Obama Now May Have Doubts ObamaCare Will Work

In the words of POTUS himself, Obama may have doubts his own healthcare law will even work. 

Implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, popularly known as ObamaCare. has been at best rocky, requiring many changes, delays in implementation, and still facing significant opposition at the state level. Recent Polls show high rates of public disapproval of the program, including 54% at CBS last week.

Responding to these polls and defending his namesake ObamaCare, POTUS said the " law will gain popularity once key provisions take effect next year and people are able to more easily purchase insurance."

Then he went on to say  " ......The test of this (ObamaCare) is going to be, is it working. And if it works, it will be pretty darn popular." (bold mine) This uncertainty was revealed during a New York Times interview buried in the last few graphs.

If it works. If ObamaCare Works.

The Times interviewers, Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear , sure missed their follow up chance on this one. 

Why do you think it might not work, Mr. President?

What happens if it does not work, Mr. President?

In just a few months, enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges starts, with coverage to commence on January 1, 2014.

Perhaps we would be best served if we knew now what would happen if ObamaCare does not work. Soon it may be too late.

It's a TRAP! Delay of ObamaCare illegal - Business still subject to fines.

Today the President unilaterally declared the non-implementation of a section of ObamaCare (ACA-Affordable Care Act) that seemingly will allow companies to postpone decisions about workers health care coverage and workers qualifications to fall under the program if they work more than 28 hours per week.




By what authority does he do this?


The law is the law and the effective dates is written in it, this can only be changed by an act of congress, not by a simple presidential speech. Or even an executive order.

So what happens if business owners act based on the postponement speech, fail to file the reports, fail to offer conforming healthcare programs or fail to pay the fines?

They are in violation of the law. They are subject to the many fines and penalties contained in the legislation.

If it looks too good to be true, it generally is.

Obama Loss due to Bradley effect?

Ok, here it comes. Tomorrow. THE Election. The 2012 Presidential Race. Obama verses Romney. Some say good verses evil, some say black African American verses white American American.

The Polls are all over the place, but overall the objective respectable ones show a very tight race. If you want to know how accurate a poll may be, try an experiment. Put aside questions such as the demographics, methodology, question bias, push polls, small sample polls with heavy bias in survey selection (such as one I saw with Dem +10) just for the moment and consider the Bradley Effect.

From Wikipedia: 'The Bradley effect theory posits that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias. Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. Members of the public may feel under pressure to provide an answer that is deemed to be more publicly acceptable, or 'politically correct'. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor in to voters' answers.'

Will we see a similar result tomorrow? Are the polls that far off? I analyzed several prominent polls and adjusted them for several factors to reach a relatively equal sample of D and R and independents and also properly weighted Male/Female. These adjustments were based on an average of actual voting patterns over the last few election cycles, voter registration and average turnout. This analysis shows Romney up by 2 points nationally, and up 1/2 point overall in the swing states. It should provide a few percentages points of victory and an electoral college count of 282 - here is the result published 9/23/2012: Romney Wins

The Bradley Effect is most likely at play here for many pollsters.

Expect some surprises Wednesday. And some very red faces.

UN to Directly Tax American Citizens?

Rumours about this have circulated for months, since there have been several occasions wherein UN Officials have expressed a desire for more income thru taxes on member nations. In the Fox News article linked below, Dick Morris tells us how it may be done in a second Obama Term, and what the consequences are. In a word, DIRE.

More and more we see these redistribution schemes around the world, and most of the time it seems to me the skim off the top goes to the elite leaders, bankers and officials who administer these programs. Less and less seems to reach the intended programs. Some of these programs are quite worthy, like preventing disease, feeding and educating children, some little more than scams, which I think best not to name here.

At any rate, it is clear that the UN is pursuing a global agenda that puts them in charge eventually of everything. The model seems to be the EU. As one gal once said, 'how's that working out for ya?' (Sarah Palin, of course).

This is just one of the reasons this election is so critical. The choice truly is what path this country will take, and where it will lead, and the paths offered by the two candidates diverge sharply. Choose wisely, please. 

Read More:  United Nations Wants To TAX All Americans

September Jobs Report - Math Challenged and Too Convenient

Even Morning Joe Scarborough questions this one, as does his panel. Listen in: September Job Numbers Don't Make Sense.

And he is right, 366,000 people seem to have just disappeared. Poof! Vanished. Gone.
Check U6 - Seasonally Adjusted - no change there at all. So how can this be?

Has the BLS reporting become political? This dramactic drop in U3 unemployment could not be accomplished with such a dismal 114,000 jobs growth report. It certainly is convenient for the administration, but ut may turn out to be an inconvenient truth if these jubmers have been finagled.

Jack Welch seems to think so, here is his tweet:  "Unbelievable job numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers" CNNMoney posted it here:  Questions on the Jobs Report

This could get interesting. Listen for the leaks.

New Obama Scandal in the Making?

A New Major Donor scandal may be in the making. Alleging possible illegal and foreign contributions via unsecured credit cards, the Examiner hints that the story breaks tomorrow or Monday on a national magazine and national website and is a blockbuster!

Read more at the Examiner:  New Scandal for the Obama Campaign?

Did Obama State a Marxist Principle in the Debate?

Most of us, at least back when schools actually taught their students, learned that Karl Marx wrote a communist manifesto, and the the main creed was this: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)', which was the 'campaign slogan' popularized by Karl Marx.

Let's take a quick look at the closing argument from the debate made by POTUS. From the Weekly Standard with the link below.

>>>>>
Obama: ' And everybody's getting a fair share," Obama said, before quickly correcting himself and adding. "Everybody's doing a fair share, and everybody's playing by the same rules,"
>>>>>
Pretty close?

'From each according to their abilities' vs 'Everybody's doing a fair share'

'To each according to his needs' vs 'Everybody's getting a fair share'

Doing your fair share based on your abilities and getting a fair share based on your needs.

Is this one of those '...same rules...' he wants us to be playing by, or am I reaching?

Read More at the Weekly Standard:  Everybody's getting a fair share

With an update on the way......

Romney Staff Memo Leaked, Lowers the Debate Bar

Strange way to leak it. Romney will most likely win the first debate and prevail in the eyes of the voters, however the MSM probably already have their Obama Wins BIG headlines and articles ready to go, no matter what happens in the actual debate. Obama can disclose recipes for tastily cooked Dog Dishes he enjoyed as a child and the MSM will tell us how nutricious and healthy they are. But the voters won't be fooled, now or in November.

Keep in mind the questions posed by the moderators will just be white noise for the candidates to ignore. Their answers will be the stock phrases memorized as the position least likely to offend the majority of voters. Follow up questions may challenge the original answer, and in this are Mitt will shine. He can actually think on his feet somewhat. POTUS often does not.

Keep it on track. It's the economy. The only answer is "I will create the conditions for more JOBS!!"

Obama Called "War Criminal"!

Ralph Nader today called the President of the United States a "war criminal"! From the article:  “He’s gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81649.html#ixzz27Vm2COvW

2012 Election Prediction - Romney Wins!

Here it is the path to the Romney Presidency - posted 9-23-2012

Return fire in the Obama Supreme Court Kinetic Action, Court requires DOJ to agree on authority to overturn ACA

Wow, fast and quick to the point. The Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals returned a volley in the ObamaCare Constitutionality Kinetic Action Battle Royale with a  Surprise Response to the Supreme War of Words by POTUS. They did not sound pleased. Nor acquiescent. Nor accommodating. In fact they instructed the DOJ Attorney to "write and submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon on Thursday explaining whether the administration acknowledges that the courts have the right to overturn federal laws." It seems they think that there are in fact three separate, but equal, branches of government, and, as held in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States has the authority and the ability to overturn laws in non-conformance with the Constitution. No fools they in Circuit 5.

Point of fact: It is an absolute certainty the Supremes can overturn or nullify any Federal Law that violates the constitution. Even a first year law student knows this, even before they take the LSAT. And so does President Obama. For certain. They have before, on many occasions, and will again. In fact they may again do it this summer.

You may be sure and certain of this authority.

Read more: Court Orders DOJ to provide documentation on overturning Obamacare 

The gauntlet thrown is acknowledged. And tread upon.

GOP Budget Fears: Flights Cancelled, jobs lost, less accurate weather forecasts, may affect food, water, air regulation

The Madness of Desperation. Slamming the Republican budget, POTUS claims if Republicans are elected it will likely cause flight cancellations, loss of air traffic controllers, and less accurate weather forecasts. Also emergency evacuations during severe weather events will be delayed, since the GOP Budget will not allow new satellites to launch.

This comes from a President who cancelled the NASA Space Programs and put thousands out of work, making Brevard County look like a ghost town.

POTUS goes on to say we will be unable to enforce the laws that regulate food, air and water. Woe is us! This warning portends a fearful scenario indeed. Almost Apocalyptic.

ObamaCare: Opening Shout in the Kinetically Active Battle Royale

While entertaining the heads of state of both Canada and Mexico, President Obama got in a comment about his bill, the Affordable Care Act, and it's fate before the US Supreme Court. In his statement, he assured his audience he was "confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress". What?

Read more: Obamacare cannot be overturned by a "unelected group" practicing "Judicial Activism"

One would think a student of the constitution would recall one or two examples of just this action in the past. After all, these decisions of the court to overturn established laws passed by congress had wide ranging ramifications when these decisions came down. Many were not popular, but evidently they were in keeping with the constitution. Like them or not, agree with them or not, the facts are the Supreme Court has acted as the protector of the Constitution, in the long run probably a good thing.

Courtesy of InfoPlease, here is a partial list from the past, decisions where laws were overturned by the Robed Nine.

1896

Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”

1954

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka invalidated racial segregation in schools and led to the unraveling of de jure segregation in all areas of public life. In the unanimous decision spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court invalidated the Plessy ruling, declaring “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” and contending that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall was one of the NAACP lawyers who successfully argued the case.

1963

Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed a defendant's right to legal counsel. The Supreme Court overturned the Florida felony conviction of Clarence Earl Gideon, who had defended himself after having been denied a request for free counsel. The Court held that the state's failure to provide counsel for a defendant charged with a felony violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Gideon was given another trial, and with a court-appointed lawyer defending him, he was acquitted.

1964

New York Times v. Sullivan extended the protection offered the press by the First Amendment. L.B. Sullivan, a police commissioner in Montgomery, Ala., had filed a libel suit against the New York Times for publishing inaccurate information about certain actions taken by the Montgomery police department. In overturning a lower court's decision, the Supreme Court held that debate on public issues would be inhibited if public officials could sue for inaccuracies that were made by mistake. The ruling made it more difficult for public officials to bring libel charges against the press, since the official had to prove that a harmful untruth was told maliciously and with reckless disregard for truth.

1966

Miranda v. Arizona was another case that helped define the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. At the center of the case was Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to a crime during police questioning without knowing he had a right to have an attorney present. Based on his confession, Miranda was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that criminal suspects must be warned of their rights before they are questioned by police. These rights are: the right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and, if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, to have one appointed by the state. The police must also warn suspects that any statements they make can be used against them in court. Miranda was retried without the confession and convicted.

1973

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion and is at the center of the current controversy between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates. The Court ruled that a woman has the right to an abortion without interference from the government in the first trimester of pregnancy, contending that it is part of her “right to privacy.” The Court maintained that right to privacy is not absolute, however, and granted states the right to intervene in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

1978

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority. In other words, affirmative action was unfair if it lead to reverse discrimination. The case involved the University of Calif., Davis, Medical School and Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was rejected twice even though there were minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. A closely divided Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of rigid quotas was not permissible.

2003

Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the University of Michigan Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions. In her majority opinion, Justice O'Connor said that the law school used a “highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file.” Race, she said, was not used in a “mechanical way.” Therefore, the university's program was consistent with the requirement of “individualized consideration” set in 1978's Bakke case. “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity,” O'Connor said. However, the court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions system, which awarded 20 points to black, Hispanic, and American-Indian applicants, was “nonindividualized, mechanical,” and thus unconstitutional.

2006

In Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, a challenge to a New Hampshire law that prohibits doctors from performing an abortion on a minor until 48 hours after a parent has been notified is heard. The Supreme Court rules that the government cannot restrict abortions when one is required during a medical emergency.

2007

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the court no longer requires that the regulation of abortion by government must protect the mother's health.

2010

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled, 5–4, that the government cannot restrict the spending of corporations for political campaigns, maintaining that it's their First Amendment right to support candidates as they choose. This decision upsets two previous precedents on the free-speech rights of corporations. President Obama expressed disapproval of the decision, calling it a "victory" for Wall Street and Big Business.

InfoPlease Supreme Court Overturned Laws