Doug Book

We Don’t Trust You, Barack And You’ll Not Have Our Guns

April 24, 2013 By Doug Book 17 Comments

The Newtown killings had anti-gunners licking their chops from CNN to Capitol Hill. Years of working to undermine the right to keep and bear arms had come virtually to naught for gun confiscationists; but they knew the deaths of 20 children could be manipulated any way they liked, allowing them to make the most asinine and unsupportable claims imaginable about the evils of gun ownership. Call it a benefit of owning the national media.

So Barack and friends spent months dancing on the graves of 20 sons and daughters while cooking up Senate bills and executive “actions” advocating every conceivable violation of 2^nd Amendment rights.

But rather than intimidate Americans into disposing of firearms, every new assault on gun rights and every announced scheme to ban the purchase and ownership of weapons only accelerated public demand, especially for guns the political ruling class had threatened to confiscate!

Gun sales went through the proverbial roof. And today, even firearms no one particularly wanted 6 months ago are in such short supply that replacements might not be available for a year or more. And all of this took place in spite of gun control forces holding what many believed to be a “pat hand” at the beginning of the year.

So what happened to derail the left’s dreams of gun bans and national registration? After all, the killing of 20 children at Sandy Hook had provided the gut-wrenching scene of carnage that gun grabbers across the U.S. have dreamed of for decades.

First of all, the left badly underestimated the importance an informed American people place on their 2nd Amendment rights. According to a poll taken less than a month after the Newtown killings, “two-out-of-three Americans recognize[d] that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.” Seventy two percent of those with a gun in their home and 57% of those without told pollsters that they “…regard the 2^nd Amendment as a protection against tyranny.” All of the deliberately misleading, liberal chatter about hunting being the real reason for the 2^nd Amendment has fooled no one.

And gun control advocates also failed to appreciate the extent to which the people distrust Barack Obama. His contempt for the United States and the American public have been returned in spades by a people who recognize his lies and insatiable appetite for power as serious threats to their well-being and liberty.

In short, Americans know that being armed is vital to remaining a free people. And they don’t trust the intentions of a corrupt, self-important usurper and would-be dictator.

Barack and Co were beaten before they started. New, unconstitutional gun control legislation would have been ignored throughout the nation and its proponents roundly defeated in 2014 because Americans don’t trust the ruling elite. To drive that point home, millions have armed themselves with guns that will only be surrendered by force and possibly only “from cold, dead hands.”

I sure wouldn’t want the job of collecting them.

Photo credit: SS&SS (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: Barack Obama, Gun Control

Free Healthcare For Illegals Continues The ObamaCare Way

April 17, 2013 By Doug Book 11 Comments

In 2009, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated that the yearly cost of providing healthcare for illegal aliens was $10.7 billion. It was a difficult figure to approximate as hospitals are not permitted to ask if an emergency room patient is in the country illegally. After all, should an exact total of monies spent even on the delivery of anchor babies (about $10,000 per “anchor”) become known, it would enrage an American public which Democrats especially hope to keep blissfully ignorant about one of the principle reasons for skyrocketing healthcare and health insurance prices—uncompensated costs.

In 1986, EMTALA was signed into law. Part of the COBRA act, EMTALA requires hospitals to provide treatment to anyone who needs it regardless of citizenship status or ability to pay. As the government does NOT reimburse hospitals for such care, a number of hospitals nationwide were forced to close their doors, being unable to provide millions of dollars in free services.

Though hospitals are able to recoup a minimal portion of this massive expense via Medicaid reimbursement, the only way to remain solvent is by raising prices to paying patients. Naturally, this drives up the cost of both healthcare and health insurance.

Enter Barack Obama and his namesake “healthcare” program. When arguing the constitutionality of ObamaCare before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli claimed that the individual mandate requiring everyone either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty was necessary in order to stop the practice of charging “…uncompensated costs … directly to other market participants…”

In short, the Regime was ostensibly outraged that responsibility for payment of these uncompensated costs was being placed on others by healthcare providers who routinely “…charge[d] higher rates in order to cover the cost of uncompensated care…” Mr. Obama’s Justice Department minions argued that although millions of Americans did not WANT to purchase health insurance, the federal government had both a right and an obligation to force them to do so in order to halt the “unfair practice” of the uninsured taking advantage of and driving up prices for the insured!

So by charging EVERYONE, whether they wanted insurance or not, there would be no more unfair, uncompensated costs because everyone would be paying for healthcare! The freeloaders, formerly gaming the system by getting free care paid by others, would now be forced to pay their “fair share!”

Did Congress consider changing the EMTALA LAW–the real reason for uncompensated costs–rather than forcing ObamaCare on the American people? Of course not. Will illegals have to buy healthcare? No. They will STILL be getting “free” care, paid by those who ARE required to buy ObamaCare approved healthcare or pay a “penalty.” (A “TAX” if you’re Justice Roberts.)

In short, thanks to ObamaCare, billions in healthcare costs for illegals will be neatly covered up by the individual mandate. And Democrats will eagerly state that illegals are NOT being covered by ObamaCare and that any healthcare expense associated with illegals is at worst minimal.

It’s the LEAST the Democrat Party can do for 30 million undocumented voters, isn’t it!

Photo credit: luna715 (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: Barack Obama, Justice Department, Obamacare, Supreme Court

IRS Takes Its Turn Rewriting Obamacare

April 9, 2013 By Doug Book Leave a Comment

In their haste to impose an historic affront to individual liberty, the authors of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) neglected to provide the federal bureaucracy with either the funding necessary to build ObamaCare exchanges within the various states OR the authority to award tax credits or impose penalties on the American public.

For when the ACA was written, it was foolishly believed by lawmakers that each of the 50 states would immediately take on the near-100 million dollar responsibility of completing an ObamaCare exchange within its borders—an exchange being the sales center without which no ObamaCare business may be transacted and no healthcare policies sold.

But today, a desperate Kathleen Sebelius and her Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have gone from depending on states to implement the Affordable Care Act to threatening those same states for dragging their feet and performing acts of outright rebellion against both the law and the Obama Regime itself.

And Sebelius’ fears are well founded, for the ACA makes it clear that only state-run exchanges may offer the tax credits that will make ObamaCare “affordable” to both individuals and businesses. And only state-run exchanges may impose penalties on business and fines on individuals for not obeying the letter of the law.

The long and the short of Sebelius’ problem is quite simple: no state-run exchanges, no ObamaCare! And as of today, some 30 states have refused to build an ObamaCare exchange, meaning the federal government will be forced to build 30 ObamaCare exchanges with no funding and impose fines and credits with no legal authority to do so.

Enter the Internal Revenue Service with a series of new rules intended to save the day and the Affordable Care Act. Of course, no one should really mind that the Department’s 73 page usurpation of congressional authority happens to be illegal.

For it seems the IRS decided to unilaterally re-make the Affordable Care Act by ignoring the wishes of lawmakers who wrote that only state-run exchanges may offer tax credits or impose penalties. According to the new IRS rules, federally-run exchanges will be permitted to do exactly the same things, even though that authority is NEVER mentioned in the law except as belonging to state-run exchanges!

As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute and Case Western University Law Professor Jonathan Adler told the House Oversight Committee:

Contrary to the clear language of the statute and congressional intent, this [IRS] rule issues tax credits in health insurance “exchanges” established by the federal government. It thus triggers a $2,000-per-employee tax on employers and appropriates billions of dollars to private health insurance companies in states with a federal Exchange, also contrary to the clear language of the statute and congressional intent.

Already, lawsuits have been filed against the IRS for its clear misappropriation of congressional authority. And what will ObamaCare attorneys argue before the court? Perhaps something along the lines of: “Never mind what the law SAYS. Take our word for what we really MEANT it to say, especially now that things haven’t worked out the way we hoped.”

Should this obvious IRS attempt to overstep its authority be judged illegal, the Affordable Care Act will have to depend upon cowardly or corrupt Republican legislators and governors to save it from extinction.

Unfortunately, that’s not the longshot it should be.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Coachisright, Floyd Reports Tagged With: Obamacare

States May Be FORCED To Implement ObamaCare

April 3, 2013 By Doug Book 4 Comments

So far, 26 states have opted against building ObamaCare exchanges, making it clear to Kathleen Sebelius that her Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will have to do all of the work and pay the tab for the creation of any Affordable Care Act “sales center” within their borders. And as the Act provides no funds for the Department to build or staff an exchange, implementation of ObamaCare rules and regulations would seem impossible within those states.

Moreover, in addition to throwing the financial burden of the Affordable Care Act back in the lap of an unprepared HHS, a number of state legislatures have passed laws making the Act’s implementation and enforcement illegal.

But Barack has different ideas.

The Obama administration has announced its intent to disregard state laws and state constitutional amendments prohibiting the enforcement of ObamaCare. Federal agents from the Department of Health and Human Services will assume absolute control over states’ health insurance industry and regulation in states that refuse to comply with the federal healthcare mandates.

What could be more convenient than to “disregard” those things that threaten your plans!

This latest example of the limitless hubris of the Obama Regime began when Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak received a letter from Gary Cohen, Director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) informing him that “…the federal government will impose ObamaCare regulations on insurance companies in Oklahoma.”

Cohen’s letter came in response to a law passed by the Oklahoma legislature nullifying the implementation of ObamaCare in the state. HHS decided to take a hand by informing all health insurance providers in the state that “…enforcement of the law’s requirements will be handled by [HHS].” Shortly thereafter, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) demanded all state providers “…submit all group and individual health insurance policy forms, certificates, riders, endorsements, and amendments, as well as any other requested material pertinent to the market reforms of the Affordable Care Act to CMS for review.”

In short, the federal bureaucracy intends to utterly ignore the will of the people of Oklahoma by summarily overturning any “unfriendly” statutes written by their elected representatives!

What will this mean for health insurance customers in the state? Apparently, those who purchase insurance through the federally managed ObamaCare exchange will wind up with different policies, be forced to follow different procedures, and generally pay much higher premiums than residents who purchase coverage directly from an insurance company, whether individually or as part of a group through their employer. Two sets of rules will exist in the state.

But rest assured, as HHS will not tolerate competition, Katherine Sebelius & Co will soon disallow the purchase of any insurance plan unless it be through the ObamaCare exchange.

Of course, that is an ObamaCare exchange that has yet to be built and for which the Affordable Care Act itself made no financial provision!

In 2010, Barack assured the American public that anyone fortunate enough to be protected under ObamaCare will save an average of $2500 in premium expenses compared with his “old” policy.

No doubt this will be true if, like their Lord and Master, ObamaCare customers are permitted to disregard those things that disturb them–like premium billing statements.

Photo Credit: Fresh Conservative (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Coachisright, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: Obamacare

Obama Demands Sheriffs Enforce Gun Bans

April 1, 2013 By Doug Book 14 Comments

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Though Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in the landmark case Marbury vs Madison has led to two centuries of power-abusing mischief on the part of our federal government, he did have the premise correct—a law which is unconstitutional is not a law at all. What he did not add, but might have I suspect, is that such a “law” need not be followed and should not be enforced, especially not by those who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution.

For months the American people have been threatened with legislation promoting gun confiscation, “assault weapons” bans and schemes which would lead quite inevitably to the national registration of firearms and their owners. New York and Colorado have already enacted such legislation, all in typical leftist, knee-jerk response to the Newtown killings.

Each new piece of gun control legislation proposed by the left, whether at the state or national level, has one thing in common—an utter disregard for the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. But while our would-be masters have been scheming to disarm the American people, sheriffs across the nation have proudly made it clear that “…they will not enforce federal or state gun laws they consider unconstitutional.” (2)

In fact, 28 of 29 Utah sheriffs wrote directly to Barack Obama announcing their position on federal gun control legislation:

”We, like you swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.” (3)

To which they added:

“Make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them.” (3)

Of course, our Muslim Monarch has different ideas. “I think as a general proposition we think that people ought to follow the law,” (that is, whatever WE proclaim the law to be) commented White House Press Secretary Jay Carney when told that nearly 500 sheriffs nationwide have sworn to uphold the Constitution and NOT the gun control agenda of Barack Obama. Yet according to the Regime, local officials should simply do what the federal government tells them to do and not worry about how legal or constitutional it might be.

Obama has already informed states which have refused to implement ObamaCare that the federal government would be taking over all health insurance operations and decisions within their borders. Does anyone imagine the most corrupt and thuggish administration in the nation’s history would do any less upon the passage of federal gun control legislation? (4)

The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot force states to “enforce or enact federal law.” (5) Naturally the Obama Regime will ignore these inconvenient rulings as it demands local officials do what they are told while threatening any who resist.

Strange, isn’t it, that this administration sued Arizona for its desire to enforce federal immigration law, yet now demands that states enforce the provisions of the affordable Care Act and will no doubt do the same should decidedly unconstitutional, federal gun control legislation become the law of the land!

Filed Under: Coachisright, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: Arizona, Barack Obama, Gun Control, Obamacare, Supreme Court

We Don’t Trust You, Barack And You’ll Not Have Our Guns

Free Healthcare For Illegals Continues The ObamaCare Way

IRS Takes Its Turn Rewriting Obamacare

States May Be FORCED To Implement ObamaCare

Obama Demands Sheriffs Enforce Gun Bans

Help the Cause!

Stay Updated with Impeach Obama

Most Popular Today

Recent Posts

Impeach Obama Archives

Blogroll

Contributors