The Absence of Obamacare Credits in Federal Exchanges WAS INTENTIONAL – Designed to Force Compliance

By Tom White  –  VA Right  -  Cross-Posted at Ask Marion:Two recent court cases came to two different conclusions in the battle against Obamacare. The question was concerning the language of the bill when it comes to credits in Health Care Exchanges set up by the Federal Government when states decide not to set up State Health Care Exchanges.

The language is pretty clear in the fact that it does create credits for Exchanges set up by the states. These credits are substantial and are the only part of the entire Affordable Care Act that actually addresses affordability. Sadly, this is done by redistributing the wealth. By taxing the productive earners in order to subsidize non-productive earners.

Monthly premiums for silver plans – the standard insurance policy sold on the exchanges – cost an average of $345 a month this year for people who did not qualify for subsidies, a new analysis from the administration shows.  – See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/18/Average-Obamacare-Subsidy-3312-Paid-Date-47-Billion#sthash.OQTugto5.dpuf

According to The Fiscal Times:

Monthly premiums for silver plans – the standard insurance policy sold on the exchanges – cost an average of $345 a month this year for people who did not qualify for subsidies, a new analysis from the administration shows.

However, for the overwhelming majority of Obamacare enrollees (87 percent) who did qualify for financial assistance, the average monthly premium on the silver plan costs about $69. That’s an average tax credit of about $276 a month, or $3,312 a year. The administration’s report broke down the average monthly premium for each of the four plans offered on the federal marketplace – before and after tax credits. It also detailed the percentage of enrollees selecting each plan, with or without tax credits. Data was not available for the state exchanges, which make up about one third of the total 8 million enrollees.

On average, monthly premiums after subsidies run about $69.00. But without the subsidy, $345.00. And 87% of enrollees qualify for these huge subsidies.

So with all the mandates for coverage, mandates on what must be covered and what can be charged, it is the subsidies and the subsidies alone that make the product affordable. Without them, the cost of Health Insurance rises considerably due to mandatory expanded coverages.

The Affordable Care Act depends on states setting up Exchanges as called for in the law. However, when much of the law was in the process of being written, it was done in secret. No one knew exactly what was going into the mix and the authors were as yet unaware of the massive resistance the bill was about to encounter. But they anticipated at least some token resistance from the rascally Republican controlled states. And this expected resistance was addressed in the bill with various sneaky political weapons and landmines designed to nudge resistive states into setting up the exchanges.

One political weapon the Democrats love to use is abortion. Republicans are outraged when tax dollars are confiscated to pay for a procedure they consider infanticide. So one of the booby traps the architects of Obamacare used was abortion. This would be the first of several “lesser of two evils” options resistive Republican states would face in deciding to implement Obamacare. You may recall the Stupak Amendment that extended the Hyde Amendment wording that prevents the Federal Government from paying for abortions. There was a big argument in House over abortion and several pro life Democrats insisted that the ACA not pay for abortions as a condition of casting their vote for the bill. However, that was the House Bill which was scrapped after Scott Brown’s victory effectively cut off the Democrat’s super majority in the Senate.

The Conservative Intelligence Briefing put it this way:

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

- See more at: http://www.conservativeintel.com/the-briefing-vol-ii-issue-25/?utm_source=Intel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House#sthash.tC38djHj.dpuf

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

- See more at: http://www.conservativeintel.com/the-briefing-vol-ii-issue-25/?utm_source=Intel&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House#sthash.tC38djHj.dpuf

Recall that after the special election of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in January 2010, Democrats were suddenly deprived of the flexibility they had expected to have in drafting the law’s provisions. They had expected a House-Senate conference committee in which they could iron out the kinks in the law and then pass it again through both the House and Senate. But suddenly, after Brown won, they realized they would never be able to pass any version of Obamacare through the Senate again. They no longer had the 60 votes they needed.

So the Democrats did the only thing they could: They took the version of the law they had already passed through the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, and rammed it back through the House, warts and all. There was no second chance to consider this issue or any others in detail. In any event, most members had only a vague idea of what the bill did anyway.

So the truth is, there is no language in the Senate Bill itself that prevents the Federal Government from paying for abortions. And in order to get the pro life Democrats to vote for the Senate version of Obamacare, Obama issues an executive order #13535 that pretends to forbid Federal payment of abortion. None of the pro life groups were fooled, nor were the voters in Stupak’s District in Michigan. Stupak “retired” and the voters put a Republican in the seat.

But according to Wiki, there are incentives to entice states into setting up these Exchanges:

Under the law, setting up an exchange gives a state partial discretion on standards and prices of insurance, aside from those specifics set-out in the ACA. For example, those administering the exchange will be able to determine which plans are sold on or excluded from the exchanges, and adjust (through limits on and negotiations with private insurers) the prices on offer. They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary; in either case, federal subsidies are prohibited from being used to fund the procedure. If a state does not set up an exchange itself, they lose that discretion, and the responsibility to set up exchanges for such states defaults to the federal government, whereby the Department of Health and Human Services assumes the authority and legal obligation to operate all functions in these federally facilitated exchanges.

And if having more control and discretion on the policies offered in each state isn’t enough to convince states to implement Obamacare, the Democrats added a big hammer. The Federal Government will come in and run things, leaving the states no say in how health care policies are sold in the state. Take that, you Republicans.

This Youtube video is a recording of the chief architect of the Senate Obamacare bill. The guy who put the political plums and hemlock in the bill, Jonathan Gruber. It is clear from listening to him speak that the intent was to use the lack of subsidies in the Federally run Exchanges as a mechanism to force states into compliance.

Video: Jonathan Gruber Once Again Says Subsidies Are Tied to State-Based Exchanges

But Gruber said that this was a mistake. A speak-o (as opposed to a typo). The intent was always to have the Federally run Exchanges give out the subsidies!

There is a video here that is nearly an hour long that has been making the rounds on the internet. I edited the same video down to about 5 minutes with the important parts being about the first 2 minutes. The rest of this is some pretty revealing comments Gruber made on the longer version.

Video:  Jon Gruber Condense Version

So it is abundantly clear that the intent was to use the lack of subsidies in the Federally run exchanges to pressure states into compliance.

So in the two recent court decisions in direct opposition to one another as FoxNews explains:

WASHINGTON –  Two federal appeals court rulings put the issue of ObamaCare subsidies in limbo Tuesday, with one court invalidating some of them and the other upholding all of them.

The first decision came Tuesday morning from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The panel, in a major blow to the law, ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov.

A separate federal appeals court — the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.

The conflicting rulings would typically fast-track the matter to the Supreme Court. However, it is likely that the administration will ask the D.C. appeals court to first convene all 11 judges to re-hear that case.

In both instances the government argued that it is obvious that the intent was to include federal subsidies in the Federally run Exchanges if the states refused to do so. But listening to the guy that wrote the bill, the exact opposite is the case. The subsidies were left out on Federally run Exchanges to use as a weapon to either force Republican governors to implement a state exchange or face the voters to explain why they are paying more for health insurance and get no subsidies. The hope of this Democratic bill was to force Republicans to do something they did not want to do.

Now one of the arguments I have not heard made is that on the issue of abortion on Federally run Exchanges. One of the incentives for the Liberal states to jump in and implement exchanges is the ability to mandate expanded coverages such as 100% payment for abortions. And if we follow the same logic the government argued in the two conflicting ruling cases, that the Federal Government steps in and is essentially considered the state for all intents and purposes – something I find preposterous – then what is to stop the Federal government who suddenly finds itself a surrogate for the state from mandating abortion coverage (from Wiki linked above):

Under the law, setting up an exchange gives a state partial discretion on standards and prices of insurance, aside from those specifics set-out in the ACA. For example, those administering the exchange will be able to determine which plans are sold on or excluded from the exchanges, and adjust (through limits on and negotiations with private insurers) the prices on offer. They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary;

So if the federal government can come in and replace the state in every way, then the same argued consideration as far as subsidies would extend to the other areas of “partial discretion” of the states. And the law could then go around the Obama executive order prohibiting federal funds from paying for abortion.

This must go to the Supreme Court and the 36 states without state run subsidies must stop receiving federal subsidies.

And as Gruber says in the long version of the video, repeal is unlikely to get rid of Obamacare. But neglect in the form of non compliance will cause it to implode in on itself. He uses a 3 legged as an example. The legs are eliminate pre existing conditions, insurance mandates and subsidies. Take away one of the legs and the law collapses. No one is fighting the pre existing condition elimination and the horrific Supreme Court ruling that held the mandates were a tax (and thus constitutional) is gone as a possible tool to kill the law. The last remaining leg is the subsidies. Without them, the law cannot survive. And since 36 states refused to set up exchanges, this is a huge threat to Obamacare’s survival.

With more and more information being unearthed every day about this bill, this is an important battle in the war on healthcare being prosecuted by the Obama Administration.

Update:

My theory is that if the Court rules that Federal Exchanges are essentially State Exchanges for the purpose of the subsidies, then the Feds are, essentially, the state. States are free to mandate abortion coverage, the Feds are not by Executive order. So if the Federal Government becomes a state for subsidies, then the Feds can mandate abortion coverage and also get around the Exec. Order.  Tom White

'Border'Line Emergency - Starnes: Tuberculosis Found At Refugee Camps - Fox & Friends

Video: 'Border'Line Emergency - Starnes: Tuberculosis Found At Refugee Camps - Fox & Friends

Immigration crisis: Tuberculosis spreading

Fox: Are the thousands of illegal immigrant kids housed in detention facilities happy and well fed -- or are they living in disease-infested compounds shrouded in secrecy?

