DC Lawmakers Afraid They Might Be Subject To Their Own Legislation

Harry Reid 4 SC DC Lawmakers afraid they might be subject to their own legislation

Few fair-minded Americans would argue that the tenants of Capitol Hill should suffer the slings and arrows that complicate the lives of mere commoners.  After all, seeing to the 24/7 needs of the underclasses is burden enough for anyone.

But thanks to an amendment to the Affordable Care Act, members of the political ruling class and their congressional staff will soon join the little people in suffering the financial distress promised in a 2,700 page law read and understood by very few within the beltway. And the DC elite do not like it one bit.

Before ObamaCare was rammed through the Senate via reconciliation, Senator Charles Grassley made certain that members of Congress and their staff would have to obtain health insurance by enrolling in ObamaCare exchanges just like everyone else. After all, “…if Congress was going to impose Obamacare upon the country, it should have to experience what it is imposing firsthand.” Grassley’s 2009 amendment originally called for ALL federal employees to obtain healthcare insurance via an exchange. But federal employee unions, so fervent in their support of ObamaCare legislation, wanted no part of actually participating in the finished product. Democrats naturally permitted their largest donors to quietly bow out.

But the law’s legislative champions could NOT publicly extricate themselves from Senator Grassley’s carefully laid trap. So here we are, nearly 4 years later; and for months, lawmakers have been working to gingerly rescind that portion of the ACA that would put their premiums on a par with those to be experienced by the common clay.

At least that was the plan until a couple of months ago, when a Harry Reid spokesman ostensibly put the issue to rest with:

There are not now, have never been, nor will there ever be any discussions about exempting members of Congress or Congressional staff from Affordable Care Act provisions that apply to any employees of any other public or private employer offering health care…

It seems Republicans had publicized the efforts of their repeal-minded friends from across the aisle, and news of the scheme was NOT received kindly by the American public.

Well, DC lawmakers are simply not used to having to play an honest game. As a result, “dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.”

Of course, the loss of inside-the-beltway talent is far more serious than the consequences of average people quitting average jobs. In its standard role of shill for the political elite, Politico reports:

If the issue isn’t resolved, and massive numbers of lawmakers and aides bolt, many on Capitol Hill fear it could lead to a brain drain just as Congress tackles a slew of weighty issues — like fights over the Tax Code and immigration reform.

A brain drain! Oh my. Lions and tigers and bears, as far as the eye can see.

Perhaps Democrats weren’t so smart after all with their demands that ObamaCare be passed in order to find out what was in it. But don’t be surprised to find that some one, some entity, some bureaucracy outside the immediate purview of Congress should ride the rescue of our mistreated lawmakers. After all, if they have to live like commoners, why run for the job?

Photo Credit: Talk Radio News Service (Creative Commons)

Fate Of ObamaCare Hangs In Balance

Obamacare Why Start Over SC Fate of ObamaCare hangs in balance

The future of Barack Obama’s namesake effort to exercise the power of life and death over the American people will depend upon the outcome of 2 under-reported lawsuits, one filed in Washington DC and the other in Oklahoma City.

“This is huge,writes George Mason University law professor Michael Greve. “If successful…[either] case will bring Obamacare’s Exchange engine to a screeching halt…In short, this is for all the marbles.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through exchanges that are run by “a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a state.” To date, however, 33 states have refused to build an ObamaCare exchange so necessary to the functioning of the law. And although the ACA made a provision for recalcitrant governors and state legislators by permitting the federal government to build exchanges within their borders, it did NOT allow for federally run exchanges to provide the subsidies and tax credits without which healthcare plans would be unaffordable for the majority of businesses and individuals. “Section 1311 of ObamaCare allows tax credits to certain people in state-run exchanges, Section 1321 – the section regulating federally run exchanges – does not.”

In May of last year, Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service decided to unilaterally change the language of the ACA and override the will of Congress by ruling that the Service will have the authority to provide subsidies to ObamaCare participants from federally run exchanges.  In short, the IRS rewrote the law and rescued the president’s legislation by giving itself permission to spend an estimated $800 billion taxpayer dollars over the next 10 years—dollars which were NOT authorized by Congress to be spent.

Incredibly, defenders of this IRS overreach have claimed that Congress’ decision that only states may provide subsidies is simply a “…minor drafting error that courts will and should overlook.” But many are not buying into such a pathetic and insulting argument. Last year, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed suit in federal court (Pruitt v Sebelius.) And a group of individuals and small businesses have sued in the DC District Court (Halbig v Sebelius.) Both actions challenge the right of the IRS to alter the intent of the law, thwart the will of Congress, and spend billions of tax dollars by ignoring the clear language of the Affordable Care Act.

