Author: kingsjester

64 year old Christian Conservative husband, father, and grandfather who has been writing since April 2010.

Thursday, 6/28/12: This Could Be the Start of Something Great

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

Well, as everybody knows, (even Harvard graduates) this Thursday is shaping up to be Bad Day at Black Rock for President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Not only is the Supreme Court of the United States going to deliver its ruling on the Socialist Healthcare Plan known as Obamacare, but this nation’s House of Representatives are going to hold a vote as to whether to hold United States Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his obfuscation of his role in Operation Fast and Furious, the sanctioned mission by the Obama Administration that wound up causing the deaths of over 200 Mexican nationals and 2 American Law Enforcement Officers.

How did America get to this point?

In the case of Obamacare…

The nation’s highest court heard three days of politically charged hearings in March on the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a landmark but controversial measure passed by congressional Democrats despite pitched Republican opposition.

The challenge focused primarily on the law’s requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine.

How SCOTUS rulings could shape 2012 race Bachmann: Obama not talking health care

Supporters of the plan argued the “individual mandate” is necessary for the system to work, while critics argued it is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual freedom.

All sides preparing for political fallout from health care decision

Four different federal appeals courts heard challenges to parts of the law before the Supreme Court ruling, and came up with three different results.

Courts in Cincinnati and Washington voted to uphold the law, while the appeals court in Atlanta struck down the individual mandate.

A fourth panel, in Richmond, Virginia, put its decision off until penalties for failing to buy health insurance take effect in 2014.

The polarizing law, dubbed “Obamacare” by many, is the signature legislation of Obama’s time in office.

After a lengthy and heated debate marked by intense opposition from the health insurance industry and conservative groups, the law passed Congress along strictly partisan lines in March 2010.

When Obama signed the legislation later that month, he called it historic said it marked a “new season in America.”

While it was not the comprehensive national health care system liberals initially sought, supporters said the law would reduce health care costs, expand coverage and protect consumers.

The law establishes a staged series of reforms over several years, including banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, forbidding insurers from setting a dollar limit on health coverage payouts, and requiring them to cover preventative care at no additional cost to consumers.

It also required individuals to buy health insurance, either through their employers or a state-sponsored exchange, or face a fine beginning in 2014.

Supporters argue the individual mandate is critical to the success of the legislation, because it expands the pool of people paying for insurance and ensures that healthy people do not opt out of buying insurance until they needed it.

Critics said the provision gave the government too much power over what they said should be a personal economic decision.

Twenty-six states led by Florida say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a “product” they may neither want nor need. And they argue that if that provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go.

The Justice Department countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not “choose” whether to participate in the health care market.

The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed almost every traditional hot-button topic: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy.

And, regarding Attorney General Eric Holder…

Republican leaders plan to bring the issue to the floor on Thursday, meaning lawmakers likely will vote on contempt charges on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to announce its ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care reform law.

The timing likely deprives advocates for contempt charges of the big headlines they might have received if the vote were held another day this week.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)said Sunday that the vote could still be postponed or scrapped if Holder and Justice Department officials present congressional investigators with documents related to a probe intoOperation “Fast and Furious,” the botched gun-running operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives out of its Phoenix offices between 2009 and 2011.

If the House votes to hold him in contempt, Holder would be the first U.S. attorney general in history held in contempt of Congress. The matter would be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — a Justice Department employee and Obama administration appointee — who would have to decide whether to bring criminal charges against the attorney general, his boss.

It should be an exciting Thursday to say the least, Bat-fans.

What has me puzzled is the rampant pessimism which I’ve seen so far in the posts of those identifying themselves as Conservatives.  If you’ve read some of these Eeyore-ish missives on Conservative Websites, you would think that the justices have already ruled 9 – 0 in favor of Obamacare and the House had voted not to hold the shady Attorney General in contempt.

What in the name of Dow Jones and all his little averages is a’goin’ on here?

In the words of a memorable speech given by the late Sen. John Blutarsky:

Bluto: Hey! What’s all this laying around stuff? Why are you all still laying around here for?

Stork: What the hell are we supposed to do, ya moron? We’re all expelled. There’s nothing to fight for anymore.

D-Day: [to Bluto] Let it go. War’s over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.

Bluto: What? Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Otter: [to Boon] Germans?

Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling.

Bluto: And it ain’t over now. ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough…

[thinks hard of something to say]

Bluto: The tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go!

[Bluto runs out, alone; then returns]

Bluto: What the !@#$ happened to the Delta I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst. “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well just kiss my !@# from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this. Wormer, he’s a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer…

Otter: Dead! Bluto’s right. Psychotic… but absolutely right. We gotta take these b!@#$%^s. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!

Bluto: We’re just the guys to do it.

D-Day: [stands up] Yeah, I agree. Let’s go get ’em.

Boon: Let’s do it.

Bluto: [shouting] “Let’s do it”!

This is no time for Eeyore-ism. This is no time for squishiness.  This is not a time for “reaching across the aisle”.  This is not a time for defeatism.

This is a time for Americans to stand up on their hind legs, and to show the world what makes us the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

Walk tall. Talk loud.  Be Proud.  BE AMERICANS.

And, if that doesn’t fire you up, remember this:

Anticipation…It’s Makin’ Me Wait…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Sitting here on a Sunday night, wondering what to write about, I realized that this is the week that could provide a double “death blow” to Obama’s sorry excuse of a presidency. And now, I probably won’t sleep a lick tonight.

The Washington Post reports that

The Supreme Court this week will conclude its term by handing down much-anticipated rulings on health careand immigration, President Obama’s remaining priorities before the justices. It is a finale that cannot come quickly enough for the administration, which has had a long year at the high court.

In a string of cases — as obscure as the federal government’s relationships with Indian tribes and as significant as enforcement of the Clean Water Act — the court rejected the administration’s legal arguments with lopsided votes and sometimes biting commentary.

The administration’s win-loss record will sting a lot less, of course, if the court upholds the constitutionality of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act. That decision on health care, which will define the term, could come as early as Monday and almost certainly will be announced by Thursday.

The court also will decide the fate of Arizona’s tough law on illegal immigrants, which the Obama administration challenged in court before it could take effect. The government’s argument that the law conflicts with the federal authority to decide immigration policy got a sour reception from the justices, but the government hopes for at least a split decision on other aspects of the measure.

The administration’s ungainly portfolio at the Supreme Court this term has drawn attention from all points on the ideological spectrum.

Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the government is to blame for “outlandish claims of federal power” that the court was correct to reject.

Adam Winkler, a liberal law professor at UCLA, recently wrote that the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been “unusually hostile to the Obama administration.”

His conclusion: “This is the year of the Supreme Court’s Obama smack down.”

It might also have something to do with the (bad) luck of the draw. It is the job of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. to defend the actions of Congress and the executive. In some of the government’s high-profile losses in Verrilli’s inaugural term, the administration was defending decisions made long before Obama took office.

But whatever the reasons, the losses so far cannot be blamed on the conflict between an increasingly conservative court and a progressive administration. For instance, the authors of the Indian cases that went against the government last week were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Obama’s choices for the court.

At least so far, 5-to-4 decisions that have divided the court along ideological lines have split fairly evenly between wins for liberals and for conservatives. And there has been a string of high-profile losses in which the government has failed to win the vote of a single justice — liberal or conservative.

The New York Times has their own Liberal Spin on the fate of Obamacare…and it appears to this humble blooger that these Yankees are proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Late on Tuesday, March 27, halfway around the world, President Obama began one of the most suspenseful waits in recent presidential history.

After a blur of nuclear security meetings in South Korea, Mr. Obama settled into the Air Force One conference room to read a summary aides had written of that day’s arguments before the Supreme Court back in Washington. The justices had asked deeply skeptical questions about his health care law.

Mr. Obama’s most profound policy achievement was at much higher risk of defeat than his aides had expected, vulnerable to being erased by the margin of a single justice’s vote.

Since then, Mr. Obama and the White House have put on brave faces, insisting that the law and the mandate at its center will be upheld when the court rules this month. In private conversations, they predict that the bulk of the law will survive even if the mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance does not.

But even if the White House is a fortress of message discipline, it cannot disguise the potential heartbreak for Mr. Obama, who managed to achieve a decades-old Democratic dream despite long odds and at steep cost.

If he loses both his law and re-election, many will conclude “that he bet on his major reform, and the Supreme Court defeated it, and he lost his hold on the presidency,” Robert Dallek, the presidential historian, said in an interview.

On the day the ruling comes out, one Obama adviser joked, “I might have to clean out my sock drawer.”

In grappling with what the court may do, Mr. Obama and his advisers now appear to be far past the denial stage (when they dismissed constitutional challenges) but nowhere near acceptance (they still believe the law will be upheld.) Instead, they have quietly entered a surprising new state that might be called Learning to Live Without Universal Coverage.

Former advisers are emphasizing the many aspects of the bill that are not connected to the mandate, like the subsidies to buy insurance. Some aides even argue privately that losing the mandate could be a political boon, because it would rob Republicans of their core complaint against the law.

But that position is uncomfortable for a deeper reason, one that goes to the core of who Mr. Obama wanted to be as president. Earlier in his term, he refused every chance to settle for the more limited health care overhaul that the Supreme Court may now effectively deliver, making epic sacrifices to win something far broader.

Or, geniuses, they could toss out the whole cotton-pickin’ abomination…if we’re lucky.

Flying With the Angels

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Is one of the branches of America’s Armed Forces being forced by this Administration to conveniently forget that we are “One Nation Under God”?

FoxNews.com reports that

Dozens of House lawmakers accused the U.S. Air Force this week of being “hostile towards religion,” citing a string of recent incidents they claim show the military is taking separation of church and state too far.

“Censorship is not required for compliance with the Constitution,” they wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The letter from 66 Republican members of Congress referenced a series of cases where they claim the Air Force “succumbed” to demands from outside groups.

Among the incidents:

A decision to remove a Latin reference to “God” from a logo/motto for the Rapid Capabilities Office

A decision to stop requiring staff to check for Bibles in Air Force Inn rooms

The removal of a document from a distance-learning course for Squadron Officer School that suggested chapel attendance is a sign of strong leadership

The suspension of an ethics course because the material included Bible passages

“Mr. Secretary, the combination of events mentioned above raises concerns that the Air Force is developing a culture that is hostile towards religion,” the lawmakers wrote. They urged Panetta to investigate all the incidents and issue “clear Department of Defense policy guidance.”

The letter was drafted by Reps. Diane Black, R-Tenn.; Randy Forbes, R-Va.; and Todd Akin, R-Mo.

‘Censorship is not required for compliance with the Constitution’

– GOP lawmakers in letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

The incidents were not all as clear-cut as the lawmakers made them sound.

