kept theirs. Well, that's gone now. Obama can't run against the court.
As a side note on this, how many embarrassed journalists are there for all these stories this week and last which trashed the court as being out of touch and arrogant? A guy, Roger Simon at The Politico, wrote a piece as though the court had already decided against Obama. And many others had written pieces about how worthless and out of touch and damaging the court was. There were people saying, "We need ten more justices! This court's been overtaken by a bunch of rabid right-wingers."
Now they've gotta do their retractions.
They don't have the court to run against.
They don't have this as an issue to run against.

We have a great issue thrown right in the middle of our laps, and that is fraud/deceit. "What do you mean, a tax makes it okay? Is there anything the government can't tax? Is there no universe alive that the government can't get itself involved in? So we've got a rotten economy that Obama can't defend. We have a Supreme Court he cannot attack. So from the standpoint of the campaign going into the summer, the fall, and so forth, you could look at it as a positive. You could say accurately, too, that the anti-Obama vote will be loaded for bear.
It will be large, and it will be animated, and it will be energetic. Now, what's Obama got to run on? He can't run on his record; it's a disaster. He can't promise to do four more years of what he's done. Unless he wants to run on the great things represented by Obamacare and say, "It's just a taste of what could happen, just a little sample of what more we can do working together," and so forth. This will all work itself out, shake itself out as the months and days unfold before our very eyes and ears. But I have to tell you something.
I'm gonna look at this, and I have, and I can find plenty of positives in it in terms of a campaign and the advantages it gives us and the ways in which to attack the incumbents that we have. But I wish it weren't the case. I wish we didn't have to do this. This is very, very troubling, what happened today. The way in which this disaster of a law was determined to be constitutional indicates the country is in a place... You all know it, and know it together. The country is in a very dangerous and precarious place, and it really is hanging by a thread.
And that thread is either going to unravel in November or it's going to get stronger and we start sewing things back together. But it really does boil down to November. I think it's just unfortunate that we've gotten here. We've gotten to this point where the Constitution... I said it yesterday and the day before. We wouldn't even be here if everybody involved simply had respect for and understanding of the Constitution. We wouldn't even be here. And that's what really is frightening about this.
It's the Constitution that's hanging by a thread and all the rest of us with it. But what's abundantly clear is we can't count on anyone except ourselves. "We, the people." It's up to us. We can't count on anyone. I tried to share with you the disquietedness I felt this week as the anticipation built. "Will the health care ruling come Monday? No, it's gonna be Thursday!" And all the citizens and all the media gathered outside the court, tongues hanging, heavy breathing (panting), waiting for the decision of what it turns out to be.
Five people in a country of over 300 million decided. Now, I understand that it's a great opportunity we had to go to the court because the Congress used shenanigans and did pass this thing in a totally convoluted way. Just the idea here that, like in the old Roman days and the gladiator, the emperors were up there with thumbs up or thumbs down. It's where we are. November really does matter, and we can't count on anyone except us. So now we have to sit here and hope that all of us are up to the challenge. 'Cause it's a big one.
END TRANSCRIPT

Let’s repeal and replace Obamacare


The Daily Caller ^ | 6/28/12 | John C. Goodman



Now that the Supreme Court has declined to strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the time has come to repeal and replace the entire law. Here are five reasons to do so.
1.) The health reform law is a Rube Goldberg contraption that no one can explain. The reason: It was the result of a special interest compromise, with each group claiming a slice of a 10-year, trillion-dollar pie. Big Pharma’s collusion with the White House to pass Obamacare is just one of many examples of how crony capitalism tried to shape our health care system.
2.) The law is not paid for. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that $523 billion of health reform’s first 10-year cost will be paid for by spending cuts on Medicare enrollees. That means that over half the costs of this reform will be borne by some of the most vulnerable Americans: the elderly and disabled. The Medicare chief actuary’s report explains that as a result of Obamacare, half the seniors in Medicare Advantage plans (7.5 million) will lose coverage and the remainder will face higher premiums and benefit cuts. Nearly one in seven medical facilities is expected to become insolvent and drop out of Medicare altogether in the next eight years. Medicare patients will have increasing difficulty finding a doctor who will see them.
3.) The law will impose heavy costs on employment at the very time we can least afford it. Employers of $15-an-hour workers will be forced to buy insurance whose cost (for a family) will equal half the employees’ wages. The uncertainty the law creates is already making employers reluctant to hire new workers and is contributing to our anemic economic recovery.
4.) Obamacare institutes a bizarre system of subsidies that will prove extremely disruptive to American businesses. The law offers radically different subsidies to people at the same income level, depending on where they obtain their health insurance — at work, through a health-insurance exchange (a state-regulated health insurance market) or through Medicaid.
Generally, the more money you make, the greater the subsidy at work and the lower the subsidy in the exchange. Therefore, low-income workers will seek work from companies that do not provide insurance, while high-income employees will seek out employers who do. Firms that ignore these worker preferences will not survive, meaning companies and entire industries will be forced to reorganize as they compete for labor. The subsidies and accompanying mandates will cause millions of employees to lose their employer plans and potentially their jobs. At a minimum, these subsidies will incite a huge, uneconomical restructuring of American industry.
5.) Obamacare’s approach to health care delivery is bureaucratic and top down. The law creates a slew of pilot programs in an attempt to make health care more efficient. Yet in three separate occasions, the CBO has found these demonstrations are not working.
The time is ripe for health reform that liberates patients and doctors and encourages innovation and creativity along with real prices and a real marketplace. It’s time for a consumer-driven system of care that gives power back to the people.
John C. Goodman is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis and author of Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis.

Nowhere to turn. Nothing will stop him NOW, but the Election!


cookingwithchefcarlo.com ^ | JUNE, 28 2012 | Carlo3b



After the election in 2008, I had high hopes that our country was crossing a milestone, a giant leap that had the promise to bring an end to many deeply held taboos..

Our new President, Barack Obama, had all of the prerequisites to clear the way to a new understanding between the cultures, Race, Youth, Socioeconomic, Political Parties, and Classes. This articulate young man, charismatic to the extreme, said all of the right things to set the tone for a new beginning in the body politic..

I had my fears though, coming from Chicago, I knew the threats posed by the corruption, endemic in the Daley machine hierarchy, that anything surviving and succeeding in that environment, could/should/would, be tainted, or infested. After all, hope springs eternal..

With most of the major media, and a Democrat majority in congress, ALL IN, for him and his lovely family, I thought this is either the PROMISE of a great FIRST, a bad script, or a harbinger of bad things to come..

It didn't take long, and with the world at his feet, he began to exhibit the traits that we have all lived through for nearly 4 years..

Our President is not an advocate, advocator, exponent, proponent, or partisan. Barack Obama is a fanatic, extremist, militant, maniac, fiend, a racist bigot of the first order. I was correct, he is really the FIRST..

The biggest spender.
The most corrupt.
The least qualified.
The best liar.
The greatest hoax in the history of the USA.

I really don't care where in the world he was born, or what color he really is, I just want him GONE, OUT, FINISHED, we need him to be FLUSHED DOWN THE DRAIN OF HISTORY..

It isn't what I think of him, it's just that I can't wait to never think of him at all..


VOTE

Another green energy firm bites the dust


CBS News ^ | June 28, 2012 | Sharyl Attkisson



(CBS News) It was number 17 on the White House's 100 Recovery Projects That Are Changing America list. Now, Abound Solar is about to join the taxpayer-supported green energy firms that have filed for bankruptcy.


Abound Solar was approved for a $400 million dollar taxpayer loan guarantee under the same program as did now-bankrupt Solyndra. Abound received about $70 million of the total by last Sept., but failed to meet certain financial milestones and the Energy Department cut off the rest of the loan.



The Department of Energy announced news of Abound's impending bankruptcy in an article on its Website defending solar energy entitled "Solar Manufacturing: to Compete or Not to Compete."

Abound Solar was strongly supported by politicians in both parties. Its Indiana plant was supposed to create a thousand full time jobs and generate "several hundred million dollars in revenue." Backers included Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Representatives Dan Burton (R-IN), Pete Visclosky (D-IN), Mark Souder (R-IN), Mike Pence (R-IN), Baron Hill (D-IN), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) and Andre Carson (D-IN). Abound laid off 280 workers last February and reportedly will lay off 125 more next week.
As to how much of the $70 million taxpayers will get back: that will be determined in bankruptcy court. The Energy Department says any money lost can be offset by tax dollars set aside in a loan-loss reserve established by Congress for this purpose.

Abound's loan has been under investigation by the House Oversight Committee which found the company had received a "junk credit rating of B, below that of the failed Solyndra," before the taxpayer investment.

The Energy Department says the solar industry employs 100,000 workers, double the 2009 number. "When the floor fell out on the price of solar panels, Abound's product was no longer cost competitive," said the Energy Department.

Abound will be the third company to declare bankruptcy in the Energy Department's 1705 program that guaranteed loans to 20 companies. Solyndra, which was approved for $535 million dollars, declared bankruptcy in Sept. 2011 and Beacon, which was approved for $43 million dollars, went bankrupt in Nov. 2011.

Broward County Registered Voters Admit Being Non-Citizens!


Florida Media Trackers ^ | 6/28/2012 | TOM LAUDER



Six non-citizens admitted to Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes they are registered voters but should not be allowed to vote, Snipes reported yesterday at a community forum. The non-citizens asked to be removed from the registered voter list.
The non-citizens came forward after receiving a letter of inquiry from Snipes’ office. As for the other suspected non-citizens, Snipes said she would “err on the side of caution…and wait for a more reliable list.”
Snipes reported the non-citizens’ inclusion on voter registration lists the same day an attorney for the Florida State Association Of Supervisors Of Elections advised elections supervisors they can resume removing non-citizens from voter registration lists. Ron Labasky, general counsel for the Association, sent out a memo late Wednesday saying elections supervisors can resume removing non-citizens if supervisors have “sufficient documentation” that a person is not a U.S. citizen.
An official list provided by the Broward Supervisor of Elections shows 46 of 262 suspected non-citizens voted in elections dating as far back as 1984.
Last month, Snipes told the media that any non-citizen casting a vote is committing a felony. Snipes sent letters to the 262 registered voters asking them to provide proof of citizenship. Snipes’ gave the non-citizens 30 days to respond.
Media Trackers Florida verified votes had been cast by using two different voter information services. Our review shows 31 votes cast by registered Democrats, 5 votes cast by registered Republicans, and 10 votes cast by persons with no party affiliation.

My view from inside the Court room – more good than bad in the Obamacare decision!


Bearing Drift ^ | Thursday, June 28th, 2012 | Brian Schoeneman



I just got back from the Supreme Court. It was an interesting experience sitting in the Courtroom as the opinion in the Obamacare case was read. And, by now, if you’re like me, you’ve gotten37 million pre-written press releases from every elected official in Virginia and most nationally either celebrating the individual mandate’s survival, or decrying this as the darkest day in the union’s history.


The truth lies, as it usually does with Supreme Court decisions, somewhere in the middle. In my opinion, however, the bulk of the victory lays with those of us on the right.


While we may have lost the battle on the individual mandate itself, we won two arguably bigger, more long-term critical fights – the fight about the breadth of the federal government’s regulatory power under the commerce clause, and the fight about the use of the federal spending power to coerce states into doing the federal government’s bidding. Those are both huge issues for small government conservatives and we won both – even getting a large majority, 7-2, on the spending power issue.

(Excerpt) Read more at bearingdrift.com ...

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius


http://whitehouse12.com ^ | 6.28.12 | I.M. Citizen



Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.

The politics of the ObamaCare decision


American Thinker ^ | June 28, 2012 | Thomas Lifson



It looks to me that there are some sweet lemons for conservatives in the ObamaCare decision. Before we burn the chief justice in effigy, let's read the decision and think about the implications.

First of all, upholding ObamaCare is going to energize opposition to Obama, and the determination to elect a Congress that can repeal and replace it. Just a day ago, the MSM was telling us it would be a plus for Obama if the act were held unconstitutional because it would take the issue off the table and weaken his opposition.

On the other hand, as Rick Moran points out, "it gives Obama a big boost; everyone likes a winner.
I have no doubt that the same media will now proclaim it is a big victory, a change in momentum, a blow to the right. I also expect Sudden New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts. I am not going to hold that against him.

For one thing, the Court went nowhere near claiming the Commerce Clause means the feds can force us to do anything. The CJ and the majority (remember, by joining the majority he got to write the opinion) relied on the taxation power, by defining the mandate penalty as a tax. In other words, they seem to have in effect said, Yeah, the Democrats lied when they claimed they weren't raising taxes. Big deal!

What do you expect?

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

House should hold Holder in contempt (The Seattle Times Editorial Board!)


The Seattle Times Editorial Board ^ | June 26, 2012 | Masthead Editorial



The Seattle Times editorial board argues that the Justice Department should hand over documents regarding the "Fast and Furious" gun-sale program, or else the House of Representatives should declare Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

EXECUTIVE privilege is a principle dangerous to democracy, whether invoked by a Republican or Democratic president. The Obama administration has invoked it and now is threatened with retaliation: House Republicans say unless the administration hands over subpoenaed documents, they will vote Thursday to declare Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. If that is what it takes, they should do it.

It is an election year, so the administration's defenders are saying that a call for disclosure is "all politics." Of course there is political hay in it, but the request is still valid. Congress needs to know about botched government programs.
This was one. Called "Fast and Furious," it was a sting operation run out of the Phoenix, Ariz., office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from 2009 to 2011. Its aim was to allow Mexican drug organizations to buy illegal guns so that U.S. agents could follow the guns, arrest the people who had them and destroy the cartels...
--snip--
The Mexican government also said Fast and Furious guns were found at 170 crime scenes in Mexico...
--snip--
Another 1,300 pages under House of Representatives subpoena were the subject of a presidential order of executive privilege, the first such order of Obama's presidency. That is what the argument is about.
Obama has said he did not know about Fast and Furious, and Issa does not claim the president knew. That is not the issue.
The issue is whether Congress has the right to learn about it, and it does.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...

Socialist Omlette

It's the End of America As We Know It!


Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 6-28-2012 | MOTUS



... The Supreme Court Ruling could have gone in one of several directions:

1.If you like your Health Care plan, you can keep your Health Care plan.

2.If you like OUR Health Care plan, you can keep OUR Health Care plan.

3.Whether you like OUR Health Care plan or not, you can’t keep your Health Care plan.

4.If you like your Health Care plan, tough s**t, amigo. They chose #2, 3 and 4.

Very little else to add to that other than to reiterate our brilliant residential constitution scholar – no not Big Guy, Little Joe – this is “a big f*#@ing deal!”

So congratulations Big Guy, you really are the Won!

And the Once.The only possible way to view this is that it will make it easier for Romney to win in November...

The sun sets on the American Experiment. Alexis de Tocqueville called it.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellesmirror.com ...

WTF is your excuse?

ObamaCare Survives…Obama & Democrats Now Own The Largest Middle-Class Tax Hike In History!


Flopping Aces ^ | 06-28-12 | Curt



Remember this video? Obama telling us all that ObamaCare is NOT a tax. But according to the deciding vote in the Supreme Court decision today, it IS a tax and the act is upheld.

Chief Justice Roberts opinion is that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause but since he believes it is a tax, and that it was within Congresses power to tax, the violation of the Commerce Clause doesn't matter.
Welcome to Canada folks, and the ever increasing tax rates.
From the dissent:

If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws . . . spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.” The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
Barack Obama and the Democrats now own the LARGEST MIDDLE-CLASS TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY!


Don't forget these words. They OWN it now.

Some liberal court watcher's are urging caution:


(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

The Silver Lining: Mitt Romney just won the election.



As a guy who's been unemployed for a few months, I've made a habit of looking for silver linings in the darkness. Folks, there is some good news to this monstrosity: now Romney's path to the White House is pretty much assured.

Up until today, Obama had one issue that was haunting him: the economy. He could blame the GOP for not doing being "bipartisan"...a charge that has always made me nauseous. But as of today, Obama's got to defend a policy that the majority of American people don't like. And he can't blame the Republicans for this - they didn't vote for it.

Guess what? Obama just raised taxes on the middle class. How did that work out for George H. Bush? The Democrats, as we all know, are not the party of the middle class. The debt now exceeds the GDP. The higher it goes, the greater pressures there will be to raise taxes on the middle class.
Romney can point out that with another four years of Obama, more taxes will be coming. Does anyone doubt that this administration will raise taxes on energy through cap and trade? And given this man's fondness for issuing executive orders, why let a little bump in the road like Congress get in the way of what he wants?
Now, like many of you, Mitt Romney was not my first choice. I hated Romneycare. On the other hand, there is a difference between what a state can do, and what the federal government can do - it's clearly explained in the Constitution. And I do think Romney has been clear on this point: that the current FCA is an overreach of federal power. Romney has vowed to repeal this - and I think with a Senate majority, he can do so, just like the Democrats did when they forced this on the American people.

First spray-on battery could change home electronics forever


dailymail.co.uk ^ | 6-28-12 | Rob Waugh



A spray-on battery could revolutionise technology - allowing for slimmer gadgets, and household gizmos with built-in power supplies.

The lithium-ion battery, which can be painted on to virtually every surface, works by 'spraying on' the chemical layers which form a battery.

The new battery could make solar gadgets practical by building up their storage, without hefty long-life batteries building up their bulk.

It has already been tested on bathroom panels, producing a steady 2.4 volts and being recharged by a solar cell, says Nature's Scientific Reports.

Hailed as a 'paradigm changer' by creators at Rice University the technology could one day be incorproated into industry.
Dr Pulickel Ajayan said: ‘This means traditional packaging for batteries has given way to a much more flexible approach that allows all kinds of new design and integration possibilities for storage devices.
‘There has been a lot of interest in recent times in creating power sources with an improved form factor, and this is a big step forward in that direction.’
The team was led by graduate student Neelam Singh and it spend hours formulating and mixing paints to make up each of the five layered components - two current collectors, a cathode, an anode and a polymer separator in the middle.
In tests, nine bathroom tile-based batteries were connected in parallel. One was topped with a solar cell that converted power from a white laboratory light.
Once painted on the tiles were infused with electrolyte, heat sealed and charged.
When fully charged by both the solar panel and house current, the batteries alone powered a set of light-emitting diodes that spelled out ‘RICE’ for six hours; the batteries provided a steady 2.4 volts
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Let's Drive To Mexico

Distraction

Sell Your Blood

Scotus Decision Explained

Someone Died!

Faecies Evenio!

You Tell'em, Nutzi

What did you just say?

Turning Recession into Depression

Dear Obama...

Monckton tells Lords: Obama presidency at risk!


WND ^ | 27 May 2012 | Jerome Corsi



“Mr. Obama’s legitimacy is now in doubt,” Lord Christopher Monckton concludes in the report.

Monckton bases his conclusions largely on the findings of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation. Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse announced March 1 there is probable cause that Obama’s long-form birth certificate posted on the White House website April 27, 2011, and his Selective Service registration form are forgeries.


“A dislocation more severe than the fall of Watergate may be anticipated, leaving the free world leaderless at a time of great financial uncertainty,” Monckton advises the British nobility.

He put his fellow peers on notice that he considers it likely a civil or criminal court challenge of Obama’s eligibility will eventually succeed that could remove Obama from office before the November 2012 election through a disqualification determined under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Forward Democrats! Union Sets Record for Biggest City Bankruptcy!


Townhall.com ^ | June 28, 2012 | John Ransom



Forward! Stockton, California; move on forward, right to bankruptcy.


Can you take the Democrats with you? Oh, that's right: They are already there.

Stockton, California will seek bankruptcy protection after negotiations with unions over benefits and worker’s pay failed to avert insolvency by the city. But because of laws passed by California liberals aimed at entitling government union workers to inflated pay and benefits under most circumstances, look for more cities in California to seek the same remedy.
If you weren’t horrified by the case in made in Madison, Wisconsin over union wages and benefits causing massive state and local budget deficits, you should be scared by the example in Stockton.
For more on this story, see Mike Shedlock's Stockton Bankrupt; Unions Pension Death Trap for Cities to Blame
Because California isn’t Wisconsin. It’s bigger than that. California, as measured by GDP, ranks as the 8th largest economy in the world. At $1.9 trillion it dwarfs Greece and is ranked above Spain. It economy is larger than the economy of Russia.
From the Washington Post:
“The city is fiscally insolvent and must seek chapter 9 bankruptcy protection,” Stockton said in a statement released yesterday after its council voted 6-1 to adopt a spending plan for operating under bankruptcy protection. “In addition to the bankruptcy petition, the city will file a motion with the courts to share information from the confidential mediation.”
The Post said that a bankruptcy by Stockton will make it the largest city to file for bankruptcy protection in U.S. history.
Thank God for the unions and Democrats protecting the middle class.
Without them, we might have something outrageous like fiscal solvency breaking out.
Stockton, an agricultural city of about 300,000 residents in California’s Central Valley, voted to pare the year’s budget by reducing benefits, pay and debt service on bonds.
“The new budget will suspend debt payments,” reports the New York Times, “cut employee pay and reduce retiree benefits, allowing this city of about 292,000 residents to continue providing essential services through the bankruptcy process.”
The liberal California Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that union pension, healthcare and other benefits are protected under the law, even when benefits aren’t promised in contracts. Instead, benefits in some cases are considered implied contracts, leaving cities with few options when it comes to negotiating during tough fiscal times, says Steven Greenhut, vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Increasingly, union benefits are forcing cities, especially in California, to consider bankruptcy as their only option to restore the fiscal health of cities.
Unions, of course, won’t take pay or benefit cuts unless forced to.
“Yet many state governments such as California struggle with endless budget deficits,” wrote Greenhut at UnionWatch.org. “Unfunded liabilities to pay for pension promises for state and local public employees hit an estimated $3 trillion nationwide. Then there are the debts for the health-care promises that municipalities have made to their employees. Much of this is not honestly accounted for, so the real numbers are worse than the official ones.”
To put those numbers in perspective, the whole country of Greece is underwater on about $420 billion in debt, or only 14 percent of just our unfunded pension promises for state and local workers are.
Hence the need for bankruptcy protection from the courts in order to keep vital services running at the state and local level. In the fight between benefits that you and I will never be entitled to but have to pay for and keeping the garbage picked up and the police cars rolling, get which side the unions pick?
Indeed, some are arguing that state’s like Illinois and California have no choice but to consider asking Congress for an enabling law that would allow states to file bankruptcy in order to void the union contracts.
Greenhut cites an op-ed from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who say that union contracts are the problem for states wrestling with budget deficits.
“[A]s with municipal bankruptcy,” writes Bush and Gingrich in the LA Times, “a new bankruptcy law would allow states in default or in danger of default to reorganize their finances free from their union contractual obligations. In such a reorganization, a state could propose to terminate some, all or none of its government employee union contracts and establish new compensation rates, work rules, etc. The new law could also allow states an opportunity to reform their bloated, broken and underfunded pension systems for current and future workers. The lucrative pay and benefits packages that government employee unions have received from obliging politicians over the years are perhaps the most significant hurdles for many states trying to restore fiscal health.”
And instead of politicizing the process by allowing the federal government to play favorites with their union buddies and federal bailout money, we ought to let taxpayers and elected officials in the state wrest back control from unelected union hot shots who use your tax money to buy favors from Democrats.

The Mandate Represents What’s Wrong With Democrats


Weekly Standard Blog ^ | Jun 27, 2012 | JAY COST



Thursday, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on Obamacare--and, in particular, the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not. Obama salutes!

Let us hope that the Court invalidates this law.

The individual mandate is the apotheosis of the modern Democratic party’s way of doing business. In particular, it is the quintessential example of how, hiding behind a smokescreen of egalitarian rhetoric, the party has become deeply, perhaps hopelessly, anti-republican, happy to dole out favors to privileged groups while the rest of the country is left with nothing.
First, the individual mandate represents an enormous transfer of wealth, completely independent of income or social status. It transfers resources from the healthy to the sick, from the young to the old, without regard to who has more money to begin with. Democrats typically rail against supposedly regressive GOP tax proposals, but nothing the Republicans have ever cooked up compares to the individual mandate. While we’re on the subject of Democratic regressiveness, LBJ’s Medicare is a similarly regressive form of taxation, and ditto Social Security, ever since Johnson turned it into a pay-as-you-go system. Yet watch Democrats howl with outrage whenever the GOP dares suggest reforms that would alter this socially unjust status quo.
Second, the mandate itself is the method by which the Democrats have delivered literally billions of dollars worth of patronage to the key interests groups that lined up with them during the health care debate. The party sought to apply new layers of regulations upon doctors, nurses, hospitals, retirement care facilities, etc., and they rightfully feared a rebuke from these key “stakeholders,” as the Obama White House called them. What better way to buy their silence than to require 30 million Americans become their customers, whether they want to or not! All it took was a flip-flop on the part of the president – who conveniently disavowed his campaign opposition to a mandate – and suddenly all those opponents turned in to lusty supporters, eager to get their hands on all that new revenue.
But what about the “public option”? The inclusion of a public option would have mitigated the perniciousness of the mandate – for then, at least, the government would not be requiring individuals to contract with private, for-profit entities as a condition of their citizenship. Liberal Democrats, naturally, blamed Republican perfidy for the death of the public option – but it never stood a real chance, anyway. The White House hinted early in the health care process that there were many ways to get to universal coverage, and never once suggested that the exclusion of a public option would be a deal-breaker. And that was because none of those stakeholders whom the mandate bought off wanted to compete with the government! And what would be the point of buying them off with a mandate while including a public option? So, in reality, the “will they or won’t they” drama over the public option in the fall of 2009 was mere kabuki theater: the insurers, the drug makers, the doctors, hospitals, nurses, and so on would go ballistic. It was never going to make the final cut.
Let’s put all this in historical context. The Democratic party is the oldest existing political party in the entire world, and it was founded as a people’s party. Andrew Jackson’s veto message of a bill to recharter the Bank of the United States stands to this day as a kind of mission statement for the modern party, and it is worth quoting at length (emphasis mine):
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.
The individual mandate is an overwhelmingly unpopular item that requires a patently unjust transfer of wealth for the purpose of paying off the interest groups that have the biggest financial stake in health care. Considered next to Jackson’s veto message: It is a signal that the Democratic party has become the opposite of what its founders intended to be. The individual mandate is a testimony to the broken nature of the modern party. It is a symbol that, despite their egalitarian rhetoric, contemporary Democrats are ready, willing, and able to bend the policy needle toward the interests of “the rich… and the potent,” at the expense of the “farmers, mechanics, and laborers.”
Let us hope that the Supreme Court has the good sense to do away with this awful innovation.
Despite what liberals may say, the individual mandate represents a qualitative expansion in the powers of the federal government, the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s. We can be confident that the Democratic party as it is currently constituted lacks the ability to use this new power in a socially responsible way.
If the Court allows Washington to mandate commerce in order to regulate it, this will open new, terrible avenues for the Democrats to pay off their client groups, at the expense of the public good. Today it is a mandate to buy a policy from Aetna; but who knows what tomorrow may bring? Clever Democrats could surely find some “compelling” reason for private parties to contract with the SEIU, AFSCME, the UAW, the Sierra Club, NOW, or any of the wide assortment of narrow interests that depend on the Democratic party for their patronage.

The Cult of Obama


FrontPage Magazine ^ | June 28, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield



The Corporate Cult evolved in the United States as a hybrid of the sales force of the corporation and the religious devotion of the cult. This type of entity might be a cult like Scientology, which used the aggressive and organized sales tactics and marketing campaigns of a corporation, or it could be a corporation like Apple, whose employees earn little, but feel a sense of satisfaction at being part of a meaningful entity.
The Obama Campaign is a fantastic marketing machine. It is constantly discovering new ways to sell things to people. But the problem is that it has no actual product. A company that goes corporate cult uses some of the tactics of a cult to inflate the value of its product. But a cult has no product except the sense of satisfaction that comes from being in the cult. The only things it sells are images of its leader, emblazoned everywhere, his books, speeches and photos, and these are used as tokens of membership in the cult.
In retrospect, the Cult of Obama had much in common with other cults. Like them it recruited young volunteers on campus. Its recruitment materials leaned heavily on books by its beloved leader. It promised them that a new age was coming and that they could be a big part of bringing it about. And its vector of introduction to older viewers was through a woman who has been accused of promoting cults on her popular television show.
Strip away the politics, wipe the polar identities of the parties from your minds and take a fresh look at the 2008 campaign. Then compare the pitch to any of the major cults in the seventies and eighties. There really isn’t all that much of a difference. They’re all “Transformative” movements that promise to solve society’s problems by using new insights to create a wave of change that begins with “us”.
Even the political angle isn’t new. Jim Jones and his murderous child-abusing cult started out as community organizers for California Democrats, and leading politicians, including saintly hero Harvey Milk, covered for his crimes until the whole thing got too big and Jones got too crazy. Long before Obama, Lyndon LaRouche went the campus cult route and if you are morbidly curious, you can find videos where “LaRouche Youth,” who have broken ties with their families and friends, shout insane slogans while their glazed eyes stare fixedly into the camera.
The corporate part of the Corporate Cult deals with adversity by redoubling the sales pitch. If sales fall, it finds more things to sell. The Obama Campaign is insanely intensifying its sales efforts, without understanding that its sales are falling because the value of the brand is failing. When businesses hysterically deluge you with offerings for their product, it’s a sign of fear. Obama’s campaign rolling out invitations to dinner with him and suggestions that you use your wedding to raise money for him stinks of that same fear.
It’s ingenious from a marketing standpoint, but from that same standpoint it’s also a bad tactic. The last thing that a company or a campaign wants to do is wear people out. But that is exactly what Obama is accomplishing by burning through his base for a short-term cash grab, when what he really needs is to have those people committed to him at the end.
This is the part where the marketing consultants spend six months on a study and inform the company that their brand is done and has to either be retired or salvaged through a high-profile campaign that will reinvent it as cutting edge. But when your brand is a man, how do you reinvent him? And when your brand is “Transformative Politics” and even your staunchest supporters don’t feel like anything has been transformed, how do you move the product?
Cults shift the burden of failure from the guru and the program to the participants. It isn’t the man or the idea that failed, but the people.
There are the outside enemies who make enlightenment impossible. “How very much I’ve tried my best to give you a good life. But in spite of all of my trying a handful of our people, with their lies, have made our lives impossible,” Jim Jones said at Jonestown. That is the epilogue of the Obama campaign. The one being scripted for him by the media.
Like Jim Jones, Obama has done his best to give us a good life, but the Republicans, FOX News, the Supreme Court, the Koch Brothers and powerful interests have sabotaged his efforts with their lies. And yet in the end it’s not the enemies who bear the final burden, but the people who weren’t good enough.
Cults demand more and more from their followers to impose upon them an unreasonable and unshakeable burden of guilt. The cult appeals to those who want to make more of their lives and it destroys their will by making them feel like failures. The Obama campaign’s endless demands of its followers have that tenor as well. Behind all the flowery words, the burden of responsibility is being shifted from his people to his supporters.
The cult frames everything in terms of commitment. What begins as a commitment to personal and global transformation becomes a commitment to the demands of the cult. The commitment is meant to be mutual and it is occasionally even framed in terms of a marriage.
“In all our years of marriage, he’s always looked out for me. Now, I see that same commitment every day to you and to this country,” Michelle Obama’s campaign mailing says. “The only way we’ll win this election is if we can rely on one another like that.”
The commitments, of course, aren’t mutual. They can’t be. The disparity in power is too great. The cult exists for the sake of the leader, but the leader does not exist for the sake of the cult. Once the followers realize this, the illusion of mutual commitment breaks down. And to keep them from realizing it, the cult strives to make them feel that they have not lived up to their commitment.
And yet all this only works for as long as the transformative illusion endures. When the sense that the commitment to the cult is not transformative, that the principles of its program cannot make a better world, then its power fades away and dies. The cult may amp up its marketing, but the only product that it ever truly had was intangible.
The Obama campaign never sold Obama; it sold the idea of Obama. The illusion that was more than the sum of his false biography, his chin up speeches full of momentous pauses and stolen poetry, or the typography of his posters. It was the sense of imminence, the perception of a transformative figure who could change the country and the world. That magnetic tug wasn’t Obama, it was the confused mess of desires, fears, hopes, dreams and wishes that the people were encouraged to project onto him.
Whether or not Obama wins again, his cult has failed. It failed because it was not able to deliver on its promises of transformation, nor was it able to place the blame on its followers. Most of those who voted for Obama will drink the Kool-Aid one more time, but there will be little enthusiasm in the drinking of it.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.