Last Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that PPACA means what it says concerning IRS subsidies from state and federal exchanges. The law says “premium assistance” can only flow through exchanges “established by the state.”

The 4th Circuit said the text of the law means something other than what it actually says. This shows up the 4th Circuit judges as partisan hacks. The speaker is Jonathan Gruber, the acknowledged “architect of Obamacare” (at minute 31):

If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.

He’s on a separate audio saying the same thing. So much for the “typo” meme.

H/T Reason


At PJ Media, I discuss the dismal long-term prospects for Obamacare as it inevitably heads to the Supreme Court (again) over illegal IRS subsidies:

The supporters of the ironically titled “Affordable Care Act” are attempting to downplay their latest legal defeats by pretending that they are disappointing but inconsequential stumbles in the law’s long march toward the pantheon of nanny state entitlements. These people are whistling past the graveyard. In fact, the president’s “signature domestic achievement” is moribund. It’s a congressional crack baby afflicted with multiple organ failures caused by the Democrat addiction to corrupt bargains and unconstitutional edicts.

Yesterday’s D.C. appeals court ruling against the Obama administration unequivocally confirms that reality:

The plain text of the “reform” law says that federal tax credits and subsidies can only be issued via state-created insurance exchanges. Yet the IRS promulgated an imperial edict indicating that it would also grant them through federally created exchanges. This is what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down: “[T]he ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State.”

Why did the Democrats limit premium assistance to policies bought through Obamacare exchanges established by a state? It was part of a corrupt bargain.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss His Majesty’s latest illegal decree:

Obamacare’s supporters have long insisted that it is the “law of the land,” implicitly suggesting that it is immutable and permanent. Evidently, it hasn’t occurred to these people to mention that to their dear leader. His Majesty, Barack I, obviously thinks of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a collection of royal decrees, any one of which may be altered at his pleasure. Thus, in a proclamation issued last week through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, His Highness declared that all U.S. territories are now exempt from most of PPACA’s morass of rules and regulations.

Neither he nor any other official of the executive branch possesses the constitutional authority to issue such an exemption to the territories.In fact, one of His Majesty’s courtiers made that clear in a letter written a year ago.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In my latest column for the American Spectator, I discuss the pathetic attempt by the Democrats to save their Senate majority with preposterous distortions of the recent SCOTUS ruling on the HHS contraception mandate.

For most of 2014, the Democrats looked on the looming congressional elections with considerable dread. All of the standard indicators portend an unhappy outcome for their party … Then came last week’s Hobby Lobby ruling.

In that imminently sensible Supreme Court decision, the Democrats found an unhoped-for opportunity for shameless demagoguery.

Indulging their gift for Orwellian rhetoric, they declared that the Court had re-opened hostilities in the fabled “war on women.” They began depicting a ruling that merely precluded the government from forcing business owners to violate deeply held religious beliefs as an outrageous attack on the reproductive rights of women everywhere.

Carly Fiorina captured the essence of the Hobby Lobby ploy Sunday morning on CNN:

A lot of women, me included, are sick of the ‘war on women.’ And we saw it in spades on Monday after the Hobby Lobby case … The ‘war on women’ is shameless, baseless propaganda.”

Fiorina’s view will probably be shared by most of the voters in November. No matter how much they lie about Hobby Lobby, the Democrats are almost certainly going to take another midterm shellacking

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I try to cut through the hysteria about Hobby Lobby’s victory in the Supreme Court, and explain why the justices ruled they way they did. This is actually a big win for everyone:

This morning’s Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby will doubtless precipitate a flood of stories from the establishment “news” media claiming that an entrenched cadre of conservative justices have dealt a grievous blow to the reproductive freedom of women and somehow endowed corporations with religious rights.

These reports should be ignored as so much hysterical nonsense.

What the Court actually said was that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires the government to provide closely held corporate objectors to Obamacare’s contraception mandate the same accommodation it already provides nonprofit organizations.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood definitely had a big win.

But the sky really isn’t falling. This is a good day for religious freedom. The Supreme Court has ruled that the owners of for-profit enterprises have basic rights like the rest of us. They don’t have to check their beliefs at the door before entering the family store.

That’s a good sign regarding the health of our justice system and for the future of the republic. In the long haul, this victory for the Green and Hahn families is even a victory for liberals

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss some of the more laughable attempts by the “reporters” of the American press corps to make this bloated, stinking pig presentable for the midterms:

The legacy news media are once again doting on the porcine Affordable Care Act with an extravagance not lavished on a pig since P.G. Wodehouse created the immortal Empress of Blandings.

If you’re unfamiliar with the Empress, she was a gigantic Berkshire sow who was treated by her aristocratic owner with a level of reverence that caused his friends and family to question his grip on reality.

Likewise, after an all-too-brief flirtation with fact-based journalism inspired by the bungled rollout of, mainstream reporters have reverted to coverage of Obamacare that suggests they, too, may be delusional.

If you browse the web for recent news on the president’s “signature domestic achievement” your search engine will return countless articles describing it as a spectacular success story.

For the left, including the reporters of mainstrem news organizations, there is a strong desire to make Obamacare look successful and therefore render it less dangerous for the Democrats this fall.

To read the rest of the post, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss the increasingly hysterical claims made by our progressive friends about the consequences of a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby on June 26, and the closer we get to that date the more frantic liberals become. Their fear of a decision in favor of the arts and crafts chain, whose owners have challenged the constitutionality of Obamacare’s contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious liberty, has reached such a pitch that they are making claims that transcend the merely portentous.

Their warnings concerning the consequences of a high court win for the Green family, the company’s owners, have now become downright apocalyptic.

The four horsemen of their imagined apocalypse will burst forth upon the nation thus: There will be a catastrophic curtailment in the reproductive rights of women, the de facto nullification of various anti-discrimination laws designed to protect workers from venal employers, a dramatic reduction in employee access to a long list of essential health care benefits, and the destruction of Jefferson’s fabled “wall of separation” between church and state.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss the imminent demise of Obamacare’s employer mandate:

Conservatives have long known that Obamacare’s employer mandate, if implemented, will create harmful distortions in the labor market and damage the economy … When conservative policy experts and business groups first pointed this out, however, Obamacare supporters robotically recited the usual canards about close-fisted capitalists who value profit more than healthy employees.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the midterms—the President delayed implementation of the mandate until after the election.

This put Obamacare’s pimps into something of a bind. Having assured the public that conservative warnings about the mandate amounted to little more than fear mongering, they were suddenly obliged execute a dizzying verbal pirouette. Now they sound a lot like those knuckle-dragging conservatives and greedy capitalists they once denounced.

But the real death knell for the employer mandate came last month, when the left-leaning Urban Institute published a report titled, “Why Not Just Eliminate the Employer Mandate?”

The report gives one a sense of déjà vu, an eerie feeling that we have been here before: ‘Creating arbitrary thresholds (e.g., potential penalties for firms of 50 or more workers not providing coverage for employees typically working 30 or more hours per week) for financial requirements will change the employment decisions … and at least some workers will be adversely affected by them.’

Sound familiar? Sound like we conservatives were right all along? Io read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss the preposterous claim, made by Nancy Pelosi and other brain donors, that George Bush is to blame for the VA scandal:

OK, I admit that I made up the above headline. But, if Nancy Pelosi can blame the VA scandal on George Bush, why can’t I accuse him of shooting JFK? No evidence? Well, if such accusations must be supported by facts, Pelosi would do well to stop braying about Bush. If you compare his actual record on the VA to that of alleged President Obama, the latter will not thank you for it. As is the case with income inequality, fighting HIV/AIDS and countless other issues, Bush has a better record on the VA than does his feckless successor.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss the latest VA scandal and suggest a way to end the long history of atrocities committed by the Veterans Medical Healthcare System:

My father was a veteran of World War II, and thus eligible to receive medical treatment at the VA hospital that operated a few miles from our house. He used it exactly once. His experience with what the Veterans Administration calls “health care” was so awful that he claimed to be more in fear of his life within the walls of that VA facility than he had ever been while on active duty in Europe.

The recent revelations about veterans left for dead on secret waiting lists merely constitute the latest in a long series of scandals involving the atrocious care patients receive at VA hospitals:

To provide just a few examples, veterans have gone missing from their rooms and been later found dead of exposure on hospital grounds, they have been exposed en masse to the HIV virus due to the use of unsterilized instruments, and some have even contracted Legionnaires’ Disease after being rash enough to drink the water at a VA facility.

But these are just symptoms. To read about the actual disease and its cure, click here.