Obamacare: Texas doctors to pull out of Medicaid
Under Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law Medicaid was expanded to include more people while the Medicaid funding was cut. Medicaid is the government program that was designed to help low income people receive healthcare services that they would otherwise be unable to afford.
Expanding Medicaid was part of Barack Obama plan to help insure more lower income families, but the regime never elaborated on how they were going to expand Medicaid coverage to more people while at the same time cutting Medicaid funding. There is a simple reason why they didn’t explain this; because it is impossible to both expand Medicaid to more people while cutting the funding.
With the government reimbursing doctors less for the same fees while at the same time adding more people to the system, the backlash was easy to see coming. Doctors were going to begin opting out and not accepting Medicaid patients, meaning that the exact opposite to the stated goal of healthcare reform was actually going to take place, less lower income people would be covered under this new healthcare system than before.
We are seeing the first example of this taking place in Texas, where doctors are threatening to drop Medicaid patients because they will no longer be able to afford them. These doctors may be the first, but they will not be the last.
This result was easy enough for even someone like myself– a radical, right wing extremist and potential domestic terrorist– to see coming; surely the Obama regime saw this coming as well. We have to believe that this is the desired result because it is just too hard to believe that the Obama regime didn’t see this coming.
Darrell Issa wants White House/Google ties investigated
The Obama regime may have been using Twitter and Facebook to avoid the Presidential Records Act. That is the claim being made by Darrell Issa, who is now calling for an investigation into contact the Obama regime may have had with Google. He is claiming that the Obama regime may be in contact with lobbyists via private accounts in order to avoid reporting these contacts under the Presidential Records Act.
Darrell Issa may be on to something here as the Obama regime has already reprimanded Andrew McLaughlin for “incidental” contact with Google that violate the Obama regime’s own ethics standards. We must never forget that Barack Obama promised to run the most transparent, open, and ethical presidency in history. Even if no laws were broken here, we can see once again that Barack Obama’s rhetoric does not match his actions as president. He is failing on one of his biggest campaign pledges.
The Obama regime realizes that something shady may have been going on here, hence the reprimand. But can anyone really expect the Obama regime to divulge on its own the depth of contact that Andrew McLaughlin had with Google through personal accounts? I don’t think so. Where there is smoke there is fire, so the saying goes. And with the reprimand of Andrew McLaughlin earlier this year Barack Obama tried to put out a fire. But that is not good enough.
We heard the same story with the Obama regime in regards to the Joe Sestak story: the Obama regime investigated itself and found that it had not committed any wrongdoing. We are supposed to accept that story as the full truth because Barack Obama said so, but there is only one way to get the full story and that is through an independent investigation– in this and the Joe Sestak story.
As these little fires continue to flare up we must assume that there is more going on behind the scenes that the Obama regime does not wish to be made public. Kudos to Darrell Issa for continuing to shed light on all of Barack Obama’s shady deals and backroom schemes, he continues to hold Barack Obama’s feet to the fire. This type of shady deal may be normal in Chicago, but that does not mean that Barack Obama should bring Chicago’s corrupt politics to the White House.
Last week the head of NASA– Charles Bolden– conducted an interview with Al-Jazeera in which he stated that one of NASA’s primary missions was a program to reach out to Muslims to make them “feel good” about their contributions to the world of science.
Today the Obama regime has denied that part of NASA’s duties involved a Muslim outreach program, stating that Charles Bolden “misspoke” when he made that claim. Yet when this story first broke the White House backed up Charles Bolden when the regime stated that NASA must “partner with countries around the world like Russia and Japan, as well as collaboration with Israel and with many Muslim-majority countries.” While this is not an admission that NASA should be involved in a Muslim outreach program, it certainly seemed as if the Obama regime had Charles Bolden’s back on this issue.
But today that all changed with the Obama regime’s claim that Muslim outreach was not part of NASA’s responsibilities. This regime just can’t seem to get its stories straight. It took the Obama regime 10 days to finally come out and deny the claim by Charles Bolden that part of NASA’s duties were reaching out to Muslims to make them “feel good” about the contributions to science, prompting the question: who is telling the truth? If Barack Obama is telling the truth, why did it take the regime 10 days to deny this story?
It seems obvious to me that Charles Bolden would not have just made this claim up out of thin air, the order must have come from above.
I find it interesting how many Democrats have made claims about the Obama regime that the president has had to respond to by saying that there was miscommunication involved. From Joe Sestak to Andrew Romanoff and now Charles Bolden there have been numerous occasions where “miscommunication” has seemingly played a role in controversial issues.
Either the Obama regime cannot properly articulate its positions to people in their own party or they are articulating their positions properly only to backtrack when controversy ensues thereby hanging those involved out to dry in an attempt to clear Barack Obama of any knowledge of the situations.
I have one last question: which is worse?
According to this article, at the governors meeting that was held this weekend in Massachusetts several Democrat governors held a private meeting with White house officials on the issue of the federal challenge to Arizona’s new controversial immigration law.
The theme was the same: this federal challenge comes at a bad time for Democrats who are worried that this lawsuit could backfire on them in the fall elections. This was summed up best by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen when he stated, “it is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”
He is worried about the political fallout of the lawsuit against Arizona, not about what is right. And I feel that this statement mirrors what many of the Democrats who attended this meeting fear– that this issue could hurt them politically at the polls in November. This issue should hurt the Democrats at the polls and they should be worried because we are coming after them in full force in just a few short months– but I do find it interesting that people like Phil Bredesen look at this through a political prism first and do not look at it from the perspective of what the American people want.
This statement alone is proof enough that Democrats know that the people support Arizona and are opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens, but this statement also suggests that people like Phil Bredesen are in opposition to the American people on this issue. Most Democrats support the lawsuit, and amnesty for illegals, they are not upset about the lawsuit, they are upset with the timing of the lawsuit because they feel it hurts their re-election prospects.
If these people cared about the American people and if the cared about what the American people wanted they wouldn’t be in such a dire predicament. But the fact is they care more about their radical leftist ideology than they care about the American people. This ideology puts them at odds with the vast majority of the American people, so they are upset that the Obama regime has filed a lawsuit against the Arizona law; but they are not upset about the lawsuit, but rather the fact that the lawsuit will come before the elections in November.
We can clearly see where their priorities are, and they are not with the American citizens or the legal aliens in this country. Their priorities are with the illegal aliens, they just wish that this lawsuit hadn’t come in time to expose them. But they have been exposed.
Arizona immigration law protest in Boston? What a bust!
On Saturday my family was in Boston to check my son into a Summer music program at Berklee. I knew that the governors– including Jan Brewer– were in town, and I knew that a protest against Arizona’s new controversial immigration law was also scheduled for that day. But I did not know where the protest would take place and I did not know the time that the protest was scheduled to take place.
As we entered the Performance Center at Berklee for the orientation it was hot and humid with a few clouds in the sky, but when the orientation was over about an hour and a half later we were met with heavy rains. Being unprepared for the rain, we quickly rushed down Boylston Street and took shelter in a bar and grill where we decided to have a parting lunch with our oldest son– and straight into the protest march route.
As we were eating our lunch I looked out the window when I heard a little commotion and right outside the window I saw the protesters march by carrying signs and ducking in the heavy rain. They were surrounded on both sides be people wearing tactical gear. I couldn’t tell whether these were actual guards protecting the protesters, or whether they were protesters dressed up in tactical gear. I think they were protesters (or guards of the Black Panthers variety), but I still don’t know.
My first instinct was to jump up and get a couple of pictures to show how small the protest ended up being, but the flood of people in the establishment precluded me from being able to snap a picture.
The protest was not nearly the thousands of people that were expected to show up and most likely the rain had something to do with that. Even Margery Eagan– a liberal columnist for the Boston Herald and morning talk show host with the unbearable and arrogant Jim Brody– declared in her column covering the protest that the demonstration was a bust.
While the downpours can be blamed for part of the lack of turnout, they are certainly not solely responsible as the rally started a couple of hours before the rains began. She claims that there were about four hundred protesters in total– and maybe there were before the rain started– but I estimate the crowd that I saw marching down Boylston Street to have number about 100, a generous estimate would be 150 people.
Perhaps there were more than this before the rain started, but by all accounts this protest did not nearly draw the crowd that these ill informed protesters had hoped for. And while the rain may be partly to blame for this, the fact that before the rain came the protest didn’t draw nearly as many people as had been expected has to be considered proof that there just isn’t as much opposition to the Arizona immigration law– even in Massachusetts– as these protesters believe there is. After all, Jan Brewer was in the state and this was still the best showing that the anti-Arizona protesters could muster.
Democrats plan a major lame duck offensive
Democrats could be in real trouble this November; they face the very real possibility of losing the House outright and having a smaller majority in the Senate. This would make passing anything over the next two years quite difficult, and the Democrats realize this.
So the Democrats are now devising a new strategy to pass their radical leftist agenda. The House is adjourning a week earlier than normal this year in order to postpone taking votes on controversial issues before the reconvene in November for the lame duck session. How can congress adjourning early be a bad thing? How can this strategy help them to pass their radical agenda? The answer is twofold depending on what happens during the mid-term elections.
First, by delaying votes on controversial issues such as amnesty for illegals, card check, and cap and trade they hope that voter anger will subside in time and that this will help them win re-election. If this happens we can be assured that Democrats will see this as a sign that the American people still support their radical agenda and they will happily oblige them by pushing their agenda forward.
Secondly, if Democrats do fare as badly as is expected in the mid-terms, the Democrats plan to use the lame duck session as a chance to push through their radical agenda.
Even if we win we lose.
The theory goes like this: Democrats who win re-election will rightfully feel emboldened and will not fear pushing their radical agenda. Meanwhile Democrats who lose re-election and otherwise would be leery of pushing the Obama regime’s agenda will no longer have anything to lose, thereby being free to push cap and trade, card check, and amnesty for illegals. They would have already lost, so they have nothing left to lose. Instead of listening to the voice of the people, they will consider this an opportunity to give the American people one last middle finger before they leave office.
The Obama regime has already showed the American people that they do not care about the opinions of the American people when they used shady politics to pass the unpopular healthcare reform bill, so why would they listen to the voters who voted these radicals out of office? If Democrats lose their re-election bids they intend to double down and pass the agenda that the American people will have voted against in the mid-term elections.
We cannot let the prospect of this strategy get us down, that is what they are hoping for. They feel that if the American people think there is no reason to go to the polls because Democrats are going to do whatever they want in spite of the election results that low voter turnout will hand them a victory at the polls. This result would be devastating because they would then have an additional two years to destroy this country. Even if we vote them out and they manage to push through some of their radical ideas, it will still be less damaging than if we allow them two more years to continue.
We must limit the damage while we can, we must get to the polls even if it seems as if politicians aren’t listening to us. We cannot afford another two years of Democrat majorities in congress. We must vote and we must let our voices be heard even if no one is listening because time is of the essence here.
A Boston judge has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)– signed into law by Bill Clinton– is unconstitutional because it violates a state’s right to regulate marriage.
This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state
This is an issue that I am probably going to disagree with quite a few conservatives on– not on the issue of gay marriage itself as I am opposed to gay marriage, but on the ruling itself, which I agree with. As a person who considers himself a state’s right advocate I have a hard time disagreeing with this ruling.
Make no mistake about it, I am personally opposed to gay marriage, I have made these feelings known both in previous posts and in my “About Me” page, but I am more opposed to those that would trample on the constitution than anything else I could be opposed to.
I firmly believe that too much power has been taken away from the states and handed to the federal government, and because of this belief I find it hard to argue against a ruling that reaffirms a state right, regardless of whether I agree with the state on this issue or not.
Having said that, I vehemently oppose the way that gay marriage became law in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts’ court ordered the legislature to write a law that permitted gay marriage; this was a case of the courts blurring the constitutional line on the separation of powers. But on top of that, the legislature never actually wrote a law that permitted gay marriage, yet gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts. I abhor the process in which gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts more than I care about the end result.
Contrast that with the way my state– New Hampshire– made gay marriage legal. The New Hampshire legislature went through the proper procedures to legalize gay marriage. The people elected pro gay marriage legislators– even if they were blinded by hatred of George W Bush and didn’t realize what they were doing– these legislators moved a gay marriage bill forward, and that bill was signed into law by the governor. I do not agree with the law, but it was passed the proper way, therefore I accept it. My only problem with the law is the fact that my governor– John Lynch– lied about his position on gay marriage. All three times that he was running for election he claimed that he was opposed to gay marriage, only to sign it once it made it to his desk– proving to all citizens of this great state that he is nothing more than a liar.
While I have a problem with the governor on this issue, I do not have a problem with the process that sent this bill to his desk even though I disagree with the legislation. The proper procedures were followed and if the residents of New Hampshire disagree with this law they can let their voices be heard in November.
I highlight these two cases because they are close to home so I have been able to follow them very closely in the newspapers and on local talk radio. I think that the difference in the procedure used to pass these laws is striking; one state circumvented the constitution, while the other state followed the proper procedure.
But being the state’s rights advocate that I am, I have to ask the following question: would this same judge rule in favor of letting the states decide whether or not abortion should be legal in their state? I ask this knowing that it is a rhetorical question because the state court cannot overrule the Supreme court, but I still ask it because to me there is not much difference between the issue of abortion and gay marriage when it comes to who the ultimate authority on these issues should be.
I believe that gay marriage is a state’s right issue and I believe that abortion is a state’s rights issue; I believe that Roe vs Wade is bad case law. Yet I believe it would be very unlikely that this judge who ruled DOMA unconstitutional would be willing to rule in the same manner when it comes to abortion. He cites state’s rights when it suits his argument, but would he be willing to assert state’s rights if there was any possibility that he would have to rule on abortion? I don’t think so.
I have been consistent with my position on state’s rights, yet liberal justices continue to pick and chose which issues suit their needs and rule on them accordingly. And that is where my biggest problem is with the justice system today. I believe that the hypocrisy of many justices is on full display here.
All I want is a little consistency here.
Barack Obama loses drilling moratorium appeal
Barack Obama hasn’t done much, if anything, about the oil that is spilling into the Gulf other than using the spill for political reasons to push his cap and trade agenda. Part of this included a six month moratorium on all oil drilling in the Gulf.
A federal judge overturned the moratorium last month stating that not only did the Obama regime not prove that all oil companies– even those that have done nothing wrong– deserved to be shut down, but that the Obama regime also mislead the American people.
The Obama regime quickly reinstated the moratorium while they filed an emergency appeal of the judge’s decision. Just a short time ago the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Obama regime’s request that the moratorium be reinstated while the appeals process was carried out, claiming that Barack Obama did not prove “a likelihood of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted.” In other words, while the recent court decision is being challenged by the Obama regime, drilling will be allowed to continue.
However, Ken Salazar plans on issuing yet another ban on drilling in the Gulf in wake of this court ruling. The reason that the founders set up a system of government that had three branches with delineated powers was precisely for reasons like this, to prohibit one branch– and the president in particular– from having too much power, yet Barack Obama is doing all that he can to step up above the other branches and assume power that is not his. The sooner that Barack Obama learns the difference between being a president and being a king the better off the American people will be.
As the federal government readies its case against Arizona’s new controversial immigration law, three more states appear to be on the verge of passing immigration laws that are similar to Arizona’s law.
Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah are in the process of writing immigration laws that are similar to the now federally contested Arizona immigration law and they all feel that when their legislative sessions begin in 2011 that there is a very good chance they will pass these laws. There are also seventeen other states that are preparing similar laws to Arizona, but as of right now it appears as if these bills will not become law.
While the Obama regime appears to be headed in the opposite direction, more and more people want to see the problem of illegal immigration addressed– and they are not interested in amnesty. People are sick and tired of illegal immigrants sneaking over the border and this is being reflected in the bills that are in process in many of these states.
Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah have already enacted laws that crack down on illegal immigrants and the people who employ them, the next logical move for these states is to enact legislation that will do what the federal government is unwilling to do; crack down on illegal immigration.
Below is a brief summary of laws that were recently enacted in these three states.
Oklahoma:
adopting legislation that makes it a felony to knowingly transport or shelter an illegal immigrant. It also blocked illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses and in-state tuition
South Carolina:
legislation forced businesses to check the immigration status of their workers. Harboring and transporting illegal immigrants also became a state crime.
Utah:
A Utah law that took effect last year made it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented workers
Stopping employers from hiring illegal aliens, and making it illegal to deal in immigrant smuggling are great first steps that these states have taken, but they do not go far enough and because of this all of these states are looking to implement laws that are similar to Arizona’s new law.
This is going to set up a showdown between the Obama regime and not only Arizona, but several other states who are fed up with the federal government’s refusal to take this issue seriously.
When Arizona was the only state to challenge federal authority the Obama regime could easily claim that Arizona was a rogue state that passed a “misguided” immigration law, but with more states lining up behind Arizona the focus will begin to turn to the federal government and their unwillingness– and almost criminal neglect– of the federal immigration laws that they are charged with upholding.
Battle lines are being drawn in the sand between the states and the federal government. We are reaching a critical time on the issue of illegal immigration. Will the laws be upheld or will they be ignored as they have been in the past?
We all know that the Obama regime wants to pass a bill that includes amnesty for these criminals, but as the economy worsens and American citizens are losing jobs to illegal immigrants, even people who have supported amnesty in the past are beginning to realize that America cannot allow illegal immigrants to come to this country to fill the jobs that “Americans are unwilling to do” because as jobs become harder to find they are learning the truth; when it comes to feeding their families, there are no jobs the American people are not willing to do if only they had a chance and these jobs were not being stolen by people who do not belong here.
All the polls show that a vast majority of the people support Arizona, yet the Obama regime is opposed to Arizona– and theoretically all of those states that will soon take action similar to Arizona.
One has to begin to wonder which side the Obama regime is on– does he side with the American people or does he side with the illegal immigrants? That is a rhetorical question, we all know which side Barack Obama is on, and it isn’t the side that most Americans are standing on.
I welcome the Obama regime’s challenge to the Arizona immigration law, even though I think the Obama regime will win this challenge, because this challenge highlights the regime’s position on this issue better than any of us right wing, potential domestic terrorist bloggers ever could. And I applaud these three states for not backing down– and in fact, moving forward– in the face of a potential threat of a lawsuit by the Obama regime.
Max Baucus blasts Barack Obama’s recess appointment of Donald Berwick, but is it unconstitutional?
Barack Obama has decided to install Donald Berwick as his head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by using a recess appointment. This has been met with huge opposition by the Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who said the following:
As if shoving a trillion-dollar government takeover of healthcare down the throat of a disapproving American public wasn’t enough, apparently the Obama administration intends to arrogantly circumvent the American people yet again by recess-appointing one of the most prominent advocates of rationed healthcare to implement their national plan
It is not surprising that Mitch McConnell would be so opposed to the recess appointment of a radical that has openly supported both healthcare rationing and using the healthcare reform bill to redistribute the wealth, I oppose Donald Berwick and his policies, but I am not going to sit here and fain outrage at the president for making this recess appointment. This is nothing new, hell President Bush used a recess appointment to name John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations– which was met with the same outrage from the left. However, I am outraged that a person that advocates healthcare rationing would be named to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. But my opposition to Donald Berwick is not the topic of this post.
Donald Berwick was considered so controversial that even Democrats weren’t on board with his selection, refusing to even hold a hearing on this man. While I am not outraged that Barack Obama would use a recess appointment, I do find it interesting that none other than Max Baucus has actually come out and blasted the president for this decision:
Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered
Both he and Mitch McConnell are on the same page, believe it or not. This may be the one time that Barack Obama has made good on his promise to unite the nation. Donald Berwick is such a radical that very few politicians on either side of the aisle wanted to see him confirmed– Barack Obama has finally drawn a consensus in congress, although it is in opposition to himself that he has drawn Max Baucus and Mitch McConnell together. There seems to be a growing rift between the more moderate Democrats and the liberal Democrats, and this recess appointment could highlight the fact that some less liberal Democrats in congress may have reservations about Barack Obama. We need to be extremely leery of a person that the Democrats are so willing to shun. But that is not the main point of this post either.
So what is the main point of this post? Many presidents over the years have used the recess appointment to name people to positions that the senate refused to bring to the floor for confirmation. Is this constitutional? Both Mitch McConnell and Max Baucus accuse the president of circumventing the constitution by using a recess appointment, but is that true? Whenever it is perceived by congress that the president has done an end around and bypassed their approval process we can rest assured that tempers will flare, but do they have a legitimate point? At first I thought that there was nothing to this and that this was just political posturing– after all, it has been done so often in the past that it has to be constitutional, but after re-reading the constitution I am beginning to wonder if they have a point.
Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution states that ” he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” This means that the congress must approve any nominee before he can be appointed to his position. This was done to insure that the president did not have too much power.
But Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution goes on to say that “the President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
This gives the president the right to make recess appointments, but in my opinion of that clause a literal interpretation of the meaning would be that the vacancy must occur while the senate is in recess, certainly this was not the case– neither was this the case when John Bolton was appointed as ambassador to the United Nations– because the vacancy didn’t happen during the recess, but rather that congress refused to vet the candidate before the recess.
This seems to be a grey area and as far as I can tell it has never been adjudicated. It certainly seems as if presidents have found a loophole in the constitution to gain more power than the constitution was designed to give them. I am actually surprised that this has never been challenged before, but until it is we can be upset that Barack Obama was able to name this radical to a position of power, but we must remember that he was following the precedent of former presidents who did the same.
As someone who considers himself a constitutionalist and an originalist, I think it is beyond time that we found out if recess appointments done in this fashion are constitutional or not.
America's Watchtower 