Echoing Obama, Harry Reid Takes Aim At The Supreme Court With This Insulting Comment

Following the lead of President Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has suggested that the Supreme Court made a mistake in taking up the current challenge to ObamaCare — the high-stakes case over whether people who enrolled through the federal marketplace are eligible for tax credit subsidies to help lower their insurance premiums.

It was about a week ago when the president — in a move sharply criticized by many analysts as inappropriately aggressive — told a news conference in Germany: “This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.”

The Hill notes that some Republicans accused Obama of trying bully the justices by his public criticism of their legal judgment.

“His pointed comments, which appeared to be aimed at least partly at influencing the justices, baffled some court-watchers who say that the decision in the King v. Burwell case was likely settled long ago.”

Speaking with Capitol Hill reporters outside the Senate chamber on Tuesday, Reid (D-Nev.) also implied that he knows better than the justices what their business should be when he declared: “The Supreme Court shouldn’t have taken up this case.” Then the Nevada Democrat who’s known for venturing into outrageous rhetorical territory from time to time, added when asked about the disputed language in the Affordable Care Act: “I think the language is clear. I hope the Supreme Court can read English.”

Despite the minority leader’s cocky condescension in suggesting the language of the law is clear in its authorization of subsidies for ObamaCare enrollees through the federal marketplace, the actual wording of the Act would seem to support the contrary conclusion…thus the Supreme Court’s consideration of the momentous legal matter.

As the article in The Hill notes of the prospects for the ruling in the second high court challenge to the president’s signature legislative achievement:

With the ruling on ObamaCare expected any day, legal experts say it’s unlikely that any rhetoric from the White House could cause a major shift in the justices’ opinion. Still, they say it’s possible that the justices are continuing to nail down all the details, particularly if they are planning to rule against the administration.

It would be reasonable to suppose that President Obama and high-ranking Democrat lawmakers might already know how the Supreme Court will rule — against the administration — and are building their case that the justices are wrong. Otherwise, one might believe that those now attacking the high court would be praising it, or at least remaining neutral in their rhetoric.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

ObamaCare Catastrophe Continues As This New Report Confirms Another Lie Many Warned About

As numerous healthcare experts have warned for years — and as studies have shown since ObamaCare became the law of the land — another key selling point of the president’s signature legislative achievement has turned out to be wrong…very wrong.

Proponents of ObamaCare frequently claimed that costly trips to hospital emergency rooms by uninsured patients would go down as a result of the law’s taking effect, thus saving money and conserving ER resources. But that hasn’t happened. Critics have been proven right, and once again it’s been shown that the sales job for the president’s healthcare takeover scheme was built on a pack of lies.

We’re all painfully familiar with Obama’s big lie — you know, the one about, “if you like your doctor….” Then there’s the promise that health insurance premiums would go down. Don’t forget the one about the individual mandate not being a tax, until the Supreme Court saved the law by declaring that it was.

Add to this list of blatant untruths the results of a brand new poll from the American College of Emergency Physicians about ER visits. USA Today reports that “28% of 2,099 doctors surveyed nationally saw large increases in volume, while 47% saw slight increases.”

“Such hikes run counter to one of the goals of the health care overhaul, which is to reduce pressure on emergency rooms by getting more people insured through Medicaid or subsidized private coverage and providing better access to primary care,” explains the USA Today article.

However, this sort of survey result is nothing new. In May of 2014, the far-left Huffington Post noted a similar finding as benefits from ObamaCare coverage went into effect for millions of Americans.

“The American College of Emergency Physicians polled more than 1,800 emergency room doctors last month, and 46 percent reported increases in patients coming through their doors since Jan. 1, the day coverage took effect for millions under Obamacare.”

The HuffPo article also points out that, what Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and company proclaimed would be a big plus of ObamaCare should have been known from day one to be a promise that couldn’t be fulfilled — based on the experience of two states with expanded health coverage for residents required by law.

“While a survey of emergency department physicians’ impressions lacks hard data about patient behavior and can’t be considered conclusive, the results are consistent with studies about the effects of Massachusetts’ 2007 health care reform law and a 2008 expansion of Medicaid in Oregon.”

Of course, these sorts of facts don’t prevent Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid from doing what he has come to be known for, especially with regard to Mitt Romney’s tax-paying habits — not sticking with facts. As The Hill pointed out in an article only a week ago, the Nevada Democrat took to the Senate floor to bash Republican opponents of the law he so aggressively championed; declaring, without reservation, that “ObamaCare is a smashing success.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

It’s Time To Stop The Practice Of Funding Government By Misdemeanor

As regular readers know, I have, over the last few years, become a critic of our criminal justice system.

It comes under the heading of ‘a conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who has just been charged.’ I did some work for a TV network back during the Abramoff “scandal” and, for the life of me, cannot figure out what Jack Abramoff did wrong except to piss some powerful people off. Yet he served time in a Federal prison at our expense.

Then came the Harvey Whittemore “scandal” in Nevada, where Whittemore was accused of raising the $140,000 Harry Reid asked him to raise, convicted of a felony, and nobody even suggested that Reid did anything wrong–much less criminal. In short, Harvey was convicted of pissing off powerful people and is now serving time in a Federal prison, while Harry is living at the Washington DC Ritz Carlton.

Now, there are powerful people and powerful people. To many people, some Justice of the Peace in rural Nevada is “powerful” in a way that he or she should not be–and it’s now time to change that.

As Eric Holder’s investigators correctly found in Ferguson, Missouri, the “criminal justice” system was being used to extract money in prodigious amounts from the citizens to fund the cops, the courts, and who knows what else.

That’s not a surprise to those of us who watch the system closely. I know that many see this as a racial issue, but the truth is that the system is busy screwing everybody all the time. It’s just that many times, middle class white folks in the suburbs are harder targets because we have lawyers. And the best justice is the justice you pay for.

A logical solution is to make it illegal to fund the system with fines, fees, and the like. If that makes some tin horn JP in Mineral County a part timer, so be it. And if that reduces the workload of the Las Vegas Justice Court, oh, well…

In Nevada, as an example, speeding is a criminal violation, not a civil violation.

That means that when you pay a speeding ticket to make it go away, you have a criminal record. You plead guilty to a misdemeanor. It also means the cops can show up at your house if you fail to pay the ticket and haul you to jail. And cops hauling people to jail over traffic tickets are NOT policing the streets for violent crime.

The whole system is a perversion of justice. Cops have an incentive to write tickets to bring in revenue to make judges happy. Legislators don’t have to worry about actually funding the court system because, assuming the cops write enough tickets, it takes care of itself. Taken to its ridiculous conclusion, you get Ferguson, Missouri, and plenty of other places.

It’s a hot potato that even the most conservative elements of our own state legislature are hesitant to deal with because, for some reason, they are afraid of small town justices of the so-called peace. What brings it to the forefront is an intelligent decision on the part of the Nevada Highway Patrol to focus their traffic enforcement efforts on things that actually cause crashes as opposed to writing a quota of tickets. This has reduced revenue so much that judges are crying aloud about funding.

That comes under the heading of a load of crap.

There is a way to solve this problem permanently.

Given the very small turn-out in the last general election, there has never been a better time to launch things like this as voter initiative constitutional amendments. Getting the relatively small number of signatures required and placing an initiative on the ballot making it illegal to fund the court system with fines and fees should pass with the kind of numbers that restricting tax increases did.

If the legislature doesn’t like that idea, they should do something themselves before the voters force their hands.

And if the judges don’t like it, they need to remember that they are elected, too.

Right now, we need to get our criminal justice system under control; and you can start by removing most traffic enforcement from its jurisdiction. Then, we’ll start looking at other things that come under the heading of revenue farming.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

‘Poisonous': Fox News Host Dana Perino Erupts On Harry Reid

In a recent exchange with syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt, Fox News Channel host Dana Perino took on the man she sees as a leading cause of dysfunction in D.C.

Hewitt sparked Perino’s rant by citing Reid’s reaction to likely presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s decision to support U.S. attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch. The retiring Senate minority leader said Bush “didn’t just show grace in doing that, he showed more common sense than his brother showed in eight years as president of the United States.”

Hewitt concluded that Reid “can’t give a compliment,” prompting Perino to share her thoughts on the fifth-term Nevada Democrat.

“He’s an absolutely poisonous figure in Washington, D.C.,” she said. “He’s been a disaster for the country.”

Perino went on to assert that “a lot of the dysfunction in Washington can be traced directly to his doorstep,” adding that Reid’s impending departure from the U.S. Senate is cause for celebration.

“I think it is very good for the country, for the world, and especially for the Democrats that Harry Reid is retiring,” she said. “I’ve never seen anything so abhorrent in my life as Harry Reid.”

Insisting that he is an “equal opportunity basher” who “goes after everybody,” Perino shared her belief that Reid “has been the most destructive entity in Washington when it comes to stability – by far.”

Recovering from a serious facial injury, Reid announced last month that he would not seek a sixth term in the Senate. Perino was not the only one to rejoice in the news. Even some in his own party – West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, for example – criticized Reid’s leadership, as Mitt Romney summed up the sentiment of many Republicans.

“I’m glad he’s retiring,” the 2012 GOP presidential nominee said.

Are you glad Harry Reid is retiring? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Did The Big-Spending Koch Bros Just Drop A HUGE Clue That Could Signal A GOP Game Change?

There’s no doubt that big money will play a big part in the 2016 presidential election. With Hillary Clinton and her Democrat support groups and political action committees planning to raise something like $2.5 billion in the former secretary of state’s quest for the White House, the Republicans certainly need their deep-pocket donors to step up. And among those with the dollars to make a difference in the election, few are more significant or sought-after than the Koch brothers.

The billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch — the targets of frequent and vicious attacks by the Left, including Sen. Harry Reid — are highly influential in Republican politics, largely because of their generous financial donations to conservative candidates. As The New York Times reports: “Few donors have been courted as aggressively as the Kochs, whose network of political nonprofits, ‘super PACs’ and like-minded donors plans to spend almost $900 million over the next two years advancing conservative candidates and policies.”

So, when a Koch talks, people listen. And that’s exactly what happened Monday in Manhattan, when David Koch dropped what some are calling a huge clue about the GOP contender he and his brother would like to see secure the party’s nomination and go on to win the presidency. The Times article reports on what David Koch told the crowd at a fund-raiser for the New York State Republican Party, where the apparent Koch favorite, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, had spoken earlier in the evening:

“’When the primaries are over and Scott Walker gets the nomination,’ Mr. Koch told the crowd, the billionaire brothers would support him, according to a spokeswoman. The remark drew laughter and applause from the audience of fellow donors and Republican activists….”

Though Mr. Koch was reportedly explicit in denying that he was endorsing Walker, he described the governor as “terrific.” A Koch spokesperson indicated to the Times that the big-spending brothers would remain officially neutral during the primary campaign.

Still, as the article makes clear, major players in the GOP presidential field, including Ted Cruz and Chris Christie, have made a point of seeking private meetings with the Kochs. A certain Kentucky senator also made sure his praise for the Kochs was very public.

“Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote an opinion article for Time Magazine’s ‘100 Most Influential People’ issue last week, praising the two men for their ‘passion for freedom and their commitment to ideas.’”

Given what the Kochs and their political associates reportedly spent during the 2014 election cycle, according to a post on National Journal, it’s no wonder GOP hopefuls are making every effort to be on the brothers radar.

“The two groups at the heart of the Koch brothers’ political network spent a combined $100 million on competitive races in 2014, spokesmen for the organizations tell National Journal.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth