Obama Flees ObamaCare

obama-slavery-is-freedom

Barack Obama’s personality is remarkably consistent. He is a classic narcissist. His self-absorption is already legendary in the bubble that is Washington D.C., even among his most ardent supporters.

Classic narcissists display a tendency to blame others for their failures. Personal responsibility is a foreign shore. There is a complete inability to admit wrong, or take responsibility for moral failure. The narcissist’s excuses are tediously familiar.

  • It’s a misunderstanding.
  • Shadow conspirators manipulate events.
  • Racism is to blame.
  • Jews are to blame.
  • The other guy is to blame.
  • I didn’t know anything about it.
  • It’s a lie. Everything is just great.

Barack Obama worshiped in a blatantly Jew and America-hating church for over 20 years. The radical pastor of this church, Jeremiah Wright, preaches Black Liberation Theology, an ideology that is openly Marxist, and leans heavily on vicious, Jew-hating conspiracy theories.

Obama claimed that in all his years as Wright’s parishioner, he never heard any of these evil sermons.

Seraphic Secret poses the question: Would a Republican who attended a white supremacist church get away with the same claim?

The answer is obvious.

Half of what Obama says is not true, the other half is lies. He gets away with this pathological behavior because liberal America is so desperate to prove that they are not racist. And Obama’s entire career is carefully designed to take advantage of this chronic self-flagellation.

And now, Obama’s lies are so entangled with ObamaCare that the result is almost comical: Obama lies about lies about lies — in order to distance himself from the universe of tragedies ObamaCare is sowing for millions of American citizens.

Mandatoryidea

Rich Lowry has written a fantastic piece on Obama’s flight from ObamaCare.

In the great tradition of American civil disobedience, President Barack Obama is defying a law. It’s just one that he himself lobbied for, signed, and lost a house of Congress over. Even Henry David Thoreau would be hard-pressed to understand this one.

The famous dissenter refused to pay a tax because of his opposition to the Mexican-American War and slavery; presumably, though, he would have been willing to comply with the provisions of something called ThoreauCare.

President Obama is in a much more awkward spot. At every turn, he is confronted by the irrationalities and inconveniences of his own health-care law. Not since Cary Grant was chased by the crop duster in North by Northwest has there been such an affecting scene of a man constantly on the run. The president’s tools of evasion are waivers, deadline extensions, reinterpretations, and last-minute demands on insurance companies. Really, any means necessary.

Coordination with the insurance companies is dispensed with, and public notice is spotty. Announcements are sometimes made at night, when everyone eagerly awaits the latest news on how American health insurance will work. It was around 9 p.m. that the administration let it be known that it was partially suspending the individual mandate in 2014 by exempting people who have had their insurance policies canceled. It didn’t even publicly announce its one-day extension of the deadline to get insurance by January 1. This is not just government by diktat, but government by embarrassed diktat.

Read the rest here.

This entry was posted in Obama Watch, Obamacare and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

Comment Rules


Seraphic Secret is private property, that's right, it's an extension of our home, and as such, Karen and I have instituted two Seraphic Rules and we ask commentors to act respectfully.

  1. No profanity.
  2. No Israel bashing. We debate, we discuss, we are respectful. You know what Israel bashing is. The world is full of it. Seraphic Secret is one of the few places in the world that will not tolerate this form of anti-Semitism.

That's it. Break either of these rules and you will be banned.


38 Comments

  1. eyawitz
    Posted January 1, 2014 at 3:59 am | Permalink

    I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if Zachriel’s endless rants about precedence are correct or not, but if they are, all it means is that we already have a tyranny and that Obama is just using it for his ideology.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • kishke
      Posted January 1, 2014 at 9:58 am | Permalink

      I’m not a lawyer either (thank heaven!), but I don’t need to be one to recognize that Zach is blowing smoke. His (or hers? or their?) purpose is to obscure not to clarify.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. Zachriel
    Posted December 31, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    kishke: The requirement that the courts defer to the agency’s expertise does not speak to whether this is a political calculation. 

    The courts must “generally defer”. 

    We can cite the law and the relevant precedents, but can’t make you read them. You say the delays were politically motivated, but there are valid justifications for the delay in the mandates, so it is doubtful a court will intervene. The law allows the President wide discretion in implementing new regulatory regimes, unless his actions are “arbitrary and capricious”, in which case, the courts have the power to adjudicate. 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • kishke
      Posted December 31, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      I can speak sense to you, but I cannot make you understand.
       
