Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’

Ann Coulter Lies About Romney-Care

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012


It’s horrible when you realize that one who you had thought had been conservative makes a point of proving your belief wrong, while insisting otherwise.  The meaning of the word “disappointment” hardly covers what has gone wrong with Ann Coulter’s writing over the last year, but when you realize that she has sidled up to the GOP establishment, the truth becomes undeniably clear.  Proving that Ann Coulter is willing to forsake all her principles in favor of the latest establishment candidate, she has written a piece that is not only manipulative, but purposefully omits several important facts.  Worse still, at one point, Coulter flatly lies, and no excuse of incomplete information can possibly cover it.  Coulter wishes Three Cheers For Romneycare, but I know her cheers are really for Mitt Romney, and this cobbled-together nonsense constitutes a lie Ann Coulter ought not to have told.

Coulter couldn’t wait to posit the lie, but it’s such a well-known lie, she buried it at the end of a paragraph leaning on Rick Santorum for out-of-context, irrelevant support:

“Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.”

This is demonstrably untrue, but what is stunning about this claim is the un-writing of history it proposes.  My readers will doubtless remember the flap over the line pulled from the second printing of Mitt Romney’s book, where he originally made this very argument.  This was of such controversy that it has been mentioned in the debates, so how is it possible that Ann Coulter ignored this while depositing this steaming pile in your midst.  The original text of Romney’s book(H/T ABCNews) included the following text:

We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.” –No Apology – Mitt Romney (emphasis added)

As you can plainly see, Ann Coulter lied, and it angers me that not only did she lie, but that I was forced to dig up a link from the ABCNews site to prove it.  This also demonstrates another point, and it’s an important one you should note:  While Ann Coulter tells lies on Romney’s behalf, the radical left will give him no such pass in the general election should he become our nominee. Shame on Coulter for this lie in obstinate denial of well-known and widely-viewed fact. If Coulter doesn’t know this, I can only wonder how, since it’s clear that she reported watching the debate in which Governor Rick Perry(R-TX) raised the issue.

“No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.”

Really?  I am claiming it.   I am.  Several states and individuals are suing over this requirement of Obamacare. That Coulter doesn’t seem to notice that many Americans aren’t claiming a right not to buy it, but that this is the result of the opposite concept – that government has no authority to force us to buy it – makes it perfectly clear that Coulter now holds a view of individual liberties perfectly compatible with Barack Obama’s views on so-called “negative rights.”   That Coulter is now reduced to making the backward argument of leftist filth-mongers should tell you all you really need to know, but I am still shocked by it.  Nevertheless, unable to deal with reality, she throws out this laughable tripe:

“The only reason the “individual mandate” has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.”

One might wonder what is controversial in conservative circles about the idea of the unconstitutionality of an individual mandate, except for the fact that Ann now seems to support the notion.  I almost cannot believe that Coulter has written this, as she urges the nomination of Mitt Romney as our only chance to repeal Obamacare. Why?  Why repeal it, Ms. Coulter?  Her article suggests she has absolutely no problem with it.  I’ve told my readers over the last few days that I believe the GOP establishment doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare, and that Mitt Romney is the Trojan horse to make sure repeal never happens, but now Coulter comes along to virtually flaunt this in our faces.

Incredibly, she concludes her article after paragraphs of misdirection, manipulation, and at least one flat-out lie with the following:

“The problem isn’t health insurance mandates. The problem isn’t Romneycare. The problem isn’t welfare reform. The problem is Democrats.”

The problem is the health insurance mandate.  The problem includes Romneycare.  Democrats are indeed a party to this problem, but by this incredible piece of dishonesty posted under the banner of what had been thought to be a conservative writer, what we now know the real problem is that we can no longer tell how Ms. Coulter is any different from those who would rule over us.  If this is Ann Coulter’s version of conservatism, she can keep it along with the rest of her lies.

It’s getting so that we can no longer discern when Coulter is telling the truth or a lie, since she now carries Romney’s water in ludicrous pieces like this one, but less than one year ago, before Christie bowed out, Coulter insisted to us that Mitt Romney could not win.  Take Coulter with a grain of salt. This episode makes me question all the things she has ever written, never mind what she’s said.  I remember her attacks on Sarah Palin, but at least we now know why, don’t we?  Of course, I did believe she meant it when she implied that the Tea Party consisted of emotionally driven morons.  Coulter has a sad obsession with the GOP establishment, but we have known that for some time.

Do I believe you, Ms. Coulter?  No, I must state emphatically now that the real problem we face as conservatives lies also in part with you.

Gateway Pundit: We’re Screwed

Saturday, January 28th, 2012

Jim Hoft

For those of you who wonder how sincere Mitt Romney is about wanting to repeal Obama-care, as I have concluded in the past, there’s no way he will fight for it.  The Gateway Pundit is carrying an excellent report on this fact, and one of Romney’s surrogates, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, went “On The Record” with Greta Van Susteren Friday night, and what she said more or less lets the cat out of the bag.  If you want to know why it’s unlikely Romney will ever act to fully repeal Obamacare, or simply why so many believe he’s insincere on the issue, you’ll want to read this.  It’s an excellent catch by the Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, and I’d urge you to surf on over and give the story and included video its due consideration.  Excellent reporting!

On Health-Care Rationing

Friday, January 27th, 2012

Including Death Panels

As a fellow who is a student of economics, one  of my pet peeves is the confusion that often arises when economic concepts are misused out of context to justify political ends.  In the discussion and debate leading up to the passage of Obama-care, it was famously noted by Sarah Palin that “death panels” are a feature of that plan.  In short, the death panels would make “ethical decisions” based not on what was ethical with respect to individuals, but with respect to what was ethical in choosing on behalf of society at large, i.e, the government. The supporters of the Obama-care program maintained that “there were already death panels” imposed by insurers, and that in any event, rationing would always take place as a matter of economics.  In this last point, they were correct in the strictest terms, but they were wrong to compare government actions to the actions of individuals and private businesses in the free market.  This is one example of the abuse of economics by politicians, so let us examine it more closely.

In economics, everything is rationed, because it is assumed that there is a basic unlimited demand for all goods and services.  Since there exists no infinite supply of anything, it is necessarily true that all things are rationed in some fashion.  Gasoline is rationed.  It’s happening right this moment.  Food is rationed.  Housing is rationed.  There is no good or service that isn’t rationed, and the primary instrument for determining the allocation of the limited supply in a free market is money.  The smaller the supply of a thing, relative to the quantity demanded by the market, the greater will be the price.  This is the manner in which everything is rationed:  There is a only so much money, and he who possesses enough of it can tap into the limited supply.  This form of rationing is natural, or free market-based, meaning that this happens organically with or without formal rules, and always has, even before the notion of money as a medium of exchange had occurred to primitive cultures and barter systems still dominated commerce and trade.  Strictly speaking, in economic terms, it is true to say that all things are rationed somehow. This is how we reconcile the basic premise underlying modern economics as the study of an unlimited wishes in pursuit of finite supplies.

The question then arises whether natural allocation(or rationing) is “fair.”  Since fairness is a wholly subjective term, it cannot be answered in the realm of economics, but instead becomes a matter of politics.  This is where the trouble begins, because what politicians most frequently do is to apply their own subjective notions of what is fair in place of the much more objective standard of a natural market.   They concoct these notions to satisfy political constituencies, but the twist and turn in order to define the question as a matter of economics.  Inevitably, they do so by reducing the question to the subjective grounds of a particular individual, or group, and ask whether it is “fair” that so-and-so cannot afford such-and-such.  In this sense, the economics they are discussing are applicable to small groups, but not to the whole market.

What government schemers for socialized medicine have done is to insert government coercion into the place of the natural market allocation.  If you say to me, “It is sad that Johnny cannot get his surgery because he has not the money,” if my answer is based on the free market, I must say “it may be sad, but it is fair because he could have obtained the money by previous work, insurance, charity, or even credit.”  The fact that Johnny hadn’t the money for the surgery is not a justification to disclaim the objective fairness of the free market system, but sadly, that is how it is used by politicians.  Enter the statist, and he will proclaim that he can reintroduce “human fairness” or “social justice” or some such enfeebling concept by virtue of government coercion.  If Johnny hasn’t the money, the politician will take it from somebody else at gunpoint to pay for Johnny’s surgery, provided Johnny meets any requirements they may have enacted.

Perhaps the surgery Johnny needs is a kidney transplant, but rather than expend the resources, since Johnny is also a wheelchair-bound, elderly man, the government may say “You’re not worth saving.”  Worse, if the government denies Johnny the ability to obtain his own health-care by his own means outside the government system, what the government is doing is to pronounce a sentence of death on Johnny.  If Johnny happens to be a recent college graduate in his twenties, in otherwise good health, the government will view it as a good investment in many cases since he will pay much more in taxes over his expected lifetime than the surgery may cost.  Notice that the decision criteria is entirely social, and based on the economics of government expenditures, which actually means: Political considerations.  It is also the reason that every system of socialized medicine ultimately leads to many more people dying prematurely as they are denied treatments of which they would have availed themselves in an open market. If this were not true, we would not see so many from around the socialized world flocking here to pay cash for treatments they cannot obtain by any means in their home countries.

You might contend, as the leftists do, that this is done by private insurers routinely.  There is some truth to this, but it is also substantially dishonest.  As a participant in a free market system, you are free to choose an insurer and pay such premiums as you are willing and able, to cover everything to some gargantuan limit, or you may choose a policy less expensive, but also less thorough.  In this manner, the rationing occurs because you have enough money, or you don’t, but that is up to your own resourcefulness and diligence and all the factors that frequently make the difference between relative poverty and relative affluence.  You might decide at this point to take me back to the argument of the “unfairness of money,” but as I’ve already explained, in a free market, fairness is measured differently than in your subjective wishes.

If it was my choice as to which system I would endure, I would prefer to take my chances in the free market system, because I believe I can manage to afford the coverage I might need, but in a government system, no matter how diligent and efficacious had been my own labors, I might be told “sorry, you’re outside the limits established for this procedure,” and be denied treatment irrespective of my ability to pay.  I would always choose this latter option, because it affords me the greater measure of freedom, and if it winds up that I was unable to provide the coverage I actually wound up needing, at least I will have nobody else to blame. That’s where the politicians come in, again.

Rick Santorum Says Romney Disqualified

Monday, January 16th, 2012

Santorum Points the Way

Hallelujah! Finally, one of the non-Romneys has noticed what I’ve been saying in various forms for some time, and something I repeated Sunday: Mitt Romney’s Romney-care plan disqualifies him because it robs Republicans of the biggest issue they have on their side.   More than 60% of Americans are opposed to Obama-care, and Romney’s own Massachusetts health-care reform was the model for Obama-care.  Congratulations to Rick Santorum for recognizing this important truth.

Said Senator Santorum in an interview with Fox News on Sunday:

“Romneycare is a real scarlet letter here,” he said. “We can’t have a nominee that takes away the most important issue in this election, which is an explosion of the federal government and robbing of people’s freedom on the federal level with Obamacare.”

Senator Santorum gets it.  I am ecstatic that one of these candidates understands how critically important the issue of Obama-care will be to defeating Barack Obama.  He is right to suggest that giving away this issue is political “malpractice.”  Unless and until the conservative base of the party realizes this, and walks away from Romney as they should, they’re doomed to repeat 2008 in 2012, only worse.


Why Romney Can’t Win: It’s Obama-care, Stupid!

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

Romney Will Do His Dirty Work

One of the problems with our current Republicans field is that its putative front-runner effectively nullifies the entire issue of Obama-care as an effective election issue on which to defeat Barack Obama.  This is because Mitt Romney’s own Massachusetts health-care reform law, known widely as “Romney-care,” is essentially the forerunner of President Obama’s own signature legislation, known widely as Obama-care.  I need Republicans to listen closely:  If you want to defeat Obama in November, and have any chance of repealing Obama-care, you need to focus on this as an electoral issue in the primaries.

You can talk about the economy, jobs, and all the rest, but there is no single issue on which you have more clear-cut support, and no other issue that has two-thirds of the American populace behind you.  To nominate Mitt Romney is to mute yourselves on this issue, because Romney-care is essentially the same thing.  You won’t win with this lousy contradiction stalking your every step, and until you confront the fact that your best winning issue is Obama-care, you’re doomed.  If in 1992, as James Carville then said, “It’s the economy, stupid,” then in 2012, the refrain must echo in the rafters, if Republicans are to win: “It’s Obama-care, stupid!”

Of course, as Doug Brady over at C4P writes, there’s reason to believe that some in the GOP establishment are increasingly comfortable with the idea of Obama-care remaining the law.  Once you consider that companies contributing to establishment Republicans are happy with the arrangements provided under Obama-care, you start to realize how the fix might well be in.  Ann Coulter has offered that repeal of Obama-care will never happen if Obama is re-elected, and she’s right, but she offers this as rationale for why you should support Mitt Romney.  The problem with this argument on her part is that it is precisely the Romney-supporting establishment wing of the GOP that really wouldn’t mind if Obama-care went into full effect.  Even if they did oppose Obama-care as thoroughly as do most Americans, Mitt is the wrong person to make this case since he actually implemented a plan on the state of Massachusetts that is every bit as crippling to that state’s economy as Obama-care will be to the entire nation, and similarly dictatorial with its individual health insurance mandate.  How will Romney argue with Obama over this?  The simple answer is that he won’t. He can’t. He’s neutered on the issue, and if you pick him as the party’s nominee, it’s over.

Some of you are hoping the Supreme Court will ditch Obama-care, but as Brady links to an article by Andrew McCarthy, it was McCarthy who pointed out back in November that Obama-care may well pass muster before the Supreme Court.  If that disaster occurs, then there will be only one way to overturn that piece of tyrannical legislation and it will be by full repeal by Congress, signed into law by a president.  If that President is still Obama, you can forget it, and if the program stays in place through its full implementation, you can forget it, because nobody will repeal it seven years after-the-fact, just like there was no stopping the other entitlement programs once they were up and running.  This truly is your last chance, and it will depend upon defeating Obama this coming November with a candidate who is a credible opponent to Obama-care, and who will make that a focus of the campaign. Anything else will leave the GOP picking around the margins of a host of issues, but if any of them happen to break in Obama’s favor, he’ll win the day.

There’s no way around this: If you select Romney as the nominee of the Republican party, not only will you never repeal Obama-care, but you will never win the election in November.  Obama has it in his power to rig job numbers, and the expected vote fraud of his legions of illegal immigrants will undoubtedly help him in the fraud at the polls.  Romney will not be able to make the argument against Obama-care, and by last measure of which I am aware, over 60% of the American people want it repealed.  Nominating Romney is Obama’s great hope, because it enables him to neuter the Republicans across the board.  He may even re-take the House, since a losing Romney would certainly offer no coat-tails.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to shake the trees and rattle the cages: If Mitt Romney is permitted to win the nomination, the country is over.  It’s really as simple as that, and the sooner you grasp how badly Obama wants Romney to be the nominee, the better the chance you will be able to change that outcome, and give Obama something he does not want:  A candidate who will be able to oppose him effectively on his signature legislation, that the vast majority of the American people hate, and want repealed. Just as we shouldn’t permit 20-30% of political thinking in the country dominate our health-care choices, neither should we permit 20-30% of the thinking in the Republican party dominate our electoral choices.  It’s time that we stand up to the threat posed by Romney’s timid, evasive posturing as a conservative, and remind the establishment of the GOP that we are the deciders.  Not them.  No to Obama-care, and no to Romney.  The two go hand-in-hand.

Or hand-in-glove…

Landmark Legal on Point in Obamacare Fight

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

Conservative Legal Advocacy

There really are not many conservative legal activists committed to standing up for Americans on such a consistent basis, by arguing against unconstitutional legislation or fighting to shine disinfecting daylight on government actions, but Landmark Legal Foundation is one of those rare organizations. Despite its small size, Landmark is currently involved in at least four major issues of interest, including efforts to stop the implementation of Obamacare, challenging the Obama-Holder Department of Justice interference with states on the issue of illegal immigration, stopping the EPA from usurping congressional authority in regulating “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide, and defending the right of states like Wisconsin to limit collective bargaining for public sector employees and the unions that often drive the process to the detriment of tax-payers.

These are all obviously critical issues of significant importance to the American people, and if Landmark Legal seems familiar to you, it may because its president is none other than radio talk-show phenomenon Mark Levin.  More than being the conservative answer to groups like the ACLU, Landmark takes on cases from the standpoint of defeating the leftists’ agenda in the courts where all too often, the left has been so successful in foisting its agenda on the American people.

If you’re not familiar with Levin, his radio show is certainly one great place to hear him speak, and you will learn a great deal about these and countless other critical issues from his show.  Levin served eight years in the Reagan Administration, including his service as the Attorney General’s chief of staff, and Deputy Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, along with many other roles.  He’s the author of several New York Times best-selling books including Liberty and Tyranny – A Conservative Manifesto, Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover’s Story of Joy and Anguish, and Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.  He also has a new book about to hit the shelves:  Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America, which is due out within two weeks.  I have pre-ordered this latest book myself, since I own the other three, and they were each worth every penny.

Landmark Legal’s actions on Obamacare is perhaps the most critical to conservatives, because that legislation threatens to fundamentally reorder American society toward a European healthcare delivery model, or worse in some estimates, and in so doing will create a vast new entitlement program complete with the infamous mandate about which you have read.  You can read the complete Landmark Legal amicus curaie brief filed in the Obamacare case here.  One of the most important questions raised by the brief is whether the court will recognize any limits on federal power, when the commerce or the necessary and proper clauses are concerned.  This is a vital question, because if the federal government can compel you to purchase health insurance, there is no effective limit, and the constitution is utterly meaningless.

Other arguments against Obamacare include the question of the severability of the insurance mandate, ultimately suggesting that since the Congress made no provision in the law for separating any particular clause, the whole law must be affirmed or rejected as a single entity.

These are the sorts of cases we conservatives care most fervently to see taken up, and I make contributions to this noble enterprise that fights on behalf of our individual liberties, and in the name of responsible, ethical, limited government open to examination by citizens.  Reviewing the material they provide to the courts in this form leads me to believe that there are few legal advocacy organizations on our side of the philosophical and political divide that do anything like the work of Landmark Legal.  You can read more extensively about Landmark and the cases in which it is currently involved at its website. It’s one of the very few conservative legal advocacy groups in existence, and its performance on other issues demonstrates its effectiveness despite its small size.  In this time of expansive governmental aggression against individual liberties, we need all the advocates for limited government we can get, and Landmark is definitely among the best.


Romney Admits He Will Only Tweak Obamacare

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

Mend it, but don't end it?

In what must be considered a statement of intent, Mitt Romney explained that he would only amend of some parts of Obamacare.  That’s simply unacceptable to conservatives.  Romney’s insistence on striking a moderate pose in this primary season is the one thing that promises to derail him.  The idea that a candidate claiming to be conservative would keep any part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(Obamacare) is laughable.  Romney is stuck with this clunker is because he signed very similar legislation while serving as governor of Massachusetts, and the problem is that when Romney offers to tweak this horrid legislation, he admits that he intends to abandon one of the core reasons to elect a Republican.  Republicans cannot win without including a repeal of Obamacare in the laundry list of reasons to elect them, and roughly 65% of American still oppose it and want it repealed.

Watch the video of Willard “Mitt” Romney explaining his intention to modify Obamacare, rather than outright repeal:


This is another reason conservatives don’t trust Romney.  Obamacare is terrible legislation, and it offers to ruin our healthcare system in the long run in favor of a top-down system managed by government in its entirety.  Private health insurance providers are already being squeezed out, and Obama is already robbing Medicare to pay for it.  There are very good reason to want Obamacare repealed, but perhaps the most important is the individual mandate, that will impose fines on those who do not purchase insurance.  As others have pointed out, there is going to government rationing of care through refused reimbursements, and eventually, denied treatments based on considerations of cost.

This is anathema to a broad majority of the American people, and their firmly held notions of liberty, and it’s time Mitt “manned-up” and said so, but he can’t.  He’s stuck because he inflicted a similar system on Massachusetts that is now under severe financial strain as the  economy is weak and tax revenues are down.  In short, it’s another big government program that is destined to fail and will likely drag the entire healthcare sector into the ground with it.  Obamacare is very similar to Romneycare, prompting one to wonder how he expects to sell mere tweaks to Americans who want Obamacare scrapped altogether.  In addition, how will he differentiate himself from Obama if his only claim is to be willing to tinker around the edge’s of Obama’s signature legislation?  That’s not a compelling argument to replace Obama, particularly since Americans are apt to see him as a weak imitation.

If this is what Republicans want, by all means, they should vote for Romney.  I have no intention of supporting any candidate who thinks this sort of program has any business being implemented by any level of government.  Romney’s repeated statement about offering waivers to states that want them is garbage.  I don’t want a waiver, and I’m not sure waivers are actually legal anyway.  It’s time for full repeal before we get saddled permanently with this garbage.  Ann Coulter is on record as saying that if Republicans don’t capture the White House in 2012, we’ll never get rid of Obamacare.  I agree, but unfortunately, the squeamish candidate Ms. Coulter supports won’t get rid of it either.



Elana Kagan Must Recuse on Obamacare or Face Impeachment

Saturday, December 10th, 2011

Would I Lie To You?

There are few things more disgusting than the manner in which Obamacare was pushed through Congress, with the whole “Deamed passed” business put forward by Pelosi.  The controversy in this case arises out of the fact that associate Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan had been US Solicitor General at the time of the case, as I’ve previously reported.  I have been skeptical about the claims by the Department of Justice that Kagan had been mostly “walled-off” from the Obamacare debate, because it was already known that she would be nominated by the President to the Supreme Court.  The truth is that Kagan, far from being “walled-off,” was in the loop all along, and that emails now reveal she was aware and copied information relating to Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation’s action on the case.  I remember that day well, because when Levin was announcing Landmark’s intended actions, I was contributing to that endeavor(via paypal.)  What really becomes the point of controversy in this case is that Kagan may even have perjured herself in testimony before the Senate, and whether she recuses herself from this case or not, if this is the case, she must be impeached.

(Click Play for some mood music:)|buffer=5|auto=yes|loop=yes|noinfo=yes|width=80|transparentpagebg=yes

As CNSNews has reported in documents obtained from Judiciary Committee sources, Kagan may have indeed lied in responding to that letter. The most damning answers are those to question numbers eight(8) and nine(9):

8. Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?
9. Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?

These answers to be contradicted by the emails now released, and this is a stunning development, and it makes perfect sense that these emails were dumped on Friday evening.  The truth is likely to be that Kagan knowingly lied to the committee, and thus makes herself eligible to impeachment.  In any event, she must now recuse herself, but I am have doubts as to whether she will do so.   She is a doctrinaire leftist, and for such folks, the law is merely an exercise in formality:  They are going to do as they damned-well please, and laws only matter so long as they aid the left, but never when it obstructs them.

This is the inconvenient truth of the current standing of Elana Kagan: It appears that she lied to members of the committee in her response, and it’s time to understand that she must recuse herself, and for lying to the committee, she ought to face impeachment.  I would urge you to read and understand the details of the article, and then contact your elected officials accordingly.

Elana Kagan Celebrated Obamacare Passage

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

Ethics? Who Me?

Former Solicitor General, and US Supreme Court associate Justice Elana Kagan celebrated the passage of Obamacare, emails obtained by CNSNews reveal.  This strengthens the case for those who argue that Kagan must recuse herself from the Obamacare case scheduled for hearing by the high court.  Indeed, it would seem a travesty to have this justice sitting in judgment of a law she helped advocate, and in which she seems necessarily biased.  Elana Kagan ought to recuse herself from this case.  Kagan’s appointment to the court was a politically motivated appointment intended to secure leftist dominance of the court for decades. In this case, however, her prior involvement and advocacy is ample reason to suggest that Kagan ought to recuse herself from the case as a matter of judicial integrity. It is therefore doubtful she will step aside on this case.  While she shouldn’t have been permitted onto the court, now that she is there, she must conform to a high standard of ethics.  That standard requires her to recuse herself.

The whole notion of justices recusing themselves from cases before the court has been around a long time. Most frequently, it comes into play when the court is considering some case involving a company that has a matter in litigation, that winds up before the high court,  but it turns out that one of the justices has a current or former investment position with the company in question.  The idea is that the justice could harbor some ongoing bias in favor of the company that would skew their decision, and therefore, in the name of maintaining the impartiality of the court, should step aside from the case in question.

The problem in this case is that Kagan will claim that she has no vested interests, if she mentions it at all, but the emails CNSNews was able to obtain after repeated FOIA requests and an eventual lawsuit against Holder’s Department of Justice provide fairly convincing evidence to the contrary.  In an email exchange with Laurence Tribe, Kagan seems to have made plain her excitement at the impending passage of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”(Obama-care:)

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,”

Amazing indeed.  I considered it sickening, for the record.  As CNSNews further points out, this presents something of a problem for Kagan:

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

This is why Supreme Court justices are vetted.  It’s also the reason that in their confirmation hearings, Senators try so hard to get them to state opinions, but in virtually all cases, the justices refuse to openly state their position on issues.  It should be plain to all that by the statement in email to Laurence Tribe, Kagan was expressing her affirmative excitement at the prospects of the passage of Obamacare.  This is also the reason that upon its first FOIA request, the DoJ simply didn’t respond.  They apparently hoped that the Freedom of Information Act requests would go away.  We’ve seen a good deal of this from the Department of Justice under Eric Holder.

In my view, this is a damning email, because Kagan seems to be clearly biased in favor of the law that will now come before the court upon which she now sits.  I think that the ethical standard established for the court demands that she recuse herself from this case, but I also know she is a doctrinaire leftist ideologue, so she will likely refuse to recuse. Leftists don’t believe the laws apply to them, and they are virtually always ready with a tortured rationalization as to why they should be exempt from these standards.  There can be no doubt Kagan should never sit in judgment in this case.

That said, she’s a liberal, which means she’s very much an “ends justify means” sort of person.  As obvious as the matter seems to be, don’t expect a recusal.  Leftist agenda trumps ethical concerns every time.

Obamacare Already a Disaster

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

He Promised This Won't Hurt a Bit - He Lied

More than 4.5 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored health-care insurance in just a little more than a year-and-one-half since Obamacare was enacted, reports Gallup.  This demonstrates the folly of Obamacare, and it makes plain why conservatives had been so concerned about the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”  This result was a virtual inevitability, and for those who think this is over, you’d better brace yourselves: By the time Obamacare fully takes effect, there will be roughly ten million more Americans who will file to receive it than had been projected, if the current trend continues.  Worse, if Boehner’s sell-out on a Balanced Budget Amendment happens, we’re going to see it used to fund all of this.  There really is no alternative: We must reverse this law by full repeal, or the price paid will be dear in tax-payers’ dollars and Americans’ lives.

Worse still, as Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing for The Weekly Standard points out, since the CBO projected that the number of people would go up by 6 million, they’ve already missed the mark by more than 10.5 million people.  The Congressional Budget Office, then controlled by Democrats Pelosi and Reid, created rosy forecasts in order to sell the bill to Congressional members and to the public, but the truth is that at the current rate of loss, we may be looking at projections that missed the mark by as much 15-20 million people.  This will be the ultimate budget-buster, but it will also create the situation about which conservatives have consistently warned, starting with Sarah Palin who denounced the “Death Panels” provided in the law(and for which she was mocked, but about which she was nevertheless correct.)  We are going to see a dramatically reduced quality of care, and we are going to see a sort of rationing that will be borne on the backs of the elderly and the infirm.  In short, under Obamacare, people will die much sooner on average than would have been the case had we merely left things alone.

This is the situation Barack Obama and his merry band of Marxists have intentionally created:  A poorer America, a shorter life expectancy, and more people than ever dependent upon government for every necessity of their lives.  Add to this the increasing social unrest we’ve been experiencing, and what you have is a recipe for the death of America, and the premature deaths of millions of Americans.

As Anderson reminds us, Obama promised repeatedly: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”  He lied:  You can’t, and you won’t.  Get ready.  With previously conservative judges like Laurence Silberman losing their minds on this case, it’s clear that only a repeal will save us from this mess.  That will only happen if we flip the Senate and get a real conservative President in 2012.  We’re literally in a fight for our lives, and the American people ought to know it.

Federal Appeals Court Judge Okays Slavery to the State

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

Time to Retire?

Tuesday, the US Circuit Court for Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld Obamacare on the basis that the government can effectively do anything it damned well pleases, unless it’s specifically forbidden by a right enumerated in the Constitution.  That’s the net meaning of Judge Silberman’s lunatic-maniacal ruling.  Silberman, a Reagan appointee thought by many to be among the most conservative judges in the country has apparently lost his mind, or he’s been bought off or black-mailed.  Something is thoroughly wrong with Silberman, because nobody can be so incredibly wrong accidentally after a career made  up of consistently thoughtful decisions. This particular ruling is the work of somebody who has abandoned the constitution, its meaning, and the entire notion of constitutional government.  It’s time for Judge Silberman to go, whether by retirement or by impeachment.

Nothing in his long history of decent service explains this departure from reason, and only senility or subversion explains the 76 year-old’s decision.  I don’t know what has turned Judge Laurence Silberman from his lifetime along the path of reason and justice, but I really don’t care.  It’s time to pack up his gavel and get the hell off the bench if he doesn’t know the difference between the regulation of a producer and a consumer.  Judge Silberman’s ruling effectively tells us we can be compelled by government to buy anything it comes to believe is in its interests.

Let’s consider what Judge Silberman said in his ruling:

“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local  — or seemingly passive  — their individual origins,” Judge Silberman wrote in the majority opinion.

Consider what this means.  According to Silberman, even seemingly passive activities may be regulated.  Along these lines, why can’t government require you to purchase stock in IBM, or even require the purchase of government bonds?  What rationale permits him to believe this is the proper role of government?  I shudder to think what must have become of his mind.  Once, he had been a leading constitutional jurist, but now he’s reduced to the level of another statist hack, lying upon his back in supine submission to the almighty state.  This ruling crudely asserts that every action or inaction of any producer or consumer is subject to regulation and command by the Federal government.  If you thought you had lived in a free country, I want you now to know and understand that Laurence Silberman has just given Congress permission to tell you how to spend or not spend every penny you have, earn, are owed, owe, or in any way come to possess.  There is no further limit. None!

I’m not an attorney, and I don’t play one on TV, but let me tell you my layperson’s view of this ruling:  What Judge Silberman has declared in this ruling is that you are a slave to the interests of the United States Federal Government.  You will have no sovereignty over your own economic activity or even inactivity that Congress cannot overrule.  It’s a frightening abandonment of the principles that we’ve enjoyed as a nation for more than 200 years.  Yesterday evening, I covered the “Christmas Tree Tax” and what you must understand is that this ruling of the Appeals Court means that not only does the federal government claim the authority to regulate you and charge you fees, but also to compel you to buy things.  If the government says it can force you to pay a fee if you choose to purchase a Christmas tree is bad enough, but consider what will  happen when Silberman’s ruling serves as the eventual precedent by which you will be ordered to buy a Christmas tree in the first instance.  This is where the court’s ruling leads.  Silberman was joined in this 2-1 decision by another Carter appointee and hack, Judge Harry Edwards, but please do understand that Edwards’ decision in this case isn’t the surprise.  The news in this ruling is Silberman’s abandonment of reason.

This one ruling says more to me about the future of this country than anything else that has happened recently.  We must see this overturned, or we will have no country.  Judge Silberman is happy to consign us all to the status of slaves.  Some will make excuses for  him, given his previous rulings, but I won’t.  If you slip a mental gear, it’s time to go.  We can’t afford this any longer, and we can’t afford such judges either.  Jay Sekulow says there will be an appeal.  Whoopee!  The real loss in this ruling was Judge Silberman’s mind.  Time for him to go.