Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu Loses Runoff Campaign to Republican Challegnger Bill Cassidy

Red is for the parishes that Cassidy won while Blue is the parishes that voted for Landrieu. It wasn't even as close as it appears on the map.

The 2014 midterm elections officially wrapped up on Saturday and the Republican party extended their total gains to nine US senate seats when the polls closed in Louisiana for a runoff election for the US Senate seat held by incumbent Mary Landrieu. Observers both inside and outside the Sportsman's Paradise believe the December runoff campaign may not have been necessary if the ballot in the November general election wasn't split between multiple Republican candidates. Last month, both Landrieu and challenger Bill Cassidy failed to get more than 50% of the vote, making last week's runoff necessary.

Sen Landrieu's re-election bid seemed doomed late when she said in an interview shortly before the general election that she stated southern states like her native Louisiana were hostile towards women and minorities. Just days before the runoff voting, she gave a radio interview where she implied the host was illiterate and hung up only part way through when she was facing repeated questioning over her support for 0bamacare.

Nationally, Landrieu was further hurt by the Senate Democrats rejecting a hastily put together bill supporting the KeystoneXL pipeline by a lame-duck session of congress and President Obama's executive order that effectively gave amnesty to more than 5 million illegal immigrants late last month. Offshore drilling and energy exploration in the Gulf of Mexico contributes millions of dollars to Louisiana's economy annually and it's believed that the oil from northern Alberta's Athabasca oil sands that would be carried by the proposed pipeline would end up in a Louisiana refinery.

Senator-elect Cassidy had previously served as a Congressman from Louisiana's 6th district and in the Louisiana's Senate after receiving an MD from the LSU school of Medicine and helped establish the Greater Baton Rouge Community Clinic.

Obamacare Architecht: Law Passed Because of Lack of Transparency, "Stupidity" of American Voters

A series of videos have surfaced showing MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber, the man widely credited with crafting President Obama's sweeping healthcare law, admitting that the law was written in a vague and deceptive manner by design to hide costs and that the Affordable Care Act was ultimately passed thanks to the 'stupidity of the American voter'.

As of Friday, the total number of videos circulating of Gruber boasting to audiences about the circumstances under which Obamacare had passed was six. A number of the recently surfaced videos date from 2010 and 2011, while the most recent videos date back to fall of 2013 and there may be even more damning video to come.

In a 2011 conversation about the Affordable Care Act, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the law more commonly known as Obamacare, talked about how the bill would get rid of all tax credits for employer-based health insurance through "mislabeling" what the tax is and who it would hit.

The issue at hand in this sixth video is known as the "Cadillac tax," which was represented as a tax on employers' expensive health insurance plans. While employers do not currently have to pay taxes on health insurance plans they provide employees, starting in 2018, companies that provide health insurance that costs more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family will have to pay a 40 percent tax.

"Economists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer provider health insurance," Gruber said at the Pioneer Institute for public policy research in Boston. The subsidy is "terrible policy," Gruber said.

"It turns out politically it's really hard to get rid of," Gruber said. "And the only way we could get rid of it was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans."

(The White House press secretary said at a press briefing in 2010: "I would disagree with your notion that it is a tax on an individual since the proposal is written as a tax on an insurance company that offers a plan.")

The second way was have the tax kick in "late, starting in 2018. But by starting it late, we were able to tie the cap for Cadillac Tax to CPI, not medical inflation," Gruber said. CPI is the consumer price index, which is lower than medical inflation.

Gruber explains that by drafting the bill this way, they were able to pass something that would initially only impact some employer plans though it would eventually hit almost every employer plan. And by that time, those who object to the tax will be obligated to figure out how to come up with the money that repealing the tax will take from the treasury, or risk significantly adding to the national debt.

"What that means is the tax that starts out hitting only 8% of the insurance plans essentially amounts over the next 20 years essentially getting rid of the exclusion for employer sponsored plans," Gruber said. "This was the only political way we were ever going to take on one of the worst public policies in America."

Unions and employers who object in 2018, he noted, "at that point if they want to get rid of it they're going to have to fill a trillion dollar hole in the deficit...It's on the books now."

Speeches with much more blunt language on Gruber's part had surfaced on conservative blogs and talk radio earlier this week, although the story didn't begin gaining coverage until later on in the week when more videos began surfacing.

The comments were made during the panel sessions at the Annual Health Economics Conference last year.

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes," he said during a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania in October, 2013. "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the 'stupidity of the American voter' or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Democrats who were pivotal in passing Obamacare were quick to distance themselves from Gruber. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who cited Gruber's work during the push to pass Obamacare, denied knowing who he was and attempted to downplay his role in crafting the law during a press conference on Friday.

Gruber himself boasted of a 2009 meeting with the President Obama about the healthcare law in a 2012 interview- the White House visitor's log confirms Gruber's visit.

While some pundits have been wondering why these videos didn't surface before the election, their release may have been timed to coincide with something else altogether. The revelations come before the issue of Obamacare is once again before the Supreme Court. This time, the law is being challenged based on subsidies for the 14 states that didn't set up state-run Obamacare exchanges and the Administration's case could very well be undercut by Gruber's statements.

Maine Liberal Group Distributes Flyer Accusing Wheelchair-Bound State Representative of Having "No Spine" in Not "Standing Up" To Governor

A left-wing Portland, ME advocacy group has sent out a mailer accusing state representative Dale Crafts [R- Lisbon Falls] of having 'no spine' and failing to 'stand up' to Gov Paul LePage's 'bullying'. Crafts, who also serves on the Lisbon, ME town council, is confined to a wheelchair.

The Maine's People Alliance mailer, which is done up like a mock prescription pad (shown above) was mailed throughout Craft's district in Androscoggin County just north of Portland.

The left-wing advocacy group Maine's People Alliance took issue with Governor LePage's veto of Medicaid expansion last month. In his veto letter to the state legislature, LePage said:

“Maine has been down this road before, and we must learn from previous experience,” he wrote. “Medicaid spending grew by $1 billion in a decade, hospital bills were not being paid by the state, budgets were broken and thousands of elderly, and people with disabilities were forced to wait for critical services.

“For the sake of the truly needy and Maine taxpayers, we cannot go down this path again,”

Expansion of Medicaid for each state was considered a linchpin of 0bamacare. Under 0bamacare, the federal government would pay for any state that expanded Medicaid to anyone making less than 138% of the poverty level, but only through 2016.

State House minority leader Ken Fredette blasted the mailed and called for the MPA to publicly apologize. The communications director for Maine's People's Alliance said he has personally apologized to Rep Crafts via telephone but will continue to attack him over his support for LePage and opposition to proposed Medicaid expansion in Maine.

This would not be the first time in the 2014 election cycle that a liberal group has mocked a Republican with a disability. In January, undercover reported James O'Keefe videotaped Battleground Texas staff and supporters of Democrat gubernatorial candidate Wendy David mocking Texas attorney general Greg Abbot's disability
as well as forging signatures on resignation forms.

Oregon's 0bamacare Exchange Calls it Quits

The state-run 0bamacare insurance exchange in Oregon- Cover Oregon- that failed to enroll a single person through its online portal after state officials spent more than $130 million has called it quits. Instead, visitors to the Covered Oregon home page will be instructed to go to the Department of Health and Human Service's troubled healthcare.gov website.

State officials determined that additional fixes to the Cover Oregon homepage would cost an additional $78 million. The state of Oregon had initially paid software developer Oracle [NASDAQ- ORCL] to develop the Covered Oregon website while Covered Oregon paid another $3 million for TV, radio and internet marketing that played up Oregon's hipster image.

Cover Oregon received a month-long enrollment deadline extension because of multiple technical glitches in its system.

But fixing the existing system, Cover Oregon officials say, would have meant pouring another $78 million into the growing money pit. Switching to the federal system significantly reduces the cost to around $5 million.

It is still unclear how the state might be able to recoup its exchange funding -- if at all. Cover Oregon was partially financed by a 2.5 percent premium tax on insurers selling the exchange, Cover Oregon technology chief Alex Petit said Thursday.

Petit says he’ll meet with federal health officials early next week to iron out all of the financial details.

Oregon’s exchange, which was touted by the Obama administration in the beginning as a success story, quickly proved otherwise. It was widely seen as the worst of more than a dozen states that developed their own online health insurance marketplaces.

The federal Government Accountability Office has announced an investigation into Oregon's exchange, including looking at whether the federal government can reclaim grant money given to Cover Oregon if taxpayer funds were mismanaged.

While the Obama Administration did a touchdown dance earlier this month over the figure of 7.1 million enrolled in 0bamacare, the President's signature law has suffered a number of setbacks on both the federal level as well as states where 0bamacare received support from state and local officials. Towards the end of 2013, Colorado's state-run 0bamacare exchange failed to meet even half of it's worst-case scenario projections for enrollments. The state of Hawaii spent $120 million to create the Hawaii Health Connector website that only 4300 people enrolled in- averaging more than $28,000 per enrollee.

At the Department of Health and Human Services, embattled director Kathleen Sebelius submitted her resignation shortly after the administration began touting the 7.1 million enrollees number.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius Announces Resignation

Kathleen Sebelius, the former Kansas Governor who was appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services by President Obama and in charge of the disastrous rollout of the healthcare.gov website, announced her resignation on Friday.

Sebelius entered the Cabinet in 2009, three months into Obama’s presidency, as a well-regarded former governor of conservative Kansas. She is leaving after months of intense criticism over the botched rollout last fall of the insurance marketplace.

During the firestorm, Obama made clear to his aides that he would not seek the resignation of his health secretary, and her departure is timed to brighter news for the White House as enrollment soared late last month.

Still, some White House allies said Thursday night that the troubled launch of HealthCare.gov had heightened tensions between Sebelius and the president’s staff members, who had become increasingly mistrustful of the department she led. Some Democrats, meanwhile, had argued privately that someone should be held accountable for the problems with the federal insurance exchange.

According to federal health officials, Sebelius approached Obama in early March and told him that, with the insurance enrollment period ending that month, the time had come for new leadership at HHS, the government’s largest domestic agency.

When the healthcare.gov website launched in late 2013, the White House said their enrollment goal was 7 million. After a problematic rollout of a website that only worked part of the time and was fraught with security problems, both the HHS and White House were mum about enrollment numbers for the last several months. According to some in the White House Press corps, the Administration became increasingly uncomfortable after Sebelius badly fumbled what was supposed to be a sympathetic interview on Comedy Central's The Daily Show in October.

This has also led to speculation that the White House was holding out for any semblance of good news to show Sebelius the door. That opportunity came earlier this month when after months of silence on the actual number of enrollees on the Obamacare website, President Obama held a press conference at the White House, claiming that exactly 7.1 million individuals enrolled through healthcare.gov- although they declined to break down how many of the enrollees had previously had insurance that was cancelled.

The top choice by the White House to replace Sebelius is reportedly OMB director Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who was reportedly responsible for directing the National Parks Service to shut down open-air war memorials during last year's government 'shutdown' (in which an estimated 17% of the federal government had actually shut down).

President Obama Orders Yet Another Delay in His Landmark Healthcare Law

So much for the Democrats running on 0bamacare in this year's midterm elections.

For the second time since November, President Obama has unilaterally ordered a delay in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act- his signature law that has been most often derisively referred to as 'Obamacare'. This latest delay is centered around the mandate for companies with between 50 and 99 employees, who reportedly won't have to be in compliance until early 2016.

A similar mandate for larger businesses had been delayed [once again, by Presidential decree- NANESB!] until January 2015. Critics point out that not only do both delays to the Affordable Care Act come after the 2014 midterm elections, but that President Obama changing the law whenever he feels like it is also- in all likelihood- illegal and constitutes a gross overreach of executive power.

In last month's State of the Union address, President Obama promised to go around the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and use 'the phone and pen' if he didn't get his way on a number of issues ranging from immigration to gun control and the federal minimum wage. The White House justified the most recent executive order by saying the delay would assist small and mid-sized businesses by giving them more time to fall into compliance with the 0bamacare employer mandates.

This most recent delay also reportedly comes with some strings attached for the affected businesses- namely signing an affidavit from the IRS that Obamacare would play no factor in any future layoffs or firings at that company.

Interestingly, some of the more watered down demands of the GOP during the October government shutdown included delays in part or all of the mandates attached to 0bamacare were rejected out of hand by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

After repeatedly crowing that 0bamacare is the 'Law of the Land', the White House and vulnerable senate Democrats have been taking steps to make sure the full effects of their signature healthcare law is not felt during an election year.

More 0bamacare Good News! Democrats Spin CBO Report Estimating 2 Million People Will Lose Jobs as Freeing Americans From 'Job Lock'

According to a Congressional Budget Office report released this week, 0bamacare is set to push roughly 2 million Americans out of the workforce over the next three years as their hours are reduced or they leave the workplace altogether to qualify for subsidies offered by 0bamacare.

