An obscure SCOTUS ruling last week sets the stage for Obama to seize your 401(k)

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

An obscure SCOTUS ruling last week sets the stage for Obama to seize your 401(k)

Tapping the estimated $19.4 trillion dollars in private pension plans is every progressive socialist’s wet dream. I warned you Obama had his eye on your 401(k), and now a little noticed Supreme Court ruling just gave him the green light to seize your money.

The US Supreme Court ruled last week in the unanimous, 8-page decision in Tibble v. Edison holding that employers have a duty to protect workers in their 401(k) plans from mutual funds that are too expensive or perform poorly. That is simply astonishing since there is no constitutional requirement for even government to provide social benefits.

Remember when the Constitution provided a limit to government power?

Yeah, me neither.

Now the Constitution says the government has to protect you from your own bad investment decisions. Er, SCOTUS says the government has to protect you from your own bad investment decisions. The Constitution is silent on the matter. But, emanations of penumbras, or some such rubbish dontcha know.

Monday’s unanimous ruling sends a warning to employers that they now must improve their plans and it is now an obligation to project employees. This comes just in time for then the next step is government to seize private funds and prosecute employers who choose badly a fund manager. This fits perfectly just in time for the Obama administration’s next assault as they prepare a landmark change of its own by issuing rules requiring that financial advisers put the interest of customers ahead of their own. This creates a very gray area wide enough to justify public seizure of pension funds under management.

Read that again, in case you didn’t catch the part where the government is going to decide if your 401(k) is “good enough.”

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Yet this decision is even deeper. It sets the stage to JUSTIFY government seizure of private pension funds to protect pensioners. When the economy turns down and things get messy, they are placing measures in place to eliminate money in and physical physical dimension, closing all tax loopholes, shutting down the world economy with FATCA, and preparing for the final straw of Economic Totalitarianism with the Supreme Court reversing its entire construction of the Constitution to impose a duty upon employers to ensure the 401K plans perform in a world where interest rates are going negative. You really cannot make up this level of insanity.

Oh, this level of insanity is just what a guy like Bernie Sanders ordered. It’s the nanny state, writ large.

Bureaucrats answerable to Sanders’ cohort Elizabeth Warren will now get to decide if your 401(k) plan cuts the mustard. They’ll arbitrarily set a cap on management fees, and punish any fund that exceeds their idea of a “reasonable” profit.

The punishment? Seizing the fund’s assets, and forcing your money into an investment in Treasury bonds.

Then you’re just another creditor to Obama, standing in line behind all the geezers on Social Security. Good luck getting paid, after all you’re also collecting Social Security, and sooner or later you’ve made enough money.

Between the court ruling and the Obama administration’s push for stronger fiduciary rules send a strong message that government can much easier seize the pension fund management industry of course to “protect the consumer.”

Who’s gonna protect us from the government?

You knuckleheads shoulda thought that through before you elected a committed Marxist to the presidency.

Share

SCOTUS Smacks Obama Down On The (Un)Affordable Care Act

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

supreme court

 

Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.

So we DO still have some rights in this country, huh?

Who’d a thunk it?

Almost 6 1/2 years into his presidency, President Barack Obama still hasn’t read that part about freedom of religion in the First Amendment.

At least, I’m assuming he hasn’t. If he has, then the former constitutional law professor should have no excuse why his administration keeps on losing so many cases involving Obamacare’s contraception mandate in front of the Supreme Court.

The latest case involved Roman Catholic organizations in the state of Pennsylvania. In a ruling late Wednesday night, Justice Samuel Alito issued an injunction which prohibited the government from enforcing the Health and Human Services contraception mandate on the Diocese of Erie and the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

If applied, the mandate would have forced the dioceses and their related organizations — which include Catholic Charities, Catholic schools and other social service groups — to provide abortion-inducing drugs to those it covers under Obamacare.

Lest you think that this is just a partisan ruling, it’s worth pointing out a certain “wise Latina” issued a nearly identical injunction on New Year’s Eve of 2013.

In that case, Justice Sotomayor ruled that the government must brief the court on why the Little Sisters of the Poor should be forced to provide abortion-inducing contraception before the HHS mandate was applied to them.

According to Life Site News, that briefing is due to take place next week.

The Diocese of Erie and Diocese of Pittsburgh case is only the latest loss for the government when it comes to the contraception mandate. In addition to the Little Sisters of the Poor ruling, they’ve also lost cases involving Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College and the University of Notre Dame. (H/TRight Wing News)

“How many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message?” said Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

“For years now the government has been claiming that places like Catholic Charities and the Little Sisters of the Poor are not ‘religious employers’ worthy of an exemption. That argument has always been absurd. Every time a religious plaintiff has gone to the Supreme Court for protection from the government’s discriminatory mandate the court has protected them.

“The government really needs to give up on its illegal and unnecessary mandate,” she concluded. “The federal bureaucracy has lots of options for distributing contraceptives — they don’t need to coerce nuns and priests to do it for them.”

That argument is pretty straightforward and common-sensical — to everyone but the president and the members of his administration, apparently.

.

.

.

