Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

From the Washington Times:

English: President Barack Obama addresses a jo...

. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

… under the terms of this week’s deal, Congress set a deadline instead of a dollar cap. That means debt can rise as much as Mr. Obama and Congress want it to, until the Feb. 7 deadline.

Get ready for your household to owe more in taxes. Thanks Congress. Thanks Mr. President.

Enhanced by Zemanta

From the Office of the Governor:

The Vice President’s committee was appointed in response to the tragedy at Newtown, but very few of his recommendations have anything to do with what happened there.

“Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.

“There is evil prowling in the world – it shows up in our movies, video games and online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds. As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children.

“In fact, the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.”

Well said.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

From The Weekly Standard:

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here’s the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

I love how our president is so concerned about the “rights” of doctors. He is so concerned about those rights that he is ready and willing to enable doctors to gather information on individuals, that some how will not violate patient privacy laws, that sure looks like it infringes on every citizens right to bear arms. How is a doctor going to know if a family owns weapons? Is it any of that doctor’s business? I know if my doctor ask me about guns and etc. I will walk straight out of his office and find myself another doctor. Don’t get me wrong if someone’s life is in danger, a doctor does need to get involved, what the president is suggesting though is outright spying on citizens and reporting information directly to the federal government.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

From the Washington Times:

President Obama is using the national debate over gun violence to push for further action on his health care law…. Mr. Obama, unveiling his gun proposals Wednesday barely a month after the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn., will make it clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police.

Those are some of the 23 executive actions Mr. Obama plans to take whether or not Congress acts on his broader recommendations, the White House said.

Other moves including offering incentives for schools to hire police; finally naming a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and requiring federal authorities to trace all guns recovered in their criminal investigations.

Mr. Obama also will call on his secretaries of education and health and human services to hold a national dialogue on mental health.

The entire list of the actions Mr. Obama is taking comprises:

1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Direct from SCOTUS:

A few positive points to be made about Chief Justice Roberts opinion:

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Concerning the Individual Mandate:

Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product…. The language of the Constitution reflects the natural understanding that the power to regulate assumes there is already something to be regulated…. As expansive as our cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they all have one thing in common: They uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity….”The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority…. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him…. The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent.”

Indeed it would and I agree with the Chief Justice on this issue specifically. Congress does NOT need to be involved in any citizen’s decision to buy anything or for that matter to not buy anything. The above reasoning is sound and leads me to believe that the Chief Justice isn’t totally insane for upholding this monstrosity of a law.

Chief Justice Roberts now has this to say concerning the government’s argument that Obamacare is constitutional due to the application of the “necessary and proper clause:”

The Government next contends that Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact the individual mandate because the mandate is an “integral part of a comprehensive scheme of economic regulation…. As our jurisprudence under the Necessary and Proper Clause has developed, we have been very deferential to Congress’s determination that a regulation is “necessary.” We have thus upheld laws that are “‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.’” But we have also carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution…. Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms. Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power. This is in no way an authority that is “narrow in scope….” Rather, such a conception of the Necessary and Proper Clause would work a substantial expansion of federal authority. No longer would Congress be limited to regulating under the Commerce Clause those who by some preexisting activity bring themselves within the sphere of federal regulation. Instead, Congress could reach beyond the natural limit of its authority and draw within its regulatory scope those who otherwise would be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Act’s insurance reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.

What the Chief Justice is saying here again echoes his previous comments concerning the “commerce clause.” That if the government had its way and the court had gone with both the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause as justifications for the constitutionality of Obamacare that, in short, the federal government could literally come in and regulate any and all decisions an individual can make in their lifetime which sounds just like the Life of Julia. I don’t want government deciding any life issues for me nor do I desire the “Cradle to grave ” help”from the federal government.

Now the Chief Justice handles the governments last defense of the individual mandate:

Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

There it is, the word we have all been waiting for…. Taxes. Remember this:

The President himself rejects the notion that the “fee” that must be paid to the government is not a tax. Now back to Chief Justice Roberts:

The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.”

Who is the government again? The President, the Congress, The Supreme Court. Which branch was responsible for defending Obamacare in front of the Supreme Court. The answer is the Presidency and last I checked Barack Hussein Obama was President, his own solicitor general from the Department of Justice defended the law. The President says via interview that the individual mandate is not a tax, but his solicitor general argues that it is? Which is it Mr. President? Did you lie to us? I am guessing yes.

Cheif Justice Robert goes on to say that it is ok to tax a person based on behavior.  I do not think it is correct to tax a citizen based on his behavior  (owning or not owning a commodity). The question should be asked now, “What else can the federal government tax?”

Enhanced by Zemanta

According to Teamster Union boss Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters are now a part of an army that is in a direct position to give war to the Tea Party. My question is for what reason? For what purpose? Hear is a video with Mr. Hoffa’s exact words:

Ok, there you go, pretty straight forward I would think. An army, for Obama, against the Tea Party. Als,o for a very nice rundown and op-ed of Mr. Hoffa’s words I would direct you to The Conservative Crusader Blog. Are normal Americans ready for what is coming? The Leftist in the United States are poised for a final showdown. They want to collapse the system and put in place a “fundamentally changed” America, one where wealth redistribution, segregation by voting block, a command economy, cradle to grave welfare, and perpetual serfdom, for those of us who do work, will be the norm. Is that the type of country anyone is ready to live in?

Mr. Williams from the Conservation Crusader certainly believes that we are headed towards civil war. Taxpayers, Veterans, entrepreneurs versus, Unions, illegal aliens, class warfare indoctrinated minorities, as well as representatives of the federal government itself. Are you ready? They sure seems to be….

For the record, I belong to a private sector union, at least as private as can one be I suppose. Since democrats have been in power I can attest to the increase in Union power and all forms of social justice that the leftist preach. For instance a “safety” bill was signed into law in 2008 which prohibits a man from working for then 6 days at a time for “safety reasons.” In practice it forced my industry to hire more workers they wouldn’t other wise need to cover shortfalls in manpower, it also forces me to miss two days of work without any type of compensation. So in turn, the union receives more dues for more workers because the industry is forced to hire more people, at the same time it makes me two, possibly 3 days less pay in any given pay period. So this is another example of how elements of the leftist movement in the United States work. Legislative efforts made to force business to comply with law and regulation that is deemed necessary for safety reasons, but in practice reduces the actual pay of individuals, usually the lower level workers, while the union’s treasury feasts off the law. Which the union in turn gives some of that money back to Democrat election coffers.

It’s a never-ending cycle, wait a second it might be ending sooner than we all think if the policies in place today are allowed to continue too much farther into the future. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I’ll be on the side of those who stand for the Constitution.

The President has created a new job, only one, but a new job nonetheless. It is the post of Director of Progressive Media and Online Response. Sounds interesting. The new post will have the (I would think HUGE) job of building up President’s online presence and dealing with any negative media towards the President.

The new director, Jesse Lee, first tweet from his new White House post included a picture of the Terminator, suggesting this guy is taking his job very serious squashing stories the President’s campaign may find inconvenient. One website listed below is already calling Mr. Lee the “Czar of Truth.”

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta