Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘law suit’

Sage Steele sues ESPN and Disney for treatment following her comments on vaccine mandates, Obama

Reported by PHIL SHIVER | April 28, 2022


Longtime ESPN anchor Sage Steele has filed a lawsuit against the network and its parent company, Disney, for allegedly retaliating against her following comments she made about COVID-19 vaccine mandates and former President Barack Obama’s racial identity during a podcast interview.

In her lawsuit, Steele claims ESPN and Disney breached her contract and violated her speech rights by sidelining her and failing to stop colleagues from disparaging her over the remarks.

The suit was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Steele — who has worked as an anchor for ESPN since 2007 — came under fire after an interview with former NFL quarterback Jay Cutler on his podcast, “Uncut with Jay Cutler,” in September, when she criticized Disney’s strong-arming over the vaccine.

“I didn’t want to do it,” she told Cutler. “But I work for a company that mandates it, and I had until Sept. 30 to get it done, or I’m out.”

“I respect everyone’s decision, I really do, but to mandate it is sick, and it’s scary to me in many ways,” she added. “But I have a job, a job that I love and, frankly, a job that I need.”

Steele also criticized former President Barack Obama’s decision to identify as a black man even though he, like her, is biracial.

“Well, congratulations to the president, that’s his thing,” Steele said in the podcast. “I think that’s fascinating considering his black dad is nowhere to be found, but his white mom and grandma raised him, but OK. You do you. I’m gonna do me.”

Front Office Sports reported in October that Steele had been removed from the air by ESPN over the comments, and Steele was also required to issue a public apology. Around the same time, she tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in her missing “SportsCenter” for one week. Steele also was pulled from hosting the espnW: Women + Sports Summit.

“In a knee-jerk reaction, ESPN and Disney relied on the misleading characterizations of her comments, bowed to groupthink and forced Steele to publicly apologize and suspended her for a period of time in October 2021,” the lawsuit alleges, according to the New York Post.

It goes on to say that ESPN “violated Connecticut law and Steele’s rights to free speech based upon a faulty understanding of her comments and a nonexistent, unenforced workplace policy that serves as nothing more than pretext.”

In a statement, Steele’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, said, “ESPN violated her free speech rights, retaliated against her, reprimanded her, scapegoated her, allowed the media and her peers to excoriate her and forced her to apologize simply because her personal opinions did not align with Disney’s corporate philosophy of the moment.”

ESPN responded to news of the lawsuit with a statement of its own.

“Sage remains a valued contributor on some of ESPN’s highest profile content, including the recent Masters telecasts and anchoring our noon ‘SportsCenter,'” a spokesperson said. “As a point of fact, she was never suspended.”

Steele is expected to remain on air while the lawsuit goes through the legal system.

Parents sue Massachusetts school district, claiming school encouraged their children to use new names and pronouns

Reported by LEON WOLF | April 17, 2022


Massachusetts parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri have filed suit against their children’s school district and a number of school district officials, claiming that the school officials encouraged their child to use new pronouns and a new name without their consent, according to a report from Fox News. According to the complaint, school officials initially contacted the plaintiffs in December of 2020 after their daughter reported complaints of feeling depressed and of “experiencing insecurity, low self-esteem, poor self-image, and a perceived lack of popularity.” Their daughter also reportedly expressed to school officials that she was experiencing same-sex attraction. The parents expressed thankfulness to school officials for alerting them, and engaged mental health professionals to counsel their daughter.

The parents reportedly then sent an email to teachers, stating, “I appreciate your concern and would like to let you know that her father and I will be getting her the professional help she needs at this time. With that being said, we request that you do not have any private conversations with B. in regards to this matter. Please allow us to address this as a family and with the proper professionals.”

The parents allege in their complaint that this directive was ignored by school officials, who permitted her to change her used name “at least twice” between December 2020 and June 2021, which they only discovered when teachers inadvertently sent email communications to the parents regarding a homework assignment for their child that did not use her given name. The complaint also alleges that the school counselor “in direct contravention to their explicit instructions,” continued to counsel their daughter regarding her alleged “discordant gender identity,” and affirmed this “discordant identity and name.”

The complaint alleges further that in February 2021, the plaintiffs’ daughter sent an email to school officials informing them that she was genderqueer,” preferred to use a new name, and that “A list of pronouns you can use are: she/her he/him they/them fae/faerae/aer ve/ver xe/xem ze/zir. I have added a link so you can look at how to say them.” The complaint alleges that the school counselor responded to this email by directing other school officals that the parents were not to be notified of this and that school officials should comply with this request. The complaint further alleges that, after this point, school officials summarily disregarded the parents’ rights to direct the mental health care of their daughter, and repeatedly affirmed that their daughter, who was struggling with feelings of unpopularity, was “brave and awesome” for declaring that she was “genderqueer” and wanted to be called by a new name.

In a statement to MassLive about the lawsuit, Ludlow School Committee Chair claimed that the school was acting with the students’ best interest in mind: “It’s a slippery slope. We want to support our students the best we can. But we should bring parents to the table, and hope they respond in a loving and supportive way as well.”

Doctor who quit her job after being suspended for promoting ivermectin, criticizing mandates sues Houston Methodist Hospital for COVID data, financial reports

Reported by SARAH TAYLOR | January 19, 2022


Dr. Mary Bowden, who was previously suspended from Houston Methodist Hospital for spreading what the hospital said was “misinformation” surrounding COVID-19 and who later quit her job there, is suing the hospital, the Texan reported. Bowden, a private-practice otolaryngologist, promoted ivermectin as a viable COVID-19 treatment in 2020 — a move with which her employers took grave issue.

She announced the lawsuit on Monday and in a press conference said that she is demanding data from the hospital on the effects of COVID-19 vaccines along with financial reports. During the conference announcing the pending litigation, Bowden said, “Medical freedom has been hijacked by hospitals, big pharma, insurance companies, and the federal agencies.” Bowden added that she and investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino requested the information contained in the lawsuit in November and December, but the hospital reportedly did not respond.

The outlet reported that the suit — which was filed in state district court on Monday — is requesting “financial documents detailing all revenue generated at the hospital throughout he COVID-19 vaccination program, including details about reimbursements or payments from government, insurance companies, and patients.” The suit is also requesting information about “any financial arrangements with pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 treatments.”

Bowden’s suit also states that the hospital should make public the number of all recently admitted COVID-19 patients who were fully vaccinated and how many employees are experiencing breakthrough infections.

Bowden also pointed to the hospital’s 2019’s assets — which reportedly totaled approximately $4 billion — and said that the public is entitled to know how those assets have increased after 2019 and amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

“I want to make this clear,” she said during the conference. “I’m not seeking any financial gains from this or personal gain, I’m simply seeking the truth, which we all deserve.”

Attorney Steve Mitby, who is representing Bowen, said that he fully expects that he and his client will receive the records.

“It’s state law,” he insisted.

Bowden added, “We all know that early COVID treatment works, it saves lives, and I’m not going to be silenced, intimidated, or bullied by Houston Methodist, Houston Chronicle, or anyone else who wants to target physicians that question the narrative.”

In November, Mitby said that Bowden had never peddled disinformation, as a Stanford University-trained physician who has had vast experience in treating coronavirus patients.

“She is helping her patients, through a combination of monoclonal antibodies and other drugs, to recover from COVID. Dr. Bowden’s proactive treatment has saved lives and prevented hospitalizations,” he said at the time. “Dr. Bowden also is not anti-vaccine as she has been falsely portrayed. Dr. Bowden has opposed vaccine mandates, especially when required by the government. That is not the same as opposing vaccines.”

A Houston Methodist spokesperson declined to comment when approached by the Texan for its report.

Teachers ask court to halt Va. school district policy forcing them to use trans pronouns

Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Tuesday, August 17, 2021


Kim Wright (R) and Monica Gill (L)
Loudoun County, Virginia teachers Kim Wright (R) and Monica Gill (L) | Alliance Defending Freedom

A pair of teachers are seeking to take a Virginia school district to court over a newly passed policy requiring, among other things, that staff uses the preferred names and pronouns of trans-identified students. Loudoun County High School history teacher Monica Gill and Smart’s Mill Middle School English teacher Kim Wright filed an amended complaint to block the new policy passed last week by the Loudoun County School Board.

By a vote of 7-2, the board passed Policy 8040: Rights of Transgender and Gender-Expansive Students last week despite considerable opposition to the proposal from some teachers and parents. 