Share

Supreme Court Will Never Decide Obamacare’s Fate

Share

supreme court

Hat/Tip to Scott Rasmussen at Right Wing News.

An excellent Op-Ed by pollster Scott Rasmussen, presented here, in its entirety.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There has been a lot of discussion lately about whether the Supreme Court will save or destroy the president’s health care law, known to many as ObamaCare. At least one writer went so far as to suggest the court might be preparing to undo the nation’s safety net.

To suggest that such talk is absurd is a gross understatement.

Remember, we have no idea what the Court will decide. Some people following the oral arguments closely concluded that supporters of the law have reason to be optimistic. Just a few years back, however, the analysts watching the oral arguments concluded that the Court would rule against ObamaCare — and they were wrong. Chief Justice John Roberts surprised everyone and found a creative way to keep the law alive.

The Court might be similarly creative again this year. They have great latitude on what to decide and how the decision will be implemented. It’s even possible to imagine them ruling against the law but staying the order for a year or two giving Congress a chance to deal with it.

But the larger issue is that the Supreme Court does not have the final say on it. Public opinion and the reality of how the law works will ultimately decide its fate.

That scares some supporters of the law. They fear a scenario where the Court undoes a major piece of the ObamaCare puzzle and makes the whole law unworkable. Since the law has never been popular with voters, they assume that the current Congress would not replace it.

There’s some truth to that. The law was passed over voter opposition only because the Democrats had a unique and temporary hold on both the White House and Congress. There’s no way today’s Republican-controlled Congress would support anything like President Obama’s pet plan.

But, even if the Court sides with the Administration on the current case, the health care law will remain vulnerable as long as it is unpopular. If consumers continue to see it as more of a burden than a benefit, the unpopular parts of the law will eventually disappear.

And there are many unpopular parts of the law. The biggest, of course, is the individual mandate. It’s not just that people are being forced to buy insurance that’s troubling to many; it’s the fact that the mandate forces people to buy more insurance than they need. That makes it more expensive than most people want (or are able) to pay.

There are a couple of other things that may heighten opposition to the law in the coming months.

Millions of people will find out in the next two months that they owe the government a lot of money because they didn’t have insurance last year. Millions more will find out that the subsidies they received for health insurance last year were too high and that they also owe the government a lot of money. That’s not likely to produce a lot of warm feelings toward the law.

The bottom line is that the fate of ObamaCare is in the hands of the American people. Given the continued unpopularity of the law, that should worry the president’s team far more than what the Supreme Court will decide.

.

.

.

Share

57,762,169

Share

 photo ABORTION-TERMINATES_zpsb95f2306.jpg
 

Imagine a world where 57,762,169 unborn children weren’t sacrificed on the altar of feminism. Imagine a world where the charnal houses of Planned Parenthood stood as silent as the ovens of Auschwitz, grim reminders of depravity, defanged. Imagine a world where the life of an unborn child is as precious as the life of a pig or a bird.

Imagine a world where our representatives had the guts to protect the unborn.

House Republican leadership tonight abruptly dropped a bill that would ban elective abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.

According to news reports, female GOP lawmakers raised concerns on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, prompting party leaders to realize they did not have the votes to pass the bill.

Prominent Republican members who rallied against the plan to limit late-term abortions include Reps. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Renee Ellmers of North Carolina and Jackie Walorski of Indiana.

I’ll defer comments on their cowardice to my wife, who posted this on Facebook earlier today:

I am so saddened by this news. 18,000 preemies are murdered each year, 18,000. How can such a wonderful nation support these murderers. We act so compassionate for mental health, those bullied, beheading across the world, shootings of innocents, MIA, KIA, and wounded warriors. But those who passed this ‘right’ to allow such atrocities be damned. My heart is broken for those 18,000 preemies housed in a warm womb for 6 months, only to be brutally killed and disposed of like garbage. What are those who opposed this bill and those 18,000 mothers each year thinking? Moreso, what are those doctors, nurses, and caregivers, and insurance companies think they are doing for society at large? I am just so sad.

What can I add to that? Somewhere, Satan is smiling. And Jesus is weeping.

Today is the annual March For Life. It’s been 42 years since the holocaust of abortion was “legalized” by the forces of evil. 57,762,169 souls snuffed out before they could be born.

Pray with Pope Francis, pray that the hearts of our leaders will be opened.

 

 

60 percent of Americans support enacting a 20 week abortion ban. It’s inconceivable that anyone could be so callous as to not feel the suffering of these innocent babies.

And yet, abortion is the holy sacrament of feminism. A woman isn’t really liberated until she’s had one, or so I’m told.

I’ll leave you with the wisdom of President Reagan:

“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” – Ronald Reagan, September 21, 1980

.
.

Share

Supreme Court: Mark Levin Submits Amicus Brief In ObamaCare Subsidy Battle

Share

mark levin of landmark legal foundation

 

Hat/Tip to Katie Pavlich at TownHall.com.

The Godfather of the Modern Conservative Movement is once again defending liberty and attacking the never-ending statism from the left.

Conservative radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin has submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in King v. Burwell, the ObamaCare legal case that will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 5, 2015. The case addresses whether “the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Essentially, the case looks at whether federal subsidies are legal and available to people living in states that did not set up their own Obamacare exchanges.

“This is a case about first principles. The Executive Branch has not only exceeded the boundaries of the legislative power, but has done so in an effort to circumvent the principles of representative government to avoid securing the consent of the governed,” the brief states.

“The Constitution separates the powers of government to protect the liberty of the American people and prevent the tyranny of a self-aggrandizing government. Attempts by the Executive Branch to assume the legislative function deprives the People of an open debate conducted by their politically accountable representatives and is antithetical to the Constitution’s design.”

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Obamacare Tops Hot-Button Issues Soon Before Supreme Court

Share

obama making empty obamacare promises

Hat/Tip to Sandy Fitzgerald at Newsmax.

Well, let’s don’t get our hopes up, I mean John Roberts is STILL on the bench, and he loved ObamaCare so much that he re-wrote the statute to twist it into being quasi-Constitutional…

The Supreme Court will tackle a laundry list of high-profile cases during the first six months of the new year, including decisions on ObamaCare and other hot-button topics that could pose big challenges for both liberal and conservative interests.

The looming decision on ObamaCare tops the list of controversial agenda items, reports the National Journal, but justices are also considering decisions on matters, including political fundraising limits, free speech, and religious freedom that will all have a high impact this coming year.

The ObamaCare oral arguments will begin March 4 in a lawsuit that could cripple the healthcare law and its subsidies.

Challengers hope the court will outlaw premium subsidies for states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges. As most states use the federal exchange, rather than their own, that means 80 percent of the people who have enrolled in lower-cost health insurance plans and receive subsidies to help pay for their policies could lose those payments.

ObamaCare isn’t the only issue on the court’s docket, either.

The court will likely also make several decision involving religious liberty, following the Hobby Lobby decision that struck down a mandate included in ObamaCare provisions requiring contraception to be part of insurance coverage. The ruling, which was hailed by conservatives, allows privately held companies with religious objections to opt out of ObamaCare’s contraception coverage mandate.

In another freedom of religion case, oral arguments have already been held for an Arkansas inmate who wants to grow a beard in accordance with his Muslim faith, and has agreed to hear a similar case involving a Muslim woman who was denied a job at Abercrombie & Fitch because of the head scarf she wears.

The court will also has three freedom of speech cases, including one on the campaign finance law.

Oral arguments have also already been heard in a case concerning social networks and what could be construed as threatening messages. The case involves a man who threatened, through Facebook messages, to kill his ex-wife, and will determine if such messages meet the legal standard for a threat.

In another case, the court will hear arguments on a Florida law prohibiting judicial candidates from personally seeking contributions, rather than setting up a fundraising committee. Critics say a ruling against the Florida law could have broad national implications.

And last, the Confederate flag is once again a court issue, reports the Journal, after Texas officials rejected a license plate idea with the flag on it from the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Kaboom! SCOTUS To Decide Whether healthcare.gov Enrollees Are Eligible For Subsidies

Share

supreme court

Just when you thought this week’s good news couldn’t get any better…

The Supreme Court has snatched the Halbig case out from the clutches of Obama’s lefty-packed D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

How big a deal is this?

HUGE.

As in, earth-shattering kaboom huge.

The Supreme Court, moving back into the abiding controversy over the Affordable Care Act, agreed early Friday afternoon to decide how far the federal government can extend its program of subsidies to buyers of health insurance. At issue is whether the program of tax credits applies only in the consumer marketplaces set up by sixteen states, and not at federally operated sites in thirty-four states.

Some of this stuff is real inside baseball, but it’s important, so bear with me. SCOTUS only intervenes when there are split decisions at the circuit court level. In King v Burwell the Fourth Circuit upheld the subsidies. But at the same time, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit court disagreed.

It was a Category Five ObamaCare tornado in July when a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit agreed with conservatives and ruled that the text of the O-Care statute does not allow subsidies for people who bought their policies on the federal exchange, i.e. Healthcare.gov. Only if you bought your policy through an exchange created by a state are you eligible for help from Uncle Sam. That ruling is a nuclear bomb for the White House, obviously, because it would mean that the vast majority of new enrollees in O-Care would suddenly be on the hook for the full cost of their premiums. That would prove too expensive for many of those people, which would mean lots of dropped coverage and total chaos in the insurance industry.

It looked like Obamacare was heading back to the Supreme Court, when six weeks later the full D.C. Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc, throwing the three-judge panel’s ruling out the window.

Why would they do that? Because Obama packed the D.C. circuit court with a legion of far-left ideologues guaranteed to rule his way. You can thank Harry Reid nuking the Senate for helping him do that. Normally republicans would have been able to filibuster the most radical nominees, but they were rendered powerless by Reid.

The Halbig challenge to Obamacare was, apparently, dead.

Until today. SCOTUS’ action cuts the en banc D.C. circuit out of the loop, sending Obama and Reid’s court-packing scheme up in flames, and putting the future of Obamacare very much in doubt.

Why?

Because if SCOTUS was going to rule for the subsidies they didn’t have to do anything. The D.C. circuit court would do it for them, reversing Halbig and concurring with the Fourth Circuit’s King decision. No circuit split means no SCOTUS review, and no SCOTUS review means the subsidies remain intact.

The only reason for SCOTUS to review King is if there’s a good chance they will reverse the ruling. Ergo the likelyhood is extremely high that the Supreme Court will enforce the clear wording of the law, and render the subsidies in all but 16 states null and void.

Without those subsidies, Obamacare is dead.

Are you still with me? Because here’s where it gets fun.

The GOP won the Senate on Tuesday partly by vigorously campaigning against Obamacare. There is a strong desire among many republicans to repeal the law. But Obama would never sign a repeal bill, right?

So suppose SCOTUS neuters the law, and effectively repeals it for them. Then, instead of sending Obama a repeal, the GOP sends him a replacement, one that perhaps restores subsidies for federal exchange enrollees, but also eliminates all of the law’s onerous and questionably-Constitutional provisions, and includes the free-market reforms we’ve been trying to enact for years.

Does Obama dare veto it?

Stay tuned, this is gonna be good.

.

.

.

Share

SCOTUS Affirms Homosexual War on Christianity, Declines To Hear Same-Sex “Marriage” Cases

Share

supreme court

By choosing to Do Nothing today, the Supreme Court has escalated the homosexual war on religious freedom. The same-sex “marriage” juggernaut is now cleared to run roughshod over Christians nationwide.

Many if not most observers expected the Supreme Court to take at least one of the cases for which review was sought in which the issue of whether same-sex marriage bans were constitutional was squarely presented.

None of the Supreme Court’s decisions in DOMA or the Prop. 8 litigation decided that issue.

But the Supreme Court did not take any of the cases, leaving in place Court of Appeals decisions that seem to clear the way for same-sex marriages in numerous states.

Like the man said, “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

Jonathan Adler writes that the Supreme Court might still take a case in the future, but I don’t see how that is realistic considering how expansive the pending cases were in terms of geography. In the states for which review was sought there will be marriages undertaken, a complicating factor if the court were to rule in the future that same-sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional.

Which means that in at least 30 states now, refusal to embrace same-sex “marriage” on religious grounds is punishable as a matter of law. And it’s only a matter of time before religious freedom is eradicated nationwide.

“You can practice your religion,” they’ll say. Except you can’t earn a living while practicing it. That there is the antithesis of Freedom and a crime against Liberty. No Founding Father would have countenanced such a result.

Yet here we are, at the mercy of militant homosexuals, an intolerant minority if I ever saw one, dictating de facto fascism under the guise of “equality.”

Wanna bet the polygamists aren’t salivating right now, with the pederasts and incest-obsessed in tow? Licentiousness is all the rage, and if you cling to some outdated notion of morality it’s you who has the problem because the law is no longer on your side.

You know what’s coming. Catholic priests who refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies will be subject to fines and vilification, because the homo-fascists hate them even more than they resent the odd Christian baker, florist or photographer. Adam and Steve want to sashay down the aisle at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, and woe unto him who stands in their way.

Our First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — was intended to give equal stature to all religions. Alas in our now, ahem, “enlightened” age, up is down, right is wrong, left is right, and only approved religions that comply with the diktats of homosexuality are still permissible.

Share

SCOTUS slaps down SEIU over illegal union dues

Share

seiu logo

Schadenfreude! SCOTUS ruling will force SEIU to repay millions in illegal union dues

The Purple People Beaters got beat. And soon, they’ll feel the heat.

One of the nation’s most powerful labor unions could face a costly onslaught of lawsuits seeking tens of millions of dollars in dues, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the money was collected improperly, legal experts said.

In a ruling Monday, the high court held that Service Employees International Union cannot force people who care for loved ones to be union members and deduct dues from the government checks of those they care for. The practice has gone on for several years in a handful of states, creating a lucrative stream of cash for the powerful labor organization, which represents more than 2 million workers and takes in about $300 million per year.

“The whole point of the decision was that the folks milked by the SEIU weren’t really public employees and should not be forced to pay union dues at all,” said Hans Bader, senior attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “So they should be able to sue for refund of their compelled union dues back as far as the statute of limitations will allow.”

“It could have a large effect,” he added.

Every dime refunded to these hard-working folks is money that can’t be used for promoting Democrats at the ballot box. And any day when public employee unionista power gets curtailed is a good day for America.

What’s not to like about that?

Share

News That Leaves Me Shaking My Head In Disbelief

Share

Scouring the internet for news items I want to write about leaves this humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in thinking that universal suffrage was a very bad idea. I find myself fantasizing about what our country would be like if we had a minimum IQ require to vote and to hold public office. We wouldn’t want to put the bar too high. I’m thinking a minimum IQ of 80 or 85 would do. My guess is that , if we had such a requirement, the number of qualified voters in the country would go down dramatically and probably 70% of the people currently holding public office, including the bureaucrats, would not be there.

What follows is just few news items that caught my attention that could have come from a news service called Ripley’s Believe It or Not. They are in no particular order.

When is breaking the laws of the land not considered a criminal act?

Apparently when the laws being broken are our immigration laws. From an American Thinker article we learn:

…now a Supreme Court justice has opined that calling illegal migrants “criminals” is insulting.

The author of the article wonders what we should call someone who breaks the law? “Legally challenged”? WTH?

Climate Hubs _ Another very bad idea brought to you by your federal government.

From Zero Hedge, we learn:

Ag Sec Tom Vilsack announced today the creation of the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change at seven locations around the country. “Climate Hubs” will address increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management.Why is this being announced? “Today’s announcement is part of the President’s Climate Action Plan to responsibly cut carbon pollution, slow the effects of climate change and put America on track to a cleaner environment.”

This Global Warming/Climate Change nonsense has really got to stop. There is no settled science of global warming. There’s been no warming in  over sixteen years. The polar ice caps are growing; not shrinking. Over the history of our small planet, there have been periods much warmer than now and periods much colder than now. Yes, the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. But, there have been other periods in earth’s history of high CO2 levels. More importantly, science can not yet tell us if these higher CO2 levels are a net bad thing or a net good thing (more greening of the planet). And, thank God that climate does change. If it ever stops changing, mankind will be in a world of hurt. Our government is using the Global Warming/ Climate Change scare tactics to take away more of our freedoms and to control every aspect of our lives. These so-called Climate Hubs will be used to interfere with how farmers use their land. Count on it! WTH?

Screw up a government contract really, really bad, and get rewarded with more government contracts.

Rick Moran at American Thinker has this to report:

The company that built the failed Obamacare website received six additional contracts from the Obama administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after the website’s disastrous launch, The Daily Caller has learned.

According to a company spokesman, CGI Federal was awarded six additional contracts from CMS worth approximately $37 million between October 1 — when the over $600 million Obamacare website launched — through January 2014.

CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of the Canadian company CGI Group, and was formed in 2009 to bring CGI into the federal contracting business. The company employs Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate, and 2010 White House Christmas guest, Toni T0wnes-Whitley as a top executive.

This administration has no shame. “Reward your friends and punish your enemies” is Obama’s motto. We taxpayers, apparently, are his enemies. WTH?

What separation of powers?

Congresswoman, Sheila Lee Jackson, likes what President Obama is doing to bypass Congress with his Executive Orders. But, she thinks he should do a lot more of it and she thinks Congress should help him go around Congress. How is that for convoluted logic?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, recently announced the formation of the Congressional Full Employment Caucus, saying its members would “give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign,” according toCNS News.

“We will be answering the call of all of America because people need work, and we’re not doing right by them by creating work,” Lee said in a Jan. 29 speech at a gathering of Democratic lawmakers. “I believe this caucus will put us on the right path, and we’ll give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength.”

Uh…, Congresswoman, they are called Executive Orders because they come from the Chief Executive of the United States; not from Congress. But, you hang on to that thought. This is America where apparently any idiot can become President. You still have a chance to the Executive who writes the Orders. WTH?

Obama channels Nixon

After losing the governor’s race in California in 1962, Richard Nixon told reporters: “You won’t have me to kick around any more.” On Super Bowel Sunday, President Obama asked Bill O’Reilly:

…what are you… going to do when I’m gone?

Seriously, Mr. President? Well, after we sober up from a week-long celebration, the list of things we will do would take the rest of your term in office to tell you all of them. WTH?

So, dear friends, maybe we should seriously consider my idea of establishing a minimum IQ requirement in order to vote or hold public office. But then, how would we get the low IQ folks to vote for that? Sigh!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch

Share

#TrestinsFast Update: SCOTUS Orders Gay Marriage to Stop Until Appeals Complete, FAST IS OVER!

Share

“God did this.”

Trestin Meacham

January 6, 2014

#TrestinsFast for traditional marriage, a fast in order to raise awareness regarding a federal judge over-ruling Utah’s Constitution, will end today.  The Supreme Court has placed gay marriages on hold until a federal appeals court rules.  The Washington Times has more…

The Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, pending a ruling from an federal appeals court regarding a judge’s decision to gut the state’s ban on such unions.

The Washington Times reported last month that a federal judge in Utah struck down a voter-passed ban on gay marriage, saying it violates gay and lesbian couples’ constitutional rights.

The decision came after the Supreme Court this summer struck down the federal law banning recognition of state gay marriage laws.

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby said he could not find a compelling reason to permit Utah’s Amendment 3, passed by 66 percent of voters in 2004, to stand.

So, Trestin will end his fast in a while, and we will have any further statements from him.  This effort did what it was designed to do-it raised awareness, and allowed is to expose the hate and intolerance of it’s opponents.

Share

Is Prop 8 Still The Law?

Share

We all thought that Prop 8 went down in flames earlier this week.  however, some are questioning if the media has the story right.  Doug, of the Daily Gator, has this, via Breitbart…

Proposition 8 is the amendment to the California Constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A federal trial judge – Vaughn Walker – held that Prop 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case – the governor and attorney general of California–had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8?s official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Since the official sponsors lacked standing to defend Prop 8, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits, and also vacated (i.e., threw out) the the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California. Section 3.5 of the California Constitution specifically commands:

An administrative agency… has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

As of today, there is no appellate opinion (meaning an opinion issued by a court of appeals) against Prop 8. The Supreme Court refused to issue one, and threw out the only other one (the Ninth Circuit’s). There is only a trial court opinion. So every agency in California is legally bound to regard Prop 8 as binding law.

Perhaps a legal scholar can weigh in on this.  I’ll post the response if there is one.

Share

Some Thoughts on the SCOTUS, DOMA and Prop 8

Share

culture war

There are a lot of strong feelings out there today, as the SCOTUS has issued rulings on DOMA and California’s Prop 8.  Both deal with gay marriage, and there are a ton of upset SoCons out there.  The Cultural Marxists won another victory.  I don’t blame the SoCons, and I’m dismayed as well.  However, as a Christian, I know that this type of thing is going to happen.    The world is becoming more and more corrupt.  The Book predicts this, so while it is disappointing, it we’ve know about it for nearly 2000 years.  I trust God, and take him at his word.  He will act in due course, but we need to keep faith, raise our children well, and fight the good fight as we can.  But understand this-it will get worse.  I know, it’s not the most cheerful message, but consider this-we have the book, and the good guys win in the end.

As for the political end of the equation, I find myself agreeing with Steve, over at America’s Watchtower.   We don’t want government defining marriage…

  My take on this decision is not going to be popular with many conservatives, but here goes:

  I firmly believe that the government should not be involving itself in the issue of marriage; what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is their own business, it is not the business of the government. But the government has involved itself in marriage and until or unless the government removes itself from the issue of marriage–or the people remove the government from this issue–I think it is important that government involvement be contained to where it should be.

This reflects Matt’s First Law of Politics…

Any legislation should be viewed through the prism  of how it will one day be abused. 

You give the Government the ability to define marriage?  Great, you won-for now.  But what happens in 10-20-30 years, when liberals take over and make it legal to marry a five year old, or a pretty pony?  You see, you gave them the power, and so day, that power will be turned against you.  It is an inevitable lesson of history.  Ignore it at your own peril.  I agree with Steve in the the only real solution to the marriage situation is a Constitutional Amendment.

In terms of some of the reactions I’ve read-namely people questioning the SCOTUS, I have to say that they ruled correctly, under the laws of our Republic.  Remember this, from John Adams…

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Our Republic hasn’t failed us, we have failed it.  Our entire system of government is predicated on a populace that takes care of itself, that morally regulates itself, and does not need the heavy hand of tyranny to maintain social order.  This is where the Cultural Marxists have done so well.  They identified the weakness of our Republic, namely us, and targeted those things that underpin our culture.  By eroding morality, they create chaos and disorder.  And, since the attack is against the people and their basic morality, the only “solution” to the “crisis,” is to give the government more and more power.

Then, we can have a government just as corrupt and so many of our people are.

Share

The Dream Is Over: SCOTUS Says You’re No Longer Free

Share

THESE 9 PEOPLE JUST TOLD YOU TO TAKE YOUR MEDICINE

This is no longer America. You no longer have the opportunity for the American Dream. You, we, me — we’re all slaves now. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has just made it official.

Congress has abandoned youThe executive branch has abandoned you.  SCOTUS has abandoned you. The lapdog media has abandoned you.

I had hopes, coming into today, that SCOTUS would uphold the rule of law, that the President of the United States and his Congresscriminal henchmen (and women) would not be allowed to rule you like king and court. I had hopes that the possibility of the American Dream, though tarnished and bloated by a monolith of ineffectual and overtly socialist federal government (from BOTH parties), could be reclaimed in November.

I no longer have any such hope. Barack Obama swept into office in 2008 with a promise of hope and change, but in reality he’s fundamentally changed America —JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD — and that “change” is to effectively dash all hope for any kind of future whatsoever. He will do whatever he must to win in November. The Supreme Court just gave him the most significant boost of his presidency. Even the Stock Market fears the dream is over, tumbling after the SCOTUS decision was announced.

From the SCOTUSblog, while 866,000 people watched the live blog, the ruling came down:

  • In a ruling by turncoat, un-American, and heretoforetobe reviled, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Court does not reach severability issues, having upheld the mandate 5-4. The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter because there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power. “Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.”
  • You CANNOT refuse to pay the tax. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax. (A tax that Obama himself previously saidWASN’T a tax.)
  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Justices Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn’t. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.
  • In dissent, Justice William Kennedy, JUSTICE WILLIAM KENNEDY!, wrote: “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.” It’s a vast judicial overreach.

But dissenting opinons don’t help you hold onto your freedom. There is no room in this country for freedom anymore. None whatsoever. (The actual majority opinion is here.)

William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection says we need to fight back at the voting booth.

I recently said the same:

In these spend times we are nearing end times. The center cannot hold. It’s already beyond being off axis.

In the coming 5 months we have a decision to make. Do we let our country die? Do we let our way of life die? Do we let ourselves die?

Choosing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama is infinitely more palatable than continuing on this path of destruction we follow. We have great sacrifices to make. We will have to retire later than we planned. We will have to expect less government entitlements than we were “promised” when we were forced to give the government our money to fund them. Then more money. And still more money. (Hell, every year we vote to tax ourselves locally for infrastructure projects many of us never see come to life, because often that money is diverted to other expenditures, just like the entitlement taxes we pay.) We will have to make the biggest gut check of our lives. We will have to hold the limbs of the people we elect to take over this monstrosity to more than just a fire; we will have to tie them to a rack and torture them, if necessary, to right this sinking ship.

I’ve been hearing “let’s go to the voting booth and take back this country” all of my adult life. Like many of you, I’ve voted my conscience, or at least on what I thought was in the best interest of this country to keep it somewhere within the framework of a Constitutional Republic, however ridiculous and misguided an exercise that was.

The fact is, we’ve allowed 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices — 545 human beings out of the 300 million who are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country — to cajole us, to patronize us, to lie to us, to horrify us, to control us from their sick little pulpits in the District of Criminals.

FIVE-HUNDRED-AND-FORTY-FIVE PEOPLE RULE OVER 300 MILLION.

It’s time we stop letting them.

Congress has abandoned you. The executive branch has abandoned you. The Supreme Court has abandoned you. Their watchdogs, the media, have abandoned you.

What are you going to do about it?

I know what I’m going to do: Tear the monolith down by whatever means necessary.

THIS IS WAR.

Original Post:  Feed Your ADHD

Share

Forced Union Membership Means Free Speech

Share

OK kids, it’s time to put on your suspension of disbelief, and hold on to your chairs, because this is going to be one crazy ride.  It seems that a union is suing to overturn Indiana’s Right to Work Law.  Their reasoning is typical liberal, and therefore defies all logic.  Here is more from CNBC…

INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana’s new right-to-work law should be struck down because it infringes upon unions’ free speech rights by depriving them of the dues that fund their political speech, attorneys for a union challenging the law contend, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called Citizens United ruling that eased restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

Attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 argue in a court brief that Indiana’s new law, which allows workers to not pay union dues even if a union bargains on their behalf, interferes with the union’s free speech rights and “impinges on this fundamental right of union membership.”

Where in the you-know-what do we begin to take this one apart?  Obviously, this is typical leftist, “re-brand slavery as freedom” effort.   Essentially, what they are saying is that to grant the “right” to union membership, people must be forced to join them.  Because, as well all know, exercising rights means depriving everyone else of theirs.  Then, the union’s “freedom of speech” requires that they confiscate funds from the members, that, in turn, must be forced into joining.  And all of this is OK, because “this is what democracy looks like,” right?

H/T:  National Right to Work Committee

Share

President Obama Darkly Threatens Supreme Court; Does His Behavior Fit Definition of Bullying?

Share

President Obama is a bully. Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, and this is exactly what President Obama is attempting to do with his latest speech in which he darkly threatened the Supreme Court regarding their impending decision regarding Obamacare, saying

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

His behavior, as I have demonstrated on this blog repeatedly, is bullying, especially because it is habitual in nature (done many times, especially when he isn’t reading a prepared text) and it justified by what he believes is an imbalance of power- as his people once famously stated, ‘elections have consequences’ and now he believes that he has ‘the power’ and others do not. His target or victim changes with the issue, but consists of the Koch Brothers, conservatives, businesses, the Tea Party, and now the five judges on the Supreme Court that are about to use their longstanding power of judicial review to strike down a law that was narrowly passed using kickbacks, parliamentary gimmicks, ‘reconciliation,’ and backroom deals, which repulsed the democracy of our nation so much that in the next election Democrats were wiped out in a historic manner a mere two short years after Obama was elected.

A usual tactic involved in bullying is to socially isolate the victim of the attack, by separating them from the rest of society by describing them as different or ‘unelected’, and therefore then justifying the ensuing attack because they are not part of society. Language like ‘unprecedented’ is not meant to suggest that the Supreme Court using its power of judicial review is unprecedented- it has used it 1300 times over 200 years and a ‘constitutional scholar’ like Obama must know that- but rather it is used to attempt to isolate and separate the victim for the ensuing attack.

Even though I’ve had many workshops on bullying, I don’t pretend to be an expert on it, but I still recognize in Obama a need to dominate and even a casual and friendly observer would agree that the policies that he pushes are authoritarian in nature, which are characteristic of a bully. Other emotions that frequently are associated with bullies is envy and resentment, and this also fits with the profile that the Democrat President has been filling out over the last four years- someone who is filled with class envy and resentment at those who do well in society and desires to bring them down through the force of government- or as he stated recently, even if Congress doesn’t go along with his ideas, he is still prepared to use the power of his office to bully people into going along with his views.

Bullies also frequently desire to control their image, and we have seen quite clearly since Obama has been elected that he has a thin skin and does not take jokes very well. Many Presidents laugh at their own faults and make fun of themselves- such as George W Bush did at the correspondents dinner on many an occasion or George HW Bush did by inviting Dana Carvey to the White House- but President Obama uses comedy to belittle, demean, and attack his enemies, as has been documented on many a blog over the years.

It has often been suggested that bullying behavior has its origin in childhood, and this leads me to wonder just what sort of childhood President Obama had. One can imagine him as a youth as either the target of bullying- and now responding in kind- or as the instigator of it. Adult bullying is characterized by administrative end-runs (like was does in passing Obamacare), well-planned and orchestrated attempts at character assassination (I think today he was going after Big Oil), or other less obvious yet equally forceful forms of coercion (such as darkly threatening Congress recently or the Supreme Court in this particular instance).

As a child I refused to be bullied, and as a blogger I’ve faced many attempts to bully me. And I’m not going to stand for the President of the United States attempting to bully our Supreme Court. I’m not a fan of judicial review and I don’t like activist judges, but the response that decent people would resort to would be arguing their views and policies more clearly and persuasively. President Obama is not a decent person- he is a bully- and so his response as it has always been is to intimidate, use force, threaten power, socially isolate, character assassinate, and bully away.

Vote Republican in 2012 and throw this bully out of office.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

SCOTUS Candidate Tells the Truth

Share

The Libtards have had a problem lately.  They continue to be caught telling the truth!  Now, it’s not the “truth” that they want you to see and hear, but they won’t let a little thing  like reality interfere with CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE!

Next lucky contestant?  It’s none other than Sonia Sotomayor, the SCOTUS nominee from the messiah SPENDULUS MAXIMUS!

The gentlemen at Verum Serum have again broke a big one! They posted this to Youtube on May 2nd!

Yeah, I know.  There has been over 9000 bloggers that have run with this in the last two days.  It’s just too irresistible!  I wonder how she’ll rule on all of the freedom-robbing legislation that the messiah will ram down our throats?  Heh-heh.

How ya likin’ that change?

Share

Constitution is Anything We SAY IT IS!

Share

An alleged “finalist” for nomination to the SCOTUS is one Diane Wood, a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago (what  a coinkydink!).  As discussed here, she has some unusual, and consequently liberal, views on the Constitution.

In a 2005 article she wrote for the New York University Law Review, Wood argued that the U.S. Constitution “survives” the test of time through the “evolving” interpretation of its text.

“Over the long run, even though it can sometimes be frustrating to wait for the long run, it has been better to allow constitutional understandings to grow with the times,” she wrote. “Our eighteenth-century Constitution, while a bit cryptic at the edges, is nonetheless a real treasure.”

Whaaaaaat?  Cryptic?  Yup, that “…nor prohibit the free expression thereof..” is a real mystery, ain’t it?  Or, perhaps “shall not be infringed…” is a real enigma?  Note the reference to the fact that the Constitution was written in the 18th century.  This is the common libtard rationale for discounting the Constitution, and the freedoms it guarantees.  Freedom means now, what it meant then.  Freedom never changes, useful idiots apparently do.

In 2002, in the case, A Woman’s Choice-East Side Women’s Clinic v. Newman, she dissented against a majority court opinion that required women in Indiana to receive in-person consultation from an abortion doctor 18 hours before having an abortion.

While the 2-1 majority speculated that such a requirement might dissuade women from seeking abortions by adding a step to the process, Wood argued that this would present the women with an undue burden.

“(T)he law’s requirement that women receive certain advice ‘in the presence’ of ‘the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician or a physician assistant’ (§ 16-34-2-1.1(1)) amounts to an unconstitutional ‘undue burden’ on the abortion decision,” she wrote.

Um…mandating that the patient consult with a doctor before an invasive procedure.  THE NERVE!!!  Having had one surgical procedure in my life, I would EXPECT to actually go over it with the doctor in advance, and I did!  And the consult was with the ABORTION DOCTOR!!  It wasn’t like they were trying to persuade someone to not have the abortion.    This, my friends, is an example of the “abortion at any cost” thinking that permeates the libtards!

Now, to look at this from a conservative point of view, there is no right to kill babies in the Constitution, nor should the government be mandating medical care.

OK, she’s a libtard, not a big surprise.  But I think we ought to go a bit deeper and see what the libtards think about the Constitution.  So, as a public service, I will reverse the dataflow on the CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE Translation Matrix and feed the US Constitution into the input.  Oughta be interesting…

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: NO RELIGION!!! ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, EVER!!!!  It interferes with “tolerance” and “diversity,” you know.  The people can speak and write as the please, as long as libtards like it, and they agree with us.  Otherwise, it’s hate speech, and they need to go to jail. They can assemble, just not at Tea Parties!  The press is free as well, as long as they praise our policies, and ignore the consequences.  Just blame it on those blasted conservatives!

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: What does “shall not be infringed” mean??  Whatever, let’s just ignore it!

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: Unless they’re saying things we don’t like.  Then, all bets are off!

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: I hope no one reads this!  Let’s just pretend like it’s not there, mmkay?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: Derrrrrrrr, gaaaaaack, urggggggh!  <No translation available.  Liberal minds cannot comprehend limits on governmental powers>

Well then, there you have it.

Link:  US Constitution

Share