Suit to Overturn Obamacare Hears First Arguments

By: David A. Patten

All eyes will be focused on a Pensacola, Florida courtroom Tuesday as Justice Department lawyers will try to convince a federal district court judge to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states charging that President Obama's healthcare reforms are unconstitutional.

The multi-state lawsuit has been led by Florida's Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican.

The Obama administration has claimed that the states have no legal standing to bring their legal action.

The central issue in the hearing: Whether the states are legally empowered to challenge the fines in the individual mandate that gives Obamacare its bite.

In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Attorney General McCollum says the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority.

"We are arguing that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to tell you, if you are just sitting in front of your TV set, or doing nothing in the way of real economic activity, that you have to buy a health insurance policy or pay a penalty," McCollum tells Newsmax.

"That's just not in the Constitution," he adds. "The Founding Fathers didn't enumerate any powers that appear to us to give them the right to say this."

The stakes could hardly be higher.

If the administration prevails, it would deal a major blow to conservatives' hopes of using the courts to block the administration's signature piece of legislation.

If the judge rejects the administration's motion, it would mark the second time in as many months that anti-Obamacare forces have won a major court battle on the unpopular bill that most Democrats would prefer voters forget.

The federal government is expected to argue that the "individual mandate" -- essentially a demand that every citizen buy private health insurance or suffer a fine levied by the IRS -- is actually a tax. Only taxpayers can argue the legality of a tax, they contend, and even then only after the assessments take effect in 2015.

The administration also will cite its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, along with its responsibility to provide for the public's general welfare.

Those are the same arguments the federal government made in a Virginia hearing on the other state-level lawsuit filed against healthcare reform, which was filed by Virginia GOP Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

After hearing from both sides in that case, federal Judge Harry E. Hudson in August rejected the federal government's request to have the case dismissed.

Virginia's case, however, was bolstered by a law the Old Dominion adopted making it illegal to require its citizens to purchase health insurance.

"Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America," wrote Judge Hudson in his 32-page opinion.

Hudson also said the federal government's authority to regulate commerce had never been extended so far before.

McCollum says the penalty the federal government seeks to impose is not a tax.

"Even if it's a tax, we think there's no provision in the Constitution allowing this kind of tax," McCollum tells Newsmax. "When President Obama advocated this legislation, he said there was no tax involved in it. So the government's being a little disingenuous, but they're going to make that kind of an argument in this hearing."

McCollum estimates the expansion of Medicaid in the president's healthcare reforms will cost Florida $1 billion a year. He says he feels "pretty confident" that the judge will allow the case to move forward.

Two taxpayers as well as the nation's leading small-business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have joined his lawsuit. If any one of them is found to have standing, McCollum says, the entire lawsuit would move forward.

McCollum says the healthcare reform legislation could be especially vulnerable once the case reaches the trial phase, because Democrats did not place a severability clause in the bill. That's a common boilerplate provision included in many Congressional bills stipulating that if one provision of a new law is ruled illegal, the remaining parts of the legislation remains in force.

"It certainly is a fact that they have no severability clause," McCollum says. "If at any time we win on any portion of this, then the whole law goes down. I think that the courts are going to look at this as more of a whole. They're going to say, 'How is this all going to interplay?'"

According to The Associated Press, some legal experts believe the 20 states will find it difficult to convince the judge they have been harmed by a law that won't take effect for years. But the NFIB says several of its members have already suffered, because their insurance companies altered policies, and even discontinued them, in anticipation of the new law taking effect.

"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire healthcare law," said NFIB Executive Director Karen Harned. "But we think the entire healthcare law is bad."

Tuesday's hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and each side will have 45 minutes to present its case before U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson.

Vinson is not expected to announce his ruling tomorrow. Both sides in the dispute have indicated the case will eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court — perhaps before the 2012 presidential election.

Obama Brings Chicago-Style Intimidation

by Phyllis Schlafly

Obama's staff and retreads from the Clinton administration are using Chicago-style intimidation to rescue his extravagant health-care bill from its decline in public opinion polls.

A congressional Town Hall meeting on Aug. 6 reminds us of a memorable political moment when Bill Clinton and his chief aides were in Little Rock celebrating his 1992 election. Heady with victory, Chicago staffer Rahm Emanuel demonstrated how he planned to punish political enemies by plunging his steak knife into the table and screaming, "Dead!" as he named each target.

At Rep. Russ Carnahan's, D-Mo., town hall meeting on Aug. 6, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) thugs, clad in purple shirts, punched in the face, brutally beat and kicked in the head when he was down an African American named Kenneth Gladney, while hurling a torrent of racial slurs. The SEIU goons were following White House advice: "Don't do a lot of talking," and if they encounter resistance, "punch back twice as hard."

The Purple Shirt Brigade picked on Gladney because he was passing out historical American flags with the inscription "Don't Tread on Me," and the Left won't tolerate African-Americans as conservatives. Gladney was taken to the hospital, and six people were arrested.

We are seeing a coordinated smear on those who oppose socialized medicine. Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse mislabeled them as "angry mobs of rabid right-wing extremists."

The Obama supporters are trying to make it appear that those opposing socialism in health care are "manufactured" protesters, as falsely alleged by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, and in MSNBC's Chris Matthews' words, a "Brooks Brothers Brigade." Majority Leader Harry Reid calls them "Astroturf" to pretend that those opposing Obama's health-care bill are artificial grass-roots.

The opponents of socialized medicine are just ordinary citizens, many of whom (like Gladney) had never before attended a political meeting, and many who are alumni of the spontaneous Tea Parties. There is no evidence that they are organized and financed by the insurance companies, or even by the Republican Party.

On the other hand, there is evidence that Obama's "punch back" tactics are organized. MoveOn.org sent out a "Dear MoveOn member" email stating: "We've got a plan to fight back against these radical right-wingers. We've hired skilled grass-roots organizers who are working with thousands of local volunteers to show Congress that ordinary Americans continue to support President Obama's agenda for change. And we're building new online tools to track events across the country and make sure MoveOn members turn out at each one."

Emanuel is also using intimidation to make the public believe that the stimulus spending is solving the unemployment problem. He orchestrated four letters to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer from four Cabinet secretaries threatening to cut off Arizona's federal funding because of Sen. Jon Kyl's, R-Ariz., criticism of the stimulus.

A letter to Emanuel from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the threat, which Issa called "Chicago-style tactics." Issa wrote, "While this type of scare tactic may work in Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other members of the United States Congress."

Since Emanuel's "punch back" tactics are now becoming nationally known, it's no wonder that Americans are apprehensive about the White House plan to build a database of citizens who oppose Obama's health-care legislation. The database will be secret, but the fact that the White House is building it has leaked out.

On Aug. 3, Obama's media people posted on the White House Website a notice complaining that "disinformation about health insurance reform" may be spread "via chain emails or through casual conversation." The word goes out to Obamaites: "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help."

What kind of help is the White House requesting? The instruction to Obama devotees states: "If you get an email or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

As Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said, "It is inevitable that the names, email address, IP addresses and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House" (where Emanuel is director-in-chief of Chicago-style retaliation and intimidation).

No doubt Emanuel knows that the White House is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which means he can keep the names on the database secret for political purposes, and that the Presidential Records Act requires the White House to preserve its records without having to release them to the public for more than 10 years.

Late breaking news: Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., just announced that at her next town hall meeting, she will answer only selected written questions and not allow anyone to speak.

Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare

by Chuck Norris


Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.

While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?

Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?

Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.

Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That's why we've spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit KICKSTART program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents' choice.

How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?

Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."

Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.

Health Care Questions Obama Can’t Answer

By Herman Cain

During President Obama’s primetime press conference last Wednesday, he made the usual promises about Obamacare, which have no resemblance to what Congress is working on. The president continues to promise more choices, better health care, fewer costs and less government intervention. The “Health Care De-form” legislation working its way through Congress is just the opposite.

Rather than the lapdog mainstream media doing its job and challenging the president on his assumptions and assertions, they play “run and fetch” with whatever the president says. Since they didn’t do their jobs, here are a few real questions for starters.

Mr. President, since government mandates have never produced the desired results in the history of this country, why do you believe they will work this time?

When the government mandated a salary and wage freeze during World War II, businesses still had to compete for the best people in the workforce. As a result, businesses started offering health insurance benefits as an employment incentive and the practice has intensified over time. So much so, many politicians now proclaim that health care is a “right”.

Mr. President, is food a similar “right”? (No response)

Mr. President, since persistent problems have been reported about Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ health care, why do you believe that this time the government bureaucracy will perform much better than ever before?

I can’t imagine that he really believes that, but he has to keep saying it because that’s what the “sheeple” want to hear, and it provides cover for what the Democrats in Congress are working on to get us on the road to health care rationing.

Mr. President, if the real objective is to provide health insurance for the “uninsured” in this country, then why not allow people the opportunity to pay a small fee to participate in Medicare? In fact, why not offer free Medicare to those that are really, really poor?

According to my calculations the costs would be only a fraction of $1.5 trillion if you use the real number of 8 million chronically uninsured people instead of the misleading 46 million. Alternatively, why not provide a “health insurance voucher” for those who are chronically uninsured?

Mr. President, have you considered changing the law to allow association health plans, along with allowing health insurance premiums to be tax deductible regardless of who paid for them?

History has shown that free market forces are better than government mandates to curb the rapid rise in costs.

At that point, President Obama would pull a “Clinton”. In 1994, when I asked President Bill Clinton a question during a televised town hall meeting he did not want to answer, he said, “Send me your information and I will get back to you, next question.”

I’m still waiting.

Mr. President, since no country with government-controlled health care has been able to avoid health care rationing to control costs, what evidence do you have that suggests we will be able to do what no other country has been able to do?

Oops! The president’s staff might call security on that one.

If the last question of the night about a “racial” incident in Boston involving a friend of the president was not a plant, then it was a brilliant accidental distraction to throw to the media. “Run and fetch” worked again, because that was the main story by many news outlets the next day.

Here’s my last question: Mr. President, do you really know what’s in the “Health Care De-form” legislation?

Sorry, we are out of time.

---

RNC Chair Michael Steele On Obamacare: It's Socialism (Video)

.

The chairman of the Republican Party on Monday called President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul health care "socialism," accusing the president of conducting a risky experiment that will hurt the economy and force millions to drop their current coverage.

Michael Steele, in remarks at the National Press Club, also said the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and key congressional committee chairmen are part of a "cabal" that wants to implement government-run health care.

"Obama-Pelosi want to start building a colossal, closed health care system where Washington decides. Republicans want and support an open health care system where patients and doctors make the decisions," Steele said.

Asked if Obama's health care plan represented socialism, Steele responded: "Yes. Next question."

Obama has repeatedly said he does not favor a government-run health care system. Legislation taking shape in the House envisions private insurance companies selling coverage in competition with the government.

You've got to love how the state-run media defends President Disaster's plan in that last paragraph.