Although part of those numbers are attributed to job cuts, the vast majority represent workers who decide it makes more sense to stay home or work fewer hours, weighing the higher taxes they pay in the workforce versus their qualifications for benefits if they drop out.

“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” the nonpartisan tax agency said in its economic outlook.

Although the White House and Congressional Democrats initially disputed the CBO's findings, many of them had revised their strategy shortly thereafter and claimed its actually a good thing that 0bamacare was providing Americans disincentive to work less or employers from hiring, citing the dreaded phenomenon of 'Job lock'.

Yes- that's the actual phrase House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi used.

“What we see is that people are leaving their jobs because they are no longer job-locked,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters after House votes Tuesday afternoon. “They are following their aspirations to be a writer; to be self-employed; to start a business. This is the entrepreneurial piece. So it’s not going to cost jobs. It’s going to shift how people make a living and reach their aspirations.”

Pelosi said she hadn’t “fully” seen the report, but, “this was one of the goals. To give people life, a healthy life, liberty to pursue their happiness. And that liberty is to not be job-locked, but to follow their passion.”

Using their line of reasoning, I guess I should actually be thanking the Democrats for freeing me from 'Job Lock' [not to mention 'paycheck lock'- NANESB!] for several months back in 2009. Come to think of it, maybe the Democrats can market the War on Coal as freeing most of West Virginia, eastern Kentucky and Western Pennsylvania from 'Job Lock'- assuming those jobs had something to do with mining or transporting coal.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this somewhere before: After Obama's promise to Americans of "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it" turned out to not only be untrue, but the 'Affordable Care Act' resulted in roughly 4.7 million cancellations of already-existing healthcare plans, the spin from Democrats and editorial boards at the New York Times and Washington Post was that those policies were 'junk' and the people who were previously happy with their 'junk' policies could shop around for another plan [often offering even less than the cancelled 'junk' policies for much more money- NANESB!] on the not-really-working healthcare.gov website.

Yet the Democrats and liberal pundits who somehow failed to go into detail on what made the millions of policies cancelled thanks to 0bamacare 'junk' are now opining what sort of jobs Americans find themselves 'locked' into- apparently involuntarily- when they could be spending that time with their family or pursuing a fulfilling career in interpretive dance [how exactly they still have a roof over their heads after being liberated from 'job lock' isn't really made clear- NANESB!].

Perhaps the most patronizing and insulting thing from the beltway pundits and liberal politicians who have most likely never worked a day of their life in the private sector is the assumption that Americans taking time off from work to be with family, switching jobs or quitting everything to pursue your dream job or start up your own business had never happened prior to the 2010 passage of 0bamacare. Even more dangerously, not only does the CBO report find this disincentivizes working full time but also tacitly promises success for those who strike out on their own thinking they have the Affordable Care Act to thank.

UPDATE 2/6- The Lonely Conservative points out that entrepreneurs 'liberated' from the drudgery of Job Lock could face an increase of as much as $20,000 for insurance if they cross the income level set out by 0bamacare guidelines (Calculated as roughly 400% of the Federal Poverty Level)

Happy New Year's From Not Another New England Sports Blog!

Well, here we are bidding farewell to 2013- some of us went from having a hard time believing that baseball or football season was already here to counting down as that ginormous crystal ball gets set to drop from Times Square.

As far as sports go, 2013 was a pretty good year. Obviously, the Red Sox won the World Series and the Bruins advanced to the Stanley Cup during a strike-shortened NHL season, only to collapse to the Blackhawks in a matter of seconds.

As far as domestic and international politics go, the year 2013 was one to forget. A landmark sporting event in the capital of my home state was targeted by Islamic terrorists, killing three people and injuring hundreds. In their haste to assign blame for the Boston Marathon bombings, a number of pundits almost gleefully accused the Tea Party or setting up IEDs at the Boston Marathon finish line before two Chechen brothers killed an MIT Campus Policeman in an ambush, carjacked a motorist and shot it out with Eastern Massachusetts law enforcement in the predawn hours in Watertown, MA. One brother was killed and the other was arrested after he was discovered hiding on a boat in somebody's backyard nearly a full day later.

Just the west on I-90, New York governor Mario Cuomo and his cohorts in the New York State Assembly crammed through the SAFE Act, a sort of Holy Grail for the gun control crowd that was written and passed so hastily that lawmakers forgot to exempt NY State law enforcement from its provisions. No doubt gun control groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns will continue to tout the NY SAFE Act as 'common sense gun safety laws' [such as the theoretical prohibition of owning a 10-round magazine, later amended to allow ownership, but only loading no more than 7 rounds at a time- NANESB!]. States such as Connecticut, Maryland and Colorado also passed similar gun control measures, but lawmakers supportive of the new gun laws in Colorado have already paid a political price, with two state Senators being recalled in a first-of-its-kind campaign and a third resigning from office rather than face recall herself.

In October, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid forced a government shutdown when the Democrats refused to entertain even the most tepid and watered down requests from the Republicans to delay the implementation of 0bamacare. Within weeks of the shutdown, there was the disastrous rollout of the healthcare.gov website and millions of Americans who previously had health insurance would have their policies cancelled because they no longer complied with 0bamacare regulations. Although the White House claims that the website is fixed, enrollment numbers are still well below even the most modest projections from HHS. Ironically, only a few weeks after the government shutdown, President Obama began a series of unilateral changes to his signature law- similar to what some GOP officials had asked for during the shutdown- that some experts pointed out were well beyond the constitutional authority granted a sitting President.

On the rails, the Bakken Oil boom appeared to be renewing the fortunes of New England-based railways until a runaway Montreal, Maine & Atlantic train wiped out the heart of the village of Lac Megantic, Quebec in July. At least 47 people were killed that night and the MM&A had to file for bankruptcy. The line is looking for a buyer and has yet to re-open.

2013 was also the end of shortline holding company Rail America after being purchased outright by Genesee & Wyoming, putting all of Rail America's considerable holdings under the GWI umbrella.

So all in all, 2013 was a pretty eventful year. but I'm not too sad to see it in the rearview. Here's hoping that I'll have far less to complain about in 2014.

White House, Democrats Announce New 'Berate Your Family' Charm Offensive For the Holidays

If you're travelling to visit loved ones this Thanksgiving or Hanukkah, the Democrats and Obama Administration have made it clear that they would like you to incessantly pester your loved ones about the merits of 0bamacare (or gun control) in an attempt to sugarcoat the flailing 0bamacare rollout.

From Obama's own website which shockingly, actually works:

This holiday season, millions of Americans have a chance to get quality, affordable health insurance—many for the first time. If you have family members who are uninsured, you can play a big part in helping them find coverage that works for them. It might not always seem like it, but your family listens to you. So have the talk.

