WHO AM I?

A SHOCKER ...

BE PREPARED TO CRINGE WHEN YOU LEARN WHO THIS IS ...

Is Obamacare Illegal?

MUST WATCH -- EXCLUSIVE VIDEO
CLIENT'S ATTORNEY EXPLAINS HIS CASE

Will the Court Rule Against Obamacare? 


Obamacare Appears Demonstrably Illegal As A Result of Chief Justice Roberts Ruling ... a Clear Violation of the Origination Clause of the US Constitution ... which becomes true only after it was ruled a tax.

As we all have learned ... in politics and legal issues, anything can happen.  Things often don't turn out the way we hope they might but at least this is the first ray of hope I have seen recently on these issues.

It appears that this could be true. The Supreme Court's ruling that Obamacare is a tax opens the hastily created 2700 page healthcare bill to a clear case that as a tax the way in which the legislation was created clearly violates the constitutional law known as the Origination Clause.


According to the Article 1, Section 7, of the United States Constitution any legislation to create a tax to be collected by the federal government must originate in the House of Representatives. This is known as the Origination Clause. PLF claims that the original bill that was used to create Obamacare originated in the Senate and not the House, thus making Obamacare illegal. Based on this information they are now moving forward with the case in the court system.

After the arguments were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in March, it appeared that the insurance mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act was doomed.  Many were hoping that the entire health care package would be thrown out as well.

On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision.  In a move that stunned the nation, the vote was 5-4 to uphold the insurance mandate and the rest of the Affordable Care Act.  The vote had come down to a 4-4 vote, giving Chief Justice John Roberts the deciding vote.  Although known as a conservative, Roberts voted that the insurance mandate was illegal ONLY because it was tied to a tax.  He ruled that since the penalty for not being insured was to be collected by the I.R.S., that it amounted to a tax and that Congress has the legal right to levy taxes.

In his ruling, Robert’s also stated that the requirement to force someone to purchase a product or pay a penalty does violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Because he also ruled that the insurance mandate was a tax and not a penalty, that it no longer violated the Commerce Clause and as such was legal.

However, by Roberts’ very ruling, he actually made the insurance mandate illegal and subject to further litigation and possibly still being thrown out.

In 2010, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a suit on behalf of Matt Sissel challenging the legality of the insurance mandate on the grounds of his being forced to purchase health insurance or face a penalty.  When the U.S. Supreme Court took on three other cases, the PLF put Sissel’s case on hold pending the court’s decision.

We all know what that decision was, but in making his ruling, Chief Justice Roberts opened up the door for another legal challenge.  PLF has just asked the courts once again to overturn the insurance mandate on two grounds.

The first issue was created when Roberts declared the penalty to be a tax.  According to the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution, all tax or revenue generating legislation must begin in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The Affordable Care Act was first introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the U.S. Senate and not the House.  Therefore, the insurance mandate tax violates the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution and must be struck down.

“With Obamacare, the legislative process was backwards— and that makes it unconstitutional. If it’s a tax, as a Supreme Court called it, then it started in the wrong house.”

The second issue is that since the U.S. Senate cannot initiate any tax or revenue generating legislation, the penalty for not purchasing health insurance cannot be a tax according to the Origination Clause.  If it cannot be a tax, then it has to be a penalty and thus we go back to a violation of the Commerce Clause which Chief Justice Roberts said the insurance mandate would be.

“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue. The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters— members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”

Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that PLF’s argument based upon the Origination Clause can proceed forward in the court. PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard commented saying:

“Our commitment is strengthened, and our fight goes on.”

Pacific Legal Foundation has amended their initial suit, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, to include the argument of the Origination Clause.  The legal action is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Even if America is cursed with four more years of Barack Obama and Democratic rule, there is still hope that the insurance mandate will be repealed by the courts.  If so, it is vitally important that the Republicans continue to control the House because as long as they do, they should be able to block any legislation to impose the penalty as a tax.

Matt Sissel says he is in the legal fight for the long haul. As a small business owner in Iowa City, Sissel said:

“I am in this lawsuit to defend liberty and the Constitution. That purpose and that promise continue today. My lawsuit is more important than ever, and we’ll move ahead with it, all the way up the judicial system, if necessary.”

“Quitting is never an option. In the military we learned you don’t stop halfway up the hill. The same goes with our courtroom challenge to Obamacare. I’m grateful to PLF for sharing my determination to move forward.”

This challenge may be the last hope of fighting off Obamacare and the huge negative impact it is having on our nation, economy, and healthcare industry. This battle may be long and expensive but Sissel and the PFL are determined to see it through to the end. We all need to get behind them and support them in any way possible if there is any hope left to stop the ugly beast known as Obamacare from devouring us all.

An American Tragedy

 

Joe the Plumber ... Dead in 2012

This is a most common chilling story that has played out all over America since Barack Obama became President. I know because it happened to my small business as well. Americans cannot afford the failed policies and the "on the job training" of its President during the next four years.

TIME FOR CHANGE ...

Joe the Plumber ... Dead in 2012

WATCH THIS SHORT MOVING VIDEO HERE...

Axis of Evil

Obama has already decided ... 
what he will do if he is Re-Elected
This is another of Obama's surprises
Obama has made to a secret deal ...

with Russia.

Obama will disregard what is best 
for the security of America ...

What will we do?

Equal Pay or Performance?

Recently on Facebook ... "equal pay is not a womans issue --- it's a human right."

 "Why is this even a question?" 

... and "why would any woman vote Republican?"

I responded: "This is a sham issue. It has been clearly proven that women most often receive equal pay but have different priorities and responsibilities in the home and as a result often work less hours and earn less."

The problem is that many of us are looking at the equal pay issue from two totally different perspectives. This is a key to why Obama has failed to create jobs and why Romney will succeed in creating jobs.  Romney understands how business works, and it is not legislated by government.

I will attempt to explain this from real personal experiences in the actual free enterprise business world that I have worked in for the past 45 years.

Ever wonder why charter schools are so much more successful? Results and performance are at the top of their agenda ... not mandated government guidelines. 

In the real world of small business ... performance based pay is the rule. It cannot be directed by politicians or unions and their good intentions without bad end results.

My first job was as a timekeeper at McDonnell Douglas. My first week on the job, it took me a few days to figure out my responsibilities. After a few days, I realized I could get all of my work done in half the allotted time. One day at in the fifth hour of my shift I had finished my work for the day. The guy sitting next to me said; “you can’t do that” “what” I asked. “You can’t finish early, it makes the rest of us look bad,” he said. "That’s your problem" I replied. 

An hour later my boss (a woman) walked by. She looked at my desk, and the guy next to me as well. She walked over to his desk and took half of his remaining work and put it on my desk. A year later when I was laid off ... this same guy was still there because he had seniority over me. In your world this might make sense; but in my world it does not.

This is the union system. I am sure at some point it has brought  benefits to many ... but it is certainly not better for performers or the employers who hire them. 

The whole equality in pay issue is for the most part whining. 

If a person does not like the way they are treated by their employer ... they should find another job, and be more careful in finding it. 

Many employers are not fair to anyone ... ever. This has nothing to do with equal pay but rather a boss who is a jerk.That is the way it has always been ans ALWAYS will be. 

Some employers are more than very fair ... find that employer and do great work there. The jerk boss loses the great employee every time. Then, everybody wins. Race, gender or sexual orientation should not ever even be an issue. 

I must assume that the inequality charge is not that women do not receive equal pay within the failing union system.

My next job was for the largest real estate company in America at the time. Everyone was paid with the same performance based pay schedule. No performance … no pay. Lots of performance ... lots of pay. I found that if you were willing to do things others were afraid to do ... the results were much better. I soon found myself earning more than double the amount of lower achievers for the same number of hours worked on the job. 

I was quickly promoted, and made the manager over the others. I then spent my time helping others learn the skills needed to perform better. When I succeeded on this mission, my income was more than triple that of the other managers doing the same work, I was quickly promoted to vice president over 10 other managers. 

My performance there resulted in my income being more than double that of the executive vice president over me. This system worked well for me, until I was driving a Mercedes 450SL and my boss was driving a Fiat. When a plan was put in place that reversed performance pay to equalize things ... I simply went to my boss and explained it must be changed or I would resign. He changed the plan.

Women consistently were my better performers, and as a result many women were either paid more or worked less as their personal needs dictated. My top performer was a Jewish man who came to me after driving a dutch cheese truck.  He became number one out of over1500 sales people. His parents were murdered in a Nazi concentration camp and he worked harder to succeed. Needless to say he was the top performer and was paid much more than the others. His race or gender was not ever considered. Nobody was ignorant enough to complain that he was paid many times more than all others for the same number of hours worked.

I did have one challenge that comes to mind with an escrow officer who worked for me. When she became pregnant, she informed her manager (a woman) that our insurance did not include pregnancy as required under an idiotic rule created in Sacramento. And as a result, that I was required to pay for her pregnancy. I had my manager check it out, and was told she was correct. I said fine, and paid a large sum for her pregnancy. 

There were no hard feelings; but I also made a business decision. The next week, I gave a raise to everyone equal to their health insurance cost, and then cancelled health Insurance for all. There was not one complaint. This is how legislated bureaucratic BS is dealt with in the free business world.

Never in this process was race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation even considered in the performance based pay system. Some women did better, they were paid more. When trying to make everyone's pay equal was tried … the result was lower performance. 

Can you imagine the liberal uproar if sports stars or entertainment stars were told that they would be paid equally on the basis of their actual hours worked?

Perform more you get more … end of discussion.

It's the results that count.

Connect The Dots

Hmmm ...

• A new Obama Appointee
• Unemployment numbers 
• Mysteriously Drop
• Employment Numbers Were Ginned

Believe it ...

A couple weeks ago, this column analyzed the inflation rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and concluded that you should rely on your common sense when the government reports questionable statistics. 

If they don’t make sense based on what you see, experience, and hear from your friends, then they’re probably wrong. Last week’s unemployment number – which decreased to a still-dismal 7.8% – should not only make no sense to you, but should have never made sense to the BLS and therefore should never have been issued.

So am I just popping off or is there a factual basis for this claim? Statistical analysis has to pass a smell test, and the BLS should have known that what they presented did not. Their own web site states that “The unemployment rate declined by 0.3% to 7.8% in September. For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1% to 8.3%.” Nowhere is there any explanation of why this anomaly occurred.

You, sitting at home without a degree in statistical analysis, look at the statement from the BLS and scratch your head. Did something happen in the last month that radically changed our economy? If there were only 114,000 new jobs reported, how did 873,000 more people report being employed? 

If you were running the BLS, you would likely tell the people who brought you this nonsense to go back and check their figures. Or you might ask: if this is correct, have the numbers been wrong for the past year?

Then you would start to search for correlating information. Let’s see, the average work week increased by 0.1 hours. Yes, that’s six minutes – not exactly steamrolling. Then you would see that the underemployment rate remained steady at 14.7%, and you would recall that just a week ago, the anemic economic growth of 1.7% for the second quarter was revised even lower to an abysmal 1.3%. You might ponder the whole matter, take a break, drive to lunch, see that gas prices are astronomical, and come to the conclusion that this unemployment number is just nuts.

Arriving back home after having lunch (which cost a few bucks more than a couple of months back), you begin to do a little research. You review the comments made on September 13^th by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. He spoke of the continued weakness in the U.S. economy, and, in fact, the entire justification for his QE3 announcement – made just three weeks before the BLS announced the surreal dip in the unemployment rate – was the weak job market. Was Bernanke just totally out of touch? Then you remember that right after Bernanke’s QE3 announcement, the survey of America’s CEOs reported that their level of confidence in the economy plummeted to the lowest level since the third quarter of 2009. These are the folks who actually hire people for jobs.

You now apply some common sense to this entire situation. You see that the labor force participation rose a meager 0.1% from the prior month – observing with frustration that if it were the same as it was in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11%. You also notice that the number of long-term unemployed remains at 4.8 million Americans.

You eventually discover that the unemployment rate is determined by a household survey of a very small proportion of the population. And then it hits you – the BLS merely spoke to a few Americans who have been unemployed for what seems like forever, who in quiet desperation told the BLS that they started a home business. Of course, the BLS doesn’t ask “and how is that going?” They just mark that person down as employed. Poof: 873,000 fewer unemployed Americans.

We interviewed Jim Borbely, an economist, of the Current Population Survey department of the BLS. He indicated they perform a monthly survey of 60,000 homes that rotates every four months. I asked him whether anyone looked at the numbers, noticed what appeared to a major statistical anomaly, and said “Boy, we gotta do this over; it just doesn’t make any sense.” He told me that no one did that – they just applied the same procedures that they’ve been using for sixty years. When I pointed out that the numbers made no sense mathematically or scientifically, he just stuck to his endorsement of their process. The most I could get him to admit was that “It could be a statistical anomaly that could correct itself next month.” When I stated that this could potentially have a significant impact on the presidential election, he replied “We are not a political organization.”

Which is, on the face of it, an utter fallacy; any branch of government is political. More importantly, Obama appointed a new Director of the BLS – Erica Gorshen, a Harvard graduate with a PhD in Economics, a former union member, and the teacher of a class called Statistics for Economists: Trade Unions, Collective Bargaining, and Public Policy. She claims that she is nonpartisan, but who in their right mind would conclude that she is anything other than a member of the left-wing “intelligentsia”?

The question we’ll never get answered is who ultimately approved the release of these errant numbers? Of course, no one had a political agenda; but, if that were true, why didn’t Obama appoint someone from the Heritage Foundation? They have some pretty qualified folks over there.

Or there is the other possibility. The BLS operates within the Department of Labor, whose Secretary is Hilda Solis, easily the most partisan member of Obama’s cabinet. That’s hard to believe, what with Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius floating around, but it’s true. Then we have a President who just offered to cover the legal costs of defense contractors who break the law by not sending out legally-required notices to employees 60 days before anticipated layoffs. Then you think: could these be manipulated numbers? You betcha! There is another way to gin numbers than changing them around. You can gin them by ignoring significantly invalid numbers and treating them as real. Either way it is still ginning.

What’s amazing is that they think we’re stupid enough to believe this pile of cow manure. America was stupid enough to put this crowd into office; I guess they believe that they can sell us anything.

Bruce Bailosky Townhall.com 10/15/2015

The Obama Lies and the Cover-up

Libya attack covered up

by Obama administration, 

asserts Heritage Foundation

The conservative Heritage Foundation is continuing to be a leading force against what it considers to be a cover-up within the Obama administration of the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi last month.

The campaign, consisting of reports, blog posts and now an event and video — which even includes a suggestion that President Obama would “coincidentally” strike Libya ahead of the presidential debate on national security and foreign policy — is aimed at forcing the administration to abandon the “ridiculous story” that a YouTube video was to blame for the attack.

The Heritage Foundation points to a two-page timeline sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform outlining 13 known threats in less than six months.

“It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” wrote House Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in an Oct. 2 letter to Clinton. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The committee is holding a hearing Wednesday (“The Security Failures of Benghazi“) with Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene R. Lamb, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, Utah National Guard’s Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, and Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy providing testimony.

Also Wednesday, Heritage hosted an event, “Intelligence and Security Failure: Attacks in Benghazi and Across the Middle East Reveal Ongoing Threat of Terrorism” in which national security and intelligence experts argued that the loss of life in the Sept. 11 attack was a direct result of security and intelligence failures, as well as the Obama administration’s blindness to the other side of the coin of dictatorships falling in the Arab Spring.

Posted by Allen McDuffee on October 10, 2012  Heritage Foundation