Republican-Controlled House Passes Continued Complete Funding for ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood

God help us!!

Republican House Leaders John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise

TPNN: September 18, 2014 By Matthew Burke: 

House Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner, joined with Democrats to pass a continuing resolution late Wednesday that will continue to fully fund Obamacare, which has never had majority support in any poll since its passage, as well as funding Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion factory which also teaches sadomasochism to girls as young as 15-years-old. 

Additionally, the bill to fund the government through December 11, provides funding for Obama’s request to “train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition,” i.e., “Syrian rebels.”

Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi joined Republicans in voting for the bill, which passed 319 to 108. Four members did not vote.

Among Republicans who voted against the bill included Trey Gowdy, Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann, Dana Rohrabacher, and John Fleming, while several far-left Marxist Democrats voted in favor of the Republican leadership sponsored bill, including John Conyers and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
“The truth is that, if you look back under this president as commander-in-chief, we trained people in Libya,” said Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX). “We provided weapons to Libya that were then used against us in Benghazi. There are Americans dead because this administration felt compelled to go in and take out Qadhafi.”

“One of the big problems, too, when we go in and train, as this President wants to do for the Syrians, they learn our tradecraft,” said Rep. Gohmert. “They use it against us, as they did at Benghazi,” Gohmert predicted.

“If we are going to degrade and destroy them [ISIS] it will not happen through an indecisive strategy that relies on unreliable and largely unknown help from Syrian rebels, whose own motivations and goals are mixed, and almost impossible to be certain of,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA).

Republican currently hold a majority in the House of Representatives and are led by Speaker of the House John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and new House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.  

Palin: I Do Not Want to Leave the Republican Party, But If They Leave Me… 

EXCLUSIVE: Chris McDaniel: ‘People Need to See the Ugly Under Belly of Some Elements of the Republican Party’

Hobby Lobby Wins SCOTUS Decision as Obama Racks Up a String of Judicial Losses at Supreme Court

It has been a tough week for President Obama at the Supreme Court!  As the somewhat surprising ObamaCare loss to Hobby Lobby was added to the tally on Monday, the Obama administration lost 4 out of 5 big decisions and 2 were rare 9 to 0 decisions.

The Roberts Court

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

Although not unanimous decisions, after months of judicial rulings reining in big government and police on issues like snooping on Americans without a warrant, restrictions on campaign finance and President Obama’s recess appointment powers, the administration’s losses on ObamaCare rules and compulsory union dues served as a final rebuke by the Supreme Court on their last day of this session.

In the five years that President Obama has been in office, the Supreme Court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.

During the eight years each in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the government lost on unanimous votes 23 times and 15 times, respectively, putting the Obama administration on course to to be the biggest loser in recent history in terms of judicial losses.  Unfortunately for the American people, Obama won on the big one… the most damaging decision for America: ObamaCare, a decision many people are still baffled by and questioning.

President Obama appointed two of the sitting Supreme Court Judges Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, under an umbrella of considerable scrutiny and dissent by conservatives, the right. So the number of unanimous cases are important in that nobody can say, ‘Well, there are five Republican appointees on the court and only four Democrats.’

“These cases where they haven’t gotten the votes of either of the two Obama nominees means the arguments being presented by the Justice Department to the court are just out of left field,” said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Monday’s decisions were not unanimous, but congressional Republicans and other critics of President Obama saw the rulings as evidence that the Roberts court is finally acting as something of a final line of defense, a check and balance as they were meant to be, against a president who brags about his use of executive power to bypass Congress and impose his progressive agenda on the American people.

House Speaker John A. Boehner said of Monday’s decision, “It is a victory for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its big government objectives.”  Boehner announced last week that he would be suing the president for abuse of executive authority.  And although it is unclear how that lawsuit will play out, the administration’s recent track record in high-profile cases has been poor.

Chief Justice John Roberts managed to corral unanimous votes on both privacy and recess appointments — cases that have dealt stinging defeats to the president, having himself been a lawyer and former lecturer on constitutional law.

US Supreme Court to police: To search a cell phone, 'get a warrant':

Christian Science Monitor: WASHINGTON — In a major affirmation of privacy in the digital age, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that police must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

The 9-to-0 decision marks a Fourth Amendment landmark of profound importance given the ubiquity of cell phones, tablets, and portable computers in public places throughout society.

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life,’ " he said.

“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” the chief justice said.

“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple – get a warrant.” Read More

The Supreme Court delivered a solid blow Thursday to President Obama, ruling that he went too far in making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

SCOTUS Limits Recess Appointments Decision:

Fox News: In a unanimous decision, the high court sided with Senate Republicans and limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments. It was the first-ever Supreme Court test involving the long-standing practice of presidents naming appointees when the Senate is on break.

In this case, Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break when he filled slots at the NLRB in 2012. He argued the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling the seats.

The justices rejected that argument, though, declaring the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted during that three-day window.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution. Read  More

On recess appointments, justice was delayed but served…

Mandatory Union Fees Curbed by Court in Blow to Labor

BusinessWeek: A divided U.S. Supreme Court handed a setback to organized labor by placing new limits on the ability of unions to demand fees from some public-sector workers.

The high court, voting 5-4, invalidated Illinois rules requiring union payments from people who provide in-home care for disabled Medicaid recipients. The majority said those rules violated the workers’ constitutional right to freedom of speech and association because the home health-care workers weren’t true public employees.

