The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known also as Obamacare, was signed into law by President Obama in March 2010, but it didn’t go into effect until Jan. 1, 2014. Despite the more than three years for insurers, states, the federal government, physicians, and consumers to prepare for the coming overhaul of our healthcare system, there were still plenty of hiccups (and challenges) when the calendar changed over.
Pretty much from the get-go of the first enrollment period there were technical issues with the online marketplace servers and software that prevented consumers from completing the enrollment process. But even bigger challenges would be fought at the legal level with the constitutionality of the individual mandate penalties coming into question in 2012, and more recently the challenge to the federal government’s ability to divvy out subsidies to enrollees on behalf of 34 states. The defense proved victorious in both challenges, which made it to the Supreme Court . . .
The individual mandate is the actionable component of Obamacare that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. The penalty in 2014, the first year Obamacare was fully in effect, was the greater of $95 or 1% of your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). This year the penalty for not having insurance, which is officially known as the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment (ISRP), jumps to the greater of $325 or 2% of your MAGI. In 2016, another sizable spike to the greater of $695 or 2.5% of your MAGI. In 2017 and beyond the penalties rise on par with the level of inflation.
Why is there even an individual mandate penalty in the first place, you wonder? When Obamacare became the law of the land, one of the stipulations was that insurers could no longer pick and choose who they wanted to become members. In other words, people with preexisting conditions couldn’t be turned away. This meant that through the process of adverse selection some sick and elderly consumers who are costly to insurers would be quick to enroll, while healthier young adults, which are needed to help offset the high costs of the elderly and terminally ill, would possibly shun being forced to buy insurance. The individual mandate penalty was put into place in order to encourage younger adults to enroll, otherwise they’d have to pay a penalty come tax time. . .
Just how many people were required to pay the penalty in 2014? According to a report released by National Taxpayer Advocate via the IRS, some 6.6 million people owed an ISRP due to not having health insurance. What may have come as a big surprise to many of those who owed was the fact that the penalty was the greater of $95 or 1% of their MAGI, not the lesser. Thus, the average penalty paid by these 6.6 million people was double the lower-bound figure, $190, since their MAGI often came into play when calculating their penalties. (Read more from “6.6 Million People Just Learned the Hard Way How Much It Costs to Be Uninsured Under Obamacare” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-20 03:54:412016-04-11 10:58:446.6 Million People Just Learned the Hard Way How Much It Costs to Be Uninsured Under Obamacare
A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists. (Read more from “Here’s Why Obama Is Collecting Your Personal Data” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-20 03:54:272016-04-11 10:58:44Obama Is Collecting Unprecedented Personal Data on Americans and Here’s Why
Ben Carson on Saturday said African-American voters are “waking up” to the possibility of supporting GOP candidates for office like himself.
“I think there’s a lot of people who are waking up,” the neurosurgeon-turned-presidential candidate said at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa.
“I met with a group of black pastors yesterday and people are waking up in droves,” he continued. “I think they’re realizing what’s been happening here.”
Carson said he converted to the Republican Party after growing up and going to school in Democratic strongholds during the Reagan administration.
“I started listening to Ronald Reagan … and I said he doesn’t doesn’t sound like that,” he said, noting he had heard horror stories about conservatives during his entire upbringing. (Read more from “Carson: Black Voters ‘Waking up’ to GOP” HERE)
A Democrat is not likely to win this state in the 2016 presidential election, not even one with the last name Clinton.
But on Saturday, Hillary Rodham Clinton returned to Arkansas where she and her husband began their political ascent, delivering a fiery critique of Republican policies and a pep talk of sorts for Democrats who suffered dramatic losses in the midterm elections.
Mrs. Clinton lambasted Republicans as “the party of the past” and tried to portray the extreme comments of one candidate, the businessman and reality TV star, Donald Trump, as representative of the entire party.
“There’s nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and their families,” Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Trump who addressed Arkansas Republicans in Hot Springs, Ark. on Friday. But, she added, of the other Republican candidates, “The sad truth is if you look at many of their policies, it can be hard to tell the difference.”
Mrs. Clinton denounced comments made by Mr. Trump (who she referred to as the “Republican frontrunner”) about Senator John McCain’s war record and she said it was “shameful” how long it has taken other Republican candidates “to start standing up to him.” (Read more from “Hillary Clinton Lambastes Republicans in Arkansas Homecoming” HERE)
Taiwan is pledging $1 million toward the construction of a monument honoring 34th U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in Washington, D.C., though Congress continues to withhold funding from the project.
