Your ObamaCare Watchdog

Posts Tagged ‘WSJ’

Columnist wins Pulitzer for blasting ObamaCare

In Politics Watch on 04/2011 at 10:33 AM

The Wall Street Journal’s Joseph Rago wins some much needed praise for his common sense. (Wall Street JournalMore > …


The CBO’s gift to ObamaCare’s anniversary

In ObamaCare on 03/2011 at 10:57 AM

The American public instinctively understands that subsidizing health care for millions of people will be staggeringly expensive and only grow over time. But at least now CBO is starting to disclose how fiscally reckless government health care really is. (The Wall Street Journal) More > …

A very unhappy anniversary

In Politics Watch on 03/2011 at 10:57 AM

“So we the people are subject to a 2,700-page law that will cost us nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and will put the federal government, in charge of everyone’s medical care. The bill appropriates in advance some $100 billion from now until 2020, making it more difficult for future Congresses or Presidents to defund it. The bill creates some 159 new government agencies to administer health care. As of Jan. 1, 2014, unless it is repealed, health care will be run, controlled, and totally supervised by Washington.” (The Wall Street Journal) More > …

Obama wringing Americans like a wet towel

In How It Affects You on 03/2011 at 9:10 PM

“New research shows that patients of this government plan fare poorly. So why does the president want to shove one in four Americans into it? . . . One option is to run Medicaid like a health program—rather than an exercise in political morals—and let states tailor benefits to the individual needs of patients, even if that means abandoning the unworkable myth of “comprehensive” coverage.” (The Wall Street Journal) More > …


ObamaCare hurts us all over

In How It Affects You on 03/2011 at 10:56 AM

“Patients are demanding doctors’ orders for over-the-counter products because of a provision in the health-care overhaul that slipped past nearly everyone’s radar. It says people who want a tax break to buy such items with what’s known as flexible-spending accounts need to get a prescription first.” Yes, that includes aspirin and bandaids! (The Wall Street Journal) More > …

Judge Vinson calls out ObamaCare dishonesty

In Politics Watch on 03/2011 at 11:12 AM

“The Administration is making bad-faith arguments that are “manifestly incorrect” and contrary to the well-established legal precedents “that they themselves had identified and specifically insisted they would honor” in earlier proceedings and motions. The transparent political goal is to string out the legal challenges as long as possible.” Let’s see what happens Thursday. (Wall Street Journal) More > …

America, we’re picking up the ObamaCare tab

In How It Affects You, ObamaCare on 02/2011 at 12:11 PM

No surprises here, ObamaCare will add almost 20 million Americans to Medicaid by 2019, estimated at a cost of up to $190 billion that will be paid by the federal and state governments. The states, businesses and you will have no choice in the matter; Washington is simply requiring all pick up the tab. (Wall Street Journal) More > …

‘Good ol’ fashioned lynching’

In Politics Watch on 02/2011 at 10:50 AM

Liberals launch media attack on Justice Thomas in an attempt to alter ObamaCare ruling

By Edward Hassell

The once-venerable New York Times has lived off its reputation for worldclass professionalism despite its recent yield of a veritable mountain of liberal slant.

Why was it that a Feb. 12 hit-piece, “No Argument: Thomas Keeps Silence,” which aimed squarely at denigrating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, saw fit to quote a third-year law student?

“’If Justice Thomas holds a strong view of the law in a case, he should offer it,” David A. Karp, a veteran journalist and third-year law student, wrote in the Florida Law Review in 2009.”

A third-year law student? The Florida Law Review? Was no other worldclass authority available to talk to the Times on this subject? Or was it the fact that this was a “veteran journalist” and the author of the piece, Adam Liptak, is always going to trust one of his own?  No matter. The rest of the piece is equally disturbing in its characterization of Justice Thomas as “less than” the standard for a Supreme Court Justice. Instead of pursuing a more newsworthy story idea, Liptak invented a “five-year anniversary” of Justice Thomas’ last utterance in the highest court in the land—as if it compared to historic events or tragedies.

In his meandering attempts to explain this phenomenon, Liptak quotes Thomas’ memoir in which he admitted he was ashamed of his Georgia accent, as well as his belief in the importance of listening in court, which he told a Bar Association in Richmond, Virginia. But Liptak doesn’t leave it at that—he is after all, a New York Times reporter. Recalling Thomas’ past questions of a defense lawyer in a case on race, he attempts to not-so-subtly undermine the Justice.

The point of the article becomes increasingly clear: Position Justice Thomas as a biased judge, subject to persuasion by external forces. Whether the author is using a journalist friend and third-year law student, or a liberal professor from Minnesota as his source, the message to the reader is “Be afraid. Be very afraid of this Justice.”

No surprise that just two days later, the Times ran another story on Thomas: this one about the ongoing efforts of liberal watchdog group, Common Cause, and its steady efforts to force Thomas to recuse himself from the inevitable ObamaCare case.  Accusing Thomas of  ‘conflict of interest,’ the group cites a 2008  “brief drop-by” the Justice made to a Palm Springs event, where his travel expenses were paid by its organizers, as well as the connections of Thomas’ wife to the conservative Heritage Foundation. [Note: No one has actually accused Thomas’ wife of any wrongdoing and Thomas was not under any requirement to disclose her earnings]

Worried by conservative plans to attack Justice Elena Kagan for her very real association with President Obama—the liberal media has joined with Democratic politicians and a phalanx of liberal activist groups to ‘even the score’ and take out a conservative judge likely to vote against the law on solid legal principles. One should note that even while Democrats and liberals scream out against Justice Thomas, they have been relatively mum on Kagan. One can’t pick and choose when making this kind of argument.

Do we think Supreme Court judges are incapable of making a legal decision due to the influence of their spouses? Or should judges and their families simply lead a cloistered life in which they are not allowed any contact with the general public or possible educational opportunities and seminars that may be beneficial to their understanding of a subject?

Not only has Common Cause gotten its facts wrong in the past, as noted by lawyer David Rivkin in his Jan. 25 Wall Street Journal article “Common Cause v. Scalia and Thomas,” but the whole idea of attacking judges before major cases is an unfair attack on the judiciary as a whole.  Such attacks and the latest incarnation of ‘yellow journalism’ should not be tolerated.

ObamaCare law la la la: Elite profs sticking their fingers in their ears (WSJ)

In Politics Watch on 02/2011 at 3:08 PM

Let’s just hope the Supremes hear this case soon, and that Reagan’s 100-year anniversary will have good mojo on the case. What really scares me is the Obama Administration’s unwillingness to follow the will of the judge in the Florida ruling and halt implementation of this act. That should scare everyone. This is an administration that, like the two professors here, clearly thinks it knows what is best for all of us, and has the right to take the law into its own hands. They were even recently ruled in contempt for the New Orleans oil-drilling case! What do the professors feel about this pattern of lawlessness? Should every person that breaks the law get to decide whether they take their punishment? More > …

Exclusive: ObamaCare repeal stalls

In Breaking, ObamaCare, Politics Watch on 02/2011 at 12:45 PM

From the WSJ: “David Rivkin, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the ruling meant the 26 states challenging the law must halt implementation of pieces that apply to states and certain small businesses represented by plaintiffs.

But the Obama administration said it has no to plans to halt implementation of the law. Already, it has mailed rebate checks to seniors with high prescription drug costs, helped set up insurance pools for people with pre-existing medical conditions and required insurers to allow children to stay on their parents’insurance policies until they reach age 26.” At this point and time, the best option is to take this law to the Supreme Court. (Front Page Mag) More > …


%d bloggers like this: