Obama Administration Debates Dying Cancer Patient

Obama’s senior adviser, Dan Pfeiffer, just called a terminal cancer patient a liar, blaming her insurance company for being driven out of business by Obamacare.

At least Obama wasn’t lying when he said, “I’m really good at killing people.”


Obama Lied. 93 Million Health Plans Died

Obama has said it time and time again, most recently saying it in September, 2013: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.  If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

But it was always a baldfaced lie. Still, Jay Carney recently tried to move the goalposts by saying that “only 5% of Americans would be affected” by the insurance-cancelling provisions of Obamacare. He didn’t move them quite far enough, because Obama’s administration knew as far back as 2010 that 93 million Americans would be at risk of losing their health insurance under the Obamacare bill they had just passed.

Yet Obama kept lying, and lying, and lying, and is still lying. He used the media strategy that got him off the hook for so many other lies: He denied knowledge, moved the goalposts, and then blamed the private sector and the Republicans.

But the real question is, are you as stupid as Obama thinks you are? Do you really believe that he had no idea that 93 million health care plans would be at risk from his signature law, even though we have it on record that his advisers told him? Do you really believe he had no idea the Obamacare exchange system was in trouble before the launch? Do you really believe he had no idea his NSA operations were spying on every American, as well as dozens of foreign leaders, including our closest allies? Do you really believe Obama had no idea why the National Park Service was closing down roads, lands, and private businesses that do not require federal funding to remain open during the shutdown? Do you really believe Obama had no idea his IRS appointees were engaging in illegal political harassment and intimidation to help him get reelected? Do you really believe Obama had no idea that the Benghazi attack was carried out by Al Qaeda? Do you really believe that Obama had no idea that his gun-running operation had gotten out of control and killed 300 people?

It’s no coincidence that Obama’s relationship to all of these incidents is similar. It’s called “plausible deniability.” He knew about all of it. And he lied, shamelessly and repeatedly, to avoid all responsibility. Let the subordinates suffer so the head of the operation can continue on. It’s the Chicago way.

I did build this.

For those who don’t understand, or think it’s all a matter of context, allow me to explain what is so offensive about Obama’s statements.

What Obama said cuts very deep for a lot of people. It is a very personal attack to tell someone that they only succeeded because somebody else helped them. That’s basically saying that you don’t deserve the success you received, because you didn’t do it yourself. Of course, that’s exactly what Obama wants to say, because in that speech, he’s explicitly making an argument in favor of taking more money from the successful to pay for more government-controlled “investments.”

Obama has made this personal by using his bully pulpit to attack the achievements of every single individual in this country. And we all know he’s wrong, because each of us knows what it took to achieve the success that we have. I didn’t get into a PhD program just riding on somebody else’s coattails. Certainly, I received plenty of help, from my friends, from my family, from my teachers, even from the government. And I know I couldn’t have done it without them, and am eternally grateful for all of that. But it was still my own hard work, focus, and perseverance that made the difference and got me to my goals. As a scientist, I spend every day struggling to elucidate the intricacies of systems that nobody else in the world understands. Every time I make a breakthrough, that is a great personal achievement. And yet, Obama doesn’t think so.

That is why Obama’s statements were so very insulting. That is why Obama’s entire economic philosophy is an insult. Obama believes that success comes in the form of five year plans and Sputnik projects for the glory of a nation. But we are not just cogs in some productivity machine that he runs. We are all individuals, and we all have our own individual goals and achievements. Collective success comes from the contributions of individuals, not the other way around. I don’t want to live in a country where I am a servant to the nation. I want to live in a country that secures the freedom for me to achieve my goals, and lets me help society in the way I feel I am best suited to.

The Individual Mandate Oral Arguments

The oral arguments over ObamaCare are here:

Day 1 deals with whether or not the Tax Anti-Injunction Act bars legal challenges against the mandate until the “tax” goes into effect.

Day 2 deals with the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate.

Day 3 deals with the constitutionality of the Medicaid eligibility expansion, as well as the severability of the Individual Mandate.

By my evaluation, it looks like 6 out of 9 justices (including Sotomayor) are ready to strike down the mandate and at least 5 justices are ready to take down the whole Act with it. The Solicitor General simply could not articulate any sort of consistent limiting principle that could allow the mandate power to derive from the Commerce Clause without giving the federal government unlimited power. Additionally, the whole Act is such a massive monstrosity that passed by such narrow margins that the Justices did not feel comfortable trying to evaluate which portions of the Act would have passed without the mandate.

However, progressive pundits have been fighting back, saying that the limiting principle is there, and the Justices just weren’t listening. They say that the health care market is unique because “Health care is market that everybody will be a part of and must be administered in an emergency basis. NO other market has such a consideration.” This exact statement comes from a progressive on the forums who heard this argument from Sam Seder on a progressive radio show. I’ve heard similar statements coming from numerous other progressives.

The thing is, I have to question whether any of these progressives are actually reading the oral arguments before chiming in like this. Solicitor General Verrilli and Justice Ginsburg tried to make exactly this argument, and it didn’t hold up under scrutiny. First of all, how a service must be administered in order to be most effective or most financially sustainable (e.g. unexpectedly or paid for in advance) is a matter of whether or not a certain act is a good idea, not a matter of whether or not it’s legal. As Justice Kagan once pointed out, the questions of whether or not a law is stupid and whether or not it is legal are completely independent of one another. If the constitutional portions of the law are stupid unless something that cannot be constitutionally justified on its own merits is passed along with it, it doesn’t alleviate concerns of unconstitutionality. As one of the other Justices pointed out (I forget whether it was Roberts, Scalia, or Kennedy), there are plenty of constitutional ways Congress could completely break the economy, and that doesn’t justify unconstitutional action to alleviate those problems deliberately created by Congress. So if Congress doesn’t want to pass a stupid law, they simply should not try to pass a stupid law, not try to violate the constitution in order to make a stupid law a little less stupid.

So, on to the second “unique” factor. “Health care is market that everybody will be a part of.” The Justices brought up a couple of problems with this claim. As Kennedy described, government could define the market that it’s regulating as “the food market,” which everyone will unquestionably be a part of at some point. Would that allow Congress to mandate that everyone buy broccoli? What about the housing market? Can the government force everyone to buy apartments rather than houses? And the transportation market? can the government force everyone to buy a GM car? The information market? Can the government force everyone to buy the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal?

And what about Christian Science followers? Obtaining any kind of health services is against their religion, so that means that not everybody will be a part of the health care market. At best, you can only say that “most” people will be a part of the market. Justice Kennedy nailed Verrilli with this one, and then went on to ask what percentage of the population has to be engaged in a market in order for the government to decide that it can assume that everyone is participating in the market. Is 90% good enough? What about 70%? If we’re letting the government create mandates for everyone regarding markets that only “most people” participate in, then can it also create mandates about the electronics market? Can they force everyone to buy a Macbook? What about the movie market? The cell phone market? The energy market? Is there any market Congress can’t touch?

As Justice Kennedy pointed out, if nobody can find a limiting principle, then the Individual Mandate cannot possibly be considered constitutional.

Here’s what Obama is gonna do if he stays for 4 more years

He will continue doing much of what he’s done for the last 2.5 years. That means:

:bulletblack: More indefensible bureaucratic expansion. [link]
:bulletblack: More regulation of company mobility to prevent profitable enterprises from fleeing Democratic majority states to search for more freedom elsewhere. [link]
:bulletblack: More economic failure, leading to Carter-style stagflation. [link]
:bulletblack: More debt growth, as he resists all attempts to steer the country away from an imminent Greek-style crash. [link]
:bulletblack: More moralistic nationalization, enforced through militarization of the US police forces, pushing us towards a Soviet-style police state. [link] [link] [link]
:bulletblack: More corrupt abuses of executive power, bordering on illegality. [link] [link] [link]

If you want to continue these disturbing trends, to disregard liberty in favor of a Soviet-style socialist nation under a government with totalitarian control over your personal life and endeavors, then by all means, vote for Obama in 2012. But if you want change- economic recovery and the restoration of the values of liberty -then for your own sake, vote against the Democrats!

Obama is Actively Holding Back the Economy

In order to secure reelection, Obama will have to argue that the economy would’ve been worse without his policies. He will argue extensively that no matter how bad things are, they would’ve been worse without him. However, that’s not what the data shows.

As you can see, the natural growth of the economy normally results in a strong growth trajectory following a big crash. This can be attributed to the fact that no technology is lost, and the efficient market hypothesis should lead to oscillation around a constant exponential growth trajectory, as shown in the first graph. This pattern even appears throughout the Great Depression.

However, in our current economic depression, we haven’t had that bounce-back they way we naturally should. You’ll notice in the second graph that recovery began in 1st Quarter, FY2009 (which is actually Oct. 1st 2008 through Dec. 31st 2008). A strong growth curve continues through 4th Quarter FY2009 (ending in September 2009). But then it stops. What happened?

Was it because the stimulus ended? Well, no, the majority of the stimulus money was spent throughout 2010. Yet, growth was stagnant throughout 2010. So the argument that “the stimulus just wasn’t big enough” really doesn’t match the data.

With the worst economic recovery in the history of the country upon us, this data makes it very clear that Obama’s economic policies have actively hindered economic growth to an extent never seen before under any previous president. No Republican or Democrat has held back economic growth as severely as Obama. He must be removed from office and his policies must be repealed if we want to see economic growth return to this country. Think about this when it comes time to vote in the 2012 elections.

Future Leaders of America Express Reservations About Freedom of Speech

This is a little scary. My generation isn’t too fond of the right to freedom of speech. And when I say “Future Leaders of America,” I don’t mean it in the trite and meaningless way it’s normally used- I mean it literally.

Georgetown University is famous for producing many of the political leaders of this country. Notable alumni include Governor Mitch Daniels, Pat Buchanan, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, George Tenet (Director of the CIA), John Podesta, M. Ashraf Haidari, Justice Antonin Scalia, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Representative Steny Hoyer, Lt. General John Allen, our 42nd President, and many others. You’d have a hard time finding a committee or bureaucracy in Washington without at least one Georgetown alum.

Isn’t it a little bit disturbing that the youngest generation capable of voting has become so complacent about the concept of liberty that those of them who may one day be running this country seem to think it’s a good idea to censor those they disagree with? How do we put an end to this dangerous complacency?