He's actually encouraging people to print up these lying points and to, I don't know, recite them at Thanksgiving dinner? This sort of flies in the face of his reassuring back-patting and confidence in you being your family's healthcare policy expert if you have to rely on pathetic propaganda you printed up. It's got pretty colors and paint-by-number instructions, so maybe this shit will fly over at the kids' table, but I wouldn't be so quick to try this in front of adults. Hungry and varying degrees of intoxicated adults who just want to watch football and be left alone.

If you can't catch the Chris Hayes "how to talk to conservatives about Obamacare at Thanksgiving dinner" special, don't worry, the same thing has already been printed in a number of newspapers and magazines across the country. From WaPo: A guide to surviving Obamacare debates at Thanksgiving.

That's the part of the health-care law that isn't working. But in some states that built their own insurance marketplaces, Obamacare is working--and the health law is meeting enrollment projections. California, for example, has signed up 80,000 people for coverage and Washington has enrolled nearly 12,000. These examples are limited, but the suggest that the problem isn't with demand but a technical one. We won't know whether this is true everywhere, though, until HealthCare.gov is fixed.

[What they neglect to mention is that an estimated 900,000 people in California have lost their individual health insurance policies under 0bamacare, so even if the 80,000 figure is accurate the ratio of those who lost their insurance plans still vastly outnumbers the enrolled under California's 0bamacare exchange- NANESB!]

Yeah, go with that.

Next up, Huffington Post, who is not even trying to hide what side of this debate they're on: Here's Every Argument You'll Need To Win Your Obamacare Debate This Thanksgiving.

We've all got a crazy uncle we love. He might not even technically be an uncle -- it's not something the family likes to get into -- but he's there at Thanksgiving every year just the same, getting heavy handed with the 1.5-liter wine bottle, insisting on calling the dog "bitch," starting with off-color jokes that made people uncomfortable even before the country "evolved" and finishing with a tea party-inspired screed about the Kenyan in the White House. We'll call him Uncle Hank.
...
Those plans were terrible anyway -- high deductibles, no hospital coverage, dropped you if you got sick, etc. It wasn't insurance if you actually needed it. Cite an example from a family member here who's gotten screwed by an insurer. Shouldn't be hard to find.

Your plan sucks Uncle Hank, you dumb slack-jawed hick. Get over it.

Slate jumps in as well. They're not content with just bringing up Obamacare, they actually want you to fight about it: How To Pick a Fight With Your Relatives This Thanksgiving

2) Getting Started. First off, you should wait until everyone's seated at the table before you try to get things started. That way you have a captive audience that has to watch the fireworks, and everyone is settled in for a nice long time. Getting the topic of conversation to politics shouldn't be too hard. Stick to short, sarcastic, tendentious remarks to get things going. "I'm thankful for all that free stuff Obama gave me." Once you've engaged the enemy, it won't take much effort to pivot to whatever particular subject you feel most comfortable with. A good Thanksgiving skirmish will scamper from topic to topic wildly and without warning, but it's best to begin by digging into one particularly contentious subject to get tempers flared.

"Get in their faces". I remember someone saying that once.

There are others out there, even in local papers like the Denver Post and the Pittsburgh Courier. I'm sure there will be more before Thursday. But what if you don't feel like talking about Obamacare, what with the steady, embarrassing and collapsing failure and all? Well don't you worry one bit, because there are other liberal causes you can awkwardly bring up as well! Michael Bloomberg wants you to start talking about gun control, for instance.

Lovely people, aren't they? And of course, all coincidental.

Perhaps completely unrelated, the White House had a closed-door meeting with select journalists from the Washington Post, MNSBC, the Huffington Post and Mother Jones last week, reportedly to coordinate damage control over the 0bamacare rollout. The media has also been attempting to find positive stories about the 0bamacare experience in the wake of last week's meetings.

Despite the happy talk by some media outlets, a number of state-run 0bamacare exchanges had only a fraction of the anticipated number of enrollees- in some cases falling well short of projected 'worst case scenario' numbers.

[Hat tip- Ace of Spades; Weasel Zippers]

Report: White House Knew As Far Back As 2010 That Millions Of Americans Would Lose Insurance Coverage Under 0bamacare

According to an NBC report on Monday, The Obama Administration knew that as many as 67% of Americans already insured would lose their coverage once 0bamacare was passed into law as far back as 2010. This runs contrary to President Obama's numerous promises of "If you like your insurance, you can keep it" while stumping for the passage of the law known as the Affordable Care Act in 2009.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

The NBC article drew an immediate and fierce reaction from senior White House staffers on social media.

FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.
— Valerie Jarrett (@vj44) October 29, 2013

Curiously, the NBC story disappeared for awhile on Monday night before re-appearing at a different URL- at first with a key paragraph missing and then with the original content posted.

White House press secretary Jay Carney at first blamed the cancellation notices on 'routine turnover within the insurance industry' and Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner said it was the insurance industry that was to blame, not the Obama Administration. However, the insurance industry claims that the cancellation notices are being sent out because the current policies aren't in compliance with 0bamacare.

Elsewhere, Senator Mary Landrieu [D- LA] claimed that Democrats had only promised Americans could keep their insurance policies if it was "good insurance".

According to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Democrats had only promised that Americans could keep their insurance if it was "good insurance."

"We said when we passed that, 'If you had insurance that was good insurance that you wanted to keep it, you could keep it,'" Landrieu said.

She declined to say if she would support a measure to let Americans keep the plans they had in 2013. "I haven't looked at it specifically," Landrieu said.

So first the White House and the Democrats denied that there was any widespread cancellations of insurance policies taking place, but when the reports of previously insured people receiving cancellations notices or being placed into newer, cost-prohibitive policies for the same level of coverage thanks to Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law became too numerous to ignore, the spin was that those policies millions of Americans were losing were crappy to begin with and that the insurance industry was to blame- all while making sure the individual mandate wasn't delayed during this month's government shutdown.
Other Democrat senators, including those up for re-election in red or swing states, declined to comment on the cancellations

Meanwhile, Obamacare Rollout Going As Well As Expected

Or at least as well as I expected.

Where to start? As President Obama and the Democrats are fond of reminding us, 0bamacare is now the law of the land despite efforts to repeal or defund it [including this month's government shutdown- NANESB!].

The botched and error-plagued rollout of the President's landmark achievement has drawn criticism from both parties and is best embodied by the lethargic and seemingly impossible-to-navigate healthcare.gov website- which the most charitable of critics have likened to an experience with all the warmth, efficiency and joy of a 1970s-era DMV visit. Those criticisms may end up being the least of the Democrats' worries, however.

A few weeks into the 0bamacare launch, enrollment numbers are dismal. Contractors for CGI Federal claimed that the $400 million website only underwent minimal testing a few weeks prior to the October 1st launch of Obama's Affordable Care Act- meaning that by law, Americans are required to buy a product or service through a website that doesn't exist.

Interestingly, not even a week after Democrats constantly referred to their Republican colleagues as terrorists, anarchists, hostage-takers and suicide bombers for even the most watered down demands in the budget negotiations where they sought a delay in the individual mandate, some Democrats are petitioning President Obama and the department of Health and Human Services for....a delay in the individual mandate of 0bamacare. Tellingly, many of these Democrats will be facing an uphill campaign in Republican-leaning states or districts where 0bamacare is unpopular to begin with in 2014.

Meanwhile, instead of demanding any sort of accountability from HHS head Kathleen Sebelius, other Democrats- including the President- apparently thought that the GOP was magically capable of crashing the 0bamacare website through their mere dislike of the law.

But to treat the healthcare.gov website as the sole problem of the 0bamacare rollout would be misleading. It's believed that more Americans in three states have had their insurance cancelled than Americans in all 50 states have filed applications for coverage through the government's website. Many more Americans who already have insurance have received notices that prices will increase dramatically for coverage under the same policy.

A spokeswoman for California's state-run insurance exchange- Covered California- admitted that there would be 'winners and losers' under 0bamacare- with the 'losers' typically being individuals who were purchasing health insurance for themselves or their families before 0bamacare kicked in. Now the costs have gone up dramatically or they will be dropped altogether by Jan 2014. An article from the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month points out that a lower 2014 income would qualify an individual to be eligible for insurance subsidies as well- basically encouraging people to earn less in order to qualify for a subsidy for a good or service they were compelled to purchase under threat of fine or imprisonment by the federal government.

While pushing for the law in 2009, President Obama infamously told audiences "If you like your insurance, you can keep it"- a claim that was met with justifiable skepticism at the time.

Labor Unions Start Turning Against Obamacare

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA), leaders of three major unions say that the health benefits of their members are now in peril thanks to the implementation of 0bamacare.

The leaders of three major U.S. unions, including the highly influential Teamsters, have sent a scathing letter to Democratic leaders in Congress, warning that unless changes are made, President Obama’s health care reform plan will “destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

If that’s not bad enough, the Affordable Care Act, if not modified, will “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans,” the letter says.

The union leaders point out that the employer mandate incentivizes companies shifting full time employees to part time status by cutting an employees hours to less than 30 a week. A number of employers have already announced they would be cutting back on employees' hours to avoid increased costs under President Obama's healthcare act. The reduced hours also mean reduced pay for the affected employees, who still have to purchase their healthcare under 0bamacare's individual mandate.

Further implementation of the plan will adversely affect group healthcare coverage between union labor and multiple companies within an industry, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa claims.

Multi-employer plans, also called Taft-Hartley plans, are health insurance benefits typically arranged between a labor union in a particular industry, such as restaurants, and small employers in that industry. About 20 million workers are covered by these plans; 800,000 of Joseph Hansen’s 1.3 million UFCW members are covered this way.

Taft-Hartley plans, they write, “have been built over decades by working men and women,” but unlike plans offered on the ACA exchanges, unionized workers will not be eligible for subsidies, because workers with employer-sponsored coverage don’t qualify.

Obamacare’s regulatory changes to the small-group insurance market will drive up the cost of these plans. For example, the rules requiring plans to cover adult children up to the age of 26, the elimination of limits on annual or lifetime coverage, and the mandates that plans cover a wide range of benefits will drive premiums upward.

But the key problem is that the Taft-Hartley plans already provide generous and costly coverage; small employers now have a more financially attractive alternative, which is to drop coverage and put people on the exchanges, once the existing collective bargaining agreements are up.

Somehow, I suspect Hoffa and the other union presidents knew that 0bamacare would be the massive trainwreck they're saying it is, but were banking on some sort of carve-out or exemption for the unions written into the law. After lobbying tirelessly since 2009 for its passage and implementation and pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of President Obama and liberal politicians who helped get the law passed, they're just now finding out there is no immunity for them for the law that they so vociferously backed. This leads me to wonder how well squandering hundreds of millions of dollars and years of political capital are going over with the union's rank-and-file workers.

Earlier this month, the White House announced a delay in enforcing the employer mandate provision of the healthcare law. Critics point out that the one year delay is technically illegal and the timing was suspect, pushing the mandate back until after the 2014 mid-term elections. The delay also applies only to businesses, the individual mandate is still intact.

Last month, Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced that the White House was in talks with the NFL and NBA to promote the upcoming 0bamacare rollout. By the end of  June, however, the National Football League announced that they would not be promoting 0bamacare. Spokesmen from the NHL and Major League Baseball also confirmed they were contacted by the administration regarding promoting enrollment in the healthcare law, but had yet to meet with any HHS officials.

Montana Senator Max Baucus Announces He Won't Seek Re-Election in 2014

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) announced that he planned on retiring rather than seek re-election next year. Baucus, who has represented Big Sky country in the Senate since 1978, making him one of the longest-serving Senators currently in office.

In 2009 and 2010, Baucus played a key role in authoring Obamacare. Despite an opaque process and widespread opposition from the public, Obamacare narrowly passed a Democrat-held House and Senate in 2010. However, Baucus himself described the Affordable Care act as a "huge train wreck coming down" during a budgetary hearing with the Health and Human Services chief earlier this month.

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.

Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year.

Normally low-key and supportive, Baucus challenged Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Wednesday's hearing.

He said he's "very concerned" that new health insurance marketplaces for consumers and small businesses will not open on time in every state, and that if they do, they might just flop because residents don't have the information they need to make choices.

"The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade," he told Sebelius. "You need to fix this."

Responding to Baucus, Sebelius pointedly noted that Republicans in Congress last year blocked funding for carrying out the health care law, and she had to resort to raiding other departmental funds that were legally available to her.

The administration is asking for $1.5 billion in next year's budget, and Republicans don't seem willing to grant that either.

Last week, Baucus was one of five Democrat Sentaors to vote against legislation authored by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey that would mandate background checks for all private firearms transfers. The bill, which required 60 votes to pass, fell short by four votes in the Democrat-held senate earlier this month.

President Obama spent considerable political capital attempting to get any sort of gun control passed in the wake of the Newtown, CT school massacre. However, Baucus represents a state with a high number of gun owners and there were concerns from gun owner's rights groups that the Toomey-Manchin bill would establish the framework for a nationwide gun registry and criminalize hunters and relatives borrowing guns. The defeat in the Senate spurred a press conference by petulant Obama where he denounced the Senate's 'shameful' vote while flanked by families from Newtown. Veiled threats about ending the political careers came from gun-control groups after the vote, but an ad buy in Montana from Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns wouldn't have affected Baucus in Montana. The senior senator from Montana had an A+ rating from the NRA.

Montana Republicans have been bracing for a tough campaign against the entrenched Baucus in 2014. However, now the list of candidates for either side has been thrown into flux. One possible name for the Democrats is former governor Brian Schweizer, who unsuccessfully ran for US Senate in 2000.

Food Fight! Papa John's CEO Catches Flack, Faces Liberal Boycott For Pointing Out 0bamacare Realities

Pizza chain Papa John's [NASDAQ- PZZA] has become the latest restaurant to catch flack from vindictive leftists and this time around the hot-button issue is 0bamacare.

After Papa John's CEO John H Schnatter announced last week that prices would be going up and employees hours would be reduced due to 0bamacare, liberal pundits threw a spectacular hissy fit accusing the Romney donor of being a sore loser and using his employees to play politics.

However, this was something Schnatter and others in the restaurant business had anticipated as early as August, pointing out that Papa John's had much more purchasing power than smaller restaurants. This means that Papa John's would be able to absorb the costs of 0bamacare as well as increased food costs due to a massive Midwestern drought over the summer much better than smaller restaurants.

While Schnatter was pointing out an unpleasant economic reality for himself and countless other restaurant owners, liberals started calling for a boycott of the chain, pointing out that the self-made millionaire  CEO dares to live in a nice mansion [because apprently they know how to spend Schnatter's money more than he does- NANESB!]. It's also worth pointing out that an organized widespread boycott by the shrieking progressives would harm the Papa John's employees whose well being they profess to care so very much about first and foremost.

On the flip side of the coin, a grassroots group called Rebooting America is calling for a Papa John's buycott on Friday.

Earlier this year, Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy- a devout Baptist- caught flack from gay and lesbian groups when he flatly stated in an interview with a Baptist publication that he did not support same-sex marriage. LGBT and Democrat calls for a widespread Chick-Fil-A boycott backfired when August 1st was declared Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day and the chain had shattered all previous sales records due to the high turnout.

Barack Obama Wins Second Term; Opportunities To Say "I Told You So" Immediately Present Themselves

County by county results of 2012 Presidential Election with red indicating counties that went with Romney and blue indicating counties that went for Obama.

Despite earlier indications to the contrary, the American electorate had apparently decided to double down on the previous four years of failure and re-elect Barack Hussein Obama to a second term. And I do have to use some sort of qualifier here not only because of widespread military disenfranchisement as well as election-day dirty tricks in some cities, but also some swing state counties having voter turnout as high as 111%.

It should probably go without saying that I was extremely shocked and disappointed in the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. However, science fiction author and Mormon Democrat Orson Scott Card probably summed it up better than I ever could.

Of course, it didn't take long for harsh reality to rear its ugly head. On Wall Street in the days leading up to the election, there was talk of the markets rebounding regardless of who won because it removed 'uncertainty' from the longer-term picture, that turned out to be only partially true as the Dow-Jones plunged 369 points in a single day. Shares in finance and defense companies took a beating, but not nearly as bad as coal stocks. Since election day, shares of Arch Coal [NYSE: ACI] have dropped 14.78%, Oxford Natural Resources [NYSE: OXF] declined in value by more than 22% and shares of James River Coal [NASDAQ: JRCC] have lost 42.77% of their value.

Curously, the media decided to rediscover the 'fiscal cliff' and debt ceiling issues about one day after the election- issues the Romney/Ryan campaign had demonstrated they were at least capable of taking seriously while President Obama went on Letterman and denied there was even a debt problem. Some media types simply attributed the stock market freefall to uncertainty over the looming fiscal cliff.

Hardly 24 hours after Obama declared victory, a number of companies including Boeing, Energizer, Research in Motion, Lightyear Networks, Hawker Beechcraft, the Providence Journal, UtahAmerican Energy and Corning had announced a fresh round of layoffs while Olive Garden and Red Lobster parent company Darden and grocery chain Kroeger stated they were cutting workers' hours in anticipation of a number of 0bamacare provisions going into effect. A number of smaller businesses had reportedly trimmed their full time staff to under 50 employees so they could remain exempt from 0bamacare.

Financial consultants and industry observers also note that most of the smaller local and regional banks in the USA are set to disappear now that Dodd-Frank is here to stay for the forseeable future, leaving behind a number of the larger 'too big to fail' financial institutions that were bailed out with taxpayer money in 2008.

Of course, why should the bad news be limited to the economy and markets? On Friday afternoon, CIA Director David Petraeus announced his resignation, citing an ongoing extramarital affair. Interestingly, I heard this news being broken over CNBC, who claimed their parent network's Andrea Mitchell broke the story [given the close working relationship between the Obama campaign and NBC network's, I wouldn't doubt if she was handed the scoop in exchange for running interference on the Administration's behalf while on the campaign trail- NANESB!]. The affair reportedly came to light when Pretraeus' mistress sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to the CIA director who in turned reported the threatining messages to the FBI. Coincidentally, Petraeus was scheduled to testify before a Senate hearing on the September 11th terrorist attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.

To hardly anybody's surprise, Petraeus' indiscrecions were made known to the White House by the FBI well before the election, but the White House reportedly held off on forcing him out until after November 6th- much to the chagrin of the FBI.

Keep in mind, all that wonderful news came within 48 hours of the election. If the Obama Administration can cram this much scandal and bad news into a timeframe of just under two days, imagine what could happen with four years.

Pie in the Sky- Cost of 0bamacare Complaince to Raise Pizza Prices

Customers of Papa John's can expect to see an increase in the cost of the chain's pizza pie, and according to chairman John H Schnatter, President Obama's landmark healthcare law is to blame for the anticipated rise in prices.

In a conference call with analysts, Schnatter said that although he did not support 0bamacare, his company's business model would reportedly allow it to absorb some of the costs associated with the law better than some other companies.

According to Papa John’s Founder, Chairman and CEO John H. Schnatter, health-care reform will cost the company an additional 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza.

“We're not supportive of Obamacare like most businesses in our industry,” Schnatter said in a call to analysts. “But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare.”

Schnatter added that on a corporate basis, the reform would increase Papa John’s price per pizza by 15 to 20 cents.

“Let's say fuel goes up-- which it does from time to time-- and we have to raise delivery charges,” said Schnatter.”We don't like raising delivery charges, but the price of fuel is out of our control as is Obamacare. So if Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs. And of course strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholder's best interest.”

Headquartered in Louisville, KY, Papa Johns [NASDAQ: PZZA] is the third largest pizza chain in the USA and boasts more than 3800 locations in 32 countries.

While an increase of 15¢ to 20¢ may not seem like much at first glance, keep in mind that Papa John's is a large and well organized corporation with considerable purchasing power. For many of the smaller local or regional chains or stand-alone family run pizzerias, those costs will quickly add up and those locations will also have little choice but to pass along costs to their customers.

Frank Pepe's of New Haven, CT- specializing in tomato pies and clam pizzas for over 80 years. Photo- Kevin Finch/Travelling Feast

With a number of such restaurants already in danger of shutting down due to the sluggish economy over the last three years, I suspect the last thing they would need is additional regulations, red tape and paperwork in regards to their employee healthcare under threat of punitive fines from the IRS. If nothing else, think of 0bamacare as the Dodd-Frank of pizzerias.

What's Dodd-Frank? you might be asking yourself? No- Dodd-Frank isn't the Castle County, Maine Sherriff's Deputy who was revealed to be a serial killer in the Stephen King novel The Dead Zone- that was actually Frank Dodd.

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was signed into law by President Obama two years ago. Proponents of the bill claimed it was meant to keep larger banks and financial institutions such as JP Morgan and Bank of America in check in the wake of the 2008 subprime lending meltdown and "too big to fail" bailouts. However, two years later the larger banks that had been bailed out seem to be thriving at the expense of smaller, community banks in the new regulatory environment.

While larger institutions such as Citibank or JP Morgan-Chase had engaged in much of the subprime lending practices that led up to the current economic crisis and malaise, they were larger, better funded and more equipped to handle the compliance costs of the new regulations with Dodd-Frank while much smaller institutions such as Lee Savings Bank or First National Bank of Durango had fewer resources and funds available to put towards compliance. Basically, despite claims of reigning in unaccountable and reckless Wall Street fat cats, the same regulations entailed in Dodd-Frank are adversely affecting the smaller community banks and lenders differently moreso that the giant, bailed-out "too big to fail" institutions like Citi. Althought they weren't pivotal in the subprime lending crisis, the economies of scale can apply that same situation to a Papa John's or Pizza Hut versus a family-run restaurant like the Pizza Den in Chatham, NY or Huckelberry's in Rock Island, IL and I'll leave you to figure out which one is at an advantage in the new regulatory environment.
Many of the small businesses are still trying to figure out how best to make payroll in this economy to try and figure out what provisions of 0bamacare are going into effect when.

Yes, thanks in part to President Obama's economic and healthcare policies, a family going out for a large pepperoni and mushroom pizza once a week may very well become a frivolous and unattainable luxury for many Americans.

In addition to the estimated cost increase with 0bamacare compliance, the midwest is currently in the middle of one of the worst droughts in more than 50 years. The USDA has slashed the estimated corn yield by 12%, driving up the price of corn which in turn will likely force livestock to liquidate herds because of the increased cost of feeding them, making meat and dairy even more expensive.

[Hat tip: Lonely Conservative, Wyblog, La Jolla Princess]

Busy Beltway Thursday- Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare Provision; House Finds Holder in Contempt

In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama's signature healthcare law on Thursday morning by a 5-4 margin. Chief Justice Roberts had ruled that the individual mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. However, he ruled that the mandate could be considered a tax despite Obama and the Democrat's insistence that the mandate wasn't a tax when they were trying to sell the public on it back in 2009.

Via Scotusblog and Legal Insurrection:

“In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.”

In even simpler terms, it's a tax for existing, basically. Using this ruling as precedent, there really would be nothing from stopping Congress from imposing a recurring annual 'Not Buying a Chevy Volt' surtax on any new vehicle purchased in the USA- including a Chevy Volt because only Volts with a certain VIN number are exempt.

While the decison may seem to vindicate Obama and the Democrats who supported it at first, the estimated $1.75 trillion pricetag means that the Democrats have passed the largest tax increase in American history durin a timeframe when the national unemployment rate was never less than 8.1%. The [rather tortured- NANESB!] definition of the mandate as a tax means that it can be struck down or eliminated in Congress with a simple majority instead of a supermajority. This also makes one wonder if the numerous Obamacare waivers the Administration passed out could be considered 'tax cuts for the rich'? Also, will any of the 800,000 or so illegal immigrants that he just gave totally-not-amnesty-amnesty to this month recieve waivers?

Reaction from both sides was immediate, with Obama taking the opportunity to hawk campaign t-shirts and reassure Americans how awesome his new tax was while reading from a prepared statement earlier today. At the same time, Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney's campaign raised nearly $2 million dollars from online donations within hours of the Supreme Court's decision.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives went ahead with a scheduled vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the ATF Fast & Furious gunwalking scandal on Thursday afternoon.

The vote follows a roughly 16-month investigation by the chamber’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the failed gun-running sting known as Fast and Furious -- run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department led by Holder.

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., filed two subpoenas over that period requesting additional information. But he has more recently focused on information related to a February 2011 letter to Congress that falsely claimed the ATF was unaware the operation involved the underground sale of the assault weapons.

“Today, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents,” Issa said after the vote. “This was not the outcome I had sought and it could have been avoided had Attorney General Holder actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide.”

In December 2010, US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed by heavily armed smugglers in a shootout near the US/Mexico border in Arizona- two of the weapons recovered at the scene were traced back to Fast & Furious. Attorney General Holder originally testified that no gunwalking took place under Fast & Furious before later admitting that ATF Field agents were ordered to allow more than 2000 firearms to be smuggled into Mexico by straw purchasers, losing track of all of them. In addition to Brian Terry's death, numerous guns from Fast and Furious have been turning up at hundreds of crime scenes in Mexico. Many on the House Government Oversight Panel requested more documents from Holder regarding gunwalking during often-contentious hearings, but in a move many saw as designed to shield Holder from further oversight scrutiny, President Obama invoked executive privelege on certain DOJ documents and correspondence.

One school of thought out there is that the sole purpose of Fast & Furious was to create more anti-gun sentiment and pass additional gun control laws after saturating an already volatile Mexico with weapons that could be traced back to the USA. This was dismissed by some in the media as being the stuff off kooky black helicopter conspiracy tinfoil hat brigades. Yet nearly every Democrat on that spoke on the House floor Thursday took the opportunity to call for additional punitive gun control laws here in the USA, despite the fact that the DOJ orchestrated arms trafficking already violated several laws on the books.