Gill and Wright propose to be added to a pre-existing legal challenge over the school district’s treatment of Leesburg Elementary School teacher Bryon Tanner Cross, who was placed on leave after voicing his displeasure with the policy proposal during a school board meeting. 

Filed Monday, the amended complaint argues that Cross, Gill and Wright oppose the new policy because they believe it “communicates that gender identity, rather than biological reality, fundamentally shapes and defines who we truly are as humans, that our sex can change, and that a woman who identifies as a man really is a man.”

The complaint further alleges that if the teachers were to comply with the policy, “they would be forced to communicate a message they believe is false.”

“[I]f they refer to students based on their biological sex, they communicate the views they actually believe — that our sex shapes who we are as humans, that this sex is fixed in each person, and that it cannot be changed, regardless of our feelings or desires,” the amended complaint states. 

The legal filing adds that the school district has “refused to find middle ground” and “made this case about far more than titles or pronouns.”

“[T]hey have taken a side in a national debate over competing views of human nature and compelled conformity to, and support for, only one view,” the complaint charges. “Under the timeless free speech principles enshrined in the Virginia Constitution and laws, Defendants cannot compel one side to voice the other’s beliefs.” 

Tyson Langhofer of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal nonprofit representing the teachers, said in a statement on Tuesday that he believes the teachers “shouldn’t be forced to promote ideologies that are harmful to their students and that they believe are false.”

“Loudoun County Public Schools is now requiring all teachers and students to deny truths about what it means to be male and female and is compelling them to call students by their chosen pronouns or face punishment,” stated Langhofer.

“Public employees cannot be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep a job. Freedom — of speech and religious exercise — includes the freedom not to speak messages against our core beliefs.”

Policy 8040 requires that school faculty and staff use the chosen name and pronouns of a student who identifies as “gender-expansive or transgender.”

“School staff shall, at the request of a student or parent/legal guardian, when using a name or pronoun to address the student, use the name and pronoun that correspond to their consistently asserted gender identity,” the policy reads.

“The use of gender-neutral pronouns is appropriate. Inadvertent slips in the use of names or pronouns may occur; however, staff or students who intentionally and persistently refuse to respect a student’s gender identity by using the wrong name and gender pronoun are in violation of this policy.”

The policy allows students to use the restroom or locker room “that corresponds to their consistently asserted gender identity,” advising school administrators to consider adding “gender-inclusive or single-user restrooms” for more privacy.

According to a frequently-asked-questions document, LCPS recommended that schools “make efforts to eliminate gender-based practices to the extent possible,” claiming that these practices “can have the effect of marginalizing, stigmatizing, and excluding students, regardless of their gender identity or gender expression.”

“Examples of practices that may be based on gender, and which should be eliminated, include grouping students for class activities, gender-based homecoming or prom courts, limitations on who can attend as ‘couples’ at school dances, and gender-based events such as father-daughter dances,” reads the FAQ document.

The policy garnered national headlines when LCPS suspended Cross after he spoke out in his personal capacity against the policy at a school board meeting in May.

“My name is Tanner Cross, and I am speaking out of love for those who suffer with gender dysphoria,” stated Cross at the time. “I love all of my students, but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences.”

Cross sued the school district in response to the suspension, with a judge granting the Christian teacher a temporary injunction for his reinstatement in June while the lawsuit proceeds. LCPS is appealing the judge’s decision. 

“LCPS respectfully disagrees with the Circuit Court’s decision to issue the injunction, and it is appealing this ruling to the Supreme Court of Virginia,” stated LCPS back in June.

“Many students and parents at Leesburg Elementary have expressed fear, hurt and disappointment about coming to school. Addressing those concerns is paramount to the school division’s goal to provide a safe, welcoming and affirming learning environment for all students.”

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Feds go to bat for Muslim truckers fired for refusing to do their jobs

star transport

Last month, it was a Muslim flight attendant who sued her airline after it suspended her for refusing to serve booze. This month it’s two Muslim truck drivers, except in this case, handling booze — which is forbidden under Islamic law — was pretty much their entire job description.

The pair, Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale, had the backing of the federal government in their religious discrimination lawsuit against their former employer, who rightfully terminated them for refusing to make beer deliveries.Picture1

The Washington Examiner notes that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won $240,000 in damages to the former drivers, both of Somali heritage, who were fired in 2009.

The EEOC said that Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated their religious rights by refusing to accommodate their objections to delivering alcoholic beverages.

“EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices,” EEOC General Counsel David Lopez announced Thursday. “This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.”

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have easily reassigned the men to other jobs, but the reverse argument — that Mohamed and Bulshale could have just as easily sought employment in an area that doesn’t compromise their religious principles — is no less valid.

The jury awarded Mohamed and Bulshale $20,000 each in compensatory damages and $100,000 each in punitive damages. The judge awarded each about $1,500 in back pay.

Bulshale said following the judgment, “This case makes me proud to be American.” Really? What would he know about that?

Liberals Try to Cover Up for Obamacare Architect

Transcript from the Rush Limbaugh Show, November 11, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site:

RUSH: This is incredible.  The liberals at the University of Pennsylvania tried to take down the video of Jonathan Gruber saying they had to dumb down the presentation of Obamacare because of the stupidity of the American voter.  They thought they could take the video down and make the issue go away.

You remember Jonathan Gruber. By the way, he’s the architect of Obamacare, and I should say that he’s one of the primary architects of Romneycare as well.  It was in October of last year at the University of Pennsylvania’s 24th Annual Health Economics Conference, and he said that it was crucial that the American people never realize what was really in Obamacare because the stupidity of the American voter would have otherwise killed the law.

In other words, he admitted — and he got applause, he was talking to fellow economists — he admitted they had to lie.  They had to mask and cover the transparency.  They had to lie about what was in it, such as you get to keep your doctor, you get to keep your plan, your premium will come down $2,500.  There are no tax increases.  It’s not gonna cost any more than the Iraq war.  Every lie they told was purposeful because they thought the American public was so stupid they wouldn’t understand the nuance and the liberal definition of need for this law, and that if they had been honest about it, people would never have supported it.

That covers pretty much everything in their agenda, by the way.  If they’re ever honest about their real agenda, they’d never get elected to anything outside of New York, San Francisco and Hollywood.  And they wouldn’t, folks.  And maybe Chicago.  They would not.  It’s not just Obamacare they lie about.  It’s not just Obamacare they think you are too stupid to understand.

So, anyway, the University of Pennsylvania, after the uproar of this getting out, tried to pull it down.  They pulled the video of the event which took place in October of 2013.  And for a time yesterday, if you went to the website at the University of Pennsylvania trying to see the video, you got a message that said: “This video has been removed by the user.  Sorry about that.”  And so that begot a Twitter and Facebook storm.

“Why would Penn pull down a public video that has political implications?”  Was one of the questions.  Because they’re a bunch of liberals is why, and because their truth was exposed.  It was major.  They tried to pull it down.

Anyway, they ended up having to put it back up because they began to look like fools, thinking that they could put back in the bottle the genie that had already been released.  You can’t do that.  So they put it back up.  But it was funny to watch ’em scramble around, folks, like turning on the lights and a bunch of rats in the barn going nuts at being exposed and discovered.  They tried to turn the lights back off and it didn’t work.

Speaking of Obamacare, the Washington Post is, on its best day, hapless.  The Washington Post is an absolute sorry excuse for what it used to be.  But even with that, they continue to set new standards for incompetence and bias and just being plain wrong.  There’s a story by Jose DelReal: “Obamacare Consultant Under Fire for ‘Stupidity of the American Voter’ Comment.” Now, this reporter is obviously just a Democrat with a press pass, which is what most of them at the New York Times and the Washington Post are.  They’re Democrats disguised as journalists. Give them a little press pass, let ’em go there, pretend to be reporters and so forth.

He sells whatever is left of his journalistic soul in this piece.  Let me give you just one pull quote from it, as they’re still trying to put the genie back in the bottle.  Now, remember, this is for their liberal readers, Washington Post, liberal reader base, New York Times, same thing.  They’re trying to calm their reader base. This is not a big deal, don’t worry. Gruber didn’t screw it up for everybody. It’s okay, it’s okay, trying to calm everybody down.

Listen to this quote from the story:  “Gruber’s remarks have been greeted by the law’s critics as an admission of intentionally deceiving the American public about the law in 2010. But given the context of the remarks, Gruber seems to be speaking specifically about how and why the law’s funding mechanisms were framed when the law was being written.”

This guy thinks he’s helping Gruber by saying that, and he is hammering another nail in the coffin.  Jose, that is exactly the point!  People were deceived about the funding mechanism.  That was the key, key, key to getting it passed. How the thing was gonna be paid for was the key to it getting passed.  Oh, and the lie to Bart Stupak about it not funding abortions.

But the way this thing was being funded, the way it was gonna be paid for, the way it wasn’t gonna cost anybody anything, the way it was gonna allow people to keep their doctors and keep their plans and lower their premiums and their deductibles? That was key to this thing getting passed, and he writes (summarized), “Well, if you read the context, if you’re given the context of Professor Gruber’s remarks…

“He seems to be speaking specifically about how and why the law’s funding mechanisms were framed,” lied about.  This guy’s trying to get this guy out of a jam, and he digs a deeper hole!  But remember, he’s dealing with his own liberal-Democrat reader base, and they are looking for holes to be dragged out of.  So they’ll take anything that they can get.  “Economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the Regime’s consultants on the…”

He was not a consultant.  He was the architect, Jose.  He “is under attack from conservatives for comments he made last year in which he seemingly said,” and then he quotes (laughing), “the stupidity of the American voter.”  Seemingly?  Seemingly said?  He didn’t “seemingly” say it.  He stated unambiguously that they had to lie about this thing because of “the stupidity of the American people.”

Actually if you examine that, I think really what he means is, “We had to lie because of the intelligence of the American people.  We had to lie to them, otherwise they would have seen what we intended to do.”  That means they’re pretty smart, when you get right down to it, and that’s what bothers them.  Now, that’s not to say that Gruber and his ilk on the left and in the Democrat Party do not consider you and American voters to be a bunch of stiffs and stupid.

It doesn’t mean they don’t still hold you in contempt.

But what he’s really saying is, “We had to lie. We had to lie, because they’re too stupid… No, they’re too smart, actually.  They would see what really is intended here unless we lie.”  So you relied on what you thought was their stupid gullibility to believe your lie, is what you were relying on. And it’s 2010, so there’s still some residual messianic attitudes about Obama in 2010.  So that’s what they were relying on.

Anyway, it’s CYA time at the Washington Post.  But it’s not over for the bad news about Obamacare.  From the Washington Times: “Obamacare May Not Have Enough Enrollees to Stay Solvent — Fewer than 10 million projected; 13 million needed to stay solvent. The [Regime] on Monday said fewer than 10 million Americans will enroll in Obamacare’s health exchanges this go-around, well short of the 13 million target congressional scorekeepers deemed critical to its economics…”

Meaning: They’ve gotta have 13 million people paying premiums through the nose in order to fund this thing.  It suggests “another rocky rollout in the law’s second year of full operation,” and it’s next week (chuckling) when the mandate hits.  It’s next week when the next wave of unforeseen expenses hit everybody.

“Policy advisers at the Health & Human Services Department estimated that 9 million to 9.9 million people would enroll through the exchanges — or only a slight increase over the 8 million that the [Regime] says were active at the end of the first enrollment period this April. The Congressional Budget Office, which is the government’s official scorekeeper, had predicted the law would need 13 million customers on the exchanges. …

“‘Under the president’s health care law, Americans have experienced broken exchanges, canceled coverage, higher premiums and unaffordable deductibles,’ said Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House oversight committee… ‘Despite the administration’s habit of moving the goal posts, the fact is Obamacare is simply not delivering the results Americans were originally promised by the president.'”

Neither is anything else, and this the American people know, which explains the election results this past Tuesday.  “The number of enrollees is key, because if too few take part in the exchanges, the pool of customers is too small, and it could skew the economics of Obamacare, forcing insurers to raise premiums and pushing even more people to forgo coverage, choosing to pay the tax penalty instead,” the FINE.

Stop and think of something here.  We have Obamacare.  It was gonna save the day. It was gonna insure all the uninsured. It was gonna make sure that the previous existing condition people were covered. It was gonna be magic, right?  Now, what are we talking about here?  They’re hoping to get 13 million people?

How many people are in this country, 250 million adults, 220?  What is it?  I don’t care, 10 million, 13 million. It’s chump change.  It’s nothing. They got 8.8 million the first go round?  We’re nowhere near mass adoption of this. You know, there’s a new group of people elected in the House of Representatives that just been handed another golden opportunity here.


RUSH:  Here’s the truth of the matter, folks.  If the American people were stupid, the Democrats would still run the Senate and maybe even the House of Representatives. If the American people were stupid.  This, by the way, really grates on the Democrats, believe me, ’cause if the American people were stupid — meaning falling for all the lies — the Republicans wouldn’t have been elected.

It is elitism that is ignorant because it’s arrogant and conceited, and Jonathan Gruber is an elitist and therefore has no idea what life is really like for all the people he’s out there writing legislation for.  All he knows is that they’re stupid, and they can’t deal with the truth.  They don’t know what’s best for ’em. So in order to give them what’s best for them (Obamacare), we have to lie to them.

The American people are just a bunch of idiots.

So lies got Barack Obama elected, twice.  Corrupt politics got Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote.  But this brilliant economist, Jonathan Gruber, wasn’t smart enough to make Obamacare popular.  Imagine that!  If the American people were so stupid, they could have been talked into how wonderfully great this legislation is and they’d been out there signing up.

They’d be going nuts, throwing parties, talking about how they’ve all got free health care, but the American people are not that stupid and didn’t fall for this.  Obamacare has never enjoyed majority public support.  You really can’t outsmart free markets for very long.  Reality eventually sets in and the lies end up uncovered.  Markets work. Be they intellectual markets or economic markets, they work.

But you know what’s really tied up in all this?  The people of this country trusted Barack Obama, and in 2010 they still did.  They thought they had created a moment in world history: Electing the first African-American president in a country that had featured slavery in its distant past.  They trusted Obama.  He was gonna fix everything.  He was a new kind of man, a new kind of politician.

But not to me.

Folks, what’s happened here is exactly why we have to go after the credibility these Democrats — this includes Hillary — before they are elected and it demonstrates itself.

We have to go after their credibility.

We have to just because we know we’re right!

We can’t afford to elect ’em anymore.


RUSH: So here comes Dana Milbank at the fledgling Washington Post, same thing’s happening to them: “Why Obamacare Risks Falling into a ‘Death Spiral’ — So it turns out there is an Obamacare death panel after all.”  See, there is.  There are death panels, but this guy continues to deny the truth.  You’re not smart enough to deal with the reality of what a death panel really is.  Sarah Palin came along and blew the whole thing by correctly naming the advisory board that determines who gets treatment and who doesn’t.  That’s a death panel.  That was one of those truths that the Obamacare architects could not allow out there.  So they had to attack her, destroy her, again, and anybody else that picked up the mantra.

So on the left they continue living in their fantasy world, that Obamacare is not what it is.  And what they don’t understand is the whole country is away ahead of ’em.  This stupid bunch of Americans are way ahead of the Drive-By Media, which is caught twisting and turning in the past trying to save an already ruined presidency.  Well, ruined in the popular way presidencies are judged, presidential approval, blah, blah, blah.  In terms of actual accomplishments that are attached to Obama’s real goal, it’s a very successful administration, transforming the country.  But I don’t want to get too intricate for this purpose here.

Dana Milbank is worried about the Supreme Court.  That’s the death panel for Obamacare.  Oh, yeah.  “It has nine members and it operates out of a marble building directly across the street from the Capitol. When the Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would take up another challenge to the Affordable Care Act in March, it delivered the threat of two mortal blows to the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. First, it raised the possibility that the justices, who narrowly spared the law in 2012, will in June come out with a new ruling that would dismantle the law on different grounds.”

originalYou know what a real threat or fear that the left has about this?  They know that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  They’ve known it since it was written.  Gruber lets the cat out of the bag by saying we had to lie and we had to cover the transparency because of the stupidity of the American people.  In other words, we had to lie in order to get this thing passed, because if people knew what it really was, it wouldn’t stand the light of day, it wouldn’t stand a chance.

The unconstitutionality is the Commerce Clause and the fact that the federal government can’t force to you buy anything.  They can’t force you to buy anything.  So that begot the argument, is it a mandate, is it a tax?  The federal government can tax.  But, no, it’s not a tax.  It’s a fine.  If you don’t buy insurance, we’re gonna fine you.  They can’t!  The Fourth Amendment.  They can’t.  However — and this is the fear the left has — they know that the Supreme Court just didn’t want to go there.  I mean, it was the first black president.  It was a major signature legislation and it was for health care for the poor, and, okay, we’ll look the other way.

So John Roberts did some finagling and found a way to make this thing sound constitutional.  But the left knows that a whole bunch of chicanery took place.  They know they’re hanging by a thread.  They know they’re on thin ice here, and they know that a lot of justices — well, they don’t know, but I suspect they fear a lot of justices have been chomping at the bit for a second go round at this thing, ’cause it isn’t constitutional, folks.  If we were in a totally objective, nonpartisan, sane world, this law would have been struck down inside of three hours of it arriving at the Supreme Court.

The federal government simply cannot demand that we buy things.  It’s right there in the Commerce Clause in the Fourth Amendment.  They cannot do it.  Ways were achieved to mask what is really happening by calling these things fines if you don’t buy it, blah, blah.  So they know they’re hanging by a thread, and they know they may be even on borrowed time.  And now the court, the Supreme Court, decided to hear the case again, this time over subsidies.  This is an area that in an objective, black and white, sane world, the Regime doesn’t have a prayer.

The point of this is real simple.  The only subsidies for Obamacare are available at state exchanges.  Well, as you recall, most states did not set one up, and therefore the people in those states, according to the law, had no way of getting subsidized Obamacare.  And, believe me, subsidized is the only way the vast majority of Americans can afford it, because it’s so damned expensive.  Subsidies meaning taxpayers pay a greater portion of your policy than you do.  So when this eventuated, when the states, Republican governors in these states refused to set up exchanges, that left a whole lot of people out of the subsidies, and that just wasn’t — oh, we can’t allow that politically.  I mean, that would be political disaster for Obama.

He’s out there promising everything’s gonna get cheaper. He’s promising the uninsured are gonna get insured. He’s promising don’t worry about what it costs, gonna be subsidized, except most people don’t live in a state with an exchange.  Oh, no.  So the federal government violated its own law and set up its own exchanges, which, whoever wrote this law, Gruber, stupidly left in that the federal government could not set up its own exchanges.  They had to be set up in the states.

By the way, there was a purpose for that.

That was to shift as much of the cost off to the states as they could to keep the overall final number under that precious $3 trillion figure.  So Obamacare was written in a way to dump as much cost off to the states as possible, and that’s when the governors said, “Unh-uh! We’re not just gonna sit here and accept these new costs.  We can’t print money like you can.”

So they didn’t set up the exchanges.

It’s the unintended consequences. The liberals think the people are just a bunch of sheep and whatever legislation comes down they’re gonna abide by it and not find ways around it.  Well, when they figured out that a whole bunch of people were not gonna be qualified for subsidies, the federal government violated Obamacare and created their own exchanges…

That’s what the Supreme Court’s gonna hear.  The Supreme Court’s essentially gonna hear: Are those subsidies that are being provided by the federal government constitutional? Are they part of the law, or has this whole thing been turned upside down?  As Milbank writes about it, “But even if the justices make no such ruling,” meaning, striking it down, “the very act of taking up the challenge to the law will itself undermine the law.”

So Milbank is in fatalistic, defeatist mode because all the court had to do was take the case and that undermines it.  If they’d have just flat-out rejected it, fine and dandy.  But the Supreme Court has taken the case.  They’re gonna hear it; they’re gonna have an opinion.  It doesn’t matter what the opinion is. The very fact they’re taking the case undermines it.  Why?  Because Milbank and these people know that this thing is a crock.

Gruber and everybody lied about it. They created a bunch of falsehoods in it.  It’s unsupportable economically.  The American people don’t want it! But that doesn’t matter to them.  They want it.  They want you subjected to it, subordinated to it — and the very idea that the court’s gonna look at it again is just gonna create (in the minds of all these stupid Americans) the idea that something’s wrong with the law, and we can’t have that.

“We’ve gotta get people finally accepting this and ignoring this and moving on to other things! The more attention on Obamacare, the greater the opportunity everybody’s gonna find out the fraud that is in it.”  That’s why they’re quaking today. Just the fact that the case is being accepted, taken up by the court, has got them scared to death.  And it has them scared because they know what a house of cards this thing is, folks.

Read more at:



Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland

MId Term drawing

by Bryan Preston

URL of Original Posting Site:

October 29, 2014 – 11:45 pm

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

VoterBoothAn election integrity watchdog group is suing the state of Maryland, alleging that it has discovered massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens in one county. But because of the way that the non-citizens are able to cast votes in elections, the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state. The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.

The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes. The same group previously found that about 40,000 people are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.comment 01

It is a federal crime to cast votes if you are not legally eligible to vote. Non-citizens, whether in the country legally or not, are prohibited from voting in most local and all state and federal elections. Yet the VVA investigation found that hundreds of non-citizens have been voting in Frederick County, Maryland. One in seven Maryland residents are non-U.S. citizens.comment 02

“The lawsuit is the equivalent of the lookout spotting the iceberg ahead of the Titanic,” state Del. Pat McDonough told the Tatler. He added that the group’s investigation found a voter fraud “smoking gun.”

Maryland state law makes it easier for non-citizens, both those present legally and those in the country against the law, to vote. Maryland issues drivers licenses to legal and illegal aliens. Driver’s licenses in turn make it easier under the Motor Voter law to register to vote. Maryland also offers copious taxpayer-funded social programs to non-citizens in the state.

The group filed suit in Baltimore’s U.S. District Court on Friday. They are suing the Frederick County Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Del. Pat McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford Counties) detailed the alleged fraud in a Maryland press conference today. He is calling for a special state prosecutor because the fraud may be taking place statewide, with significant impact on Maryland elections. Maryland currently holds 10 electoral votes in presidential elections. McDonough is also proposing legislation including voter ID to close the loopholes that he says non-citizens are using to cast votes.comment 03

Article collective closing


Company Fires Employee For Having Gun…IN HIS OWN HOME


Posted by Tony Oliva on Oct 9, 2014




Under the guise of “zero tolerance”, gun hating private community Lakes of the Four Seasons (LOFS) has fired a seasonal landscaping George Washington regarding 2nd Amandmentemployee of 21 years because he was a gun owner.  And no, I don’t mean that he was carrying a gun while working, nor did he have a gun in his car on LOFS property.

Nino Ferlaino had worked for LOFS for 21 years before this summer when, in conversation amongst coworkers, he acknowledged that he believed in the 2nd Amendment and kept a gun at home.

Two days following this conversation, on July 2nd, Ferlaino’s supervisor, Doug Weiss, approached him and asked him if he carried a gun. Ferlaino admitted that he owned a gun but never carried it while working.

Let me interject something.  While in Ferlaino’s mind he was just having a pleasant break time conversation among coworkers, someone in that group heard “gun owner” and went bat-poo crazy and no doubt started telling everyone that Ferlaino was carrying machine guns and weeds weren’t the only thing he was looking to whack.   Such is the demented mindset of hoplophobes, that they wet their pants at the mere notion of someone owner a gun.

So, due to this hoplophobia, Weiss informed Ferlaino that he had met with the property owners association’s board of directors July 1 and that Ferlaino’s conversation with his co-workers violated the company’s “no tolerance policy.”  As such, he was fired effective immediately.

There is SO much wrong with this cluster flop.  Like, how exactly is the simple fact of being a gun owner a violation of any policy?  After 21 years Mr. Ferlaino doesn’t get a warning or a reprimand but rather summarily fired?  Also, Ferlaino doesn’t get a chance to answer any of this before being fired?  I mean, even when Weiss spoke to him on July 2nd the decision was all ready made on July 1st.

Criminals and DictatorsThanks to the forward thinking of the State of Indiana, not only is the LOFS actions immoral and unethical but they are also ILLEGAL.

It is that last part that has brought on the lawsuit by Ferlaino against the Property Owners Association.  According to Ferlaino’s attorney, Marissa McDermott:

The association violated Indiana’s “take your gun to work law,” which was amended in 2011, because it required Ferlaino to divulge information about owing a gun and fired him because he’s a gun owner.

Also, even if Ferlaino had brought his gun to work and left it secured in his car, the law forbids employers from punishing employees who exercise that option.

Not only is Ferlaino is seeking actual and punitive damages, attorney fees etc. he’s also asking a judge to order the property owners association to refrain from engaging in similar practices with regard to other employees.

Though I’ve no doubt that a hit to the pocket books of these bigoted wannabee thought police members of the LOFS Property Owner’s Association will be an added reminder not to oppress those who choose to exercise their rights when it has nothing to do with work.

I wish Ferlaino luck in his lawsuit and hope he is compensated accordingly.

Article collective closing

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: