Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Barry Soetoro (alias Barak Obama)’ Category

Justice Antonin Scalia Speaks Truth to Power on Obamacare Tyranny

by Mark home111005_antonin_scalia_ap_605

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented powerfully from the atrocious Obamacare ruling.

As you know, yesterday we reached the exciting climax of Supreme Court Theater: The Sequel. It should surprise none of us that it ended in the same place at which the first drama ended. Part of my anger is that I allowed media hysteria to tempt me into hoping that the Supreme Court would do the right thing. Another part of my anger is the knowledge that many Republicans in Congress are thrilled with this ruling.

The minority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Here are some highlights that are definitely worth reading:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

A few other highlights:

This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.

[…]

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.”

[…]

Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.

[…]

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.”

And he closed:

The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by liti- gants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent.

While it is true that the Supreme Court is usurping authority from the Legislative Branch by “fixing” statutes, the truth is a little bit more sinister. The Supreme Court, in doing so, is placing itself in service to the Executive Branch. So, given all the secrecy and spying and underhanded dealings we have seen from this administration, against the American people and against journalists, how do we know that the Executive Branch hasn’t found a way to “encourage” the Supreme Court to assume this role?

A man who openly invents kill lists cannot possibly be above threatening or bribing or blackmailing a judge. I don’t know that he has done so but no American can be sure that he hasn’t.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/06/justice-antonin-scalia-speaks-truth-to-power-on-obamacare-tyranny/#jFfDZmDiF2msrQH3.99

ObamaCare Beyond the Handouts – Wall Street journal June 24th

We’ve already proved we can subsidize health care. But which subsidies make sense?
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

bramhall-world-affordable-care-act-train-wreck

By one standard no government program can fail, and that’s the standard being applied to ObamaCare by its supporters: If a program exists and delivers benefits, the program is working.

Paul Krugman, Nancy Pelosi and others consistently point to the fact that people are willingly receiving ObamaCare benefits as proof of the program’s value. Mr. Obama himself says: “When you talk to people who actually are enrolled in a new marketplace plan, the vast majority of them like their coverage. The vast majority are satisfied.”

And the polls indeed show that 74% of ObamaCare’s eight million enrollees are “satisfied” with their plans, because the polls fail to count the 12 million who are eligible but decline to enroll.

Of the eight million who have signed up, some 87% are receiving taxpayer subsidies. In other words, they are getting health care partly or wholly at someone else’s expense. The latest data reveal that the average monthly benefit amounts to $276 per person (up from $268 in February), allowing the typical HealthCare.gov user to buy a plan for $69 per month out of pocket.

To put it another way, the annual subsidy amounts to $3,312 per recipient. Which is excellent if you’re one of the recipients.

Steve Rattner, a Wall Street figure and President Obama’s former auto-bailout czar, insists in a recent New York Times op-ed that ObamaCare “is working,” by which he apparently means it’s in operation, which nobody denies. Mr. Rattner, like a lot of analysts, writes as if costs are benefits—as if millions of people lining up for something from the wallets of their fellow citizens, ipso facto, is proof of a worthwhile program.

Mr. Rattner, in a throwaway line—really, a partisan pleasantry—adds without evidence or elaboration that health-care costs are lower than they otherwise would be at least partly due to the new law.

Now, if this were true, it would be the greatest validation of ObamaCare as public policy but there is no reason to believe it’s true.

The right question about any program is whether the benefits justify the expenditure of taxpayer money. ObamaCare’s cheerleaders provide not cost-benefit analysis but benefit analysis—as if money grows on trees or is donated by Martians or can be printed in limitless quantities by the Fed.

ObamaCare, with its subsidies to those with low incomes, is not the worst thing in our health-care system by far. Medicare indiscriminately subsidizes everyone in Warren Buffett’s age group; and, more insidiously, trains Americans from an early age to expect somebody else to cover their medical costs in retirement. And the giant tax handout to employer-provided insurance perversely treats the richest taxpayers as the neediest.

It pays to remember, however, why the pending Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell is such a lethal threat to ObamaCare. King v. Burwell argues the IRS is illegally misreading the law to grant subsidies to 6.7 million users of the federal ObamaCare exchange known as HealthCare.gov.

King is a threat to ObamaCare because, without subsidies, ObamaCare is nothing. It fixes no problem in our health-care system, except to subsidize more people to consume health care at taxpayer expense. Not that subsidies are always undesirable: They help some people get necessary care. But subsidies do the most good when used sparingly, because subsidies also tend to inflate prices for everyone as well as encourage inefficient consumption that doesn’t improve health and may even endanger health.

In a final irony, many Republicans, seeing the damage an adverse Supreme Court ruling would do, take the statesman-like view that a GOP Congress must stand ready to find a new way to extend subsidies to the 6.7 million people who, since the advent of ObamaCare, expect themselves to be subsidized.

Fine, but let’s also have a major rethink of who should be subsidized and who shouldn’t, across our whole range of health-care programs, including Medicare and the workplace tax benefit.

Never going to happen? It will, if the GOP summons the courage to fix ObamaCare along the lines of the original, rational, “reform” that has motivated health-care thinking for four decades. A place to start would be reducing ObamaCare’s costly coverage mandates so policies would be genuinely attractive to people spending their own money; subsidies could then be trimmed back because fewer people would need subsidies to induce them to buy coverage.

We’ve always said that ObamaCare, for all its flaws, could become the instrument by which responsible reformers renew their push for health care that delivers value for money. In the meantime, however, no worthwhile thoughts about ObamaCare, pro or con, are to be heard from people who count a program as a success just because Americans enjoy receiving benefits at the expense of other Americans.

Muslim World Reacts to Obama’s Latest Speech

Baltimore as a Democrat City

by John Perazzo

Baltimore-Riots-450x299
Whenever there’s a crisis in America, Barack Obama is quick to demonstrate what a monstrously destructive individual he is. The riots in Baltimore are no exception, as we already hear President “Johnny One-Note” chanting the only song he’s ever known. It goes like this:

“A racist, uncaring, greed-driven America has turned its back on the poor, suffering black children of Baltimore and many other cities for decades, depriving them of the help, the funding, and the attention that they so desperately they need and deserve—and thus do we now reap the whirlwind of their long-festering, wholly justified rage.”

That, in a nutshell, is exactly what Barack Obama believes.

But because he’s a calculating and deceitful Radical-in-Chief, Obama takes pains to phrase things in ways that won’t offend the sensibilities of wealthy white liberal donors who dutifully view him as some type of soaring intellect, rather than as the rabble-rousing, myopic ideologue that he is. So instead, he feeds us endless portions of tripe like this:

1) “Now, I’m under no illusion that out of this Congress we’re going to get massive investments in urban communities.” Translation: “White Republicans are a pack of greedy racists who reject my wealth-redistribution plans for our inner cities. And that’s why Baltimoreans are angry.”

2) “[I]f our society really wanted to solve the problem, … it would require everybody saying this is important, this is significant—and that we don’t just pay attention to these communities when a CVS burns.” Translation: “Open your wallets and pay up. You greedy bastards have shirked your responsibility for too long now.”

3) “The communities in Baltimore that are having these problems now are no different from the communities in Chicago when I first started working. I’ve seen this movie too many times before.” Translation: See #2, above.

4) “[W]e’re going to have to think about what can we do—the rest of us — to make sure that we’re providing early education to these kids.” Translation: “Let’s pour more money into Head Start. Even though it’s been repeatedly exposed as a useless boondoggle, it sure does create lots of jobs for the teachers’ unions that line my pockets and support my party. So open up your wallets … for the children, of course.”

Yes, President One-Note says we’re just not spending enough to buy civil peace in places like Baltimore … and Ferguson … and New York. So let’s consider his assertion that if we want to raise happy, well-adjusted young people, we need to spend more generously on their education. In Baltimore, taxpayers are currently spending $16,578 per year for each pupil in the city’s public schools. Not only is this 48% more than the national average of $10,608, but it’s more than any other country on the face of the earth spends on public education.

One wonders exactly how much would be enough to satisfy President One-Note. Sixty percent more than the national average? Eighty percent more? Fifty thousand percent more?

And how much does President One-Note believe we loyal servants should be contributing to the long list of Democrat-run cities that have spent and mismanaged themselves into financial ruin during the past half-century? We’re already paying more than $600 billion annually for federal grants to state and local governments. How much would be enough? A trillion dollars? Twenty trillion? A billion trillion? More money than has ever existed in our galaxy?

And what about the local taxes that Baltimore’s government extracts from its workers and homeowners? In this regard, Baltimore is exactly like every other Democrat-run big city in America, where confiscatory property taxes, school taxes, sales taxes, and business taxes have driven millions of people out to the suburbs and beyond. Indeed, Baltimore’s property taxes are twice as high as those of any other jurisdiction in Maryland or the District of Columbia. But of course that’s not nearly enough to satisfy President One-Note.

And what, pray tell, does Baltimore have to show for its gargantuan expenditures? Not much at all. Today, the city’s residents have a median household income that is about 45% below Maryland’s state average, and a poverty rate nearly 70% higher than the national average. Among America’s 100 most populous cities, Baltimore ranks 87th in median household income. And thanks to an endless succession of city leaders spending taxpayer money like drunken Democrats, by December 2012 the unfunded pension liabilities that Baltimore owed to its retired police and firefighters had reached a staggering $765 million. Meanwhile, the city’s violent crime rate is almost 4 times higher than the national average. As a Cato Institute report puts it: “Baltimore deserves the Third-World profile it has developed because it has expanses of crumbling, crime-riddled neighborhoods populated by low-income renters, an absent middle class, and just a few enclaves of high-income gentry near the Inner Harbor or in suburbs.”

It wasn’t always like this. In the 1950s and early ’60s, Baltimore was the home of many thriving industries—particularly manufacturing and shipping—that created some three-fourths of all the jobs held by people in its metropolitan region. The city at that time had nearly a million residents, 23% of whom were black, and the median family income was 7% higher than the national average.

In 1967, however, this prosperity began to vanish when Baltimore’s city government was taken over by a string of Democratic mayors who have continuously held power ever since, and have turned much of the city into a grim wasteland.

William Donald Schaefer, who served as mayor from 1971-87, set the stage for Baltimore’s economic decline by championing an ever-expanding public sector as well as extensive government regulation of private business. Further, he relied heavily on federal grants and city bonds to finance a host of development projects throughout Baltimore. As the City Journal reports: “[W]hen those monies proved insufficient, [Schaefer] … created his own city bank to seed development: the Loan and Guarantee Fund. The fund financed itself by selling city property and then leasing it back to itself, and by selling bonds that would stick future taxpayers with much of the bill.”

In 1987 Schaefer was succeeded by Baltimore’s first elected black mayor, Kurt Schmoke, who, during his 12 years in office, continued his white predecessor’s policy of extracting as much taxpayer money as possible from Annapolis and Washington. By 2001, such state and federal subsidies accounted for 40% of Baltimore’s operating budget.

Schmoke was a close friend of President Bill Clinton and had connections to a number of Clinton administration officials—most notably the disgraced Henry Cisneros and Andrew Cuomo, both heads of the Department of Housing & Urban Development—ensuring that Baltimore’s city programs would continue to receive high levels of federal support. One such initiative—bankrolled by a ten-year, $100 million federal grant—was the establishment of an Empowerment Zone (EZ) whose goal was to transform “distressed” areas of the city into “neighborhoods of choice” by implementing a host of job-training, workforce-development, home-construction, and drug-treatment programs. All told, Baltimore’s EZ covered nearly 10% of the city’s total area. It was precisely the type of endeavor that President One-Note loves. The results, however, were pitiful. By 2002:

The poverty rate within the EZ was still about 50% higher than the corresponding rate citywide.
Median household income had risen in slightly more than half of the EZ area, but had declined in the rest and was below the citywide median in 92% of the EZ area.
Homeownership rates in the EZ were still 15 percentage points lower than the citywide rate.
Unemployment in the EZ had increased from 14.9% to 16.5%, and was about 50% higher than Baltimore’s overall rate.
And perhaps most tellingly, the EZ region had lost population at more than double the rate of the city as a whole.
Not much of a bang for 100 million bucks. Similar initiatives in the famous Model Cities programs of the 1960s likewise failed miserably.

But President One-Note doesn’t care about anything as pedestrian as facts such as these. For him, the disastrous left-wing policies of the past are things that must be tried over and over again—failure after miserable failure—because that’s what it means to be “progressive.”
And while he never ceases to remind us that we’re not spending nearly enough money on Baltimore’s poor black community, President One-Note carefully avoids making any mention of the fact that it is a community teeming with young men who have been raised without fathers. The data on this phenomenon are clear and overwhelming: Growing up without a father predisposes young men, whatever their color, to things like violence, criminality, incarceration, educational failure, drug abuse, and emotional disturbance far more reliably than does racism, discrimination, poverty, or any other identifiable variable. The nationwide black illegitimacy rate is 73%, but in some cities it is 90% or more. No demographic can withstand such a collapse of its family structure without falling into cataclysmic pathology. A president who was a real man of character and substance—rather than a petty, scheming political whore—would state this plainly and clearly in times like this, rather than blaming white racism, bad cops, and inadequate funding for the barbarism engulfing Baltimore. But President One-Note isn’t even remotely up to such a task.

All their lives, young black people in Baltimore and elsewhere have been told by racialist predators like Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, and many others, that their principal enemy in life is white racism—most notably as it is embodied by white police officers. Consequently, a single white-on-black transgression—be it real or fictional—can stir more vengeful rage in the hearts of many black Americans, than the fact that black killers send more than 100 fellow blacks to their graves each and every week in the United States.

It is quite remarkable how much a single human wrecking ball—one ignoramus with a vast measure of political power but not a shred of virtue—can do to destroy the souls and lives of his own countrymen. Take a bow, President One-Note. Take a bow.

ISRAEL – BEWARE OF OBAMA

By Michael Goodwin

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-FILM
First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.
Now he’s coming for Israel.

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.
Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.
Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.

For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.

His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.

That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.

It is a clear and glaring double standard.
Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.
The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?

Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they’d better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.
It’s just like old crimes

Reader Stephen Shapiro agrees that the bad old days of “Taxi Driver” are coming back to Gotham. “Only last night, my wife noted the same thing when walking up Broadway from the Theater District,” he writes. “The sidewalks were packed with illegal sellers of cheap trinkets and maybe stolen goods. Like it was decades ago.”
Step right up, NYers

P.T. Barnum is credited with saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” but the sentiment applies better to Albany than the circus. After all, who are the greater fools: ticket buyers who believe in sword swallowers and fire-eaters, or taxpayers who believe Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislators will clean up corruption?
School vow is more blah-blah-blasio

There he goes again. Mayor Bill de Blasio is making promises that make no sense and saying things he can’t possibly believe.

Putzie is so desperate to fend off state changes to his control of city schools that he is promising to apply crime-control techniques to educrats. “We’re going to hold every one of the principals to the same kinds of standards that our precinct commanders are held to via CompStat,” he declared.

That’s crazy talk for two reasons.
First, he and Chancellor Carmen Fariña say repeatedly they don’t like mainstream educational standards, especially a heavy use of standardized tests for evaluating students and teachers. Throw in their cutback of suspensions for disruptive students and their willful expansion of union power, and it’s hard to see on what basis they will measure principals’ performance.

Second, his reference to the Police Department as the gold standard of accountability would be valid — if de Blasio weren’t mayor. He is taking away so many enforcement tools from the NYPD that shootings and murder are soaring and evidence mounts that cops are under orders to ignore many quality-of-life crimes. With cops increasingly reduced to responding to crimes already committed, it is unclear what standards de Blasio is using to measure police commanders.
In truth, the similarity between the mayor’s approach to schools and crime reveals the danger of his incoherent philosophy. He’s a central planner of the Soviet model who doesn’t trust principals, teachers or cops to exercise their professional judgment. Ideological to the core, he’s imposing his political prejudices on their authority despite his lack of experience and training.

His decisions amount to micromanagement, not leadership, and represent the height of arrogance from a man who is late for virtually every public engagement.

Here’s an offer: He starts to show up on time, and we start to take him seriously.

Sheriff Joe plea: Rein in Obama ‘power grab’

by Bob Unruh

border_fence
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is asking an appeals court in Washington, D.C., to rein in the massive power that would be granted to President Obama and future presidents if a lower court’s decision stands.

The ruling threw out a legal challenge to Obama’s executive-memo driven amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens, despite the fact that amnesty was rejected by Congress and the plan would contradict state law.

Arpaio, represented by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to step into the case thrown out earlier by Judge Beryl Howell.

Arpaio contends the administration’s claim that “prosecutorial discretion” allows Obama to promise the benefits of citizenship to millions of illegal aliens is wrong.

“What is to stop a future president from simply directing the Internal Revenue Service to stop collecting taxes on capital gains or stop collecting income taxes above a rate lower than set by Congress?” asked a reply brief and request for oral argument filed Monday.

“Indeed, who would have standing to challenge taxes left uncollected from another person? What is to stop a future president from refusing to enforce environmental laws, labor union protections, securities laws, voting rights laws, or civil rights laws, on a claim of prosecutorial discretion?

“May a future president direct the IRS not to collect the penalty supporting Obamacare’s ‘individual mandate,’ producing actuarial collapse?”

“Appellees ask this court to endorse this power grab. Constitutional government in the United States would end in all but name. Any future president may ignore the law claiming ‘prosecutorial discretion’ wholesale.”

The brief contends that the issue is not a “policy dispute” as the government claims.

“The executive branch seeks to raise its own ‘policies’ above congressional statutes. Executive branch policies are not the ‘supreme law of the land’ as congressional enactments are.”

The brief also notes that in a similar case, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen already has issued a preliminary injunction halting Obama’s executive amnesty, because the administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act.

Hanen now has ordered the Obama administration to be in his courtroom later this week to explain why the administration apparently is not abiding by his preliminary injunction.

Arpaio’s case aims for a ruling that the president’s actions are unconstitutional.

He argues that while the power to execute laws, residing in the executive branch, includes the ability to resolve questions, “it does not include unilateral implementation of legislative policies.”

The president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and not take executive action to create laws, he points out.

Klayman earlier told the appeals court that, according to the Office of Legal Counsel, Obama didn’t have the authority to order amnesty.

That agency concluded, “The executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences.”

“Yet the appellees are doing exactly what OLC warned them not to do. Appellees’ programs are not prosecutorial discretion but rewriting the statutes. Appellees seek to grant amnesty to an estimated 6 million (53 percent) of the estimated 11.3 million illegal aliens that congressional enactments command them to deport,” Klayman has argued.

WND reported earlier when Arpaio said his local government had spent at least $9.2 million extra on detention and other costs because of Obama’s first “deferred action” plan providing some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal aliens.

Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country.

In their case filings, Arpaio and Klayman have argued that some aspects of amnesty already have begun taking effect, and the federal government is preparing to hired thousands of workers to process illegal aliens under amnesty.

The goal of the case at the outset was to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court on Obama’s strategy to use notes to federal agencies, called executive memoranda, to change the law, rather than going through Congress.

Klayman has contended Obama “cannot end-run Congress based on his own ‘emperor-like’ actions.”

“By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the power to take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman said. “To allow this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and set a bad precedent for future presidents.”

He argued the status quo should be maintained until Congress changes the national law.

WND also reported when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”

“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/sheriff-joe-plea-rein-in-obama-power-grab/#haK5gy8Dtpdu7eXv.99

Republicans Confront Health Chief on Secret ObamaCare Plan

A Republican House subcommittee chairman is accusing the Obama administration of secretly preparing a fallback strategy if the Supreme Court strikes down a major piece of its healthcare reform law later this year, even as officials publicly maintain that no plan exists.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, says federal officials are hiding a roughly 100-page document on the looming court case. The case, King v. Burwell, could cut off ObamaCare subsidies in three-quarters of states and potentially collapse the national marketplace.

Pitts confronted the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the plan, which he says is being circulated among senior officials, for the first time on Wednesday.

HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said she does not know of a planning document.


“This is a document I’m not aware of,” she said in response to Pitts’s questions, before moving on to outlining the negative affects of a ruling against the law. 

”We believe we do not have any administrative actions,” she reiterated.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) pressed Burwell further.

“I take you at your word that you haven’t seen the plan, but don’t you think it’s prudent that there should be a plan?” he said. “I hope I don’t have a primary opponent, I hope I don’t have a general election opponent, but I have a plan in case I do.”

Burwell held her line.

“We don’t have an administrative action that we could take so the question of having a plan, we don’t have any administrative action that we believe could undo the damage,” Burwell replied.

“The administration is just going to hold up your hands and say we surrender?” Barton added.

“We believe the law as it stands is how it should be implemented,” Burwell replied.

Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) repeatedly also pressed Burwell on whether she knew of the planning document. Burwell did not categorically deny its existence, saying only that she does not know of it.

“If there is this document, and you know it, I would certainly like to know about a document, because I don’t have knowledge of a 100-page document,” Burwell said.

When Burwell again dove into the negative affects of a Supreme Court ruling against the law, Lance interrupted, “That’s filibustering.”

“I’m not familiar with the document you’re referring to,” Burwell replied.

Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) came to Burwell’s defense, noting that Republicans are supporting the high court challenge.

“It’s somewhat ironic that my Republican friends are demanding that the administration fix problems that they themselves created,” Engel said.

“As the Secretary said at the hearing, we have no plans that would undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision, and we are not aware of a document that meets Chairman Pitts’ description,” an HHS spokesperson said in an email.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment and deferred to HHS.

Burwell this week wrote a letter sent to several GOP offices, including Pitts’s, warning that the administration has no plan to “undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision” in the high court case.

If the Obama administration loses, roughly 7 million people could immediately lose their healthcare coverage. Nearly $30 billion in subsidies could be lost in 2016 alone.

With such high stakes, Republicans say the administration is surely preparing some way to avert disaster.

“It’s hard to fathom that the administration would bury its head in the sand and fail to engage in any contingency planning,” Pitts wrote in a statement Wednesday ahead of the hearing.

“No credible person would believe that,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told The Hill on Wednesday.

“It would be executive malpractice not to have a plan, a contingency plan, for what happens when that court ruling comes down, and I’m going to assume that this government doesn’t practice executive malpractice,” he said.

The administration has already faced strong pressure from Republicans to show its hand ahead of the Supreme Court case.

Burwell’s appearance before the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month erupted into a contentious back-and-forth in which she refused to answer any questions about the court challenge. By the end of the two-hour exchange, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) had accused Burwell of acting in contempt of Congress.

Republicans have seized on the administration’s refusal to discuss the case as further evidence against ObamaCare.

“By admitting they have no contingency plan to assist the millions that may lose subsidies, the administration confirms how the misguided law is unworkable for the American people,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) wrote in a recent statement.

The administration’s silence is likely part of its strategy to influence the court ahead of the March 4 arguments.

Two former HHS officials have previously said they are confident the administration is preparing a backup plan.

“Of course they have one, they should all resign if they don’t,” said Tom Scully, an HHS official under former President George W. Bush. “And they certainly should not discuss it either.”

But the former officials said the administration could appear in a weak position if it admitted that it was making plans. And if the administration insists there is no “plan B,” it tells the justices that the country cannot afford a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Republicans have tried to gain points by preparing their own backup plans for the billions of dollars in subsidies that could be lost. This week, Hatch and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) became the latest Republicans to say they are crafting fallbacks.

The GOP largely agrees that Congress should not simply rewrite the text to make the subsidies legal. But the party lacks a consensus about how to deal with the fallout, both in the short term and long term, and which area of government should be responsible for those fixes.

“Unless those of us who oppose ObamaCare unite behind an approach that offers Americans a better alternative, we could lose the whole war,” Sasse wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published late Wednesday.

–Peter Sullivan contributed to this report, which was updated at 12:23 p.m.

I won a Kenyan lottery.

Talk about luck! According to a recent email from a Nigerian prince I won a Kenyan lottery.

He is holding the sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS in my name, and he wants to send it to me FREE!
ATT00001

All I have to do is give him my bank account numbers and send him $500.00 US dollars in cash, to show my good faith, and he will transfer the money to my bank!

And then I got ANOTHER email. It’s from another Kenyan prince who wants to give me FREE healthcare for life!

ATT00002
All I have to do is give him:

MY BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS,
MY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER,
MY CONFIDENTIAL HEALTH INFORMATION
MY NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS
DEPENDENTS AGES AND ANY MEDICINES THEY USE
MY ESTIMATED INCOME FOR 2015
NAME OF MY FIRST GRADE TEACHER
MY USERNAME
MY PIN NUMBER
NAMES OF ALL MEDICINES I’M TAKING
MY INCOME FROM MY IRA
MY SPOUSE’S INCOME FROM HIS IRA
ALL MY TRADING ACCOUNTS
ALL MY OTHER PROPERTIES IF ANY
MY SPOUSE’S SOCIAL SECURITY
And then, if I pay $700 per month for a health insurance policy plan with only a $10,000 deductible, HE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!

​Am I lucky or what!

Obama’s new tax proposals flunk his own distribution test.

Obama298
President Obama is disguising his latest tax increase as “middle-class economics,” no doubt because it sounds better than calling it income redistribution. So it’s instructive that this false political front has already been exposed by no less than the President’s political allies at the Tax Policy Center.

This week the liberal think tank analyzed the tax proposals in Mr. Obama’s State of the Union with one of those familiar distributional tables that attempts to estimate the after-tax results across the U.S. income scale. Surprise, surprise, the middle 20% of earners—people making between $49,000 and $84,000—would see their taxes rise by $7 on average in 2016.

In selling his proposals in Kansas the other day, Mr. Obama said that middle-class economics is about “lowering the taxes for working families by thousands of dollars, putting money back into their pockets so that they can have a little bit of cushion in their lives.” Paying $7 more isn’t much of a cushion.

The same goes for the second and fourth income quintiles. According to the think tank, the taxes of those groups would rise by 0.1% on average. The tax changes of note would come at the bottom and top of the income scale, with a 0.7% average rise in tax liability for the top 20% of earners, and a 1.2% boost in after-tax benefits (largely from tax credits) for the bottom 20%. Mr. Obama’s middle-class economics, in short, applies to everyone but the middle class.

We dislike these distributional analyses, which are typically the weapons liberals use to defeat pro-growth tax reform. The main point of cutting taxes is to help the economy, and to let all taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. It is not to redistribute income. But there is justice in Mr. Obama being hoist on his own distributional gambit because in 2012 he used the Tax Policy Center to attack Mitt Romney ’s tax reform and manipulated the numbers to claim it raised taxes by $2,000 for the average family.

No modern Presidency has been worse for average American incomes than Mr. Obama’s, and his new tax proposals are more of the same.

OBAMA SPENT SUNDAY WATCHING FOOTBALL INSTEAD OF TRAVELING TO PARIS FOR THE MARCH

President Barack Obama and other top members of his administration have snubbed a historic rally in Paris today that brought together more than 40 world leaders from Europe, Africa, the Middle East and even Russia.

‘France is our oldest ally,’ Obama said during a speech Friday in Tennessee. ‘I want the people of France to know that the United States stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow.’

But he wasn’t standing in Paris as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas put aside their differences and linked arms.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov made the same unifying gesture in the march down the Place de la Concorde in defiance of the Islamist terror attacks that rocked the city last week.

According to an administration official, President Obama spent part of his Sunday afternoon watching a National Football League game on television. Both games were broadcast hours after the march. […]

The White House press office also did not respond to a question seeking confirmation that the president was engrossed in the NFL playoffs on Sunday afternoon.