Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Michigan’

In Wake of Paris Terrorist Attacks, Here’s a Map of the States Shutting Their Doors to Syrian Refugees


waving flagReported by Kelsey Harkness / / November 16, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/16/in-wake-of-paris-terrorist-attacks-15-states-shut-their-doors-to-syrian-refugees/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRous6TAZKXonjHpfsX74%2BokW6S2hYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcFmMLrYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

On Monday and into Tuesday, more than two dozen governors moved to block Syrian refugees from entering their states. (Photo: Kelsey Lucas/Visualsey)

In the aftermath of Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris, governors across the United States are attempting to shut their doors on Syrian refugees looking to find a safe haven in the country. As of Monday evening, more than two dozen governors announced opposition to policies that would permit Syrian refugees to enter their states amid concerns they could have ties to terrorists.

Thus far, states whose governors oppose more Syrian refugees include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Kentucky Gov.-elect Matt Bevin, who will take office Dec. 8, also said he opposes resettlement efforts.

The movement, which was overwhelmingly spearheaded by Republican governors, came after French prosecutors discovered a Syrian passport on one of the suspected Islamic State suicide bombers in Paris. That finding raised concerns that terrorists are embedding with refugees to enter Europe and other nations.Do you want

The series of attacks in Paris on Friday night left more than 130 dead and hundreds others injured. French President François Hollande called the attacks an “act of war” and launched airstrikes against ISIS.

President Barack Obama sharply pushed back against the growing number of states attempting to undermine his policies surrounding Syrian refugees, saying Monday at a press conference in Antalya, Turkey, that it would be “shameful” and “not American” to close America’s doors on Syrian refugees.

“When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” he said. “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”DELUSIONAL

In September, Obama vowed to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States next year.

As of Nov. 3, there were more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency.

Those issuing executive orders to block refugees pushed back on the president’s narrative while announcing their decision.

“Michigan is a welcoming state, and we are proud of our rich history of immigration,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents.”

In a letter addressed to the president, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said, “Neither you nor any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity. As such, opening our door to them irresponsibly exposes our fellow Americans to unacceptable peril.”Islam is NOT

While their responses send a clear message to the president, John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said the practical implications blocking refugees are limited.

“Governors can certainly order state agencies to stop doing anything to assist federal authorities with their resettlement efforts, but they cannot stop federal authorities from continuing those efforts, nor can they stop immigrants who are lawfully admitted to this country from moving to and settling in those states,” Malcolm said. “They can, however, ask state law enforcement authorities to keep an eye on the refugees who settle in their states, so long as those authorities do so within the bounds of the Constitution.”

“It’s abhorrent for the federal government not to consult with and consider the interests of the states,” added Jim Carafano, a foreign policy expert at The Heritage Foundation. “Particularly the views of governors, as it impacts the welfare and public safety of their citizens.”America Never Forget

Florida Gov. Rick Scott addressed those concerns in a letter sent to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. In that letter, dated Nov. 16, Scott wrote:

[I]t is our understanding that the state does not have the authority to prevent the federal government from funding the relocation of these Syrian refugees to Florida even without state support. Therefore, we are asking the United States Congress to take immediate and aggressive action to prevent President Obama and his administration from using any federal tax dollars to fund the relocation of up to 425 Syrian refugees (the total possible number of refugees pending for state relocation support at this time) to Florida, or anywhere in the United States, without an extensive evaluation of the risk these individuals may post to our national security.AMEN

muslim-obamaIn response, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced legislation on Monday afternoon that would suspend issuance of visas to refugees from countries with a high risk of terrorism until the U.S. Department of Homeland Security meets certain standards. Those standards include fingerprinting and screening all refugees, implement a tracking system “to catch attempted overstays,” and enhancing security measures that are already in place.

“The time has come to stop terrorists from walking in our front door. The Boston Marathon bombers were refugees, and numerous refugees from Iraq, including some living in my hometown, have attempted to commit terrorist attacks,” Paul said in a press release.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, also called to suspend the refugee program.

“The Syrian refugee program should be suspended until the American people are satisfied that they know exactly who the president is admitting into the country via this program,” Burr said. “There is simply too much at stake, and the security of the American people should be our top priority.”

This article and its accompanying map has been updated to reflect the growing number of governors who do not wish to permit Syrian refugees into their state. of domenstic terrorist

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

THIS U.S. CITY: Moves To Start A Muslim Government – And The Media Is SILENT


waving flagWritten by Thomas Holmes on November 5, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/11/this-u-s-city-moves-to-start-a-muslim-government-and-the-media-is-silent/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:9760859&utm_campaign=This%20U.S.%20City%20Moves%20To%20Start%20A%20Muslim%20Government%20%E2%80%93%20And%20The%20Media%20Is%20SILENT

America Never Forget

And so it begins. I guess America was feeling a little left out of all the Muslim influence in western democracies like Britain and Australia. We want our fair share of Islamic indoctrination too. And now, a suburb of Detroit has stepped up and elected the first Muslim majority city council in American history. The Polish settled town of Hamtramck, Michigan voted Muslim in four of the six council elections in what is generally considered a reflection of the town’s changing demographics. It wasn’t even that close. Muslims were the top three vote getters.

city

Got-Quran_thumb1-300x228To be fair, two of the Muslims were actually re-elected. And while we’re not talking about the Islamists who boycotted the police in Australia, this is the same city that saw no problem voting unanimously in 2004 to allow the mosques to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer. Look, I’d love nothing more than to report this as a great step for new believers in America and immigrants who reflect constitutional ideals. Unfortunately, last I checked, this is still the same religion whose highest leadership defines its faith on Sharia Law and destroying America.

Beside the questions about empowering people of a dangerous and violent faith, despite their individual integrity, there’s the issue of diversity. Of course, don’t tell this reporter that there’s a diversity problem. As he rambles on about Hamtramck’s new reflection he seems happy to ignore the fact that the city council’s “diversity” is 67% one faith and ethnic background. Don’t even get into the question of political diversity.

Apparently, ethnic majorities are only a problem when were dealing with Caucasian males.Islam is NOT In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Islamic News

Tagged with:

Court says Police Can’t Force Christians to SHUT UP Just because Muslims are Violent


waving flagBy / 2 November 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://eaglerising.com/25739/court-says-police-cant-force-christians-to-shut-up-just-because-muslims-are-violent

against AmericaAmerica Never Forget

Often, when there is a confrontation of free speech in the public square and one side becomes violent, police want to step in and instead of dealing with the violent party, they will remove the law-abiding citizens “for their own safety.” It is clearly a violation of the right of the people to assemble, as well as a free speech violation. Now, a US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled constitutionally when it comes to police attempting to remove Christians from public areas just because Muslims threaten them with violence.

Bob Unruh reports:

The case was brought by Bible Believers, Ruben Israel, Arthur Fisher and Joshua DeLosSantos against Wayne County, Michigan, Sheriff Benny Napoleon and deputies Dennis Richardson and Mike Jaafar.

It cited the plaintiffs’ messages on signs and T-shirts that included “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder,” “Turn or Burn,” “Fear God,” “Jesus Is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All Others are Thieves and Robbers” and “Prepare to Meet Thy God – Amos 4:12.”

The Christians also began their walk carrying a pole with a pig’s head attached to the top, further angering the Muslim crowd.

The opinion noted that two types of speech are unprotected, incitement to riot and fighting words.

The judges found any advocacy for the use of force or lawless behavior is “absent from the record in this case.” And the judges found regarding fighting words, “the average individual attending the festival did not react with violence, and of the group made up of mostly adolescents, only a certain percentage engaged in bottle throwing.”

The opinion cited the “heckler’s veto” concept of one person or group silencing others by threatening violence.

Cops Remove ChristiansWhile lower courts ruled that police could issue unlawful commands to Christians to remove themselves from the public square because of lawless threats against them by Muslims at the International Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned those rulings by stating, “We find that defendants violated the Bible Believers’ First Amendment rights because there can be no legitimate dispute based on this record that the [county and officers] effectuated a heckler’s veto by cutting off the Bible Believers’ protected speech in response to a hostile crowd’s reaction.”

“The First Amendment offers sweeping protection that allows all manner of speech to enter the marketplace of ideas,” the ruling added. “This protection applies to loathsome and unpopular speech with the same force as it does to speech that is celebrated and widely accepted. The protection would be unnecessary if it only served to safeguard the majority views. In fact, it is the minority view, including expressive behavior that is deemed distasteful and highly offensive to the vast majority of people, that most often needs protection under the First Amendment.”

The incident in question occurred in 2012. Many Christian apologists attend the festival to share the Gospel with Muslims who are willing to listen. However, often the confrontations are not exactly positive, but do become violent. Take a look at this video from 2012 at the festival in which Muslims assaulted Christians with milk crates, glass bottles, eggs and whatever else they could get their hands on.

The American Freedom Law Center co-founder and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise, who worked on the case said, “This was a complete victory for the Constitution and for all freedom-loving Americans who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. This decision makes clear that the First Amendment protects speech critical of Islam and that when the government seeks to suppress such speech by enforcing a heckler’s veto that favors the violent Muslim mob over the free speech rights of Christians, the government will pay dearly for this egregious violation of the Constitution.”Different Free Speech Ideologies

“Kudos to Judge Clay and the majority. Judge Rogers’s dissenting opinion, on the other hand, speaks volumes about how progressives (be they Republicans or Democrats) view the Bill of Rights,” added AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi.  “For Judge Rogers, there is one constitution for minorities and quite a lesser document for those perceived to be in the majority. The former’s speech is protected; the latter’s is protected only up to the point that some minority – especially Muslims – protests or, as in this case, engages in violence by attacking the speaker. In this case, the Christians and the Constitution did not lie down and roll over. This is an example where lawfare, fought on behalf of liberty, has moved the proverbial mountain and buried the jihadi’s heckler’s veto six feet under.”Free Speech Definition

In 2013, the City of Dearborn actually had to apologize to Christians for arresting them “for their own safety” at the Arab festival.

This is a huge win for Christians in the public square. Now, if we can just get those who are entrusted to keep the peace to actually do that by arresting those who act unlawfully and protecting those who are doing good, then all will be well.

from Freedom Outpost

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

States move to counter gay marriage ruling


By Tim Devaney – 06/30/15

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/246582-states-move-to-counter-gay-marriage-ruling

burke

More than a dozen states that saw gay marriage bans struck down last week by the U.S.  Supreme Court are vowing to protect religious liberty, even though they grudgingly accept that the ruling is now the law of the land.

  • In the wake of Friday’s decision, Texas’s attorney general told county clerks in the state that they have a statutory right to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have religious objections to gay marriage.
  • In Alabama, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage — said a new state court order could temporarily delay the practice, only to walk back the remarks.
  • And in Louisiana, the attorney general contends there is nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling that renders it effective immediately, raising questions about how soon the state would have to comply. Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Many other states across the South and upper Midwest are criticizing the ruling as an encroachment on states’ rights and religious freedom, though most acknowledge they cannot ignore it. “Ultimately, my position is that the state should have been legally entitled to define marriage,” South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley told The Hill. “I feel the state has traditionally held that role, and certainly when it’s in the state’s constitution it should be respected.” “But we are a nation of laws and we must respect that,” he added.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, those states and 11 others — Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Tennessee — had laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Though not outright defying the high court’s decision, states are now seeking to make clear the limits of its scope. “The ruling does not tell a minister or congregation what they must do, but it does make clear that the government cannot pick and choose when it comes to issuing marriage licenses and the benefits they confer,” said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway.Giant Government Compliance Officer

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the state would issue exemptions to county clerks, judges and justices of the peace who express religious objections to issuing gay marriage licenses, promising to “defend their religious beliefs.” “The government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections,” Paxton said, accusing the Supreme Court of “ignoring the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist.”

In cases where there are objections, however, other public officials would issue the documents.

A federal judge ruled in May that Alabama’ s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional and stayed her opinion until the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. This week, Moore — the state Supreme Court’s chief justice — initially said a new motion in the earlier case would effectively table Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, a case known as Obergefell v. Hodges.
But same-sex marriage advocates argued that the order has no tangible effects thanks to a federal injunction, and Moore later backed away from the assertion. “In no way does the order instruct probate judges of this State as to whether or not they should comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell,” he said.SCOTUS GIANT

Still, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange accused the Supreme Court of “overturning centuries of tradition and the will of the citizens.” “I expect the focus will now turn to the exercise of one’s religious liberty,” Strange said.

A number of attorneys general also complained that the Supreme Court’s decision infringes on states’ right to define marriage how they see fit. Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said the court’s ruling “overturns the will of the people of Louisiana, and it takes away a right that should have been left to the states.”

Caldwell is threatening to essentially disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling for the time being, saying there is “nothing in [the] decision that makes the court’s order effective immediately. Therefore, there is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana.”

Gay rights activists warn that any acts of perceived defiance would threaten to undermine the legal system. “It’s a dangerous message for southern governors to disobey an order from the Supreme Court,” said Marc Solomon, national campaign director at Freedom to Marry. “The notion that public employees get to pick and choose which laws they follow based on their religious beliefs is a really dangerous precedent and a terrible public policy,” he added. “If you’re a public official, you need to carry out those laws, and you don’t get to decide whether they’re right or wrong.”
Big Gay Hate Machine
The attorneys general in North Dakota and Mississippi both said they are waiting on other court cases to be resolved before they enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Other states like Ohio and Nebraska expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court was interfering with their marriage laws but also indicated they would respect the ruling.

And top officials in a handful of states that formerly banned gay marriage are now welcoming the Supreme Court’s ruling. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said he would move swiftly to recognized same-sex marriage in the wake of the court’s ruling. “The history of our country has always been one of moving toward inclusion and equality,” Koster said in a statement. “I applaud the court for their courage and strong sense of fairness. Missourians should be seen as equals under the law; regardless of their gender, race, or whom they love.”It HasNever Been About Marriage

Austin Yack, Hanna Krueger, Kate Hardiman and Rachel Ravina contributed.

freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Couples Have Right To Marry Nationwide


June 26, 2015 12:15 PM

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-couples-have-right-to-marry-nationwide
Supreme Court Decision

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. Gay rights supporters cheered, danced and wept outside the court when the decision was announced.

The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that same-sex marriage must be allowed under the United States Constitution.

“No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

“From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations,” Kennedy wrote.want_rel_liberty_r

Kennedy also wrote the court’s previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions. As Kennedy read his opinion, spectators in the courtroom wiped away tears after the import of the decision became clear. One of those in the audience was James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court fight. Outside, Obergefell held up a photo of his late spouse, John, and said the ruling establishes that “our love is equal.” He added, “This is for you, John.”Big Gay Hate Machine

President Barack Obama placed a congratulatory phone call to Obergefell, which he took amid a throng of reporters outside the courthouse.

Kennedy was joined by the four liberal justices of the court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, and all wrote separate dissents.

Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”

Roberts said gay marriage supporters should celebrate, but don’t celebrate the Constitution.

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Roberts wrote.

Scalia wrote his dissent “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a  majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves,” Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”

Obama called the ruling a “big step in our march toward equality.” In a statement in the Rose Garden, Obama said that justice arrived like a thunderbolt. “This ruling is a victory for America,” Obama said. The president thanked gay rights supporters who worked tirelessly for this cause. “America’s a place where you can write your own destiny,” he said.tyrants

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton weighed in, calling the ruling a “historic victory for marriage equality.”War on Christians

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said in a statement that the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to decide. “Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments,” the former Florida governor said. “In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser celebrated the ruling saying the court’s recognition of same-sex marriage as a right in every state “affirms our democratic values, that each of us is equal.”Clinton Democrat Party

The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples. The decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as October, just over one-third of the states permitted same-sex marriage.

There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA’s Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.

The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department’s decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

(TM and © Copyright 2015 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2015 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)The Lower you go burke freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Individual Health Plan Costs On The Rise Due To Obamacare


waving flagJune 5, 2015 By

Screen Shot 2015-06-05 at 11.42.37 AM

Complete MessageIf you live in a state without its own Obamacare health exchange, you can expect to see individual insurance premiums rise sharply in anticipation of an upcoming Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of federal subsidies to consumers there.

Such is the case in Michigan, in which seventeen of 21 health insurers selling coverage at HealthCare.gov. are requesting rate hikes. Premium increases  from 5% to a whopping 37% are being sought by more than half of the insurers beginning in January under the Affordable Care Act, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services said Monday.  The requests require approval of the state insurance agency.

The nation’s highest court is expected to rule this month on the King v. Burwell case concerning the legality of federal subsidies paid to customers in the 36 states that use the federal Health Insurance Marketplace at HealthCare.gov; 14 states have their own marketplaces.

88% of consumers on Michigan’s health exchange receive some kind of subsidy according to Rick Murdock, executive director of the Michigan Association of Health Plans, which represents most insurers in the state. More than 341,000 Michiganians purchased insurance on the health exchange. The average premium paid by consumers was $130, with a savings of $236 because of the premium tax credit, according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Murdock suggested that insurers may be adjusting for a potential loss of business if federal subsidies are eliminated and consumers abandon their policies.

Similarly, North Carolina’s largest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, stated that it seeks to raise individual healthcare premiums by 13.5% for Obamacare compliant plans, affecting some 315,000 consumers in that state.

Nationwide, insurance companies want rate hikes of over 10% in 37 states.

According to the CMS, more than 8 in 10 individuals who selected a 2015 plan through HealthCare.gov qualified for an average advanced premium tax credit of $263 per person per month. That is $263 per month- or $3,156 per year- that taxpayers must subsidize per person for over 80% of consumers on Obamacare approved plans.  These are plans that must include unnecessary coverage of myriad specialty drugs and procedures under the federal government’s one size fits all mandates.

The Democrats just had to “pass the bill to find out what was in it,” and we are now witness to the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of a disastrous bill designed to provide health insurance to the 10% of uninsured Americans, all at the expense of the 90% who were perfectly happy with the plan they had.

While Obama insisted that premiums would decrease by $2500 per person, the reality is much different; rising healthcare premiums for all, along with unsustainable subsidies in the form of tax credits to enlarge the ever increasing entitlement class in a country holding more than $18 trillion in national debt.Liberalism a mental disorder 2
The looming Supreme Court will hopefully rule that the federal government has acted illegally in forcing taxpayers nationwide to subsidize residents of states which have chosen to not be party to the one of the most audacious pieces of legislation ever passed.  What happens afterwards is anybody’s guess, but one thing is certain; increasing premiums and chaos in the US healthcare system are imminent.

Please Sign the Tea Party petition HERE to send a message and demand once again that our Congressmen repeal the (Un)Affordable Care Act NOW.

freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Snyder signs suspicion-based drug testing bills


Associated Press 7:18 p.m. EST December 26, 2014

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/26/snyder-sigsn-suspicion-based-drug-testing-bills/20918625/

LANSING — Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation today that creates a drug-testing program for adult welfare recipients who are suspected of using drugs.

The Republican-backed proposals, House Bill 4118 and Senate Bill 275, were among several bills approved by Snyder. The one-year pilot program will be implemented in three counties that have not yet been determined.

Under the program, welfare recipients or applicants suspected of drug use will be required to take a substance abuse test. Refusal to take the test will result in being ineligible for benefits for six months.

A positive drug test would lead to referrals to treatment programs. If an individual refuses to participate in the program or fails to submit to periodic substance abuse testing required under the program, their assistance will be terminated. Benefits can be restored after a person passes a substance abuse test. 

“We want to remove the barriers that are keeping people from getting good jobs, supporting their families and living independently,” Snyder said in a press release. “This pilot program is intended to help ensure recipients get the wrap-around services they need to overcome drug addiction and lead successful lives. We’ll then have opportunity to assess effectiveness and outcomes.”

Opponents of the legislation, including the Michigan League for Public Policy, have said similar programs in other states haven’t saved taxpayers money. The nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency estimated a statewide program would cost roughly $700,000 to $3.4 million, while potentially saving $370,000 to $3.7 million in caseload reductions.

The American Civil Liberties Union has said the program would promote ugly stereotypes of poor people and discriminate against a group that doesn’t use drugs at a rate significantly higher than the general population.

“We give out tax credits to schools, we give out tax credits to students, we give out tax credits to police and fire (departments),” Sen. Vincent Gregory, D-Southfield, said earlier this year on the Senate floor. “And yet the only (group) that we are now saying is subject to drug screening are the poor — the poorest of the poor.”more evidence

Bills aim to keep Michigan kids in school, reduce truancy and chronic absence

Michigan has roughly 80,000 welfare recipients, 21,000 of them adults age 18 and older who could be subject to drug testing depending on which counties are selected for the pilot.

The pilot program must be completed by Sept. 30, 2016.

Snyder also signed bills Friday that extend the Michigan film credit program by seven years to 2021; update who can administer the oath of office for state representatives and senators to include the secretary of the Michigan Senate and clerk of the Michigan House of Representatives; and allow cemetery owners to recover burial rights for abandoned burial plots.

He vetoed legislation that would have established procedures for naming Michigan delegates and alternates to a federal constitutional convention, in the event one is called.Picture1

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

School Assignment on Islam Left This Mother in Disbelief


Obamacare

by / on October 6, 2014 at 9:27 am

Jennette Hall, whose 10th grade daughter attends Jenison Public School in Jenison, Michigan, was astonished after she saw the assignment her daughter received in her World History class on Islam.

School Assignment on Islam Left This Mother in Disbelief

The assignment directed students to make a pamphlet which would then be created to fit curriculum suitable for third graders.

“It was an assignment given to my 10th grade daughter in her World History class. The assignment was to make a pamphlet geared toward a third grade audience. They did not actually hand them out to third graders. This assignment upset me because they are teaching that Allah is the same God of the Christians and Jews. This paper, in my opinion, is promoting Islam by describing Allah’s names as beautiful. To me this is not simply factual as it should be. I have a meeting on Tuesday with the principle of Jenison High School to discuss my concerns.”

school 01

school 02

Imperial Islamic President ObamaNot only was the assignment riddled with inaccuracies where it states that Christians, Jews, and all other religions worship the same “god” as Muslims, it is full of propaganda — stating that the Muslims’ god “Allah” is the “ONE and ONLY GOD.”

The assignment then goes on to paint the prophet Muhammad as the wonderful and peaceful messenger of “God” whose spiritual revelation produced Islam. They leave out the historical FACTS, however, that Muhammad was a mass murderer, terrorist, misogynist, cult leader, rapist, torturer, assassin, narcissist, and not to mention a pedophile — who married his child bride Aisha when she was just six years old.

Below is a the text version of the assignment the students received:

Part 1: Introducing Islam

Islam and Muslims- The name of this religion is Islam, the root of which is SILM and SALAM, which means “peace.” SALAM may also mean, greeting one another with peace. One of the beautiful names of god, is that he is the peace. It means more than that; submission to the ONE GOD, and to live in peace with the creator within oneself, with other people, and with the environment. Thus, Islam is a total system of living. A Muslim is supposed to live in peace and harmony with all these segments; hence, a Muslim is any person, anywhere in the world whose obedience, allegiance, and loyalty are to god, the LORD of the universe.

Part 2: Muslims and Arabs

The followers of Islam are called Muslims. Muslims are not to be confused with Arabs. Muslims may be Arabs, Turks, Persians, Indians, Pakistanis, Malaysians, Indonesians, Europeans, Africans, Americans, Chinese, or other nationalities.

An Arab could be a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, or an Atheist. Any person who adopts the Arabic language is called an Arab. However, the language of the “Quran” the holy book of Islam, is Arabic. Muslims all over the world try to learn Arabic so that they can read the Quran and understand its meaning. They pray in the language of the Quran; namely, Arabic.

Supplications to god to be in any language. While there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, there are about 200 million Arabs. Among them, approximately about 10 percent are not Muslim. Thus, Arab Muslims constitute only about 20 percent of the Muslim population of the world.

Part 3: Allah The One and the Only God

Allah is the name of the one and only god. Allah has 99 beautiful names, such as: the gracious, the merciful, the beneficent, the creator, the all-knowing, the all-wise, the lord of the universe, the first, the last, and others.

He is the creator of all human beings. He is the god for the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Atheists, and others. Muslims worship God whose name is “Allah.” They put their trust in him, and they seek his trust and his guidance.

Part 4: Muhammad

Muhammad was chosen by God to deliver his message of peace, namely Islam. He was born in 570 CE (Common Era) in Makkah, Arabia. He was trusted with the message of Islam when he was at the age of 40 years. The revelation that he received is called the Quran, while the message is called Islam.

Are you outraged yet? It looks as though the mom is handling the situation adequately so far, with her plans to pay the principal of the school a little visit and voice her concerns. If students are taught anything about Islam, it should be based on facts and current events. If the school wants to show the truth about Islam, perhaps they should show the students a couple of beheading videos so they can see first hand what this “peaceful” religion is truly all about.why

Article collective closing

Category:

Education

Tagged with:

Nanny State Pushes Sex On Children


New Medical Law Mandates “Private” Conversation With Child Before Every Doctor Visit

Parental authority being eviscerated by the state

 http://www.infowars.com/new-medical-law-mandates-private-conversation-with-child-before-every-doctor-visit/

by Paul Joseph Watson | June 6, 2014

When Michigan mother Christine Duffy brought her 17-year-old daughter into her physician’s office for a minor foot injury, she was told that a new medical access law required a nurse to have a “private” conversation with her child, another example of how parental authority is being eviscerated by the state.

Duffy’s experience is best explained in her own words;

“I was there last week for an appointment for Amy. She hurt her foot, which makes dancing difficult, so we had to get that checked out. Amy is 17; I asked if this policy was in effect and if so, how could I opt out. The receptionist told me it’s a new law and there is no opting out. Working to keep my cool, I said, “I’m sure there is.” She said, “No, there isn’t.” At which point I asked if I needed to leave and go to the urgent care center because I was not submitting my daughter to such a conversation.’

“That did not go over well.’

‘The receptionist closed the window. Almost immediately, the office manager turned the corner and said, “Mrs. Duffy, may I speak with you?”’

“She said there was a new policy that would allow a child to access his/her medical records online and the child would be allowed to block a parent from viewing the website. The nurse would also inform my children that the doctor’s office is a safe place for them to receive information about STDs, HIV and birth control. That is what the nurse would be chatting about with my children without any pesky parental oversight.’

“I kindly informed her that no one would be talking with my children privately, and I needed to know how to opt out of this policy before bringing Amy back for her physical next month. (Yay for physicals! Amy is so excited.)’

“By this time, the doctor was ready to see Amy so I had to cut the conversation short because I was not letting my girl out of my eyesight or earshot. Not when it was clear that these people were angling to undermine my parental authority.’

“Does that sound a bit dramatic to you? It shouldn’t. Because that is exactly what they are trying to do.”

police_state

Duffy went on to assert her right as a parent to decide what her daughter should be told about sex or birth control. She also cited the potential of teenage boys being given condoms by doctors in defiance of parental encouragement to abstain from having sex before marriage.

In addition to the conversation about birth control and STDs, previous examples have taught us that nurses sometimes quiz children about domestic abuse, to the point where an accident or an incident where the child was spanked can escalate into a full blown CPS investigation.

This case highlights how the state, primarily via the schooling system and health care, is moving aggressively to curtail parental authority and set the precedent that the government is responsible for protecting children from their own parents.

“We are living in a new America, one in which officials and their subordinates will stop at nothing to control every aspect of our lives, as well as those of our children,” writes Mac Slavo, adding, “With tens of thousands of laws on the books and more coming, it is only a matter of time before the government will have given themselves permission to do whatever they like with you… and your children.”

Last month we reported on how EMS workers told a mother who homeschooled her children that they were “agents of the state,” before proceeding to conduct an inspection of her home.

The increasing effort to characterize children as property of the state was perhaps best emphasized in a recent MSNBC promotional video which featured host Melissa Harris-Perry decrying the “private notion of children” and that “kids belong to their parents or their families” in favor of a “collective notion” that “kids belong to whole communities.”

msmbc

Sounds Like

Liberals will make their perverted believes the norm in society.

Alex Jones covers the new medical laws in Michigan that says Drs will have a confidential meeting with children privately without parental supervision to turn them into Nanny-State snitches for the system. See Alex below:

nanny

30 Witnesses disappearSorry YetVOTE 02

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

We are Getting Closer to a “Convention of States”


Did Michigan just trigger ‘constitutional convention’? Bid gains steam

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/rare-option-forcing-congress-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/

Barnini Chakraborty

By

Published April 02, 2014

FoxNews.com

constitution_internal.jpg

National Archives

WASHINGTON –  Momentum is building behind what would be an unprecedented effort to amend the U.S. Constitution, through a little-known provision that gives states rather than Congress the power to initiate changes.

At issue is what’s known as a “constitutional convention,” a scenario tucked into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. At its core, Article V provides two ways for amendments to be proposed. The first – which has been used for all 27 amendment to date – requires two-thirds of both the House and Senate to approve a resolution, before sending it to the states for ratification. The Founding Fathers, though, devised an alternative way which says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a meeting, Congress “shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”

The idea has gained popularity among constitutional scholars in recent years — but got a big boost last week when Michigan lawmakers endorsed it.

Michigan matters, because by some counts it was the 34th state to do so. That makes two-thirds.

In the wake of the vote, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter pressed House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday to determine whether the states just crossed the threshold for this kind of convention. Like Michigan lawmakers, Hunter’s interest in the matter stems from a desire to push a balanced-budget amendment — something that could potentially be done at a constitutional convention.

“Based on several reports and opinions, Michigan might be the 34th state to issue such a call and therefore presents the constitutionally-required number of states to begin the process of achieving a balanced budget amendment,” Hunter wrote.

“With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment — determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case.”

If two-thirds of the states indeed have applied, the ball is presumably in Congress’ court to call the convention.

But Article V is rather vague, and it’s ultimately unclear whether 34 states have technically applied. In the past, states like Oregon, Utah and Arizona have quietly voted to approve the provision in their legislature.

But some of the 34 or so have rescinded their requests. Others have rescinded, and then re-applied.

Alabama rescinded its request in 1988 but in 2011, lawmakers again applied for a convention related to an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced. It was a similar story in Florida in 2010.

Louisiana rescinded in 1990 but lawmakers have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reinstate the application since then.

It’s unclear whether the applications still count in these scenarios.

Some constitutional scholars like Gregory Watson, an analyst in Texas, say once states ask, there may be no take-backs.

“There is a disagreement among scholars as to whether a state that has approved an application may later rescind that application,” Watson told The Washington Times. “If it is ultimately adjudicated that a state may not rescind a prior application, then Ohio’s 2013 application for a Balanced Budget Amendment convention would be the 33rd and Michigan’s 2014 application would be the 34th on that topic.”

Others say if a state changes its mind, it can no longer be part of the 34.

Even if the requisite number of states have applied, questions remain about how such a convention would work — and whether, as Michigan wants, such a convention could be limited to only discussing a balanced-budget amendment.

It still may be a long shot, but some analysts are warning about the unintended consequences of such a move.

In Louisiana, Budget Project Policy Analyst Steve Spire argued against the state’s resolution, saying the convention could permanently damage the nation’s political system.

The last time there was a successful amendment was more than four decades ago – the 26th Amendment which changed the voting age to 18. States ratified the 27th Amendment on congressional pay increases, but it took more than 200 years to do it.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud