Showing posts with label Scotus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotus. Show all posts

Monday, August 3, 2015

Psychopathy in the White House

It’s clear that Barack Obama is a narcissist, so I wasn’t surprised when he paraded around the White House making faces to his selfie stick then stopping to admire his gaunt profile in the mirror the way an insecure teenager might.  Selfie obsession, however, can be a symptom of something more sinister – the Dark Triad of personality traits
The Dark Triad consists of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, and it turns out Obama is riddled with all three, especially the darkest category -- psychopathy.  Narcissists generally cause themselves harm, and one could easily argue that to become president one must be a bit self-absorbed, if not cocky.  But psychopathy is particularly pernicious as the perpetrator appears normal, and often quite charming, which even Obama’s detractors admit he occasionally exudes.
Personality psychologists have constructed a “Dirty Dozen” scale to identify the Dark Triad.  Let’s take a look, focusing especially on the behaviors associated with psychopathy, behaviors that Obama exhibits in abundance.
M = Machiavellianism, N = Narcissism, P = Psychopathy.
  1. I tend to manipulate others to get my way.  (M)
  2. I tend to lack remorse. (P)
  3. I tend to want others to admire me. (N)
  4. I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions. (P)
  5. I have used deceit or lied to get my way. (M)
  6. I tend to be callous or insensitive. (P)
  7. I have used flattery to get my way. (M)
  8. I tend to seek prestige or status. (N)
  9. I tend to be cynical. (P)
  10. I tend to exploit others toward my own end. (M)
  11. I tend to expect special favors from others. (N)
  12. I want others to pay attention to me. (N) (…continued below)
Obama would score highly in each measure. For example, for number 5, the Washington Post awarded him the Lie of the Year “award” for “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it."    Similarly, his real-time obsession with his legacy supersedes most presidents’ conceit -- who heretofore mostly focused on policy first then later massaged it for posterity.
But it is Obama’s proclivity for P which is particularly disconcerting; whereas most politicians have N, and a more devious minority exhibit some M, far fewer wallow in P.  Furthermore, whereas N infects the victim with self-destructive, perhaps supercilious visions of grandeur, P envelops those under his influence in the dark side.
Consider number 2 in the scale:  “I tend to lack remorse.”  Well, politicians at various points along the ideological spectrum may disagree wholeheartedly, but still have remorse should something untoward befall an opponent.
But there is evidence that Obama is remorseless.  Charles Woods, father of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was only looking for some emotional support from the Commander in Chief.  Instead, here’s how he described his meeting with Obama at Andrews Air Force base:  “His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye," Woods says of meeting Obama. "I could tell he was not sorry. He had no remorse." 
Want more recent evidence of Obama’s lack of remorse?   On 21 July, 2015, he had the impudence to deny that there was anything wrong with the IRS targeting conservative groups.    His lack of remorse that the IRS caused turmoil to American citizens’ lives is pathological because when it seemed politically expedient he condemned the IRS abuses and found the inspector general’s findings “inexcusable.”
Now consider number 4 on the scale:  “I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.” 
That pretty well captures Obama’s un-American grounding in morality.  Perhaps his umbrage at American exceptionalism was instilled while he was a child in Indonesia, or from lurking on the periphery of American society in Hawaii or in Chicago’s Saul Alinsky-inspired radical community organizations.  Something definitely warped his confused soul to apply this bizarre moral equivalence: Obama compares medieval Christian actions to present-day Islamic barbarism.
Obama’s actions, or lack thereof, in deploying resources to combat radical Islamic jihadists are ultimately immoral.   Another AT author did an exemplary job of exposing his immorality.
Number 6 on the scale is the next measure of psychopathy:  “I tend to be callous or insensitive”
It was truly unbecoming as well as insensitive when Obama, during his 2010 State of the Union address, criticized SCOTUS for their Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.  The justices were sitting ducks in this unprecedented presidential petulance that sullied an event in which members from all three branches of government are under one roof.  Magnanimity is clearly not in his makeup.
Obama seems to relish the callous and insensitive tactic of attacking others who are constrained from immediate rebuttal.  He also invited Paul Ryan to a budget speech (though Obama later lied about that) then proceeded to criticize his budget plans severely, knowing Ryan couldn’t respond.  At least not until after, when Ryan said this:
“I’m very disappointed in the president. I was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today. I thought the president’s invitation… was an olive branch. Instead what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate and hopelessly inadequate in addressing our country’s fiscal challenges… Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells.”
Obama also demonstrated a callous indifference to the family of Kate Steinle who was shot dead by an illegal immigrant given sanctuary in San Francisco.  Ironically, unlike other personal tragedies where he promptly intruded for political gain, this one actually had some federal policy overtones.
Number 9 on the scale is another measure of psychopathy: “I tend to be cynical.”  Unlike the first three, where Obama occupies rarified territory, this is a bit more common amongst politicians.  Nevertheless, he out-cynics most. 
This headline says it all:  President Obama lied about gay marriage, Axelrod says. This is why we’re cynical

Monday, June 29, 2015

Ted Olson: ‘Not Illegal’ for Bakery to Refuse to Take Part in Gay Wedding Under SCOTUS Ruling

(CNSNews.com) – Former Solicitor General Ted Olson told “Fox News Sunday” that it is “not illegal” for a bakery for instance to refuse to participate in a gay wedding under last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

“It's not illegal under this ruling,” Olson said in response to Fox News host Chris Wallace’s question about how the ruling will affect religious freedom.

“There's the question – and it became hot this spring – of religious freedom. Can the proverbial baker or photographer who is selling his services openly, can he refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage because he or she believes that it violates their religious freedom or is that now illegal under this rule?” Wallace asked.

“There may be laws, statutes that cover it, but a bakery, if you walk into a bakery on the street and want to buy a pie or a doughnut or something like that, the bakery under federal law can't discriminate against you on the basis of your race or your religion. So, if there are laws that cover that kind of discrimination that might be illegal,” said Olson.

“It's different than someone being asked to participate in a wedding, to perform a wedding, to sing in a wedding, to participate and be a wedding planner, something like that. People have the right to refuse personal services with respect to things like that on a religious basis,” he said.

“I think some of that dispute is overblown and the courts have been dealing with that kind of an issue for many, many years with respect to religious rights and racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of gender for a long time,” Olson added.

Olson successfully represented George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore that ended the recount of the 2000 presidential election and eventually served as Bush’s solicitor general. He is also a same-sex marriage advocate.

Olson compared Friday’s Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to the Loving. V. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriage in 1967.

“Fourteen times the Supreme Court of the United States held that marriage is a fundamental right, including the right to interracial marriage in 1967,” said Olson. “They didn't call it the right to interracial marriage. They called it the right to marriage. They described it as a right to liberty, privacy, association, of being a part of this country, being a part of the relationship that matters most to most people in this country and to be a part of our community.

Supreme Court Throws Out Arizona, Kansas Voter ID Appeal

US Supreme Court Throws Out Arizona, Kansas Voter ID Appeal (Getty Images)
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a joint-appeal from Arizona and Kansas on Monday that would have allowed the states to require applicants to show proof of citizenship while registering to vote.
In throwing out the case, SCOTUS uphold a Nov. 2014 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Election Assistance Commission — the federal agency overseeing changes to states’ voter registration processes — was, “not required to grant the states’ request that proof of citizenship be added to registration requirements,” reportsReuters. The court believed that the federal registration form — requiring applicants to swear they are citizens under the threat of perjury — was a sufficient safe-guard against voter fraud.
Both the Obama administration and various voter-rights groups — including the League of Women Voters and the League of United Latin-American Citizens — urged the Supreme Court not the hear the case, and SCOTUS’ rejection marks what Bloomberg called a landmark victory for the, “groups that battled the two states in court.”
The Court’s decision comes only days after last week’s historic rulings on both the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage. (RELATED: Graham On Gay Marriage, We Still Need To Fight For Religious Rights)
Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Big Damage to Hiring Emerges as Key Impact Of Obama’s Healthcare

The judicial decision to uphold all of the president’s health-care subsidies may be disappointing, but the economics of Obamacare are far worse than whatever constitutional mistakes have been committed by the Supreme Court.

The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new-business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.

Across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment — right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.

Because of Obamacare, there’s an additional 0.9% Medicare tax on salaries and self-employment income, a 3.8% tax increase on capital gains and dividends, a cap on health-care flexible spending accounts, a higher threshold for itemized medical-expense deductions, and a stiff penalty on employer reimbursements for individual employee health-policy premiums.

Each of these tax hikes is anti-growth and anti-job.

There is so much talk about “secular stagnation,” inequality, and stagnant wages these days. But there’s little talk about the negative economic impact of Obamacare. It’s a much bigger story than SCOTUS jurisprudence.

A couple of examples.

First, there’s the problem of the 49ers and the 29ers. The business mandates and penalties imposed by Obamacare when small firms hire a 50th employee or ask for a 30-hour workweek are so high that firms are opting to hold employment to 49 and hours worked to 29. Lower employment and fewer hours worked are a double death knell for growth.

The BLS sheds light on this: Although part-time work has fallen during the recovery, to 7 million from around 9 million, it hovered around 4 million during the prior recovery. Part-time employment, which as a share of total employment peaked at around 20% in 2010 and has slipped to about 19%, hovered around 17% during most of the prior expansion. Obamacare?

Everybody is complaining about the low labor-force participation rate and the equally stubborn reduction in the employment-to-population rate. But why are we surprised? Obamacare is effectively paying people not to work.


Saturday, June 27, 2015

Governor Abbott Asserts The Right Of Texas To Protect And Defend Religious Liberty..

Texas Gov. Abbott's statement on SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

Abbot 10 commandments


Governor Greg Abbott today released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:
“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.
“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.
“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.
“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.”

Friday, June 26, 2015

SCOTUS Rewrites ObamaCare to Save It

One might think a 2700-page, largely unread healthcare bill passed solely by Democrats that remains as unpopular as ever might chasten the president who championed it. Especially when that effort was based on a litany of lies, one of which earned Obama Politifact’s 2013 Lie of the Year Reward.

Yet as FactCheck.org has documented, the president remains determined to double down on his continuing effort to deceive the American public. And sad to say, yesterday morning the Supreme Court rewarded the administration for its mendacity. In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS upheldthe Obama administration’s unilateral decision to provide insurance subsidies on healthcare exchanges in every state, despite wording in the original bill limiting such subsidies to exchanges “established by the state.”

We begin with Obama’s insistence that Americans who had insurance prior to the passage of ObamaCare “got a better deal now” in reference to the additional insurance requirements provided by the law. Yet those additional requirements come at a higher cost for many Americans, and many of those requirements, such as maternity care coverage provided to single men or the elderly, are nothing more than subsidies that force some Americans to underwrite the healthcare of other Americans.

webpage promoting the president’s assertion that “129 million people who could have otherwise been denied or faced discrimination now have access to coverage,” is grossly misleading. Most of those Americans already had access to healthcare through their employers, before ObamaCare was even launched. Furthermore, if the business mandate was so great, why was it unilaterally delayed by the White House until 2015, and why have so many businesses cut employee hoursbelow the 30-hour-per-week threshold at which the employer mandate to provide health insurance kicks in?



The Supreme Court Obamacare RX Leaves Doctors and Patients Confused

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 25:  People celebrate in front of the US Supreme Court after ruling was announced on the Affordable Care Act. June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court ruled that the Affordable Care Act may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance.  (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 25: People celebrate in front of the US Supreme Court after ruling was announced on the Affordable Care Act. June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court ruled that the Affordable Care Act may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The Supreme Court just ruled in favor by a 6-3 margin to uphold the Obamacare authorization of federal tax credits for eligible Americans in the 34 states with federal exchanges.
How did this all begin? The case, King v. Burwell, debated whether or the not the Obama Administration ignored aspects of the law regarding provided taxpayer-funded subsidies to Obamacare purchasers in all 50 states, when the law stated this could only happen in the few states that had set up their own exchange. It’s all quite technical, but the main point is upholding Obamacare further confuses doctors and patients, and we’re left with many other issues that haven’t been firmly addressed.
I advocate for my patients every day and I see their frustration and confusion when it comes to their actual coverage under Obamacare as well as the higher deductible. As a specialist in the field of prostate cancer, I observe three major issues with Obamacare.
  1. Narrow Networks: What many patients are unaware of (often until the last minute, or a serious need has arisen) is the massive limitation to the number of doctors, specifically specialists, they are “covered” under. Arguably, patients may find they have no access to the most experienced doctors and surgeons in their respective fields. If you’re someone diagnosed with Prostate Cancer or any cancer, you want the best care and to be in the best hands. Imagine if your insurance limits you from seeing the expert? Obamacare has put into effect extremely narrow networks of doctors, patients have access too, which leads to the question: Is this denying the freedom the patient’s right to choose their own doctor or specialist? The reality is, not every doctor or specialist is going to take every insurance under the sun. With these limitations, Obamacare diminishes the value of experts across many fields.
  2. Satisfaction Survey Scores Puts Pressure on Doctors: One of the major issues with regards to Obamacare mandates is the pressure put on hospitals from Medicare, specifically for patient satisfaction surveys. Now, it’s important for me to note that I appreciate all the feedback, good or bad, that my patients give me. It’s not specifically about the direct feedback; it’s about the penalties and variables that affect the patient’s actual survey answers, and the timing of when they’re presented with these surveys. Imagine, you’ve just had surgery, you’re in pain and you ask your surgeon for pain medications. Based on your surgeon’s experience and judgment, he or she believes it’s not the best medication for you at that moment in the process. As the patient, you feel frustrated—and then you’re handed a survey? You haven’t even fully recovered and in that moment you’re expected to judge all the healthcare professionals you’ve worked with. The art of medicine is compromised. I always say, the PSA blood test for Prostate Cancer screening is only as good as the doctor evaluating it. Doctors need to be able to work one-on-one with their patients, without the added pressure of survey scores and ratings that have little insight into the entire patient experience.
  3. Quality of Care Rating: The fact is you cannot put a number on quality of care. There are far too many factors and variables that affect one patient’s experience and the quality of care they received from another. The 1-5 star rating mandate from Medicare based on patient satisfaction scores—which stemmed from Obamacare—in April is a cause for concern because hospitals are massive entities. How is it possible to slap a one-digit number on the front door of a hospital, which sums up the rating for the work of thousands of healthcare professionals, along with millions of varied patient cases? It’s simple, we can’t.
Dr. Samadi is the chairman of urology and chief of robotic surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital and professor of urology at Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine. He is a medical correspondent for the Fox News Channel and the chief medical correspondent for AM970 in New York City.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

GOP ESTABLISHMENT CAVES… TO CONSERVATIVES FOR ONCE!!!

While we’re all licking our wounds from being betrayed by Supreme Justice Benedict Roberts, let’s at least savor the fact that conservative criticism actually got the GOP establishment to cave to US for once!!
Facing enormous blowback, Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Thursday reversed his decision and said he was reinstating Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) as a subcommittee chairman.
Chaffetz stripped Meadows of his subcommittee gavel last week after the congressman joined nearly three dozen other conservatives in voting against leadership on a procedural motion that nearly scuttled a major trade package.
Last week’s move was part of a pattern of punishment targeting conservatives who’ve defied leadership on key votes.
But Chaffetz soon came under heavy fire from conservatives, including Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who’s running for president. By Thursday, Chaffetz had backpedalled, saying a number of colleagues had urged him to reconsider his decision.
Sorry Boehner, but I don’t think Mark Levin is gonna back down even after this minor capitulation.
“Having spoken with Mark Meadows several times during the past week, I think we both better understand each other. I respect Mark and his approach. The discussions and candor have been healthy and productive,” Chaffetz said in a statement.
BOOM! Geez, crapping on conservatives is usually the only time the GOP establishment grows a spine! Mark that a score for the good guys, Smokey.

Obama: ‘This Has Never Been a Government Takeover of Health Care’




(CNSNews.com) – In a Rose Garden press conference on Thursday, President Barack Obama reacted to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Obamacare subsidies, calling it “a victory for hard-working Americans,” adding that “this has never been a government takeover of health care.”

“This has never been a government takeover of health care despite cries to the contrary. This reform remains what it’s always been – a set of fairer rules and tougher protections that have made health care in America more affordable, more attainable and more about you, the consumer, the American people. It’s working,” said Obama in praising the high court ruling.

“Today is a victory for hard-working Americans all across this country whose lives will continue to become more secure in a changing economy because of this law,” said the president.

As CNSNews.com reported, the justices ruled 6-3 that the subsidies that people receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

“Because of this law, and because of today’s decision, millions of Americans who I hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about eight in 10 people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of a health care plan that costs less than $100 a month,” said Obama.

“As the law’s provisions have gradually taken effect, more than 16 million uninsured Americans have gained coverage so far. Nearly one in three Americans who was uninsured a few years ago is insured today,” he said.



SCOTUS grants Obama another gift, ignores the English language to uphold ObamaCare subsidies

And that’s that. Obama, as usual, gets his way. It was predictable, really. Having abandoned the meaning of words within the English language, the Supreme Court is now free to ignore the actual text of laws and pretend things were written that never were.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.
The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement. It came the same day the court gave the administration an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.
John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which stated that the law was upheld because:

Here, the statutory scheme compels the Court to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid. Under petitioners’ reading, the Act would not work in a State with a Federal Exchange. As they see it, one of the Act’s three major reforms—the tax credits—would not apply. And a second major reform—the coverage requirement—would not apply in a meaningful way, because so many individuals would be exempt from the requirement without the tax credits. If petitioners are right, therefore, only one of the Act’s three major reforms would apply in States with a Federal Exchange.
Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading.... 

Huckabee: SCOTUS Obamacare Decision ‘Out-of-Control Act of Judicial Tyranny’

As soon as the news of the King v. Burwell decision broke, 2016 GOP candidate Mike Huckabee published his reaction on his official blog. And just in case not enough people were paying attention, he decided to get a little ranty on Twitter as well.
The first indication of Huckabee’s impending opinion came in the form of a 139-character attack on the current Supreme Court justices and the judicial branch at large.
There isn't a 'do-over’ provision in our Constitution that allows unelected, SCOTUS judges power to circumvent Congress & rewrite bad laws.
Of course, his “do-over” jab wasn’t going to be enough, so he wrote a much longer blog post about it. From the very beginning, Huckabee makes his stance clear when he calls the King v. Burwell decision “an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny.” He then spends the rest of the first paragraph nit-picking the SCOTUS’s announcement, but quickly leaves it behind for a second paragraph filled with a “what I will fix as president” campaign message:
Everywhere I go, I talk to American families who keep getting punched in the gut with outrageous insurance premiums and infuriating hospital bills. ObamaCare was railroaded through Congress to ‘solve’ our healthcare problems, but five years later, American families are getting railroaded by runaway mandates, big government bureaucracy, and out-of-control healthcare costs. ObamaCare is a $2.2 trillion Washington disaster that raided billions from Medicare and did nothing to fix our broken system of ‘sick care,’ which rewards irresponsibility and penalizes commonsense.  As President, I will protect Medicare, repeal ObamaCare, and pass real reform that will actually lower costs, while focusing on cures and prevention rather than intervention. The status quo is unfair, unaffordable, unsustainable, and completely un-American.
But this is all part of a campaign, so of course the Huckster wasn’t done.
has NO authority to rescue Congress from creating bad law. ruling is an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny.
Not gonna lie. I kind of miss Fox News’ Huckabee. Kind of.

Popular Posts