The Democrat authors of ObamaCare fully believed that state politicians would be forced into building ObamaCare exchanges lest they be accused of withholding quality healthcare from the members of  recognized victim groups around the nation. As a result, the left thought it unnecessary to provide government the authority at the federal level to offer tax credits and subsidies or to penalize and fine ObamaCare scofflaws. These powers were given exclusively to the states. And elected officials in 33 of those states will have played a major role in ending the current ObamaCare menace IF an honest judge can be found on the federal bench.

It seems to always come down to that, doesn’t it!

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

ObamaCare Can’t Be Saved From Coming PR Disaster

Obamacare Free Ride SC ObamaCare Cant Be Saved from coming PR disaster

During the past year, the American public has learned that the Affordable Care Act will not stand good for Barack Obama’s promises of lower insurance rates and better healthcare. This being the case, ObamaCare supporters are scrambling to somehow keep the only remaining, empty promise made to gullible constituents: the Act will provide insurance for the majority of the nation’s habitually uninsured. It will be the only means left them to declare ObamaCare a “success.”

In addition to threatening scofflaws with penalties–that is, TAXES–it had been the intent of ObamaCare’s authors to expand coverage throughout the nation by demanding that each state provide Medicaid to Americans up to 138% of the federal poverty level. When the Supreme Court struck down this coercive, unconstitutional scheme, Medicaid expansion programs became optional. The federal government has hoped to entice states into participating by offering to pay 100% of Medicaid expense for the first 3 years and 90% thereafter. (Of course, this pledge involved only reimbursement for Medicaid CLAIMS, not administrative and other costs.)

But thus far, 25 states have either refused to expand their Medicaid program or are leaning hard in that direction. Why will half of the nation likely refuse to sign on? After all, the federal government is now reimbursing states just 57% of Medicaid expense. Shouldn’t 100% be a deal no one could pass up?

Medicaid was originally created as a healthcare safety net for the poorest Americans. It was not designed (back in 1965) to cover more than 60 million people, according to recent estimates. Doctors and healthcare providers are paid in a very meager way for their Medicaid services, and many have either dropped out of the program or are refusing new Medicaid patients. Thus care providers are vanishing just as millions of new Medicaid patients are entering the marketplace.

The promise of ObamaCare was to cover at least ½ of the 60 million uninsured Americans by 2022. But this is where the wicket gets very sticky.

“If all states were to go along with the optional Medicaid expansion, nearly 90 million people would be enrolled in the program by the end of the decade, including those newly-eligible under the ObamaCare optional expansion.  However, as many as 60% of these new enrollees are likely to drop private coverage in order to sign up for Medicaid, moving from private to public insurance that will be funded by taxpayers.  That will strain not only federal and state budgets, but would also shred the safety net for the poor as they are forced to compete with millions more people to get care from the limited number of providers who see Medicaid patients.”

So nearly 20 million would flee private insurance to participate in the “free” government-provided program. They would be competing for care with those who are privately insured (that is, patients upon whom doctors and hospitals can make a profit.) Costs for the non-Medicaid patient would surely increase as providers charge these individuals higher rates in order to make up for the loss they are taking on the federally insured. And of course, whether at the state or federal level, taxpayers will bear the burden.

To date, 33 states have refused to build ObamaCare exchanges; and as many as 25 will not participate in the Medicaid expansion. Republican governors/legislators in these states know ObamaCare to be a massive federal entitlement program and unconstitutional effort to exercise life and death control over the American public. If these lawmakers remain committed, the Affordable Care Act must fail. There simply won’t be enough people to pay the tab.

Has The FBI Become The New “Murder Incorporated?”

fbi agent SC Has the FBI become the new “Murder Incorporated?”

A 542 page Justice Department investigation of FBI tactics at Ruby Ridge concluded that the Bureau Rules of Engagement employed that day in 1992 “…flagrantly violated the US Constitution” as they afforded agents “practically a license to kill.” According to the Report, “…a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver remembered the Rules of Engagement as ‘if you can see ‘em, shoot ‘em’.” Within one hour of FBI snipers taking up positions around Randy Weaver’s rural home, “…every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded — even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.”

The following year, 75 men, women, and children were first gassed, then incinerated at the Branch Davidian building in Waco, Texas by an FBI team operating a “…tank on lease from the military.” Excuses for the attack on the Davidian church began with FBI accusations that the group was operating a meth lab. The Bureau later claimed that illegal gun ownership and child abuse prompted the onslaught. At a press conference one day after the deaths, “…President Clinton said he did not believe ‘the Attorney General (Janet Reno) should resign because some religious fanatics murdered themselves’.” It was a statement that provides an accurate if frightening look into the mind of the left.

In 1997, Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Clinton Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Prisons for their involvement in the death of his brother Kenneth at the Federal Transfer Center near Oklahoma City. He had no idea that the scraps of information grudgingly released by the federal government in response to FOIA lawsuits would result in a 15 year trail of evidence detailing the criminal involvement of the FBI, CIA, ATF, and United States Secret Service in the planning and execution of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Trentadue discovered that FBI informants assisted Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the weeks prior to the bombing, supplying bomb making materials and necessary information on constructing the device. One of these, Andreas Strassmeir, was spirited out of the country immediately after the bombing. His travel arrangements were made by the FBI.

The FBI is believed to be responsible in the deaths of at least 4 individuals with a connection to the bombing. One of these was Oklahoma City police sergeant Terrence Yeakey, the first cop at the Murrah building after the blast. Testimony taken by Yeakey from survivors and evidence he gathered at the scene did not agree with the official version of events provided by the FBI and the Clinton Administration. Yeakey’s body was found the morning after he had told his sister that someone was out to get him. His shooting death was ruled a suicide, though no gun was found near the body.

It is widely believed that the Clinton Administration employed assets of the FBI in an attempt to improve the Bureau’s image after the PR disasters at Ruby Ridge and Waco. And what better way to accomplish the goal than to have FBI informants control the activities of “right wing radicals” involved in the bombing plot? Such was the description given McVeigh and Nichols by Clinton, the media, and the Bureau. The Bureau would then stop the bombing in the nick of time with a highly publicized take down of the villains who had planned it. Tragically, the scheme got out of FBI control; and 168 people died as a result.

Perhaps last month’s shooting death of Igrahim Todashev by an FBI agent was both proper and warranted. But given the ever-changing story of that night’s events and the participation of the FBI in hundreds of very questionable deaths, the American public may well conclude that the nation’s premier assemblage of cops has become a tool of murder for corrupt administrations.

Boston-gate: Is The FBI Getting Away With Murder?

FBI logo SC Boston gate: Is the FBI getting away with murder?

On May 21st, an FBI agent and 2 other members of law enforcement questioned Orlando resident Ibragim Todashev about the Boston bombing and an unsolved, 2011 triple murder committed in Waltham, Mass. Though initially cooperative, several hours into the session, Todashev became violent and attacked the FBI agent. Forced to defend himself, the agent shot and killed Todashev.

This was the simple, straightforward explanation of Todashev’s death originally related by officials on the scene—the story of an agent defending himself against a sudden and unforeseen attack by a dangerous suspect.  But in the days following the killing, the once-simple account has become a tangle of “conflicting explanations” offered by anonymous law enforcement sources. No one wants to go on record with the facts of the shooting– “facts” that have changed with each passing day.

And no one has revised those facts more often or more completely than the FBI.

Among the glaring inconsistencies in the Bureau’s narrative:

  • It was claimed that Todashev confessed involvement with Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in the 2011 Waltham triple murder.  While writing his confession to the crime, Todashev suddenly leapt across a table at an FBI agent, threatening him with a knife. The agent drew his gun and killed Todashev. Some hours later, however, it was no longer clear who did the shooting. We are only told that Todashev attacked an FBI agent with a knife and was then killed. The Bureau (FBI) “…left open the question who was responsible” for shooting the suspect.
  • A week after the incident, the FBI reported that Todashev was unarmed, but that he might have been lunging for the FBI agent’s gun or perhaps for a Samurai sword that was in a corner of the room. The knife had been dropped from the narrative.
  • A “senior law enforcement official” now says Todashev was armed with either a metal pole or a broom when he attacked the FBI agent.
  • Last week, the FBI launched a 13 member, internal investigation into the shooting. As a result, there is no longer any mention of Todashev having confessed to involvement in the Waltham, Mass triple murder. In fact, he was only being questioned because it was discovered that he had Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s telephone number.
  • One report had Todashev alone in the room with the FBI agent during the attack. It was then claimed that a Massachusetts State Police detective was also present. The original story had 3 individuals in the room with Todashev. Also, the FBI agent may or may not have been the only one to fire his weapon.

Nearly 2 weeks have passed since Ibragim Todashev was killed, yet it is still uncertain how many members of law enforcement were in the room with the Chechnyan; who and how many took part in the shooting; whether Todashev had a gun, knife, Samurai sword, metal pole, broomstick, or was unarmed; whether he had confessed to assisting Tamerlan Tsarnaev in a triple slaying; and whether or not he was a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. Results of an autopsy will not be available for weeks, perhaps months “because the case is under criminal investigation.”

Though Ibragim Todashev might have deserved his fate, there can be no doubt the FBI has gotten away with murder on numerous occasions and in some very highly publicized cases.

Tomorrow, we will look at some of the infamous exploits of the Bureau.