Sunday, May 3, 2015

[This column was co-authored by Edwin Meese, III]

Two questions will dictate not only the future of healthcare, but also the balance of power between Washington, D.C., and the states, and the separation of powers between the federal branches. One concerns state sovereignty, the other the heckler’s veto.

When justices heard arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) in King v. Burwell on March 4, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts suggested ways they might vote to uphold an Internal Revenue Service rule granting taxpayer subsidies to Obamacare exchange policies in states that refused to join that part of the ACA.

The ACA’s Section 1401 provides that subsidies are granted for insurance policies purchased on exchanges “established by the State under [Section] 1311.” By contrast, the federal exchange is created by Section 1321. Challengers argue this was deliberate, pressuring states to create exchanges and join Obamacare, like the provision threatening states with canceling all Medicaid funds if they did not join the ACA’s expanded Medicaid. (The Court struck down that part of the ACA in 2012 for coercing the states, violating the Tenth Amendment.) The now-infamous videos of Dr. Jonathan Gruber corroborate this theory.

Justice Kennedy asked if the challengers’ interpretation of the ACA would likewise coerce the states, putting them in a politically painful situation of denying tax subsidies to voters. Plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael Carvin cited the brief filed by the State of Indiana arguing that the Hoosier State deliberately chose to reject the exchanges because receiving subsidies is the ACA’s sole trigger for imposing employer-mandate penalties on the states and their political subdivisions.
In the 1980s there was a TV show called “Not Necessarily The News” on HBO that featured something called “sniglets.” Although it’s probably a hate-crime to say the word “sniglet” out loud now and will get you accused of homophone-a-phobia, a sniglet is a word that should appear in the dictionary but doesn’t. Sniglets have all but disappeared, but the dictionary itself might as well be thrown out too. Words that had unambiguous meanings for decades or even centuries have seen those definitions changed by progressives in the name of political correctness.

To make sure you are up to date on which words and phrases are now permissible, I’ve assembled a few here that have seen their definitions change so you don’t get accused of being an “Ist-a-phobe” at the water cooler come Monday.

Thug: noun.
Old meaning: a violent criminal.
New meaning: a racial slur; the same as the “n-word.”
Source: Tonight Show band leader Questlove in a tweet this week and pretty much everyone on MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: upriser, revolutionary, victim, misguided young people, Democratic Party voter.
Acceptable uses: When referencing the bad guys in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and when talking about white hockey players  
Food Stamps: noun.
Old meaning: a small document that is given by the government to poor people and that can be used to buy food.
New meaning: a racial slur; “code” for black people.
Source: Democrats in the 2012 election deemed pointing out the fact there are more people on food stamps under President Obama than at any point in American history to be “racial code.” It being a fact was deemed irrelevant.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: economically challenged, differently fed, Democratic Party voter.
Acceptable uses: When calling for greater funding for the program or when accusing a Republican of wanting to “gut” the program.

Islamic State fighters spotted near Golan Heights

By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch


Islamic State fighters spotted near Golan Heights
The Islamic State has released a lengthy e-book, Black Flags from Palestine, detailing how it plans to conquer Israel. I discuss it at length in my forthcoming book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS. Suffice it to say now that this Islamic State presence near the Golan Heights is a portent of a great deal […]

Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like Islamic State fighters spotted near Golan Heights on Facebook Google Plus One Button 

State Department deems mission to rescue Americans in Yemen too risky

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

Post-American America; saving American lives too risky.

Obama will release five top Taliban slaughterers for the life of deserter convert to Islam, but Christopher Stevens, the Benghazi State Department staff and now Americans in Yemen are “too risky” to rescue. The Taliban Five will murder untold numbers, but that’s in the cause of Allah, so Obama is down with it.

The left will only risk lives if they can aid and abet the enemy.

Every American who travels out of this country now takes his life in his hands. The Obama administration does not have your back.

Another victory for the global jihad.

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America

“State Department reportedly...