In the case of the Squadron Officer School course, the training document in question contained the following paragraph: “If you attend chapel regularly, both officers and Airmen are likely to follow this example. If you are morally lax in your personal life, a general moral indifference within the command can be expected.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained to the Air Force in March that the line “creates the inescapable impression that regular church attendance is a requirement for commissioned Air Force officers in order to demonstrate positive morals to subordinates.” The group said the document violates the constitutional prohibition on religious tests for U.S. office holders.

The Air Force subsequently scrapped the document.

In the case of the Rapid Capabilities Office, the reference to God was removed following a complaint from an atheist group. The original logo, according to Fox News Radio, said in Latin: “Doing God’s Work with Other People’s Money.”

It was changed to say, “Doing Miracles with Other People’s Money.”

In the case of the Air Force Inn rooms, the Air Force moved to nix a question from its checklist asking whether a Bible was provided, according to the Air Force Times, though it did not order Bibles to be removed.

The Republican lawmakers, though, said the change in attitude can all be traced back to a September 2011 memo from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz that said chaplains, “not commanders,” are expected to notify airmen of the Chaplain Corps programs.

The lawmakers said this suggested “that the mere mention of these programs is impermissible.” All the subsequent incidents, they said, “go beyond the requirements of the Constitution.”

“The changes lend credence to the notion that the Air Force will remove any reference to God or faith that an outside organization brings to its attention,” they wrote.

The Air Force said in a statement responding to the letter that airmen are “free to exercise their constitutional right to practice their religion — in a manner that is respectful of other individuals’ rights to follow their own belief systems,” according to The Hill.

In researching this post, I came across several articles pushed in the Liberal press and on their websites designed to show Christians serving in the Air Force in a bad light.  There are articles accusing Christians of desecrating a Wiccan religious site, one on CNN.com, accusing the Air Force of being a Christian Cult, for using Biblical examples in ROTC, and one on Huffington Post saying the 41% of Non-Christian Air force members are complaining about proselytizing.

Let’s examine that last article shall we?

Per Gallup, 78% of Americans proclaim Christ as their personal Savior.  So, in any given population in the U.S., non-Christians only make up around 22%.  That means that those complaining about “proselytizing” only constitute “41% of 22%” of our fighting men and women in the Air Force.

Extrapolated out, that, boys and girls, totals only 9% of those serving so honorably in the United States Air Force.

Which makes sense, for you see, again, per Gallup, 92% of Americans believe in God.

But, you’ll never see those facts in posts at Huffington Post, CNN, or any other Liberal Propaganda website.

As I finish today’s post, before I go to church on this Sunday morning.  I leave you with something else you’ll never see on those Liberal websites:

United States Air Force Academy

The Cadet Prayer

Lord, God of hosts, my life is a stewardship in Your sight. Grant me the light of Your wisdom to the path of my cadet days. Instill within me an abiding awareness of my responsibility toward You, my country and my fellow man.

I ask true humility that, knowing self, I may rise above human frailty. I ask courage that I may prove faithful to duty beyond self. I ask unfailing devotion to personal integrity that I may ever remain honorable without compromise.

Make me an effective instrument of Your peace in the defense of the skies that canopy free nations. So guide me daily in each thought, word and deed, that I may fulfill Your will. May these graces abide with me, my loved ones, and all who share my country’s trust.

Amen.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics5 Comments

The country’s been taking around the water cooler this week about a bunch of topics, not the least of which was the verbal attack by a bunch of Middle School Brats upon the sweet little old lady who was riding on their school bus as a monitor.

All decent Americans have been shaking their heads at these little idiots.

The problem is…inecusable bad behavior is not just limited to the kids.  In this case, it’s grown men and women who know better.

The White House expressed disapproval Friday of photographs showing gay-rights activists, guests of President Obama, making obscene gestures at the portrait of President Reagan during a gay-pride reception at the White House last week.

[What do you morons expect when you embrace folks like this and the Muslim Brotherhood and allow them in OUR house? Martha Stewart manners?]

“While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner,” said White House spokesman Shin Inouye. “Most all do. These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.”

Matthew “Matty” Hart and Zoe Strauss, both from the Philadelphia area, posted photographs of themselves on Facebook giving the middle finger to Mr. Reagan’s official portrait hanging in the White House as they attended the party.

At the reception, Mr. Obama told the attendees that the day is approaching when gay citizens will enjoy full equality in America.

“We’ll get there because of every man and woman and activist and ally who is moving us forward by the force of their moral arguments, but more importantly, by the force of their example,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Hart didn’t return a call seeking comment, but he told Philadelphia magazine that he despises Mr. Reagan’s legacy.

“Yeah, f– Reagan,” Mr. Hart said. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”

Mr. Hart is national director of public engagement at Solutions for Progress, which receives public and private funds to help “individuals and families working to overcome poverty and to build long-term financial stability,” according to its web site. Ms. Strauss is a photographer.

Former Rep. John LeBoutillier, an author, wrote in 2003 that Mr. Reagan was a “tolerant and kind man” and denied accounts that Mr. Reagan was intolerant of gays.

“Ronald Reagan was never anti-gay,” Mr. LeBoutillier wrote in a column. “He and Nancy, as longtime Hollywood insiders, knew many gays and never did or said anything that could be construed as even mildly anti-gay. As governor of California, Ronald Reagan was ‘progressive’ toward the gay movement.”

Also during the White House party where some people flipped the bird at Mr. Reagan’s portrait, a transgender man dropped down on one knee and proposed to his partner. The festivities occurred about two months after Mr. Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage

If you clowns want respect for your misguided cause, act respectfully.

However, given these folks’ history of acting out during Gay Pride Parades, disrupting church services and making out in from of the worshipers, and harassing any one, including a little old lady who was protesting against them in California, expecting respect from gay activists is probably like expecting the Obama Administration to respect out Armed Forces.

Speaking of little old ladies…

For the past three days, the shattered glass of a broken iPad has been Karen Klein’s window to the online world.

There, and on television, the 68-year-old school bus monitor has watched herself make international headlines and be interviewed multiple times about the video that shows her being taunted and harassed by middle school students on a bus.

“I still can’t believe this is all about me,” Klein said Friday on the porch of her Greece home. “I see me on the TV or the front page of the newspaper and wonder, ‘Who is that woman?’ ”

With the fruits of an online fund-raising effort, Klein will be able to buy a replacement iPad and much more. Within just three days, the fund on crowd-funding site Indiegogo.com that was set up to help send her on a nice vacation has surpassed $500,000 and is still climbing. More than 25,000 people have donated. When told Friday how much the fund had amassed, Klein teared up.

And that’s not the only outpouring of sympathy and compassion the grandmother of eight has received. She’s been deluged with thinking-of-you cards, bouquets of flowers, gift cards and all kinds of other offers.

On Friday, Greece police gave her apology statements written by some of the boys whose taunting was captured on the video.

The Democrat and Chronicle is not fully identifying the boys or their parents because of death threats the families have received.

Death threats?  Sorry. While that is over the top, so was their behavior.

As I’ve written before, I was raised by members of the greatest generation.  My mother smacked me on the back of the legs with a yardstick if I squinted my eyes at her.

However, to this day, as an 53 year old Marketing Executive, I still say “Yes, Ma’am” and “No, Sir”.  In fact, you’ll find that most people my age in the South, do.

It’s the way we were raised.

Class Warfare Being Turned Into Race Warfare?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics11 Comments

On August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, said the following while delivering a very famous speech at the base of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Unfortunately, sir…we aren’t there , yet.

“Romney is very, very comfortable, it seems with people who are like him,” Politico’s Joe Williams said on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir program today. “That’s one of the reasons why he seems so stiff and awkward in some town hall settings, why he can’t relate to people other than that. But when he comes on “Fox & Friends,” they’re like him, they’re white folks who are very much relaxed in their own company. So it really is a very stark contrast, I think and a problem that he’s not been able to solve to date and he’s going to have network harder if he’s going to try to compete.”

And evidently, it’s not just Mitt Romney that’s a bigoted silver-spoon sucker.  It’s all of us “crackas”.

The University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD) is now sponsoring an ad-campaign designed to achieve “racial justice” by raising awareness of “white privilege.”

The project disseminates its message, that “society was setup for us [whites]” and as such is “unfair,” through an aggressive campaign of online videos, billboards, and lectures. The ads feature a number of Caucasians confessing their guilt for the supposed “privilege” that comes along with their fair features.

The self-titled Un-Fair Campaign, is sponsored and supported by the University of Minnesota – Duluth, along with several liberal organizations including the NAACP, YWCA, and The League of Woman Voters.

“You give me better jobs, better pay, better treatment, and a better chance – all because of the color of my skin,” reads one poster that features a close shot of a Caucasian male.

The Un-Fair campaign also held a series of lectures and events on campus last semester. One included a presentation by Tim Wise, author of Dear White America. In his book, Wise confesses a “longstanding fantasy” where he turns to a man with a “God Bless the USA” button and asks him, “why can’t you just get over it?”

These lectures were publicly endorsed by university Chancellor Lendley Black. Black sent a message to the campus community in April describing his effort to “create an inclusive campus climate for all” through providing “support and… leadership to the Un-Fair Campaign.”

FLASHBACK: UMD Administrator Calls Conservative “White Supremacist” for Giving Away Free Pocket Constitutions

Documents obtained exclusively by Campus Reform this week, through a public records request, however, show that students on campus have expressed outrage over the administration’s support of the racially-charged campaign.

One student, whose identity was redacted in the documents released by UMD, e-mailed Chancellor Black expressing his discontent, writing that the Un-fair campaign “is in fact UNFAIR.”

The student proceeded to write: “It may be drawing awareness to factors that we might otherwise not pay attention to, but it’s creating a gap between people. It’s only making people more racist on both sides.”

LI’s Campus Reform contacted the school seeking further comment, but was unable to reach a spokesperson for comment by the time of publication.

On April 25th of this year, wsj.com ran the following article:

After securing victory in all five Republican presidential primary contests last night, Mitt Romney told an audience in New Hampshire that President Obama is resorting to class warfare because he can’t run on his record.

Last week, Mr. Obama told an audience that “I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth,” a clear swipe at the privileged background of Mr. Romney. And yesterday the president told a group of college students that student loan debt “is something Michelle and I know about firsthand . . .. [W]e’ve been in your shoes. Like I said, we didn’t come from wealthy families.”

In his speech last night, Mr. Romney pushed back. “You might have heard that I was successful in business, and that rumor is true,” he quipped and then went on to defend his background in private equity. But the real issue in this campaign, he added, is what do we have to show for three-and-a-half years of President Obama.

“Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?” asked Mr. Romney. “If the answer were ‘yes’ to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements, and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions.”

Ol’ Mitt sure called that one, didn’t he?

Given the failure of the OWS movement, could this be a new tactic to distract from Obama’s miserable record?

You betcha.

The Supremes Can’t Hurry Love…errr…Obamacare

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

The eyes of America are fixed upon the Supreme Court today.  Will they uphold the Constitution, or will they pave the way for America to be remade into a European Democratic Socialist country?

Or, will they even issue a ruling at all, today?

Per the Los Angeles Times:

Television cameras will surround the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, as they did Monday, anticipating something that may, again, not happen.

The momentous healthcare decision could be announced Thursday. Or not. All we really know is that it is extremely likely to be handed down by the following Thursday, June 28, when the court is expected to end its current term.

The court works in secrecy as it prepares its opinions, and outsiders might be surprised to learn that some of its work is done at the last minute. The justices would have voted almost immediately after three days of oral arguments last March on whether President Obama’s healthcare overhaul is constitutional. Although that vote would normally have determined the outcome of the case, there is a lot of back and forth before the majority opinion and the dissents, if any, are finished.

Last Friday was the deadline for justices to hand in dissents. Then whoever is writing the majority opinion – the betting is on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. – has the option of responding to any criticism of the ruling in his own opinion.

The decisions are printed inside the ornate 1935 Corinthian-style building, and handed out to reporters as the justice who authored the opinion announces the decision from the bench shortly after 10 a.m. By tradition the senior justice goes last, so healthcare is likely to be the last decision announced on the day it comes down.

Only a few times in modern history have the results leaked ahead of time, once reputedly from a comment by a justice to a reporter, another time from a talkative printer.

The court is not meeting Friday, so if the healthcare decision does not come Thursday, the next opportunity would be Monday.

So, why is America, including doctors, holding their breath every time SCOTUS is in session?

Heritage .org reports that

…a new survey shows that doctors have an even worse opinion [than the rest of the American public]. No one has a better grasp on the state of the health care system than physicians, and according to the Doctors Company survey, 60 percent of them believe that Obamacare will have a negative impact on overall patient care. This survey is consistent with the findings of another doctor survey taken in October 2010, which also showed doctors’ lack of confidence in Obamacare.

The survey was conducted to unveil physicians’ concerns about health care reform. The Doctors Company, which is the largest insurer of physician and surgeon medical liability in the nation, received more than 5,000 surveys, including all specialties and every region in the country. The results weren’t good for the President’s signature piece of legislation.

Not only do doctors believe that Obamacare will not improve the health care system, they also anticipate that it will worsen the current condition. According to the survey, nine out of 10 physicians are unwilling to recommend health care as a profession to a family member, and one primary care physician even commented, “I would not recommend becoming an M.D. to anyone.”

Obamacare doesn’t just discourage entrance into the medical profession; it encourages those who are already practicing to leave it. The survey states that “health care reform is motivating doctors to change their retirement timeline.” In fact, 43 percent of respondents said they are considering retiring within the next five years as a result of the law. A surgeon from Michigan wrote that under Obamacare, “We will be moving further away from humanity-based health care and more towards the patient as a commodity. This was not the way my father practiced—nor will I. Winding down to retire early.”

Currently, the United States is on the brink of a severe physician shortage. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, by 2020, the nation will need an additional 91,500 doctors to meet medical demand. Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, former president of the American Medical Association, warns, “Today, we are perilously close to a true crisis as newly insured Americans enter the health care system and our population continues to age.” If current physicians leave the practice early because of the health law, the problem will be exacerbated even further.

Finally, the survey revealed concerns that the health law will compromise the doctor-patient relationship. Slightly more than half of doctors surveyed believe “that increased bureaucracy is reducing the personal interaction with patients essential for building a close relationship and understanding the nature of patient health.”

Governor Rick Perry of Texas put it succintly, when he said:

Obamacare has got everyone on edge. I mean, small business – men and women or big business are sitting out there saying we have no idea what this is going to cost, but we know it’s going to cost us and cost us a lot.

And Americans cannot afford Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act. 

The Holder Contempt Charges: All This for a Flag

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Today was an extraordinary day.  It was unprecedented…and unsavory.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) issued the following statement after the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee approved a resolution holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents related to the Fast & Furious operation:

“Despite being given multiple opportunities to provide the documents necessary for Congress’ investigation into Fast and Furious, Attorney General Holder continues to stonewall. Today, the Administration took the extraordinary step of exerting executive privilege over documents that the Attorney General had already agreed to provide to Congress. Fast and Furious was a reckless operation that led to the death of an American border agent, and the American people deserve to know the facts to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. While we had hoped it would not come to this, unless the Attorney General reevaluates his choice and supplies the promised documents, the House will vote to hold him in contempt next week. If, however, Attorney General Holder produces these documents prior to the scheduled vote, we will give the Oversight Committee an opportunity to review in hopes of resolving this issue.”

The Fast and Furious Fiasco reminds me of some other unsavory business by the Executive Branch:

On 17th June 1972, 5 men were arrested for breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Initially, it was assumed that it was just a simple burglary that went wrong. However, when investigations started, it was found out that the men had entered the office to repair bugs that they had installed into the office nearly a week earlier.

On further investigations, it was found out that the so-called burglars were some how connected to the White House and were given the task to spy on the Democrats. One of the “burglars” arrested was named Jim McCord Jr. He was the security officer for Richard Nixon’s Committee to Reelect the President. Even a diary was found which had the contact number of E Howard Hunt, who was an intelligence agent and a member of the White House plumbers, which was a secret team of agents working at the behest of the White House. The investigators went on to figure out that the E Howard Hunt along G Gordon Liddy were the brains behind the first break in. Soon it was found that there were many agents responsible for spying on the Democrats. A check meant for Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign was traced to the bank account of one of the burglars. This led the investigators to conclude that the campaign funds were being used to fund these illegal activities. However, even at this stage, it did not stop Richard Nixon, a Republican, to win the US president election.

James McCord sent a letter to the trial judge naming other people who were part of this conspiracy. With more and more evidence being unearthed, it was soon clear that Richard Nixon was personally involved in the scandal along with several members from his administration. It was also discovered that many of the conversations regarding the conspiracy took place in the Oval Office and these conversations were taped. Initially, Nixon denied the presence of the tapes, but due to US Supreme Court order, he was forced to hand over the tapes containing the damning conversations. However, some important conversations from these tapes were missing.

The US Congress was forced to begin the process of impeachment against Richard Nixon. However, before the culmination of the process, Nixon resigned on 9th August 1974. While Nixon himself did not serve any prison time, many of his aides were found guilty by the Grand Jury.

There is a major difference, however, between the two.  200-300 Mexican nationals and two members of United States Law Enforcement were killed during Fast and Furious.  No one died as a result of Watergate.

There is more at stake here than a political dirty trick.

To clarify, let’s go back to 9/13/11, 2 days after America solemnly remembered the 10th anniversary of the worst attack ever on American soil by Islamic Terrorists.  James Robbins wrote the following story for The Washington Times, in which he illuminated a whispered conversation between the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and First Lady, Michelle Obama:

The internet was buzzing this week with video of First Lady Michelle Obama apparently showing extreme disrespect to the American flag at a ceremony in honor of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. As police and firefighters fold the flag to the sound of marching bagpipers, a skeptical looking Mrs. Obama leans to her husband and appears to say, “all this just for a flag.” She then purses her lips and shakes her head slightly as Mr. Obama nods.

Yes.  All this for a flag.  And, for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in its service.

Liberals: The Hypocrisy and Deceit Continue

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

Did you hear the one about the rich-as-King Midas Liberal comedians who continue to crack unfunny jokes about how rich Mitt Romney is?

The hottest trend among comedic talk show hosts in recent months has revolved around bashing Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, his personal wealth, and his ranking in the “one percent.”

But have these famous television “comedians” forgotten that they too are far from belonging to the “99 percent” when it comes to monetary earnings?

“Mitt Romney just barely won the Republican primary in Ohio by one percent. Then Romney made the mistake of saying, ‘ladies and gentleman, tonight is a victory for the one percent!” Conan O’Brien, who is received a $45 million exit deal from NBC in 2010 and has an estimated net worth of $75 million, exclaimed.

Jay Leno, who reportedly makes $32 million a year from his “Tonight Show” gig alone, and is reported to have a net worth of around $150 million, frequently incorporate Romney-related rich jokes into his late night program.

“CNBC is reporting that America lost 129,000 millionaires last year. Or as Mitt Romney calls them, ‘an endangered species we have to protect,” Leno said, and on another occasion stated: “Mitt Romney says he understands the middle class, and that he knows it’s not easy keeping a roof over your family’s heads – as well as vacation roots in San Diego, New Hampshire, and Park City, Utah.”

The Daily Caller pointed out that Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart, who also has a prominent place on the rich Romney-jibing bandwagon and exploded over his “almost $57,000 a day” income level, makes more than 300 times the median American salary, owns three luxury homes and has been known not to pay his taxes occasion.

“How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year – while paying the same tax rate as the guy who scans shoes at the airport?” Stewart gasped.

The political publication went on to highlight that his net worth stands at an assumed $80 million, bringing he and his wife Tracey to an estimated $41,000 a day and observed that he is well on his way to being more affluent than the GOP nominee when he reaches his age.

Fellow Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert has also unleashed plenty of zingers over the past few months – drawing attention to the candidate’s controversial joke about his father closing a Michigan factory.

“It’s like he’s on the Blue Collar tour, if the comedy was about losing blue collar jobs,” Colbert , who’s own net worth has been listed at $45 million, retorted.

David Letterman, who is reported to have earned $45 million with an overall net worth upwards of $400 million relishes Romney’s riches for ratings too, having made such jokes as “last month Mitt Romney raised $76 million. He found it in an old sport-coat pocket.”

Jimmy Fallon, worth about $16 million, also mocked: “A new survey found that Mitt Romney is ahead of Obama among those who make $36,000-$90,000. Or as Romney put it, ‘And they said I can’t connect with the poor.’’

Then there HBO commentator Bill Maher, who told his audience: “Mitt Romney was sitting down with some unemployed workers the other day. Mitt is worth a quarter of a billion dollars, and he said, ‘Hey, I’m unemployed too.’ That is the famous Mormon sense of humor. A little tip Mitt, your people are only funny when the ‘South Park’ guys write your jokes.” Mind you, Maher’s monetary value is approximately $23 million.

If you haven’t been treated to all of this so-called hilarity, then you probably haven’t heard about MSNBC’s latest round of selective editing, either:

During an afternoon broadcast of “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” video of the GOP presidential candidate seemed to show a politician out of touch as he discussed ordering a hoagie at Wawa.

The video clip went viral after the blogsite SooperMexican.com pointed out in a post that it appeared doctored.

“It’s amazing,” Romney said, as the Pennsylvania crowd appeared to laugh. Then viewers saw Romney say, “You have a touchtone keypad, and you touch that, touch this, go pay the cashier, there’s your sandwich.”

What viewers didn’t see or hear was nearly three minutes of Romney discussing the nightmare of paperwork faced by an optometrist he’d talked to in trying to get the post office to change his address. He expressed mock amazement at Wawa’s efficiency to underscore how the private sector often runs circles around the clumsy bureaucracy.

