Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Obama chief of staff: ObamaCare not a tax, even though our own attorney argued that it was and SCOTUS ruled that it was.

Chris Wallace leads along the poor schmuck nicely, forcing the guy to basically say “Our own solicitor general argued that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is a tax, and SCOTUS agreed…but hey, lawyers say all kinds of crazy things that aren’t true, so don’t read anything into it!”  Um…yeah.

July 3, 2012 Posted by | big government, Fox News, health care, hypocrisy, Obama, Supreme Court, taxes | 3 Comments

Did Roberts’ ruling on ObamaCare actually HELP conservatism and help Romney?

Interesting analyses, from many different sources.  Excerpts here, and you really should check them out.

Essentially, conservative pundits are wondering that while the ObamaCare ruling was a short-term win for Chairman Zero, maybe Roberts’ rejection of the Commerce Clause being used to regulate economic inactivity (which lower courts ruled was valid) will prevent future Congresses from trying to use that clause to expand the power of the federal government and thus advance the cause of limited government.  Perhaps that cause, plus the outrage from the ruling which will galvanize the conservative base to rally around Romney (which they may not have otherwise done), will put Romney and Republicans in charge…or so the thinking goes.  And if Romney and Republicans take control, they will definitely repeal ObamaCare…which means that ObamaCare got repealed PLUS the Court will have prevented similar abuse of the Commerce Clause in future sessions.

Anywho, that’s the school of thought…or spin, depending on how you look at it.  What do YOU think?

June 29, 2012 Posted by | big government, conservatism, health care, Obama, Romney, Supreme Court, taxes | 10 Comments

When is a tax NOT a tax, and a tax increase NOT a tax increase?

You tell me.

June 29, 2012 Posted by | health care, hypocrisy, Obama, socialism, Supreme Court, taxes | Leave a comment

Paging Mitt Romney re: ObamaCare

Now that the Court has ruled that the federal government can make you buy anything if they just call it a “tax”, I hope Mitt Romney and the Republicans are smart enough (yeah, I know, that’s laughable) to ride this abortion of a ruling into November.

I’m watching my country die.

June 28, 2012 Posted by | big government, health care, Romney, shameful, socialism, Supreme Court | 9 Comments

Obama repeating Politifact’s “Lie of the Year of 2011”, nearly verbatim

I dunno.  Maybe he’s trying to become the first back-to-back winner?  Anywho, you’d think his speechwriter would have picked a slightly different variation of the words to display on his tele-binky.  I guess not.

April 5, 2012 Posted by | big government, health care, Obama, shameful | 1 Comment

ObamaCare attorneys shredded before the Supreme Court, liberals stunned to think that ObamaCare might ACTUALLY be unconstitutional

Tingles was aghast.

Everyone on both sides of the aisle agree that the ObamaCare lawyers were taken to the woodshed this week while presenting their arguments in favor of ObamaCare, specifically the individual mandate.  However, John Podhoretz sums up the shock nicely while illustrating the basis of said shock:

The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.

They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.

That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.

This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court. 

There’s no telling which of 10 possible ways the high court will finally rule. But one thing is for certain: There will again come a time when liberals and conservatives disagree on a fundamental intellectual matter. Conservatives will take liberals and their arguments seriously and try to find the best way to argue the other side.

And the liberals will put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La la la.”

Ace sums Podhoretz’ argument with a hilarious zinger:

They were surprised by these arguments. Podhoretz says They should not have been surprised.

No one was hiding these arguments. They have been readily-available in court records for two years.

Nor was anyone hiding the two courts’ decisions agreeing with these arguments.

Liberals just chose to ignore relevant information about the world they live in, and then call themselves sophisticated for having chosen to be stupider than God made them.

Exactly.  Podhoretz goes on to give a list of examples of liberals who were previously convinced beyond words that the law would stand up in court, but now aren’t so sure. 

But it’s like I’ve always, always said about liberals: They don’t think…they feel.  And feelings rule the day with them.  We can’t govern this nation on feelings, people.

Exit question: Does anyone believe the SCOTUS will do anything other than rule against ObamaCare 5-4?  You know the four liberals will support it, the four conservatives will support the Constitution, and then it all depends on if Kennedy wakes up on the left side of the bed or the constitutional side of the bed that morning.

March 30, 2012 Posted by | big government, Constitution, health care, Obama, socialism | 11 Comments

Obama to troops: We’re cutting your health care benefits, but leaving unionized defense workers’ health care benefits alone

But hey, the left “supports the troops”, right?  Shameful details:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

Then why do it?  Well…

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

“When they talked to us, they did mention the option of healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. So it’s in their mind,” said a congressional aide involved in the issue.

You mean the same ObamaCare that FOB’s (Friends of Obama) are getting waivers for?  Not good enough for unions and pet donors, but force it upon our soldiers and retired soldiers?

Come on, America…PLEASE get this b#stard out of our House!

February 27, 2012 Posted by | health care, military, Obama, shameful, socialism | 8 Comments

Obama’s contraception kerfuffle

Chariman Zero tells those of faith to screw themselves…or, better yet, screw other people and have your contraception covered by society!  He’s tried walking it back, but not really.  Neal Boortz has a great post about the fraud here, and you should read it (it’s not long).  Excerpt:

…All we have to do is present a simple before and after comparison.

Before:  Obama’s mandate was that religious institutions had to provide for “free” contraception for all females working for those institutions through the health insurance policies provided to those workers. 

After:  Now the health insurance companies are simply going to have to provide “free” coverage for contraceptives in all health insurance policies.

Can someone please tell me the difference here?  If Caesar Obammus steps forward and mandates that all insurance policies must pay for contraceptives, aren’t those insurance companies simply going to factor the cost of that coverage into the premiums paid by the employers?  Doesn’t this mean that these Catholic institutions are still going to be paying for contraceptives?

The church is pushing back.  This was a gross miscalculation by Oprompter.

February 14, 2012 Posted by | abortion, big government, Catholics, health care, Obama, shameful | 6 Comments

Even many liberals turning against Obama on his decision to force Catholic institutions to violate their religious tenets in health care coverage

From the Washington comPost:

The White House sought Tuesday to soothe concerns over a controversial birth control rule that has led to Republican attacks and tension among close allies of the administration.

The efforts followed mounting criticism from Catholics and other faith leaders that a new rule requiring certain religious institutions to cover contraception as part of their employee health plans violates their constitutional rights.

And they came as White House officials began hearing complaints from some of their own allies and advisers, who view the rule as a policy mistake that feeds what they see as an unfair charge from Republicans: that President Obama is anti-religion.  (Yeah, really!  It’s unfair to note that the guy is pro-abortion, thumbs his nose at the church and the Constitution to throw a bone to his moonbat base, etc. … but hey, where would you get the crazy idea that the guy is anti-religion or anything? – CL)

Even Chris Matthews?  Dude, when Tingles says his boy’s wrong, that should make the front page of the comPost!

Normally, the Catholic church runs interference for the Democrats.  I’m guessing that’s why Chairman Zero shoved this down their throats: he figured they’d stick with him and his party like they always do.  Considering they backed ObamaCare in the first place, I’m not sure why they are surprised by this.  Unless they thought they could get a waiver just like every other B.O.-friendly organization that also didn’t want to be subject to ObamaCare’s onerous requirements.

February 8, 2012 Posted by | abortion, big government, Catholics, Christianity, Constitution, health care, media bias | 8 Comments

Congressional hopeful tries to tie his would-be opponent to Obama

The delicious hilarity of this turn of events?  The Democrat is trying to tie the Republican to Obama!  Details:

Here’s a telling sign of how much President Obama’s fortunes have changed since 2008 — a leading Democratic Congressional recruit is now attacking a Republican congressman for supporting the president.

Former Ohio Democratic congressman Charlie Wilson, who was attacked relentlessly for being too close with President Obama in last year’s losing campaign, kicked off his comeback bid today by accusing his Republican rival of the same sin.

Wilson, who represented a rural, blue-collar district along the Ohio River, is seeking a rematch against freshman Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio.  In his successful 2010 campaign, Johnson effectively characterized Wilson as a lackey of national Democrats, blasting him for casting a critical vote for Obama’s health care law and the stimulus. …

How awesome is it that B.O. is so massively unpopular that Democrats are not only running from him faster than Barney Frank from a Hooters restaurant, but now they’re actually running on “Vote for me, because unlike my Republican opponent, I won’t be tied to Obama”? 😆

Wilson, you voted for ObamaCare, in direct opposition to the wishes of your constituents.  You obviously thought they were too stupid to know what was good for them, so you voted for ObamaCare against their wishes.  Apparently, you still think they’re stupid, if you think this absurd trick will work.

December 5, 2011 Posted by | health care, hypocrisy, Obama | 2 Comments

Pelosi: It’s OK that over 1800 companies have gotten ObamaCare waivers

San Fran Nan’s rationale?  Heh.

“They’re small. I couldn’t speak to all 1,800 of them, but some of the lists that I have seen have been very, very small companies. They will not have a big impact on the economy of our country,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with CNBC.

If, by “small companies”, you mean McDonald’s (one of the top employers in the nation), then yeah…”small companies”!  Besides, didn’t she and her leftist ilk crow about how small business will love ObamaCare?  Yeah, they love it so much that they’ve asked to be excused from its onerous requirements.

Way to go, San Fransicko.

October 29, 2011 Posted by | economic ignorance, health care, Pelosi, San Francisco | 1 Comment

Night and Day, “Democrats and ‘ObamaCare'” edition

Democrats: Stop calling it “ObamaCare”!

Use of the word Obamacare as a shorthand reference for the health care reform law has become a rallying cry for conservatives who are working to repeal the law.

Democrats have objected to the term.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY.) said Obamacare has “become sort of pejorative, for no particular reason — through usage and the way it’s used and who uses it. The Republicans are trying to make it pejorative.”  (News flash, fat boy: the voters confirmed it as a pejorative in November 2010. Notice that a lot of your colleagues from last year haven’t been going to the swank D.C. buffets with you lately?  “Man, it’s been quiet.  Where’s Grayson?” – CL)

Nadler added that Republicans were trying to seize on Obama’s unpopularity to make the health care law unpopular as well.

“If you can identify something with someone who’s unpopular for whatever reason, then it becomes somewhat unpopular,” he said.

Obama: You know, I’m totally cool with “ObamaCare”!

Complicating things, President Barack Obama himself appeared to embrace the term in August.

“I have no problem with folks saying, ‘Obama cares,’” Obama said in Minnesota while he was on a bus tour of the Midwest.

“I do care,” he said. “If the other side wants to be the folks who don’t care? That’s fine with me.”  (Dude, if crushing us with trillions in debt for a failed “health care” law that has delivered on none of its promises is caring, then please stop “caring” so much! – CL)

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

October 28, 2011 Posted by | health care, Night and Day, Obama | Leave a comment

Howard Dean: Yeah, Obama was lying with “if you like your plan, you get to keep it!”

Story and video here.  Details:

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman, and doctor, Howard Dean backed a McKinsey & Co. survey today that found that almost a third of private-sector employers will drop their employee health insurance coverage when Obamacare’s government-managed insurance exchanges come online.

Dean told Morning Joe, “The fact is it is very good for small business. There was a McKinsey study, which the Democrats don’t like, but I do, and I think its true. Most small businesses are not going to be in the health insurance business anymore after this thing goes into effect.”

The reason Democrats fought so hard to dismiss the McKinsey survey when it was released is because its conclusion undermines two major claims  Obama made during health care debate: “If you like your health plan, you can keep it” and “It will not add one penny to the deficit.”

Fellow Morning Joe guest former New York Gov. George Pataki immediately hit the first point: “The only way its a help is if they drop coverage and their employees would all of a sudden have to go on the exchange, which is what of course the president promised wouldn’t happen.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) premised their Obamacare score on the assumption that only 7 percent of employers would drop their employee health plans. If the percentage is closer to the 30 percent, as the McKinsey survey results predict, Obamacare’s price tag would rise by almost $1 trillion.

For the left, this is a feature and not a bug.

But hey, the feds have done such an awesome job managing the Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, Amtrak, etc., so we can expect that same level of competence and efficiency when it comes to running our health care, right?

September 21, 2011 Posted by | big government, health care, Howard Dean, Obama, socialism | 3 Comments

Yet another instance of “we have to pass the ObamaCare bill to see what’s in it” story

You know, I’m starting to get the sneaking suspicion that lawmakers and the president didn’t actually read the ObamaCare bill before it was signed in to law.  Latest development:

Even as leading Democrats offered assurances to the contrary, government experts repeatedly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan could go belly up, saddling taxpayers with another underfunded benefit program, according to emails disclosed by congressional investigators.

Part of President Barack Obama’s health care law, the program is in limbo as a congressional debt panel searches for budget savings and behind the scenes, administration officials scramble to find a viable financing formula.

A longstanding priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program, or CLASS, was spliced into the health care law despite nagging budget worries. Administration emails and documents reveal that alarms were sounded earlier and more widely than previously thought. Congressional Republicans seeking repeal of the program provided the materials to The Associated Press.

“Seems like a recipe for disaster to me,” William Marton, a senior aging policy official in the administration, wrote in an October 2009 email. Marton explained his concern that large numbers of healthy people would not willingly sign up for CLASS, creating a predicament in which soaring premiums for a smaller group of frail beneficiaries would destabilize the program.

That central design flaw has dogged CLASS from the drawing board, and it may turn out to be insurmountable without making the program mandatory for most workers. CLASS remains vulnerable to repeal.  (Another individual mandate?  Huh.  Imagine that. – CL)

Item #1 on the agenda on Jan. 21, 2013, unless the Supreme Court beats us to the punch: Repeal ObamaCare.

September 15, 2011 Posted by | big government, health care, Obama, socialism | 3 Comments

Quote of the day, “health care and socialism” edition

From the American Enterprise Institute:

Ironically, many of the problems in our current healthcare system that lead to demands for public policy fixes—the underpayment of primary care providers, overpayment for certain specialty procedures, excessive payments for medical supplies—actually originate in government-run health programs. Expecting things to get better by expanding the reach of government in medicine appears to be a triumph of hope over experience.

How odd!  I mean, the government is so efficient with what it runs (Post Office, the VA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, Medicare), so why shouldn’t we allow the feds to replicate the same level of success they’ve had in the aforementioned programs and agencies with respect to our health care system?

September 13, 2011 Posted by | big government, corruption, economic ignorance, health care, quote of the day, socialism | 2 Comments

Federal court rules ObamaCare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional

Slackers, liberals, MSM (but I repeat myself) hardest hit.  Excerpt:

An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama’s healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.

This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” a divided three-judge panel said.

And why must we render liberals impotent in politics?  For #sshats like this guy:

…One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion. The majority “has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy,” Marcus wrote.

Just another turn in the road on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But take victories like this as we get them, folks. 🙂

August 12, 2011 Posted by | health care, judiciary, Obama | 6 Comments

Boehner gives Obama more material for future jokes


Washington (Jun 14)

President Obama recently “cracked wise” about his failed ‘stimulus,’ saying ‘shovel-ready’ was not as ‘shovel-ready’ as we expected.” Of course, it’s not a laughing matter for the 13.7 million Americans looking for work today, and Reuters notes that the president “needs to come up – quickly – with a convincing plan to generate jobs.” Republicans already have such a plan – one focused on promoting the kind of private-sector job growth the ‘stimulus’ promised but failed to deliver. All the details are available now at

Republicans have invited President Obama to help enact our plan, but he appears content with his old one. While the White House insists the president “isn’t waving a victory banner,” there he was in Miami saying he deserves credit for our sluggish economic recovery, according to The Washington Times. ‘Credit’ for 9.1 percent unemployment? If you say so.

