The Patriot's Trumpet

This From Voice of America:

NATO member states have agreed to assume command of a no-fly zone over Libya, and are considering whether to take on broader responsibilities outlined in two U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The U.S. initially agreed to lead enforcement of the UN resolution, but made clear it wanted only a limited role and would hand over responsibility as soon as possible.

Whew! That Takes Care of Our ‘No Fly’ Zone Responsibilities.

Well, that would not be quite right.

The operative term is ‘No Fly’ zone. Nobody wants to be mired on the ground for . . . how long? And what is the goal? This is developing into a colossal mess. But, at least the ‘No

 Fly” responsibility will be NATO’S, not ours, right? Actually neither the Administration nor the media has explained who the Supreme NATO commander is. He is United States Admiral James G. Stavridis.

We are still in charge after all. It is the same drill as “We have to pass it so we can find out what is in it.” We all know how that’s working out. How does this compare to Iraq? In Iraq we actually ‘got our man’. Oh, another thing, In Iraq, we didn’t partner up with Al Qaeda.

That is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970

Perhaps our experience in Wisconsin and other States has taught us that all unions are thugs. But we shall se that SEIU is different. But first, from Breitbart:

Sodexo USA today [March 17] filed a civil lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other defendants under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, to stop the illegal campaign of extortion that the SEIU has been waging in the U.S. for over a year.

“This is about protecting the Company’s business and the rights of our employees to vote freely about union representation,” said Robert Stern, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Sodexo USA.  “We work constructively with unions every day but the SEIU has crossed the line by breaking the law. We will not tolerate the SEIU’s tactics any longer. Their campaign jeopardizes our Company and our employees’ jobs, and ultimately would rob our employees of their right to vote.”

Sodexo USA has filed the lawsuit seeking to halt the SEIU’s extortionate threats and barrage of unlawful tactics. The complaint alleges acts of SEIU blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from Sodexo USA and harm the company.

Sodexo USA recognizes the value of union activity and has built positive relationships with more than 30 different unions.  Over 15 percent of Sodexo USA’s workforce is unionized, which is more than twice the national average for the private sector, and the Company has more than 300 collective bargaining agreements.  Despite this positive record, the SEIU has engaged in a vicious campaign to force the Company into broadly recognizing the SEIU to the exclusion of other unions without allowing its employees in the U.S. to exercise their right to vote for or against the SEIU in a federally supervised secret ballot election.

The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA’s executives that it would harm Sodexo USA’s business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

• throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;
• scaring hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo USA food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
• lying to interfere with Sodexo USA business and sneaking into elementary schools to avoid security;
• violating lobbying laws to steer business away from Sodexo USA, even at the risk of costing Sodexo USA employees their jobs; and
• harassing Sodexo USA employees by threatening to accuse them of wrongdoing.

The complaint, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, seeks an injunction against the SEIU and its locals and executives, as well as monetary damages to be determined by the court.

There Are Two SEIU Differences. First, SEIU Thugs Are Obama’s Thugs.

Second, Here’s How They Thug For Obama

No, it is not an overstatement to call the Administration a Thugocracy or to call the party the Thugocrats

“This One Is the Real Baby Right Here” — Congressman Phil Roe (R) TN

The Congressman is referringto the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by Obamacare. From the Congressional Research Service (CRS):

This panel of unelected bureaucrats will be politically-appointed and charged with developing proposals cut Medicare spending, and under the law, HHS is forced to implement the panel’s proposals automatically unless Congress intervenes with similar cuts.  There are virtually no checks on the panel, since its members are not answerable to voters and its recommendations cannot be challenged in court. Because the panel is barred from examining common-sense changes like Medicare beneficiary premiums, cost-sharing, or benefit design, many expect that in efforts to control spending, the panel will limit patient access to medical care. Funding for the Board is authorized as soon as this fall (FY2012).

Read the summary here and full report here.

Here is the complete story reported by Matthew Boyle at the Daily Caller Tuesday march 22, 2011:

An often-overlooked portion of President Barack Obama’s prized health care law, the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), will face heat in the coming months from Congress and from the courts. Congressman Phil Roe, Tennessee Republican, told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” provisions in Obamacare that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

“This one is the real baby right here – and most people missed this,” Roe told The DC. “What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling – and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed – and it’s the real death panel.”

The board would cap the total amount of money Medicare recipients could get for care. Roe,  a practicing doctor before he entered politics, said that means health care decisions will end up being based solely on cost, instead of what the best possible option is for Medicare patients.

“Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,” Roe said in a phone interview. “Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically-appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.”

Congress can recommend different spending amounts, but has to offset any increase in one area with a decrease in another. If Congress doesn’t change anything in the board’s “recommendations” for how much money should be spent per Medicare recipient, their recommendations become law – even without congressional approval or the president’s signature.

The Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank based in Arizona, says the IPAB would, when implemented, have more control over Medicare payment rates than the “Federal Reserve has over banking or the Environmental Protection Agency has over the environment.” The institute is challenging the IPAB provision in the Obamacare legislation in the courts – and has countered the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss with a motion for summary judgment, which means the case is likely to move forward with some form of a judicial decision mid-summer.

Diane Cohen, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney on the lawsuit, told TheDC that of the more than 150 boards and commissions the health car law creates, she believes the “most notorious of those 150 boards is the Independent Payment Advisory Board.”

“There was a lot of controversy over it [IPAB] when Obamacare was being considered in Congress by both sides of the aisle,” Cohen said, referring to more than 50 Democrats who wrote to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi voicing their opposition to it. “It was very controversial and made its way into the law just because of the manner in which the whole law was passed to begin with. Even the American Medical Association, who has supported Obamacare for some reason, had come out and opposed the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.”

At the beginning of the 112th Congress, Roe introduced legislation to repeal the IPAB provisions in Obamacare, and has several cosponsors on board with him, including three Democrats — Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Larry Kissell of North Carolina and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts.

Congress can repeal IPAB under its legislative powers by enacting a new law (either with the President’s signature, or by overriding his veto), but the recommendations of the board automatically become law unless Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving of the recommendations in a one-month window in 2017.

Additionally, a Nov. 30 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says the strict rules for the process by which Congress may disapprove of the recommendations in 2017 may run afoul of each congressional chambers’ authority to revise its own rules.

“How these entrenching provisions will be reconciled with the well-established constitutional right of each chamber of Congress to make the rules of its own proceeding, and how or if one Congress can broadly regulate the actions of a future Congress in this way, will likely only be clarified in practice,” the report says.

The Goldwater Institute is attacking the provision in a lawsuit saying it improperly constricts Congress’s authority. Arizona Republican Reps. Jeff Flake and Trent Franks are on board with the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit as plaintiffs, in addition to a small business owner in the state.

In its legal documents filed in response to the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit, the Obama administration said the path provided in the health care law is a “fast track” to repeal, but it isn’t the only way to repeal the board. Cohen laughs at that.

“I guess, only in Washington, would waiting until six years from today, within the short window of time to pass the resolution that wouldn’t take effect until 2020 – only in Washington would that be considered ‘fast-tracking,’” Cohen said. “The administration believes this is not anti-repeal provision, but, the problem is, we believe it very clearly says that.”

Legal jargon and power-grabs aside, though, Roe told TheDC that the major issue with IPAB is that it’s more focused on cost-cutting than what’s in the best interests of patients. He said it starts with private practice physicians and, in five years, will include all hospitals as well – which he said means all Medicare recipients’ care decisions will eventually be based solely on cost instead of what they need or what their doctors think is best for them.

“It [IPAB] is bad for patients in this country,” Roe said. “I’m looking at it not only as a congressman but also as a physician trying to practice medicine and provide care patients need and deserve.”

The IPAB members have yet to be appointed, but each will make more than $160,000 a year in salary. Their salary is slated to come out of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, funds that pay for medical costs for some Medicare recipients. Annually, about $2.5 million that would normally cover Medicare patients’ medical costs would go toward paying the salaries of the 15 IPAB members.

The White House remains confident in IPAB’s constitutionality, and an administration official told TheDC the Obama administration expects the courts to rule in its favor.

“Just last week, a judge issued a schedule on our motion to dismiss this case,” the Obama administration official said in an e-mail to TheDC. “We look forward to making our arguments in court. We’re confident the Independent Payment Advisory Board is constitutional.”

The IPAB is scheduled to make its first recommendations by July 2014 and its first proposals are required to be implemented by 2015, assuming Obamacare is not fully repealed by then.

Ed. note: This article has been corrected: the President’s health care law does not prevent Congress, through its legislative power, from repealing IPAB.

Clearly, there is no way to overstate this lie, cheat and steal (otherwise known as transparent) Obama-Pelosi-Reid troika of criminal governing. We’ll see if the Boehner-led house can tear this down by total defunding in the 2012 budget.