“We went to Wawas and it was instructive to me, because I saw the difference between the private sector and the governmental sector. People who work in government are good people and I respect what they do, but you see, the challenge with government is that it doesn’t have competition,” Romney said in a portion edited out of the segment.

But Mitchell invoked an old perceived campaign stumble by George Bush, who supposedly marveled at a supermarket scanner at a grocers’ convention during his failed 1992 re-election bid. Even though Bush was actually impressed not by an ordinary scanner, but by a then state-of-the-art device that could weigh food and read damaged bar codes, the anecdote was reported by The New York Times and offered as evidence that Bush was out of touch with everyday Americans.

Representatives for the Romney campaign declined to comment, but officials from the Romney camp had reached out to the Peacock Network, which promised they would correct the issue.

At the opening of Tuesday’s show, Mitchell addressed criticism over the misleading edits.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about a conversation you and I had yesterday, Mitchell said to MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza, “We ran clips of Mitt Romney in Cornwall, Pa., talking about his trip to a Wawa.”

“The RNC and the campaign both reached out to us saying that Romney had more to say about that visit, about federal bureaucracy and innovation in the private sector,” she added before playing the unedited clip from the rally.

Lauren Skowronski, a spokeswoman for NBC, which owns MSNBC, denied that any deceptive editing took place.

“MSNBC did not edit anything out of order or out of sequence and at no time did we intend to deceive our viewers,” Skowronski said.

Remember, these are the same paragons of Broadcast Jounalism ethics who pulled off the following, per Breitbart.com:

In August of 2009, NBC’s Contessa Brewer (who still has the same job) used deceptive editing so that that MSNBC viewers wouldn’t know that the man carrying firearms to a Tea Party was a black man. This allowed Brewer to then host a segment about how racist the Tea Party is towards President Obama and how this racism might just lead to the unthinkable–the assassination of our President.

How effective is their Liberal Propaganda?

Well, now, just as then, when caught, I’m sure that both of their viewers were satisfied with their explanation.

Israel Prepares for Their New Rowdy Neighbors

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics5 Comments

Even if United States President Barack Hussein Obama sees nothing wrong with the current events in Egypt, our greatest ally, Israel, doesn’t particularly care for the goings-on at the neighbor’s house…especially, when they come over uninvited:

Militants crossed from Egypt’s turbulent Sinai Peninsula into southern Israel on Monday and opened fire on civilians building a border security fence, defense officials said. One of the Israeli workers was killed, and two assailants died in a gunbattle with Israeli troops responding to the attack.

No group claimed responsibility for the attack, which underscored the growing lawlessness in the Sinai desert since longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was toppled by a popular uprising last year.

Military spokeswoman Lt. Col Avital Leibovich said the assailants have not been identified but acknowledged that defense officials suspected Palestinian militants in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, which also borders the Sinai desert in that same area, might have been involved.

Several hours after the attack, an Israeli airstrike killed two men riding a motorcycle in the northern Gaza Strip near the Israeli border. The Islamic Jihad militant group said the men were members on a “reconnaissance” mission and vowed revenge. Military officials said the incident was not connected to the earlier infiltration from Egypt.

Israeli security officials have grown increasingly anxious about the security situation in the Sinai since Mubarak’s ouster. Continued political turmoil in Egypt, weak policing in the Sinai and tough terrain have all encouraged Islamic militant activity in the area. The mountainous desert now harbors an array of militant groups, including Palestinian extremists and al-Qaida-inspired jihadists, Egyptian and Israeli security officials say. The tumultuous situation surrounding Egyptian elections, in which Islamic groups made a strong showing, has added to Israeli unease.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio that there has been “a worrisome deterioration of Egyptian control” over the Sinai. Barak said he expected the winner of this week’s presidential elections in Egypt to honor the country’s international obligations – an apparent reference to Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has said it would respect the historic peace accord but that it would also seek modifications.

Vice Premier Shaul Mofaz, a former defense minister and military chief, said he hoped Israel could conduct a security dialogue with the Egyptians and demand more forceful policing in the Sinai.

“No doubt Sinai has become a security problem,” Mofaz told Army Radio. “Today’s incident ratchets it up a notch.”

There was no immediate comment from Egypt on the attack.

They’ve been a little busy:

The Muslim Brotherhood has vowed to face down Egypt’s ruling generals in a “life or death” struggle over the country’s political future, after declaring that its candidate had won the presidential election and would refuse to accept the junta’s last-ditch attempts to engineer a constitutional coup.

As final ballot results trickled in and unofficial tallies suggested that Mohamed Morsi had secured approximately 52% of the popular vote, the Brotherhood deployed its harshest language yet against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), promising to bring millions of Egyptians back on to the streets if attempts to rebuild the old regime continued.

“Over the past 18 months we were very keen to avoid any clashes or confrontations with other components of Egypt’s political system because we felt that it would have negative consequences for the democratic system and for society as a whole,” said Fatema AbouZeid, a senior policy researcher for the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party and a media co-ordinator for the Morsi campaign. “But now it’s very clear that Scaf and other institutions of the state are determined to stand in the way of what we’re trying to achieve, and we won’t accept this any more. Egypt will not go back to the old regime through any means, legal or illegal.

“If we find that Scaf stands firm against us as we try to fulfil the demands of the revolution, we will go back to the streets and escalate things peacefully to the highest possible stage,” she said. “Now we have a new factor in Egyptian politics, the Egyptian people themselves, who will not accept a return to the old regime in any form, not after so much Egyptian blood was shed to remove it.

“The revolution is facing a life or death moment and the Egyptian people have put their faith in Dr Morsi to represent them at this time.”

On Monday the parliamentary speaker, Saad el-Katatni, a Brotherhood veteran, said he did not recognise last week’s decision by Mubarak-era judges in Egypt’s supreme constitutional court to dissolve the legislature, a move widely viewed as highly politicised and designed to bolster the generals. Katatni said MPs planned to attend parliament – which was surrounded by armed soldiers – as usual on Tuesday or convene in nearby Tahrir Square, setting the stage for a showdown between the generals who have held sway for six decades and the long-outlawed Islamist movement now on the brink of political control.

An 11th-hour constitutional declaration issued unilaterally by Scaf awarded the generals sweeping powers including the right to put forward legislation and an effective veto over clauses in the new constitution, and formalised the army’s ability to detain civilians and sweep out of barracks at moments of “internal unrest”.

Political analysts described the move as a constitutional obscenity and said it left the three major institutions of the post-Mubarak Egyptian state – the presidency (now curtailed), the parliament (now dissolved) and the constitutional assembly (now floundering in legal uncertainty) – all under the full or partial influence of the armed forces.

With the oldest of all (and the father of all) Islamic Extremist Organizations taking over Egypt, you can hardly blame Israel for being ready to go to war.

Speaking of war, remember when ol’ Scooter declared that Israel should go back to its old borders, as they stood before the 1967 war?  PJTV’s Andrew Klavan had a better idea.

And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you.

Genesis 12: 3

Obamacare Ruling Right Around the Corner

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

As all Americans know, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling shortly on the National Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

In reseaching stories for this post, I came upon several articles which were nothing but Liberal propaganda, including this little bit of pessimism from the New York Daily News:

Some are already anticipating the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law as the “decision of the century.” But the justices are unlikely to have the last word on America’s tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste, and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.

With a decision by the court expected this month, here is a look at potential outcomes:

———

Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.

The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.

Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would face a scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.

Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the court’s endorsement.

Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he’s re-elected.

The nation still faces huge problems with health care costs, requiring major changes to Medicare that neither party has explained squarely to voters. Some backers of Obama’s law acknowledge it was only a first installment: get most people covered, then deal with the harder problem of costs.

———

Q: On the other hand, what if the court strikes down the entire law?

A: Many people would applaud, polls suggest.

Taking down the law would kill a costly new federal entitlement before it has a chance to take root and develop a clamoring constituency, but that still would leave the problems of high costs, waste, and millions uninsured.

Some Republicans in Congress already are talking about passing anew the more popular pieces of the health law.

But the major GOP alternatives to Obama’s law would not cover nearly as many uninsured, and it’s unclear how much of a dent they would make in costs. Some liberals say Medicare-for-all, or government-run health insurance, will emerge as the only viable answer if Obama’s public-private approach fails.

It seems to me that the Daily News is ignoring the world around them.  Government Healthcare has been in place for years in countries such as Canada and Great Britain, and things are not as idyllic as Liberal writers would lead you to believe.

Back on June 7, 2010, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann wrote:

The leading Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, reports that “critics say that the clinics are taking physicians away from the public system making it even harder…to find a family doctor.” David Eggen, executive director of a group that supports the Canadian socialized system, Friends of Medicare, said that it’s already hard to find a family physician in Canada and that clinics like these, springing up in several Canadian cities, could make it even harder.

It does not seem to have occurred to defenders of socialized medicine that the system itself is causing the doctor shortage. Cuts in medical fees, overcrowding of facilities, shortages of equipment and space, and bureaucratic oversight have all combined to drive men and women out of family medical practice. Now, with a critical shortage looming, those who can afford to pay for adequate care are opting out of the public system and, literally, taking their lives into their own hands.

But it is illegal to make patients “have to pay a fee to gain access to health services” that are provided free by the government system. So patients and doctors are forming membership-only groups to avoid the legal penalties that could potential stop them from getting or giving the care that they need.

This is where the United States is headed. Socialism dries up the supply of medical care and forces ever stricter rationing of the available resources. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “Eventually socialism runs out of other peoples’ money.”

With the full implementation of Obamacare and its likely cuts in physician reimbursement, more and more doctors will choose to opt out of Medicare and charge their patients for their care. The elderly who need specialized care will have no choice but to take out insurance, not to fill gaps in Medicare coverage, but to overlay the system with private coverage so they can get the care Medicare now provides to all seniors. If you want to see a family doctor, it will be rough unless you are paying for the care privately. And to see a specialist, at the low reimbursement rates afforded by the program in the future, will be well nigh impossible.

Medical care for the elderly will become like public housing or public education in the inner city. Those who can afford to go elsewhere will. Those who can’t will be left to fend for themselves in overcrowded public facilities that will be, at least, free.

And then, as in Canada, liberal critics will rail, not against the system that dried up the resources in the first place or against the socialist rules that drove doctors out of medicine, but against the private clinics for resources from the public sector.

As someone who has worked in the Medical Industry, both in a Hospital System and in the Insurance Field, I have often wondered what Obama and the Dems’ purpose was in trying to destroy the greatest Healthcare System in the world.

My only conclusion is, that they despise American Exceptionalism, and they want our Healthcare System to be just as lousy as the other state-run ones.

They don’t care, as long as they, the Politboro, have life and death power over us, the unwashed Proletariat.

If SCOTUS does not strike down this unabashed, unconstitutional, government overreach, I would advise you to start picking out an ice floe to put Grandma on.