Transsexual stories not in the news

Featured

‘Hundreds’ of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex

If we jump across the Atlantic to Sky News, we can read of the many children who want to return to their original sex after transsexual treatment.

Hundreds of young transgender people are seeking help to return to their original sex, a woman who is setting up a charity has told Sky News.

CharlieEvans

Charlie Evans, 28, was born female but identified as male for nearly 10 years before detransitioning.

The number of young people seeking gender transition is at an all-time high but we hear very little, if anything, about those who may come to regret their decision.

There is currently no data to reflect the number who may be unhappy in their new gender or who may opt to detransition to their biological sex.

Charlie detransitioned and went public with her story last year – and said she was stunned by the number of people she discovered in a similar position.

“I’m in communication with 19 and 20-year-olds who have had full gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn’t, and their dysphoria hasn’t been relieved, they don’t feel better for it,” she says.

“They don’t know what their options are now.”

(Read more at Sky News)

Although this article says “there is no data …” on how many are unhappy with their new gender, there are a number of studies that say otherwise

Consider the following data:

  • At least 12 studies indicate that slightly over 90% of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of the condition by puberty and more by adulthood
  • Most children experiencing gender dysphoria also have other psychological issues
  • A survey conducted in 2010 by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force – neither of them members of the vast rightwing conspiracy – revealed that 41 percent of transgendered Americans have attempted suicide. This is a rate more than 25 times higher than the population at large.
  • Even secular media sources are talking more about the lies behind this industry. However, mass media news and reality shows still paint it as somewhat glamorous.
  • Surgery won’t reassign sex, because our sex is determined when we were in the womb. Sex is binary, either male or female. Identities are in our thoughts or feelings.
  • Surgery only masculinizes or feminizes someone’s outward appearance. People aren’t born in the wrong body. It is biologically impossible to change one’s sex.
  • There are at least 6500 genes which are expressed differently in men and women which will continue to function as the sex someone is born as.
  • The facts of biology won’t be changed by your feelings or even the fact that you can get a surgery which they call “reassignment.”
  • Up to 20% have regret, even after the operations, according to over 100 international medical studies. The reality of the expected results does not meet the mind’s expectations, which caused a 44-year-old woman in Belgium to request euthanasia after the surgery because she was psychologically distraught. “I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself,” said Nancy Verheist (birth name) who wanted to be known as Nathan. They granted the euthanasia.
  • A study from 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid indicated there were no meaningful improvements to the quality of life for those who had transitioned.
  • Suicidal thoughts don’t reduce if the person had them before. Or they become a new reality.
  • Body-identity Integrity Disorder (BIID) is when people want to cut off healthy body parts. For instance, someone who identifies as an amputee but has all his/her body parts would not be allowed surgery to remove body parts to become an amputee. Their feelings are ignored while those wanting to “change” their sex are not. Therefore, the medical doctors willing to do these reassignments ignore the facts above to make money off gender dysphoria or BIID, and therefore are probably violating the Hippocratic Oath of “Do no harm.” Remember this in case you need to sue the doctor later if you have regrets. But they’ll make you sign paperwork to prevent that because they know.
  • There is an institute in Belgrade who does gender re-re-assignment for those who regret previous surgeries and want to return to their biological sex.
  • Harvard professor Jerome Kagan, with 40 years of studying children, says parents who are particularly affirming of their children’s cross-sex identification ultimately have outcomes in health and well-being which are worst.
  • Another lie is once you change you’ll be happy. The stories of those formerly in the LGBTQ choice proves otherwise.

(Hat tip to the podcasts of Bryan Fischer, Abraham Hamilton, and Bishop E. W. Jackson)

Puberty Blockers Linked to Thousands of Deaths – Liberty Counsel

According to Liberty Counsel and the Food & Drug Administration, thousands of deaths in the United States can be linked to puberty blockers.

Drugs that are being used as a puberty blocker in gender-confused youth have been linked to tens of thousands of serious reactions and thousands of deaths, as well as other serious medical issues, according to Food & Drug Administration (FDA) data.

lupron

The FDA has now documented over 41,000 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate, known as Lupron, which is used as a hormone blocker. There have been 25,645 reactions considered “serious,” including 6,379 deaths.

Lupron is traditionally used for treatment of prostate cancer as it inhibits the flow of testosterone over the prostate. The drug is clinically approved for treatment of precocious puberty, a condition where children start their pubertal processes at an abnormally early age and the blocker is administered for a short time until the proper age. However, it is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose and the absence of any peer-reviewed studies done on the drug’s long-term effects.

Lupron and synthetic hormones have been documented to contribute to physical problems such as blood clots and other cardiovascular complications, brittle bones and faulty joints, altered psyches, and permanent sterilization. Yet many of the long-term repercussions will not be felt for years.

Despite these serious issues, sales of Lupron were approximately $669 million in 2017 in the United States alone.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Dr. Michael Laidlaw, a California-based pediatric endocrinologist, stated that he knows of no other psychological condition that is treated by administering hormones out of alignment from their normal levels. When injected into a physically healthy body, the drug interrupts a normally-functioning endocrine system and causes a condition where the male testes or the female ovaries produce little or no sex hormones.

Currently doctors are giving testosterone to gender-confused girls as young as eight years old and teen girls as young as 13 are having their breasts removed via mastectomy procedures. Boys the age of 17 can have penises the developmental age of a nine-year-old’s or lose sexual sensation all together due to hormone blockers.

Dr. Laidlaw said, “Gender dysphoria is not an endocrine condition, but is a psychological one and should, therefore, be treated with proper psychological care. But it becomes an endocrine condition once you start using puberty blockers and giving cross-sex hormones to kids. There have been few physicians willing to stand up and say, ‘We need to question this, there is something wrong here. Why are we using cancer drugs on kids without cancer and stopping normal puberty?” Laidlaw said.

(Read more at Liberty Counsel)

Because of the physical harm and death being dealt on children, this seems to be a mass case of Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy

Be certain that children between 3 and 15 are too young to make decisions that will:

  • Cut their life expectancy dramatically,
  • Prevent them from ever having children,
  • Increase their chances of contracting cancer, becoming clinically depressed, and otherwise being burdened, and
  • Will leave physical and mental scars.

Therefore, I would suggest that the above article provides evidence that liberals in the US have begun experiencing Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy. That is, these parents — to the detriment of their children — have sought attention by forcing their children to take the position of a gender dysphoric.

If that is not the case, then they have — en masse — taken on the advise of greedy, soulless, and un-Hippocratic doctors.

Court will decide who writes law: SCOTUS or Congress

Does SCOTUS get to rewrite Title VII in its own image?