Roll Coll reported that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee panel overseeing the project, announced the contribution from Taiwan Tuesday.
Despite the gift and the National Capital Planning Commission’s recent approval of “starchitect” Frank Gehry’s revised design for the memorial, Congress has not provided the project — estimated by the 11-member Eisenhower Memorial Commission to cost $144 million — with construction funding since 2012.
Funds have been withheld amid disputes in Congress and the Eisenhower family regarding the Gehry design, which the commission rejected in a vote last year. While the new design gained preliminary approval in October, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the commission’s vice chairman, continued to express doubt last month.
“There’s been some real conflict between the staff, the Eisenhower family and, to some degree, Congress,” Simpson explained in a June interview before federal planners approved Gehry’s design. “In the end, what you’ve got to have is a design that’s supported by the Eisenhower family. They don’t have to have veto power, but they can’t oppose it. So, I think it’s best that they start over.” (Read more from “Taiwan Pledges $1 Million Toward Construction of Eisenhower Memorial as Congress Withholds Funds” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-20 03:53:452016-04-11 10:58:44Taiwan Pledges $1 Million Toward Construction of Eisenhower Memorial as Congress Withholds Funds
To the Attorneys General, Governors, and Legislatures of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky:
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Obergefell case, purporting to overturn all state constitutional amendments and laws in your four states defining marriage as a covenant union between two people of the opposite sex. Since then, numerous efforts have been made, urging each state to file a Petition for Rehearing of that decision, as permitted in the Rules of the Supreme Court before the deadline of Tuesday, July 21, 2015. Apparently, to date, every such effort has been rebuffed. In response, various of your offices have stated that such a Petition would be: (i) unlikely to succeed; (ii) a waste of time: and (iii) a waste of money.
We know of two draft Petitions for Rehearing that have been prepared by outside lawyers. One of these was prepared by the U.S. Justice Foundation and has been circulated over the last week. The U.S. Justice Foundation’s Draft Petition for Rehearing can be found at www.usjf.net.
Here is why a Petition for Rehearing must be filed. Since the Supreme Court’s decision, it has been assumed that the “rule of law” requires not just your four states, but every State, to recognize the “fundamental right” of same sex couples to marry. However, this assumption overlooks two critical factors: (i) whether some of the Justices who participated in issuing that decision did so unlawfully; and (ii) the nature of the express limitations set out by Justice Kennedy in that decision. Because of these two critical factors, we urge all of you as Attorneys General, or at least one of you, file a Petition for Rehearing of this decision. Additionally, we urge all elected officials in those four states to impress on you the need to file a Petition for Rehearing. Although the Court’s decision purports to apply to all states — including the states that did not have an opportunity to present their arguments to the Court — only your four states can seek rehearing.
First, the Issue of “Recusal” by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
The participation by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan in the Obergefell decision violated federal judicial ethics, and a federal statute. These Justices were under a duty to recuse and not participate in that decision. Without their two votes in favor of same sex marriage, the traditional marriage laws in your states would have been upheld on a vote of four to three, with two justices not participation. Until the decision was issued, the American people had no way to know if these two justices were going to recuse. Now that the decision is issued, we know that they did participate — unethically and unlawfully.
There is no regular means to enforce the law against the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The matter of recusal has generally been considered a personal matter, to be evaluated by each Justice for himself or herself. The other Justices do not try to enforce the law against their colleagues. Neither the President nor the Attorney General of the United States seek to enforce the law of recusal against the High Court. The Congress has not taken action to ensure that its laws are followed by the Supreme Court. In other words, each Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is a law unto himself or herself.
Two Motions for Recusal was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, but never ruled upon. Indeed, neither was even posted to the Supreme Court docket sheets until the Court was embarrassed for failure to post them. Even then, only one of the motions shows on those docket sheets, mis-labeled a “request” rather than a “motion.”
Properly understood, without Justices Ginsburg and Kagan participating, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell actually was in favor of traditional marriage, by a vote of 4-3 with two judges not participating. Even if only Justice Ginsburg was disqualified, the vote would have been 4-4, and the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholding traditional marriage would be left standing.
A Petition for Rehearing must be filed challenging the legality of the votes purportedly cast against the constitution and laws of your state by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
Second, the Issue of the “No Risk” Limitations in the Decision.
A careful reading of the holding of the Kennedy opinion reveals that the right to marry recognized by the Supreme Court is not at all what has been assumed.
At the end of a lengthy review of the Court’s due process and equal protection precedents, in which he concluded that same-sex couples could no longer be denied the liberty to marry, the “fundamental right to marry,” Justice Kennedy pronounced that “the State laws challenged [by the same-sex couple] Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.”
In the very next section of his opinion, Justice Kennedy addressed the States’ counterclaim that the Court should withhold its decision to allow more “democratic discourse” before rendering its decision. On the basis of the record, including the perceived urgency of the petitioning couples’ needs, Justice Kennedy declined to “stay [the court’s] hand,” noting specifically that, while the four State respondents, had claimed “that allowing same-sex marriage will cause the harmful outcomes they describe,” the States had failed to “show a foundation for that conclusion.” In anticipation, however, that if such a foundation could be laid in a future case, Justice Kennedy was prompted to “observe [that these cases involve only the rights of two consenting adults whose marriages would pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.”
In light of the Justice Kennedy’s own words, there is no doubt that the Court acknowledged that the absence of any “risk of harm” to either the two persons in the marriage or to third parties is an important predicate for its decision. Indeed, the Court’s own due process and equal protection jurisprudence allows for discriminatory treatment of enjoyment even of a fundamental right based upon whether the right would be subjected to strict scrutiny, to determine if there might be a legitimate overriding governmental interest to deny access to that right. Significantly, the Court did not engage in any such inquiry in the four cases before it because of the lack of a foundation showing “harmful outcomes” should same-sex marriage be permitted. Thus, Justice Kennedy limited the Court’s holding to those cases that involve no risk of harm to the married couple or to third parties. To that end, the Petition for Rehearing that we have drafted contains an Appendix documenting many of the “harmful outcomes” that Justice Kennedy stated were never considered by the Court in Obergefell.
We urge you to do your duty according to your oaths to the Constitutions of your State and of the United States to defend your state constitutions and state laws. The People of your State deserve no less.
________________
If you believe a Petition for Rehearing should be filed, you can contact the following state Attorneys General:
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuete
(517) 373-1110
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
(800) 282-0515
Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III
(615) 741-3491
Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway
(502) 696-5300
________________
Herbert W. Titus taught Constitutional Law for 26 years, and concluded his academic career as the Founding Dean of Regent Law School. William J. Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. Together they have filed over 80 briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, and dozens more in lower courts, addressing important public policy issues. They now practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at [email protected] or twitter.com/Olsonlaw.
This article is part of a series on “Building Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” Please support this important work with a contribution to the U.S. Justice Foundation. Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-18 03:03:202016-04-11 10:58:45States Have Constitutional Duty to Seek Rehearing of Same-Sex Marriage Decision
The deadly terror attack that killed four Marines in Chattanooga will undoubtedly weigh on Americans sitting around the dinner table and present questions for many heading into the weekend. Why have we not learned the lessons of 9/11?
This past month, liberals looked throughout the country to destroy every last vestige of Civil War history in the pursuit of a peaceful utopia. In the state of Tennessee, liberals are in the process of disinterring the grave of confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. But nobody is willing to discuss the biggest existential threat to our national security, despite yet another sad reminder with the Islamic terror attack that killed four Marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee yesterday.
When are we going to stop letting in Islamic terrorists through our front door?
In an open country, we will always have criminal threats from a portion of our native population. There is a limit to what can be done to prevent violent attacks. But immigration is elective. It is optional. We should never be admitting entire classes of people from the most volatile Islamic countries at a time like this.
After 9/11, when the bipartisan 9/11 Commission identified the obvious root cause of the attack as an immigration problem, we doubled down on stupidity. The U.S. has admitted roughly 1.6 million individuals from predominantly Muslim countries since 9/11 – twice the rate of immigration from that part of the world relative to the previous decade.
The Most Important Lesson of Chattanooga Terror Attack
The Islamic terrorist who murdered four marines at a recruiting station, Mohammad Youssduf Adbulazeer, was an immigrant from Kuwait. Let’s be honest, not a single person has been killed in this country in recent history from a killer acquiring inspiration from the confederate flag and generals. Yet, we have had countless Islamic terror attacks on our soil since 9/11 that have been directly inspired by the Islamic ideology and the teachings of Sharia.
We could joke about the lack of outrage and desire to ban Islamic paraphernalia and flags in light of the Chattanooga attack with the same alacrity the Left exhibited following the Charleston shooting. But the more serious question is why we won’t address the core issue of Islamic immigration. Talk about “immigration reform,” for once!
We can waste trillions of dollars and incur thousands of casualties refereeing endless Islamic civil wars oversees. We can tip the scales of power from ISIS to Iran in response to this terror attack. But what will that accomplish if we have already let in so many ticking time bombs through our front door and continue to do so on a daily basis?
We can talk about the absurdity of gun-free zones on military installations, and that is a valid point. As Mark Levin observed last night, the Iranian Islamists can be trusted with nukes but our military cannot be trusted with guns on their own bases. But the most fundamental problem is suicidal immigration. And it’s time we wake up as the political class gears up for new waves of immigration from the Middle East.
Here’s why.
Growing Radicalism Among American Muslims, Particularly Young Males
According to a new poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, 51% of Muslims in America believe “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to sharia.” Twenty-nine percent agree that violence against those who insult Mohammad is acceptable and 25% agree that violence against America can be justified as part of Global Jihad. Among males under the age of 45 that number rises to 36%. Twenty-nine percent of males under 45 believe that violence against America is justified in order to make Sharia the law of the land. With an estimated 3 million Muslims in this country (projected to triple by 2050), that could mean there are hundreds of thousands of radicalized ones.
The more precipitously Muslim immigrants are admitted to this country, the less likely they will assimilate and the more likely they will cluster in cities and cultivate a climate of Jihad. The numbers speak for themselves. This is by no means the majority of Muslims, but 25% support for Jihad is an awful lot of security risks, especially among young males.
With so many security threats already brought here in the unforced error of suicidal immigration – the FBI is investigating homegrown terror in all 50 states – the least we can do is immediately prevent more bad decisions in the future. There are two immediate courses of action that must be taken: preventing a mass wave of Syrian refugees and clamping down on the terrorist funding of Mosques in America.
Broken Refugee System
One of the most imminent threats to our country is the broken refugee system. As we’ve noted here many times, our refugee system has been abused to become a magnet for endless waves of radical Muslims. There has been a terror infestation among the Somali refugees in Minneapolis. After admitting over 100,000 Somali refugees from 1993-2013, we are still bringing in up to 10,000 more each year. Of the 15,470 Somali refugees brought in since fiscal year 2014, 99.7% have been Muslim.
Now Obama plans to bring in thousands of Syrian refugees. At present, we’ve admitted over a thousand Syrians the past two fiscal years and more than 94% of them are Muslims. Syrian refugees, much like Iraqi refugees, represents a prima facie threat. There are hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes in an Islamic civil war that involves so many disparate factions. Just because they are displaced doesn’t mean they don’t harbor radical Islamic views. Why are we doing this?
Where We Go From Here
It’s time for Congress to:
Block all Syrian refugees until a proper vetting system is presented to Congress by this administration. The Chattanooga jihadist’s family emigrated here from Kuwait after the Gulf War. It’s a mistake to bring people in from parts of the world that are going through upheaval when we have strong concerns about Islamic terror.
Block the expansion of 3,000 Special Afghan Visas that are included in the NDAA – a bill that might get a final vote in Congress next week.
Designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group and prevent them from funding mosques inside of this country. If we are going to admit so many Muslim immigrants, the least we can do is not have our enemies radicalize them in a subversion campaign.
When political correctness became a fad, it started out as a cute gesture. Then it became obnoxious. Next it became tyrannical. Now it has become dangerous and downright suicidal.
It’s time to choose priorities… while we still can. (“Chattanooga: The Effects of Our Suicidal Immigration Policy”, originally posted HERE)
If Alaska’s governor Bill Walker refuses to challenge the recent U.S. District Court decision (Akiachak Native Community vs. DOI) to revoke the “Alaskan Exception” written into the Alaska Natives Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) would then be in a position to take back primary jurisdiction from the state on 40 million acres of Alaska Natives lands. This federal court decision could result in a direct loss of state sovereignty over 10% of Alaska. Add that to the 60%+ of the state already under federal DOI jurisdiction and the State would be reduced to primary jurisdiction on a checkerboard pattern of lands amounting to about 25%, a quarter of what was promised in the Alaska Statehood Act.
Settling aboriginal land claims in Alaska was suppose to be different from what happen in the continental U.S. during previous years of territorial expansion. If the judge’s decision in Akiachak Native Community vs. DOI is left to stand, it would gut ANCSA and create Indian country just like what is happening in the Western U.S. The court decision will allow Alaskan Native lands to be held in trust by the DOI.
Creating Indian Country in Alaska was not the intent of tribal leaders, leadership in the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), the Alaska State Administration, Alaska’s Congressional delegation, or the U.S. Congress when it passed ANCSA into law in 1971.
Changing fee title lands owned by tribes and individual natives into federal trust status could greatly compromise the State’s ability to manage and allocate its fish and game resources, protect the environment, tax, provide public services, ensure public safety, and enforce state alcoholic beverage control laws. Resource development on trust lands could be further complicated by federal regulations and tribes could control surface access to Native Regional corporation subsurface resources.
Alaskans’ ability to access public resources on federal public lands has been under attack by DOI land managers since the passage of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act of 1980. Governor Bill Walker should not allow Alaska’s sovereign jurisdiction to be further diluted by a federal judge sitting in Washington, D.C. Why would Alaska’s governor not do everything he could to stop federal overreach onto 40 million acres of Alaska Native private lands? It’s clear that the DOI agenda is to preserve as much of Alaska in a wilderness status as it can get away with, and there are many examples of this over the last 35 years.
Alaska Native rights activists are causing imminent injury to Alaska by advocating for their own sovereign rights at the expense of the State’s jurisdiction to provide for the economic wellbeing of all Alaskans. Alaskans should say “enough is enough” and pressure Governor Bill Walker into defending Alaska’s jurisdiction by challenging the federal court’s decision to undermine federal law by allowing Indian Country to occur in Alaska.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-18 03:02:372016-04-11 10:58:45Indian Country Coming to Alaska, May Reduce State Governance to Just 25% of Land Mass
Arizona’s legal team came to Pasadena on Thursday to defend the state’s refusal to issue driver’s licenses to so-called Dreamers, and found that one member of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was in no mood for legal maneuvering.
Under court order, Arizona began issuing licenses and ID cards in February for the estimated 22,000 immigrants covered by the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. President Obama’s program gives Dreamers, the young immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally before their 16th birthday and who meet other requirements, a reprieve from deportation and the ability to receive work permits. . .
Pregerson asked why Arizona continued to try to deny benefits to Dreamers. “Does it come down to racism? Does it come down to discrimination against these people? What else does it come down to?” he asked.
[Since Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty in 2012,] states have steadily dropped their objections to giving licenses to Dreamers. The penultimate holdout, Nebraska, ended its objections in May. Only Arizona continues to fight.
“The state wants to enjoy a prerogative it simply does not have,” Dreamer Coalition attorney Karen Tumlin told the three judges. “This case is about discrimination, pure and simple.” (Read more from “Arizona Defends Denying Driver’s Licenses to ‘Dreamers,’ Faces Skeptical Judge” HERE)
More than 60 percent of registered Hispanic voters do not think a pathway to citizenship for illegals would benefit the country, and most do not see it as the best way to solve the country’s immigration problems, a new poll shows.
Of the 62 percent who felt a pathway to citizenship for illegals would not benefit the country, 33 percent felt it would hurt the economy, 7 percent felt it would overly burden public schools and 10 percent felt it would create public safety issues, the McKeon & Associates Wednesday poll found.
“The economy is still the issue,” Michael McKeon told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “When 33 percent think immigration will hurt the economy, that’s what’s on their mind.”
“It’s going to be very interesting to see if Republicans choose people with government experience to create jobs, or people like Trump who did it in the private sector,” he added . . .
McKeon and Associates surveyed 804 registered voters with Hispanic surnames in the United States July 15. An overwhelming majority identified themselves as Democrats, and most said they were between the ages of 31 and 60. About 20 percent of the interviews were conducted in Spanish, and the rest in English. (Read more from “Poll: Most Hispanic Voters Don’t Think a Path to Citizenship Is Solution” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-07-18 03:02:132016-04-11 10:58:45Poll: Most Hispanic Voters Don’t Think a Path to Citizenship Is Solution
