Judge throws out Massachusetts challenge to Donald Trump’s Obamacare contraception rule changes
Back on October 6th Donald Trump wrote an Executive Order which allowed organizations with religious or moral objections to contraception to opt out of Obamacare’s rule which mandated all companies must provide healthcare insurance which included contraceptive coverage.
Massachusetts was one of several states which decided to sue the Trump administration over the rule change and today a U.S. District Judge in Massachusetts threw out the challenge, stating Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey did not have standing. Here is more:
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in Boston dismissed a lawsuit by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey that sought to block rules that provide exemptions from an Obamacare mandate requiring such coverage on moral or religious grounds.
The ruling came after two other judges in California and Pennsylvania in December issued preliminary injunctions blocking the Republican president’s administration from enforcing the rules, which it announced in October.
Gorton said that in contrast to those two states, where there is “no doubt” employers intend to take advantage of the exemptions, “the record is uniquely obscure” as to whether any in Massachusetts would.
He noted that after the new rules were announced, Massachusetts enacted a law in November called the ACCESS Act that required employer-sponsored health plans to cover birth control without imposing co-pays.
As a result, Gorton said that state law provided reasons to believe Massachusetts women were less likely to be affected by the federal rules, undercutting Healey’s claim that the state would be injured by them and that she had standing to sue.
As you can see above, Maura Healey claimed Massachusetts women would be hurt by the new contraception rules however the judge pointed out that Massachusetts has a state law mandating contraception therefor Maura Healey had no standing to sue. Maura Healey knew Massachusetts had this law in place and yet she sued anyway: to me this looks like an attempt to score political points and if the lawsuit moved forward all the better for her in her mind.
This seems to be the right decision to me, but then again I think the whole issue of healthcare should have been handled on a State level in the first place.
There are still at least two preliminary injunctions against Donald Trump’s new rule in place from other states and it is likely, in my opinion, that some of these cases will move forward, meaning this decision will not change anything until these other cases are decided.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to sue big oil for ‘first degree murder’ over global warming
You cannot make this stuff up! Here is more:
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s next mission: taking oil companies to court “for knowingly killing people all over the world.”
The former California governor and global environmental activist announced the move Sunday at a live recording of POLITICO’s Off Message podcast here at the SXSW festival, revealing that he’s in talks with several private law firms and preparing a public push around the effort.
The former governor of California justifies this by comparing big oil to tobacco:
“This is no different from the smoking issue. The tobacco industry knew for years and years and years and decades, that smoking would kill people, would harm people and create cancer, and were hiding that fact from the people and denied it. Then eventually they were taken to court and had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of that,” Schwarzenegger said. “The oil companies knew from 1959 on, they did their own study that there would be global warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of it that it would be risky for people’s lives, that it would kill.”
“We’re going to go after them, and we’re going to be in there like an Alabama tick. Because to me it’s absolutely irresponsible to know that your product is killing people and not have a warning label on it, like tobacco,” he said. “Every gas station on it, every car should have a warning label on it, every product that has fossil fuels should have a warning label on it.”
Global warming was not a thing back in 1959, it was not on anybody’s radar and the term was not even made up at that point…but let that go.
To be fair, there is nothing in the quote above which suggests first degree murder but then there is this:
“I don’t think there’s any difference: If you walk into a room and you know you’re going to kill someone, it’s first degree murder; I think it’s the same thing with the oil companies.”
This is the mentality we are dealing with today…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
According to this story the The House Intelligence Committee is ending its investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and they have found no evidence of collusion. Here is more:
The House Intelligence Committee is shutting down its contentious investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the top Republican leading the probe announced on Monday.
The committee will interview no more witnesses and Republicans are in the process of preparing their final report, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) told reporters. A draft of that roughly 150-page report will be delivered to committee Democrats for review on Tuesday.
The draft document asserts that there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, the most politically charged question examined by the committee.
“We found no evidence of collusion,” Conaway said Monday. “We found perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings, inappropriate judgment in taking meetings — but only Tom Clancy could take this series of inadvertent contacts, meetings, whatever, and weave that into some sort of a spy thriller that could go out there.”
Further, he said, “we couldn’t establish the same conclusion that the CIA did that they specifically wanted to help Trump.”
This story is still far from over and I expect it to drag into the 2018 mid-term election. I read elsewhere that the Democrats on the House Committee are drafting their own document which will claim that not all relevant witnesses were interviewed. And the Senate Intelligence Committee is still investigating as is the Robert Mueller Special Counsel.
It does look to me as if Robert Mueller has moved beyond the collusion aspect of the investigation, which would be a good sign for the President, and is instead focusing on obstruction of justice and the financial transactions with Russia of some people who are connected to Donald Trump, and four people still remain under indictment.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Jesus wept over Jerusalem
I begin this post with a prayer that what I have written is theologically sound. If I have erred in any way I will gladly accept criticism, comments, and guidance in my never-ending search for Biblical Truth.
There are two instances in the Bible where we learn Jesus wept: the first was when He learned the news that His friend Lazarus died and the second instance was during His Triumphal return to Jerusalem. I do not know how you feel about these passages but to me these are very powerful passages in the Bible which might be mostly overlooked but are very important.
I find these passages to be interesting and related and, as I wrote, very powerful because both of them represent triumph over death as well as Jesus’ fully human side, and in a way Lazarus was a preview of what was to come. In both cases Jesus knew the ultimate outcome but because He was fully human He also understood grief and He was overcome with emotion.
So we must look at the story of Lazarus first. I will narrate the Book of John 11:17-35: At this point Jesus had already learned Lazarus was near death and He agreed to visit him, but He delayed His journey to see His friend. While Jesus delayed Lazarus died and when Martha, grief stricken at the loss of her brother, learned that Jesus was in town she ran to Him and told Jesus that if He had been there Lazarus would not have died. Jesus responds by telling Martha Lazarus will rise again. Martha says she knows he will rise again on the last day but Jesus tells her “I am the resurrection and the life.” We know how this story ends, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead and the setup for His own resurrection was put in motion.
Jesus Knew He was going to raise Lazarus from the dead so why did He weep? There are two possibilities in my mind: Martha seemed to be questioning Jesus; was He weeping because she still did not understand (Martha was the sister who seemed to question Jesus in Luke 10:38-42 while her sister Mary sat at Jesus’ feet listening to His teachings) or was He weeping because of her pain at the loss of a loved one? Maybe it was both, I think it probably was…
Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, this is a hard concept to understand, but as fully human He had to feel emotion while at the same time carrying out the will of the Father as fully divine. Part of me wonders if Jesus wept because He felt responsible, on a human level, for putting them through this pain when if He did not delay He could have, as Martha alluded to, saved them this sorrow. But as we learn in Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus could have saved Lazarus without being there and He did not, but His ways are higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8) and He had a lesson to teach, even if it meant temporary earthy pain for a few people. This lesson, I believe, was a preview of what was to come on Calvary.
We now turn to Jerusalem: Jesus was entering as a king and, as prophesied, on a donkey. The adoring crowd worshiped Him as the Messiah and threw down palm leaves at His feet and at this very time when all seemed well the Bible tells us in Luke 19:41 Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Why would Jesus, at His greatest moment, His Triumphal return, weep as He entered the city? It should have been a joyous occasion.
Luke 19:42 tells us why: ““If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes.” (NIV)
In Luke 19:43-44 Jesus prophesied about the fall of Jerusalem which would come to pass about forty years later, but He laid the blame for this based on Luke 19:42 so we shall focus on this for the sake of this post.
Luke 19:42 shows us the peace these people were soon to feel was not the same peace we feel today knowing Jesus took on our sin on the cross because they did not understand. But Jesus did! Jesus knew the people would choose to save Barabbas, a murderer, over the One who could save us all.
Jesus knew His death would bring the people peace but because they thought He would be an earthy Messiah they did not understand His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36) and they condemned Him to death not understanding the prophesies. (In a way this brings me back to my question about Martha.)
Jesus was not weeping over His own death, which He knew was coming and He knew He would conquer death, but rather for the people who would soon condemn Him to death. The people thought they were condemning Jesus but they were condemning themselves and Jesus grieved for them because He understood this even though they did not. This is one reason why Jesus wept over Jerusalem.
And this leads me to Jesus’ first words on the cross: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” It makes me wonder if Jesus in addition to asking for forgiveness for those who where crucifying Him with these words was also thinking about the people of Jerusalem and those who would, in a remarkably short period of time, turn against Him by following their earthly leaders who were only interested in protecting their positions and their power.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8 KJV)
Susan Rice ordered the NSC to ‘stand down’ amid concerns Russia was meddling in the 2016 election
This is a very long and concise article about Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election and the Obama administration’s lack of a response to the reports of Russian interference. I will share the parts I find most interesting but there is much more to read in the link I provided above.
The Obama administration knew the Russians were trying to interfere in the election but there was dissension the ranks about how to respond to this meddling.
Obama’s top national security officials were uncertain how to respond. As they would later explain it, any steps they might take-calling out the Russians, imposing sanctions, raising alarms about the penetrations of state systems—could draw greater attention to the issue and maybe even help cause the disorder the Kremlin sought. A high‑profile U.S. government reaction, they worried, could amplify the psychological effects of the Russian attack and help Moscow achieve its end. “There was a concern if we did too much to spin this up into an Obama-Putin face-off, it would help the Russians achieve their objectives,” a participant in the principals meeting later noted. “It would create chaos, help Trump, and hurt Clinton. We had to figure out how to do this in a way so we wouldn’t create an own-goal. We had a strong sense of the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm.”
A parallel concern for them was how the Obama administration could respond to the Russian attack without appearing too partisan. Obama was actively campaigning for Clinton. Would a tough and vocal reaction be seen as a White House attempt to assist Clinton and stick it to Trump? They worried that if a White House effort to counter Russian meddling came across as a political maneuver, that could compromise the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to work with state and local election officials to make sure the voting system was sound. (Was Obama too worried about being perceived as prejudicial or conniving? “Perhaps there was some overcompensation,” a top Obama aide said later.)
So, the Obama administration knew Russia was trying to interfere in the election but was concerned more about politics than protecting the integrity of the election: They simultaneously were worried about letting the people know about this concern because they felt it would look like like they were trying to help Hillary Clinton but at the same time were worried if they came clean it could help Donald Trump.
While the Obama administration was trying to walk this tightrope a meeting was held between Susan Rice and the National Security Counsel in which Susan Rice ordered the NSC to stand down:
One day in late August, national security adviser Susan Rice called Daniel into her office and demanded he cease and desist from working on the cyber options he was developing. “Don’t get ahead of us,” she warned him. The White House was not prepared to endorse any of these ideas. Daniel and his team in the White House cyber response group were given strict orders: “Stand down.” She told Daniel to “knock it off,” he recalled.
Daniel walked back to his office. “That was one pissed-off national security adviser,” he told one of his aides.
At his morning staff meeting, Daniel matter-of-factly said to his team that it had to stop work on options to counter the Russian attack: “We’ve been told to stand down.” Daniel Prieto, one of Daniel’s top deputies, recalled, “I was incredulous and in disbelief. It took me a moment to process. In my head I was like, ‘Did I hear that correctly?’” Then Prieto spoke up, asking, “Why the hell are we standing down? Michael, can you help us understand?” Daniel informed them that the orders came from both Rice and Monaco. They were concerned that if the options were to leak, it would force Obama to act. “They didn’t want to box the president in,” Prieto subsequently said.
It was a critical moment that, as Prieto saw it, scuttled the chance for a forceful immediate response to the Russian hack—and keenly disappointed the NSC aides who had been developing the options. They were convinced that the president and his top aides didn’t get the stakes. “There was a disconnect between the urgency felt at the staff level” and the views of the president and his senior aides, Prieto later said. When senior officials argued that the issue could be revisited after Election Day, Daniel and his staff intensely disagreed. “No—the longer you wait, it diminishes your effectiveness. If you’re in a street fight, you have to hit back,” Prieto remarked.
And now because of Barack Obama’s inaction in the face of Russian threats the whole narrative has been turned around and Donald Trump is being investigated for the Russian interference the Obama administration knew was happening but did nothing to stop.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, March 11th open thread: ‘Found a Job’
Here is the open thread for Sunday, March 11th. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
Last week we discussed 8 stories, did you miss any of them? If so there is an easy way to make sure it does not happen again. I understand that all of you are busy and cannot always find the time to check the blog for updates so why not subscribe to America’s Watchtower and receive email updates whenever I write a new post? That is the easiest way to follow the blog to ensure you never miss another post.
In addition to subscribing you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. But you will get more than that for I often post links to articles probably will not be writing about so it is a great way to keep up with what is happening.
The Twitter widget in the sidebar is fully interactive. This widget updates my tweets in real time and allows you to respond to or retweet my tweets right from the blog. It also allows you to tweet me right from America’s Watchtower.
Here is the Talking Heads performing “Found a Job” live in 1978.
frui diem
A few weeks ago Donald Trump announced he would be willing to be interviewed by Robert Mueller in the Russian election probe and today it is being reported that the President’s lawyers are seeking a deal to grant that interview in return for an end to the investigation.
Here is more:
President Donald Trump’s lawyers are seeking to negotiate a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller that uses an interview with the president as leverage to spur a conclusion to the Russia investigation, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
The president’s legal team is considering telling Mr. Mueller that Mr. Trump would agree to a sit-down interview based on multiple considerations, including that the special counsel commit to a date for concluding at least the Trump-related portion of the investigation. One idea is to suggest a deadline of 60 days from the date of the interview, the person said.
The president’s legal team is under pressure from Mr. Trump to bring about an end to the probe. Mr. Trump has been eager to see the investigation wrap up as quickly as possible, describing it as a distraction that is hurting the country.
Personally I find it hard to believe Robert Mueller would agree to these terms not knowing what Donald Trump will say, but then again I did not foresee a meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un after all of the saber-rattling so who knows?
The Democrats will probably claim this is proof that Donald Trump wants to end this investigation quickly because he has something to hide, but after a year of an investigation which has turned up no evidence whatsoever of collusion this has become nothing more than a purposeful distraction designed to deligimize the President and take the focus of the American people off of the real issues our country is facing and some of the successes this President has had.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
The mainstream media and the Democrats have been writing and talking about this “blue wave” which is building across the nation which will sweep the Democrats into the majority in both the House and the Senate. Most of this has been built around a few special elections which have been held recently in which the Democrats have won but most recently it has centered on the record turnout of Democratic voters in Texas.
The Democrats have reason to feel optimism after these special elections but the “Texas blue wave” was not all it was cracked up to be. For all of the hype surrounding the Texas primary the Republicans still had roughly 500,000 more voters than the Democrats and Ted Cruz gained more votes over his primary opponents than all of the Democratic candidates gathered combined.
Now a new poll is out which shows us if the 2018 mid-term election was held today Senate Democrats would lose 5 seats in State Donald Trump won in 2016. Here is more:
Five Senate Democrats would lose to Republican candidates if the elections were held today and three have approval ratings under 50%, according to new Axios/SurveyMonkey polls.
Why it matters: Democrats are defending 10 Senate seats in states that President Trump won in 2016. In six of those states, Trump’s approval is higher than 50% (compared to 43% nationally). These numbers underscore how hard it will be for Democrats to pick up the two seats needed to win the majority despite Trump’s troubles.
The most vulnerable senators are Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester in Montana and Claire McCaskill in Missouri. Each of their approval ratings is either under 50% or just above it, while Trump’s is well above that in all three states.
The least vulnerable senators are Bill Nelson of Florida, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Trump’s approval is at just 46% in Florida and Pennsylvania and 54% in Ohio.
But, but, but… With the election many months away and final Republican opponents not set, these numbers are likely to change as real GOP challengers get involved in the race. The approval ratings of each senator may give a better idea of where they stand with voters in their states.
I do not intend to start writing about, or even thinking about for that matter, the 2018 mid-term election because it is way too early and anything can change between now and November.
However the mainstream media is pushing a narrative, selling a product, with a two-fold goal: The mainstream media wants to dissuade the Republicans from voting while at the same time encouraging the Democrats to vote.
The Democrats have a legitimate reason to feel optimistic about the mid-terms based on some recent results and historical evidence which shows for the most part the President’s party loses seats in the mid-terms and who knows, maybe there will be a blue wave in November, but do not let the mainstream media convince you this is a forgone conclusion.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Was the ‘blue wave’ of Texas just a media creation?
Understandably so, one of the Democratic Party’s main goals is to turn Texas into a blue state. If the Democrats ever accomplish this feat it is hard to envision another Republican President and so the mainstream media was abuzz over the last week about the record Democratic early voter turnout in the Texas primary yesterday.
I can understand their enthusiasm at the turnout and the prospects of Texas turning blue but this might be more of a media creation than it seems at first glance. It turns out that even with this record turnout the Republicans still had roughly 500,000 more voters than the Democrats and Ted Cruz alone had more votes than all the Democratic candidates combined.
I cannot post the charts directly but you can check them out here. For all of the hoopla surrounding the Texas primary it looks like this might be a case of the media trying to push its agenda and sway public opinion rather than reporting the news. We will know for certain in November…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
I know it has been awhile but you still remember the Fast and Furious scandal, don’t you? This was one of the scandals which occurred during Barack Obama’s scandal-free administration. In this particular scandal the Department of Justice, under Eric Holder, allowed weapons to be sold to criminals and trafficked into Mexico so they could be tracked. The government lost the weapons and eventually Border Patrol agents Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata were killed by some of these weapons.
When the scandal started to get too close to Eric Holder he asked Barack Obama to use Executive Privilege to seal the documents and Barack Obama did so. When Eric Holder appeared before the Congress he refused to cooperate and was held in Contempt but nothing was ever done to him.
After six years of fighting for the documents the Congress is finally going to get them because according to this story Attorney General Jeff Sessions has agreed to release them. Here is more:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Wednesday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will provide documents to Congress on the Obama-era program dubbed “Fast and Furious” that allowed criminals to purchase guns in Phoenix-based gun shops in order to track them into Mexico.
“The Department of Justice under my watch is committed to transparency and the rule of law. This settlement agreement is an important step to make sure that the public finally receives all the facts related to Operation Fast and Furious,” Sessions said in a press release.
“We need to find out the truth, exactly what happened, how it happened, why it happened. We need Mr. Trump, President Trump, to unseal the documents, reverse executive privilege so that we know what happened, and that we can hold the people accountable that are responsible,” Kent Terry said on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.
I would add as a side-note here that while Jeff Sessions is interested in the “rule of law” in this case he does not seem concerned about the rule of law regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee over the Russian dossier but let that go.
I would not expect anybody to be held accountable, that is a pipe dream, but at least we might finally learn the truth and maybe this will bring some closure to the families of Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 