      The precedents you cite are not relevant, but irrelevant. I say he acts lawlessly, out of political calculation. You say he acts reasonably. The fact that the courts can act is not relevant in the least to our disagreement. Your endless repetition of this fact does not make it any more relevant.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      • Zachriel
        Posted December 31, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

        kishke: I say he acts lawlessly, out of political calculation.
         
        Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that has been duly enacted by Congress, the President has wide discretion in implementing new regulatory regimes. There is ample evidence of problems with the roll-out, so much so that some people haven’t been able to sign up for health insurance through the exchanges. Delaying the mandate is clearly reasonable under these circumstances. 
         

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • kishke
          Posted January 1, 2014 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

          Again with your mantra: the Act, the Act, the Act. Which again is nonresponsive. See the quote below from Senator Coburn. Obama’s lawlessness is part of a pattern. Despite your pretense that “the Act” is relevant, you say nothing more than that in this case, he is not acting lawlessly, and if only the courts got involved, that’s what they would say.
           
          Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t buy it, you offer nothing in the way of argument, and you have not responded to the point that this is part of a pattern.
           
          But I actually expect nothing better of you. You are  a disciple, a worshipper. Obama is your deity, your graven image, and Obamacare is your holy writ. Nothing else matters.
           
          I’m done with you now, unless you offer something new. If all you have is “the Act, the Act, the Act,” don’t bother.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • kishke
      Posted December 31, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      We can cite the law
       
      Is this the royal we? Are you, like the hack you worship, under the delusion that you are emperor?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Robert J. Avrech
        Posted December 31, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

        Kishke:The Executive Order strategy used by Obama is deliberate and cynical. Challenges will go to the courts. But the system moves so slowly that Obama can rest assured that he will be out of office by the time the law catches up with him. It’s a strategy that was successfully used by the Bolsheviks to undermine the Mencheviks; the strategy used by the Nazis to dismantle the Weimar Republic. The left uses the rule of law to undermine the law and achieve their immoral ends.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Zachriel
          Posted December 31, 2013 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

          Robert J. Avrech: Challenges will go to the courts. 
           
          See Kawa v. Lew.
           
          The courts can act quickly, and would do so if there was evidence of egregious overreach. There is no evidence the Obama Administration doesn’t intend to implement the law, so the delays will be temporary, and are well-justified by the problems with the roll-out. 
           

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • Robert J. Avrech
        Posted December 31, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        Kishke:

        Another favorite tactic used by the radical left is to repeat the same lies and excuses endlessly. After a short time, the lies take on a life of their own and seem to be substantive. But it’s just a simulacrum of reality.

        Of course, the leftist political class frequently use lawyers as their bullies. Men and women who tediously cite legal precedent as if it too is the final word in reality.

        These ideological troops are heartless technocrats—Stalin was very fond of his judiciary—who claim to represent reason and enlightenment in the face of the chaos they create.

        I treat these creatures with all the respect I hold for the scholarly lawyers who authored the Nuremberg Laws.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  3. Zachriel
    Posted December 31, 2013 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    kishke: A delay or exemption which is not for purpose of implementation, but for partisan political purposes, is equally unlawful.
     
    Sure, but there are valid reasons to delay implementation of the mandates, such as the problems with the market exchanges. 
     
    kishkeAs for the courts, you’ve already conceded that they would most likely be useless in this case, so you can stop referencing them in this context.
     
    We didn’t “concede” they would be useless, only that they would probably agree the delays were reasonable within the context of the Administrative Procedure Act. 
     
    kishke: Then it should have been delayed across the board, for individuals as well as business. But it wasn’t. The exemption was for businesses only.
     
    The reason the business mandate was delayed was to allow time for reporting requirements to be implemented, largely through the development of commercial software, as well as to allow the Administration to concentrate on the problems with rolling out the individual mandate. This is exactly the sort of situation that the Administrative Procedure Act envisions. 
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • kishke
      Posted December 31, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      We didn’t “concede”
      Who is “we?” Are you a committee of the deluded, or just an individual?
       

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • kishke
      Posted December 31, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      We didn’t “concede” they would be useless,
       
      You most certainly did conceded the uselessness of the courts here, when you noted that the delay in arriving at a ruling would most likely exceed the delay decreed by Obama.
       
      This is exactly the sort of situation that the Administrative Procedure Act envisions.
       
      So you say. But those who do not worship Obama understand that he did this for political reasons. It’s his pattern, our wannabe emperor.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Zachriel
        Posted December 31, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

        kishke: You most certainly did conceded the uselessness of the courts here, when you noted that the delay in arriving at a ruling would most likely exceed the delay decreed by Obama.
         
        The courts can rule quickly, if necessary. They probably won’t, as the delays are temporary, and not an egregious abuse of power. However, we would be happy to reconsider our opinion if and when the courts intervene. 
         
        kishke: So you say. 

        So say the courts per previous rulings, such as Heckler v. Chaney, which holds that the courts must generally defer to an agency’s expertise of “the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities”. We mentioned this already. 

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • kishke
          Posted December 31, 2013 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

          The requirement that the courts defer to the agency’s expertise does not speak to whether this is a political calculation. So although “we” have mentioned this already, it remains as irrelevant now as it was then.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  4. Zachriel
    Posted December 31, 2013 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    kishke: No, it’s not “implementation” to delay key provisions for businesses, but not for individuals. It’s political calculation. 
     
    According to the Administrative Procedure Act reasonable delays are within the prerogative of the executive, while Heckler v. Chaney holds that the courts must generally defer to an agency’s expertise of “the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities”. We mentioned this already. 
     
    kishkeAs for the courts, my faith in them is considerably less than yours. 
     
    You’re the one making the argument that the President is exceeding his legal authority. Your argument is weakened by a lack of judicial finding. 
     
    There is a case winding through the courts concerning the delay in the mandate, Kawa v. Lew. Kawa has to show that the Administration’s actions, per the Administrative Procedure Act, are “arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”. More than likely the courts will delay the case until the expected delay has lapsed, then the case will be moot. But you never know. That’s what courts are for.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    • kishke
      Posted December 31, 2013 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      More than likely the courts will delay the case until the expected delay has lapsed,
      Exactly. Which is why your repeated argument that it is a matter for judicial oversight is specious.
       

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      • Zachriel
        Posted December 31, 2013 at 8:05 am | Permalink

        kishke: Which is why your repeated argument that it is a matter for judicial oversight is specious.
         
        It’s very unlikely the Obama Administration won’t fully implement the law. The legal question is what is a reasonable delay. If the Administration delays it in order to impede the law, then it would violate the oath to faithfully execute the laws. However, no one thinks the Administration isn’t intending to implement the law. Consequently, if the delay is temporary, then the courts would probably hold it reasonable, especially considering the delays are due to problems with the roll-out of the market exchanges.  

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • kishke
          Posted December 31, 2013 at 11:16 am | Permalink

          Where’d you get this thing, that the only problem is if the delay or exemption is to “not implement” the law? A delay or exemption which is not for purpose of implementation, but for partisan political purposes, is equally unlawful.
           
          As for the courts, you’ve already conceded that they would most likely be useless in this case, so you can stop referencing them in this context.
           
          The problem is that Obama imagines that he was elected emperor, not president, and likes to behave that way when he can get away with it, and people like you are all too happy to let him.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • kishke
      Posted December 31, 2013 at 8:01 am | Permalink

      According to the Administrative Procedure Act reasonable delays are within the prerogative of the executive
       
      To which I respond that politically-motivated delays or exemptions are not “reasonable” and have nothing to do with proper implementation, and so are unlawful.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Zachriel
        Posted December 31, 2013 at 8:22 am | Permalink

        kishkeTo which I respond that politically-motivated delays or exemptions are not “reasonable” and have nothing to do with proper implementation, and so are unlawful.
         
        There’s clearly been problems with the roll-out of the exchanges, so delaying the mandate is reasonable. 
         

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • kishke
          Posted December 31, 2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink

          Then it should have been delayed across the board, for individuals as well as business. But it wasn’t. The exemption was for businesses only. This was a political calculation.
           
          [Of course, when the Republicans, prior to the shutdown, argued for delay, people like you had fainting fits at the notion. But now it's oh so "reasonable," since it's Obama who's doing it.]

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  5. kishke
    Posted December 31, 2013 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    Here’s Senator Tom Coburn in today’s WSJ on Obama’s disregard for the law:
     
    “Taking unilateral, extralegal action—like delaying the employer mandate for a year when Mr. Obama realized the trouble it would cause for businesses—is part of a pattern for this administration. Immigration and border-security laws that might displease certain constituencies if enforced? Ignore the laws. Unhappy that a deep-water drilling moratorium was struck down in court? Reimpose it anyway. Internal Revenue Service agents using the power of the state to harass political enemies? Deny and then stonewall. Unhappy with the pace of Senate confirmations for nominees? Ignore the Constitution and appoint people anyway and claim that the Senate is not in session.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  6. Bob
    Posted December 30, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Before Obama was elected in 2008 I carefully examined his record and positions.  Now, for the last five years I have had the opportunity to observe him and his cronies in action.  I have reached the conclusion that he, and they, are simply evil.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  7. Zachriel
    Posted December 30, 2013 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    kishke: Ah, but this president does not faithfully execute the laws, as witness his directive to ICE to refrain from enforcing immigration laws, again for political gain, just as in this case. What he’s doing is not “arbitrary and capricious,” it’s very much calculated, to minimize the damage to his brand. This is as plain as the jug ears sticking out of the side of his head.  
     
    The courts have jurisdiction per the Administrative Procedure Act.  Under Heckler v. Chaney the courts must generally defer to an agencies expertise of “the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities”. However, this doesn’t excuse the agency from its responsibilities under the law. 
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • kishke
      Posted December 30, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      You just keep repeating that the courts have jurisdiction. Who’s arguing? That doesn’t change the fact that Obama is playing fast and loose with the law for political gain.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      • Zachriel
        Posted December 31, 2013 at 5:35 am | Permalink

        kishke: That doesn’t change the fact that Obama is playing fast and loose with the law for political gain.
        There’s little doubt the Obama Administration intends to implement ObamaCare. The courts will more than likely defer to the executive. But let us know when the courts issue an injunction, and we will reconsider our position. 
         

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • kishke
          Posted December 31, 2013 at 6:24 am | Permalink

          There’s little doubt the Obama Administration intends to implement ObamaCare.
           
          Correct. So what? The relevance of that statement to mine is nil.
           
          The courts will more than likely defer to the executive. But let us know when the courts issue an injunction, and we will reconsider our position.
           
          Ditto for this statement.
           
          The issue is not whether he’ll implement Obamacare, but whether he can change the laws and their implementation for his political gain.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          • Zachriel
            Posted December 31, 2013 at 6:31 am | Permalink

            Zachriel: There’s little doubt the Obama Administration intends to implement ObamaCare.
             
            kishke
            : Correct. So what? The relevance of that statement to mine is nil.  
             
            It’s absolutely essential to the President’s responsibilities under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how new laws are to be implemented.  

            kishkeThe issue is not whether he’ll implement Obamacare, but whether he can change the laws and their implementation for his political gain.
            If he is implementing the law, then he is not “changing the law”. Your complaint is that some provisions have been delayed, but that’s exactly the sort of procedure envisioned in the Administrative Procedure Act. 
             
            Furthermore, if he is exceeding his authority, there is judicial oversight. According to your view, the courts will intervene. That seems unlikely. 
             

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

            • kishke
              Posted December 31, 2013 at 7:25 am | Permalink

              No, it’s not “implementation” to delay key provisions for businesses, but not for individuals. It’s political calculation. As for the courts, my faith in them is considerably less than yours.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  8. Bill Brandt
    Posted December 30, 2013 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    And I recently read that the company responsible for the software debacle is owned by a friend or Michelle’s, and was a no-bid contract.
    Because you can’t get that kind of talent just anywhere, I guess.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  9. Zachriel
    Posted December 30, 2013 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 gives the president legal authority to implement legislation, including delaying provisions if necessary. If the President is exceeding his authority, the Act gives the courts the power to oversee the implementation. 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • kishke
      Posted December 30, 2013 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Oh please. The Act does not allow the president to change rules at his whim. There are regulations and procedures, which ought to apply to this moke no less than others. You’ve evidently assigned to yourself the thankless task of defending Obama and his insane legislation from all attack, but really, try to stay within the bounds of reason.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      • Zachriel
        Posted December 30, 2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink

        Changing laws at whim are specifically excluded by the Administrative Procedure Act. They are, however, allowed to delay implementation of facets of the law in order to facilitate an orderly roll-out, and to reduce disruption in the markets. And, the implementation is subject to judicial oversight.
         

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • kishke
          Posted December 30, 2013 at 11:54 am | Permalink

          Exempting groups (e.g. businesses) from the law for a period of time falls into the category of “changing laws.” Exempting people from the penalty (aka the “tax”) for failing to get insurance falls into the same category. That has nothing to do with an orderly rollout and everything to do with politics. As you know perfectly well.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

          • Zachriel
            Posted December 30, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

            kishke: Exempting groups (e.g. businesses) from the law for a period of time falls into the category of “changing laws.” 

            The president must faithfully execute the laws, but when implementing a new regulatory regime, the law gives the president flexibility under the Administrative Procedure Act. If the delay is “arbitrary and capricious” the courts can compel the government. But a reasonable delay in the mandate is within the president’s authority. 

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

            • kishke
              Posted December 30, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

              Ah, but this president does not faithfully execute the laws, as witness his directive to ICE to refrain from enforcing immigration laws, again for political gain, just as in this case. What he’s doing is not “arbitrary and capricious,” it’s very much calculated, to minimize the damage to his brand. This is as plain as the jug ears sticking out of the side of his head.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting