No Prophet Is Welcome In His Own Land: Hometown Paper Torches Chicago Jesus; Obamacare


You know public will to embrace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is in freefall when President Barack Obama’s hometown newspaper pens an editorial calling for the “monstrosity” to be dismantled.

In a Sunday editorial headlined “How President Obama is flouting Obamacare,” The Chicago Tribune took a wrecking ball to the President’s ham-handed finessing of a law his Administration is legally required to carry out in full, opining that Obama is “bending that enforcement in wayas that test, and arguably exceed, the boundaries of lawful conduct.”

Then the editorial board called on lawmakers to take a wrecking ball to the law itself, and to start from scratch to come up with something else. “Democrats strong-armed Obamacare into law three years ago. Now they’re busy flouting it” by delaying employer insurance mandates, documentation requirements, out-of-pocket spending caps and carving out Congressional staff exemptions, thanks to the President’s intervention. Those aren’t administrative refinements; they’re wholesale interpretive revisions:

Obama isn’t making tweaks. He’s trying to circumvent major flaws that began flaring when the law was enacted. Hence the many carve-outs, delays and special deals that have been piling up since he added his signature to Obamacare on March 23, 2010.

The president crusaded for this law and has embraced its nickname. But he did not write the law. Congress did. Major changes are necessary — he has stipulated by his actions that this law as constituted cannot work — and Congress should legislate them for his review.

Bottom line: Let’s delay and rewrite this ill-conceived law. Congress need not start from scratch. Lawmakers can build on what all of us have learned from three years of painful trial and error. Three years of attempting, but failing, to make this clumsy monstrosity work for the American people.

The piece also challenges Obama’s Constitutional standing to pick and choose which parts of the law he can enforce, noting the legal outcry we’d all be hearing if Mitt Romney had won the 2012 election and then attempted to turn his back on Obamacare.

Read the entire piece, and share.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Grandpa David

    It is a monstrosity. 2700 pages of unconstitutional capricious law (pass it to find out what is in it) with 18,000 pages of regulations which are laws not written by congress. It is not about health care. this is something else.

    • guy r west

      hate to admit it but am afraid your right it was discised as health care but if even part of what ive read on line is true or can bee beleaved its more about power and controol of the united states and the American people. might explaine why so much efert to get our guns among other things. but then this is my opeanion and I sincerly hope ime wroung but if youve read about the death boards whitch determan if a peroson gets help at an emergaincy room or is alowed to die. or the fema constitration camps ive read about then one might wounder. but even if those are wroung then oboma has still bewen no friend to the usa or its people just my opeanion

    • smilee

      NO NO NO, the supreme court said it was constitutional you have no authority to change that, sorry buddy your out of luck!

      • momo

        The supreme court said it was constitutional because it was a tax, even though this administration argued all along that it was not a tax.

        • Grandpa David

          Exactly. Roberts came down from the bench and argued the case for the administration , but argued on a point that the administration was rejecting. Absolutely a travesty of justice.

          • smilee

            Did not, in their verbal arguments before the supreme court they argued it was also a tax And the majority of the court agreed with them . You listen only to the rhetoric and never the actual arguments or read the opinion, if you had either way you would know your statement is inaccurate.

          • Grandpa David

            No , Obama people claimed it was not a tax. Look it up. They claimed with force that it was not a tax. Roberts pulled it out the ether.

          • smilee

            Read the GD opinion Roberts Makes it very clear Obama argued it was tax and he says so in the opinion, LOOK IT UP if you can lay down your propaganda sheet long enough to do so.

          • Grandpa David

            The argument by the justice dept, not the opinion. That’s what I said, Roberts changed the administration’s . argument in his opinion., see New York Times 3/26/2012 ” But in its brief , the administration argued that the penalty was not a tax. —- In other words the justice department is essentially arguing that the penalty is not a tax, except when the government says it is one.” The ” except “is referring to justice arguing it is not a tax, but they wanted to give it the advantage in consideration a tax enjoys , but very careful always, in the brief to say it is not a tax.

          • smilee

            You did not listen to what I said this is what I wrote “OBAMA ARGUED THAT IT WAS A TAX AND HE ALSO ARGUED IT WAS A MANDATE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WITH A PENALTY” Roberts accepted the tax argument and rejected the penalty argument, Roberts changed absolutely nothing in their arguments or nothing in the law what so ever. Read the opinion itself!!! Then you will have to admit your wrong if your honest.

          • David Stovall

            New York Times, 3/26/2012 quote – ” But in its brief, the administration argued that the penalty was not a tax.”

          • smilee

            In oral they argued both, have not actually read the brief but have read the opinion. ROBERTS accepted Obama;s tax argument not the penalty under the commerce clause.

          • David Stovall

            I love to trout fish. They are very slippery, so you use a landing net. You are a lot slipperyer than a trout. The quotes just slip right off the slime on your scales. I will not keep repeating the quotes.

          • smilee

            Just telling you the truth sir, guess you can not handle that!!

          • David Stovall

            Abc News 6/29/2012 “The White House argued on Fri. that the mandate is not a tax (contradicting Roberts)
            3/26/2012 “General Vermilli, today you are arguing the penalty is not a tax.” Justice Alito
            Huff Post 6/29/2012 ” In their written dissent Kennedy—,Alito—, Scalia—, Thomas— wrote that Roberts not only ignored the plain language used in the legislation — penalty instead of tax—, but also the basic definition of what a tax is.”

          • David Stovall

            Even the White House on 6/29/12, said Roberts was wrong for calling it a tax. He changed it and the WH didn’t like it even though it won their case.

          • smilee


          • smilee


          • Grandpa David

            OK , I looked it up. Obama people argued mandate is not a tax because it is optional. Instead of buying insurance you can pay a fine, so you have options and a tax is not optional. So it is a fine or a penalty and not a tax. And that was their argument before the court.

          • smilee


      • time-4-change

        The trouble with people like Smilee is, once they pull there head out of their butt, they’re so thirsty that they drink the kool-aid!
        Did you by chance get a new cell phone?

        • smilee

          Rude and Silly statements like yousr only illuminate your lack of character.

      • Grandpa David

        Supreme court is appointed by politicians. Biased, political, and corrupt. They said the a city can confiscate your property just to get more tax. We must return to the constitution, and the supreme court is not pure.

  • c r jacobson

    The Trib tried to tell everybody that DEWEY beat TRUMAN in 1948. It is a good sports paper but does not know anything about politics.

  • jag

    2 bad he and his family don’t have to endure his obamacare nightmare, for that fact….all politicans! Its supposed 2b what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,but that dosen’t go in this developing 3rd world country!! Come on U TRUE AMERICANS let’s VOTE these true NUT CASES OUT OF OFFICE!!!! THIS CAN B DONE!!!!

    • Ron

      yeah and vote in some other NUT CASES that want the same America as Obummer? I say we get our guns and send ALL politicians to Gitmo…and start over with good honest moral people that want to “serve” this country short term and then go back to their careers they left behind!

      • jag

        Agreed, but to WANT the job of of lying to the people u gotta b srewed up to begin with or a lawyer!

      • hippybiker

        Re-institute the original 13th amendment, not that BS that was rammed through by the northern States after the War of Federal Aggression.

      • JLouisK

        Nah, send them to the FEMA camps where they are planning to put resisters.

  • guy r west

    kinda makes you wounder when a major news paper in his own so called home town and one of his major suproters writes something like this now doesnt it

  • smilee

    Paul Weingarten is one person on the editorial board and wrote this on his own it is not the boards majority opinion. It does not carry the weight this article gives it.

  • Robert Zraick

    Don’t try to fix it. Dump it.

  • RightGunner

    If a good writer were to write a farce about government mismanagement it could not top the current acting in “The birth of a Nation’s Obamacare”. The birth is so difficult it has to be a caesarian, however neither any Democrat nor any Doctor will touch it.

    The birth date of the start of the new Fiscal Year on October 1st , has been known for a lot more than nine months, but no competent authority did any real preparations, because competence is lacking in those who wrote the act as well as those who voted for it. There is however Mrs. Pelosi, who is still trying to read the law.

    Suddenly all the supporters found that their support meant they have to pay for all the additional people who don’t have to pay anything. Now the suckers, including the unions and all of Congress, are getting waivers to postpone their increase in costs.

    And so everyone has come to realize that the only people who can afford Obamacare are those who don’t have to pay anything. The rest of us have been screwed by the Obama Democrats, who are now trying to flee the sinking ship.

    Well we don’t need this farce to be written. Just as the world has been laughing at the United States since Obama and the Democrats got started in 2008, the world is now rolling in the aisles. There is so much egg on the face in the Obama government that everyone is going around in yellow-face. And those in socialist-infected countries who tried to warn us have given up hope. What a pity!

  • Brian MacIlroy

    If you read the law when it became public you’d see it’s the same law. Yes I bothered to read it and yes there were many holes in to make adjustments (favors) paybacks much the same way as 5.2 billion went to ACORN or Abound Solar at 60 million or manybe Solyndra at 529 million.

    • Jack

      Brian Macllory:

      Why do righties say and believe such dumb things.

      Most of Obamacare has not even gone into effect yet.

      Acorn shut down and went out of business. It never got one penny from Obamacare nor did the solor companies..

      Your statements lead to only one conclusion, you re another rightie who just makes things up. Admit you never read the law:

      • Brian MacIlroy


        Better than half the mandates were NOT met by the Obama administration.

        Acorn did not die, it popped back up in Texas backing ObamaCare and the other is in Mich working for the teachers union. I did not say they got money from, I said that was wasted money.

        Yes I did read it, dry and mostly boring with lot’s of new taxes and lot’s of controlof your life.

  • beowulf32

    I know America dose not want this the Democratic Voter`s are not this Insane.
    Obamacare troops planning home visits

    Constitutional attorney: ‘This is not a voluntary program’

    (Ben Swann) – “Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.”

    According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

    SPECIAL: ObamaCare Must Be Destroyed With A Vote Of Congress!

    The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:
    •Families where mom is not yet 21.
    •Families where someone is a tobacco user.
    •Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
    •Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

    There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

    In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”

    Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,

    “This is not a “voluntary” program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.

    Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation. Intervention may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

    Part of the program will require massive data collecting of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

    A manual called Child Neglect: A Guide for Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention includes firearms as potential safety hazard and will require inspectors to verify safety compliance and record each inspection into a database.

    Last session South Carolina Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a bill, H.3101 that would nullify certain provisions of Obamacare. The bill would give the state attorney general the authority to authorize law enforcement to arrest federal agents for trespassing. It would make forced home inspections under Obamacare illegal in South Carolina. It passed in the House but died in the senate.

    Kent Brown and Rep. Rick Quinn discuss “forced” home inspections under Obamacare

  • Motov

    You know something sucks about it, when every politician opted out.
    We need a new amendment added to our constitution, “No one will be exempt from any law passed by congress” I bet with that amendment congress will pay attention what gets passed!

    • Quester55

      Forget that Passed by Congress Crap, Your law should read, ANY LAW Passed By Presidential Orders, That includes the President , Him or Herself!!

      • Motov

        Yup include the president, everybody! No one is above the law.

  • Jeff Noncent

    The Rat care is a communist, socialist, and I am not going to buy it because I am not stupid period

  • Al Chemist

    Obama and his administration will continue to try and push this pile of manure off on the US population and they will insist that it is a T-Bone steak. That’s what liberals/progressives/commies/democrats do.

  • Al Chemist

    Obama and his administration will continue to try and push this pile of manure off on the US population and they will insist that it is a T-Bone steak. That’s what liberals/progressives/commies/democrats do.

  • Stephen Gore

    I can see Chicago not caring for the law even more so when the part that kicks in that the Fed and CPS can invade you house and remove your children because in their opinion you are endangering the child. If you are poor, own a gun, smoke or use drugs, they can and will remove your children and set them up in a foster care facility.
    A large potion of Chicago, Detroit, New York have children living in poor neighborhoods. Yet the law gives the government the RIGHT ro remove these children. Try that on for size, who is going to be effected the most…….?
    Just sayin

  • Minuteman

    Obama Care is nothing short of imposed strong arm tyranny. This law, even in the eyes of the general public is clearly unconstitutional. It amounts to nothing less than imposed oppression of the rights and liberties of the American people.

    • Deerinwater

      So ! It’s Constitutional alright! just like you must have insurance to drive a car. ` it’s now a requirement to make some attempt to pay for your own GD Health Care. ~a modesty attempt.

  • Jeff

    The Chicago Tribune? That’s what you base your measure of Chicago sentiment by? The Chicago Tribune has been a right wing rag for about 160 years, supporting the Know Nothings in the 19th Century and every xenophobic, isolationist, right wing cause ever since.