A bit old but still relevant is yet another open letter to President Barak Obama from a prominent figure in business in America. This time Lou Pritchett, former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble, shares why President Barak Obama scares him and I think his thoughts are shared by many.

There seems to be an unending supply of people from with in the business world that are coming out to share their concerns with how the current administration is handling things.

Just last week I featured an open letter from Ronald S. Lauder, the President of the World Jewish Congress. It can be found here. In it, Lauder expresses his deep concerns on the Administration’s about face turn on policy concerning Israel and President Obama’s lack of action with an impending entrance of Iran into the nuclear club.

This from Snopes.com concerning the authenticity of the Pritchett letter.

Lou Pritchett is a former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated “open letter”…

“I did write the ‘you scare me’ letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.”

And the letter authored by Mr. Pritchett:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of
the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy
League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible
signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing
up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t
understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with
radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce
these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and
deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country
where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a
government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on
our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that
lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the
world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against
certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you
on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing
points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and
omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaugh’s,
Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of
view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not
feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

I couldn’t have said it better, Mr. Pritchett

Why It Is Important And How It Applies to The Current Debates Concerning Gay Marriage and Healthcare Reform – Part 1

Let me start out by saying that this article does not take a position pro or con on the issues of gay marriage or federally mandated healthcare reform. Rather, the purpose of this article is to address what I perceive as a major gap in the way some people reason while engaging in the current debates. That gap has resulted, I believe, from a lack of understanding of the role legal precedent plays in interpreting Constitutional provisions and applying them to current legal disputes. In other words, It is one thing to desire a particular legal outcome: the right for gays to marry for example, which will be the subject of Part 1 of this article. However, to get there, one must be familiar with the due process and equal protection clauses, how they have been interpreted in the past by the Courts and how the Court’s holdings would need to be extended in order to get to that result: in other words, the role of legal precedent.

Our system of justice was born out of the English common-law system. Put very simply, this means that the courts will be presented with a case or controversy. The Court will issue its holding after applying the law in question to the particular facts of the case. That holding becomes legal precedent for how a future court will rule assuming the same or similar facts under the same law. This is called the doctrine of stare decisis ( let the decision stand). In order for a Court to extend a legal precedent to later cases before it that do not involve the same facts or issues, it must determine that the case before it, while not factually identical, involves parallel issues or is otherwise analogous in some way to the facts presented in a previous case(s) on which the court intends to rely.

An example of this presents itself in examining how the controversial ruling in Roe v. Wade (the Constitutional right to abortion) came to be. A few years before Roe was decided, the U.S Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law which banned the use of birth control devices. That case was Griswold v. Connecticut, which was decided upon the (also controversial) right to “privacy,” which although not explicit in the U.S Constitution, the Court found to be implied by the 4th and 5th amendments. Roe v. Wade obviously went beyond Griswold, in that now the Court was not dealing with the right to procreate, but the right to terminate a pregnancy after conception. The Court used the same analysis as it did in Griswold, and extended the right to privacy to include the right to abortion.

It is anticipated that, regardless of how the current federal gay marriage trial ends, the matter will be appealed all the way up to the U.S Supreme Court which will have to use legal precedent to reach its decision, assuming it agrees to hear the case.

The main argument on the pro-gay marriage side would be that forbidding individuals to marry the person of his/her choice regardless of gender violates either the due process or the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. It is settled law under due process jurisprudence currently that one has the right to marry someone regardless of race. The Court would need to be convinced that sexual orientation is analogous to race, and thus, the legal precedent should be extended under due process analysis.

As for equal protection analysis, we all know that laws do in fact discriminate. For example, all states have age restrictions on voting and on buying alcohol. The test of whether a law violates the equal protection clause depends upon either the right involved or the class of persons it burdens. The Courts will apply one of three levels of scrutiny to the challenged law to determine whether the equal protection clause has been violated: Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or minimum scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny of the law will be employed if the Court determines that the law burdens a fundamental right OR involves a suspect classification. If strict scrutiny applies, the state government must show that it has a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest. Some fundamental rights that have been enunciated by the Courts over the years are the right to vote, the right to travel, the right to contract, the right to have access to the courts, the right too procreate, the right to direct a child’s upbringing and the right to marry a person of any race. Thus far, the right to marry has not been extended to the right to marry someone of the same gender. Hence, if using this rung of the equal protection clause, this is step one–convincing the Supreme Court that under legal precedent, the right to marry a person of ones’ own choosing must include a person of the same gender. Assuming the Court is convinced that the precedent should be extended, it will then apply the strict scrutiny standard to the law in question. If the law in question is in a state like California that has domestic partnership laws, it is unclear how the Court would rule. Presumably, the Court would examine the provisions of the domestic partnership law and determine whether it provides the same legal protections to domestic partners as to married couples. If the Court determines that it does, the law may withstand even strict scrutiny. However, if the Court decides that the word “marriage” is necessary to confer the same rights notwithstanding the provisions of the domestic partnership statute, then presumably, California’s law prohibiting gay marriage would not withstand strict scrutiny.

As for suspect classifications, which also require strict scrutiny, thus far, sexual orientation has not been recognized as a suspect class which currently includes race, religion, National origin, or alienage. Again, if the Court can be convinced that sexual orientation should be included as a suspect class, strict scrutiny and the above analysis would be employed. The next classification is called “quasi-suspect” (which applies to laws that burden gender and illegitimate children) where a law challenged on equal protection grounds is subject to intermediate scrutiny: that is, the law must show that it serves an important state interest, and that the classification is substantially related to serving that interest. Thus, if the Court finds that disparate treatment under the law based on sexual orientation is analogous to that based on gender, the Court will apply this test–which obviously is less stringent than the strict scrutiny test described above.

Finally, all classifications that are not deemed suspect or quasi-suspect or as burdening a fundamental right are subjected to merely, minimum scrutiny or the rational basis test. Under this analysis, the challenged law will stand if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. This is the easiest test for the state to pass, particularly in a state like California with an existing domestic partnership statute.

In sum, the due process and equal protection analysis provided above are at the core of the gay marriage issue, and will be used by both sides to frame the debate as the matter is litigated through the federal courts–and most likely all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

(In Part 2 of this Article, I will address what I believe will be the constitutional challenges to the recent healthcare reform legislation.)

To many, altruism is a selfless state of mind where you give up your own needs to meet the needs of others. Altruistic acts are the stuff of Saints and Nobel Peace prizes. The Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; – opposed to egoism or selfishness.”

To give of ones self in order to benefit those you love without regard to your own needs is a compassionate endeavour to say the least. Individuals like Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela come to mind when looking at the meaning of the word. These two people gave to others and, in the process, sacrificed much of their own needs and desires in order to better the world around them. They worked to change the evils of their surroundings for the betterment of mankind. Change was needed in order to feed starving children in poverty stricken nations and end race related discrimination in South Africa. They fought for change and gave of themselves immeasurably to get it.

Change is a funny word these days. It gets thrown around quite a bit. There is an individual in all of our lives here in America that is espousing change to combat what he perceives as wrong with our society. He coins the term self sacrifice and talks about the hard choices we need to make as a nation. The thing about his version of change and sacrifice is that they do not fit the definition of altruism. Well not exactly. It’s more like altruistic collectivism.

Barak Obama wants to give unselfishly to the poor in this nation and he doesn’t care who has to sacrifice to do it or how big that sacrifice will be. The current administration is now in the process of throwing threw everything, including the kitchen sink, at getting their monstrous 2000+ page takeover of our medical industry through Congress. Obama and his ilk almost went as far as directly violating the Constitutional process of the passage of laws in order to ram it through, even though an over whelming majority of Americans said they didn’t want it. Thousands protested on the steps to the Capital in DC while the vote went down.

Is he asking too much of us? Is providing insurance to the poor above what is already offered worth the utter destruction of our constitutional republic? He says it’s because we all have to make “sacrifices”.

Verizon, Caterpillar, AT&T and Deere and Co. have all announced the “sacrifices” they will have to make with AT&T announcing the largest loss to the tune of almost 1 billion dollars in additional expense in the next quarter because of added costs associated with the newly passed Healthcare bill.

AT&T receives a tax subsidy that offsets their costs associated with providing retirees with insurance and the new bill kills that tax break.

As many called it before the passage, this bill will most certainly not improve coverage and lower costs. Verizon has announced it will have to review existing coverage levels for their retired and current employee base because of the giant new costs they will incur as a result of the legislation.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) has released a statement calling for the attendance of these four corporations. This from the Daily Herald;

Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.

Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.

“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”

It seems the savings come at a cost. And they say trickle down economics is a fairy tale…

Both Howard Dean and Max Baucus have admitted to the bill being about redistributing the wealth in America.

So there you have it.

Obama wants 300 million people to sacrifice their freedom and liberty in order to “give” to the other 20 million -by liberal statistics- who don’t have insurance. He may sacrifice the United States Constitution and everything this nation was built upon. This is the “fundamental transformative change” he was always talking about on the campaign trail.

Altruism by proxy is not altruism at all. It’s called socialism, Marxism, communism; three things that have never worked in the history of organised government and have always led to tyranny. You are being told to lay down your future and your liberty so others may rise and be damned the consequences of it all. The collective must rise above the individual and become “altruistic” even if it kills them.

The Russian government asked something similar of farmers after the turn of the 20th century and it led to one of the worst famines in recorded history. Hitler asked similar things of the German people in the late 30’s and it led to a World War and millions of deaths. Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Idi Amin, Pasha; the list is long of individuals through out history that sought the sacrifices of the individuals of their nations in order to further personal ideologies and causes.

Obama is not asking us to turn over our crops, guns and land yet but that is because the Constitution is still alive and kicking for the time being. If this keeps up it won’t be doing anything for very long.

The line must be drawn and drawn soon. Our government is growing impatient with us. After the destruction of our Constitution, what do we have left? After the framework of our great republic is trampled underfoot in the name of altruistic sacrifice during “crisis”, we will see real crisis in this Nation like never before.

We have an opportunity now to educate those who we love and deal with daily and then another opportunity in November. Even though we may have lost the battle last week, the war rages on and we must continue to fight.

Obamacare was signed into law on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. I guess it’s all over except for the shouting, right? Well, not exactly.

It might be important to compare this gargantuan entitlement program with another program; one which supposedly would “solve all the problems of the elderly”.  Yes, I am referring to FDR’s Social Security Act of 1935.  You might be asking yourself what the similarities between a program that deals with health care and one that grants retirement benefits could possibly be.  The similarities are NOT in either of the bill’s language.  Instead, the similarities are with the Congressional and Presidential PROMISES that were made in order to pass both bills.

In light of the Un-American Health Care Bill that was passed Sunday, here are several things for you to think about in going forward. We might as well compare this health care monstrosity with another entitlement program that the government sang high praises for and then bastardized. Do you hear the promises that the Democrats are making now in regard to your health care? Well here are some other promises that Democrats made when Social Security was enacted. Feast your eyes on this.

Here is a list of the promises that were made by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the US Congress in reference to the Social Security Act.  Notice the outcome of EACH of the promises.

Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program in 1935. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
*No longer Voluntary*

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program.
*Now 7.65% on the first $90,000*

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
*No longer tax deductible*

4.) That the money that the participants were to program would be put into an independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
*Under Johnson the money was moved to the general fund and spent*

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
*Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed*

In light of the fact that many of us have paid into FICA for years and a few might be receiving a Social Security check each month (after the government takes 85% of the money), here are some other interesting facts that many may be unfamiliar with.

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
*A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.*

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
*A: The Democratic Party.*

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
*A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US*

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
*A: That’s right!  Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!*

So, let’s take a look at just some of the PROMISES that Obama and Congress have made in regard to Obamacare (I’ve only listed 10 but there are several others):

1) If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.
2) If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
3) There are no such thing as “death panels”.
4) This program will be deficit neutral.
5) Obamacare will not provide for government funded abortions.
6) The program will reduce the cost of health care across the board.
7) The program is NOT a government take-over of your health insurance.
The entire process of reforming health care will be televised on CSPAN.
9) All bills will be available for public review for 72 hours before they are voted on.
10) The program will not be paid for by cutting Medicare benefits for seniors.

Have all of those promises been kept?  Already, we can say that a few of them have blatantly been broken (8, 9 & 10).  And with what happened with the promises of Social Security, do you believe that the Democrats or Obama intend on fulfilling any of the others?  Their record is not what you would call “stellar”.

It will be up to us, the American citizen, to either A) hold the politicians ACCOUNTABLE for the promises that they have made to each and every one of us, or B) get their democratic behinds OUT of office and repeal this legislative abomination.

Personally, I prefer the latter.

Stupak and the Blue Dogs caved / drank the Kool-Aid / got bought off — don’t hold your breath for that executive order, Bart — and the Senate’s bill passed the House. Now what?

Some on the Left (and part-time Republicans like David Frum) are saying that the passing of Obamacare signifies a “Waterloo” moment for the Republicans & conservatives. Now, I don’t know much about the Waterloo Campaign, but I understand that Napoleon’s defeat at the Battle of Waterloo marked the end of the war and the end of Napoleon’s rule. So, I guess this is supposed to be it for the Republican Party as we know it — the end of any meaningful resistance to Obamacare and the end of the days of influence/relevance for the GOP and its supposedly heartless, hatemongering, “Right Wing Conspiracy” cheerleaders.

Naturally, I disagree with the sentiment. For one thing, the poll numbers for Obamacare were clearly in our favor — somewhere between 60% & 70% were/are against it. Other surveys indicate that America still leans conservative. We may be down, but we’re not out. If I was a better student of military history, I might be able to come up with a better metaphor. I’m thinking maybe something to do with George Washington and his battered & beleaguered troops in the American Revolution. There were many battles, and they suffered many defeats. Yet, through a combination of “luck”, Providence, perseverence, bravery & skill, and the overconfidence & arrogance of their enemy, the American colonies won (against superior numbers) their independence from the elitist, tax-obsessed oppressors. See the parallels?

Of course, this wasn’t just any fight, this “battle for healthcare reform”. It was one where the larger opponent tied the smaller opponent’s hand behind his back, took his gun and left him with a knife. And, as the fight progressed, the larger opponent kept changing the rules. (OK, I could try to carry this analogy out further, but it’s late, so I’ll stop.)

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine combined the radicalism of Alinsky, the corruption of Springfield and the machine power politics of Chicago. Sunday was a pressured, bought, intimidated vote worthy of Hugo Chavez but unworthy of the United States of America.

[But,...] This is not the end of the fight; it is the beginning of the fight…. The American people will not allow a corrupt machine to dictate their future. Together we will pledge to repeal this bill and start over. Together we will prove that this will not stand.”

– Newt Gingrich

General Washington pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. So, what can we do? A number of things are already underway or in the works:

1) Republican Senators are doing all they can (within the rules) to fight the “reconciliation” maneuver being used to pass the House-required “fixes” to the bill. (For example, there is still the issue of whether “reconciliation” rules can be bent far enough to pass non-budgetary proposals.) From what I can tell, the “fixes” have to be passed as is, as a package. So, if any changes are made to the “fixes”, it will have to go back to the House for a vote. (Or, whatever Pelosi & Co. can cook up to get around a vote, if they don’t think it will go their way.)

2) Republicans in both houses are releasing “repeal” bills. It’s a longshot, and it won’t happen anytime soon — not with our current, Democrat-dominated legislature, of course. And it probably won’t have a chance until at least 2012. But, the reasoning is that a) talk in Congress, the media, & the public will keep the idea alive and “get lawmakers on the record” before upcoming elections; and, b) the bills will be in place for if/when Republicans regain the majority (see below). Some Republicans in Congress see such efforts as a distraction and an unrealistic goal. But, as Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said, “Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go after it.”

3) Over 3 dozen state governors and their attorneys general are suing Congress — 14 have already filed — for passing an unconstitutional law. Of the two main issues that come up, the first is the mandated health insurance. The argument (with which I agree) is that the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to force any citizen to purchase any good or service, let alone from any particular merchant/source(s). The other concern is the unsubsidized billions of $ the states will have to come up with to support the millions of additional people being put into the Medicaid program. Most states are already casting about for ways to meet their budget; they can’t afford to have this thrown on top, too.

5) It doesn’t really matter now, but had the “deem and pass” strategy been utilized by Speaker Pelosi to force Obamacare through without a House vote, Mark Levin — popular conservative talk-show host and constitutional law scholar — had already drafted a lawsuit to be immediately filed against President Obama, Att. Gen. Eric Holder, Sec. of Treas. Timothy Geithner, & Sec. of HHS Karen Sebelius for allowing such an “unconstitutional contrivance” to be used. (Not sure why Pelosi and Reid weren’t included.) Sort of a moot point now, but I am glad someone was prepared to challenge that ridiculous maneuver in court. There may still be opportunity for a similar challenge….

6) Stay Active! We need to continue to write; call; sign petitions; attend rallies; volunteer & donate to conservative candidates, PACs, Tea Parties, and other groups; etc. Let the current administration and its cohorts know that we will not stand idly by as they transform us into the European Union West. The rhetoric from the Right must be challenging and forceful, yet respectful (of persons & offices, not ideas). Marxist thought may be tolerated in America — people are free to read, say, and believe what they want — but it is, arguably by definition, NOT American and should have no part in our government.

7) Take back Congress and Take back America! In November 2010, we can begin voting out/against any candidates who aren’t & weren’t fully against Obamacare. We cannot let a few months’ time wash from our memories the stain that they left on the Constitution and our freedoms. We must vote solidly conservative leaders into office, so that they can begin repealing Obamacare, either in pieces or as a whole, if possible. We must replace it with REAL healthcare reform — common-sense, patient-centered, market-driven, and not under Big Brother’s control.

Let’s make Washington proud. George Washington, that is — as well as the rest of America’s Founding Fathers and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Let’s get America back on track! Can we do this? With the right people, the right strategy & tactics, with focus and perseverance, and with blessings & guidance from God above… “Yes, We Can!”

Monday, the day after the Health-Care vote and subsequent passage of the monstrosity, Bart Stupak, arguably the deciding vote, went on FoxNews with Megyn Kelly for an interview.

After watching this video, I find it amazing that this simpleton made it to such a high position within his party. On one hand he admits that the executive order that was promised him prevents tax payer funded abortion and then on the other hand, acknowledges that it has no teeth and is meaningless. His fall back to the cancel or repeal of said executive order is to count on pro-life groups to sue the federal government? Like that hasn’t been tried before with failure as a result.

Stupak has been purchased like a second hand paperback book at a garage sale. At least Landreau and Nelson got value out of their bribes. All he got was a meaningless piece of paper and 980,000 dollars to fix up an airport or two in his home state.

This video does a fairly good of job explaining why the executive order is flawed while Megyn Kelly does a great job of forcing Stupak to acknowledge the fallacy of the whole situation. After the video, be sure to read the full text of the executive order.

Executive Order

- – - – - – -

ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.   The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.  Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2.  Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014.  The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance.  The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges.  In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office.  Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3.  Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program.  Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language.  Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions.  I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law.  Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4.  General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:  (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Yesterday, the Landmark Legal Foundation, headed up by Mark Levin, announced it’s intentions to file a lawsuit against the Federal Government in response to the “Slaughter Rule” to enact H.R. 3590 in the House. Mark Levin is a nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host, best selling author, lawyer and constitutional scholar.

The “Slaughter Rule”  is a rule change in the house stating that what ever health-care bill passes in the Senate is considered passed in the House. This allows those wary about being on the record for voting for the health-care bill to unofficially vote for it without actually going on record with their support.

From www.landmarklegal.com

Landmark Legal Foundation to File Suit to Stop President’s Health Plan if ‘Slaughter Rule’ is Used

(LEESBURG, VA, MARCH 17, 2010)…Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called “deem and pass,” “self-executing,” or “Slaughter Rule” to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama’s healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance.

“Landmark has already prepared a lawsuit that will be filed in federal court the moment the House acts. Such a brazen violation of the core functions of Congress simply cannot be ignored. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is clear respecting the manner in which a bill becomes law. Members are required to vote on this bill, not claim they did when they didn’t. The Speaker of the House and her lieutenants are temporary custodians of congressional authority. They are not empowered to do permanent violence to our Constitution.”

(A draft of the complaint Landmark will file is available at:

Landmark’s Draft “Slaughter Rule” Complaint

We’ve been dealing with the  impending use of reconciliation because the Dems lack the vote for a real passage of the bill. Reconciliation is a parliamentary tactic that has only been used for budgetary legislation in the past and, although usage on the health-care bill is a dastardly and underhanded tactic, it would still represent a direct vote on the bill.

What Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are suggesting  is an entirely different thing. The constitution clearly states that in order for a bill to get to the President’s desk, it must pass a vote in both houses of Congress. A rule change or amendment that says the House voted on a bill without actually voting on it is nothing but a tactic to allow some to retain political capital at the expense of the will of their constituents.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

One way or the other, if a bill is to be signed into law, it is overwhelmingly clear that it must first pass a vote in both houses of Congress.

I commend Mr. Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation for their vigilance and resolve in the name of justice for the American people. We’ve all written, called and emailed our Representatives in both houses of Congress to no avail. I’m not sure I have ever received anything but a pre-written auto response from any of them with the exception of one. Norm Dicks, after I sent him a particularly scathing assessment of his chances for re-election because of his support for Obamacare and Cap N’ trade, signed me up for his newsletter. In his response, Dicks said that since it had already passed “his House”, I shouldn’t bother him with emails about it. I wrote Maria Cantwell in October and two days ago, I received her robotised auto-response thanking me for my interest in the “Congressional Process”.

I’m done contacting  Congress. They no longer represent my interests in my home state.I’ll wait and contact them with my ballot in November. If Pelosi and her motley crew manage this take over of the constitutional process, we will only have one front left for which to fight on, the Supreme Court of the United States.

They may be our only allies left and with precedent already set in the arena of Judicial Review, the American people might actually have a fighting chance of restoring our founding documents that are now being trampled under the feet of our current group of politicians. Write the Justices and let them know how you feel about this blatant disregard for the Constitution. Please remember to be respectful.

The Justices do not have e-mail addresses, but you can write to them at:

Justice (or Chief Justice) (Justice’s Full Name)
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Of course, this has nothing to do with reconciling differences between Democrats and Republicans, or even between radicals & moderates within the former group. This “reconciliation” is a controversial procedural move that the Democrats in Congress want to use to pass Obamacare, despite their losing the 60-vote Senate supermajority.

Since its introduction in 1974, the reconciliation process has rarely been used, and only for its original purpose of sidestepping impasses on budgetary resolutions. Ostensibly for reducing deficits or increasing surpluses, its wording only refers to “changes” in revenue and spending amounts. Although intended for only limited application and for a single fiscal year, it has since been expanded in scope to pass sweeping omnibus bills. For example, Congress used reconciliation to pass Clinton’s 1993 budget. The President also wanted them to use the same tactic to enact “HillaryCare”, but Sen. Byrd, author of 1985’s Byrd Rule, prevailed in his arguments that healthcare was out-of-bounds. It wasn’t until 1999 that reconciliation was used by the Senate to enact something that would actually have a negative impact on the federal fiscal position (i.e., the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act). It was used again to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, with similar results. [Note: It might be interesting to note that reconciliation was used 3 times under George W. Bush, each time to pass major tax cuts, which would lapse after 10 years in adherence with Byrd Rule guidelines.]

By its very nature, reconciliation favors the majority party, because it limits debate and amendment and avoids filibuster. Rather than the usual 60 votes needed to pass a bill, the procedure allows the Senate Parliamentarian (i.e., currently Alan Frumin, who has already shown himself to be partisan toward Democrats) to modify the bill such that it only requires a simple majority (in the Senate) of 51 votes. If there is a 50/50 tie, the Vice President votes the tiebreaker; and we all know which way Biden leans. The bill then goes to the President for his sign-off. Important point: It doesn’t matter which order bills are passed by Congress, but it does matter what order the President signs them into law.

Now we have the Democrats in the majority and trying again to pass another socialistic, debt-growing healthcare plan via reconciliation. Of course, in addition to the above, the procedure does involve going through several committees and meeting certain requirements from the 1974 Budget Act and the 1985 “Byrd Rule”, which restricts non-budgetary use of the reconciliation maneuver. Also, the minority party in the Senate still has a chance to force a separate roll call vote on every line of the bill. But, Sen. Reid et al. think they can somehow get around the “Byrd Rule” and any other obstacles. Despite resistance from the fiscally conservative “Blue Dogs”, Pelosi’s Democrats have the majority in the House, which is why no one is talking about using reconciliation there. [UPDATE: It seems that Pelosi may not have the votes she needs, after all. Go here and here for more on this.]

With the President expected to present his new plan any day now [Note: Originally posted 2/20/2010.], House and Senate Democratic leaders are winding down weeks of negotiations over the details. (Questions: If Obama is crafting his own version of what he thinks is a “good bill”, which will then be presented to Pelosi & Reid, what exactly has the Democratic leadership been negotiating? Are they merely humoring him? How much detail will Obama get into? How closely are they expected to adhere to his bill? Is this constitutional? Just wondering….)

While even congressional Democrats can’t be sure what will end up in the final bill, reconciliation efforts will probably go something like this (as per the NCPA):

1) House Democrats pass several “fixes” for the Senate bill.

2) Senate Democrats endorse the “fixes” and send them to the President (who does nothing with them, yet).

3) House Democrats bypass the need for subsequent Senate vote by passing the Senate bill as-is and sending it to the President.

4) The President first signs the Senate bill, then the “fixes”.

So, what can those of us who oppose Obamacare do? We need to convince Senate moderates (e.g., Blanche Lincoln, D-AR), and anyone else in Congress currently on the fence about Obamacare of at least one of the following:

1) Passing Obamacare in anything like its current state is against the will of the majority of the people (as multiple surveys, demonstrations, & elections have shown), and voting for it would work against them when they are up for re-election.

2) Passing Obamacare in anything like its current state is simply unethical, because of its tremendous costs, intrusive control over people’s health/lives, unconstitutional interference with the market, etc.

3) Using the reconciliation tactic to pass anything other than budgetary resolutions is inappropriate and unethical, because it would violate its intended purpose and subsequent guidelines set in the Byrd Rule.

4) Using the reconciliation tactic to pass Obamacare in particular (given its controversial nature) seems underhanded and “dirty politics”, since it effectively cuts out Republicans and bypasses much of the normal legislative process. A topic this huge deserves full-throated, bipartisan debate.

If enough can be convinced, we can keep the yea-votes to 49 or less and defeat the “reconciliation” of Obamacare. The Democrats currently have 59 votes in the Senate, so we only need about 12 (including an additional couple to counteract the RINOs like Olympia Snowe, R-ME, and Robert Bennett, R-UT, who may go against party lines and vote for it). We CAN stop it!

If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to join the Free Our Health Care NOW! Action Army, then call or write your Congressman. You can also donate to the NCPA here.