After a lengthy and incoherent diatribe by former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a walkout by the Congressional Black Caucus, the measure to find Holder in contempt passed on the House floor by a 255-67 margin, with at least 17 Democrats breaking from their party to vote on their contempt vote.

Last week's vote in the House oversight committee to bring the contempt vote to the floor of the house passed along

Illinois Bishop- Obama "Intent on Following a Similar Path" As Hitler, Stalin

The Bishop for the Peoria, IL diocese delivered a homily that featured a stern rebuke of the Obama Administration and the recent Department of Health & Human Services mandate that Catholic institutions provide employees contraceptives and birth control as part of Obamacare.

According to Jenky, the new Health and Human Services (HHS) contraception mandate has put the country on a dangerous path for religious freedom.

“[N]o Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb,” he explained.

“No Catholic ministry — and yes, Mr. President, for Catholics our schools and hospitals are ministries — can remain faithful to the Lordship of the Risen Christ and to his glorious Gospel of Life if they are forced to pay for abortions,” Jenky went on to say.

“The church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the president of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS and of the current majority of the federal Senate,” he continued. “May God have mercy on the souls of those politicians who pretend to be Catholic in church, but in their public lives, rather like Judas Iscariot, betray Jesus Christ by how they vote and how they willingly cooperate with intrinsic evil.”

Jenkey recalled in detail other leaders that have “tried to force Christians to huddle and hide,” including Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care,” he said. “In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama — with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda — now seems intent on following a similar path.”

Jenky's criticism of the Administration and HHS is the harshest yet from the Catholic Church. Earlier this month, Cardinal Timothy Dolan stated that the Obama Administration and HHS mandates were a radical intrusion into the lives of the faithful in an interview with CBS News' Face the Nation.

A Chicago native, Jenky was appointed as the 8th Bishop of Peoria in 2002. Jenky's homily appears over at the Catholic Post in its entirety [lest anyone think the Bishop is too quick to go Godwin, keep in mind that the Obama Administration is basically demanding that the Catholic Church no longer adhere to their beliefs in order to fall into compliance with the 0bamacare mandate- NANESB!].

Coincidentally, the pivotal vote in 2010 for Obamacare came from supposedly pro-life Catholic Democrat Representative Bart Stupak. The Administration assured the Northern Michigan Democrat that federal money wouldn't be used to fund abortions or contraceptives at the time. Within weeks of 0bamacare passing, Stupak announced he wouldn't seek re-election as a number of potential challengers emerged from the woodwork. A surgeon from the upper peninsula named Dan Benishek eventually won Stupak's former seat.

Supreme Meltdown- After Rough Week for 0bamacare Supporters in High Court, President Obama Lashes Out At Supreme Court Justices

With last week's rendezvous before the Supreme Court in the books, the Administration's ability to convince the nine justices that the Patient Protection and Affordability Act- better known as 0bamacare- is indeed constitutional seems to have burned out before it could even begin. Many of 0bamacare's supporters blamed a lackluster performance on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli for its poor showing before the Supremes. To quote Iowahawk- they seemed more upset at Verrilli's inability to polish a turd than any substantive defense of 0bamacare.

As the hearings adjourned, it appeared as though the only questions were would only the individual mandate be struck down or the entire bill, even though it was expected that the panel wouldn't announce their decision until mid-June.

However, the inevitability of the anticipated ruling seemed to be confirmed on Monday when President Obama lashed out at the conservative justices on the Supreme Court during a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian PM Stephen Harper at the White House.

"Ultimately, I am confident that 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," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.

Interestingly, President Obama didn't seem this worked up over unelected federal judges striking down Oklahoma's anti-sharia law, California's Proposition 8 and key portions of Arizona's SB 1070. Those were either passed through ballot initiatives or elected state representatives- all of them being passed by a wider margin than 0bamacare was.

President Obama claims that the Supreme court- a body that deliberates on the legality and constitutionality of various laws, rules and regulations since its inception- striking down 0bamacare would be 'unprecedented', yet legal scholars say that it's rare for a sitting President to initiate a verbal confrontation with the justices on the high court. The bellicose nature of Obama's attack on the enumerated powers involving the Supreme court led some to speculate that one of the justices had leaked the case's outcome to the White House over the weekend.

Not everybody in the federal court system was taking Obama's uninformed scolding lying down. On Tuesday, in direct response to the President's remarks, a three judge panel on the 5th circuit court ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page report over whether or not the administration believes the Supreme Court has the right to strike down a federal law [at face value, this has all the makings of a college professor rebuking an obnoxious know-it-all student and giving him an additional assignment to turn in- NANESB!].

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

Not surprisingly, Smith's retort has been called into question by a number of judicial 'experts' who didn't see anything wrong with Obama's confrontational remarks on Monday.

The three page homework assignment report, given to DOJ counsel Dana Lydia Kaersvang, is due on Thursday.

Media That Dismissed Death Panels as 'Myth' Wonders if Former VP Dick Cheney Too Old For Heart Translplant

Former vice-president Dick Cheney was recuperating in northern Virginia after successfully undergoing a heart transplant operation over the weekend.

Interestingly, as arguments both for and against 0bamacare went before the Supreme Court, pundits and various media outlets questioned whether or not Cheney should've even undergone the procedure to begin with.

Some medical centers will not perform a heart transplant on patient over 65, but other major centers will perform transplants on patients who are as old as 72.

In any case, transplants at Cheney's age are not unheard of: Last year 332 heart transplants were performed on people over 65, and according to the United Network for Organ Sharing, 14 percent of recepients are over the age of 65.

"Patients from 18 all the way up to 71 years old, are on the same national list and you're listed on the basis of medical urgency and then how long you've been waiting," said Dr. Jonathan Chen, an adjunct associate professor of surgery at Columbia University in New York.

Cheney had been waiting for 20 months for the new heart, longer than the national average.

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem that long ago that the notion of death panels were dismissed as a myth or politically driven hoax. Yet here we are, not quite three years later with the media and others seemingly wistful at the prospect of Cheney having to go before some sort of government panel that would arbitrarily decide whether or not he could recieve any kind of lifesaving treatment.

Cheney's only five or six years older than former President Bill Clinton, who had already undergone cardiac surgery in 2010. I'm curious to know if a 71 year old William Jefferson Clinton required a heart transplant, would we be hearing speculation from the media over whether or not Clinton was too old?