As for the joke, perhaps President Obama is on to something about broken promises. Here are similar lines for potential use at future events:

  • “The ‘stimulus’ was not as stimulating as we expected.” This one’s obvious, but timely with the anniversary of Recovery Summer around the corner. Think about it: at this time last year, the White House was readying a victory lap, but our economy has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs since then, and 1.5 million overall since the ‘stimulus’ was enacted.
  • “The ‘Sputnik Moment’ was not as momentous as we expected.” Just weeks after declaring that the United States had reached a ‘Sputnik moment,’ the president released a budget that was widely panned for failing to make the tough choices needed to tackle the job-crushing debt that threatens our ability to compete and secure our children’s future. With the government on track to end the fiscal year $1.6 trillion in the red, the Obama Administration has asked Congress to increase the debt limit without any spending cuts or reforms.
  • ‘‘The ‘Affordable Care Act’ was not as affordable as we expected.’ Families and small businesses continue to suffer from ObamaCare’s maze of mandates, tax hikes, and mandates, which 200 economists and experts have called “major barriers to stronger job growth.”
  • “The ‘Open Government Initiative’ was not as open as we expected.” The White House staff holds regular meetings with lobbyists at Caribou Coffee across the street from the Oval Office so they can avoid recording their meetings on public visitor logs. So much for being ‘the most open and transparent’ administration in history.

American Crossroads lays it all right at Obama’s lying, shovel-ready feet:

June 15, 2011 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, health care, John Boehner, Obama, shameful, socialism | 1 Comment

Obama lawyer defending ObamaCare: Hey, you could always make less money in order to escape the individual mandate!

Ho. Ly. Shiite.  Seriously, that’s the defense this administration is going to use?  “If you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.  But if you like your job, you need to ditch it and go earn a smaller paycheck!”  From the Washington Examiner‘s Philip Klein:

President Obama’s solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. …

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” [Judge Jeffrey] Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there’s a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“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. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this…the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

You just know the liberal judicial activists on SCOTUS will side with this cretin’s “logic” when the case finally lands in their lap.


June 3, 2011 Posted by | big government, health care, judiciary, Obama, socialism | 2 Comments

CNN: Our poll shows that more Americans support a Medicare plan that doesn’t exist

CNN poll:

A CNN poll of 1,007 adult Americans asks: “From everything you have heard or read about the Republicans’ plan to change Medicare so far, do you favor or oppose it?”

The results: “58 percent of the public opposes the Republican plan on Medicare, with 35 percent saying they support the proposal.”

Interesting.  As Tina Korbe points out:

Whoever crafted the CNN poll must not have minded misleading voters with questions that offered no real specifics. But Let Freedom Ring and the College Republican National Committee refuse to let President Obama — or CNN — off the hook.

“How can CNN possibly poll whether Americans prefer Obama’s or Ryan’s approach to Medicare when the president doesn’t have an approach?” said Alex Cortes, 22-year-old executive director of Let Freedom Ring. “Putting aside his moral obligation to save the program for our generation, he should present a plan at the very least so CNN can conduct an honest poll.”

At the very, very least.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

June 2, 2011 Posted by | CNN, health care, media bias, Obama | 4 Comments

Pelosi: We have to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it. Her constituents: We found out, and it’s killing us.

From San Fransicko:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide

“ObamaCare for thee, but not for me!”  I guess it pays to have connections, right?  But why would Queen Botox’s district’s businesses even need waivers from ObamaCare?

Before hanging up on TheDC, Tru Spa’s owner said new government health care regulations, both the federal-level Obamacare and new local laws in Northern California, have “devastated” the business. “It’s been bad for us,” he said, without divulging his name, referring to the new health care restrictions.

Huh.  Seems that Peloco was telling her San Franistan constituents to s#ck it while she curried favor with ObaMao.  But my heart doesn’t bleed for the Bay Area: they keep sending San Fran Nan back to DC.  So deal with it, chumps.

May 17, 2011 Posted by | big government, health care, Pelosi, San Francisco, socialism | 3 Comments

Following Ron Paul’s lead, Newt decides to kill his own presidential campaign in its infancy

I blogged already about the case against Newt Gingrich as president.  Add this to my case:

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said when asked about Ryan’s plan to transition to a “premium support” model for Medicare. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”

Yeah, because trying to prevent the country from falling into insolvency is radical…but leaving spending on everything, including entitlements, is much more rational.  Right?  Continuing:

In another surprising move, Gingrich also reiterated his previous support for a “variation of the individual mandate” for health care. “I  believe all of us — and this is going to be a big debate — I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care,” he said, insisting there is “a way to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy.”  (Yeah, libertarians get all warm and fuzzy at the thought of government-mandated purchases. – CL)

“It’s a system that allows people to have a range of choices that are designed by the economy,” he said. “I don’t think having a free rider system in [health care] is any more appropriate than having a free rider system in any other part of the economy.”

As far as an alternative, Gingrich trotted out the same appeal employed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi — for a “national conversation” on how to “improve” Medicare, and promised to eliminate ‘waste, fraud and abuse,’ etc.

If he’s trotting out Pelosi’s idea, that just confirms my suspicions that her lunacy is actually contagious.  He must have caught it from her on the couch.  Notes Drew M.:

Either way, I’m sure the Democrats appreciate the campaign ad, “The GOP Medicare Plan Is Too Extreme For Newt Gingrich”.

Funny that he seems to oppose Paul Ryan’s plan for fiscal sanity now.  He seemed to embrace it just two short weeks ago.  John Kerry just e-mailed to say “Dude, you need to be more subtle than that.”

Exit question: What in the blue h3ll is this guy thinking?  He does realize he’s running in a GOP primary where the conservative base is highly motivated, right?

May 16, 2011 Posted by | big government, health care, Newt Gingrich | 8 Comments

One onerous requirement of ObamaCare repealed by Senate, Obama will sign

Of course the Obamunist will sign it, with a veto-proof majority like this backing it:

After a months-long battle, the Senate voted Tuesday, 87 to 12, to repeal the 1099 tax-reporting requirement in Democrats’ healthcare reform bill.

The measure now goes to the president, who is expected to sign it, making it the first part of his party’s signature reform bill to be scrapped.

The measure, initially included as a funding measure for the healthcare bill, does away with the requirement for companies to report to the IRS transactions valued at more than $600. While the provision has had few backers in either party, debate over its repeal had dragged on for months.

Remember when San Fran Nan said we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it?  As we’ve seen numerous times since then, there’s a bunch of stuff in it: a change in House Speaker, a reduction in Senate Democrats, etc.  😆  This anti-business measure was so massively unpopular that only the most liberal of leftists supported it.

One part of ObamaCare repealed, so many more parts to go!

April 6, 2011 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, health care, Obama, taxes | 3 Comments

Former head of UK’s socialized medicine agency dies from irony, or socialized medicine ineffeciency…both, actually

Sometimes, the stories just write themselves.  From the UK:

A former NHS director died after waiting for nine months for an operation – at her own hospital.

Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex.
But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery.

Well, better late than never! Actually…no, “late” and “never” are pretty much the same here, no?

Hey, I’ve got an awesome idea!  How’s about we let our federal government take over our health care system here?  I mean, stuff like this from the UK could never happen here…could it?

April 1, 2011 Posted by | big government, Euros, health care, socialism | 3 Comments

Weiner (D-NY): Say, how’s about an ObamaCare waiver for my constituents in NYC?

Deranged Congressman Anthony Weiner, a man who is in serious need of anger management classes, tries to defend requesting a waiver from the very legislation for which he so passionately fought in 2009.  Open mouth and insert foot, Congressman Schlong:

Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.

Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.

“The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.”

The congressman was trying to debunk Republican “myths” about the health care law during a speech at the Center for American Progress. He used the waivers as way to describe how flexible the law actually is and how “this notion that the government is shoving the bill down people’s throats” is not true.

“The administration needs to make this argument more forcefully,” he said. “A lot of people who got waivers were … people who are our friends.”

“Our friends”…you know, it really does pay to be an FOB (Friend Of Barack), doesn’t it.  By logical extension, apparently the rest of America that resides outside of his district are enemies, right?

Typical liberal: Good enough for thee, but not for me!

March 23, 2011 Posted by | big government, health care, hypocrisy, moonbats, New York, socialism | 5 Comments

ObamaCare waivers reaches 1,000+

The legislation that was so absolutely critical to the survival of this republic that…over 1000 entities have asked to be exempted from its onerous and burdensome requirements.  Details:

The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law enacted almost a year ago. Waivers have become a hot-button issue for Republicans, eager to expose any vulnerabilities in the reform law.

Big, flaming lie:

The department also said the number of waivers has been steadily decreasing. HHS approved more than 500 in December, which it attributed to most plan years starting Jan. 1. It then approved 200 waivers in January and 126 in February.

The number of waivers went from 0 to 222 to 770 to over 1,000.  How in the h3ll is that “number of waivers has been steadily decreasing”?  As this story illustrates, the number of waivers is going UP.  If they mean the rate of added waivers is decreasing, fine.  But that’s not what the liars in the administration and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) are saying, though.

Flashback: unions and pro-“reform” groups that pushed hard for ObamaCare’s passage granted waivers from its requirements.

March 7, 2011 Posted by | big government, corruption, economic ignorance, health care, shameful | 6 Comments

Federal judge (Clinton appointee) rules ObamaCare constitutional because Congress can regulate “mental activity”

Arguably the scariest ruling yet in the ObamaCare court circus.  Details:

A federal judge has upheld the national health care law, making it the fifth ruling on the merits of the legal challenges to the individual mandate.

The  ruling by the Clinton appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia continues the pattern of Democratic-appointed judges siding with the Obama administration and Republican judges siding with the plaintiffs in ruling the mandate unconstitutional. Kessler’s ruling comes in a case brought by individual plaintiffs, where as the two decisions striking down the mandate have come in cases brought by 27 states, based in Virginia and Florida.

Like the other decisions upholding the law, the logic of Kessler’s ruling demonstrates how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional. In something right out of  Harrison Bergeron, Kessler notes that Washington has the authority to regulate “mental activity”:

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power…However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

It is worth noting, however, that even Kessler concedes that “there is little judicial guidance” on this question.

Apparently, “mental activity” is no longer a requirement to be a federal judge.

Got that?  “Mental activity” can be regulated by Congress, which is something that the Founding Fathers obviously intended to be a proper federal role.  For those of you on the left, the last part of the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Interestingly, remember when Chairman O got snippy with George Snuffalupagus (or whatever the h3ll his name is) about how ObamaCare’s individual mandate was a tax…then argued in court that Congress could issue the mandate because the Constitution allows Congress to tax?  Yeah, the Kerryesque “it actually wasn’t a tax, before it was”?  Well, even this Clinton judge rejected that notion, saying that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate our thoughts and that alone was reason enough to allow the mandate to stand.

Orwell just called.  He asked if we still think he was paranoid for writing 1984.

February 23, 2011 Posted by | big government, Constitution, health care, judiciary, shameful | 2 Comments

Obama administration found in contempt of court order in Gulf moratorium case. Contempt next for ignoring ObamaCare ruling?

From Bloomberg:

The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.

