Obama care -- the details

Robins Commentary --

The Supreme Court gave the go-ahead to enact Obama care by changing the classification of not having insurance from being just a fee or fine to being a tax which in several years could cost you $695 in penalties for 2.5% of your income whichever is greater.

Below, I have included the actual ruling from the Supreme Court and the Obama care act itself [you know the one that nobody has read and Nancy Pelosi said that you have to pass a to know what's in it]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

this opens up in my opinion a Pandora's box which allows the government to set a new set of rules that directly affects our lives.

At the very least... those of us who cannot afford healthcare and who do not meet the low income disqualification for the penalty [tax] are now placed in a financial situation that we may not be over get ourselves out of.

In later commentaries... I'll go into more details however, I encourage you to read for yourselves the facts and decide for yourselves the long-term consequences of what just happened this week.

More later...

employee rights in the "at will" state

Robin's Commentary --


you don't really think about these issues until it becomes an issue to similar about what's going on at my workplace where the company is asking its employees to comply with an issue that will permanently affect their lives outside of the job itself, and the more that I dug into this issue has brought up some pretty surprising results.

Recently, in e-mail exchange with the Oregon Bureau of Labor, I Asked the Following Question...

 A company requires you to have a tattoo which is a permanent marking or alteration on your body  that will stay with you after the job?

You're given the choice to have the tattoo or be fired.

as an individual, you have the right to say no to the tatoo but keep in mind that if you're an 'at-will' employee since the employer can terminate an 'at-will' employee for any reason or no reason at all, then the employer could terminate you for your refusal to get the tatoo.-- Oregon Department of labor

so if your company asked you to get a tattoo... would you do it?

Sleep apnea -- the new fad?

There is a new buzz word out there... it's called sleep apnea and some employers are requiring employees to submit themselves to sleep apnea testing which may result in be required to use CPAP Machine or lose their jobs.

Think this won't happen to you?

There is a wide variety of "visible" conditions that may cause an employer to suspect that you may be suffering from sleep apnea even if you are not falling asleep at the job.  Some of those conditions ranged from being overweight, having a thick neck to even have in a small jaw.

Once diagnosed with sleep apnea, you may be required to wear a CPAP machine for the rest of your life.

Refusal to comply [as these machines keep a record] may be grounds for termination.

In some states, if you get into an accident [both commercial and noncommercial driving] may cost you your license if you are not using your machine.

Personally, I think it's bull shit, and although I have not been diagnosed with sleep apnea... I've already made it very clear with my employer that they can take the job and shove it and I think more people should do the same because just like with any new "fad" this can be taken to the extreme.

they just don't get it! WE ARE BROKE

Robin's Commentary --

in a recent article in the Statesman Journal about Lane County officials due to dwelling of federal timber payments is considering asking voters to raise local taxes [again] even though according to the article, voters voted down the last 14 property tax increases.

THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!

As a result, the county plans to make cuts backs in public safety...

[Gosh, like that's never been tried before]

... such as cutting the Sheriff's patrol force from 24 deputies to six, with cuts to the Attorney General's office, eliminating the Medical Examiner's Office, etc.

This seems like a never-ending battle... the city of Eugene and Lane County can't manage their money, they spend money on frivolous feel-good items and forsake the primary goal of local government and which is the protection of its citizens and the maintenance of its infrastructure.

[somehow I think the police fall into that category somewhere]

We all know that the ONLY reason why they do this is because this is what directly hurts the citizens and makes the biggest impact.

Speaking for myself... because jobs are so available in Lane County and they pay so well [not]... that for the first time in my life being a lifelong resident of Lane County, I almost didn't have enough money to pay my property taxes...

... which by the way went up again this year even though the value of my property dropped.

So if you're expecting a boo-hoo moment from me...

FORGET IT!

There's money to be had... all you have to do is to change the philosophy of, "it's budgeted for this and not budgeted for that attitude."

Because in reality the way that we the citizens have to run our budget in our household follows this rule,

"RIGHT POCKET, LEFT POCKET, IT'S ALL THE SAME PAIR OF PANTS."

(budgeting examples made simple)

government -- money for fire and protection [no money in the budget]

                  -- money to subsidize a bus, add artwork on the streets, new buildings [money budgeted]

end result... a pothole filled street leading to the brand-new piece of art on the sidewalk that nobody can figure out what it is.

Citizenry -- money saved for a trip to Disneyland

              -- vacation to Disneyland money used to pay mortgage

end result -- no vacation trip to Disneyland in the near future.

Set your priorities, forget about the EmX expansion, put art aside until the economy gets better, live within your means like the rest of us and show us that you know how to manage your money and maybe will try to scrape a little bit extra for you.

Until then...

WE ARE VOTING NO ON ALL NEW TAXES!

of course this message is all a waste of space if Congress is a typical example of people in government.

