Don't let this government fool you. There are many levels to Obama care and the Senate and the Congress do not get the same that the average Joe in America will get. Some policies with Obama care will only receive 3-6 prescriptions a month. So if you are a heart patient and allergic to Beta Blockers and you need to take more then six prescriptions a month you are out of luck.
Also what is being developed are the Obama care clinics. You don't see a doctor. Who you see is a Nurse Practitioner . If you have something they cant handle they direct you to the Hospital where before you get treated you must pay the fee,
Congress and the Senate have the top quality Obama care. They get a private doctor ( not the clinic) they get prescriptions for free, X-rays, and they see a specialist without a referral. And we pay for all this so they can have better care then us.
Now there is a staged picture below. How could they love Obamacare when it has be delayed till 2015,
Obama delays healthcare insurance requirement on employers till 2015
Businesses welcome announcement that key Obamacare provision will not be implemented until after next election
Obamacare supporters … but businesses complained about having to pay $2,000 for each full-time employee who did not get health cover. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty
The US administration has announced that it will not require employers to provide health insurance for their workers until 2015, delaying a key provision of Barack Obama's healthcare reform law by a year, to beyond the next election.
The move raises questions about the future of other provisions of the law, including the mandate for individuals to obtain health coverage in 2014. Businesses and their lobbyists have complained loudly about the reporting requirements for companies that employ 50 or more full-time workers.
Retailers and other business interests welcomed the change, which analysts said could stop a main avenue of attack on Obama's signature domestic policy achievement as campaigning for the 2014 midterm congressional election gets under way later this year.
Republicans called it evidence that Obama's plan was a failure, while Democrats termed it a demonstration of flexibility.
Whether that flexibility opens the door to further changes in the healthcare law is now a matter of debate. The law, popularly known as Obamacare, was passed in 2010 and upheld a year ago by the US supreme court.
"If this is negotiable, it seems like anything is negotiable," said Malcolm Slee, a tax lawyer working with businesses on healthcare implementation.
Companies would have had to pay the Internal Revenue Service $2,000 for each full-time employee who did not get health coverage, beginning on 1 January, when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is scheduled to come into full effect.
"This is designed to meet two goals," Mark Mazur, the Treasury department's assistant secretary for tax policy, said in a government blog. "It will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the 2010 law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible."
Mazur said the administration would publish formal guidance describing the changes within the next week.
Edward Lenz, senior counsel of the American Staffing Association, an employment and recruiting industry group, said administration officials briefed his organisation on Tuesday, portraying the delay as a "practice year" for businesses.
"In our conversation this afternoon with representatives from the administration, they are expecting employers to voluntarily go forward with these rules," he said.
Trade groups representing retailers and restaurants, among those expected to be hit hardest by the mandate, welcomed the one-year extension.
"We commend the administration's wise move," said the National Retail Federation vice-president Neil Trautwein. "This one-year delay will provide employers and businesses more time to update their healthcare coverage without threat of arbitrary punishment."
Some analysts saw the change as a responsible move to accommodate smaller businesses. It could also help the public education campaign to persuade the uninsured to sign up for coverage.
"It takes away one of the potential sources of criticism and frankly negative stories that were likely to materialise in the fall," said Larry Levitt, of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks healthcare issues.
Republican lawmakers seized on the announcement as evidence that the healthcare reform they have repeatedly sought to repeal represented a flawed administration policy.
The House of Representatives speaker John Boehner said the administration should now provide relief to individuals who face a penalty if they do not obtain health coverage by 2014. The so-called individual mandate will begin next year at $95, or 1% of taxable household income, and rise in phases to $695 per person, with a cap of 2.5% of household income, by 2016.
"This is a clear acknowledgment that the law is unworkable, and it underscores the need to repeal the law and replace it with effective, patient-centred reforms," Boehner said in a statement.
But Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate majority leader Harry Reid, said the change would help to make Obamacare as beneficial as possible by allowing the administration to work with business stakeholders. "It is better to do this right than fast," he said.
The administration has already delayed insurance offerings for small businesses that were to be made available through new online exchanges. A recent report by a watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, also called into question whether new insurance marketplaces for millions of individuals would meet a 1 October deadline for open enrolment.
The importance of the decision contrasted with how it was announced: through two low-key blogposts on Tuesday evening, one on the website of the Treasury department and the other at www.whitehouse.gov at a time when Obama was travelling and Congress was in recess for the 4 July holiday.
Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama, said in a blogpost on Tuesday that the government was fully prepared to open the new insurance exchanges for individuals in October. While the nation's largest employers already offer extensive health benefits to their full-time employees, many small and mid-sized companies will now be required to provide insurance for the first time.
Tuesday's delay also raised questions about initial funding for Obamacare. The employer mandate is expected to raise $140bn in revenues over the next 10 years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimates that the individual mandate will bring in a further $45bn.
"It does undermine some of the funding," said Julie Barnes, of the healthcare consulting firm Breakaway Policy.
One of the biggest problems America faces today is the Guardianship's of the Elderly by Professional Guardians who are Attorney's or Make it a business to abuse then kill the ward after all the money is gone. This is a practice of Obama care before the death panels take place. Death is determined by the Guardian not by God
Nashville attorney faces theft charges in conservatorship case
He served as conservator for retired teacher
A Nashville attorney, whose license to practice law was recently suspended, has been charged with theft of more than $60,000 from a client.
John E. Clemmons, 65, was charged last week with theft from a retired teacher. While serving as the conservator of the Rutherford County resident, Clemmons paid himself more than $50,000 in fees without court approval.
Paul Housch, Clemmons’ attorney, said his client already had entered a not guilty plea to the criminal charge. He declined to respond to the charge, stating that it would be addressed in court. An initial hearing is scheduled for June 7.
Attempts to reach Clemmons on Tuesday were unsuccessful. The phone at his Gay Street law office was disconnected.
The charges were initially spelled out in an April order from the state Supreme Court which indefinitely suspended Clemmons’ license to practice law, concluding that allowing him to continue posed “a threat of substantial harm to the public.”
Chancellor Robert E. Corlew III on March 5 removed Clemmons as Russell Church’s conservator. Rutherford County Clerk and Master John A.W. Bratcher then referred the matter to District Attorney General Robert Whitesell, whose office brought the charges to a grand jury.
The indictment was unsealed last week.
Clemmons also is facing charges in a civil case brought by the daughter of a woman for whom Clemmons served as a conservator for more than four years.
The suit charges that Clemmons misappropriated about $450,000 from the estate of Nannie P. Malone, who died last year.
The suit on behalf of Malone’s daughter, Teresa A. Lyle, charges that Clemmons breached his fiduciary duty and failed to properly account for thousands of dollars in proceeds when Malone’s property was auctioned.
The insurance company that provided a bond for Clemmons under his services in the conservatorship has filed a cross claim against Clemmons for the value of the $300,000 bond.
Jeanan Stuart billed clients $1.8 million in five years.
Citing “significant concerns” that she charged excessive fees to her clients, Davidson County Probate Judge David Randy Kennedy on Wednesday permanently suspended public guardian Jeanan Mills Stuart and vowed to help seek her replacement.
Stuart, who had held the job for five years, submitted a resignation letter effective in a week. Her letter was forwarded to members of Metro Council along with a letter from Kennedy announcing her termination. In her letter, Stuart defended all her actions and blamed controversy for her departure.
In his five-paragraph letter to the council, Kennedy wrote that while most conservatorship cases, including those assigned to Stuart, “have been handled properly; even the perception that excessive fees have been charged is inexcusable.
Stuart’s termination and simultaneous resignation follow a series ofTennessean stories raising questions about her billing practices. The Tennessean’s analysis showed she regularly charged lawyer rates of $200 to $225 per hour for tasks such as taking wards shopping, sorting their clothes, moving them into an assisted living facility or running errands for them. In one case, she charged more than $1,200 to take a ward on a shopping trip to Dillards and Walgreens.
In an accompanying preliminary report on his review of Stuart’s currently active cases, Kennedy wrote, “There are several instances in Ms. Stuart’s time record entries where she charged her standard hourly rate for services, which should have been performed by a subordinate, paralegal or other designated service provider at a less expensive non-professional rate.”
The public guardian is appointed by the court to take control of the financial and physical needs of people unable to care for themselves and when no family member or friend is willing or suitable.
The Tennessean analysis also showed that Stuart billed twice — and was approved by Kennedy — for the same service multiple times. She attributed the double billings to errors that she later would fix. Overall, the analysis showed, Stuart billed her clients $1.8 million since taking office in early 2008. She has said she has a right to be reimbursed at her legal rate when she personally handles work and that she doesn’t always collect the amount she bills because some of her wards are destitute.
Kennedy, in his report on Stuart’s current cases, wrote: “In one isolated case there are two separate billings for services that are a typographical error at best or a double billing at worst for a period of one hour.”
Changes in fee approval
Kennedy told council members that Stuart would be replaced in the approximately 90 cases that are now assigned to her.
Kennedy had earlier suspended Stuart from receiving any additional cases when council members, who appoint the public guardian, raised concerns after The Tennessean’s stories. He also changed the way he approves fees in all cases, no longer approving them on the day they are submitted so that he can have more time for review. He also appointed a task force to look at ways to lower costs for conservatorships for non-legal services.
Kennedy said that while Stuart is being replaced in all her pending cases, she still will be required to file final accountings in all of those cases.
Stating that it was her duty “to care for the best interest of wards of your court without outside controversy,” Stuart wrote, “I hereby resign the office of Public Guardian of Davidson County Tennessee.”
Later in the letter she notes: “I have from time to time asked you for instructions, and I have followed them to the best of my ability. I have provided you with detailed affidavits of my actions, and all of my actions have been approved in orders signed by you.
“I believe that all of my actions have been in accordance with prevailing Tennessee laws and the rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court.” She also noted in the letter that she has followed the policies and procedures in Kennedy’s court.
Stuart, who was recommended by Kennedy, was voted to the post by the Metro Council unanimously on two occasions. Council members who serve on the rules committee that reviews such appointments indicated future appointees may undergo closer scrutiny.
“When the time comes to appoint we’ll have him (Kennedy) in rules and we’ll be sure to question him at that time. I think there’s going to be a lot of scrutiny of this next time,” said Councilman Anthony Davis, who is chairman of the Rules, Confirmations and Public Elections Committee.
“I think we would certainly take his recommendation. We’ll step it up on our oversight now because of what happened. But him showing the effort, it would be obvious he’s going to be more careful in who he chooses.”
'Highly questionable'
Councilman Bo Mitchell, who serves on the same committee, said he believed it was the right move for Kennedy to make Stuart’s suspension permanent.
“When the public trust is in question, I think it’s best that we go in a different direction right now,” Mitchell said. “I’m not going to judge, and I haven’t researched enough to be able to say she’s totally in the wrong, but some of the stuff I’ve seen has been highly questionable.”
Mitchell also said questions about Stuart’s job performance demonstrate that the council needs the freedom to vet such public appointees more thoroughly. The council appoints the public guardian, though the legislative body lacks the ability to remove someone from an appointed job.
The standard council practice has been to rely on the probate judge’s recommendations for the public guardian.
“We’re put in a position to appoint these people, and in the past when I have tried to ask difficult questions, you get portrayed in the media as grilling a defenseless appointee,” Mitchell said. “You’re just trying to ask questions that some point in time may come back.”
Gov. Bill Haslam / John A. Gillis / Gannett Tennessee
Haslam approves new conservatorship law
Revisions strengthen wards' rights with added safeguards
May 21, 2013
Gov. Bill Haslam has signed into law a measure making the first major revisions in more than a decade to the state law governing the process of placing state residents under the control of a court-appointed conservator.
The new statute, which will take effect July 1, was the product of a series of hearings held across the state by the Tennessee Bar Association. It sets out for the first time uniform procedures for placing a person in a conservatorship on an emergency basis.
“The intent of this law is to clarify the process, to make sure people aren’t being taken advantage of,” said Rep. Andrew Farmer, the House sponsor of the measure.
Farmer, a Sevierville Republican, said he considered passage of the bill to be his biggest accomplishment of the recently completed session.
Under the new law, a person being placed in a conservatorship in an emergency situation must be informed of the proceedings within 48 hours and a hearing must be held within five days.
The judge also will be required to certify that absent the conservatorship, the person would be likely to suffer substantial harm.
Testimony at the bar association hearings last year, including a session in Nashville, showed the emergency process varied from courtroom to courtroom across the state. Several witnesses, including Jewell Tinnon of Nashville, said their rights and possessions had been taken away without notice or justification and they questioned the need for emergency action.
Tinnon’s story was told in a special report by the Tennessean last year. Her house, car and all of her personal possessions were stripped away while she was in a conservatorship initiated by two relatives who she said she hadn’t seen in years. Tinnon now lives in public housing.
Under the new law, a judge will be required to specify exactly what rights are being taken away and what rights the ward will retain. The law mandates that the restrictions be as limited as possible.
Under a last-minute amendment, specific provisions were added to clarify the procedure for a health care provider to follow in placing a patient in a conservatorship on a temporary basis. The change was sought by hospitals.
The procedure would be used when a health care provider determines that the patient needs to be transferred to a lower level of care but the patient lacks the capacity to make that decision.
Still other provisions in the statute spell out the duties of court-appointed attorneys known as guardian ad litems. The law makes clear that those appointed are not advocates for the proposed ward but fact-finders for the judge.
The law also establishes a priority list of those to be considered to serve as a conservator, with the highest priority going to a spouse or other family member. If the judge does not appoint a family member or a district public guardian, he or she must state the reason.
Under the new law conservators who have control of a ward’s finances will be required to file detailed annual reports. Conservators also will be required to file periodic reports on the ward’s physical and mental condition.
The new law maintains a provision in the current law under which a ward has the right to petition the court at any time to have the conservatorship lifted or eased.
Jeanan Mills Stuart says her billing system is widely used in law offices and her double-billing instances were errors. / George Walker IV / File / The Tennessean
Davidson County Public Guardian's bills
exceed $1.8 million
he Davidson County public guardian, whose fees are under review by a local probate judge, has double-billed clients, billed more than 24 hours in a day and earned more than $270,000 in thousands of small, individual charges for tasks such as listening to a voice mail.
The Tennessean first raised questions about Jeanan Mills Stuart’s fees when it found she was charging her legal rates of $200 to $225 per hour for nonlegal tasks, such as taking her wards on shopping trips and sorting their clothes before a move into an assisted-living center.
A new data analysis by The Tennessean of all of her billings between 2008 — when she was first appointed by the Metro Council — and February 2013 shows she has turned in fee requests with mistakes, such as double-billings, and more than 24-hour days, all of which have been approved by the judge overseeing the conservator cases.
In all, Stuart has billed for more than $1.8 million in fees since January 2008, when she took on her role, according to The Tennessean’s data analysis. As public guardian, she handles the affairs of people who are found by the Davidson County probate court to be mentally or physically unable to make their own decisions. Her wards have no control or say in what she does for them. The primary oversight of her fees is Davidson County Probate Judge David Randy Kennedy, who can approve or reject them.
Lawyers and experts in legal fees say that some of Stuart’s billing practices depart from typical standards — particularly her practice of charging attorneys’ fees for nonlegal services and repeatedly billing a minimum charge no matter what service is provided.
“These things seem particularly out of bounds,” said attorney Robert Fleischer, an expert on guardianships with the Massachusetts-based Center for Public Representation.
The Tennessean analysis of her bills show Stuart has:
• Billed twice for the same services nearly a dozen times.
• Billed for more than 24 hours in a single day twice.
• Billed a tenth of an hour thousands of times for individual tasks such as retrieving an email, reviewing a bill or listening to a voice mail.
These tasks cost wards tens of thousands of dollars because Stuart — unlike many lawyers who use paralegals or clerks at a lower cost for such work — charged her full legal rate of $200 to $225 per hour.
In a series of responses to Tennessean questions, Stuart defended her billing practices, saying her system was widely used in law offices. She said the cases of double-billing occurred because she turned into the court a “preview fee affidavit” instead of a “final affidavit,” which caused the errors.
She explained that her billing for more than 24 hours in a single day was actually for work that occurred over two days. And she has said in the past that she has the right as a lawyer to bill at her legal rates for work that she personally handles.
Judge Kennedy, who is in the process of reviewing Stuart’s fee requests, issued a preliminary report to the Metro Council last month stating that he had found no discrepancies after going through about 30 of Stuart’s currently active cases. He also announced he would not assign any additional cases to Stuart until the review was complete.
His review was prompted by concerns of Metro Council members after The Tennessean published a report on Stuart’s fees, including information that showed she charged one ward more than $1,200 for taking her on a 61/2-hour shopping trip to Dillard’s and Walgreens.
She actually billed the ward twice for that a trip for a total cost of about $2,400. After The Tennessean reported the double-billing in February, Stuart said it was a mistake and said she credited the client’s account by $1,462.50, which she said was the amount actually charged twice.
Kennedy said he has instituted new procedures to allow for closer review of all lawyers’ fees. He will no longer approve fee requests on the same day they are submitted.
Though Kennedy limited his review to Stuart’s currently active cases, The Tennessean analysis covers closed and open cases. The review shows that on multiple occasions Stuart has billed her wards twice for performing the same service and all were approved by Kennedy. One client was double-billed three times.
In the case of George Vickers, for example, Stuart billed one hour at a cost of $200 for a shopping trip to Target to buy him Depend undergarments. The same one-hour trip on the same day was listed on her next billing two months later.
In the same case and in the same two fee filings, Stuart billed two times for a 21/2-hour trip on the same dayto Burns, where Vickers’ property was being auctioned. As with the Target trips, the Burns trip payments were approved. Stuart also billed Vickers twice to review a Medicare statement.
In the case of Wanda Fite, Stuart billed her to draft a motion for the sale of her property. In the next fee filing, she billed the same amount for the same task on the same day. Fite was also billed twice the same day for “meeting with (real estate agent) and sign contract.”
For yet another ward, Stuart billed for 22 hours in a single day in two 11-hour entries, totaling $2,400 altogether. The charges listed were identical — cleaning out the ward’s former residence — and they were approved by Kennedy. Stuart said she had previously discovered the double-entry and later reimbursed the ward’s account.
Stuart said that while she may have submitted a fee affidavit — a sworn statement to the court listing fees — that listed individual tasks twice, she never collected double payments because her billing system prevented it and would have automatically generated a credit.
6-minute fees add up
The new analysis also shows that a large chunk of Stuart’s fees come from billings of one-tenth of an hour at her legal hourly rate of $200 to $225 per hour. Some of the most frequent tasks for which she bills at one-tenth of an hour, or 6 minutes, is reviewing bank statements and listening to or responding to voice mails.
In her bills since 2008, she charged for 6 minutes 13,290 times, totaling more than $270,000 in fees. The charges account for about 15 percent of her total billings. Though some of the tenth of an hour entries list more than one task, most list only one.
Though Stuart said the tenth of an hour minimum charge was a common practice, experts contacted by the Tennessean disagreed.
Connie Draxler, deputy director of the Los Angeles County Public Guardian’s office, said they don’t have any minimum time charge.
“We bill for the exact amount of time spent on the case, whatever that is,” Draxler said.
James King, a California attorney who has testified as an expert witness in fee disputes, said there have been cases in which courts have challenged and reduced multiple billings for a minimum amount.
“The charge should not be for six minutes unless the task you performed actually took at least that amount of time,” King said.
He said the normal accepted practice would be for an attorney to group several tasks, such as returning several phone calls into a single six-minute block. He said there also are billing programs available under which an attorney can charge for as little as a minute at a time.
The same opinion was voiced by Fleischner, the author of several articles on guardianships, who said that while a tenth of an hour is often the minimum charge, the usual practice would be to group several tasks under each minimum charge.
“It doesn’t take six minutes to read an email or listen to a voice mail,” he said. “Lawyers are expected to observe reasonable billing judgment.”
Jerome Studer, a Chicago attorney who specializes in legal fee issues, said that if an attorney made a single phone call in a day for a client, charging the client for a tenth of an hour would be acceptable, but he said that multiple charges of a tenth of an hour in the same day would not be appropriate.
“You want to charge for the time you actually work,” he said.
The Tennessean analysis showed there were 1,989 instances where Stuart charged a tenth of an hour more than once for the same client on the same day. In the case of Dorothy Hawkins, Stuart billed 10 separate tenth of an hour charges on March 22, 2010.
King and Fleischner also were critical of Stuart’s practice of charging her full lawyer’s hourly rate for nonlegal tasks.
King said that while occasionally it may be simpler for a lawyer to just perform a small task rather than enlisting the aid of a secretary or paralegal, generally, a lawyer should not bill a full legal fee for tasks that could be performed by a paralegal or clerk.
“If someone does that (charging the full hourly rate) routinely, then that’s a problem,” King said.
Studer, the Chicago attorney, said that it was “not at all appropriate” for an attorney to charge full hourly legal rates for what are clerical type services.
“I can’t think of why a lawyer would have to go on a shopping trip,” Studer said.
'Long days' cited
In at least two cases, Stuart billed for more than 24 hours in a single day.
“I have long days at my office,” Stuart said. “It is not unusual for me to spend that kind of time when there are exigent circumstances, especially at the start of an emergency conservatorship.”
Stuart’s billings for Jan, 27, 2012, include a 28-hour entry for work related to a single ward at a Cool Springs nursing home. The entry reports that she met with a hospice worker to discuss the ward’s case, had a telephone call with the ward’s physician and waited at the nursing home for relatives of the ward to arrive.
For the same day, Stuart also billed a total of two hours of work for more than a dozen other wards.
Stuart, in a written response to questions, said that the 30 hours were actually spread over two days and that she was primarily attending to two wards, a father and his daughter, who died the next day.
“Yes, it was a long time, and I did what I did to support people who needed my help,” Stuart wrote.
Stuart also billed in excess of 24 hours in a single day on March 24, 2009, with the largest chunk, 12 hours, coming in the case of a child who suffered severe injuries at birth. But on the same day she also said she went through paperwork for another ward at his former home in a trailer park. In all, she billed for 251/2 hours on that day.
Stuart said the March 24 billing involved an emergency situation involving a child who had to be removed from the parents’ home. She said the hours were actually spread over two days.
Walker Moskop contributed to this report. Roche can be reached at wroche@tennessean.com or 259-8086.
And this goes on and on . There is a never ending of money because there's a never ending of wards There is a never ending of untimely deaths after the money is gone. We need to look into each states Elderly Laws.
I have just recently found that the Representative Elaine Schwartz is not only a Florida State Representative in the state house but she is also on the Committee for elderly law, has a elderly law practice, has a guardian business , now is a lobbyist in DC for the NAELA which is an association of attorney's who "Practice Elderly Law". Schwartz writes laws to benefit herself and her business not the wards she is entrusted to.
Listen very carefully as this Racist Senator Peterson talks about Obama Care. This Racist Peterson is trying to blackmail the Senate by saying if you dont like Obama care YOU ARE RACIST!
I am going to use a pun she is the pot calling the kettle black and that is a black guilt trip. NO RACIST PETERSON the whites are now the MINORITY and the Latinos are the Majority .. so a Minority according to black Holden cant be racist! If you want to say that the Minority Whites in the USA are paying for Obamacare and dont like it you are right.
Today on the radio show, Glenn spent two hours going through the documented lies of the Obama administration. He kicked things off with the lies that came at the very beginning, tackling Obama’s promises on the campaign trail and the distortions about his past.
“If you catch them in an early lie, they learn their lesson and so they don’t continue to do it. But if you don’t call them on early lies, they only get worse, bigger, and more dangerous. So let’s start with the early lie,” Glenn said.
Lie 1: PRESIDENT OBAMA: The Kennedys decided we’re going to do an airlift. We’re going to go out to Africa and we’re going to start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so that they can learn what a wonderful country America is. And this young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country.
Truth: His father came to America at least a year before this program started.
Lie 2: President Obama: There’s some good craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided we know that in the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. But something’s stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. And so they got together and Barack Obama, Jr. was born.
Truth: He was born four years before the Selma march.
Lie 3: President Obama: It’s the founding ideals that the flag draped over my father’s coffin stand for.Truth: His father was buried in Kenya, never served in the U.S. military. Which flag draped his father’s coffin? And what ideals does the flag that draped his father’s coffin in Kenya stand for?
Lie 4: President Obama promised that lobbyists would not be a part of his administration or have the influence in Washington they had previously
Truth: He broke that promise three days later. CNN reported, “Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names — a rather long list of names of people — who are working on Obama’s transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists.”
Lie 5: President Obama: “And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”
Truth: Obama later said, “This was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech and we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given. The point we were simply making was, is that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem.”
Lie 6: President Obama: I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around congress.
Truth: He’s used signing statements over 20 times.
The Documented Obama Lies: Healthcare
Glenn spent two hours today going through the lies told by the Obama administration over the past few years, and some of the biggest whoppers involved healthcare.
“Virtually everything we told you about the healthcare bill now has proven to be true,” Glenn said. ”And nearly everything they told you was a lie.”
Lie 1: PRESIDENT OBAMA: For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend her last months of her life in the hospital rooming arguing with insurance companies because they are saying that this may be a preexisting condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.
Truth: Glenn explained, “Well, what would be fundamentally wrong is the story itself. His mother was never challenged by her insurance company because of preexisting conditions. There was some concern over her disability claim. She was treated. And when she finally came in for treatment, it was covered by insurance. By the way, she continued to receive her $85,000 a year salary plus housing and car from her employer. But don’t mention any of that because if you do, you’re a racist. Shameless to use your mother’s illness, to lie about your mother’s circumstances to gain political advantage.”
Lie 2: PRESIDENT OBAMA: If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you’ve got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor. Nobody is trying to change what works.
Truth: Even if you like your plan, you may not be able to keep it.
Lie 3: President Obama: Nobody is talking about some government takeover of healthcare.
The Documented Lies: Benghazi – What difference does it make?
Hillary Clinton famously tried to brush off the truth by screeching out ‘what difference does it make?’ during a Congressional hearing. Hillary clearly gambled that the media also doesn’t care about the truth, and as it turns out she was mostly right. She’s still in line for the 2016 nomination even though she oversaw the death of four Americans and said she didn’t care about it. But that’s just the beginning of the Benghazi lies…
Lie: The attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest in response to a Youtube Video.
Examples:
Susan Rice: Our current best assessment based on the information that we have at present is that, in fact, what this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response to what had transpired in Cairo.
President Obama: What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.
Jay Carney: It is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film.
Truth: The attacks were a premeditated terror attack that had nothing to do with a YouTube video.
Rep. Gowdy said, “For almost a year there was an escalating pattern of violence directed toward the United States and other Western targets in Libya. Attacks on the consulate and Benghazi, attacks and assassination attempts on the British ambassador, attacks on the international Red Cross, attacks on courthouses, judges assassinated, culminating on September the 11th and the murder of four Americans including our ambassador.
”
The Documented Obama Lies: Fast and Furious
The Federal government knowingly and purposefully walked guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels as part of a scheme to uncover and bust the cartels. Later the guns we sent over were used to kill our own border patrol agents, and now the administration is in full lie mode. Glenn had more on radio in the clip above.
Lie 1: Fast and Furious started under the Obama administration and didn’t start in Washington DC but in the field. President Obama: First of all, I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field‑initiated program begun under the previous administration.
Truth: The program was started in October 2009 and the strategy was decided at the Department of Justice in Washington DC.
More damning audio and quotes can be found in the clip at the top of this page.
By: Congressman Kerry Bentivolio
Last June, like most conservatives, I felt great shock and disappointment
with the ruling of the Supreme Court holding Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act—commonly known as Obamacare—as constitutional. The legislation itself
represents an assault on our basic liberties. Americans should not be penalized
because they have made the economic decision to not purchase health insurance in
the private marketplace. Our federal government, which is supposed to be limited
in scope, should not be so powerful as to have the ability to regulate not only
what we do, but also what we do not do. For the first time in history inaction
is now a taxable undertaking. This is wrong and goes against the very nature of
American governance and tradition. The United States is exceptional because the
very charter that created our nation recognized our inalienable right to
liberty. That liberty discussed in the Declaration of Independence includes
taking the economic risk of not purchasing health insurance even when you can
afford it.
As the law came before the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia made a prescient
point that showed how the motivating factor behind Obamacare erodes our freedom.
He said, “Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you [the federal
government] define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market;
therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.” Progressive liberals who support
the president’s healthcare reform cling to a notion that unwinds the protections
granted to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Conservatives must
respond by standing together to empower Americans with the freedom offered to
everyone by a limited government.
Obamacare is one of the largest expansions of the size of government in our
national history. By validating that the federal government has the ability to
tax inaction the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can regulate every aspect
of our lives through the tax code. This ruling is a step too far. Good
intentions by Washington politicians cannot replace our basic liberties and
self-responsibility. Despite being law for over three years, a large majority of
Americans want this law repealed. As members of Congress, it is our duty to
protect the rights of the people, not take them away.
Regardless of whether or not Obamacare is eventually repealed, the Supreme
Court has set a dangerous precedent that only opens the door for future abuse by
ambitious lawmakers. The Court ruled that Congress has the ability to pass laws
that can force Americans to either buy particular products in the private market
or face the IRS. Under this precedent, Congress could force anyone to buy a
product that lawmakers in Washington deem indispensible to living a proper life.
Chief Justice Roberts has essentially ruled that the Framers of the Constitution
and Bill of Rights were wrong in expecting Americans to be able to make
decisions regarding how to live their lives.
If the Supreme Court is going to twist the meaning of the taxation power of
Congress to include mandated behavior, the only recourse left is for the people
of the United States to change the Constitution, serving as a check on
Washington’s authority. I revere the Constitution, and changing it in anyway is
something that I take very seriously. A 5-4 ruling should not grant the federal
government nearly unlimited power. To rectify this problem, I propose an
amendment to the Constitution that prohibits Congress from using the creation of
taxes in order to compel individuals to engage in commercial activity. It is the
only way to ensure our limited government even if Obamacare is eventually
repealed.
Majority Leader Cantor has said that we need to hack away at the
infringements of our freedoms that are pervasive through Obamacare. This is my
chop. Below is my proposed amendment to the United States Constitution.
Washington should not be allowed to control every aspect of our lives. I ask all
of you to join me in standing up to this intrusion into our daily lives. We can
reclaim our right to be self-responsible citizens without the management of
Washington bureaucrats, but we must take action while we still can.
Language of the proposed Bentivolio Amendment:
`The Congress shall not have the power to lay and
collect taxes in order to compel any person or persons to engage in commercial
activity, nor shall Congress have the power to lay and collect taxes from any
person or persons for a failure to engage in any form of commercial
activity.’
Kerry Bentivolio is a first-term Congressman who represents Michigan’s
11th district. He is a veteran, schoolteacher, small business owner, and family
farmer.
Student body ID cards with RFID-embedded chips. Image: Northside Independent School District
2:30 p.m. PST UPDATE: A local Texas judge on Wednesday tentatively blocked the suspension, pending further hearings next week.
A Texas high school student is being suspended for refusing to wear a student ID card implanted with a radio-frequency identification chip.
Northside Independent School District in San Antonio began issuing the RFID-chip-laden student-body cards when the semester began in the fall. The ID badge has a bar code associated with a student’s Social Security number, and the RFID chip monitors pupils’ movements on campus, from when they arrive until when they leave.
Radio-frequency identification devices are a daily part of the electronic age — found in passports, and library and payment cards. Eventually they’re expected to replace bar-code labels on consumer goods. Now schools across the nation are slowly adopting them as well.
The suspended student, sophomore Andrea Hernandez, was notified by the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio that she won’t be able to continue attending John Jay High School unless she wears the badge around her neck, which she has been refusing to do. The district said the girl, who objects on privacy and religious grounds, beginning Monday would have to attend another high school in the district that does not yet employ the RFID tags.
The Rutherford Institute said it would go to court and try to nullify the district’s decision. The institute said that the district’s stated purpose for the program — to enhance their coffers — is “fundamentally disturbing.”
“There is something fundamentally disturbing about this school district’s insistence on steamrolling students into complying with programs that have nothing whatsoever to do with academic priorities and everything to do with fattening school coffers,” said John Whitehead, the institute’s president.
Like most state-financed schools, the district’s budget is tied to average daily attendance. If a student is not in his seat during morning roll call, the district doesn’t receive daily funding for that pupil because the school has no way of knowing for sure if the student is there.
But with the RFID tracking, students not at their desk but tracked on campus are counted as being in school that day, and the district receives its daily allotment for that student.
Tagging school children with RFID chips is uncommon, but not new. A federally funded preschool in Richmond, California, began embedding RFID chips in students’ clothing in 2010. And an elementary school outside of Sacramento, California, scrubbed a plan in 2005 amid a parental uproar. And a Houston, Texas, school district began using the chips to monitor students on 13 campuses in 2004 for the same reasons the Northside Independent School District implemented the program. Northside is mulling adopting the program for its other 110 schools.
The Hernandez family, which is Christian, told InfoWars that the sophomore is declining to wear the badge because it signifies Satan, or the Mark of the Beast warning in Revelations 13: 16-18.
The district, in a letter last week to the family, said it would allow her to continue attending the magnet school with “the battery and chip removed.” But the girl’s father, Steve Hernandez, said the district told him that the offer came on the condition that he must “agree to stop criticizing the program and publicly support it,” a proposition the father told WND Education that he could not stomach.
The district was not immediately available to comment
US HEALTHCARE BILL, which your elected representatives voted for without
reading, there is a section titled: Subtitle C-11 Sec. 2521 – National Medical
Device Registry which states:
“The
Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection
referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and
outcomes data on each device that—‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient;
and ‘‘(B) is a class III device; or ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is
implantable.”
The language
is deliberately vague, but it provides the structure for making America the
first nation in the world that would require every U.S. citizen to receive an
implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip for the purpose of controlling
medical care.
Now I believe in health care for all but Micro Chip Implantation in our Citizens is not a good idea. We need to protect all Citizens Privacy. Help me Protect you by voting me into US Congress as a Democrat that is here to help the people , provide programs without fraud and stealing and to ensure the people in my district get represented for their tax dollar.
Remember 2014 Lax for Congress not a Laxed Congress.
Someone found his guts ?? Maybe a little too late?
WND EXCLUSIVE
Congressmen to Obama: See you in court
Charge mandate 'an issue negatively impacting employers of all faiths'
Dozens of members of Congress have signed up to back a challenge to Obamacare’s mandate that employers provide contraceptive services – including abortifacients – to employees under their health care programs.
That requirement has been imposed even on employers whose religious faith forbids their participation in the deaths of unborn infants
A number of lawsuits have been filed over the issue, one federal judge already has halted enforcement against a Denver company, and the government voluntarily has waived enforcement for now in a case brought on behalf of a Michigan company.
Now the American Center for Law and Justice is representing 79 members of Congress with amicus briefs filed in 12 separate lawsuits brought by more than 40 Catholic organizations suing over the requirement.
The plaintiffs in the cases include the Archdiocese of New York, Notre Dame, the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago and others.
According to lawyers handling the friend-of-the-court briefs, the cases challenge the Obama administration’s demand that employers cover sterilization, prescription contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and related patient education and counseling services in their health insurance plans.
Edward White, senior counsel for activist legal team, said, “It is essential to defeat the HHS mandate. The mandate devastates the religious freedom of all employers seeking to comply with their religious beliefs.”
He continued, “This is not just an issue negatively impacting Catholics. This is an issue negatively impacting employers of all faiths.”
In the briefs submitted in the cases backing the Catholic organizations, the ACLJ opposes the federal government’s motions to dismiss the 12 lawsuits. The briefs were submitted with requests that the courts accept them for filing.
Joining the ACLJ in the filings were:
Jeff Landry, La.
Robert Aderholt, Ala.
Todd Akin, Mo.
Mark Amodei, Nev.
Michele Bachmann, Minn.
Spencer Bachus, Ala.
Lou Barletta, Pa.
Roscoe Bartlett, Md.
Dan Benishek, Mich.
Gus Bilirakis, Fla.
Diane Black, Tenn.
Marsha Blackburn, Tenn.
Charles Boustany, La.
Kevin Brady, Texas
Paul Broun, Ga.
Dan Burton, Ind.
Francisco “Quico” Canseco, Texas
Bill Cassidy, La.
Steve Chabot, Ohio
Michael Conaway, Texas
Chip Cravaack, Minn.
Jeff Duncan, S.C.
Renee Ellmers, N.C.
Stephen Fincher, Tenn.
John Fleming, La.
Bill Flores, Texas
J. Randy Forbes, Va.
Jeff Fortenberry, Neb.
Virginia Foxx, N.C.
Bob Goodlatte, Va.
Gregg Harper, Miss.
Andy Harris, Md.
Vicky Hartzler, Mo.
Wally Herger, Calif.
Tim Huelskamp, Kan.
Bill Huizenga, Mich.
Bill Johnson, Ohio
Walter Jones, N.C.
Jim Jordan, Ohio
Mike Kelly, Pa.
Steve King, Iowa
John Kline, Minn.
Raul Labrador, Idaho
Doug Lamborn, Colo.
James Lankford, Okla.
Bob Latta, Ohio
Dan Lipinski, Ill.
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Mo.
Dan Lungren, Calif.
Don Manzullo, Ill.
Jeff Miller, Fla.
Mick Mulvaney, S.C.
Tim Murphy, Pa.
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Alan Nunnelee, Miss.
Pete Olson, Texas
Steven Palazzo, Miss.
Ron Paul, Texas
Steve Pearce, N.M.
Joe Pitts, Pa.
Ted Poe, Texas
Mike Pompei, Kan.
Ben Quayle, Ariz.
Reid Ribble, Wis.
Phil Roe, Tenn.
Todd Rokita, Ind.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla.
Dennis Ross, Fla.
Steve Scalise, La.
Bobby Schilling, Ill.
Jean Schmidt, Ohio
David Schweikert, Ariz.
Adrian Smith, Neb.
Chris Smith, N.J.
Lamar Smith, Texas<BR.
Glenn Thompson, Pa.
Tim Walberg, Mich.
Lynn Westmoreland, Ga.
and Joe Wilson, S.C.
The briefs explain the mandate runs counter to America’s long and proud tradition of accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of all its citizens. The briefs contend that the mandate imposes an unconstitutional burden on individuals and organizations, who firmly oppose having to subsidize, provide, and/or facilitate activities and services that are contrary to their religious beliefs. The documents have been posted online.
Just hours earlier, it was announced that Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed another federal lawsuit against the Obama administration on behalf of two evangelical Christian colleges: Grace College and Seminary in Indiana and Biola University in California.
It was the latest to challenge the administration’s mandate that faith-based employers provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs at no cost to employees regardless of religious or moral objections.
“Christian colleges should remain free to operate according to their deeply held beliefs. Punishing religious people and organizations for freely exercising their faith is an assault on our most fundamental American freedoms,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor. “This mandate leaves religious employers with no real choice: you must either comply and abandon your religious freedom and conscience, or resist and be taxed for your faith. Every American should know that a government with the power to do this to anyone can do this – and worse – to everyone.”
“The Obama administration’s mandate forces us to act against our own doctrinal statement, which upholds the sanctity of human life,” said Biola University President Barry H. Corey. “It unjustly intrudes on our religious liberty as protected under the U.S. Constitution and makes a mockery of our attempts to live our lives according to our faith convictions, time-honored and long protected.”
ADF attorneys previously filed three other lawsuits against the mandate: one on behalf of Geneva College and The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company in Pennsylvania, one on behalf of Louisiana College in Louisiana, and one on behalf of Hercules Industries in Colorado, in which a federal judge issued an order preventing the mandate from being enforced against the family-run business. The lawsuits represent a large cross-section of Protestants and Catholics who object to the mandate.
Also this week, the the American Center for Law and Justice filed a request for an injunction halting application of the mandate against a Missouri company.
The brief argues that the government already has determined that the mandate is a “burden” on religious rights.
“In a press release issued on Jan. 20, 2012, announcing the finalization of the mandate and the temporary safe harbor period for nonprofit entities that object to contraceptive services, defendant [Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius opined that the temporary reprieve ‘strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventative services.’
“Subsequently, in a press release issued on July 31, 2012, Sebelius stated that ‘the Obama administration will continue to work with all employers to give them the flexibility and resources they need to implement the health care law in a way that protects women’s health while making common-sense accommodations for values like religious liberty.’”
The legal brief, filed in U.S. District court for the Eastern District of Missouri, continued. “The defendants cannot make a straight-faced argument in this litigation that the mandate does not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religious beliefs. Indeed, the defendants have postponed for a year the application of regulations that purportedly advance a compelling governmental interest solely because of the burden the defendants themselves recognize that these regulation impose on the exercise of religion.
“Clearly, nothing but a burden of a ‘substantial’ nature could justify such a postponement,” the brief said.
The injunction request was filed on behalf of Frank R. O’Brien and O’Brien Industrial Holdings LLC, a company based in St. Louis. O’Brien is chairman of the company that explores, mines and processes raw materials, exporting to 40 nations.
The Michigan case is being pursued by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Weingartz Supply Co. and Legatus, the nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business leaders.
In the most recent filing there, attorneys for Weingartz said the Obama administration either doesn’t care about or doesn’t like Catholics so much it is forcing them to choose between their beliefs or the federal law,.
“The defendants offer numerous secular and even religious exemptions to the HHS mandate, but fail to offer the same respect to the Catholic beliefs of the plaintiffs – showing that defendants either care so little about those professing Catholic beliefs that they will not be bothered to address their concerns or showing that defendants are patently discriminating against and disrespecting those holding Catholic beliefs,” said the brief filed this week in support of a preliminary injunction that would protect the plaintiffs while the case moves through the courts,” the filing said.
There, the government has waived application of the requirement because of the court case.
And leaders of of a multitude of religious-advocacy groups are warning of the Obamacare contraception mandate consequences for business owners of faith:
Larry Cirignano, president of Faithful Catholic Citizens: “Give up your religion or go bankrupt. This is not a mandate; it is an ultimatum. Buy insurance and kill babies or go bankrupt fighting us. Not all of us can afford lawyers to fight this ‘mandate.’”
Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate: “Aug. 1 will be remembered as the day our most cherished liberty was thrown in a government dumpster and hauled away. A day when family owned small businesses were forced to abandon their religious beliefs to provide products and services for free. And if they don’t, they will be taxed and fined at a time when job creators are struggling with enough costs and bureaucratic red-tape at every level of government just to stay in business. While the courts have provided a reprieve for one family business in Colorado, the government will never be able to repair the broken conscience of thousands of others until this mandate is removed.”
Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica: “August 1st is a day that will live in infamy for the First Amendment and the fundamental freedoms and rights we as a people have enjoyed since the founding of our nation. The HHS mandate imposed on the American people is the beginning of the end of freedom as America has known it and loved it. August 1st marks the day when many family owned and operated businesses lose their rights to exercise their faith in their daily lives. The government has told them – either comply with this mandate in violation of your faith and do what we tell you, or you will pay crippling faith fines to the federal government. With the stroke of a pen, the Obama administration has shredded the First Amendment and the Constitution right before our eyes.”
Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute: “The Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty is taking root … Failure to comply with the mandate will result in penalties that could cost business millions of dollars. The administration clearly did not reach a much-vaunted ‘accommodation’ with business owners who strongly oppose the mandate and believe it is a clear violation of their constitutional protection of religious liberty. The HHS mandate forces business owners to choose between following their religious beliefs or obedience to the federal government. The Obama administration clearly believes the government is supreme and that individuals and businesses must bow to its dictates or suffer severe consequences. We know that Obamacare is wrong for America. The HHS anti-conscience mandate is clear evidence of why the law violates the most fundamental principles upon which our country is founded.”
Gary Marx, executive director of the Faith & Freedom Coalition: “Confidence in the system and hope for religious liberty was mildly restored when a federal district judge issued a temporary injunction blocking Barack Obama’s health-care mandate from compelling a business to provide insurance coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs. This is certainly a victory, but the fact that it only applies to one company means the federal government is still going to force millions of Americans to choose between having health insurance or their conscience and faith. With an administration intent on suppressing religious liberty, we can expect a historic turnout of voters of faith show up in November.”
Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America: “The only solution that has been provided to the majority of Americans is to stand up and fight for their religious rights by refusing to comply or battling in court. … We must remember the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.’ To force religious groups to deny their deeply held convictions is not called balance; it is called tyranny.”
Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity: “Today as a result of this initial implementation of the HHS mandate, the relationship between the separation of church and state is critically changed. Americans can no longer follow their consciences or religious dictates on issues as critical as abortion-inducing drugs. Organizations such as Wheaton College, or businesses such as Weingartz Supply of Ann Arbor, Mich.,will be forced to violate their consciences. On this sad day Americans have no ‘choice’ in this matter.”
David Stevens, MD and CEO of the Christian Medical Association: “What will stop this administration, with its radical pro-abortion agenda, from further undermining conscience rights and pursuing policies that effectively force out of medicine physicians with life-honoring convictions? Who will keep government panels from effectively denying physicians and patients choice about what are the most effective and appropriate medicines, surgeries and treatments? We call on Congress to turn back this law’s assault on our freedoms and restore American values and constitutional principles in health care.”
Paul E. Rondeau, executive director of American Life League: “History tragically teaches us that if our government can abolish one constitutional right, then all constitutional rights are put in jeopardy. This path sets a dangerous and foolish precedent that First Amendments rights such as freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press and the rights to assemble and petition the government may be just as easily curtailed in the future. We call on all citizens to tell their elected representatives that this erosion of rights must not stand.”
Kristin Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America: “Today marks the beginning of the end of religious and conscience rights in America. As an employer, I am forced to make a false choice between providing a vital service to my employees and violating my conscience and values. The abortion-pill mandate is an egregious attack upon my rights, as well as the rights of all people of values and faith in America.”
