Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Supreme Court’

GAYS ADMIT THEY WERE NOT BORN ‘THAT WAY’: Shocking Undercover Video Footage Right HERE


waving flagPosted on April 27, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/04/gays-admit-they-were-not-born-that-way-shocking-undercover-video-footage-right-here/#

They just affirm what many of us have already believed.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Citizen Journalist, Ryan Sorba recently went undercover in Palm Springs, California, posing as a same-sex marriage activist.
He asked the following question:

Do you believe being gay is strictly genetic?”

The video enclosed in this email is a montage of clips from interviews in which gays admit that they believe they are gay due external circumstances, such as being sexually abused at an early age or going through other traumatic experiences.
When asked how many interviews Sorba obtained during this venture, he answered, “There are many more to come.”
This video is a crucial component to the upcoming Supreme Court marriage decision because it gives natural marriage proponents what they need to neutralize any personal testimony that being gay is an immutable characteristic such as race.
 
The video is particularly relevant because in all the past cases in which the courts ruled in favor of overturning state Marriage Amendments, which protected marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, they did so by reasoning that being gay is on the same footing as race and therefore protected by the Due Process Claus of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, they state the oft repeated claim that, ‘gays are born that way’ in order to achieve Suspect Class Status under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In order to be deemed a Suspect Class under the Civil Rights Act a group must meet three criteria.
1. The group must have suffered a long history of discrimination
2. The group must be politically powerless to help themselves
3. The group must have been “born that way”
There is no scientific proof that people are ‘born gay.’ In order to argue that individuals are born that way lawyers have relied on carefully selected personal testimonies. Carefully selected personal testimonies can obviously rely on biased individuals however who have ulterior motives. For this reason I decided to go undercover to find out the truth from gays themselves. I was surprised by how easy it was to get gays to talk openly about the fact that they believe personal experiences were to blame and many of them stated that they had been in love with a women or were originally attracted to women until abuse occurred.
The video confirms that sexuality is not fixed like race or gender. “That’s what we have known all along. The emotions are fluid.” Modern behaviorist psychology has shown that the nervous system is a blank slate. We can be conditioned to feel this way about that, or that way about this. As can be seen in this video, being gay seems to have something to do with unresolved emotional issues.
“I feel for the people interviewed in this video and wish the best for them all. By way of this video, these people have been placed into the cross-fire of the culture war, but I have no regrets. The truth in this case is far too important for America. The truth had to come out of the closet before the Supreme Court heard the case for Marriage on Tuesday. The institution of marriage is far more important than any one of us,” statedSorba.

View Video for Yourself Below:
v01
OARLogo Picture6

The Supreme Court Will Turn the Bible into Mein Kampf


waving flagBy: Bryan Fischer; Posted: Thursday, April 23, 2015

 Bryan Fischer Host of “Focal Point” Connect Follow More Articles

“Anyone who thinks I am exaggerating has not been paying attention.”

The Supreme Court will entertain oral arguments on natural marriage versus sodomy-based marriage on April 28. It will issue its ruling in June.  If the Supreme Court imposes same-sex “marriage” on the United States in June, it will turn the Bible into Mein Kampf, every Bible-believing pastor and Christian into Bull Connor, every church into Bob Jones University, and the entire First Amendment into confetti. This is because the only way the Court can find for “marriage” based on what Massachusetts law still calls “the abominable and detestable crime against nature” (you can look it up) would be to treat homosexuality as the biological equivalent of race, and deserving of the same protections.

Anyone who opposes the normalization of homosexuality will be lumped by the Supreme Court together with the Nazis, the KKK, slaveholders, and Aryan supremacists. The Bible, because it regards homosexual conduct as an “abomination” and as something “dishonorable, contrary to nature, (and) shameless” (Romans 1:26-27)  will become the equivalent of Mein Kampf.

The Bible will be classified as hate speech from beginning to end, and it will not be long before efforts will be made to cp 11ban it in school and public libraries and to forbid the study of it anywhere on college campuses. Most German libraries today carry only heavily redacted versions of Mein Kampf, and it won’t be long before pressure is brought to bear to do the same with the Bible.

Bull Connor was the Democrat sheriff in Birmingham who famously turned fire hoses and police dogs on those pressing for racial equality. If homosexuality is deemed by the Supreme Court to be the equivalent of race, all sincerely devoted followers of Christ will immediately be accused by definition of being as racist, mean-spirited, and bigoted as Mr. Connor. Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

Bob Jones University, because it banned interracial dating, was stripped of its tax exempt status on the grounds that the United States should make no concessions and grant no favors to racist institutions. Every Bible-believing church in America will be tarred with the same brush. Loud, insistent calls will soon be made to strip tax exempt status from every church and every non-profit ministry which will not embrace homosexuality.

In Sweden, pastor Ake Green narrowly escaped two years in prison for preaching a sermon on the Bible’s view of homosexuality from his own pulpit in his own church. A street preacher in the UK was recently arrested and detained for declaring that homosexuality is a sin. He was even scolded by the judge for using the wrong verse from Leviticus in his preaching. As a judge, he felt himself perfectly entitled to dictate to this preacher the very content of his sermons. It won’t be long before similar pressure will be brought to bear here in America. whorshipping the US government

Christian radio stations and networks will eventually be stripped of their tax-exempt status. And since the airwaves are considered the property of the American people, the FCC will soon be pressured to take Christian programming off the airwaves altogether on the grounds that the people’s airwaves cannot be permitted to spew hate, racism and bigotry. Already in Canada, Christian programming is not allowed to deal with the subject of homosexuality at all under threat of termination. The Persecution has Begun

The First Amendment will become empty words on a meaningless page, and its lofty protections of freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly will no longer be available to servants of the Cross. Anyone who thinks I am exaggerating has not been paying attention. police_state

It truly is a parade of horribles, and the parade may begin next Tuesday. Our prayer is no longer “May God save the United States and this honorable Court” but rather “May God save the United States from this honorable Court.”OARLogo Picture6

“We the People” or “We the Judges”?


 

waving flagBy: Stephen McDowell, Posted: Saturday, April 18, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/we-the-people-or-we-the-judges/

 

Burning Constitution
Giving such power to the judiciary puts all our God-given and constitutionally secured rights in jeopardy.

 Stopping Judicial ActivismTyranney Alert

Abraham Lincoln once asked, “How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg?” According to modern courts the answer may well be five. Following a string of Federal district courts, the Supreme Court will likely rule later this year that a man and a man, or a woman and woman, is a family. They can call it so; however, just like declaring a dog has five legs, that declaration does not make it so.

In response to abusive actions of the British government, James Otis, a leader in America’s independence movement, wrote:

To say the Parliament is absolute and arbitrary is a contradiction. The Parliament cannot make 2 and 2, 5: Omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme power in a state … belongs alone to God. Parliaments are in all cases to declare what is for the good of the whole; but it is not the declaration of Parliament that makes it so: There must be in every instance a higher authority, viz. God. Should an Act of Parliament be against any of His natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity, and justice, and consequently void.[1]freedom

The Supreme Court, like the British Parliament, has made numerous declarations regarding matters of life, family, liberty, and property. Many Americans seem to think the declarations of a majority of judges are the final word.  However, they can declare all they want, but such a declaration does not make it true.

Two plus two is always four, regardless of man’s contrary view. A dog’s tail is never a leg. There are negative consequences to violating the immutable laws of God. In building a house or sending a man to the moon, saying 2+2=5 will result in trouble. Likewise, any act of man that is contrary to God’s natural laws will result in harm. However, if a few rulers make such declarations, who will hold them accountable? According to our founding governmental principles and the U.S. Constitution, it is “we the people.”

“We the people” is one fundamental component of American constitutionalism. Unlike most nations in history, America was not ruled by an elite few. All citizens had a voice in how they were governed. We did not live under rulers’ law, where an enlightened few made the laws and imposed them on the ignorant masses. Rather, a moral, self-governed citizenry formulated their own laws under the higher law of God and willingly chose to obey them. In America, “the people made the laws.”[2] This concept of self-government is one reason America was exceptional.[3]

This historically unique aspect of government – Christian self-government – is sadly being replaced by the age-old pagan concept of “rulers’ law.” Over the past few decades, activist judges have assumed the place of unelected law-makers. With little resistance or outcry from either the Congress or the general populace, we have embraced what is likely the most absurd idea in modern American polity, viz., that a handful of men and women sitting on the Supreme Court will decide for 320 million citizens what is lawful, right, and acceptable behavior.[4] These few have decided the value and origin of life, the meaning of private property, the role religion plays in public affairs, the place of religious convictions in business, and they are about to decide what constitutes a family. Most of their decisions regarding these matters have been contrary to the decrees of the Creator, Who, according to the Declaration of Independence – our founding covenant document – is the source of our life, liberty, and rights.Picture3

We are moving from a representative republic to an oligarchy, one becoming more and more oppressive, especially for those who believe in Creator-endowed rights. Most of the Founders could never envision runaway courts. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution… [T]he judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power… [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.”[5]

If the courts ever attempted to usurp legislative or executive authority, the Founders believed the Congress would rein them in, as the United States Constitution clearly gives the legislative branch (which represents and are elected by the people) the primary power in the Federal government. Just compare the length and content of Article 1 of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of Congress, with Article 3, which presents the powers of the Supreme Court: 255 lines of copy deal with the powers of Congress, 114 with the powers of the President, and only 44 with the Courts.

James Madison declared that “the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”[6] Legitimate power is derived from the people and the people only. The Founders understood the tendency of man to abuse power, therefore they separated it among three branches of government and invested most power in the people through their elected representatives. Due to ignorance, apathy, and bad education we are gradually embracing the idea of judicial supremacy, where judges not only interpret, but also make and enforce law. This is in stark contrast to the Founders view of Constitutional supremacy.

Insightfully, Thomas Jefferson did warn of potential abuse of courts, writing:

The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.[7]burke

Jefferson did not charge all judges with “willful and ill-intentional error” when their rulings worked to consolidate all power in the federal judiciary and to undermine the rule of the people under law, but he wrote that “honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin.” How was this to be done? One way, he wrote, was through the Constitutional provision of impeachment (though he lamented a supermajority of two-thirds was needed[8]):  “Judges should be withdrawn from their benches whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the Republic, which is the first and supreme law.”[9]

A more practical fix from Jefferson, and one we should institute today, was: “Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation.”[10]AMEN

Given that most Americans profess democratic ideals, you would think everyone – liberals and conservatives – would agree on curbing the aristocratic concept of judicial rule.  But alas, many folks, thinking their immoral values would more easily gain ascendency through aggressively positioning a few people on the courts rather than winning the battle of ideas in the general public, oppose restricting the judiciary. They posit various scenarios of checking the rule of the majority via enlightened judges, like asking, “What if the majority wants slavery? How would we stop this?” Yet, the more frightening (and likely) scenario is, “What if five judges want slavery?” It is much easier to get five men to embrace wrong ideas than 160 million. Moreover, it would require more than the consent of the majority to change the Constitution.Picture5

America is a Federal Republic, where certain God-given inalienable rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. Thus for slavery, or anything contrary to “the laws of nature and nature’s God”[11] to be established, it would require two-thirds of the states to approve such a measure. A two-thirds majority is significantly more difficult to obtain than the decision of five judges. Some say that the Supreme Court will never exhibit such drastic behavior or enact such rulings. But in fact it has. In the Dred Scott decision of 1857 the Supreme Court denied the personhood of blacks, and in Roe v Wade (1973) it denied the personhood of unborn children.

The courts have made numerous unconstitutional decisions (according to the intent of the Framers), especially in modern times, that have violated the will of the majority of citizens and more importantly the will of God. It has been primarily through the courts, with the rulings of a very small number of people, that a new definition of the family has been imposed upon the American people.

Recently, judges have ruled that business owners must provide services to customers even though such actions violate their strongly held religious beliefs. Florists, bakers, and photographers have been ordered to accommodate same-sex weddings or else face fines or worse. Many have chosen to close their businesses rather than violate the Christian convictions.

Homosexual activists and misguided liberals have claimed “victory,” but the rulings by these judges are both dangerous and unconstitutional. These citizens’ First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech were stripped away by a single judge. Giving such power to the judiciary puts all our God-given and constitutionally secured rights in jeopardy. What is next?

  • Our right to life,
  • or fair trial,
  • or public protest?
  • Will judges rule that you cannot run for office and even vote if you oppose homosexuality or same-sex marriage?

For the liberal thinker, what if a judge ruled only regenerated Christian believers could run for office, own property, and vote? Why would anyone, liberals included, want to trust their inalienable rights to a few judges? The people as a whole are a much better security.

With the current system of an unaccountable activist federal judiciary, many other unjust decisions will surely take place. When such rulings occur what should we do? Abraham Lincoln criticized the Supreme Court Dred Scot decision for its denial of the laws of nature and nature’s God which assert the inalienable liberty of every individual. Lincoln believed that if that court decision was the absolute law of the land, then “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”[12] It is the task of “we the people” to keep any such declarations from being incorporated into the law of the land. Most especially, we must keep a few judges (no matter how educated and “enlightened”) from imposing their morality upon the nation. But how?

Restricting Activists Judges

The Constitution provides numerous ways that Congress – the representative of “we the people” – can check activist judges. These include:

  1. Impeachment – Judges can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors (Art. II. Sec. 4). In the past, judges have been removed for public drunkenness[13] and even bad rulings.[14]
  2. Restrict jurisdiction – Congress can regulate much of the jurisdiction of the federal courts (Art. III, Sec. 2).
  3. Reorganize the courts – Congress can establish and reorganize a system of inferior Federal Courts (Art. III, Sec. 1).
  4. Cut off money – All bills raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives (Art. 1. Sec. 7, 8), hence Congress can use this power to restrict a run-away judiciary.

It would be best for competent judges[15] to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and hence, use of the above means would not be necessary. Yet, even the best of judges need to be held accountable, and the current Constitutional provisions to do so have not worked well. We should heed the advice of Jefferson and change their terms to 4 or 6 years, with re-approval needed for continued service.Picture6

Jefferson said that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal.”[16] In fact, the United States Constitution sprang from “we the people,” not from “we the elite few rulers.” It is time to return to the liberating idea of self-government. And … let’s also stop calling the tail a leg.

(This article was used with permission from the authors and Providencefoundation.com)

[1] James Otis, “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” Sources of Our Liberties, Richard L. Perry, editor, New York: American Bar Foundation, 1952, pp. 264-265

[2] Historian David Gregg, quoted in Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 1989, p. 115.

[3] Early Americans could form good and godly laws and constrain themselves to obey them because, according to Gregg, “the churches made the people.” The churches imparted the Biblical wisdom necessary to construct good laws, as well as the Biblical character necessary to live under them.

[4] Thomas Jefferson said it this way:”That there should be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency.” Letter to William T. Barry, July 2, 1822, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor, Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, 15:389.

[5] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1898, No. 78, pp. 518-519.

[6] Ibid., No. 51, p. 345.

[7] Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to Charles Hammond, Aug. 18, 1821,” The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:331-332.

[8] Jefferson said requiring two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove a judge must be changed, writing that this percentage is “a vote so impossible, where any defense is made before men of ordinary prejudices and passions, that our judges are effectually independent of the nation.” He wrote that this ought not to be and suggested that for our government to continue that judges “should be submitted to some practical and impartial control; and that this, to be impartial, must be compounded of a mixture of state and federal authorities.” (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 1:120)

[9] Jefferson’s Autobiography (1821), in Writings, 1:120-122.

[10] Letter to William T. Barry, July 2, 1822, Writings, 15:389.

[11]This phrase in the Declaration of Independence had a well established meaning. The laws of nature are the general revelation of God in creation and the conscience of man, and the laws of nature’s God are the specific revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures (see Stephen McDowell, American a Christian Nation, Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 2004, p. 7-12).

[12] Beliles and McDowell, p. 261.

[13] Judge Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached as a “habitual and maniac drunkard.” (See Thomas Jefferson’s Autobiography, in Writings, 1:121.)

[14] See David Barton, Impeachment, Restraining an Overactive Judiciary, Aledo, TX: WallBuilders, 1996.

[15] To prepare competent judges we must change the philosophy and content of what is taught in colleges and law schools.

[16] Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to William Charles Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:277.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

Picture6 OARLogo

Holder: International Law Trumps The Constitution!


who want unarmed citizens Gun Control Supporters croppedPosted by Joe Otto, Conservative Daily

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservative-daily.com/2013/11/12/holder-international-law-trumps-the-constitution/

Dear Conservative,

Every now and then, news breaks in the Obama administration that is so stereotypical, it is actually depressing. You might want to sit down for this.

Attorney General Eric Holder, made infamous by Operation Fast and Furious, is currently arguing before the Supreme Court that United Nations treaties trump the United States Constitution. That’s right. The sitting Attorney General, charged with upholding and defending the Constitution, is arguing before the highest court that international law is in fact the law of the land.

The case in question, Bond v. United States, is actually pretty ridiculous. The defendant is charged with using a toxic substance to harass a friend who was having an affair with her husband. Under the law, this case would normally be handled at the State-level. But Federal prosecutors instead charged Bond with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention. This would be like taking a perpetrator of a domestic hate crime and instead charging him or her with genocide. This case is basically a complex liberal experiment to see how far they can push the boundaries regarding the enforcement of international law. An Obama administration victory in this case could have huge ramifications for other contentious issues like abortion, citizenship, and even the Second Amendment.

It’s no secret that the Obama administration is looking to enact gun control by any means necessary. That means exhausting all options. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty would provide an excellent way to limit Americans’ access to firearms without dealing with Congress. The problem is, the treaty cannot become law without the Senate ratifying it (which won’t happen). If the Supreme Court rules in Obama’s favor, the U.N. Arms Treaty could become the law of the land anyway.who want unarmed citizens Gun Control Supporters cropped

The funny thing is that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty specifically prohibits the exportation of small arms to countries if there is a reasonable expectation that they would be used against civilians. If Holder wins this case and ushers in the implementation of the treaty, his involvement in Fast and Furious, leading to the death of countless Mexican civilians, would make him an international criminal. But since Holder would be in charge of investigating himself for international crimes, he’d likely be acquitted…

All jokes aside, Bond v. United States represents a grave risk to the sovereignty of this great country and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. Everyone always posits that the liberals want to replace the Constitution with U.N. law, but no one actually expected them to try to. If the Courts rule that international law is law of the land, and if the Executive branch is more than willing to implement this ruling, then only the Congress can stand against this rising tyranny.

A lot of times, Congress’ power can be overstated. But the Constitution’s system of checks and balances exist for a reason. If one or two branches of government fall to tyranny, then a third branch would still remain to herald the cause of liberty. With the way the Supreme Court has been ruling lately, and Obama’s burning desire to shred the Constitution, the Congress is all that stands between state sovereignty and global governance. Unfortunately more often than not, Congressmen and Senators wouldn’t recognize creeping tyranny if it slapped them in the face.

That’s where we come in. Believe it or not, we have reached a point in our history where we actually have to plead with our representatives to defend the Constitution from its domestic and foreign enemies. If the Supreme Court rules in the administration’s favor, you can say hello to universal weapons registration. You want to buy a firearm? Good luck explaining why you really need one. And good luck getting your hands on one of those imported World War II rifles you’ve had your eye on.

Most of the time, slippery slope arguments are overblown. But there’s no exaggeration to this. Even when the Senate refused to ratify the U.N. Arms Treaty, Obama had Secretary of State John Kerry sign it anyway. Talk about defiance!

treaty

The only thing that stands between Kerry’s signature and Obama’s gun control agenda is that pesky piece of parchment called the Constitution. And if the Supreme Court rules in Obama’s favor, you can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

If you value your second amendment rights, or any of your rights for that matter, stand and fight. Urge Congress to honor its oath and reject Obama’s globalist ambitions.

Fax Congress to Stop Holder – the Constitution MUST be the Law of the Land, not International Treaties!

Sincerely,

Joe Otto
Conservative Daily

Picture6

Liberals Try to Cover Up for Obamacare Architect


Transcript from the Rush Limbaugh Show, November 11, 2014

URL of Original Posting Site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/11/liberals_try_to_cover_up_for_obamacare_architect

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.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

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: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/11/liberals_try_to_cover_up_for_obamacare_architect

By WhatDidYouSay.org

By WhatDidYouSay.org

The Constitution is “NOT” a living organism


http://patriotupdate.com/articles/constitution-living-organism/#6fm0QV0Ev1WditOY.99

Written on Tuesday, April 22, 2014 by

Constitution-teaser

“It is a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it does not say”. Well said Justice Scalia. The Founding Fathers who sought Gods’ wisdom were indeed led by Gods wisdom. “Ask, and you shall receive.”

Other court justices, attorneys, this administration, and other progressives and liberals refer to the Constitution as a “living organism”. That sounds good, if one does not know what that term means. So why is that bad for our Constitution, and the American people?

The “original” framers view of the Constitution held without debate. It generally meant that judges should interpret the Constitution as its framers intended it. A historian was quoted saying,” The Constitution has a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be, not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, today and forever.” Judges should not stray from the text’s literal meaning”. Amen to that!

The Constitution’s framers must have been influenced by the James 5:12 scripture, let your yes be yes, and your no, no. They knew how critical what they wrote was going to be to our nation’s future. They put to ink exactly what they meant, no ands ifs, or buts. The Founding Fathers were clearly letting their yes be yes, and there was no mistaking their no. There are no gray areas in our Constitution. It is only modern self-righteous man who has muddied the waters, by twisting and perverting its original meanings to suit their whims.

So what does the progressive/liberal mean ‘living organism”? Here is the slippery slope of the living organism philosophy. Where the liberal idealists started to buck up against our country’s moral fabric revealed within our Constitution. So by the start of the 20th century, progressive liberal justices were arguing that the Constitution “must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago, ” said Justice Holmes. He continues, “the law was not a matter of absolutes but of the felt necessities of the time, to be justified by how it contributes toward reaching a social end.”

Tyranney Alert

That pile of psycho- babble sounds like if it feels good, then do it. We the almighty court justices interpreting The Constitution (as if it needs any interpretation) will argue a way to justify and legalize whatever the present society so desires. Therefore anything goes, based on a “whole experience”, and necessities of modern life. It is debauched liberals and atheist who have swayed the words and their meanings, in hopes to have courts declare legal their immoral inclinations. In order to justify the desires of their hearts, by not honoring the black and white lines established within the Constitution. Declaring the Constitution as an evolving moving organism, coerces one to apathy for personal responsibilities, and allows entry of every form of evil. (AMEN!!!!!)

One case in point, the Obama zombies and their female fore fathers. That being the women libbers of the 1970′s, with their repulsive banshee battle cry ever trumpeting abortion rights. Now repackaged for the new millennium under the guise of women’s health care. Which in reality is same ole’, same ole’ on-demand and unlimited abortion, which has nothing to do with health.

What anti-Constitutionalists or the living-organism Constitution folks do not realize is, by twisting, re-adjusting, and tweaking this document to suit a special interest groups choices, will not give peace of mind. Just because actions are declared legal, does not make it moral. The human heart knows this well! Feelings of guilt will not subside, just by a Supreme Court decision.

“Let your Yes be yes, and your No be no, or you will be condemned.” James 5:12

Religious Freedom on Trial


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/25/religious-freedom-on-trial/

Share

religious-freedom
Arguments have begun before the Supreme Court today to determine whether religious freedom in America, under the First Amendment, is guaranteed or not. At the heart of this trial is the mandate by Obamacare requiring businesses that employ 50 employees or more to provide all levels of birth control to its employees and pay for this coverage. This includes not just traditional birth control such as pills and shots to prevent impregnation. It also includes abortifacient drugs, such as the ‘Morning After pill’ that induce abortions after impregnation has occurred.

The suit was brought forth by Hobby Lobby, the arts and crafts store owned by the Green family. The family does not hide their devout Christianity. In fact, service to the Lord by serving others is a part of the identity of Hobby Lobby. In honor of the Lord’s day, every store is closed on Sundays. In addition, their commitment and gratitude to the God is listed on their website.

At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to:

  • Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
  • Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
  • Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
  • Providing a return on the owner’s investment, sharing the Lord’s blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.

We believe that it is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.

A visit to the ‘Our Company’ section of their website reveals just how ingrained their religious convictions are within all aspects of their business model. Their donations and ministry projects all have one thing in common – a commitment to God and spreading his Word. Organizations such as Oral Roberts University, One Hope, and Every Home for Christ are but some of the organizations to which Hobby Lobby donates and supports.

The company was grown from a $600 start up to a multi-billion dollar corporate entity by David Green who openly gives thanks to God for His blessings and uses Hobby Lobby to spread God’s love and word with a focus on ‘operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.

This strong commitment to God as a company is not something new from Hobby Lobby. They didn’t suddenly shift their business model to be biblically based following the partisan vote by the Democrat party to make Obamacare law. It is, and always has been, a part of who they are.

Complete Message

So, it should come as no surprise that the Green family and the Hobby Lobby corporation would see the Obamacare mandate forcing the company to cover abortion inducing drugs as an attack on their religious freedom. One of their attorneys, Lori Windham with the Becket Fund, had this to say about this case now being argued before the Supreme Court.

This is unquestionably a religious exercise, refusing to pay for something that could take a human life. And so the question here is not whether it’s the Green family or the corporation, both of whom are part of this case. The question is, is this a sincere religious exercise. The answer to that question is yes. So, it ought to be protected.

The left and the leftist media have gone out of their way to distort the reality of Hobby Lobby’s argument framing it as a direct attack on women’s rights in being able to access birth control. However, as previously stated, the objection at the heart of Hobby Lobby’s argument is the company being forced to fund abortions and abortion inducing drugs.

On FOX News with Martha MacCallum this morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano had much to say about this case, including placing blame squarely on the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts, for allowing the entire Obamacare plan to go forward based upon the decision that the entire health care plan would levy a tax on you if you did not subscribe to it, rather than a fine. To this, Judge Napolitano said the following:

It really is a bizarre decision in this respect; the government argued it wasn’t a tax and the challengers argued it wasn’t a tax. Yet, the Supreme Court rejected all the arguments before it and found that it was a tax. It’s obvious that this was just a cobbled together compromise by people who otherwise disagree with each other on fundamental jurisprudential views, in order to salvage this legislation. As a result, we have these challenges coming back.

Judge Napolitano also talked about what is at stake with this Supreme Court decision. With government being able to tax whatever it wants, even failure to buy a mandated product or service according to the Supreme Court, can Congress pick and choose to whom or to which entities the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious applies.

This is about religious liberty and whether or not Congress can compel corporations to violate religious liberty of the shareholders of those corporations. There are a lot of subsidiary issues. Do corporations have religious liberty or just individuals. Can the owners of the corporation impose their own religious standards on the corporation itself? And, the big picture, can Congress do this to anybody; make you buy a product, contraceptive health care coverage, that goes against the very teaching of your religion from your heart.

This is not just traditional contraception. This is also euthanasia and abortion. It comes in one package in the federal government’s mind that orders the entities that employ 50 or more people to make this available to employees. Now, this is not to say that women are not entitled under the law to choose on their own to have this protection. It’s the flip-side. It’s, are employers free to choose not to pay for this protection if they find it morally and religiously repugnant?

Another favorite argument of the left is that individuals should not be subjected to certain denied coverage simply due to their place of employment. MacCallum played devil’s advocate with this argument. Judge Napolitano had a response to that argument which is, not surprisingly, based on the Constitution.

Martha MacCallum: An employee who exists and works in the United States of America under this law that says that everybody must be covered by a plan that is up to their (government’s) definition of what’s good enough for them should say, “If this is where I want to work, why shouldn’t I be covered by the same description of these plans that everyone else who works in places is covered under?”

Judge Napolitano: And, I’ll give that employee an answer. Because your wish to be covered by contraceptive coverage paid for by your employer is a good that the employer purchases for you. But, the employer’s wish to serve his or her heart and to follow his or her religious beliefs is a right that comes from our humanity and it is expressly given by the First Amendment.

MacCallum: So, you’ve gotta work somewhere else.

Judge: Yes! Or, go out and pay for it yourself or get the federal government, which subsidizes billions in these policies, to pay for it which is probably what will happen if the Supreme Court rules against the federal government. The federal government will offer to subsidize it which means we as taxpayers, you and I and our religious beliefs, with our tax dollars will be subsidizing these policies.

He again placed blame squarely on the Supreme Court for allowing Obamacare, now officially known as the Affordable Care Act, to move forward.

This is an unforeseen consequence of the Supreme Court’s ill-advised decision a year and a half ago, finding all of this constitutional on the grounds that, if you don’t do it, we can tax you and the government can tax anything it wants.

Complete Message

Will religious freedom, constitutionally protected in America by the First Amendment, prevail in America or will the assault on our liberty by an over-bloated big government win? This Supreme Court case will have wide-reaching ramifications on freedom in America if the court once again sides with the federal government and against the Constitution and rights of Americans.

Georgia House Votes to Nullify Obamacare


FreedomOutpost_Masthead

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/georgia-house-votes-nullify-obamacare/#eLXiD56fw8OpMUVj.99

 Posted by

ALWAYS REMEMBER, AND REMIND EVERYONE ELSE

Only Democrats

Late Monday evening, the Georgia State House of Representatives passed HB707, which bans the state participating in significant portions of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.  The vote was 115-59.

Representative Jason Spencer introduced HB707, The Georgia Health Care Freedom and ACA Noncompliance Act.  Spencer also had five co-sponsors to the bill.

According to Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin, “While Georgia can’t fully stop Obamacare on its own, it can serve as a pretty major roadblock to implementation,” he said. “And as more states get on board with this strategy, it will pull the rug out from under it. Bills like this will end Obamacare from the bottom up.”

HB707 specifically provides the following bans:

  1. Prohibits any state agencies, departments or political subdivisions from using resources or spending funds to advocate for the expansion of Medicaid. This provision works hand-in-hand with HB990 to make it more difficult to expand Medicaid. HB990 would require legislative approval for expansion of the program, barring the governor from doing it by executive order.
  2. Prohibits the state of Georgia from running an insurance exchange.
  3. Refuses and federal grant money for the purpose of creating or running a state insurance exchange.
  4. Ends the University of Georgia Health Navigator Program.
  5. Prohibits the Commissioner of Insurance from investigating or enforcing any alleged violation of federal health insurance requirements mandated by Obamacare.

Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said, “While Georgia can’t fully stop Obamacare on its own, it can serve as a pretty major roadblock to implementation.  And as more states get on board with this strategy, it will pull the rug out from under it. Bills like this will end Obamacare from the bottom up.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano agrees.  Regarding South Carolina’s push to remove Obamacare from being implemented in the Palmetto state, Napolitano said, “If Enough States do this, It will Gut Obamacare.”

The Tenth Amendment center also points out:

The provision prohibiting the Georgia insurance commissioner from investigating or enforcing violations of federally mandated health insurance requirements will prove particularly problematic for the feds. Insurance commissioners serve as the enforcement arm for insurance regulation in the states. The federal government has no enforcement arm. It assumed the state insurance commissioners would enforce all of the provisions of the ACA. So, when people have issues with their mandated coverage, they will have to call the feds. At this point, it remains unclear who they will even call. Issues the Georgia insurance commissioner will not address include prohibiting a denial of insurance for preexisting conditions, requiring dependent coverage for children up to age 26, and proscribing lifetime or yearly dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits.

Rep. Spencer said, “Disputes over these mandates arise under federal, not state law.  The federal Department of Health and Human Services can be expected to seek to commandeer the machinery of Georgia’s commissioner of insurance to enforce them or to investigate alleged violations because at present there is no federal health insurance agency and Congress is not likely to create one given the substantial opposition to Obamacare. Under HB707, the feds won’t be able to do that. They’ll have to figure out how to do it themselves.”

The legislation rests on a little known ruling by the Supreme Court referred to as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Georgia is one of eleven states engaged in some form of nullification of Obamacare.

As I have pointed out before, nullification is a good thing, but it requires more, should the federal government seek to show a use of force and make an example of one state.  That would require interposition, or the state stepping in and making it a crime to enforce federal laws that are deemed unconstitutional by the state.  For nullification with teeth, I suggest taking a look at Albany, New York’s nullification of NDAA.

The bill will now move to the Senate.

Death and Taxes

About Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty.  Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/georgia-house-votes-nullify-obamacare/#eLXiD56fw8OpMUVj.99

Justice Antonin Scalia says World War II-style internment camps could happen again


http://washingtonexaminer.com/justice-antonin-scalia-says-world-war-ii-style-internment-camps-could-happen-again/article/2543424#

By Joel Gehrke

Justice Antonin Scalia predicts that the Supreme Court will eventually authorize another a wartime abuse of civil rights such as the internment camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II.

“You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told the University of Hawaii law school while discussing Korematsu v. United States, the ruling in which the court gave its imprimatur to the internment camps.

The local Associated Press report quotes Scalia as using a Latin phrase that means “in times of war, the laws fall silent,” to explain why the court erred in that decision and will do so again.

“That’s what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot,” Scalia said. “That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification but it is the reality.”

The late U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who was Japanese-American, was not among those sent to the camps but was declared an “enemy alien.” When he got the chance to fight for his country in World War II, he jumped at it, eventually earning a Medal of Honor for “conspicuous gallantry” near San Terenzo, Italy, in 1945. “I was angered to realize that my government thought that I was disloyal and part of the enemy, and I wanted to be able to demonstrate not only to my government but to my neighbors that I was a good American,” Inouye told Ken Burns in “The War,” as quoted by Reuters.

You should read his Medal of Honor citation here.

CORRECTION: This post has been updated to reflect that Inouye was not sent to the internment camps, and that Inouye was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1945, not 1942. The Washington Examiner regrets the errors.

My two cents;

Perhaps this time those people that will be interned are Patriot Conservatives, and everyone else that disagrees with President Obama?

Jerry Broussard

Three Important Articvles from WWW.LifeNews.com


Study: Teen Pregnancy Rate Drops by Half When Planned Parenthood Leaves Town

by Paul Rondeau | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/15/14 3:50 PM

A study across the Texas Panhandle, using government statistics from 16 counties, found that the teen pregnancy rates among 13-17-year olds from 1994 through 2010 showed dramatic declines even as Planned Parenthood Federation of America facilities in the region shut down—dwindling from 19 family planning facilities to zero.

For decades, PPFA has publicly maintained that it serves a key healthcare role for the American public by educating teens on “safe sex,” providing contraceptives, and reducing pregnancies. The breakthrough study titled “A Longitudinal Analysis of PPFA and Teen Pregnancy in the Texas Panhandle” refutes that claim. Found within a meta-analysis of Planned Parenthood, the report states that the teen pregnancy rate “reached its lowest point in recorded history two years after disaffiliation of the last two remaining facilities.”

The study analyzed data obtained from the Texas Department of State Health Services, Vital Statistics Annual Report, Table 14B, for the years 1994 through 2010:  “In 1996, the year before opposition to Planned Parenthood began, the average teen pregnancy rate in the 16 counties where Planned Parenthood operated facilities was 43.6 per 1,000 girls aged 13 to 17. By 2002, the rate had dropped to 28.6. In 2008, the year the last two Planned Parenthood facilities disaffiliated from PPFA (Planned Parenthood Federation of America), the teen pregnancy rate was 27.2. And in 2010, two years after the Texas Panhandle became Planned Parenthood-free, the teen pregnancy rate had fallen to 24.1.”

The raw data gleaned from government files shows that with a teen population stable at about 13,000, the actual number of teen pregnancies fell from an average of 544 per year in the five years before Planned Parenthood started closing its doors to an average of 373 in the last five years.

PPFA’s fact sheet, Reducing Teen Pregnancy, proposes to reduce the quantity of teen pregnancies through a number of initiatives. To that end, it calls for initiatives that:

• Incorporate responsible, medically accurate sexuality education and information in the schools and in the media.

• Incorporate improvements in funding for and access to family planning services.

• Incorporate youth development programs to improve the life options of impoverished teens.

PPFA scorns abstinence-based education and praises the Obama administration for effectively defunding it: “In 2009, recognizing that evidence-based sex education programs were effective in promoting sexual health among teenagers, the Obama administration transferred funds from the community-based Abstinence Education Program and budgeted $114.5 million to support evidence-based sex education programs across the country.”

The report does not specifically claim that PPFA presence in a community actually drives up teen pregnancy. The report simply states “The Texas Panhandle statistics show conclusively that neither access to Planned Parenthood ‘reproductive healthcare’ clinics nor PPFA ‘evidence-based, comprehensive sex education’ is a necessary component in reducing the teen pregnancy rate.”

However, when pressed on this point, Jim Sedlak, a recognized expert on PPFA and vice president of American Life League—the organization that underwrote the five-part meta-study in which the Panhandle report is contained—did point to Planned Parenthood’s business model.

“Based on the retention rates that Planned Parenthood published routinely until the mid-1990s, it consistently lost 43 percent of its customers annually. Today, PPFA is a $1 billion business,” said Sedlak. “The only demographic big enough to furnish that many new customers every year is teens and young adults who engage in frequent sex. Planned Parenthood can make millions on preaching safe sex. It goes broke on abstinence.”

Under Obamacare, Planned Parenthood was first in line to start receiving funds for the comprehensive sex education program—funds totaling $375 million.

The PPFA fact sheet also claims that “influential minorities promote unrealistic, abstinence-only programs and parental consent requirements . . . an unrealistic emphasis is placed on preventing adolescent sexual behavior which overlooks the fact that sexual expression is an essential component of healthy human development for individuals of all ages.”

Planned Parenthood argues that comprehensive sex education, including an introduction to homosexuality and all its variations, must start in kindergarten. From kindergarten through college, Planned Parenthood promotes sexual rights, sexual freedom, and even dangerous sexual acts such as anal sex and fisting.

To see where this philosophy leads, one need only look at International Planned Parenthood Federation.  It promotes “sexual rights” for people under 18 years of age, even as young 10.

While PPFA decries the spread of HIV/AIDS it simultaneously fights for laws protecting homosexuality and against laws requiring people who are HIV positive to disclose that information to sex partners.

IPPF argues that laws requiring disclosure of the potentially lethal infection to a new sexual partner violates of the sexual rights of the HIV infected person.

So, does PPFA promote “reproductive health” or just peddle sex?

One thing for sure: to Planned Parenthood, sexual pleasure is more important than life itself.

LifeNews Note: Paul Rondeau is the executive director of American Life League.

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

House Committee Passes Bill to Completely Ban Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/15/14 5:32 PM

The House Judiciary Committee today approved legislation that will put in place a complete ban on taxpayer funding of abortions that ensures abortions are not directly funded in any federal governmental program or department.

The legislation combines several policies that must be enacted every year in Congressional battles and puts them into law where they will not be in jeopardy of being overturned every time Congress changes hands from pro-life lawmakers to those who support abortions.

The bill has been around a few years but has only been approved in the House thanks to a pro-abortion Senate. On May 4, 2011, the House passed HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, on a 251-175 vote with Republicans voting 235-0 for the bill and Democrats voting 175-16 against it.

The House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice will hold a hearing on H.R. 7, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” this week.

Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is the lead sponsor of the bill, informed the House that a study by the Guttmacher Institute, the pro-abortion former research apparatus of Planned Parenthood, released a study noting that one-quarter of women who otherwise would have had abortions chose to give birth when taxpayer dollars were not available to pay for abortions of their children.

The Family Research Council is a strong supporter of the bill and FRC president Tony Perkins applauded Smith’s leadership.

“Chris Smith’s leadership in the cause of life has been historic. Most Americans, regardless of their view on abortion, oppose government funding for abortion. The ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ will make sure that the Hyde Amendment applies across the government, including fixing the abortion funding provisions in Obamacare. H.R. 7 will restore government neutrality on abortion,” he told LifeNews.

“Abortion causes enduring pain to millions of American women, and the revelation that so many of them are so young is tragic. Bringing help and healing to America’s young women and their families has to be coupled with public policies that will curtail this victimization,” Perkins noted.

Smith spoke on the House floor during debate over the last version of the bill about what he said was growing public opinion against abortion. He also praised women who regret having terminated their pregnancies and speak out against abortions.

“For decades, a patchwork of short-term policies have prevented abortion funding in many programs authorized by Congress, but it is time for a single, government-wide permanent protection against taxpayer funding for elective abortion,” Smith said. “Abortion is lethal violence against children and exploitation of women. This legislation would establish a comprehensive policy prohibiting public funding for elective abortion in all federal programs.”

A majority of Americans object to the use of taxpayer money for funding abortion, according to numerous polls — including a survey CNN conducted in early April showing Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.

The bill will also mitigate concerns about abortion funding in the various loopholes in the Obamacare national health care bill that various pro-life organizations warned about during debate on the law. The legislation did not contain language banning funding of abortions in its provisions and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would fix that problem.

The National Right to Life Committee sent a letter to House members urging support for the legislation that explains how the bill will help:

“Regrettably, however, the 111th Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). During consideration of that legislation, language was proposed (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) to apply the principles of the Hyde Amendment to the multitude of programs created by the bill, and the House initially approved that language – but no such provision was part of the enacted law, due to opposition from President Obama and the Senate majority. Consequently, the enacted PPACA contains multiple provisions authorizing funding of abortion and funding of health plans that cover abortion.”

The National Right to Life letter also commented on another lesser-known provision of the tax-funded abortion ban — it’s language to protect health care professionals who don’t want to be involved in abortions.

“The bill would codify the principles of the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which has been appended to the original Hyde Amendment on every Health and Human Services appropriations bill since 2004. This provision would solidify important protections for health care providers who do not wish to participate in providing abortions – which is especially important in light of the Obama Administration’s February 23, 2011 action rescinding the conscience protection regulation issued by the Bush Administration.”

Also, before the vote in 2011, the White House said President Barack Obama would add to his lengthy pro-abortion record by vetoing the legislation. Obama would veto HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, with the White House saying the president opposes the bill because it would supposedly make it tougher for women to obtain abortion coverage from private insurance companies thereby expanding the current Hyde Amendment, which only limits tax-funded abortions under Medicaid, beyond its current reach.Chris Smith

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Irony: Kagan Compares Abortion Clinics to Slaughterhouses at Supreme Court

by Matthew Clark | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/15/14 6:09 PM

Do pro-life Americans have free speech rights – the right to quietly talk to willing passerby’s on the street corner – or are the public sidewalks surrounding abortion clinics somehow speech free zones impervious to the protections of the First Amendment?

That is the precise question considered by the Supreme Court today in McCullen v. Coakley.

Pro-abortion legislators in Massachusetts passed legislation making it illegal for anyone to speak on the public sidewalks – otherwise known as exercising the First Amendment – within 35 feet of abortion clinics.  Illegal that is for everyone but employees of the abortion clinics.

Today’s case was the epitome of the abortion distortion – the fact that abortion changes the calculus of longstanding legal principles.

It is axiomatic in Supreme Court jurisprudence that public sidewalks are open public fora.  In other words, your free speech rights are guaranteed on public sidewalks.  For the government to prove otherwise, they would have to show that any restriction is based on some overwhelming or compelling government interest and that the restriction they wish to place on that speech is limited or narrowly tailored in such a way that it imposes the smallest imposition reasonably possible on your free speech.

Just because the government doesn’t like your speech or agree with it does not mean that they get to restrict it – not liking it is not a compelling interest and banning it is not narrowly tailored.

That’s First Amendment law in a nutshell … in every case that is but abortion.  Regarding abortion the rules too often become distorted in favor of abortion and against pro-life viewpoints.  To some, the First Amendment just doesn’t cover pro-life speech.

That abortion distortion was front and center today.

For years before this pro-abortion restriction passed, Eleanor McCullen, an elderly pro-life sidewalk counselor, had ministered to women seeking an abortion.  She would kindly and quietly counsel women approaching abortion clinics about the value of human life, even helping them find assistance from pro-life groups when they chose to keep their babies.  She was literally saving lives.  And she is one of the nicest women you would ever hope to meet; I had the privilege of meeting her today at our office after the oral argument (pictured above along with a fellow plaintiff Father Eric Cadin, standing behind her).

After the statue passed, Mrs. McCullen’s ministry was essentially shut down.  Refusing to be silenced, she challenged this unconstitutional law.

Most disturbing about this case though is that it was not just Massachusetts defending this pro-abortion law, the Obama Administration sent its lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that this anti-pro-life speech law in no way violated the Constitution.

At one point the Obama Administration’s lawyer actually argued that there was no such thing a right to conduct a quite conversation on a public sidewalk.  Justice Kennedy was baffled.

In a painfully ironic moment, Justice Kagan compared abortion clinics to slaughterhouses, asking what if this statute had been written about slaughterhouses to keep animal rights activists from blocking the entrance and exits.

Jaws dropped throughout the Courtroom when she said that.  The comparison is eerie, as abortion clinics take the lives of millions of unborn Americans each year.

This case should be decided later this summer, and a lot rides on the Court’s opinion.  Will it uphold free speech or will it continue to promulgate the abortion distortion?

Fourteen years ago, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow argued an almost identical case, Hill v. Colorado.  Importantly, it was a case in which Justice Kennedy issued a stinging dissenting opinion on the side of pro-life speech stating that the court’s ruling upholding a similar buffer zone “contradict[ed] more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles.”  The three dissenting voices in Hill, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, remain on the Court today.

While it is never safe to make a presumption about a case based on oral argument, there were a number of justices who questioned the constitutionality of this Massachusetts statute.

Today, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Alito were highly critical of the Massachusetts statue. Even Justice Kagan, seemed concerned about how far this particular law went, asking why a 35-foot buffer zone, why so large, saying that the buffer zone would be almost as large as the Courtroom.  However, Justice Kagan, like Justice Sotomayor, took a more nuanced approach in their questions.  Justices Breyer and Ginsburg who are the only Justices from the Hill majority still on the Court, appeared dismissive of the pro-life arguments.

Justice Thomas, who is traditionally silent during oral argument, did not have any questions, but surprisingly Chief Justice Roberts didn’t say a word during the course of oral arguments.

We filed an amicus brief in this case, arguing in no uncertain terms that Hill was wrongly decided and that pro-life free speech should hold the same place as other free speech under the Constitution.

Pro-life sidewalk counselors like Mrs. McCullen and Father Cadin should not be treated as second-class citizens.  The public sidewalks outside of abortion clinics should no longer be speech free zones for those with pro-life views, but should be constitutionally protected free speech zones for all Americans.

LifeNews Note: Matthew Clark is an attorney for the ACLJ, residing in northern Virginia, where this originally appeared. He has been actively involved in Virginia politics for over a decade.  You can follow Matthew on Twitter @_MatthewClark.

 

Obama Forces Christians to Violate Faith


http://lastresistance.com/3830/obama-forces-christians-violate-faith/#w2evQGqemsLT2dcg.99

Posted By on Nov 27, 2013

religious freedom matters

Plan B is considered by the Left as birth control—for that matter, so is  late-term abortion–but studies have indicated that many times, Plan B actually  terminates an already fertilized embryo. In that case, the contraceptive is not  in fact birth control, but abortion. Under Obamacare, many Catholic and other  religious businesses are being forced to provide their employees with coverage  for Plan B—something that violates their faith.

According to Fox:

The Supreme Court announced that it will hear  challenges to the mandate from a crafts chain, Hobby Lobby, and a  Mennonite-Owned furniture company, Conestoga Wood. Owners of the companies argue  that by being forced to comply with the federal regulation the feds are  violating their religious beliefs.”

Juan Williams criticizes the argument, saying:

They (Hobby Lobby) are willing to offer  contraceptive services…They object to the morning after pill. This seems to be  Willy Nilly. You’re opening the door to employers saying, well, you know we  don’t like this, but we like that.”

Moreover, this is an obvious violation of religious freedom. That is just  another step in the Leftist agenda against Christianity. Once one religious  freedom is erased, what’s stopping further damage? If religious organizations  are forced to violate their faith even once, or face consequences from the  government, is that not oppression? Is that not a restriction of freedom?

Once the definition of life is blurred even more than it already has been,  and once Christians are forced to obey either the government or their faith,  we’ve lost the moniker of a free society. We have lost our republic.

The following are comments already made about this article:

Juan Williams’ point of view has to be understood.  He sees everything through The Tyrant’s sphincter.  He’s a marxist sycophant.

 Avatar

I will never deny Jesus Christ

 

Avatar

Please people, read HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL… U.S. Supreme Court case, 2010, 9 to zero in favor of religious rights for all of us.  While this case was on a specific issue, the other opinions voiced in the decision expanded these religious rights far more than you might believe.  This is a key win for religious beliefs and practices.

 

Avatar

You can bet that Obama would not do something that is against Islam like he does Christians. Obama would  never do something his BFF in the Muslim world don’t like.

 

Avatar

DO NOT compromise your faith at any cost because the ones that are asking you to are not believes and will suffer the results of their foolish failure to stand with faith and God!   NO!  they can go to hell but I am sticking to the foundation of faith and the Bible!  Just ignore all that Obama says and does and when someone asks you why tell them you do to agree and  he is against the freedom of America.  If they hear that enough it will finally get back to O and he will might (?) finally get the message we do not want to trash our nation!
Avatar

 

24 million illegal s ignore our laws, so can the whole country!

Avatar

 

Christians need to stand strong against this mandate being enforced because we know there is only one correct answer to when life begins.

 Avatar

 

Make muslims participate in o-care………wont happen….they are too delicate….

Avatar

 

Thats right! All or none! Let the geniuses figure something else out. What Obama is saying now is Muslims have religious rights, Christians have none. Kind of lets you know what side hes on, doesn’t it. Not only him but his staff and Congress. We Americans are a sad lot indeed!

 

Avatar

It really does not matter what Juan Williams believes, what matters is what the business owners believe.  They have the right to believe that some things are against their religion whether or not you, I or Juan Williams thinks it is logical or otherwise. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

 

Avatar

We lost the republic when we voted the muslim illegal alien in without vetting him.  Thank the cretins in the democrat party and the traitors in the media.

 Avatar

 

This is a very good point to make. Many liberal arguments use obfuscation and lump things together when they should not be. Either the statement by the left is ignorant, hasn’t thought it out, or it’s an intentional untrue statement.

Avatar

 

But not Muslims.

Avatar

 

“Religious Freedom Matters!” NO! What matters (at least to Yahweh, God of the Bible) is the First Commandment–Thou shalt have no other gods besides Him!

What’s described in this article is occurring because of the religious freedom, outside the bounds of Christianity and the Bible, provided by the framers via Amendment 1. It is inarguable that had the framers not failed to establish government and society upon Yahweh’s immutable morality and everlasting righteousness as reflected in His perfect law (Psalm 19:7-11), none of this would be occurring. Think about it: Obama wouldn’t even be President today, nor would anyone today in Congress be there to accomplish their dastardly deeds.

“…3. Every problem America faces today can be traced  back to the fact that the framers failed to expressly establish a government  upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and  judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone financed by  the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments were  the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming threat to our peace and security if  the First Amendment had been replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans  be in nearly as much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would  crime be as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments?  Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat increase tax  rather than a graduated income tax?)….”

For more, see our Featured Blog Article “5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue.” Click on my name, then our website, and see our Featured Article near the top of the home page. Then take our Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a free copy of an 85-page book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

 Avatar

 

How about that hope and change?  Well I hope it changes….back to what the framers decided in 1776 !!!

 Avatar

 

Since when did Juan Williams understand anything?

 

Avatar

“What Juan doesn’t seem to understand is that contraception and Plan B are  altogether different animals.” Juan DOES FULLY understand and that is the evil of his statement and position.  Jesus will judge EVERY IDLE WORD.  Did I just judge him?  No, he has judged himself.  The fact is, I didn’t make him state that lie and I didn’t request or coerce him into making that lie.  He did it on his own.  God will judge us both.  Only the blood of Jesus Christ makes a way out of punishment for BOTH of us.

Avatar

 

Are the Muslims having trouble with this also? If not then this is discrimination! As well as religious  persecution! Haven’t we Americans had enough yet? I guess most Americans do not care what this president does. They will care one day but too late!

Avatar

 

I no longer listen to anything Juan Williams has to say.  When he or Obama come on T.V. I change channels.  That goes for Biden, Holder, Pelosi also.  And the list goes on and on.

Avatar

meg Hotnike
JAUAN WILLIAM is a joke ITS LIKE LOOKING AT OVERMIT ON FOX IT is a joke to listen to this person  he is an obsloute idioute like the wel fare reciepts  trying to bring America to her knee s let see if we can change this false gov  lets take it down AS A mericans born in the USA

Small town, big impact: Supreme Court case could define religion’s role in public


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/small-town-big-impact-supreme-court-case-could-def/#ixzz2gn5qa4uF

By Matthew Lounsberry

The Washington Times

**FILE** The Supreme Court (Associated Press)

A small town in upstate New York is at the center of what legal scholars say could be one of the biggest religious freedom cases in decades, as the Supreme Court prepares to open its 2013-14 term next week.

The case, the Town of Greece (N.Y.) v. Galloway, involves the town council’s practice of beginning its meetings with a prayer offered by a volunteer “chaplain of the month” — Christian and non-Christian — and has attracted friend-of-the-court briefs from religious, secular and civil liberties organizations. The surprising decision to take the case and how it rules could offer new insights on how far the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is prepared to go to redefine the role of religion in the public square.

A decision in favor of those challenging the city could affect religious observances at public events and gatherings across the United States. Prayer before school board meetings, high school athletic events, local charity events and many more could be threatened.

“If the court were to rule for Galloway, it would have to abandon prior precedent, it would have to abandon hundreds of years of practice going back to the founders of our country, and put in jeopardy the many practices and events that reflect our religious heritage throughout the country,” said David Cortman, attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy organization supporting the town of Greece.

Town of Greece v. Galloway is just one of a number of hot-button cases on the docket. The justices also are set to tackle major cases on federal campaign contribution limits, affirmative action, the president’s recess appointment powers and police search procedures.

The court will look into social issues including abortion, housing discrimination and affirmative action, and a year after upholding the core of Obamacare, the court is likely to challenge the law’s requirement that companies with 50 or more employees provide insurance for employees’ use of contraceptives. Companies headed by religious conservatives are claiming a corporate right to freedom of religion that they say the law’s mandate would violate.

Legal scholars say it is not clear what attracted at least four justices to agree to take on the New York case and how far the court may go.

“As has often been the case under Chief Justice Roberts’ leadership, one of the many interesting and important questions the Galloway case prompts is whether the court will make headlines and turn heads by announcing a big change in its doctrines or will instead disappoint journalists who want news buzz and law professors who need new topics by resolving the matter on narrow grounds,” Notre Dame law professor Richard W. Garnett said in a symposium on the case on the legal website Scotusblog.com.

Mr. Cortman said a ruling in favor of Galloway could have major implications, potentially bringing an end to prayers at presidential inaugurations, the “In God We Trust” motto on the nation’s currency and even the cry “God save the United States and this Honorable Court” at the openings of the Supreme Court’s public sessions.

“The new test would be, ‘If I see or hear something that may offend me, and it happens to be religious, that creates some sort of a constitutional violation. We would have challenges to all of these [traditions],” he said. “That would create not only more disarray, but not reflect the true meaning of the Constitution.”

Both sides say the case involving Greece, a modest-sized city on the banks of Lake Ontario, gives the justices wide latitude to revisit legal questions of the prerogatives of church and state.

In 1999, the town of Greece began to include ceremonial prayers before all city council meetings, with almost exclusively Christian clergy delivering the prayers. The tradition continued without protest until early 2008.

Local residents Susan Galloway, who is Jewish, and Linda Stephens, an atheist, protested that only Christians were delivering prayers at city council meetings. With the help of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Ms. Galloway and Ms. Stephens filed a lawsuit in 2008, claiming the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and promoted Christianity to town residents.

“A vast majority of the time, the Christian clergy have delivered explicitly Christian prayer,” said Ayesha Khan, legal director of Americans United. “Meanwhile, the people in the audience are there to petition their government, receive honors or take the oath of office and they are asked to stand or bow their heads for these kinds of prayers that their conscience doesn’t permit them to participate in.”

In their brief to the Supreme Court, the respondents urge the court to reject the precedent set in the 1983 case Marsh v. Chambers, in which the court ruled that most legislative prayer practices did not violate the Constitution.

The respondents also argued that the town of Greece is not neutral in its selection of prayer leaders and heavily Christian clergy, and does not giving “nontheists” the opportunity to speak.

City council members argued that they did not intentionally exclude members of other religions from participating in the prayer sessions, and that audience members were not forced to participate in the ceremonial prayers.

“The folks who have volunteered to pray before the meetings are merely reflective of the demographics of the town,” Mr. Cortman said. “Just because a town may happen to be more Christian than a different religion doesn’t automatically create a constitutional crisis.”

A district court sided with the city council, ruling that there was not enough proof that Greece officials were intentionally excluding non-Christians. In 2012, the ruling was appealed by Americans United, who again argued that the prayers were unconstitutionally sectarian in nature and established Christian beliefs and religion in the town.

“We are not asking the court to eliminate the prayers here. We are asking that people not be pressured to participate in that prayer, and that the prayer be inclusive and nonsectarian so that it avoids reference to details on which people are known to differ,” Ms. Khan said.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of Ms. Galloway and Ms. Stephens, stating that the town’s prayer practice was an endorsement to their religious viewpoint.

The town and the Alliance Defending Freedom took the case to the Supreme Court.

“Americans today should be free, as the founders were, to pray,” Mr. Cortman said. “The Supreme Court has ruled that public prayer is part of the history and tradition of this country. The large number of significant parties that have filed briefs in this case certainly support the continuation of this cherished practice.”

Oral arguments for Town of Greece v. Galloway are scheduled for Nov. 6.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/small-town-big-impact-supreme-court-case-could-def/?page=2#ixzz2gn6XPnNG

BREAKING: Supreme Court Invalidates Defense of Marriage Act, Punts on Prop 8


The US Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling, authored by Justice Kennedy.  Chief Justice Roberts dissented, as did Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.  The Court’s rationale, per SCOTUS blog: “DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”  The Defense of Marriage Act was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.  Here is the text of the landmark Windsor decision.

While the federal portion of DOMA has been tossed out (the federal government must now recognize same-sex marriage performed in states that allow the practice), it appears that the high court has not require states to recognize same sex unions from other states.  In Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, he hints that the Court will dismiss the Proposition 8 gay marriage case from California, based on standing issues.  That decision, Hollingsworth v Perry, will be released in a few minutes.  So it looks like the Court has given gay rights proponents a significant win on DOMA, while preserving some level of respect for federalism on the issue, and has not handed down a sweeping ruling on gay marriage.  We’ll have to wait to see Perry to know for sure, but it doesn’t sound like the Court has established a right to marriage for same-sex couples.  Here are the key grafs from Kennedy’s majority opinion:

UPDATE – The Court, in a 5-4 decision, has declined to rule on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, California’s 2008 amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.  The decision, authored by Roberts, is a procedural one.  Quote: “ The Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiciton to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”  This is effectively a punt.  The Court neither affirmed nor stuck down Prop. 8 — thus, no major precedent is set.  Because the most recent lower court decision tossed out Prop 8, same-sex marriages are likely to resume in California for the time being.  The 5-4 coalition is an unusual one: The majority features Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan.  Dissenters are Alito, Thomas, Sotomayor and Kennedy.


UPDATE II
– Kennedy, who wrote the Court’s Windsor opinion invalidating DOMA, dissents on Prop. 8, arguing that the Supreme Court has avoided addressing a crucial principle of democracy: The will of the people.

In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century.

Public opinion has shifted in a big way since 2008, and one might imagine that Prop. 8 would fail in California if it were held today.  But Kennedy believes that the clearly defined will of a majority of Californians five years ago deserves a real hearing in court.  The bottom line of today’s dual rulings: The debate over gay marriage will continue in the states, which is where many federalists believe it belongs.

Developing…

Supreme Court: Arizona law requiring citizenship proof for voters is illegal


WASHINGTON –  The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.

Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court’s majority.

The court was considering the legality of Arizona’s requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “motor voter” registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004.

Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.

“The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live,” she said.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating such legislation.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling.

The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas said in his dissent.

Opponents of Arizona’s law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they’ve counted more than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered before Proposition 200 but were blocked initially by the law in the 20 months after it passed in 2004. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were Latino.

Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called the decision a victory. “The court has reaffirmed the essential American right to register to vote for federal election without the burdens of state voter suppression measures,” she said.

But Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.

The federal “motor voter” law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver’s license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law — the one at issue before the court — requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

While the court was clear in stating that states cannot add additional identification requirements to the federal forms on their own, it was also clear that the same actions can be taken by state governments if they get the approval of the federal government and the federal courts.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court.  Other states have already done so, Scalia said.

The Election Assistance Commission “recently approved a state-specific instruction for Louisiana requiring applicants who lack a Louisiana driver’s license, ID card or Social Security number to attach additional documentation to the completed federal form,” Scalia said.

The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

God’s Design Challenged Again


‘Marriage Equality’ Spells ‘Marriage Extinction’

wedding rings

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the most critical cases of our time related to marriage equality. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

 Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide recklessly either to deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.

They’d better leave it alone.

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

In a recent column headlined, “The Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.

“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then a whole lot more freaky deaky will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.

One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points out this big ol’ gay elephant: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.

That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.

It’s a “no-brainer,” right?

To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”

Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.

The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”

It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit upon the highest bench in the land can recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end.

And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”

Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “[I]t’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

ERIC HOLDER…SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IN 2013?


If you are not wide-awake now, you will be when you have finished reading this!!!!! Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question about the upcoming presidential election: appointments to the Supreme Court.

I will enthusiastically support Mitt Romney’s candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep these things in mind…

  1. 1.   Justice Scalia is 78.
  2. 2.   Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
  3. 3.   Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
  4. 4.   Justice Ginsburg is 81. She also has pancreatic cancer
  5. 5.   Justice Stephens has already said he would retire and is just waiting for Obama to be re-elected.

The next president could appoint as many as 5 new Justices over the next 4 years, or over the next 8 years if a new President gets a second term. This election is about much MORE than the ObamaCare Tax. Whomever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of other life tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.” If you do not think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, THINK AGAIN! FOR ANYONE WHO IS THINKING OF NOT VOTING BECAUSE YOUR FAVORITE DIDN’T GET THE NOMINATION, OR WRITING IN A CANDIDATE WHO CAN’T WIN, PLEASE REALIZE THIS BECAUSE IT JUST MIGHT HAPPEN IF BARACK OBAMA, gets re-elected :

ERIC HOLDER, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? After you have stopped gasping because of this horror, please share this with every rational person you know!

Tag Cloud