Obama?  Ignoring a court’s ruling?  The hell you say!  What kind of crazy wingnut conspiracy theory is that?


In his Jan. 31 Final Summary Declaratory Judgment, Judge Vinson, in the district court for the Northern District of Florida, said “it is hereby DECLARED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) … is unconstitutional.”

And in the complete ruling, Vinson wrote that “there is a long-standing presumption ‘that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, this declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.’”

Paging Darrell Issa

February 3, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, corruption, health care, Obama, shameful | 1 Comment

Night and Day, “Obama and individual mandates” edition

Back in 2008, when Candidate Obama was running against Her Highness Hillary, he slammed her for her plan requiring Americans to buy health insurance.  You know, the individual mandate?  Partial transcript below (video here for full context):

“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’ television show. “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”

So yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Candidate Obama was correct: the feds can’t force somebody buy a product or service.  He even used Obama’s analogy from 2008 about mandating Americans buy a home:

In a ruling issued yesterday holding that the insurance mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson pointed to a similar statement that Obama had made in a Feb. 4, 2008 interview with CNN. “Indeed,” wrote Vinson, “I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.’”

So how did the prez describe the judge that agreed with Candidate Obama?  Predictably:

“Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching,” wrote Obama aide Stephanie Cutter on the White House web site.   ”

The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent.”

Over at the Justice Department, officials made clear they would challenge the ruling immediately.

“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” said a Justice Department statement.

In a conference call with reporters, senior administration officials went even further in their attacks, labeling the ruling “odd and unconventional” and “well out of the mainstream” – predicting it would not stand the scrutiny of higher courts.

Don’t you love it when moonbats try to tell Normal America what is and isn’t “outside the mainstream”?  😆

February 1, 2011 Posted by | big government, health care, Hillary, hypocrisy, Night and Day, Obama | 3 Comments

BREAKING: Federal judge in FL invalidates ALL of ObamaCare!

And not just the clearly unconstitutional individual mandate part.  It’s still fresh, but here’s the early takeaway:

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

The VA judge ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but that the rest of the law was allowed to be intact.  The FL judge disagreed, saying that because there was no severability clause, the WHOLE FRIGGIN’ LAW is unconstitutional!

By the way, the judge’s decision is here (PDF).  My favorite quote (other than the part about ALL of it being unconstitutional):

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

A “tea” reference, too…just to tweak the moonbats!  😆

Obviously, this isn’t the end.  It will most certainly wind up in the lap of the Supreme Court, where I strongly suspect there will be a 5-4 ruling one way or the other (depends on what side of the bed Justice Kennedy wakes up).  Either way, savor the victory for now, my friends!  🙂

January 31, 2011 Posted by | big government, health care, judiciary | Leave a comment

ObamaCare waivers skyrocket, from 222 to 729

ObamaCare is so superwickedawesome that the number of entities who want to be exempted from its awesome requirements has nearly quadrupled.  Details:

Well today, the day after the President’s State of the Union, the new waivers are up. You may recall that there were 222 such waivers approved in November. That number has now jumped to 729 through the end of December. The total number of people covered by the waivers has gone from 1.5M to just under 2.2M. The list includes the usual assortment of union locals and businesses.

So what does that mean for the non-exempted?

This ever-expanding list of waivers is the direct result of ObamaCare raising the annual benefit caps on certain health plans. Obviously, a plan with higher annual limits is potentially more costly than one without them. The money to cover the difference in premiums has to come from somewhere. Without the waivers, it will come from the employer who are forced by law to upgrade to the more expensive plan. In other words, the 729 organizations who have received waivers are not seeking refuge from an unintended consequence, but from the costs associated with one of ObamaCare’s features. The real question is what these businesses will do once the waiver program comes to an end.

If you’re not an FOB (Friend of Barack), then you may want to become one.  That way, you too can get a pass on having to abide by ObamaCare’s onerous requirements.

January 27, 2011 Posted by | big government, corruption, health care, Obama | 3 Comments