Although the Washington Post wants to make the recent Supreme Court inductees the center of the story, the real topic centers on whether the jurists on the Supreme Court adhere to originalism or believe the Constitution has become a living document. Still, the Washington Post says:

SCOTUSdecidesOnLGBTQ

The Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday about whether federal discrimination laws protect gay and transgender workers, and President Trump’s appointments to the court could play the pivotal roles in deciding the outcome.

The issue, one of the most significant facing the court this term, concerns the reach of ­Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, besides protecting against workplace discrimination because of race, religion and other characteristics, also prohibits discrimination “because of sex.” The court has since interpreted that definition to include discriminating on the basis of sex stereotypes.

The arguments touched on some of the most controversial issues of the day — whether it would mean the end of single-sex bathrooms, whether men should be able to compete on female athletic teams, whether dress codes for men and women would become a thing of the past.

The word “transgender” made its first appearance in a Supreme Court argument, as did “cisgender” — the term for a person whose gender identity matches how they were identified at birth — and the gender-ambiguous character “Pat” from “Saturday Night Live” skits that aired during the 1990s. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whose questions in court gave no signal about his views on the case, was careful with pronouns, at one point using the neutral “they” to refer to an individual.

Lawyers for the gay and transgender individuals challenging their firings seemed to pitch their arguments to Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative who advocates a close textual reading of statutes. During the sexual orientation arguments, he pushed lawyers for the government and the employers to acknowledge that sex seemed to be at least a “contributing cause” to the terminations.

The Post is right to say “transgender” made its first appearance, because the concept does not appear in the original law

Title VII was written to deal with discrimination between males and females. Those who wrote that law did not have any concept of transsexualism in their minds as they framed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, if the current Supreme Court stretches the definition of “sex” to include transsexuals (much as the 1973 Supreme Court invented the right to abort babies from a stretching of the Fourteenth and Ninth Amendments), then we will have experienced another writing of law via judicial fiat.

Oddly, since the constitution states that Congress has the sole authority creating law, how can this be? One answer might be that Senators and Representatives are lazy and do not want to take on the tough subjects that the appointed-for-life justices seem willing to burden us with.

When John Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act by effectively rewriting it from the bench, Democrats breathed a sigh of relief because their failing healthcare law had a little more life. Republicans wiped the sweat from their brow because they did not have to risk being called racist for standing against the first African-American president.

When Henry Blackmun wrote the majority decision for Roe, he not only enabled the American holocaust (which, unlike Germany’s holocaust, was carried out against our own children), but also absolved the sexual revolution of its responsibility and enabled Margaret Sanger’s racism.

Telephonic phishing scams

Featured

The Social Security phishing scam

After a blog post on Social Security phishing at the Arlin Report, I determined that I should blog about those pesky scammers who try to sneak your social security number and name from you. Problem is that, after trying and failing to get the Houston Police Department to investigate either of the last two scammers who had left messages for me, I threw the recordings away.

Malware phishing data conceptHowever, having felt a challenge from the Arlin Report post, I determined that I would start on a post as soon as I got another message from a scammer. True to form, I got one that very day (2 October 2019).

The text of this most recent scam follows:

As we have received against your social security number by the federal crime and investigation department. We need to talk to you as soon as possible. Again, this call is from Social Security Administration. Number to reach department is 516-530-7087. I repeat, it’s 516-530-7087. Thank you.

For the audio, click here.

Things noted and maybe erroneously extrapolated from this and other scam calls

There are several things that I noted in the above message (or at least assume that I noted):

  1. One change that I observed happening after my first scam call (which obviously cannot be demonstrated here, due to my having deleted files) was the transition from a real voice to an artificial voice. I guess someone got caught via their voice print.
  2. Still,one of the hallmarks of criminality flourishes in this message: errors.  Errors abound in the message. Try looking up a “federal crime and investigation department.” (It doesn’t exist.) Ask anyone if the Social Security Administration (SSA) will communicate via any method other than mail. (The SSA will not call you or send you emails. The SSA will only communicate by letter.)
  3. To reiterate the central error: the SSA does not have to contact you to get your Social Security number (SSN). They have it. However, even if they did need to contact you, they would do it by mail.
  4. Sometimes, the scammers are not just after your SSN, name, and address.  At these times, they bank on your curiosity and other emotions to just gather other information.

Therefore, calling these scammers would be a bad idea, since these calls may be blindly blasted out and calling them provides them your phone number (especially your cell phone number). Additionally, many times, the number called can be a pay-by-the-minute phone number that will charge to your phone number.

Because we are emotional creatures, there is the “call-back” scam

phishing-scamsAs suggested above, some criminals either use a one-ring tactic or some sort of emotional ploy to get the mark (you and me) to call them back. Sometimes, they pretend to be stranded relatives. Sometimes they pretend that our credit cards are going to be charged for some reason.

Hence, we get scam calls like the following:

That we have renewed your antivirus security for the upcoming one year and we have charged you $399 and within 24 hours, you will see a charge from VTech solution. If you want to cancel the subscription and want a refund then please call on this. Number one, 239-932-2091 cancellation should be done within the 48 Hours upon receiving this confirmation call. Thank you. This is David Williams customer relationship manager.

For the audio, click here.

If you like the scams made available thanks to Social Security and emotional manipulation, just wait for greater federal involvement in healthcare

If you think that it is bad enough with the current crop of social security and the emotion-related scams, just wait until the U.S. government starts expanding Obamacare. That will provide another fertile field for the scammers to plow (since the ACA was sold to us with the promise that it would save each family $2500, but ended quadrupling most of our rates), many of us will be fearful of possible glitches in the system.

Thanks, Obama. Future thanks to Warren, Sanders, and Pelosi.

Four reasons to support Trump


Trump having signed the Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act

Religious Liberty Advocates Praise Trump for Signing Genocide Law

Just as Trump campaigned on providing relief to the downtrodden of the Middle East in their own countries, Breitbart reports in a 13 December 2018 article that Trump has signed the Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act of 2018, which will fund organizations that provide humanitarian aid to religious and ethnic minorities in Syria and Iraq.

Religious liberty advocates praised President Donald Trump for signing into law on Tuesday the Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act of 2018, which will, among other provisions, fund organizations — including faith-based organizations — that provide humanitarian aid to religious and ethnic minorities in Syria and Iraq.

“After two years of hard work by religious freedom advocates, it was a jubilant moment to watch as President Trump signed the Iraq and Syria Genocide Relief and Accountability Act into law,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement. “While the Trump administration has been working to address the needs of those targeted by ISIS’s genocidal campaign, this new law will give another boost to relief groups, including faith-based groups.”

“Until recently, relief groups have been operating almost entirely on private donations,” said Perkins, who is also a commissioner with the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

“While a long road is ahead for these genocide victims — today’s bill signing reaffirms that they aren’t walking it alone,” Perkins said.
“This law is enormously significant,” Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and a former USCIRF said in a statement. “It legislates the humanitarian aid policy of the Trump-Pence policy, meaning it cannot be reversed by a future administration policy.”

