Who Is Ron Paul?

Ron Paul has been getting positive press in the news lately. Recently, he won the 2010 CPAC straw poll and came in second at the 2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference. 

Recently, a  Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey have revealed some surprising and yet disappointing facts about how the American people view Ron Paul.  Among the many things that the survey found was that:

"thirty-nine percent (39%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of Paul, while 30% view him unfavorably. This includes 10% with a very favorable opinion and 12% with a very unfavorable one. But nearly one-out-of-three voters (32%) are not sure what they think of Paul."

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this survey is that:

"just 42% of Republican voters have a favorable view of him, including eight percent (8%) with a very favorable opinion. By comparison, 42% of unaffiliated voters regard him favorably, with 15% very favorable toward him.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of GOP voters think Paul shares the values of most Republican voters throughout the nation, but 25% disagree. Forty-nine percent (49%) are not sure.

Similarly, 27% of Republicans see Paul as a divisive force in the party, while 30% view him as a new direction for the GOP. Forty-two percent (42%) aren’t sure.

Among all voters, 19% say Paul shares the values of most Republican voters, and 27% disagree. Fifty-four percent (54%) are undecided."

As a conservative myself, I find this study to be troubling. 

I'm not sure the American public really knows who who this man is. 

Their positive opinions about him would change if they knew about Ron Paul's dangerous flirtation, if not outright alliance, with white supremacists and other fringe groups. This fact is well documented to the point that it is undeniable. 

I'm sure people's opinon would change if they saw pictures of Ron Paul standing next to a well known member of the white supremacist movement. In fact, here's a picture of Ron Paul with Don Black, and his son: 

 

If you don't know who Don Black  is, you should. He's the founder of the white supremacist website stormfront.org. 

Ron Paul sees no problem with having a photo taken with a well known racist and has never returned a $500 campaign donation given to him by Don Black. When this issue was raised, Ron Paul tried to act like the issue was no big deal.

Moreover, during the 2008 election, it came to the attention of the media that Ron Paul had a newsletter in his name that contained a lot of hateful language towards homosexuals and African Americans. 

Ron Paul denies that he didn't write these racist stuff but as one blogger points out:

"Rep. Paul is trying to say that the words above weren’t written by him (but rather someone else helping him with his newsletter), but c’mon. Let’s be serious. If they appeared in his newsletter attributed to him then he’s responsible."

If that isn't enough to convince people about who Ron Paul really is, maybe they would stop supporting him once they see this open letter from another well known white Supremacist, Bill White. Here's what he had to say about Ron Paul:

Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

Bill White, Commander

American National Socialist Workers Party

Who is Ron Paul? He's one scary dude.

Mike Huckabee Has No Problem With Having An Atheist For President?

Mike Huckabee recently gave an interview to reporters of a news magazine called The Perspective in which he makes this eyebrow raising statement that was published yesterday: 

In what may come as a surprise for some, Huckabee agreed that an atheist could be fit to serve as president. “I’d rather have an honest atheist than a dishonest religious person,” he said.

“It’s better to have a person who says, ‘Look, I just don’t believe, and that’s where my honest position happens to be,’” he said. “I’m frankly more OK with that than a person who says, ‘Oh, I am very much a Christian. I very much love God.’ And then they live as if they are atheists, as if they have no moral groundings at all. That’s more troubling.”

“I think it’s nice if a person believes in God,” Huckabee said. “I’d hate to think somebody was making decisions who thought that he couldn’t be higher than himself.”

 Source.

Apparently Mike Huckabee fine with having an atheist for President. 

Yet he has never been thrilled with the idea of having a Mormon for President.

Mike Huckabee engages in the classic pattern of "passive aggressive" behavior. Its his modus operandi of how he campaigns. 

Passive aggressive behavior is when someone does something and then denies the very act that they just did. Thus, it becomes difficult to pin down the bad behavior on the person.  

