You must log in to post a comment.
A California county has banned a veteran employee from criticizing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because a coworker who overheard the criticism was offended.
The employee is Norina Mooney, who has logged some 20 years of work experience with Santa Clara County, the epicenter of Silicon Valley.
According to Mooney’s attorneys with the Pacific Justice Institute, she made some water-cooler talk with a fellow employee about the high number people who have had their insurance policies canceled under Obamacare.
Later, a supervisor called Mooney into a private meeting and allegedly dressed her down for the attempt at chitchat because an unidentified person had overheard the small talk and been offended.
In the future, the supervisor said, Mooney must exit the government building should she have anything adverse about Obamacare or otherwise political to say.
Mooney’s attorneys noted that this edict is an odd one considering Mooney’s claim that the office environment is replete with pro-Obama paraphernalia. She noted that her coworkers openly wore Obama campaign attire to work at election time as well.
Journalist Mary Katharine Ham reacted Friday to President Obama’s interview with MSNBC last night, telling Fox News his excuses for Obamacare’s flaws proves he is “narrating the presidency, not actually holding the office of the presidency.” Ham spoke with Fox’s Bill Hemmer and the Washington Examiner’s Byron York about Obama’s justification for his healthcare law’s[...]
When the Pelosi-Reid-Obama troika triumphantly celebrated cramming through the ACA (Affordable Care Act) over majority sentiment, they crowed that this was the president’s signature achievement and ACA soon took on the name of its creator, ObamaCare. Though not one of them, nor any of the Democrats in the Senate who voted it into law uni-partisanly had read it, they all assured us that we’d grow to really, really like it. Boy, were they wrong.
We’ve paid almost a billion dollars to a Canadian firm whose vice-president is a college buddy of Michelle Obama’s from their black radical days at Princeton to create a webpage to enroll people mandated by this law to do so, Obama having turned down the U.S. firm IBM’s offer to create it for free. It doesn’t work. Moreover, the continuing problems with this webpage — and law — are so substantial and intractable that the White House propaganda machine has stopped referring to it as ObamaCare or even the Affordable Care Act. Everyone now knows that for most people, the plan loaded with mandated coverage to curry favors with privileged tranches of voters like college girls who want free contraceptives and abortion coverage and to permit anyone to sign up after they found out they need costly care, not before, is far more expensive than what they were previously paying for medical insurance. It’s some kind of no-name thing. Either that or, to be an honest descriptor, we could call it the UFA (Unaffordable Care Act). Under any name it’s dramatically swamping the president and his party’s standing among voters.
I owe Mitt Romney an apology.
During the 2012 Republican presidential primary season, I repeatedly criticized Romney — and personally challenged him during his editorial board meeting with the Washington Examiner — for promising that if elected, on day one of his presidency, he would grant Obamacare waivers to all 50 states.
As I reported, under the text of the law, the ability to offer waivers to states was subject to many restrictions and wouldn’t even be an option until 2017, four years after his hypothetical swearing in.
Though I still believe I was right about what the statute said, as it turns out, I was being old-fashioned by taking the letter of the law so literally.
Having watched President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius over the past several months unilaterally alter or outright ignore major portions of the law, I now believe that a future Republican president would have greater latitude to gut Obamacare than I once thought possible.
These numbers are based on an average of the eight most recent national polls (as of 12/3) for “The One”:
Job Approval: 39.8% (new all-time low)
Job Disapproval: 55.9% (new all-time high)
Approval/Disapproval Spread: -16.1% (new all-time high)
House Speaker John A. Boehner announced Tuesday that he has hired a longtime advocate of legalizing illegal immigrants to be an adviser, signaling that the Republican is still intent on trying to pass an immigration bill during this congressional session.
Immigrant rights advocates cheered the move as a sign of Mr. Boehner’s dedication to action. Those who want a crackdown on illegal immigration said the top Republican in the House has moved closer to embracing amnesty by hiring Rebecca Tallent, a former staffer for Sen. John McCain and fellow Arizona Republican Jim Kolbe.
“Tallent’s hiring suggests he really does still want to push an amnesty through the House, which to me suggests that the immigration hawks still have their work cut out for them,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. “She is a professional amnesty advocate.”
Ms. Tallent is leaving a job as immigration policy director for the Bipartisan Policy Center and will join Mr. Boehner’s staff Wednesday, putting her in the center of one of the thorniest issues in Congress.
In the opening pages of Ray Bradbury’s famous novel Fahrenheit 451, protagonist Guy Montag asks: Wasn’t there a time when firemen used to put out fires? They laugh at him, rebuke him and say: Everybody knows firemen start fires.
Montag knew this. Montag’s father and his grandfather had been firemen. It had been his duty for many years to start fires. He knew it was his duty to burn books, but this day would be different.
Montag arrived on the scene to do his job but found a woman who wouldn’t leave. He complained that she had all of her books but still wouldn’t leave. Undeterred, Montag proceeds with the other firemen to douse her books—and her—with kerosene. The woman shouts out and goads them. She is indignant that they would touch her books at all, and she still wouldn’t leave. She says to them: “Play the man, Master Ridley; today we will light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, that it won’t be forgotten.”
They keep dousing her with kerosene and she says it again: “Play the man, Master Ridley. Today we will light such a candle.”
In the book, the reference is lost on the firemen who simply continue to do their job.
The reference is to 16th century figure Hugh Latimer, who literally became a human candle. He was burned at the stake in 1555 for heresy—opposing the state religion. He wanted to promote the idea that the Bible should be translated into English, which the state forbade.
In America today, we’re not yet burning people at the stake, fortunately. Nor are we burning books. But your government is interested in what books you read. They’re interested in what you say in your phone calls. They’re interested in what you write in your emails.
A cancer patient who spoke out against the cancellation of his insurance by ObamaCare now faces an IRS audit he may not live to see, and says he’ll pay the fine rather than burden his family.
Bill Elliott knows the meaning of the adage that the only two things that are certain are death and taxes, for he is now staring both in the face.
Like the Tea Party before him, Elliott faces an IRS audit for speaking out against the ObamaCare that canceled his insurance coverage he liked and was promised he could keep.
He appeared recently on Charleston, S.C.’s WQSC and was told by the radio host that “you stood up and spoke out about how ObamaCare screwed over your insurance and probably would kill you, and what’s the next thing that happened? You get audited by the IRS. That is not a coincidence.”
Elliott responded, “No, it’s not.”
“I like my doctor. I love my insurance,” Elliott told Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly last Thursday night. “They were paying just about everything, including medication and medical devices.”
Then he got the letter that told him that his cancer was considered “beyond a catastrophic pre-existing condition” and his plan was being canceled because of new regulations.
Social workers in Britain obtained a court order to have a pregnant Italian woman forcibly sedated so her child could be removed from her womb without her consent.
The story, reported by the Telegraph, has raised questions about the powers afforded to social workers in the country.
The woman’s lawyer, Brendan Fleming, called the forced operation “unprecedented.”
The unnamed Italian national was in Britain for a work trip when she suffered a panic attack, which her family believes happened because she didn’t take her medications for bipolar disorder.
Her lawyer told the Telegraph she called police after suffering a breakdown. Cops took to her a psychiatric hospital, where she was restrained under the Mental Health Act.
After five weeks the ward, she said she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up, she was told her child had been delivered by caesarian section.
Not caring about what happens to gay men is like not caring about prison rape. Prisoners are our brothers, too, and so are gay men. We must care deeply about the abuse of our brothers in prison and we must care deeply about the lives led by our gay brothers.
Prison rape seems a world away from us, a subject we try not to think about, yet it is rampant, dehumanizing and deadly dangerous. In the same way, we avert our gaze from the lives led by gay men. Certainly ignoring the lives of gay men is what the paladins of the gay movement want us to do. If others peek behind the curtain of the white-picket-fence-homosexuality they have built up for public consumption, support for the movement would wither and probably die.
I do not equate sex between gay men and prison rape. I draw the parallel simply to compare how we look away from certain things and act as if the subjects of those acts are not part of us, part of society, part of the human family. The active gay man and the prisoner are our brothers and we have to be concerned with both. But we quite deliberately look away from the reality of both.
But look we must, particularly since we are being asked to consider that homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality, that same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage can be the same, that gay sex can in fact be spousal.
The arguments made by our best defenders of man-woman marriage focus almost exclusively on the definition of marriage and the rights of children to have both a mother and a father, and they explicitly say their arguments have nothing to do with the underlying question of homosexuality. Their arguments are very effective and I do believe they are making converts to the pressing cause of marriage. But in those arguments, one of the things lost is the real lives of gay men. It is as if we really do not care about them.
This is a difficult topic that no one wants to talk about. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage tells me that these arguments are not effective during active political campaigns. These arguments can backfire in those situations. Even so, we should show greater regard for our gay brothers by paying more attention to their lives.