“Politically, It signals the embrace of Congress for this policy and it creates a precedent for other situations of genocide,” Shea said, noting that even if the United States gave $2 billion dollars to Iraq, it may not reach the genocide victims.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Not only does this fulfill a campaign promise to provide humanitarian aid in the countries and not on our shores — this bill supports the Christians and religious minorities that ISIS has beaten down and driven out of the Middle Eastern refugee camps.

I am thankful for the Christian lives that will be saved in the Middle East due to this bill.

Trump administration protects religious freedom

Religious freedom 2, ObamaCare 0

In a summary of the struggle between Obamacare and the religious, 7 December 2018 New York Post article outlines not only the pain the law has inflicted, but also the help the Trump administration has provided in lifting the onerous portions of the law.

Even the Obama administration admitted, when the question finally landed at the Supreme Court, that there were other ways to ensure women had easy access to these drugs and services, whether through public funding or separate health plans.

The government could have easily avoided costly and time-consuming lawsuits, not to mention violations of religious liberty, by stepping back and making a simple fix. But it didn’t. Instead, it issued “change” after “change” to the rule — 11, in all — that did nothing to solve the problem.
So, for EWTN, this fight was necessary. Which is why we opposed the Obama administration mandate years ago, and then joined the Little Sisters of the Poor in its successful efforts before the Supreme Court. It’s also why we pushed the Trump administration to finish the work and permanently protect EWTN.

Yet when the Trump administration did the right thing by creating a rule that protects religious organizations like us from the mandate, state attorneys general raced into court and received nationwide injunctions, delaying the permanent fix we sought for so long. We couldn’t rest until we obtained a final settlement that would remain durable regardless of which administration was holding the regulatory pen.

Now we have that — and a court order leaving EWTN free to follow its faith.

But the fight remains necessary for other people of faith, who face continuing battles to keep and practice their faith at home and in the public square.

The battles continue with Catholic foster care agencies in Philadelphia and Michigan trying to serve their communities while remaining true to their faith. Pregnancy centers in places like California are fighting hard to hold on to their free-speech rights. These are battles with real consequences.

(Read more at New York Post)

Those of us who have a religious objection to paying for another person’s abortion have won another round in the courts. Hopefully, this will put this issue to rest. Additionally, as the Obamacare issue progresses — hopefully Congress will take time to take care of the helpless (like our homeless veterans) while not crippling the rest of us.

I am thankful that the Trump administration has created a rule to protect religious organizations from the mandate.

President Trump delivers Hannakkuh wishes

Trump recognizes anti-Semitism and expresses support for our Jewish citizens

In a 6 December 2018 posting of the “Remarks by President Trump at a Hanukkah Celebration”, Donald Trump spoke these words:

We are gathered together this evening to commemorate the triumph of the Jewish people in the face of terrible oppression. Hanukkah is the story of Jewish patriots who fought to reclaim their freedom. More than 2,000 years ago, the Maccabees defeated a tyrant and a massive army and restored the Holy Temple.

After their victory, they found only enough oil to light the lamp in the temple for a single night. Yet, the light burned brightly for eight nights, the miracle of Hanukkah. This year, we light the menorah, we reflect upon the extraordinary resilience of the Jewish people in the face of centuries of oppression.

Our thoughts also turn to the victims and survivors of the anti-Semitic attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. I was there and it was horrible. And the rabbi was great. He was a tremendous gentleman. In the wake of these evil murders, Americans of all backgrounds have come together to express our unwavering determination to extract the vile poison of anti-Semitism from our world.

Throughout history, we have seen that no darkness can overcome the light of the Jewish faith and that no evil can overcome the unbreakable spirit of the Jewish people. So true.

My administration will always stand in solidarity with our Jewish brothers and sisters, and we will always stand strong with our cherished friend and partner, the state of Israel.

(Read more at The White House)

Since Jesus came to Solomon’s temple to celebrate the Festival of Lights (John 10:22-23) when the religious leaders gathered around him in one of their initial confrontations with him — I commiserate with those (Jewish, Christian, and other) who find themselves under attack for their religion or ethnicity.

From near the beginning of the Old Testament (with Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers), the Bible is full of examples of unfair treatment and accompanying pleas for us to treat people with love. It also tells us to mourn with the mourning. I thank God that we now have a President who calls on the stories common to the Torah and Bible as he commiserates with our Jewish fellow citizens.

Jobless claims at 49-year low

U.S. weekly jobless claims drop to near 49-year low

We can thank Trump’s deregulation for a 49-year-low in jobless claims as reported in a 13 December 2018 Reuters article.

The number of Americans filing applications for jobless benefits tumbled to near a 49-year low last week, which could ease concerns about a slowdown in the labor market and economy.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 27,000 to a seasonally adjusted 206,000 for the week ended Dec. 8, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Last week’s decline in claims was the largest since April 2015. Claims hit 202,000 in mid-September, which was the lowest level since December 1969.

Data for the prior week was revised to show 2,000 more applications received than previously reported.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims falling to 225,000 in the latest week. Claims shot up to an eight-month high of 235,000 during the week ended Nov. 24.

The Labor Department said only claims for Virginia were estimated last week.

The four-week moving average of initial claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, fell 3,750 to 224,750 last week.

(Read more at Reuters)

Although there are a number of other dynamics in the business world that both boost and stifle economic growth, Mr You-can-thank-me-now should have known that the regulations of the EPA and his other pet agencies would kill business. Therefore, unless Obama is hopelessly dense, he has no leg to stand on when claiming credit for the growing economy at the same time he acknowledges that Trump has abandoned his environmental regulations.

Nonetheless, I am thankful that Trump has had the foresight to eliminate a number of regulations that tied up business.

<

A contrast of Republican and Democrat health initiatives


The Republican’s Right to Try Act

As reported in a 30 May 2018 article by Fox News, this new law allows patients with potentially terminal diseases to try untested drugs and procedures.

President Trump on Wednesday signed into law a bill that would allow those with potentially terminal diseases to try experimental treatments and bypass the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The so-called Right to Try Act of 2017, sponsored by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., unanimously passed the Senate last August, and cleared the House last week on a party-line vote of 250-169 — in a win for both Johnson and the Trump administration.

“Today I am proud to keep another promise to the American people as I sign the Right to Try legislation into law,” Trump said Wednesday. “We’re going to be saving tremendous numbers of lives.”

The president said the issue was “very personal” for him.

“As I proudly sign this bill, thousands of terminally ill Americans will have the help, the hope and the fighting chance — and I think it’s going to be better than chance — that they will be cured, that they will be helped, that they will be able to be with their families for a long time, or maybe just for a longer time,” Trump said. “But we’re able to give them the absolute best we have at this current moment, at this current second. We’re going to help a lot of people. It’s an honor to be signing this.”

(Read more at Fox News)

In summary, this Republican law provides a hope that did not exist before. When things are becoming extremely difficult, this law allows experimentation.

Contrast this to the Obamacare town hall meeting where Obama reserved the right of the government to select the “most appropriate” care for the person. Likewise, contrast the the Republican Right to Try Act to Oregonian Democrat’s Death with Dignity Act.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

2009 Obamacare town hall meeting where Obama asserts the primacy of government in making healthcare decisions for citizens

Remember the June 2009 town hall meeting where, when asked about providing a pacemaker to a 105-year-old mother who had a “zest for life,” responded with the following:

(Obama) We’re not gonna solve every difficult problem in terms of end of life care, a lot of that is gonna have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families … and … and … for ourselves. But … what we can do is make sure that at least some of the … waste … that exist in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better … uh … that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily gonna improve care … that at least we can let doctors know and your Mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t gonna help. Maybe you’re better off …uh… not having the surgery, but taking …uh… the pain killer.

So, Obama’s plan would prevent certain people from seeking help because (after the initial motion towards acting like it would pay for everyone) the plan ended up rationing healthcare. “Just take a pain pill.” Obama said.

I wonder if Obamacare’s reality and Obama’s words have contributed any driving force to the current opioid epidemic.

I would have liked to have provided a link to an ABC article (especially since they hosted the town hall). However, it seems that none of their articles that quote any portion of the town hall still exist. It is almost like they are trying to erase the bad parts of history.

An 8 October 2014 Time article has this to say of Oregon Democrats’ 1994 Death with Dignity Act.

The Death With Dignity Act was passed in 1994. It allows doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of painkillers to patients who request it in writing. The patients can’t just be anyone however; two doctors have to certify that they are likely to be dead in six months. They have to be deemed to be mentally healthy and not depressed, or at least not suffering from more than the regular, to-be-expected sadness about dying. They have to be residents of Oregon and two people have to witness the writing of the request, at least one of whom cannot be a beneficiary of their estate.

If all these criteria are met, and the mandatory 15-day waiting time has passed, a doctor is legally allowed to write a prescription, which the patient then fills and takes the medication whenever he or she sees fit. Opponents of the legislation argue that once the drugs are in the house, there’s little oversight. If the patient changes his or her mind, but then becomes debilitated, there’s not much technically to stop a relative or carer giving them the drugs anyway. Some medical practitioners, including the Royal College of Surgeons, argue that it’s always wrong for a doctor to deliberately cause death, no matter how much thought has gone into the decision.

Therefore, on this hand, Democrats offer an option that many consider unethical for doctors. More specifically, these Democrats offer an option that is final, but may be forced on the patient once the last stages have been reached.

Obama’s legacy


“Selfie Stick President” just about sums it up.

A legacy of rarely-paralleled narcissism

A summary of Obama’s accomplishments by Richard Weaving

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

George Will comments on the presidential narcissism

In a 5 January 2017 commentary, Mr. Will provided the following views about the nearly-past president:

“Any summation of Barack Obama’s impact on domestic policy and politics should begin with this: In 2008, he assured supporters, ‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.’ Soon he will be replaced by someone who says, ‘I alone can fix it.’

So, Americans have paid Obama the compliment of choosing continuity, if only in presidential narcissism.

The nation has now had, for only the second time, three consecutive two-term presidencies. (The other was ‘the Virginia dynasty’ of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe.) The first trio culminated in an ‘era of good feelings’ (Monroe was re-elected unopposed). The second not so much.

Obama, who called health insurance reform the ‘defining struggle of this generation,’ was semi-right, in two senses. Because Obamacare demonstrates the perils of trying to micromanage 18 percent of the economy (America’s health care sector is larger than all but four national economies), it might be the last gasp of New Deal/Great Society-style government hubris.

On Jan. 16, 2008, Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal, ‘I want to make government cool again.’ His paragraph in our national epic did not do that.

On the other hand, Obama might have catalyzed a conviction already forming in the American mind, but in any case he leaves a nation that now believes public policy should enable everyone to have access to insurance.

Obama has been among the most loquacious of our presidents, but can you call to mind from his Niagara of rhetoric a memorable sentence or even phrase? If power is the ability to achieve intended effects, his rhetoric has been powerless to produce anything but an empty, inconsequential reputation for speaking well.

He assured congressional Democrats that they could safely vote for Obamacare because ‘you’ve got me.’ He would demonstrate his magic when campaigning for it and for them. Seven years after he said this, it remains unpopular and Democrats are fewer than they were. There are 11 fewer senators and 62 fewer representatives than on Jan. 20, 2009.

A former colleague of Obama’s on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School described him as someone who never learned anything from anyone with whom he disagreed. He also never learned anything from anyone about constitutional etiquette.

He combined progressivism’s oldest tradition and central tenet – hostility to the separation of powers – with a breezy indifference to the Take Care Clause (the president ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed’) and to the first sentence of the Constitution’s first article (‘All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress’).

He began pioneering new dimensions in presidential lawlessness when, taking over George W. Bush’s bailout of the automobile industry, he shredded the rights of secured Chrysler bondholders.

He seemed to believe there is an article in the Constitution that says presidents may make or amend laws that Congress will not make or amend. Perhaps this is the mysterious Article XII that his successor has referred to.

Obama’s adventures in green energy produced the $535 million bankruptcy of Solyndra and 60 percent fewer electric cars on the road in 2015 than he had predicted.”

(Read more at the Albuquerque Journal)

If we only consider Obama’s continual crowing on the ACA — the program that was purported by him to lower our expenses by $25 hundred and was going to let us keep our plan and doctor — and then think of what actually happened, only a complete narcissist could ignore the failures on failures and keep selling it to us.  From the multiple failures of the website to the multiple failures of the exchanges to the multiple failures of insurance companies to the program’s failure to reduce the number of uninsured to the numerous other failures, only the hubris of a narcissist could keep selling this to the Democrats who rode the ACA down.

Obama receives the Medal of Honor from his Pentagon

The Washington Post reported in a 5 January 2017 article how Obama accepted the medal from his direct reports at the Pentagon:

“President Obama on Wednesday received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service from Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, prompting a backlash from critics that include former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R). But the award is more common than they apparently know, as numerous senior officials have received it, including the last two presidents.

The award was adopted in 1947 and recognizes ‘exceptionally distinguished service of significance to the Department of Defense as a whole or distinguished service of such exceptional significance’ to a part of the Defense Department for their awards to be considered insufficient, according to a Pentagon fact sheet on the award.

