10 March, 2011

Take Them Home, I-74

Presented without comment.

09 March, 2011

How Can You Have a Law With No Standards For Enforcement?

That sound you hear is the crumbling of ObamaCare. The GOP may not have to destroy it after all. It appears to be collapsing under its own weight.

First, we had the news that the number of ObamaCare waivers is now up over 1,000 (my last report had it at 200+).

The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Yes, I should note that further down in the article it says this:

The waivers are meant as a stopgap measure until new state-run insurance exchanges open in 2014. Annual dollar limits will also be abolished by then.

Well, yeah, sure. But there weren’t supposed to be any waivers to begin with. Do you really think they’ll be temporary? Or that there won’t be new ones? Nearly 30 years ago, the state of Indiana enacted a temporary tax to fund the building of the Hoosier Dome (as it was named then). The Dome was completed long ago, and demolished several years ago, and yet the tax remains.

Now the entire state of Maine has been granted a waiver. And there are more requests on the way from Kentucky, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Think they’ll be the last? Don’t bet the house on it.

The federal government Tuesday granted Maine a waiver of a key provision in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, citing the likelihood that enforcement could destabilize the state's market for individual health insurance.

This law is a disaster. Congresswoman Pelosi (D-CA-08), you passed the bill. Now we know what’s in it. Can we have our country back now, please?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you still believe in this law, P.T. Barnum has an opening for you.

UPDATE & RELATED: Dr. Milton R. Wolf agrees about the impending collapse of ObamaCare.

It’s “Freedom OF Religion”, not “Freedom FROM Religion”

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear challenge to “In God We Trust” appearing on money.

I just have two words in response.

Thank God.

No, I lied. I have more than two. Back to quoting my favorite part of the Bill of Rights (emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since this case is unrelated to Congress making any laws respecting an establishment of religion, it’s frivolous to begin with. It’s interesting how the first part of that statement has been stretched by the Courts repeatedly, to impose restrictions upon religious freedom, but the second part gets ignored.

When a court rules that a state office can not display religious artifacts, they are saying that such is an example of “Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion” even though Congress wasn’t involved and there were now laws created, nor were any religions established.

However, the by doing so, the court clearly prohibited the free exercise of religion. I guess that’s ok, since they aren’t Congress.

Am I the only one that sees the problem here?