Congressman John Conyers, "why read the bill?"

Proposed Nationwide Cell Phone Ban

Reuters -- in an effort to combat distracted driving, US transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is calling for a federal law that would ban ALL CELL PHONE USE WHILE DRIVING ANY TYPE OF A VEHICLE ON ANY ROAD IN THE COUNTRY."

LaHood calling this a "national epidemic" at a summit in San Antonio Texas commenting that we need tough federal legislation to deal with this problem.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 3000 fatal traffic accidents nationwide last year were the result of distracted driving and that using a cell phone while driving reduces the reaction time to the same amount of having a blood-alcohol concentration of .08%.

just like the recent proposed farm bill which would put strict limits on the family farm by increasing the child labor laws to the point that even using any type of power device such as a screwdriver could be illegal and the child would have to attend 90 hours of government training was quickly put on hold due to the public outcry within DAYS OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT is what we need to do in this particular case.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) calls on a ban for all PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICES (PED)while driving. This would include ANY use of a cell phone, GPS, I Pad, or any other electronic device that was not installed at the factory.

IF RAY LaHood IS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING IN BANNING CELL PHONES, BANNING EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FOLLOW.

more and more people are finding out that we actually have a voice and can make a difference just like with the proposed farm bill, we need to let the government know that we're not going to tolerate any more interference and you're not taking our phones away from us.

admittedly, 3000 traffic fatalities is 3000 too many however when you look at the big picture, compared percentage wise to the millions of vehicles that are on the road today, that's not even 1% that were trying to change the rules for.

don't let the government take away any more of our freedoms and rights. Express your voices now!

Remember, as Bill Engvall is known to say, "you can't fix stupid!" well you can't fix stupid either through legislation either.

Also I wanted to point out that while reading comments on the DOT's [moderated] website, there are supporters of this bill thinking that it is a good idea because of what they've seen on the road. DON'T BE BLINDED BY THE PROPAGANDA AND LOOK AT YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN PERSONAL SITUATION.

By that I mean, yes there are people out there that can't walk and chew gum at the same time. There are people out there who walk across the street without looking to see if traffic is coming. There is been people who have been killed by trains while texting and listening to music at the same time [seriously].

So the next time that you're thinking that, "yes... we need to pass this type of bill" stop for a minute and think how such a bill would actually impact YOUR life by having THOSE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON YOU!

Zimmerman is condemned even if he is found innocent

Robin's commentary --


I think that everybody is aware of the Martin/Zimmerman case without having to recap here what happened and I hope that everybody agrees that one of the most important facts that we have is that we don't know exactly what happened.

And that's one of the reasons why we have a legal system and courts to weigh the facts and evidence.

In theory, our legal system is supposed to assume that somebody is innocent until proven guilty however there's been a huge dust storm which was stirred up by Obama by irresponsibly commenting on a local case which in a sense he threw out the racism bone and these idiots blindly ate it up and now they're out for blood.

"It's a disgrace that man [Zimmerman] hasn't been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. Forget about him being arrested—the fact that he hasn't been shot yet is a disgrace. That's how I feel personally about it."-- Mike Tyson

Is this the type of America that we have resorted to?

Where are courts have been replaced by Jesse Jackson, Reverend Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Mike Tyson and the new Black Panther party.

Sadly, the list of Judge, juries and executioners seems to be growing. so even if Zimmerman wins the case in a court of law, he still loses.

do you think Obama's attitude is going a little bit too far?

I thought I would try something new... put out a topic for discussion and see if we can get a good debate going in the comment section.

Please feel free to add your comments and your opinion about this idea.

Obama's remarks to the Supreme Court recently had seemed to be rather harsh and threatening...

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." -- president Obama

Federal Judge Jerry Smith, a Republican employee decided to do a little "showboating" by demanding a letter from US Attorney General Eric Holder of at least three pages singlespaced explaining his views on whether federal judges have the authority to strike down federal laws.

Question: do you agree with the media that it seems like the president is threatening the Supreme Court and/or the Supreme Court treating representatives of the Obama administration like children misbehaving in school.

Your opinion...

more than 1 million illegal aliens could benefit from the changes

Chicago Tribune --
President Obama is proposing to make it easier for illegal immigrants to apply for legal permanent residency if they have family members of American citizens.

Obama's proposal would shorten the time that families are separated while awaiting for the application process to be completed while applying for legal status under the current system, the applicant must first to leave the US to seek a legal visa however under the proposed change would claim time apart from a spouse, child or parent as an "extreme hardship"

After the new proposal is posted in the Federal Register, the public will have 60 days to critique the change.

it seems like this president is doing everything he can to sellout America and bypass the rule of law to suit him.

But that's just my opinion... what's yours?

"“If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon"

Robins Commentary --

Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Florida high school student, is found shot and killed, in Sanford, Fla., a community north of Orlando after a neighborhood watch member, George Zimmerman, 28 followed Martin taking him as suspicious because he did not recognize him in their neighborhood and also as police believe, because he was black and wearing a hoodie.

Apparently, as Zimmerman followed Martin, he was on the phone with police 911 who also instructed Zimmerman not to pursue Martin as the police were on their way.

Apparently Zimmerman did not follow the 911 operators instructions and contacted Martin which led into a brawl and shots fired which cost the lives of the 17-year-old Martin.

As sad as these events were... normally this would be handled by local police investigators... until...

thanks to president Obama, it became a national event during a press conference when the president made the announcement that "“If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon"

As a result of president Obama's involvement, you could literally say it's become a federal issue.

in addition to president Obama promising the involvement of the FBI and other resources, the usual players have come out of the woodwork such as Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan, who are all on their way to go visit the Florida family.

Zimmerman, who is claiming self-defense is now in fear for his life because groups like the New Black Panthers, have offered a $10,000 bounty for the capture of George Zimmerman.

according to the New Black Panther Party leader Mikhail Muhammad, announced during a protest in Stanford was asked whether he was inciting violence. He replied, "an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth." [Chicago Tribune]

presidential candidate Newt Gingrich commented on Sean Hannity's program that the president's words were "disgraceful" and "appalling" and blasted the president for mentioning Martin's race and trying to spin this solely as a racial incident.

Which is interesting, because a letter from George Zimmerman's father in the Sun Sentinel stated that, "George is a Spanish-speaking minority with many black family members and friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever..."

In short, thanks to the president playing the racist card has created a firestorm which looks like it's getting out of control very quickly.

did president Obama just give himself the authority to execute martial law?

The White House --

Robins commentary --

this is all the buzz on satellite radio tonight where they were talking about president Obama giving himself through executive order the powers to declare martial law in the event of an emergency such as a war or natural disaster.

Now realizing how these talk shows can blow things out of proportion, I had to see for myself (and you can too at the above link)

"section 101 -- this order delegates authorities and addresses national Defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950..."

section 601 --(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;

there's a lot of speculation going around regarding this executive order... I'm no lawyer, but as I read this and from what I can interpret and understand... I have to ask the question...

Are we preparing for war?

How many times have we heard that one way to fix the economy is to go to war? Unfortunately, too many.

I recommend that everybody read for themselves and judge for themselves the executive order and pay attention to the news and hopefully the president will come out and explain his intent.

on a side note -- FEMA, the Federal emergency management agency which is part of the US Department of Homeland Security already has the power to declare martial law in the event of an emergency or disaster.

Moreover, I hope that this is one of the things that you will remember in November.

"vulnerable, fragile men"

BusinessWeek --

When it comes down to Viagra, we've all heard the jokes including the annoying commercial about Bob who can't stop smiling for "obvious reasons."

But Bob may not be smiling as much anymore thanks to a bill introduced by Senator Nina Turner of Cleveland who figures that if the government is considering mandated examinations for abortions, then it would only be fair to require men to go through physical and psychological tests to make sure that they are healthy enough to take the "pill" and that the patient's symptoms are not solely attributable to being merely psychological.

(I know, that explanation is limp... I mean lame. [Sorry, couldn't resist])

"We want to make sure that men, vulnerable, fragile men, who are not capable of making decisions for themselves, understand all the side effects and the implications of these types of drugs." Said Turner in an interview.

Virginia Senator Janet Howell also sought an amendment requiring doctors to perform a erectile exam and stress test as a requirement.

Similarly a Missouri bill would only allow vasectomies to protect a man from serious injury or death.

[I am sorry sir, but to save your life, they must go!]

All joking aside, isn't it interesting that it seems like this year a lot of our officials are spending a lot of time concerned about your sex.

Well, the world may be falling apart economically but I guess that... never mind.

The Contraceptive Crisis -- What?

Robins Commentary --

a few weeks back, I reactivated my Sirius satellite radio subscription so that I have some access to what's going on in the world other than being stuck with some of the lame programming like Redeye Radio which has taken over the airwaves after Cumulus broadcasting bought out a bunch of radio stations including one of my favorite talkshow radio stations KGO which speaking of, I have been fortunate to have one of their employees on my radio program to talk about that.

But I wanted to comment briefly on this affordable health care act that Obama is trying to push through and the recent testimony by the Georgetown law student and activist Sandra Fluke who is claiming that she is spending at least $3000 during their time in college in contraceptives alone.

Under the new law, contraceptives will be available through your insurance company for no co-pay in other words, they will be available basically free

Of course nothing is free but that's not the point here.

Why are they treating this like it is a rare commodity?

And more importantly... why are they mandating insurance companies to provide it to you at no cost?

Do people really not have access to contraceptives...

If you really want to take it to the extreme... why not force insurance companies to provide free shirts and shoes to everybody as they are both a requirement in our society (no shirt, no shoes, no service) and with the extraordinary large amount of homeless people maybe we should make that commodity available beyond the organizations that provide them voluntarily for free.

The point is, with everything going on in the world between rising gas prices, massive unemployment that this is where one of our priorities are?

I don't get it.

Wait a minute... come to think of it... maybe I do get it!

We need contraceptives mandate because we're getting screwed! (Sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity for a pun)

And to top that off the fury against Rush Limbaugh although his words were rooted in kind, by referring to Ms. fluke as a slut and a prostitute which even he apologize for, sofar seven advertisers have pulled their advertising from his program.

Now I'm proud to say that I am a Rush Limbaugh listener although of course I do not agree 100% with him all the time however, he is entertaining and does offer food for thought and so I was not disappointed when I read the comment on the Rush Limbaugh homepage regarding these advertisers who decided to leave the fold.

"Don't Worry, Folks: Advertisers Who Don't Want Your Business Will Be Replaced."

"... It's all for the audience, because if you're not there, all the rest of this is academic. The show is about you. It's not about the advertisers..."

There has been people for a long time that have been trying to shut down the Rush Limbaugh program and so they're looking for any excuse to do it, and they think that this is the golden egg that will accomplish that.

But what's the real story behind all of this?

I guess time will tell.

Update from today's program.

We had a caller today on the program who is a long-haul truck driver informing us that she just got insurance through her company and that the medical part of the insurance was placed on hold because of the Obama's affordable health care act.

So I wonder how many other companies are following suit more than likely because of the unknown costs that they will be forced to bear as a result of this new law.

If you or you know somebody who has similar stories, please feel free to share them.

is this blog dead?

the answer... no!

Between work which takes up most of my time and the Monday afternoon radio program, I have not had much time to keep up on the blogging which is really too bad... because there is a lot to talk about.

In the meantime... you can follow some of my thoughts on the radio station with archives available on the left-hand side of the screen.

We broadcast live on Monday afternoons 1 p.m. Pacific Time for 90 minutes and you can call into the program and contribute at 646-721-9887

Passage of Obamacare well cost you

Robin's commentary --

"Congress was within its constitutional powers in requiring Americans to buy insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty"

Those words alone should put fear in your hearts as it opens a Pandora's box do something bigger and worse.

The Obama administration is currently going to court to defend the above statement which has been challenged by 26 of the 50 states.

Opponents of the measure also argue that with passage of Obamacare, the government could technically require everybody to eat broccoli in order to fight obesity or pay a penalty.

Historically... the government has been able to get around the requirement of mandates by calling it a tax e.g. the federal income tax. [Citation to follow]

The argument is that everybody should have health care... and I suppose that by mandating everybody to buy health care is their thinking is one solution.

The problem: is that people without healthcare would love to have health care IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT!

[Any moron can figure that one out...]

Well according to an article from Investor's Business Daily the OUT-OF-POCKET cost to you for FAILURE to have qualified health insurance will range from $695 or 2.5% of your household income.

As I've said many a time... you can kiss your tax refund good bye.

president Obama announces today proposal for illegal aliens

Illegal aliens may reduce time separated from their families under a new proposal from President Obama

The new proposal which is "aimed at keeping families intact" would benefit US citizens who are married to or have children who are illegal aliens.

According to the New York Times, illegal aliens who are married to or are children of American citizens are generally allowed under the law to become legal residents under a visa known as a green card however, to acquire a green card the illegal alien must return to their home country to be eligible.

The catch (or penalty) is that once the aliens leave the United States they are automatically barred from returning to the country for at least three years.  Under the new proposal, the illegal alien can apply for a waiver if they can prove that their absence would cause "extreme hardship" to a United States citizen.

In short, the basic purpose of the proposal is to shorten the time that families are separated from each other.

oh where should I start?


Well first, let me start by saying that I am not a coldhearted bitch when it comes down to separating families, HOWEVER we're back to that same argument that they knew the risks and the penalties of being caught by breaking the law.


"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."


So I'm not going to regurgitate the argument has been said numerous times about what part of illegal don't you understand, etc. and as we all know that the government has opened up a Pandora's box by its failure to address the issue.


But the other thing that's not really being talked about yet is the timing of this proposal coming straight from CANDIDATE OBAMA, who as we all know has been in campaign mode for the last year.


We've heard it in the news numerous times, "we need the Hispanic vote to get elected..."


Isn't that being racist by focusing on one particular race for their vote?


So it will be interesting to listen to the talkshow chatter about this move and see where it goes from there.


So do you agree with the president's proposal or not?  


And of course don't be surprised if the president decides to use "executive presidential power" for amnesty or amnesty by another name.