Continuing Health Care Intrigue

Continuing Health Care Intrigue

By Jim Bowman

As each verdict is aired, it is now taking on the appearance of a judicial version of making a mountain out of a molehill.  If it was only that simple.  I mean really, just what is legal anymore?  How can one District Court find Obama’s Health Care legal while another finds parts illegal and another rules that the entire Health bill is unconstitutional?  Is this what is meant by a “living document?”

On January 31, 2011, Judge Vinson declared that “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” to be unconstitutional.  Within his conclusion, Judge Vinson wrote that, “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

From Judge Vinson’s seventy-eight page Summary Judgement, my excerpt,while brief conveys the heart of the the Judge’s ruling.  Again, with this iron clad conclusion, how can other black robes disagree and still maintain Constitutional integrity?

The vast majority of Americans have fought tooth and nail against this Health Care abrogation to our individual liberties.  When public opinion generates such a strong resentment against an institution which, in former times, was respected and dutifully obeyed, then the ugly head of judicial activism becomes hard to ignore.  With each passing contradiction, our granite like belief in the rule of law diminishes.

Much of what our Court system pivots around today comes from past interpretations which were in themselves, based upon past interpretations.  In fact, today’s Law School regimens incorporate a curriculum based not upon the Constitution but of Supreme Court decisions.  It stands to reason that this system of passing down words can and often does becomes an errant formula for the law’s strict adherence.

Consider the era when our Forefathers wrote our Government’s prescription.  Over time, word definitions under go change.  During this past year, I became familiar with Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary.  Even the dictionary’s format was different in that modern versions follow each word with a pronunciation breakdown.  Not so in Webster’s first edition.  Also, Webster’s definitions often contained religious connotations related to Christianity.  Ironically, this has fallen victim to modern standards of interpretation.

The difference between then and now is so dramatic that when confronted with the comparisons, one cannot help but wonder about the reasons for such diverse  thought and the extent to which it has become so prevalent.   Taken one step further, how can the current day study of American law be so enamored with definitions and interpretations which lacked relevance when our laws were written.  This is the very definition of lawlessness.

Added to this judicial mix of changing definitions and wide latitudes for interpretation is the art of improvisation. The infamous 1947 Supreme Court Everson v. Board of Education ruling presents the first reference to  “the wall between church and state.”  Today, this has received a reverberation of sorts as if it were a constitutional tenet.  In reality, the Everson ruling simply transposed a phrase from a privately written Thomas Jefferson letter.

It is necessary to understand that while the Supreme Court may rule upon Health Care’s illegitimacy, our Judicial Branch is not authorized to legislate.  At some point, we were led to believe that decisions from our highest court constituted law.  This wrong dovetails with the Court’s penchant for redefining, interpreting and improvising.  All with a quiet public nod.

If nothing else, these back and forth health care decisions come as a direct result of our Constitution’s modern day elasticity.  As such, it would be foolhardy to place any reliance upon a Supreme Court decision based upon the Constitution’s strict governmental limitations.

Continuing Health Care Intrigue

Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP

Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP


Here’s a message to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: Take care of
business or get off the pot. The “Is he running for president?” story
has to end, right now.

Your indecision is hurting the Republican Party, and, ironically, giving
Barack Obama a much needed reprieve. The time for games is over. It’s
in or out.

Christie is a firebrand, an extremely effective governor who has done
what few thought possible: reform bloated pensions, institute
public-sector union reforms, and balance the budget without raising
taxes. And all that was accomplished with a Democratic legislature. It
doesn’t get any more bipartisan, and miraculous, than that.

But more than anything, Christie’s hallmark is his brusque,
straightforward style. He tells it like it is, from state finances (“the
state is going to go broke” without reform) to yelling at people to
“get the hell off the beach” before an impending hurricane.

Sure, some view him as “in-your-face,” but Christie is far from rude. He
simply expresses himself in a concise, matter-of-fact way. And in
politics, that is rare.

Most endearing is that Christie speaks from the heart — no teleprompters
or note cards. His passion and sometimes aggressive style belies a very
articulate leader, one whose charisma has won over more than a few
adversaries.

People may not agree with Christie, but they always know where he
stands. As a result, he has achieved national status because he embodies
what Americans crave: a leader refusing to dance the Political Two-Step
to avoid tough issues.

Until now.

The governor made a speech this week which was covered by the national
media. It provided the golden opportunity to end speculation about
ambitions for 2012.

In one fell swoop, Christie could have revealed his intentions, and in
that unmistakable Christie way, put an exclamation point on his decision
so that questions would cease.

But he didn’t. Instead, he left the door wide open.

In doing so, for the first time, he looked political. Dare we say it,
but it almost seemed like he was doing the Trenton Shuffle.

And that’s not the Chris Christie we know.

His past statements that he is not running are meaningless. All
politicians say such things, and it was too early for even Christie to
be wholly believed. But it’s a different ballgame now. The primaries
begin in four months, which is barely enough time to organize a
campaign.

Could Christie overcome such obstacles? Absolutely, but only if he
announces within days. Should he ultimately not run, however, the
problem with his nondecision is that it’s hurting the only two viable
Republicans: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Because of the Christie factor, significant uncertainty remains among
Republican powerbrokers, donors, elected officials, and the grass roots.
Instead of a clear-cut race, the battle lines remain blurred, so many
of these folks are sitting on the sidelines, withholding money, effort
and endorsements until Christie makes a decision.

As a result, the front-runners have lost momentum as donations and
support stagnate, and they have been taken off message. Because of the
Christie buzz, anything Perry and Romney say is simply white noise.

Most damaging, however, is that Barack Obama has been given a reprieve.
As president, he is driving the ship, which is listing badly. So any
opportunity that takes the political focus off of himself is greatly
welcomed.

Until the Christie rumor mill is shut down, the president will be able
to regroup and attempt to stabilize his situation. It’s not a panacea,
but it certainly helps.

While that was not Christie’s intention, it is reality.

One of several things is true:

1. Christie has no intention of running, but is badly underestimating how closely people are hanging on his every word.

2. Christie is definitely running, taking advantage of millions in free
media coverage. While a brilliant strategy, its shelf life is measured
in days, and will backfire if played too long. One cannot run a stealth
campaign for president.

3. He really hasn’t made up his mind yet.

The last scenario is most troubling, because if a candidate’s heart is
not in a race, but he chooses to run anyway, it will be a total failure.
The American people can sense such insincerity immediately.

Need proof? Ask Fred Thompson. (And conversely, a tip of the hat to Mike
Huckabee and Mitch Daniels, who both admitted they were lacking the
fire in the belly in deciding not to run).

I have been fortunate to have had a front row seat covering some of Gov.
Christie’s triumphs, seeing firsthand the progress one man can make. It
would be a shame to see that legacy tarnished by indecision.

So with all due respect, Mr. Christie, given the impending political
hurricane, let me paraphrase a popular governor by saying, “Get the hell
in or out of the race!

 Christie Uncertainty Harming GOP

Kathryn Bolkovac Gives One More Reason To End The U.N.

Kathryn Bolkovac Gives One More Reason To End The U.N. ==  Kathryn Bolkovac was a policewoman from Nebraska who became part of the United Nations peacekeeping contingent in Sarajevo in 1999.

She found that some of her fellow peacekeepers — including fellow workers of the U.S. military contractor DynCorp — were enslaving young girls and sexual abusing them; keeping them docile by withholding food and with periodic torture.

She blew the whistle. The slavers went to their friends in the U.N. bureaucracy and obtained protection.

It soon became clear that much of the U.N. bureaucracy was using girls for slave labor — and sex — as well.

Ms. Bolkovac was threatened and lost her job. She wrote a book about it which became the film, The Whistleblower, which was released last year.

Has anything changed at the U.N.? No, according to this recent article on PajamasMedia.Com by former U.N. worker Phyllis Chesler.

Maybe passing HR 2829 which is called  United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act of 2011 and is co-sponsored by much of Pennsylvania’s Republican contingent, however, might what it takes to bring the needed change about.

 

 

Kathryn Bolkovac Gives One More Reason To End The U.N.

Tea Partyer To Take On Little Bobby C

Tom Smith of Armstrong County has thrown his hat in the ring to be the Republican candidate to take on Democrat incumbent Senator Bob Casey.

Smith, is a Tea Party leader and one-time coal company owner.

Take that Rob Gleason.

Hat tip Tracie Mauriello

The Suffering Caused By Stupid People Setting Policy

ConocoPhillips  announced, yesterday, that it is joining Sunoco in ending oil refining in the Philadelphia region if it cannot find a buyer for its refinery in Trainer.

Joining the Obama bread-lines — or SNAP lines rather — will  be 400 workers,

Also hundreds of hazardous-waste impregnated acres useless for anything but oil refining will be idled and the United States will become further dependent on Hugo Chavez for  gasoline.

And of course a large part of the  tax base of tiny Trainer and the Chichester School District, which includes Marcus Hook which is the site of one of the Sunoco plants, will disappear.

Congressman Pat Meehan (R-Pa7) has been warning that this was going to happen almost since he took his oath.

Maybe you can’t blame irrational environmental zealotry entirely for this economic and strategic havoc  but no way can it be absolved.

Clearly no attempt was made by the Obama administration to communicate with the plant’s owners regarding attempts to save the plants. There appears to have been no offer to grant waivers — even temporary ones — regarding the ever increasing regulatory burdens which it was placing on them  to save the jobs and the infrastructure.

In other news related to the suffering caused by stupid people setting policy, the cost of health insurance rose 9 percent since 2010.

But, but, but that wasn’t supposed to happen with ObamaCare.

When stupid people who set policy say something is going to happen, bet otherwise.

Did Gleason Say The Cool Kids Don’t Hang With The Tea Party?

A  little birdie has told me that Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Rob Gleason has given a directive that all prospective candidates stay away from the Tea Party crowd.

I think what the little birdie has told me is true.

I’ll be glad to be shown otherwise.

 

Pa Congressmen Want To Put Strings On U.N.

Pa Congressmen Want To Put Strings On U.N. — Tea Party activist Bob Guzzardi reports that Congreesman  Jim Gerlach (R-Pa6) has just agreed to sign on as a Co-Sponsor of United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act of 2011   H.R. 2829

Other Pennsylvania congressman who are co-[sponsors are Rep. Mike Kelly (Pa-3), Rep. Glenn Thompson (Pa-5), Rep. Patrick Meehan (Pa-7) and Rep. Tom Marino (Pa-10)

“Note that not a single Democrat has signed on,” Guzzardi says. “Not even Obama Democrat Rep. Schwartz who, opportunistically, touts her Jewish credentials every opportunity she gets. And the Jewish Exponent has not written a single article about this important bill.”

The Act directs the President to  use U.S. influence at the United Nations and calls for a  shift in America’s funding mechanism for the regular budget of the U.N. from an assessed to a voluntary one.

The Act, also among other things, prohibits funds from being used for U.S. participation in the Durban III meeting or any part of the Durban process; withholds U.S. contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) or to any successor or related entity unless the Secretary makes specified certifications to Congress; and prohibits any U.S. contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from being used to support Technical Cooperation program assistance to any country, including North Korea, that: (1) has repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism; or (2) is in breach of, or under investigation for breach of, obligations regarding its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or any relevant Security Council resolution.

Pa Congressmen Want To Put Strings On U.N.

Cain Raising On CAIR

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain — who one guesses one could call the front-runner at this point — has pledged that if elected he will prosecute the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Brotherhood; and to also declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

“We have been too permissive with those kind of organizations in this country for the sake of political correctness,” Cain said in a interview with  850 WFTL in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “This world is not safer and political correctness is not something that we ought to be more worried about than the safety of the people of  this country.”

I’m still leaning towards Texas Gov. Rick Perry but Cain is looking very good.

‘PTO Parents’ To Sponsor Hectoring Of Reps

A group of “PTO parents” interested in getting more state tax dollars for public schools will hold a forum featuring all  Delaware County legislators at which they are expected to hector them until they agree to further indebt the state.

The forum is 7 -10 p.m., Oct. 13 at the Upper Darby Performing Arts Center.

“I am writing today to ask you to help us
fill up that room (it seats 1650) with public education stakeholders and
advocates who are willing to express their concerns and their support
for public education,” said Larry Feinberg, in an email. Feinberg is a staunch Democrat who sits on the Haverford School Board and who chairs the Delaware County School Boards Legislative Council.

Organizers have asked anyone planning to attend to please RSVP in advance at delcolegislativeforum.eventbrite.com.

It should be noted that the puppeteers of these PTO parents are not interested in educating children. They are interested in getting more money for those who have a practical monopoly on providing the service of education.

If they were really interested in the children they would be pushing to end school strikes and giving school boards the power to remove under-performing teachers.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Scares U.S. ?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Scares U.S. ?


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United Nations has been met with fierce opposition, including a 30-nation walk-out during his address to the international body. That childish protest, led by the U.S., was exactly what transpired during his previous visits when he spoke at both the U.N. and Columbia University.

People can protest all they want. That’s their right in this country, and Ahmadinejad has certainly provided enough material. But a distinction has to be made as to what is being protested.

If people want to voice disapproval of Ahmadinejad’s totalitarian policies and inflammatory statements, great. If, however, the walk-out was to (ultimately) criticize the organization’s decision to allow an unpopular figure to speak, that’s a different story.

Why are we so scared of Ahmadinejad? What frightens us so much that we demand his viewpoints be silenced? He is the undisputed leader of a sovereign nation, a man whose words and decisions have significant weight on the world stage. Like him or not, he’s the president of Iran, and the West has no choice but to deal with him and his government.

And if the criteria for a walk-out are fanatical statements made by the ranting leader of a second-rate country, then UN delegates better get comfortable shoes, because they’ll be doing a hell of a lot of walking.

Walking out on Ahmadinejad is completely counterproductive, as it gives him a public relations bonanza. Like eating the forbidden fruit, Ahmadinejad’s remarks will now be heard by many who otherwise would not have cared, being attracted by the “If it’s bad enough that the U.S. walked out, I must hear what he said” mentality. And it permits our enemies to label us hypocritcal; we jettison free speech whenever convenient.

It’s exactly like those who protest KKK and neo-Nazi marches. The louder the protesters, the more energy and media coverage is given to those groups. They feed off the attention. Stay home, and they go away. It’s that simple.

And it’s a horrible example for our children. Don’t like what the professor has to say? Leave. Mom and Dad trying to enforce the rules? Walk out. Disagree with what your political opponent says about you? Throw out some invectives and storm away.

*****

In 2007, despite getting hammered by protesters and politicians, Columbia played it right by affording Ahmadinejad a platform, but equally important, chose not to give him an award. It is one thing to allow someone to speak, but quite another when accolades are bestowed upon individuals who don’t deserve them.

The larger question centers on free speech. Aren’t we always told that America sets the standard for the free exchange of ideas? Don’t we teach our young people to keep an open mind and question everything? Isn’t it invaluable to hear opposing points of view, and ultimately form one’s own opinion?

Failure to maintain an open atmosphere leads to close-mindedness and ignorance. The world is increasingly “flat,” in that we live in an ever-expanding global economy. Traditional borders and cultural barriers continue to be dismantled. Therefore, it’s imperative that Americans understand the value of listening, are open to constructive dialogue, formulate tough questions, and refuse to live in fear.

Narrow-mindedness will only make the road ahead more difficult.

This is not a call for appeasement, nor is it running from reality. Iran’s posturing–and actions–have made the West very uncomfortable, and if that nation continues on its current path, especially with regard to its nuclear program, the situation may well become bloody.

Is Iran an “enemy,” whose leaders should be banned from entering America, as some contend? Depends on your definition. But if that’s the case, then kick out France, which aided and abetted Iraq leading up to the war (in many cases illegally). And China, since it massacred citizens at Tiananmen Square, among its other heinous transgressions. And Syria, given the ongoing slaughter of its citizens.

And let’s not forget to look in the mirror, as America’s role in overthrowing the sovereign regime in Libya–which we had repeatedly praised as a nation reformed and a partner in rooting out terrorism–was nothing more than an inexcusable oil grab for our European allies. Where do you draw the line?

We are not at war with Iran. If Ahmadinejad wants to make ludicrous statements amounting to Holocaust revisionist history, the absence of homosexuality in Iran and who was really behind 9/11, he does so at his own peril. He needs Western investment and petro dollars to survive, and such rhetoric only undermines his credibility and jeopardizes the economic stability of his country. The more Ahmadinejad speaks, the more he hurts himself.

While he advocates much which we abhor, it is the strength of America that allows him to express himself without fear of repercussion. That is why we are still the envy of the world.

It’s time to start effectively dealing with Iran–politically, diplomatically, economically, and yes, if necessary, militarily. For that to happen, we need to act like grown-ups and dispense with second-grade games that make Khrushchev’s shoe-banging outburst look respectable.

The United States should run from no one, least of all Mr. Ahmadinejad. In the words of FDR, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

 

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Scares U.S. ?