Neal Kumar Katyal–who is the acting solicitor general now that Sotomayer is sitting on the Supreme Court–is now arguing in defense of the healthcare mandates included in the healthcare reform law in an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. He had an interesting defense of the mandates to say the least; basically what he is saying is that the mandate is not a mandate (much like our war in Libya is not a war) because a person can decide to earn less money if they wish to avoid the mandate. I guess this is the Obama regime’s idea of options.
Here is his quote on this issue:
“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income.”
The Congress rebukes Barack Obama’s Libya bombings
As we all know by now the United States has been bombing Libya at the request of the United Nations. Under the War Powers Act Barack Obama did not need to–nor felt the need to–ask for the approval of the Congress to begin bombing this sovereign nation. The Nobel Peace Prize winning Barack Obama is beholden to the United Nations and so he felt compelled to do what was asked of him, without regard to whether or not the United States had an interest in this action. I thought that the War Powers Act was put into place in the case of an emergency when there was no time to waste during a crisis when American interests were under attack, but that certainly wasn’t the case with this Libya bombing.
Even as the bombs began falling on Libya Barack Obama denied that the United States was at war with Libya. Somehow he has the audacity (of hope) to claim that dropping bombs on a nation with the goal of removing that nation’s leader is not an act of war and he has the cojones to believe the American people will simply fall in line with this ridiculous notion.
After dithering for several weeks Barack Obama finally made the decision to intervene in Libya’s civil war; after days of listening to varying reports on why the United States had joined the battle against Libya Barack Obama finally gave a speech in which he tried to explain to the American people why the United States had become involved in the action against Libya.
In an attempt to justify military strikes against Libya Barack Obama had this to say while laying out the Obama Doctrine:
We knew that if we waited, if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”
“But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act,” said Obama. “That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks”
He also said this in defense of his decision to interfere in Libya:
Here’s why this matters to us: left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis could ensue
A position that we who oppose cap and trade legislation hold is the fact that it is nothing more than a tax on energy usage, while proponents of cap and trade tell us that it is a way to cap greenhouse gasses and cut down on pollution.
Cap and trade would punish energy companies and factories which exceed the government imposed limits on these emissions, but in reality these energy companies and the affected factories would simply pass these new costs on to the consumers, so in the end it will be ordinary Americans who will be paying the taxes imposed on these companies.
But don’t take my word for it, this is what Barack Obama had to say about his cap and trade plan in 2008:
under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.
That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers.
He admitted that energy prices would skyrocket, and he admitted that the additional costs of meeting these new standards would be passed on to the consumers but it wouldn’t stop there because all “fines” levied on these companies will also be passed onto the consumers–not just the initial costs of meeting the new regulations.
A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee–Debbie Wasserman Schultz–had this to say about the Republicans’ stance on illegal immigration:
We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity,” she said. “And that it would be harmful–the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all
She has a problem with this?
Of course she couldn’t bring herself to use the term “illegal immigrants,” opting instead for the politically correct term “undocumented workers” but we all know that those who are undocumented are undocumented for one reason and one reason only; they are here illegally. So what she is saying is that the Republicans believe that coming to this country illegally should be a crime. What a radical concept this is indeed, equating illegal and crime. What is it about the word “illegal” that these people do not understand?
She makes it sound as if treating people who have committed illegal acts as criminals is wrong and this shows just how out of touch all of the politicians–Democrats and Republicans–who support amnesty for illegals are with the American people.
Chuck Schumer proposes Medicare rationing
When speaking on “Meet the Press” yesterday, Chuck Shumer had this to say about Medicare under his proposed “reform” plan:
“The root of the problem is a cost-plus system,” said Schumer of Medicare on “Meet the Press.” “When you’re sick, the doctor gets paid for each service, each prescription, each pill, each test. If you were to tell doctors you get a certain amount of money to treat Jim Smith, who has a certain form of diabetes, say $10,000, every study shows that you’d save hundreds of billions of dollars without cutting benefits to people. That’s what Democrats stand for
I guess what he was trying to say is that doctors are giving Medicare patients treatments and tests which they do not need in order to make higher profits, and that under his plan this practice would stop and because of this billions of dollars would be saved. He also claims that cutting out these tests would not be cutting benefits to those that might actually need these tests. Personally I must have much more faith in the medical profession than Chuck Shumer must because I believe that these doctors would not needlessly order treatments just to turn a profit. How many of these procedures are necessary for preventative measures, and do these patients risk their health if these procedures are not done before it is too late?
Under his plan all patients would be given the same dollar value and once you reach that dollar value you are shit out of luck. Not all patients with the same problems can be expected to react the same way to the same treatments, but that is exactly what will be assumed if Chuck Shumer has his way. How is this beneficial to those that rely on Medicare to give them affordable coverage, and if a patient needs these additional treatments after that patient has reached his of her limit how is this not cutting benefits if the patient will have to chose between paying for the additional costs or skipping the potentially lifesaving tests?
Chuck Shumer then went on to blast Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform proposal stating that it would “end Medicare as we know it,” as if his plan wouldn’t do the same. Democrats have even stooped to the level of running the following commercial which depicts Paul Ryan as pushing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff because of his Medicare reform proposal.
While people like Chuck Shumer and the Democrats are trying to claim that Republicans want to “end Medicare as we know it,” they all supported Obamacare, which actually did end Medicare as we know it for the plan will cut Medicare payments by 30% over the next three years, and “redistribute” that money to Medicaid.
Barack Obama has already done what the Democrats are trying to claim the Republicans want to do, and if Chuck Shumer has his way they will continue to radically overhaul Medicare, all the while claiming it is the Republicans who do not care about the elderly. The American people simply cannot be expected to fall for this duplicity once again, can they?
I found the following video over at The Reaganite Republican and I just had to share it here as well. It is a video of Ronald Reagan’s Memorial Day speech from 1984 where he gives the Congressional Medal of Honor to an unknown soldier whose body was recently recovered in the fields of Vietnam.
I found it to be a truly powerful speech and video and I think that you will as well.
Memorial Day 2011
Today is Memorial Day; a day in which we honor those that have paid the ultimate price so that you and I may go about our daily lives as free men and women. So often I think that people take our freedom for granted and just assume because we are free, we will always remain free, forgetting what it actually takes to ensure that we remain free.
There is one reason and one reason alone that I am able to sit here day after day and write about what is happening in our government and give my opinions on what is happening in our government using my right to free speech, and that reason is because brave men and women have died for my right to do so. There is not a single day that goes by that I do not think about the sacrifice that these people have made, but today is the day that we must all remember to step back and say thank you.
So while you are at your cookout with your families and your friends; while you are cooking on the grill, drinking a few beers, and laughing with the people that you most cherish, please take just a little time out to remember those that have died to make this day possible.
Let us also never forget those that are wearing the uniform today–and the families they have left at home–to sacrifice a part of their life so that we may live ours. All of those that have ever worn the uniform of the United States are heroes and we must never forget what they have done and what they are still doing.
While perusing my favorite conservative blogs I came across a discussion at Conservative Hideout that I found extremely interesting and as I thought about this more and more I realized that I must write about it. In a post titled “RINO Alert: Who is John Huntsman?” Matt exposed Huntsman for a man who would makes John McCain appear to be a true conservative and not the RINO we all know he is.
The first comment on this post was made by a man named David Miller, who stated:
Matt, while I understand the consternation of many conservatives over people like Huntsman, I have to ask myself if the GOP is prepared to lose on principal, or would they like to be part of the solution.
Politics has always meant a degree of compromise. As it becomes more and more apparent that the demographics of winning will necessitate a change in philosophy, what is the GOP going to do?
It seems as if the primary voters are of one mind, and the general election voters of another.
If this is true, what is the solution for the GOP?
David is asking if the Republicans are prepared to lose on principle instead of trying to be part of the solution; what he is suggesting is that conservatives must compromise their beliefs in order to solve the nation’s problems. Once again it is the conservatives who are asked to move more towards the left because the left is unwilling to do precisely what David is asking the conservatives to do.
As we all know by now Barack Obama, under the direction of the United Nations, decided to intervene in Libya’s civil war. Under the War Powers act Barack Obama did not need to seek approval of the Congress for any military engagement that lasted less than 60 days. But that window has passed and Barack Obama shows no signs of asking for congressional approval to continue the war against Libya.
This has not gone unnoticed by some members of the Congress and now Representative Tom Rooney of Florida is calling on the Congress to deny Barack Obama the funding for the continuance of his war in Libya.
“I think that we’ve gotten to the point, almost, of no return because we’ve gone over the legal term of 60 days
We’re at day 65 now,” said Rooney. “So I think right now we’re operating under the assumption that he’s not going to ask for authorization. We’re not going to debate this. So I think it’s almost–we’re at the point where we have to exercise our right not to fund it until we have a reason to.”
Hey, as I said in my testimony, Libya might be — going militarily into Libya might be the greatest thing in the world but we’ve never even debated it, we haven’t had the administration come and explain why it’s important
Barack Obama tried to tell the American people that action needed to be taken in Libya in order to protect innocent lives. He tried to tell the American people that American values were under attack and that we had a duty to be the moral conscience of the world, but in my opinion that is no justification to insert the United States in the civil war of another country.
If this was truly the goal of this action than surely the United States should also be bombing Syria and Yemen where the same atrocities are currently taking place, yet Barack Obama hasn’t taken a position on the civil wars in these counties, which leads me to believe that there is some ulterior motive behind our bombing of Libya.
I do not believe there is any chance in hell that the Congress would ever vote to cut off funding for the United States’ military action in Libya, but Tom Rooney threat to cut off the funding might be just what is needed to bring Barack Obama before the Congress to explain what the hell we are doing in Libya in the first place.
America's Watchtower 