‘The service or assistance may have been rendered at considerable personal sacrifice and inconvenience that was motivated by patriotism, good citizenship, and a sense of public responsibility,’ the fact sheet said.

Palin criticized the decision Wednesday night, saying ‘this is what happens when you grow up thinking every kid gets a trophy.’ She shared a Breitbart News Network story with the sarcastic, if incorrect, headline: ‘President Obama awards himself Distinguished Public Service Medal.’

In January 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave outgoing President George W. Bush the award at a similar ceremony. Then-Defense Secretary William S. Cohen did the same with President Clinton in January 2001. “

(Read about the criticisms from others at The Washington Post)

When Bill Clinton and then George W. Bush were given this medal, it seemed a bit narcissistic. It definitely does now.

Obama’s legacy of lying documented in account of farewell address

On 10 January 2017, Ben Shapiro responded to President Obama’s farewell speech in Chicago by identifying the 15 biggest lies (note that the words are his, but the links are mine):

“For 45 minutes, he babbled, fibbed, rehashed the good times and the other good times, the victories and the other victories, told a hackneyed fairy tale about the young prince who arrived in the swamps of Washington D.C. and left it a utopian vision at the mercy of an evil Troll.

And the media wept.

Unfortunately, the speech was chock full of fibs.

Here were 15 of the worst falsehoods.

  1. He Believes Change Comes From Ordinary People. Obama said, ‘I learned that change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged, and come together to demand it. After eight years as your president, I still believe that.’ Really? That’s odd. His signature legislation forced benighted Americans to purchase health insurance and required religious Americans to forego their religious objections to contraceptives and abortion coverage. This is the same fellow who once referred to half the electorate as bitter clingers obsessed with God and xenophobia thanks to their poverty, and labeled the Tea Party as a terrorist entity.
     
  2. American Exceptionalism Lies In Our Capacity To Change. No, actually, all people are capable of change, if some more so than others. Change may be worthwhile, but that’s not what makes America unique. What makes America exceptional is the foundational principles of individual freedom and limited government enshrined in our founding documents. But Obama said, ‘So that’s what we mean when we say America is exceptional. Not that our nation has been flawless from the start, but that we have shown the capacity to change, and make life better for those who follow.’
     
  3. He Created A Thriving Economy. Obama bragged about ‘revers[ing] a great recession, reboot[ing] our auto industry, and unleash[ing] the longest stretch of job creation in our history.’ Actually, he was responsible for the weakest recovery in American history, he blew out the national debt, and he ensured that trillions of dollars in investment money remained on the sidelines, as well as keeping underemployment at significant highs.
     
  4. He Fixed Cuba. Obama bragged about ‘open[ing] a new chapter with the Cuban people.’ But the Cuban people are still stuck living under a communist tyranny that has now been significantly enriched and empowered by Obama’s support.
     
  5. He Disarmed Iran. Obama said he had “shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot.” That’s patently untrue. The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Obama administration greenlit a shipment of tons of uranium to Iran. Iran has been secretly pursuing nuclear development, and Obama’s been ignoring it, as well as their material support for terrorism.
     
  6. He Won ‘Marriage Equality.’ Actually, Obama opposed same-sex marriage until his 2012 re-election campaign. It was Anthony Kennedy and his extraconstitutional mandate that ‘won’ so-called ‘marriage equality.’
     
  7. He ‘Secure[d] The Right To Health Insurance.’ Actually, Obama just mandated that Americans buy health insurance at gunpoint. That’s not securing a right. That’s controlling others with coercion.
     
  8. He Supports ‘Solidarity.’ There has been no more divisive president in modern history than Obama. Obama has demonized his oppositions, termed them enemies, urged his followers to bring a gun to a knife fight. He has overrun limits on executive power, grandstanded on race, and labeled those who oppose him idiots who just don’t understand the moral arc of history.
     
  9. Healthcare Costs Are Under Control. Obama said that health care costs are rising at the lowest rate in 50 years. This is a far cry from Obama’s claim that Obamacare would lower the cost of a typical family’s premium by $2,500 per year. Instead, premiums have skyrocketed inside Obamacare, and insurance companies have also raised premiums for employer-based insurance to compensate for the new regulations.
     
  10. Race Relations Have Improved Under Obama. Obama stated, “I’ve lived long enough to know that race relations are better than they were 10, or 20, or 30 years ago – you can see it not just in statistics, but in the attitudes of young Americans across the political spectrum.” It’s true that race relations are better now than they were in 1994. But they have gotten markedly worse by every poll over the last eight years. That’s because of Obama’s insistence that a post-racial America is impossible. And Obama insisted that white people acknowledge that “when minority groups voice discontent, they’re not just engaging in reverse racism or practicing political correctness; that when they wage peaceful protest, they’re not demanding special treatment, but the equal treatment our Founders promised.” That’s not always true, though. Does it apply when protesters burn Baltimore or Ferguson over baseless claims of police brutality?
     
  11. Obama Is Anti-Bubble. He said, “we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.” Yes, Mr. President, you’ve made this a habit. And this speech was proof of it.
     
  12. No Foreign Terrorist Organization Has Planned And Executed’ A Terror Attack. He also said ISIS was under control. Nonsense. His oddly specific formulation about terrorism is ridiculous. We’ve seen multiple major terrorist attacks in the United States under Obama, from Fort Hood to Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino. And we know from audio from John Kerry that the Obama administration allowed ISIS to grow long after Obama realized they were no longer the jayvee squad.
     
  13. He’s ‘Worked To Close Gitmo, And Reform Our Laws Governing Surveillance.’ Actually, he’s failed to close Gitmo, and his surveillance reform was prompted not by his own desire to protect civil liberties, but by widespread outcry at the extent of surveillance under the NSA as revealed by Edward Snowden.
     
  14. The American Creed Is ‘Yes We Can.’ No, actually. There are several American creeds, but ‘Yes We Can’ isn’t among them. That was just a cheap slogan. E Pluribus Unum – that’s a creed Obama opposed with his intersectionality. In God We Trust – that’s a creed Obama opposed throughout his presidency. Liberty – nope, he wasn’t a fan. A Nation of Laws, Not of Men – nope. We Are Endowed By Our Creator With Certain Inalienable Rights – well, unless you cross the collective. “

Additionally, I would point to the lie which claimed that Obama had no scandals.  In reply, I would point to:

A legacy of working against others

Obama shows his disrespect by trying to thwart Trump with regulations

In a 30 December 2016 Washington Examiner article, the release of thousands of new regulations during the waning hours of the Obama presidency was discussed:

President Obama‘s lame duck administration poured on thousands more new regulations in 2016 at a rate of 18 for every new law passed, according to a Friday analysis of his team’s expansion of federal authority.

While Congress passed just 211 laws, Obama’s team issued an accompanying 3,852 new federal regulations, some costing billions of dollars.

The 2016 total was the highest annual number of regulations under Obama. Former President Bush issued more in the wake of 9/11.

The proof that it was an overwhelming year for rules and regulations is in the Federal Register, which ended the year Friday by printing a record-setting 97,110 pages, according to the analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The annual ‘Unconstitutional Index’ from Clyde Wayne Crews, CEI’s vice president for policy, said that it was much higher under Obama than under former President George W. Bush.

‘The multiple did tend to be higher during Obama administration. Bush’s eight years averaged 20, while Obama’s almost-eight have averaged 29,’ said his report, first provided to Secrets.”

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Thanks to the Political War Zone

Ben Shapiro exposes Obama’s legacy of enabling scandals on the international stage

Several weeks before Obama’s farewell address, the President commented on his accomplishments.  In a 29 December 2016 response to Obama’s words, Ben Shapiro provided the following rebuttal:

” President Barack Obama likes to see himself as a moral leader. ‘The arc of the moral universe is long,’ Obama likes to say, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., ‘but it bends toward justice.’ According to Obama, Obama is a genteel representative of decency and good grace, a man pointing America toward a broader vision, a fellow questing for social justice and contextual consideration.

In reality, he’s a narcissistic fool. And like Burgess Meredith’s character in ‘The Twilight Zone,’ he will be left standing in the ruins, bewailing the fates that abandoned him, leaving no worshipful admirers upon whom to lean.

Obama’s legacy is one of failure all around the world. He leaves office with a genocide in Syria on his record – a genocide he pledged to prevent, then tolerated and finally lamented, mourning the fates while blithely ignoring his own cowardice. Libya, meanwhile, remains a full-scale disaster area, with tens of thousands of refugees from that failed campaign swamping Europe, along with those fleeing Syria, and his leftist European allies paying the political price.

Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, stands on the brink of a nuclear dawn, its pockets filled with billions of dollars, its minions ascendant from Tehran to Aleppo to Beirut. Obama made that happen with nearly a decade of appeasement and a willingness to abandon freedom-minded Iranians to the tender mercies of the mullahs.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

In addition to Mr. Shapiro’s fine points, I might have additionally pointed toward Obama’s abandonment of  Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood was forced out.  Additionally noteworthy, Obama has done little to stand beside West Europeans as Islamists attack with increasing regularity.

In the paragraphs following this excerpt, Shapiro points out the disasters of Obama’s habit of ignoring the Russians and Chinese.

A legacy of unintended consequences

The neglect of Obama’s VA produces the Fort Lauderdale shooter

In a 9 January 2017 Los Angeles Times article, the following was noted of Fort Lauderdale Airport shooter Esteban Santiago (emphasis mine):

“Santiago left Puerto Rico several years ago because of the lack of adequate medical services for veterans, particularly mental health care, Nelson Cruz, a senator from Puerto Rico, told the Sun Sentinel newspaper in Florida.

Puerto Rico has a Veterans Affairs hospital and other facilities, but some, including Cruz, say the services are underfunded and understaffed to serve the needs of the island’s veterans.

I believe this could have been avoided if Esteban had access in Puerto Rico to the same services that other veterans have in [other parts of] the U.S.,’ [Puerto Rico Senator Nelson] Cruz said. ‘One of the reasons that he left Puerto Rico was to seek better services [for his mental health issues]. I’ve heard this from other veterans here.’

Santiago was suffering from mental issues when he returned from his National Guard tour in Iraq in 2011. The family said he was hearing voices and sometimes hallucinating, according to Cruz.

(Read more at the Los Angeles Times)

Therefore, had Obama put more emphasis on the VA (possibly by devoting as much to mental health as he used in vacations) maybe this might have been prevented.

Obama’s legacy of nuclear proliferation

A 10 January 2017 post at the Clarion Project had the following to say about the recent sale of nuclear material to Iran and its subsequent aggression toward a US ship:

“Russia is sending a large shipment of natural uranium to Iran in exchange for an Iranian shipment to Russia of nuclear reactor coolant. The shipment of 116 metric tons (130 tons) was approved by the United States and the five other countries involved in orchestrating the nuclear deal with Iran.

United Nations Security Council approval of the shipment is expected soon as a formality.

The shipment is enough to make more than 10 simple nuclear bombs, according to David Albright, an expert with the Institute of Science and International Security, ‘depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon.’

Two senior diplomats leaked the information to the Associated Press under the condition of anonymity and said they were not authorized to discuss details of the program.

The Iranian shipment is legal under the terms of the nuclear deal and will be ‘subject to the careful monitoring and inspections that are included in the deal to ensure that Iran is living up to the commitments that they made,’ White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

Outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama sold the nuclear deal to the American people on the understanding that the deal would make it more difficult, rather than easier, for Iran to build nuclear weapons.

At the same time as receiving huge Iranian shipments while complaining about alleged U.S. violations of the nuclear deal, the Iranian navy has come close to combat with U.S. ships in international waters in the Straits of Hormuz.

Iranian fast attack vessels closed in rapidly to a U.S. destroyer on Sunday and ignored repeated warnings to slow down. This forced the destroyer to fire three warning shots at the Iranian ships.

(Read more at the Clarion Project)

When you consider the power held within that nuclear fuel along with the aggression shown by the Iranian leadership who sent the fast boats to confront the USS Mahan, you can see that some American president will have to deal with the extreme consequences of Mr. Obama’s problem here.

Obama legacy of non-transparency

According to an 8 January 2017 article in Politico, the transparent president plans to hold an undisclosed number of his papers away from public eyes for 12 years.

“The letter, released to POLITICO on Friday under the Freedom of Information Act, also indicates that Obama is exercising his rights to put many of those records off-limits for 12 years after he leaves the presidency later this month. While the move could be seen as at odds with Obama’s frequently stated commitment to transparency, it’s a step other recent presidents have also taken before leaving the White House.

Recent presidents have eventually eased some of those access restrictions after leaving office.

White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine did not comment directly on Obama’s rationale for imposing the 12-year restrictions on his records, which will be sent in the coming years to his yet-to-be-built presidential library in Chicago.

However, she said Breckenridge is the point person on the White House staff managing transition-related issues, like the transfer of presidential records to federal archivists.”

(Read more at Politico)

What will we later find these papers to reveal? Will they be records of Obama’s deeper involvement in Hillary’s illegal server or the Clinton Foundation fundraising?

Obama’s legacy of over-the-top vacations

As recently as December 2016, this blog posted a commentary on the $85 million spent by the Obama family on lavish vacations prior to the last vacation. Now it seems that the Obamas have broken their own record with the final taxpayer-funded Hawaii vacation by bringing the total to over $100 million (as reported in a 2 January 2017 OneNewsNow article).

“President Barack Obama’s legacy of running up the tab for taxpayers during his family’s exorbitant and frequent vacations is projected to reach an excess of $100 million before the close of his two terms as president – putting a strain on the economy, military and Secret Service.

As the Obamas finish up nearly two weeks of vacation in Hawaii over the holidays – with their White House stay coming to an end – the president’s hypocrisy is becoming increasingly evident.

‘As a candidate in 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama (R-Ill.), vowed he would give up vacations if elected president, in order to completely focus on his job,’ WND reported. ‘Fast-forward to the present, and it is now projected Obama will have spent more than $100 million in taxpayer funds on vacations during his eight years as president.’

A legacy of waste

A government watchdog organization has monitored the Obama’s expenditures since the 44th president’s inauguration eight years ago.

‘[We] received new documents from both the Secret Service and the Air Force relating to Obama travel expenses, bringing the known total over the past eight years to $96,938,882.51,’ Judicial Watch informed.

After filing two separate lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to reveal how much Obama’s travel cost the Secret Service, Judicial Watch was able to tally the numbers.

‘The Obamas notorious abuse of presidential travel perks wasted military resources and stressed the Secret Service,’ Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton asserted. ‘Judicial Watch estimates that the final costs of Obama’s unnecessary vacation and political travel will well exceed $100 million.’ “

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

We can only speculate what this $100 million might have done had it been re-directed to the mental health services that Fort Lauderdale airport shooter Esteban Santiago had sought.

The legacy of a community organizer

An organized America by Steve Breen

Obamacare News


At last, we may have seen the last of Obamacare.

Three news pieces from three sources say the same thing: the ACA is burnt toast

To defund the ACA, the Senate uses the same technique used to pass the ACA according to CBN

As shown in the following portions of video published on 4 January 2017 by the Christian Broadcasting Network, the budget reconciliation used to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be used to dismantle it. Just as the Democrats used budget reconciliation to pass Obamacare with 51 out of 100 votes, Republicans will now start taking apart the ACA via budget reconciliation by using their 52 votes.

Although this will not mean the immediate end of all parts of the ACA, it does begin the process. So, maybe this will signal an end to the onerous financial costs (such as the requirement that employers with more than 50 workers provide insurance — a part of the law that kept many small businesses from expanding) and the spiritual costs (such as the requirement that Christian service groups provide access to abortion).

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Hill explains “Why use budget reconciliation?”

A 20 December 2016 article in The Hill describes the process and benefits associated with the Republican effort to use budget reconciliation to dismantle the ACA.

“Those lawmakers who vowed to oppose this failed health care law finally have an opportunity to put their campaign promises into action early next year. Working with President-elect Donald Trump, Republicans in the 115th Congress can finally repeal major parts of President Obama’s signature law using the budget reconciliation process, relieving Americans from its most burdensome mandates and costs.

Of course, few things are so simple in Washington. Despite the myriad positive provisions that will end up in any bill repealing elements of ObamaCare, some legislators on Capitol Hill may criticize the package for stopping short of full repeal, or for failing to include a replacement plan. Doing so risks passing up an unprecedented opportunity to protect millions of Americans from ObamaCare’s most onerous provisions.

In fact, the budget reconciliation process means lawmakers have their best chance yet at undoing negative elements of ObamaCare. The advantage to using the budget reconciliation process to repeal major provisions of the president’s health care law is that it will require only a simple majority in the Senate and House to move forward. It also cannot be filibustered, making it easier for Congress to send to the President’s desk.

The disadvantage is that it may not be possible to repeal the law in its entirety. There’s difficulty in repealing the provisions in the law that do not have a direct budgetary impact, such as the insurance mandates requiring plans to offer a certain set of benefits dictated by bureaucrats in Washington.

Yet the opportunity to erase years of bad policy is too valuable to pass up. If complicated Senate precedents and procedure make repealing the entire healthcare law difficult, then lawmakers should aim to repeal what’s leftover through other legislative efforts. In tandem with pursuing reconciliation instructions that dismantle major provisions in ObamaCare, members of Congress should pursue standalone efforts to eradicate the health care law’s other failings. Passing legislation to stop the harmful insurance mandates and preventing the use of taxpayer dollars to bail out insurance companies are just some positive steps Congress can take to protect taxpayers and those in need of better health care options.”

(Read more at The Hill)

If the Republicans want to remain in the good graces of the voters, they had better work toward eliminating the parts of the ACA that make the law completely unaffordable.  Additionally, the protection of the powerless (such as the unborn) should be on the top of their minds; therefore, elimination of the parts that require groups like the Little Sisters to provide abortion-inducing drugs need to go.

The Washington Times reports on how Republicans fast-track votes in Senate

A 4 January 2017 Washington Times article underscored the success met by the Republicans in their beginning steps to erase Obamacare.

“Republicans won the first skirmish in the Obamacare fight Wednesday, voting to begin debating fast-track budget procedures that, if successful, would allow the GOP to kill the 2010 health care law without having to face a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

The 51-48 vote, on the second day of the 115th Congress, underscores how serious Republicans are in making good on their repeal pledge. But it also signaled that Democrats are just as committed to defending the Affordable Care Act and convinced that they have the upper hand politically.

After years of fruitless repeal votes, Republicans, now in control of Congress and about to take the White House, is firing with live rounds. Democrats said that means Republicans will take the blame for any mistakes.

‘They want to repeal it and blame it on us. Not going to happen,’ Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said after a Capitol Hill summit with President Obama.

The president urged congressional Democrats to defend his signature law even after he is out of the White House.

Republicans counterpunched by huddling with Vice President-elect Mike Pence on Capitol Hill to plot their strategy for repealing the law, which has been their top target ever since it was enacted.”

(Read more at the Washington Times)

Courts deal new blows to Obamacare

Texas judge halts Obamacare mandate that physicians must provide sex-change drugs and procedures that violate their conscience

According to a 31 December 2016 OneNewsNow article, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor struck down a portion of the ACA.

“A federal judge in Texas on Saturday ordered a halt to another Obama administration effort to strengthen transgender rights, this time over health rules that social conservatives say could force doctors to violate their religious beliefs.

The latest injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor comes four months after he blocked a higher-profile new set of transgender protections — a federal directive that required public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Several of the Republican-controlled states that brought that lawsuit, including Texas, also sued over the health regulations that were finalized in May.

Civil rights groups had hailed the new health rules as groundbreaking anti-discrimination protections. The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund said the new U.S. Health and Human Services regulations advised that certain forms of transgender discrimination by doctors, hospitals and insurers violated the Affordable Care Act.

But a coalition of religious medical organizations said the rules could force doctors to help with gender transition contrary to their religious beliefs or medical judgment. O’Connor agreed in his 46-page ruling, saying the rules place ‘substantial pressure on Plaintiffs to perform and cover transition and abortion procedures.’

The rules were set to take effect Sunday.

‘Plaintiffs will be forced to either violate their religious beliefs or maintain their current policies which seem to be in direct conflict with the Rule and risk the severe consequences of enforcement,’ O’Connor wrote.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Judge stops Obama’s order forcing the religious to fund abortion

In addition to stopping Obama’s transgender agenda, the ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor also prohibited Obama’s new abortion-related provisions (as reported in a Reuters article).

“A federal judge in Texas on Saturday issued a court order barring enforcement of an Obama administration policy seeking to extend anti-discrimination protections under the Affordable Care Act to transgender health and abortion-related services.

The decision sides with Texas, seven other states and three Christian-affiliated healthcare groups challenging a rule that, according to the judge, defines sex bias to include ‘discrimination on the basis of gender identity and termination of pregnancy.’

In granting an injunction one day before the new policy was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor held that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law governing rule-making practices.

The judge also ruled that plaintiffs were likely to prevail in court on their claim that the new policy infringes on the rights of private healthcare providers under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As explained in O’Connor’s 46-page opinion, the plaintiffs argued that the new regulation would ‘require them to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transitions and abortions, regardless of their contrary religious beliefs or medical judgment.’

The same judge issued a similar court order in August blocking a separate Obama administration policy that would have required public schools, over the objections of 13 states, to allow transgender students to use restrooms of their choice.

It was not immediately clear whether the Obama administration, which has just 20 days left in office, would seek to appeal the latest injunction.”

(Read more at Reuters)

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

13 Democrats could side with Republicans to overhaul the ACA

Although the possibility that the Democrats are attempting a ruse that might delay Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare, the Washington Times reported in a 5 January 2017 article on a supposed group of Democrats who would work with Republicans to kill Obamacare.

“A group of 13 Senate Democratic Caucus members said Thursday that they are ready to work with Republicans on changes to Obamacare, but objected to the quick pace GOP leaders are pushing to repeal the law entirely.

Proclaiming themselves ‘moderate Senate Democrats,’ the 13 — including Sen. Angus King, who is an independent but who usually sides with Democrats — said they realize there are problems with the U.S. health care system even with Obamacare. They said improvements are needed.

‘But by pushing an immediate repeal through a partisan reconciliation process, we won’t have the opportunity to work together and build on common ground,’ the senators said in a letter. ‘By moving forward with no plan in place for the future of our health care system, those who support repeal assume the responsibility of mitigating the unnecessary and avoidable chaos this will create.’

It’s not clear how serious the effort is. The senators said they supported ‘improvements’ to the law, but gave no details. Instead they listed a number of benefits they said the current law is providing, and insisted those cannot be tampered with.”

(Read more at Washington Times)

Although I would not be surprised to hear that this was only a stalling tactic, I also would not be surprised to hear that these 13 Democrats have felt some heat from their home districts.  I know that I have written a number of letters to my senators and representatives about the burdens and undelivered promises of Obamacare.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Senator Rand Paul calls for an alternate Obamacare that does not greatly increase the defiict

The Hill reports in a 5 January 2017 article how Rand Paul has urged caution as the legislature considers repealing Obamacare.

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is trying to gin up House support for his alternative timeline for repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

Paul on Thursday huddled with the House Freedom Caucus to discuss his push to block the budget resolution and repeal and replace ObamaCare simultaneously.

‘At least half of the discussion was that we should have replacement on the same day as repeal,’ he told reporters.

Asked if the House Freedom Caucus members agree with him, he added, ‘I think we are headed toward a consensus on that.’

Paul wrote over the weekend that he believes Congress should repeal and replace ObamaCare simultaneously, warning a ‘partial repeal’ without replacement could invite confusion.

Republican lawmakers are divided over how long the transition away from ObamaCare should be.

Paul said he also talked with the House lawmakers about his push to block the GOP budget that paves the way for repealing ObamaCare, instead replacing it with a budget that balances.

House GOP leadership will need the support of Freedom Caucus members to pass the budget resolution.

Paul told reporters Wednesday that he would vote against the budget resolution next week. He is planning to offer an alternative that would balance over five years.”

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Don’t Like Obamacare? You have more Who Agree


Would the Times report this as “Most Paper Still Un-crumpled?”

Rising Numbers of Americans Do Not Like the Affordable Care Act

According to a 25 May 2016 OneNewsNow article, an increasing number of people surveyed do not like Obamacare. That article further explains:

“The survey from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that about half of ObamaCare enrollees (52 percent) describe their plan as ‘good.’ The percentage of those saying ‘not so good’ or ‘poor’ is higher this year (31 percent) than it was last year (21 percent in 2015) and the year before (20 percent in 2014).

‘I’ve seen this survey spun both ways,’ says Hadley Heath Manning, director of health policy at Independent Women’s Forum. ‘But certainly it should concern us that so many people give their plans a poor rating, because that is obviously dissatisfaction.’

Manning says this gels with findings from Gallup and other polling companies or organizations.

‘We know from various surveys that about half of Americans would like to see the Affordable Care Act repealed,’ she continues. ‘Americans can’t seem to agree on what they believe the solution should be, but we do see a slim majority of people typically reporting that they don’t believe that the Affordable Care Act is the right solution – and that can easily link up with other surveys like this one from Kaiser showing that about the same number of people are dissatisfied in their personal experience.’

Meanwhile, Manning says there are various ways to try to gauge satisfaction.

‘Whether that is in terms of the value and the quality that people perceive in their ACA-compliant plans, or especially when it comes to the cost that individuals and employers are facing in the health insurance markets, they seem to be dissatisfied largely as a result of ever-increasing costs.’

Twenty percent of Democrats say they were negatively affected by the Affordable Care Act. Sixteen percent of Republicans say they benefited from the ACA.”

The Los Angeles Times Reports Liberally

In contrast, the surely-never-biased Los Angeles Times uses the following headline to bury the lede:

Obamacare is helping millions get needed healthcare, new survey finds

While never mentioning the rising dissatisfaction with the ACA, they do say:

“The findings paralleled a recent nationwide survey by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, which found that two-thirds of people in a marketplace plan created through the law rated their coverage ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’

Unlike the new report, the Kaiser survey did not include people newly enrolled in Medicaid through the law, which is often called Obamacare.

The high marks are not universal, cautioned fund Vice President Sara Collins, the report’s lead author.

Indeed, some consumers who had coverage before the health law was implemented have seen their premiums and deductibles increase as insurers have absorbed millions of new consumers, many of whom could not obtain health insurance previously because they had a pre-existing medical condition.”