“If we accepted Illinois’ argument,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in today’s majority opinion, “we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”  Read More

Hobby Lobby Wins SCOTUS Decision

Ask Marion/THITW:  Monday’s decision was very narrow and some pro-life and religious groups question whether it was a win in the long run in their battles.  It certainly was in the short run!! You be the judge…

Attorneys Who Defended Hobby Lobby Celebrating

American Thinker: Hobby Lobby 1, Obamacare 0

The Supreme Court upheld the religious freedom rights of Hobby Lobby, the closely-held corporation owned by believing Christians who objected to being required to supply the abortion pill to their employees.

Steve Ertelt of Life News reports:

…the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito handed down the decision for the high court, saying, “The Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage.”

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.

The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies. Non-profit groups like Priests for Life and Little Sisters are still waiting for a ruling about their right to opt out of the mandate.

Note that this ruling only applies to closely-held corporations, but does not rule out applying the same religious freedom reasoning to publicly-held firms and nonprofits.

Ed Lasky points out:

The fact that both these decisions [Hobby Lobby and the forced union dues case] were 5-4 points out the danger of Obama picking the next SC Justice with Reid in control of the Senate. If the opportunity present itself, he will abolish the filibuster for SC nominees, too.

Memo.com: The Supreme Court Gets It Right

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped up to defend Americans’ most basic freedoms from the full-frontal assault by the rampaging band of leftists running America. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, a Christian business that objected on religious ground to Obamacare’s mandate that they must cover certain contraceptives.

Hobby Lobby is among about 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like Hobby Lobby, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude abortifacients.

Justice Samuel Alito said the decision is limited to contraceptives. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” he said. He suggested two ways the administration could deal with the birth control issue. The government could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to say the administration can solve its problem easily. “The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it,” Kennedy said. He said that arrangement “does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.” Everyone’s rights respected and problem solved. Easy peasy.

Of course, Obamacare was never about health care or health insurance. It was only and always about government power and control. Over you. That’s what the contraceptive mandate was all about: social engineering, abortion made even easier to get, and with the government holding the strings of control over all of it.

Thank goodness the Supremes ruled on the side of religious liberty. It’s about time. But that 5-4 split is too close for comfort. As we head into 2016, don’t forget that the Supreme Court—like all of our courts—hangs by a thread, and with it, our most basic freedoms.

Huffington Post:  If Hobby Lobby Wins, Pro-life Christians Lose

We now know with certainty that the Supreme Court will announce its Hobby Lobby decision on Monday. This weekend, the craft and home décor store, along with numerous evangelical institutions that have filed briefs in its support -including my former employer the National Association of Evangelicals–are hoping and praying God will favor them with a whole new expansion of religious freedom and the protection of human life. I’m praying for the opposite.

Along with nearly 50 other for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby is demanding the same religious freedoms and protections that each of us has. Hobby Lobby was not endowed by its Creator with certain unalienable rights. It does not have a soul. It cannot have faith. Yet its owners (and their lawyers) insist that it should not have to comply with the contraceptive coverage requirement in the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. The Obama Administration reasonably granted an opt-out to houses of worship and other religious nonprofits. Hobby Lobby wants similar treatment.

Evangelical intervention on behalf of the multi-billion dollar corporation, which donates generously to their causes, is wrong for many reasons but here are two major ones: If you are pro-religious liberty and pro-life and family, you can’t support allowing a for-profit corporation to use religion to deny contraceptive coverage.

First, supporters of Hobby Lobby think they are helping the Christian faith but are actually harming it. In fact, a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby weakens religious freedom.

When anyone can use religion to claim an exemption on anything, religion loses meaning. Rather than a personal belief embedded in our souls, faith would become a set of arbitrary rules any corporation could choose from to skirt the law.

Is this what evangelicalism needs? I spent nearly three decades in governmental relations at the National Association of Evangelicals defending the free-exercise of religion and the right to life, among many other traditional values. Coming to the aid of for-profit corporations who want to ride on the backs of religion is not one of these honored principles.

Indeed, it is a kind of corporatism invading the body of Christ — concern not for the “least of these” but the richest of those among us. Is this what Christ would do?

When corporations are allowed the same exemptions that have always been reserved just for churches–whether on health benefits, hiring, or land use–those special protections become less clear and more open for interpretation.

If a for-profit corporation is eligible for legal exemptions on grounds of religious freedom, it puts government in charge of deciding what is or isn’t religion. You can just imagine the lawyers who will find work forever litigating these claims. I know, from experience, that their concern for what should be “legal” is not the same as what is “spiritual” or truly serves the interests of the Church.

What if a corporation owned by Jehovah Witnesses refuses to cover blood transfusions? If Christian corporations are allowed to use faith to refuse contraception coverage to women who work for them, what’s to stop a Christian Scientist business from refusing to cover any health benefits?

Second, the supporters of Hobby Lobby think they are being “pro-life.” They are wrong. A massive study conducted in 2012 showed that contraception coverage without a co-pay could dramatically reduce the abortion rate.

That study, conducted by the Washington University School of Medicine, of 10,000 women at-risk for unintended pregnancy found that when given their choice of birth control methods, counseled about their effectiveness, risks, and benefits, with all methods provided at no cost, about 75 percent of women in the study chose the most effective methods: IUDs or implants. Most importantly, as a result, annual abortion rates among study participants dropped up to 80 percent below the national abortion rate.

Well, you might ask, based upon some of the charges being made, aren’t the contraceptive methods being funded through the Affordable Care Act, abortifacients? Not if you believe medical science.

In the words of Jeffrey F. Peipert, M.D., Ph.D., the Robert J. Terry Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine, “these contraceptive methods work by preventing pregnancy (fertilization) from occurring in the first place. For instance, the intrauterine device works primarily by preventing fertilization. Plan B (or the progestin-containing, morning-after pill), along with Ella (ulipristal acetate), delay the release of a woman’s egg from her ovary. The egg does not get fertilized, which means the woman does not become pregnant.”

In sum, Evangelicals supporting Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court are not actually being pro-religious freedom or pro-life. If they win at the Supreme Court, these causes will be damaged in the long run.

Although this decision in favor of Hobby Lobby is generally seen as a victory by most on the right, and a win for freedom in general, it has opened the door for a lot of whining by the left, who will certainly take their misinformation and use it as a weapon in the upcoming 2014 Elections.  Therefore, it could not be a better time for Carly Fiorina’s new Pac… the UP Project, to educate women.

A big Supreme Court win on ‘greenhouse gas’ regulations for the EPA

The only win for the White House and the EPA this Supreme Court Session was on greenhouse gas:

Human Events:

The outcome is likely to be welcomed by environmentalists because it confirms the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to restrict greenhouse gases.

The justices handed down two separate rulings in a dispute over permits for new or modified power plants and factories.

In a 7-2 vote, the justices agreed the Environmental Protection Agency could force major polluters to use new and better technology to limit their emissions of carbon dioxide.

“These are major polluting facilities, such as factories and coal-fired power plants,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, and they are already subject to EPA restrictions. Now, those restrictions can include limits on greenhouse gases, he said.

The only disappointment faced by the regulatory State was that a separate 5-4 decision kept it from extending this authority to “millions of other facilities,” as the L.A. Times puts it, although I think that could be more properly rendered as “virtually all other facilities.”  The greenhouse-gas fantasy retains its grip on power plants, but at least they can’t make nearly every construction project pull “greenhouse gas permits,” which is where all of this was headed.  Today’s ruling also won’t do anything to stop the broader War on Energy carried out by the Obama Administration.  Considering what they won at the Supreme Court, their losses are trivial. Read More

Jonathan Turly Weighs In On Supreme Court Ruling & Executive Orders Special Report:

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It's about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president's unilateral modification of act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction. (House hearing, December 3, 2013).

Video:  Jonathan Turly Weighs In On Supreme Court Ruling & Executive Orders Special Report

UPDATE: The Kelly File, 2/12/2014: Turley on Expansion of Presidential Powers: "We Have Become a Nation of Enablers"

As for me… All in all, I’d say it was a great week!!  It is just too bad we can’t get decisions on the Constitutionality of important matters a little bit quicker!  It would save us a whole of hurt… money and time!!

Related:

Hobby Lobby Wins SCOTUS Decision

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Decisions in Two Important Patent Cases: What Do This Week’s Limelight and Nautilus Decisions Mean for You?

Two Unanimous Supreme Court Decisions Grant Immunity to Police, Secret Service

Supreme Court ruling dents public sector labor unions

Justices turn away 'conversion' therapy ban cases

Scalia Dissent: Judicial Gay Marriage Decision Is Jaw-Dropping

Supreme Court: Prayer at council meetings Constitutional

Did NSA Blackmail Roberts to OK ObamaCare?

U.S. Supreme Court dumps AZ voter law

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare…

Scalia vs. Thomas Jefferson on secession

Democrats eye Hobby Lobby defeat as a weapon on the campaign trail

HUMPHRIES: The liberal bully of the week is … Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Critics Question Constitutionality of President’s Executive Actions – Andrew Napolitano – The Kelly File

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court,Obamaland,SCOTUS,Law,Constitution,Chief Justice John Roberts,Scalia,NLRB,ObamaCare,Constitutional Law,Case Law,Overreach,Speaker Boehner,John Roberts,Fourth Amendment,Unons,EPA,Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Republicans to Officially Present Alternative to Obamacare

Changing Winds?

By Katie Pavlich – TownHall:  Republicans have voted more than 50 times to repeal or alter Obamacare as the popularity of the legislation continues to be nearly non-existent. In the process, Republicans have been criticized for failing to present an alternative piece of legislation to replace Obamacare. More than a dozen alternative plans have been crafted on the Hill, but Republicans haven't been able to rally around a single plan. Now, that's changing as Republican prepare to present Americans with an official alternative to the Affordable Care Act:

The plan includes an expansion of high-risk insurance pools, promotion of health savings accounts and inducements for small businesses to purchase coverage together. The tenets of the plan — which could expand to include the ability to buy insurance across state lines, guaranteed renewability of policies and changes to medical-malpractice regulations — are ideas that various conservatives have for a long time backed as part of broader bills.

But this is the first time this year that House leaders will put their full force behind a single set of principles from those bills and present it as their vision. This month, House leaders will begin to share a memo with lawmakers outlining the plan, called “A Stronger Health Care System: The GOP Plan for Freedom, Flexibility, & Peace of Mind,” with suggestions on how Republicans should talk about it to their constituents.

The timing for this legislation is great for Republicans who just came off of a special election win in Florida where Democrat Alex Sink lost by running on a fix, don't repeal platform. Not only can Republicans running for election in the fall run against Obamacare, a law that will only continue to make the lives of Americans worse and more expensive, they can run on a new alternative.

Technorati Tags: GOP,ObamaCare,Change,Hope,Healthcare,Republicans Unite,ACA,Affordable Care Act,PPACA,Alternatives,ObamaCare Alternatives,Election 2014,2014 Elections

House votes 230-189 to Fund Government, Defund ObamaCare

Video: Boehner After the CR Vote -  1:59 Mins

Video: House Bill To Fund Government & Defund ObamaCare Heads To Senate - Sen Ted Cruz Weighs In Cavuto

Video: Nancy Pelosi Very Angry After ObamaCare Defunded in House - September 20, 2013 -  1:14 Minutes

September 20, 2013 - Nancy Pelosi Very Angry After ObamaCare Defunded in House… Too Bad She Wasn’t This Angry About Fairness, the Constitution and the Role of Congress When She and Harry Reid Forced ObamaCare on America! 

And Here’s Nancy just yesterday

 Video: Nancy Pelosi on GOP: Legislative Arsonists are at Work - 1:19 Minutes

Video: Boehner Video 'Mocks' President Obama for Negotiating with Russia, Not Republicans

*The House of Representatives finally listened to the people and passed their stopgap funding bill (today) Friday to keep government open while terminating the new healthcare law, setting up a final showdown next week with Senate Democrats and President Obama who have firmly rejected that.

The 230-189 vote, which split almost exclusively along party lines, is the precursor to the big action next week, when the Senate is expected to strip out the health care provisions and send the bill back to the House — where Republicans will have to decide whether they can accept it at that point.

All sides are racing a Sept. 30 deadline, which is when current government funding runs out. The new measure would fund the government through Dec. 15, essentially at last year’s levels, and would leave the budget sequesters in place.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Washington, D.C. -- Congresswoman Michele Bachmann released the following statement after voting for a continuing resolution to defund ObamaCare and keep the government open.

“Today the House of Representatives listened to the will of the American people and voted to keep the government open while defunding ObamaCare. The President’s health care law is hurting economic growth, causing cutbacks in jobs and hours, and jacking up insurance premiums. We must save the American people from these disastrous consequences of ObamaCare while still keeping the government open. Even President Obama’s Big Labor allies are trying to exempt themselves from ObamaCare, declaring it will hurt the middle class and erase the 40-hour work week. ObamaCare is completely unworkable and deeply unpopular, and I will continue fighting until this train wreck is defunded once and for all so we can start over with free market, patient-centered health care reforms."

###

Please educate yourself and others and don't be fooled by the mainstream media spin that is coming. Former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who refused to work with the Republicans during the ObamaCare creation cycle, has already been spinning all afternoon!, actually for two days now!! The House has passed a budget bill 'with funding for everything' that our government needs to function, except ObamaCare, a program that will ultimately bankrupt us and destroy our quality of healthcare. The Administration will do everything to point the finger and push blame for shutting down our government on the Republicans (GOP). Don't be fooled, the only way the government gets shut down is if President Obama and his puppet Harry Reid cause it. The House "and the so-called bad negative Republicans" have passed a full budget bill while creating a way to open discussion on compromise and to make improvements on ObamaCare", not shutdown the government. It will be President Obama and the Democrats who chose to shut down the government, if that happens.

The goal is and always has been to force businesses to dump their employees into the ObamaCare Exchanges; ultimately creating a single payer system… Socialized Medicine! But not for the elite… Congress, Judges, the Executive Branch Employees, federal employees as a whole, friends of the elite and the Progressive system and the rich will have great healthcare, as good or better than they have or had before, but the average American They will be forced into socialized medicine run by government officials where they, and not the doctors  and health professionals, make decisions on treatments and treatment qualification… while 30-Million of the poor will still not have healthcare. But you can bet that illegal aliens and their kids will.

The unions finally figured that out and began speaking up… But last week their leaders left the White House smiling after a private meeting; any guesses as to why?

ObamaCare will guarantee that there will be two classes… and ObamaCare has been written so that the government will be involved in every aspect of American life!  This opportunity, that the House Republicans fought for, might be the last chance for Americans to stand-up and fight against this.

Just this week, both Home Depot and the Cleveland Clinic, that Obama has used as an example for his side, have announced that they will be dumping employees, either into the exchanges or laying people off, to prepare for the implementation of ObamaCare.  So you be the judge~

And the Republicans… they do want to negotiate!!!!

Don't be played!!

52%+ of Americans polled want ObamaCare Defunded completely. 72% are not happy with ObamaCare (and the number is growing) and they want changes if the program remains law. 30-Million Americans will still be without healthcare after this expensive disaster goes into affect. And members of the Federal Government and their friends will not have ObamaCare as their healthcare system; they will retain their Cadillac plans.

If you do not want ObamaCare and you want the Democrats in the Senate to work with the House, contact your Senator (and President Obama)… Senate List Below:

Senators of the 113th Congress

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
Class II

455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4944

Contact: www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Ayotte, Kelly - (R - NH)
Class III

144 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3324

Contact: www.ayotte.senate.gov/?p=contact

Baldwin, Tammy - (D - WI)
Class I

717 HART WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5653

Contact: www.baldwin.senate.gov/contact

Barrasso, John - (R - WY)
Class I

307 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6441

Contact: www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conta...

Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
Class II

511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2651

Contact: www.baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Begich, Mark - (D - AK)
Class II

111 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3004

Contact: www.begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailSenator

Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO)
Class III

458 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5852

Contact: www.bennet.senate.gov/contact/

Blumenthal, Richard - (D - CT)
Class III

724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2823

Contact: www.blumenthal.senate.gov/contact/

Blunt, Roy - (R - MO)
Class III

260 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5721

Contact: www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form?p=cont...

Boozman, John - (R - AR)
Class III

320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4843

Contact: www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)
Class III

112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3553

Contact: www.boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/

Brown, Sherrod - (D - OH)
Class I

713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2315

Contact: www.brown.senate.gov/contact/

Burr, Richard - (R - NC)
Class III

217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3154

Contact: www.burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.C...

Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)
Class I

311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3441

Contact: www.cantwell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-maria

Cardin, Benjamin L. - (D - MD)
Class I

509 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4524

Contact: www.cardin.senate.gov/contact/

Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE)
Class I

513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2441

Contact: carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-senator-carper

Casey, Robert P., Jr. - (D - PA)
Class I

393 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6324

Contact: www.casey.senate.gov/contact/email-bob

Chambliss, Saxby - (R - GA)
Class II

416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3521

Contact: www.chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Chiesa, Jeff - (R - NJ)
Class II

141 HART WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3224

Contact: www.chiesa.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Coats, Daniel - (R - IN)
Class III

493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5623

Contact: www.coats.senate.gov/contact/

Coburn, Tom - (R - OK)
Class III

172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5754

Contact: www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactsenatorcobu...

Cochran, Thad - (R - MS)
Class II

113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5054

Contact: www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me

Collins, Susan M. - (R - ME)
Class II

413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2523

Contact: www.collins.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email

Coons, Christopher A. - (D - DE)
Class II

127A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5042

Contact: www.coons.senate.gov/contact/

Corker, Bob - (R - TN)
Class I

425 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3344

Contact: www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Cornyn, John - (R - TX)
Class II

517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2934

Contact: www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm

Crapo, Mike - (R - ID)
Class III

239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6142

Contact: www.crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Cruz, Ted - (R - TX)
Class I

185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5922

Contact: www.cruz.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Donnelly, Joe - (D - IN)
Class I

720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4814

Contact: www.donnelly.senate.gov/contact/email-joe

Durbin, Richard J. - (D - IL)
Class II

711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2152

Contact: www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Enzi, Michael B. - (R - WY)
Class II

379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3424

Contact: www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=e-mail-sen...

Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
Class I

331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3841

Contact: www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

Fischer, Deb - (R - NE)
Class I

383 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6551

Contact: www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Flake, Jeff - (R - AZ)
Class I

368 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4521

Contact: www.flake.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Franken, Al - (D - MN)
Class II

309 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5641

Contact: www.franken.senate.gov/?p=contact

Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - (D - NY)
Class I

478 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4451

Contact: www.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/

Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC)
Class II

290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5972

Contact: lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.La...

Grassley, Chuck - (R - IA)
Class III

135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3744

Contact: www.grassley.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Hagan, Kay R. - (D - NC)
Class II

521 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6342

Contact: www.hagan.senate.gov/?p=contact

Harkin, Tom - (D - IA)
Class II

731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3254

Contact: www.harkin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Hatch, Orrin G. - (R - UT)
Class I

104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5251

Contact: www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=Email-Orrin

Heinrich, Martin - (D - NM)
Class I

702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5521

Contact: www.heinrich.senate.gov/contact

Heitkamp, Heidi - (D - ND)
Class I

502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2043

Contact: www.heitkamp.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Heller, Dean - (R - NV)
Class I

324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6244

Contact: www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

Hirono, Mazie K. - (D - HI)
Class I

330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6361

Contact: www.hirono.senate.gov/contact

Hoeven, John - (R - ND)
Class III

338 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2551

Contact: www.hoeven.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator

Inhofe, James M. - (R - OK)
Class II

205 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4721

Contact: www.inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...

Isakson, Johnny - (R - GA)
Class III

131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3643

Contact: www.isakson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me

Johanns, Mike - (R - NE)
Class II

404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4224

Contact: www.johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=ContactSenatorJohanns

Johnson, Ron - (R - WI)
Class III

328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5323

Contact: www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Johnson, Tim - (D - SD)
Class II

136 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5842

Contact: www.johnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Kaine, Tim - (D - VA)
Class I

388 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4024

Contact: www.kaine.senate.gov/contact

King, Angus S., Jr. - (I - ME)
Class I

359 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5344

Contact: www.king.senate.gov/contact

Kirk, Mark - (R - IL)
Class III

524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2854

Contact: www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=contact

Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN)
Class I

302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3244

Contact: www.klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm

Landrieu, Mary L. - (D - LA)
Class II

703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5824

Contact: www.landrieu.senate.gov/?p=contact

Leahy, Patrick J. - (D - VT)
Class III

437 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4242

Contact: www.leahy.senate.gov/contact/

Lee, Mike - (R - UT)
Class III

316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5444

Contact: www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Levin, Carl - (D - MI)
Class II

269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6221

Contact: www.levin.senate.gov/contact/

Manchin, Joe, III - (D - WV)
Class I

306 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3954

Contact: www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

Markey, Edward J. - (D - MA)
Class II

218 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2742

Contact: www.markey.senate.gov/contact.cfm

McCain, John - (R - AZ)
Class III

241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2235

Contact: www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...

McCaskill, Claire - (D - MO)
Class I

506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6154

Contact: www.mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=contact

McConnell, Mitch - (R - KY)
Class II

317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2541

Contact: www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=contact

Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ)
Class I

528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4744

Contact: menendez.senate.gov/contact/

Merkley, Jeff - (D - OR)
Class II

313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3753

Contact: www.merkley.senate.gov/contact/

Mikulski, Barbara A. - (D - MD)
Class III

503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4654

Contact: www.mikulski.senate.gov/contact/

Moran, Jerry - (R - KS)
Class III

361A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6521

Contact: moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry

Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)
Class III

709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6665

Contact: www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Murphy, Christopher - (D - CT)
Class I

303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4041

Contact: www.murphy.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Murray, Patty - (D - WA)
Class III

154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2621

Contact: www.murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
Class I

716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5274

Contact: www.billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Paul, Rand - (R - KY)
Class III

124 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4343

Contact: www.paul.senate.gov/?p=contact

Portman, Rob - (R - OH)
Class III

448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3353

Contact: www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact?p=contact...

Pryor, Mark L. - (D - AR)
Class II

255 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2353

Contact: www.pryor.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

Reed, Jack - (D - RI)
Class II

728 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4642

Contact: www.reed.senate.gov/contact/

Reid, Harry - (D - NV)
Class III

522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3542

Contact: www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Risch, James E. - (R - ID)
Class II

483 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2752

Contact: www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Roberts, Pat - (R - KS)
Class II

109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4774

Contact: www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailPat

Rockefeller, John D., IV - (D - WV)
Class II

531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6472

Contact: www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-jay

Rubio, Marco - (R - FL)
Class III

284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3041

Contact: www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Sanders, Bernard - (I - VT)
Class I

332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5141

Contact: www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/

Schatz, Brian - (D - HI)
Class III

722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-3934

Contact: www.schatz.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY)
Class III

322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6542

Contact: www.schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm

Scott, Tim - (R - SC)
Class III

167 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6121

Contact: www.scott.senate.gov/contact/email-me

Sessions, Jeff - (R - AL)
Class II

326 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4124

Contact: www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Const...

Shaheen, Jeanne - (D - NH)
Class II

520 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2841

Contact: www.shaheen.senate.gov/contact/

Shelby, Richard C. - (R - AL)
Class III

304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5744

Contact: www.shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailsenatorshelby

Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI)
Class I

133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4822

Contact: www.stabenow.senate.gov/?p=contact

Tester, Jon - (D - MT)
Class I

706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2644

Contact: www.tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

Thune, John - (R - SD)
Class III

511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2321

Contact: www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Toomey, Patrick J. - (R - PA)
Class III

248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4254

Contact: www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact

Udall, Mark - (D - CO)
Class II

730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5941

Contact: www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Udall, Tom - (D - NM)
Class II

110 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6621

Contact: www.tomudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Vitter, David - (R - LA)
Class III

516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4623

Contact: www.vitter.senate.gov/contact

Warner, Mark R. - (D - VA)
Class II

475 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2023

Contact: www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Warren, Elizabeth - (D - MA)
Class I

317 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-4543

Contact: www.warren.senate.gov/?p=email_senator

Whitehouse, Sheldon - (D - RI)
Class I

530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-2921

Contact: www.whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/

Wicker, Roger F. - (R - MS)
Class I

555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-6253

Contact: www.wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR)
Class III

221 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510

(202) 224-5244

Contact: www.wyden.senate.gov/contact/

By Marion Algier – AskMarion

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Socialized Medicine,Obamaland,the plan,single-payer system,ObamaCare Exchanges,Unions,Fundamental Transformation of America,Ted Cruz,Speaker Boehner,educate yourself,Nancy Pelosi,Senate List,List of Senators,Cavuto,videos,stand-up,standing-up,wake-up,GOP,Democrats,Republicans can win,healthcare,ObamaCare surprises,Cleveland Clinic,Home Depot,manipulation of the public,compromise,negotiation,Will of the People

Obamacare Becoming Boehnercare? - On The Record… Pull the Plug on Obamacare Rally – Group Demands Speaker Defund Health Care Law [Pictures]

Below are pictures from the “Pull the Plug on Obamacare” rally that took place in Troy, OH on Tuesday, August 27th, 2013.

Video: Defund Obamacare Rally 8-27-2013

By Marion Algier - AskMarion - h/t to MJ for photos

Hundreds attended this event to respectfully tell Speaker John Boehner to do the people’s will and defund Obamacare.

• Real Clear Politics average polling shows Obamacare is now opposed by a margin of 51% against to 39% in favor (link).
• Voters in Ohio spoke loudly against the federal government takeover of healthcare by passing the Healthcare Freedom Amendment (HFA) in 2011. The HFA won with 66% of the vote and passed in all of Ohio’s 88 counties.
• As a check and balance to protect America from tyranny, the founders gave the House of Representatives (or the “People’s House”) control of the purse strings of our nation.
• The House Speaker controls the “gavel” and the “calendar.” This means he decides who can speak and what bills may be scheduled for a vote. It is fully within John Boehner’s power not to allow ANY bills to the House floor that include money for Obamacare.
• In September, the House will hold a vote to fund our government. They will either include money to fund the implementation of Obamacare or they will pass a resolution without such funding.

BoehnerCare

Video:  Obamacare Becoming Boehnercare? - Group Demands Speaker Defund Health Care Law - On The Record

Rally Pictures and video…

Marching to Speaker Boehner’s office.

Panorama of march to Speaker Boehner’s office

At Speaker Boehner’s office.

Event organizer Janet Porter from Faith 2 Action leading rally attendees in prayer.

Rally crowd during presentations from speakers.

Doc Thompson of The Blaze.

The Blaze photographer.

Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

Ohio Liberty Coalition President Ted Stevenot

Pro Obamacare attendees.

RPV Chairman Pat Mullins Responds to ‘ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion in Virginia’ – A Susan Stimpson Email

Obamacare’s Hierarchy of Privilege

Cruz To Conservatives: “Don’t Blink” – Urges GOP To Fight Obamacare Rollout – On The Record

Obama Taps Former ACORN Lobbyist To Head Obamacare Youth Video Contest…

Time to put an end to special privileges for government officials

Another OBAMACARE PROVISION: "FORCED" HOME INSPECTIONS

Americans petition Congress to Defund Obamacare

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,rallies,events,Ohio,Defund ObamaCare,stand-up America,BoehnerCare,ACA,Medicaid Expansion,HFA

House Launches Investigation Into Obama’s Blatant Political and Illegal Delay of ObamaCare

Well folks… we are being played again!!

JoshuaPundit: With everything else that's going on, this hasn't gotten as much notice as it should. Even the drones at CBS can't conceal what a trainwreck this is. And now the President is simply manipulating things to move past the 2014 midterms, and not even the Obama Media can avoid it.

Oh, one more thing...it's totally illegal.The law does not allow any discretion whatsoever in its timetables. The President is simply taking unprecedented powers - again- while the media covers for him and the Republicans in the House let another opportunity go by.

The truth of the matter is that ObamaCare is truly a poorly thought out piece of legislation. That's because it was shoved through in a quasi-legal fashion using the reconciliation process reserved for budget matters to avoid having to bring the House bill to a confirming vote in the senate after Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts.

The individual provisions of ObamaCare, the taxes, the fines, the obscene diktats - still remain and will kick in 2014. After the midterms, in 2015, you will indeed see massive layoffs and workers thrown out of their company health plans to be forced into ObamaCare health exchanges...which are still in the process of being defined!

One thing we already know is that a minimum coverage Bronze level policy will cost $20,000 per year for a family of five, that rationing will be the new normal and that long waits to see a doctor if you're even allowed to have a procedure will be standard. And amnestia? Any bill that provides amnesty for the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens now in the U.S. and gives them access to Obama Care (and it's difficult to see how they can or should be excluded)is going to exacerbate these problems.

Needless to say, the Leftist elites from President Obama on down who lied to you aren't going to be faced with this choice...they have their own plan that covers themselves and their families that's far cheaper, better and more inclusive.

I agree with talk show host Mark Levin here. Instead of allowing the Prevaricator-in chief to get away with this, what if Boehner(or hopefully someone more articulate) went on television and simply told the American people that they were shutting down the government for a week or however long it takes to slash the money going into ObamaCare to protect their healthcare, to keep their premiums from going up, to allow their employer to keep from laying them off or make them switch to part time work. That President Obama was acting illegally to try and shove through a poorly thought out and highly damaging law, and that the House, with the power of the purse was going to act for the benefit of all Americans by exercising this oversight.

As a matter of fact, the House could have stopped ObamaCare or any of this presidents other serial abuses of power at any time simply by refusing to fund them. But that would have taken courage and  principle.

How long, O Lord?’

Well low and behold… Speaker Boehner with a print out of the ObamaCare Bill… and still growing at his side actually did step up and speak out… just not vehemently enough:

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 16: Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) stands next to a printed version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, during a news conference on Capitol Hill May 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. On top of calling for the repeal of Obamacare, Boehner fielded questions from reporters about the Obama Administrations’ subpoena of AP phone records, the IRS scrutiny of conservative political groups’ applications for tax exemption and other issues. Credit: Getty Images

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Republicans finally seized upon the administration’s abrupt delay of the employer mandate in the health care law as fresh evidence that President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy is unworkable and should be repealed, an argument that energizes the party base ahead of 2014 congressional elections. 58% of Americans now want ObamaCare repealed in its entirety.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration’s unexpected postponement of a key provision designed to insure more Americans was an admission that the 2010 law is unfeasible. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce’s oversight panel embarked on an investigation of the decision, seeking documents from the Treasury and the Health and Human Services departments.

“House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders today wrote to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, requesting documents and information regarding the administration’s decision to delay full implementation of the health care law’s employer mandate for one year. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), has held a series of hearings on the president’s health care law and will examine the administration’s delay of the employer mandate in the coming weeks,” read a statement from House Republicans.

But the White House’s willingness to respond to the concerns of business – and avoid the specter of job layoffs due to the unpopular health care law – spares Democrats one political headache in next year’s races.

“The best delay for Obamacare is a permanent one,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday, hours after the administration announced a one-year delay in requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a penalty.

Success in midterm elections depends in large part on turning out the party’s core voters, and Republicans see the latest twist as an opportunity to further vilify the health care law and ignite a GOP base already strongly opposed to Obama’s overhaul. GOP members of Congress pounced on the administration’s decision to make a point they hope will resonate with voters in their states.

“I’ve heard from countless employers in Maine who say that the onerous penalties and provisions in Obamacare provide perverse and powerful incentives to not hire new workers or to cut back on the hours that their employees are allowed to work,” said Senator Susan Collins, who faces re-election next year.

In their strategy for next year’s elections, Republicans were determined to focus on how medium and large businesses would respond to the law’s requirement and the possibility that would translate into job losses. The GOP was ready to place the blame on Democrats who voted for the law if companies had to lay off workers.

The one-year delay to January 2015 largely erases that aspect of the health care criticism in the midterm-election year.

Ken Hoagland, chairman of the conservative Restore America’s Voice and a fierce opponent of the law, said it spares House and Senate Democrats who voted for the law.

“Pushing back the economic damage of Obamacare past the next election won’t change the reality of harm to employees or to the overall economy,” Hoagland said in an interview. “It just seeks to protect those responsible for the legislation.”

Democrats sought to cast the issue as the administration listening to the business community.

“The administration has demonstrated its commitment to implement the Affordable Care Act with increased flexibility for the 4 percent of America’s businesses impacted by the employer responsibility requirement,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday.

Pelosi argued that a significant majority of businesses already provide health insurance to their employees. The California lawmaker who was instrumental in ensuring the law’s passage when she was speaker of the House insisted that Americans will soon benefit from increased access to affordable health care.

Democrats have always been dogged by the fact that few Americans understand the law and many fear its effect.

In the most recent polling, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that more Americans view the law unfavorably than favorably, a negative tilt that has remained steady since Obama signed it in March 2010. The foundation’s survey this spring found 43 percent with an unfavorable opinion of the law, 35 percent with a favorable view and 23 percent undecided.

The poll also found more people saying the nation will be worse off under the law than better off, a switch from public opinion immediately following its passage.

Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said Americans opposed to the law remain vehement while other Americans are waiting to see what happens.

The administration’s one-year delay “impacts a very small number. … A lot more people are going to be impacted by their ability to get insurance in the exchanges, removal of pre-existing conditions and by ultimately what the price is going to be. … I think in terms of the `14 elections, I just don’t see this particular decision having much impact.”

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans’ campaign committee, called the move “the worst of all worlds for Democratic candidates” because it will frustrate liberals who support the law while doing little to quiet Republican derision.

“What is a Democratic candidate supposed to say in light of this?” Dayspring said. “‘Yes, I supported Obamacare, but thankfully we delayed it to protect you from how bad it is’?”

Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who won last year in Republican-leaning North Dakota, offered a template for how Democrats could respond when faced with questions about the health care law and the administration’s latest move.

“I have repeatedly said that there is good and bad in the health care law, and we need to improve it. One improvement needed is to make it as simple as possible for our businesses to comply. I applaud the administration for delaying this requirement until there is a system in place that is workable for businesses,” she said in a statement.

Thus far the response from the Obama Administration:

There are people working on alternatives out there… people like Dr. Ben Carson.  Get-involved and educate yourself on this law.

Comments:

desertspeaks

Jul. 4, 2013 at 10:36am

Avoiding Obamacare! Rescind your signature with social security, and yes it is possible and legal!

Secondly, know that UNLESS you are a naturalized citizen, you are NOT a US CITIZEN! only US CITIZENS are subject to Obamacare!!!
STATUTE AT LARGE to become a US citizen, act of Congress of April 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165 THAT ACT SAYS, and PAY ATTENTION; provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, AND NOT OTHERWISE!!.”

The following of the act is paraphrased to save room for this to post!

1) That YOU 2 yrs prior to admission absolutely renounced and abjure all allegiance and fidelity “before a court” to any potentate or sovereignty.
2) And had given YOUR intentions to the court to become a U.S. Citizen / SUBJECT of a corporate nature in writing.
There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which YOU could have been naturalized. The Court and public law, did State” AND NOT OTHERWISE.” “which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.” And since the STATUTE AT LARGE, NOT code, says IT SHALL BE RECORDED in fact two.
3) reside “within” the US for 5 yrs, 1 yr in the state or territory where such court is and be a “MAN” of good moral character.
If you haven’t done ALL the above, YOU ARE NOT A US CITIZEN!

Your welcome!

See more comments at TheBlaze

Related: 

Obama Administration Guts Obamacare

5 Effects Obamacare Will Have on Working Americans

McCaughey: Obamacare is About Funding Democrats

California Schools To Train Kids To Sell ObamaCare

Washington Examiner: Kaiser: Most Say Nation Will be Worse Off Under Obamacare

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ObamaCare?

Mendacity and ObamaCare: "It is better to do this right than fast."

Consequences of ObamaCare Delays

UnitedHealth Leaves California Insurance Market

ObamaCare’s Death Knell

Desperate Congress Realizes They're Getting ObamaCare, Seeks a Waiver

Books: 

ObamaCare Survival Guide  -  Nick Tate

Beating Obamacare  -  Betsy McCaughey

 Obama Health Law  -  Betsy McCaughey

By Marion Algier  -  cross-posted at AskMarion

Technorati Tags: Obamaland,ObamaCare,ObamaCare delay,watch the other hand,politics,repeal and replace ObamaCare,defund ObamaCare,ObamaTax,manipulation of the public,The Blaze,Speaker John Boehner,Ben Carson,ObamaCare lies,John Roberts,smoke and mirrors,stand-up America,get-involved,Betsy McCaughey,Election 2014