Monday, December 13, 2010

Is the Bell tolling for Obamacare?

Individual Mandate found Unconstitutional

Richmond, Va., federal judge Henry Hudson has issued a ruling finding part of President Barack Obama’s health-care law unconstitutional

Specifically, Judge Hudson invalidated the part of the landmark healthcare law that requires individuals to buy health insurance.


The lawsuit, brought by Virginia’s attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli, is the FIRST COURT RULING AGAINST THE LAW SINCE PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA SIGNED IT IN MARCH. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration.

While Monday’s decision creates a headache for the law’s supporters, it doesn’t mean that states or the federal government must stop implementing the law.

Judge Hudson DIDN’T GRANT THE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION against the entire law or against the requirement that most Americans carry insurance.

This is a major setback for those who want to force everyone in America to be insured. I believe the law will be struck down completely and leaving it to the new congress to work on real Healthcare reform.

Harry Reid: The Senate’s Dictator

We’ve all heard the complaint: REPUBLICANS ARE THE “PARTY OF NO.” But the GOP’s historic number of filibusters is THE ONLY VIABLE RESPONSE TO SEN. HARRY REID’S UNPRECEDENTEDLY AUTHORITARIAN RULE OF THE SENATE. Senator Reid has blocked the minority from amending bills more than any Senate majority leader in history — and MORE TIMES THAN THE LAST FOUR SENATE MAJORITY LEADERS COMBINED.

How does Senator Reid do this? He uses his right to be recognized first by the chair to offer just enough amendments to bills to block any further amendments. These amendments are usually meaningless, like changing a word or a date, but they effectively block the minority’s opportunity. This is A CLEAR ABUSE OF THE SPIRIT, IF NOT THE LETTER, OF THE SENATE’S RULES, and that is one reason why we have witnessed Republicans’ frequent use of the filibuster…..

But no matter. It was Reid’s way or the highway. In response, Minority Leader McConnell and his team refused to supply the few votes needed to get to 60.

The media and liberal pundits are screaming about Republican obstructionism. Yet they ignore the fact that this is the only viable response to Democrats’ autocratic and a historic governance of what was once the world’s most deliberative body.

This is definitely worth the read. Are the Republicans the party of no or is Harry Reid the most dictatorial Majority Leader in recent history?

Reality hits the Democrats

Democrats are contending with a complex set of circumstances and emotions. They are reminded daily of their severe election losses because the victims — their friends and colleagues — are still among them.

Republicans are steadily and very publicly preparing for their House ascension by making pronouncements, electing committee leaders and filling their new slots on the panels. In some cases, REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS AND TOP AIDES STOP BY TO CHECK OUT THE DEMOCRATIC OFFICES THEY WILL SOON OCCUPY. DEMOCRATS ARE VISITING THE SMALLER QUARTERS THEY WILL SOON BE WORKING IN……..

One top Democratic leader said that the party was no stranger to losing and that it had managed to cope with defeats like that of Senator John Kerry to President George W. Bush in 2004. But it was not as if they were being tossed from the White House. And THEY FELT THEN THAT THE PARTY WAS ON THE RISE.

But AT THE MOMENT, A RESURRECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS SEEMS DISTANT, the idea of recapturing the House in two years is a long shot, and the party is bracing for serious electoral trouble in the 2012 Senate races.

And this year’s loss involves relinquishing something very big — the hard-won control of the House. Clearly, it hurts.

“We only had it for four years,” one senior Democrat lamented. “It took so long to get it back, and NOW IT IS ALL GONE.”

I think the worst part is that since the Democrats still have control of the Senate, even trying to blame the Republicans in 2012 will not be a very good strategy as the Republicans don’t control the congress. Would I rather the Republicans control the Senate? Yes. Would the Democrats? They should.

Van Hollen says Obama’s deal will pass

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said that despite some indications to the contrary, HOUSE DEMOCRATS DO NOT INTEND TO OBSTRUCT THE PASSAGE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S TAX PACKAGE.

Van Hollen maintained that Democrats’ primary objection was over the estate tax, and said that while Democrats intend to “have that debate” — perhaps by holding a vote, or series of votes, on just the estate tax provision — but they would not block the deal. “We’re not going to hold this thing up at the end of the day,” he said.

That came as a surprise to Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), appearing opposite Van Hollen on the program. Ryan said Democratic rhetoric over the estate tax — including threatening to block the deal — fit well with the “hostage-taking” metaphor used against Republicans. Indeed, Van Hollen’s comments today signaled a change of tone. He had suggested last week that House Democrats were digging in for a much more aggressive fight over the deal. “We’ve got till the end of December,” he told The Huffington Post.

Do you get the idea the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing with the Democrats now?

What’s the problem with the Bush Tax Cuts? That they are the BUSH tax cuts

They still support the deficit-financed middle class tax cuts and payroll tax holiday. David Limbaugh argues that IT IS ABOUT A DESIRE TO GET AT THE RICH. I don't think that is it. A desire to see higher marginal tax rates on the rich might be a reason to oppose keeping the top marginal income tax rate at 35 percent rather than 39.9 percent but it doesn't begin to explain the current freakout. I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH. Repealing the "Bush tax cut" on the "rich" WOULD HAVE BEEN A VICTORY OVER BUSH and one more step toward obliterating his economic legacy. I wouldn't discount this kind of pettiness. I remember a debate in 2004 where Howard Dean suggested repealing all of the Bush tax cuts. The other Democrats reminded him that some of the tax cuts were actually quite popular even among Democrats. DEAN THEN SUGGESTED REPEALING ALL THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THEN RE-PASSING SOME OF THEM. This isn't even about economics. It is about PRIDE AND VENGEANCE. Now Bush has gotten the better of them again and worst of all Obama helped Bush make fools out of liberals one more time.

This is an interesting take on the situation.

Surgeon General Jumps the Shark

Let’s all thank Surgeon General Regina Benjamin for demonstrating beyond all doubt last week that NANNYISM IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN SMOKING.

The Office of the Surgeon General just released a report claiming that A SINGLE PUFF OF A CIGARETTE OR A SINGLE INHALATION OF SECONDHAND SMOKE CAN PERMANENTLY DAMAGE ONE’S HEALTH AND PERHAPS LEAD TO DEATH. Now we know what all those blindfolded condemned men given one last puff as they stood before firing squads really died from.

While no one disputes that too much smoking is unhealthy, the new report demonizing any smoking or even incidental exposure to secondhand smoke is clearly over the top.

Certainly any exposure to tobacco smoke will have some sort of a discernible physiological effect — just like virtually every sensory experience. But Benjamin asserts that even one of those physiological events, however transient and reversible, can cause harm and possibly even lead to death. As commonsense and everyday experience informs (most of) us, this is ridiculous.

So how does Benjamin back up her assertions? Well, she really doesn’t.

I’m not sure if the left is appallingly stupid or they simply think everyone else it, but this has to rank in the STUPIDITY HALL OF FAME.

From Judy Curry’s blog

Scientists involved in the IPCC advanced their careers, obtained personal publicity, and some gained a seat at the big policy tables. This career advancement of IPCC scientists was done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. EAGER FOR THE PUBLICITY, HIGH IMPACT JOURNALS SUCH AS NATURE, SCIENCE, AND PNAS FREQUENTLY PUBLISH SENSATIONAL BUT DUBIOUS PAPERS THAT SUPPORT THE CLIMATE ALARM NARRATIVE…..Further, the institutions that support science use the publicity to argue for more funding to support climate research and its impacts. And the broader scientific community inadvertently becomes complicit in all this. When the IPCC consensus is attacked by deniers and the forces of “anti-science,” scientists all join in bemoaning these dark forces fighting a war against science, and support the IPCC against its critics. THE MEDIA ALSO BOUGHT INTO THIS, BY ELIMINATING BALANCE IN FAVOR OF THE IPCC CONSENSUS.”

“Changing the funding priorities is key. We need to reduce reliance on building ever more complex climate models for being the primary source of reducing uncertainties regarding climate change.

Judy Curry is a mainstream climate scientist who sees the weakness in what is happening in the climate debate. She has become an outcast not for what she says, but for simply not toeing the company line. She wants science to get back to the business of science and to get out of the business of being a political advocate. In brief, she is the little kid asking why the King has no clothes on?

Oh how the mighty have fallen.



This is the first time Gallup asked Americans to retrospectively rate Bush’s job performance. And it was a stunning turnaround from HIS LOW POINT OF 25 PERCENT IN NOVEMBER 2008. The 47 percent number is 13 points higher than the last Gallup poll taken before Bush left office in 2009 and the highest rating for him since before Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

This is a far cry from the Obama who told us “We are the one we’ve been waiting for,” and people actually took him seriously.

Michelle Obama

In remarks prior to President Barack Obama signing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids legislation into law today, First Lady Michelle Obama said that meeting children’s nutritional needs is “ultimately the responsibility of parents,” adding that the law is necessary to make certain children are properly fed.

“It’s clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well,” the first lady said at the signing ceremony at the White House. “WE CAN’T JUST LEAVE IT UP TO THE PARENTS.”

Mrs. Obama seems to have a knack for saying the wrong thing or at least saying in a way that isn’t politic. She could have said, “we need to support the parents” or this legislation will make it easier for students and parents.” But like most liberals she truly feels people cannot take care of themselves and their children without the government’s help.

No comments:

Post a Comment