Sometimes its is clearly obvious when people are acting in this way. For example, remember that time when Huck claimed he was too classy to show the deceptive negative ad he made against Romney, then showed it to the national press knowing they would give it lots of free airplay?

Yet, Mike Huckabee engages in the most devious form of passive aggressive behavior when it comes to attacking Mitt Romney's faith. He engages in activity in which everything appears innocent and legitimate on the surface.However, underneath the surface is the malicious intent to do harm against the intended target without being detected.

There are numerous examples of this kind passive aggressive behavior. For example, during the Iowa 2008 primaries, implicitly made Romney's faith an issue in a campaign ad:

On Monday, Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, raised the stakes when he began broadcasting an advertisement in Iowa that emphasizes his faith and declares him to be a “Christian leader” — all in capital letters — which some might view as a shot at Mr. Romney.

Chip Saltsman, Mr. Huckabee’s campaign manager, said the campaign had no intention of making any kind of allusion to Mr. Romney’s being a Mormon, saying the idea was simply to introduce Mr. Huckabee to Iowans.

Source.

On the surface, Mike Huckabee is just simply "introducing" himself to the Iowan voter. This gives him plausible deniability since it allows him to stay clean from the accusation of playing the Mormon card since he's just running a campaign ad.

Yet, when asked about the fact that Huckabee is playing up his Christian credentials in capital letters as a quiet and indirect attack on Romney's Mormonism, his campaign manager, Chil Saltsman denies it. 

That's classic passive aggressive behavior. 

Again, we see this same passive aggressive behavior in another campaign ad. Remember the "floating cross" commercial? 

Mike Huckabee defended his commercial by claiming that the floating cross was merely a bookshelf. This gives the former Arkansas governor plausibility since he's claiming that the light is just shining on a piece of furniture.

That's one possible interpretation.And that's the one Huckabee hoped people believed.

Yet, The floating cross could be seen as a quiet and indirect attack on Romney's Mormonism by subtly playing up Huckabee's Christian credentials.

See how hard it is to pin Huckabee down for his anti-Mormon attacks? Classic passive aggressive behavior.

However, Mike Huckabee was a little more aggressive in his passive aggressive behavior. His defense is really an office since he attempts to make anyone who points out the obvious, the cross, look like an idiot. They must be crazy for seeing something that isn't there. And thus, the accuser has to go on the defense and prove that the cross is really what Huckbee intended for people see. 

Very devious passive aggressive behavior. 

The final example is his now infamous interview with the New York Times magazine: 

Huckabee was asked if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. "I think it's a religion," he said in the interview, published on the newspaper's Web site on Wednesday. "I really don't know much about it."
Then he asked: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
Source. 

Mike Huckabee denied that the quote was accurate yet Zev Chafets, the reporter who interviewed Huckabee, explained how it all went down:

“I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. 'I think it’s a religion,' he said. 'I really don’t know much about it.'

Chafets wrote next: “I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own….”

Reached Wednesday in Cooperstown, N.Y., where he’s writing a book on the National Baseball Hall of Fame, Chafets told Politico: “I asked him the question about Mormonism and whether he thought it was a religion or a cult.

“He said it was a religion, and didn’t know much about it. There was a pause. Then he asked his question,” Chafets continued.

“He can spin it any way he wants. It was on the wires and picked up by candidates, and I can’t be accountable for that,” Chafets said, adding, “I hope that the article, as I wrote it, was entirely in context.”

Lieberman said she also understood that Huckabee’s question “was an unbidden response.”

Source.

Huckabee ultimately apologized for the remarks made in the New York Times interview. 

Here, Huckabee was blunt in his attack on Romney's faith. This is where Huckabee over played his hand in his passive aggressive tactics.  You can't be claiming “ignorance” on a subject but immediately demonstrate knowledge of LDS theology and then trying to distance yourself from the interview. He tried to retreat into his familiar pattern of passive aggressive tactics by first denying his statements and then apologizing for it. But it was too much, too late.

The New York Times interview blew Mike Huckabee's passive aggressive stance towards Mitt Romney's Mormonism. It also revealed his animus towards the LDS religion.

The whole scenario was offensive. Mike Huckabee claimed he didn’t know about LDS doctrine and yet he immediately gave himself away by asking about a very specific and minor doctrine of the LDS Church all in the same breath.

The average citizen in the United States doesn't know about the Satan as Jesus brother doctrine. The only way some knows about this minor LDS doctrine is if they have studied the LDS faith or is a member of that faith. It is isn't doctrine that is common knowledge to the general public. You have to be well studied in LDS theology to be aware of this particular belief.

It was the faux innocence of Huckabee's question that upset a lot people, including the Mormons themselves.

There is a history behind it–many Evangelical Protestants dismiss the LDS church as a cult, and Huckabee knew that. He was not asking an innocent question, he was warning the religious bigots away from his competition. 

What was the point of brining up this theological belief of Mormons if it wasn't to scare Christian voters away from Mitt? Why even bring that up? I mean, really? It’s not like it is in England where the prime minster pick’s the next Archbishop of Canterbury. The President of the United States is not involved the religious affairs of the nation.

The passive aggressive facade of playing clueless on LDS theology didn’t go over very well because its hard to believe that a former Arkansas governor and former Baptist minister doesn't know much about the LDS faith yet he was the one who gave the keynote address at the Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City in an effort to convert Mormons away to the Baptist faith.

Richard Cohen, in an opinion editorial at the Washington Post made an astute observation about Mike Huckabee:

Pardon me for saying so, but that is the chief difference between the two. On about all the social issues you can name -- abortion, stem cells, gun control -- Huckabee and Romney are in sync. So their religious differences are not about morality. They are about belief -- religious belief, precisely the issue that is not supposed to matter in this country. Huckabee, though, clearly thinks it ought to. 

Source. 

When Mike Huckabee says he has no problem with having an atheist being President of the United States, its hard to believe him.One would think that having a atheist for a President would be more troublesome to a Baptist than having a Mormon as the political leader of America. But if he's fine with an atheist in the White House, then he should have no objections if Romney beats Obama in 2012, right?

Given his passive aggressive attacks against Mtt's faith in the 2008 presidential elections, don't hold your breath for Huckabee endorsing of Romney in the next Presidential election. 

In Defense Of RomneyCare (Updated: 4/4/11)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama has claimed that his health care plan is a lot like Mitt Romney's health care plan. This charge against RomneyCare has come from both liberals and conservatives. This is false. They are not the same for at least three crucial reasons:

1. RomneyCare is NOT the Same as ObamaCare

A simplistic description of the differences between the President's health care plan and Mitt Romney's plan is this: 

ObamaCare provides coverage to the citizens via the Unites States Government.

RomneyCare provides coverage to the citizens via private sector even if government pays for it.

A more detailed analysis of why RomneyCare is Not ObamaCare is that  ObamaCare seeks to provide universal coverage via the United States government. This is nothing more than a takeover of 1/6th of the American economy.

In contrast, those covered in Massachusetts are covered through the private sector.  The only federal involvement in Mitt’s entire health care plan is that RomneyCare takes Medicaid funds and state money that was applied for emergency rooms and simply redirected that money to allow the poor to buy private health insurance so that tax payers don’t are not footing the bill for those people who are with out insurance and who go to the emergency room.

Thus, even though the person receives financial assistance from the government, they are getting coverage from a private insurer. Other than that small sliver of federal funding, RomneyCare relies on free market principles. There is no state government take over of health care. 

2. RomneyCare was passed with Bipartisan support, ObamaCare Wasn't. 

What people forget is that the people of Mass wanted RomneyCare. Only TWO members of the House and Senate voted against it. TWO. Moreover, RomneyCare passed without any backroom deals, no voting gimmicks such as "deem and pass" and it was done in a bipartisan fashion.

The same cannot be said for ObamaCare.  It passed almost on party lines with all of the Republicans voting no and only 32 Democrats voting against it. But what is worse is that it was passed against the will of the American people.

3. Romney's plan is popular with its citzens, ObamaCare is not supported by the American People

ObamaCare was never popular before or after it passed Congress. After the passage of Obama’s health care plan, a national movement grew to repeal the program.

In contrast, RomneyCare has alwasy been popular.
In 2008, a poll found the following facts:

Two years after the implementation of a health care reform law aimed at providing health coverage for nearly all Massachusetts residents, public support for the law remains high. According to a new poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, over two-thirds (69%) of Massachusetts residents support the law. Just over one in five (22%) oppose the law and approximately one in ten (9%) say they do not know enough about it to give an opinion. Since the law's passage in 2006, public support has increased slightly (69% in 2008 compared to 67% in 2007 and 61% in 2006). (Source.)

RomneyCare is still popular with the citizens of Massachusetts. consider the most recent poll:

"A poll conducted this week by The Washington Post of 880 Massachusetts residents who said they voted in the special election found that 68 percent support the Massachusetts plan. Even among Brown voters, slightly more than half backed the 2006 law.” (Source.) 

Unlike ObamaCare, there is no statewide movement to repeal RomneyCare.

4. Differences In Cost

Before Mitt Romney began his ambitious plan to make health care affordable for the citizens of Massachusetts, he balanced the state budget. This was to ensure that Massachusetts was in good financial health before reform was to begin. Moreover, RomneyCare was projected to cost less than 1.5% of the state budget and has fallen well within its original forecast today. (Source.)

This stands in stark contrast with President Obama who did not ensure that the country was financial sound before pushing ObamaCare through Congress in the midst of a recession, a staggering national debt and high unemployment. Now that ObamaCare has been passed, it estimated to cost the nation 2 trillion dollars. It is worth noting that the CBO estimates have always underestimated the actual cost of every entitlement program it has ever been asked to review.

5. ObamaCare is unconstitutional. RomneyCare is constitutional.

On the issue of constitutionality, the distinction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare has been pointed out over at Evangelicals for Mitt:

"the states and the federal governments have different constitutional powers. States have a general "police power," which allows them to pass laws to advance the health, safety, and (traditionally) morals of the community. The federal government is limited to its enumerated powers. Constitutional critics of Obamacare ask a common-sense question: Where in the enumerated powers of the Constitution is the federal government empowered to require citizens to purchase a product from a private entity?"

6. Complexity v. Simplicity

ObamaCare is a 2,000 page monstrosity. RomneyCare is only about 70 pages long. A simple side by comparison demonstrates this fundamental difference between the two health care plans.

7. ObamaCare Introduces Cuts to Medicaid and Social Security, RomneyCare doesn't.

Our plan did not cut Medicaid or Medicare. Obamacare will divert $1.1 trillion away from Medicare, which is barely solvent as is.

Source.

8. ObamaCare raised taxes, RomneyCare introduced no new taxes.

Higher taxes on individuals and businesses were not part of Mitt Romney's plan whereas approximately $1 trillion in higher taxes will be a huge source of revenue to fund Obamacare.

9. Obama health care plan is a federally administered plan where as RomneyCare is a health care plan only for Massachusetts.

With a state plan, citizens can vote for their feet and either stay with the program or move to another state that offers a more competitive or affordable health care plan. However, with a universal health care plan, there's no where to run. No matter what state you move to, you'll have no choice but to be covered under ObamaCare.

10. RomenyCare and ObamaCare are drastically different in terms of legislative intent.
Listen to Mitt Romney explains the intent of RomneyCare during his interview with Sean Hannity beginning at 4:30 time mark of the clip below:

As stated by Mitt in the interview, the intent of Romney's health care plan was to introduce free market principles into the state's health care system. Make it work more like a market. 

Listen to Obama's intent behind his health care plan in his interview with John Stewart on the Daily Show.  If you don't want to watch the entire thing, go to approximately the 8 minute mark and listen. Watch the video below:

The Daily Show - Barack Obama Pt. 2
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

As the President stated himself, the "change" in the nation's health care program was to simply make it a framework that will allow for future growth of the federal government. His example of Social Security is used to drive this point home. Social Security was initially sold as support for widows and orphanages but later the "structure" of this program blossomed into a massive entitlement program. He points out that the same is true for every progressive piece of legislation, which includes ObamaCare, in which it started out small but it was never intended to be small. It was designed to allow them to make further "progress" which is another way of saying expanding the government. The implication that Obama is making is that ObamaCare will eventually grow into a single payer program over time.

This isn't the first time Obama has admitted that he wants a single-payer system:

 If you couldn't clearly hear what he said in the above clip, here's the what Obama said when he was running for President:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

11. ObamaCare puts people in jail if you don't pay, RomneyCare simply requires you to pay a fine. 
Both RomneyCare and ObamaCare require you to pay a fine if you don't buy health insurance. However , the big difference is that there is no jail sentence under RomneyCare while ObamaCare does. Read the law and see what it says on page 336 of ObamaCare:

"(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

12.  ObamaCare pays off big business and big unions, RomneyCare doesn't.

ObamaCare is a trojan horse for political payback to unions and companies who support President Obama under the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program in which it paid $1.7 billion to big businesses and big unions. Not only does ObamaCare pay off big companies and big unions, but let us not forget that it granted waivers to big businesses and big unions too. The number of waivers that the Obama Administration has granted is over 1,000 and climbing. Granting a waiver on the basis of political payback is a form of payment since these organizations will not suffer the burden of operating under ObamaCare and will result in huge financial savings for them. In effect, these organizations are getting rewarded twice for their political loyalty. These organizations are getting money from Obama's administration and they're getting a huge financial savings by obtaining the wavier from the Obama Administration.

In contrast, unlike ObamaCare, RomneyCare does not give financial awards and waivers to big business and big unions as away of political payback for past or future political support. The agency that grants such waivers is completely independent of the Massachusetts Governor's office.

13. ObamaCare has no standard by which it grants waivers. RomneyCare has a standard by which it grants waivers. 

ObamaCare is very arbitrary in its grant of waivers because there is no open disclosure of how the decision was made to grant these waivers or on what basis it was made. So far, it appears to be made on an arbitrary basis since the Secretary of Health and Human Services and those in that department, under ObamaCare, gets to determine who gets the waivers and who doesn't: 

"The entire act is filled with the phrase, “The secretary shall determine” or equivalents, meaning that HHS can essentially make up and change rules as they go along.  No one knows what to expect from this vast expansion of regulatory power precisely because it’s based on executive whimsy rather than sound and objective law.  Apart from all other aspects of ObamaCare, this is the most destructive quality in regard to the rule of law — and Congress had better act to stop it from proceeding for that reason alone."

In contrast, RomneyCare does allow people to request waivers from RomneyCare on the basis of financial hardship:

Massachusetts regulators granted more exemptions last year to residents who said they could not afford the health insurance required by the state, waiving the tax penalty for more than half of those who appealed, according to state data.

Of the 2,637 people who applied, 63 percent received an exemption with 107 cases pending, up from 44 percent the previous year.

State officials said they excused the majority of waiver applicants in large part because of the protracted sour economy, which made insurance unaffordable for more people. Under the 2006 state law that requires most residents to have coverage, regulators have significant latitude to authorize waivers by taking into account factors such as a home foreclosure.

The number of people seeking exemptions in 2010 was about the same as in 2009, and state figures show that roughly 98 percent of residents were insured last year.

As a result, we know how the waivers are granted and on what basis in Massachusetts. That is a big difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.

Stupak's 30 Pieces of Silver

Instapundit has written a post about the coincidental link between pro-life Bob Stupak's  (D-Menominee) announcement that three northern Michigan airports will receive federal funding and his switch from voting noyes for ObamaCare. Stupak switched his vote after he agreed to accept an executive order from President Barack Obama to ensure funds wouldn't be used for abortions.

As a result of Stupak's vote, the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, has announced that they are retracting their plan to honor Bob Stupak at their annual Campaign for Life Gala. 

Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser made this statement available to the public: 

"This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform-We will no longer be doing so. By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country."

"Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves 'pro-life.' The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote 'yes' on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November."

President Marjorie Dannenfelser points out that Bob Stupak's agreement for Obama's executive order on abortion in exchange for voting yes on ObamaCare was that Stupak gets nothing in selling his vote to the Democrats:

"The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President's whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless."

Last night, Rep. DeGette told The Huffington Post, "If there was an executive order saying they weren't going to use federal funds in the bill to pay for abortions that would be fine with me."

Today, Rep. Wasserman Schultz admitted to Fox News' Megyn Kelly that "an executive order cannot change the law."

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out today that "only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."

Stupak would never trade or sell his vote for something as meaningless as a executive order.  The only way Stupak gets his pieces of silver is if he gets federal funding for three airports in his district.

ObamCare May Come Down To A Mere 5 votes

The House of "Representatives" is currently in the process of passing ObamaCare, the last stop of universal health care will not be on the President's desk but before the Supreme Court.

As stated in the previous post, Idaho passed a law instructing the Attorney General sue the Government while 37 other states are considering passing similar legislation. Two state attorney generals are taking the initiative and are not waiting for the state government to issue instructions file similar lawsuits.

It is possible that Universal health care may ultimately pass or fail by a slim margin of 5 votes. The 5 crucial voters are not members of Congress but members of the Supreme Court. ObamaCare may pass or fail by a 5-4 vote, as another controversial supreme court case did in Bush v. Gore, and will depend on what constitutional issue is brought before the Supreme Court. But it will be many years before the final votes on the Constitutionality of ObamCare is decided.

The Potato Pushback: Idaho and ObamaCare

There is good news coming out of Idaho today:

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter on Wednesday became the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health reforms that force residents to buy insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states nationwide.

Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government. (Source.)

It appears that a tidal wave of lawsuits is slowly forming in anticipation of the passage of ObamaCare. Not only are states pushing back but so are a handful of physicians:

The court challenge, filed on behalf of Daniel G. Anderson of Chevy Chase, Maryland, and nine prominent physicians from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, claims that President Obama "already has abused his executive powers in an effort to leverage control over the vote of key moderate Senators" and that if he is not barred from similar actions, "irreparable harm is actual and imminent."

Administration lawyers will ask Chief Judge Peter J. Messitte (Case No. 8:10-00017.PJM) to deny the doctors' injunction and dismiss the suit on the grounds that the physicians have no standing to bring the action against the Obama healthcare plan and that the issue is a "political question."  In an opposing brief Hagerstown attorney R. Martin Palmer argued that if "Obamacare" were to become law by unconstitutional means, the physicians would suffer "irreparable harm" in being forced to practice medicine "deficiently" and subject them to "arbitrary outside restraints."

At the heart of the physicians' suit is their claim that President Obama has overstepped his constitutional powers:

"Plaintiffs only seek to enjoin a particularly pernicious form of coercion and intimidation, namely the making of threats regarding the use of the President's Executive powers in ways that are adverse [to] the constituents of one or more of the members of Congress in order to pressure those members into voting for (or against) legislation.  This practice involves the use or abuse of the President's Executive powers to leverage control over the Legislative branch, thereby leading to the concentration of powers in a single branch of government that allows for the exercise of arbitrary power and tyranny." (Source.)

 Will this prayer for injunction by the Physicians be successful? We'll have to see and find out.

California Bar Exam: Round Two

The bloggers of Conservative Samizdat are currently studying for the California Bar exam and are unable to post any blogs until after we take the exam in February 23-25.

Wish us luck!