Well, it depends on who you ask.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seems to think the children coming across the southern border are remarkably healthy. It's a sentiment shared by BCFS -- the Texas-based agency formerly known as Baptist Child & Family Services contracted to run camps at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio and Fort Sill in Oklahoma.

My source said there are children showing classic tuberculosis symptoms -- spitting up blood, a constant cough and chest pain.

More than 7,000 children have been processed through the two camps, according to a BCFS official. They allege that only 119 children have been treated for lice, 22 for scabies, and one for the H1N1 Flu. BCFS says the most common illnesses seen at Lackland are fever, headache, upper respiratory cold and ingrown toenails.

However, at least a half dozen anonymous sources, including nurses and health care providers who worked at Lackland, allege that the government is covering up what they believe to be a very serious health threat.

Several of my sources tell me that tuberculosis has become a dangerous issue at both the border and the camps.

"The amount of tuberculosis is astonishing," one health care provider told me. "The nurses are telling us the kids are really sick. The tuberculosis is definitely there."

Texas Department of State Health Services Commissioner David Lakey, M.D. says state health officials have seen only three cases of tuberculosis, the Associated Press reports. One of my sources with close ties to the Texas HHS tells me all three cases were reporte n Austin.

However, nurses at Lackland in San Antonio, said they know of at least four teenagers in their camp who have tuberculosis.

"The nurses are telling us the kids are really sick," the source told me. "The tuberculosis is definitely there."

My source said there are children showing classic tuberculosis symptoms -- spitting up blood, a constant cough and chest pain.

BCFS officials deny that any child at Lackland has been diagnosed with TB and the state health commissoner downplayed the health threat. While confirming their had been three cases of TB, Lakey said it was not unusual, the Associated Press reported.

Dr. Marc Siegel, a professor of medicine at New York University's Langone Medical Center and a Fox News A Team medical contributor, said tuberculosis appears to be spreading through several counties in southern Texas. He told me that some counties are reporting twice the usual average number of cases.

"Some of the tuberculosis that comes from Central America is drug resistant," he told me. "It's not easier to spread but it is harder to treat. I'm concerned about that."

And while, TB is not that easy to spread, he warned that all those children living in close quarters could be a ticking time bomb.

"It is a disease that needs to be carefully monitored and screened for -- something that is not possible under the current circumstances," Siegel said.

HHS released a statement neither confirming nor denying what the nurses are telling me: "When unaccompanied children come into the Department of Health and Human Services program, they are given a well-child exam and given all needed childhood vaccinations to protect against communicable diseases,” the statement read. “They are also screened for tuberculosis, and receive a mental health exam. If children are determined to have any communicable disease or have been exposed to a communicable disease, they are placed in a program or facility that has the capacity to quarantine."

This is the same HHS that previously denied there were any cases of scabies. They make it sound as if there are very few health problems among the illegals. They even downplay the lice epidemic -- just 119 “officially confirmed” cases.

“They are lying,” one nurse told me. “We treated that many kids with lice on a given day. We would put 20 kids in front of us – 10 in each row. You could see the bugs crawling through their hair.”

Another former staff member told me it was like working in a giant emergency room.

“They had children in the infirmary that had been there several days,” the former staffer told me. “You were on your feet nonstop. They had chicken pox, measles, and there was a concern strep was spreading.”

BCFS denied any of the children had the measles. They said public health authorities “have inspected our facility and had access to freely converse with our medical staff and children.”
Health care providers tell me the Lackland facility is like a giant orphanage. And while lice and scabies abound -- they warn that the bigger problem lurking is tuberculosis.

"Lice and scabies are fixable," a nurse said. "TB is the real problem here."

It's impossible to know the full extent of the communicable diseases that have come and are coming across the border. Nurses and other care givers tell me they've been told to keep their mouths shut. Those caught divulging information are subject to immediate dismissal -- and all my sources said they were told they could also be arrested.

BCFS won't even allow random inspections of their facilities by the media or members of Congress.

Oklahoma Rep. Jim Bridenstein was denied access last week to the HHS facility at Fort Sill – another facility run by BCFS.

“There is no excuse for denying a federal representative from Oklahoma access to a federal facility in Oklahoma where unaccompanied children are being held,” the congressman said in a statement.

Bridenstein said he was told that unannounced visitors are not allowed – even if they are elected officials – and that he would have to make an appointment to visit the facility.

“What are they trying to hide?” he asked. “Do they not want the children to speak with members of Congress?”

He was told to come back for a pre-arranged and heavily scripted dog-and-pony-show tours -- but those events were fact-free fact-finding missions. I’d say the congressman has a better chance of getting into GITMO.

BCFS blames HHS for the shroud of secrecy. Sources within the organization tell me they’ve been ordered not to talk to the media and not to let anyone inside the camps.

In spite of everything my sources are telling, a BCFS representative describes the facility at Lackland as a place where children are happy, well-fed and engaged in daily activities.

Meanwhile, several San Antonio pastors who dropped by unannounced at the Lackland camp, have shared with me a rather unsettling discovery. The ministers told me the facility was under heavy guard from security personnel. 

To be honest, we have no idea what's going on at that fenced facility but I have a feeling it's not good.

Technorati Tags: Tuberculosis,Wake-Up,Secure the Border,Obamaland,Fox,Created Crisis,Created Chaos

Whistleblower VA Center Purge 10,000+ Veteran Applications For Benefits

I find this even more appalling than normal because many Veterans, including my father-in-law, a Veteran of the Korean War suffering from heart disease and Alzheimer’s who has been turned down for benefits many times, just received a whole new set of forms to fill out (based on a former declined application).  It was conveniently sent out after all the Veterans Affairs ‘secret lists’ death scandal came to light.  Everyone I know immediately said… “Yeah, just something for the VA to give the appearance that they are now doing something to try to take the sting off the scandal and to give Veterans false hope.”  This newest revelation just supports those thoughts and feelings. THITW

Video:  Whistleblower VA Center Purge 10,000+ Veteran Applications For benefits

Yet… 1,295,571 Obamacare Enrollees Are Illegals

Technorati Tags: Judge Napolitano,Veterans Affairs,Veterans,HealthCare,Military,Wake-Up,Obamaland,Stand-up,Whistleblowers

The Biggest Threat to Obamacare Yet is Right Around the Corner: Halbig vs Burwell

Halbig v. Burwell is based on an illegal action taken by the Internal Revenue Service in 2012

By: C. Steven Tucker  -  Gulag Bound  -  TruthAboutObamacare.com  -  h/t to the NoisyRoom

A case about to be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could stop Obamacare dead in its tracks in 34 states. Halbig v. Burwell is based on an illegal action taken by the Internal Revenue Service in 2012. Below I will outline that illegal action and the two sections of the PPACA (Obamacare) that are relevant in this case.

State-based exchanges and federally facilitated exchanges

Section 1311 of the PPACA describes state-based health insurance exchanges. That section outlines the powers granted to the IRS to provide APTC – “Advance Premium Tax Credits” (a.k.a. ‘subsidies’) that will be used to artificially lower the high cost of health insurance offered in a state-based exchange. Tied to those APTC’s is also the power granted to the IRS to levy a $2,000 or $3,000 excise tax (non-tax deductible) on all employers with 50 or more full-time employees (first 30 employees waived) if they do not provide PPACA approved health insurance. This is a lot of new power granted to the IRS and this is the primary reason the IRS is hiring thousands of new agents.

Section 1321 of the PPACA describes federally-facilitated exchanges and state-federal partnership exchanges – like the exchange the state of Illinois has chosen to establish. In these types of exchanges, the IRS is granted no authority to provide APTC’s or to levy excise taxes on any employer in that state for not providing PPACA approved health insurance. Since the crafters of the PPACA assumed that every state would willingly establish a state-based exchange, there was no money appropriated for federally-facilitated exchanges.

Thus far 34 states have chosen not to open a state-based health insurance exchange. As such federally-facilitated exchanges have been implemented in those states regardless of the wishes of those state’s legislatures.

The illegal action taken by the IRS

Here’s the kicker, in order to ‘fix’ this legal ‘opt out’ that section 1321 provides to states that choose not to open a state-based exchange. The Internal Revenue Service finalized a proposed rule on the 2 year anniversary of the passage of the PPACA that offers APTC’s -Advance Premium Tax Credits – through exchanges “established under section 1311 OR 1321 of the PPACA. Those six characters—”or 1321?—constitute as Cato’s Michael Cannon correctly describes “an unconstitutional and as such illegal rewriting of the statute.” By issuing tax credits where Congress did not authorize them, this rule triggers billions of dollars in taxpayer provided “subsidies” and imposes excise taxes on employers with 50 or more full-time employees in all 50 states. Whether they have a state-based, state-federal partnership or federally facilitated exchange. Since the IRS is not a Legislative branch, this action was illegal. It was not authorized by Congress and as such it should not stand.

Worse yet, President Obama is following this new proposed rule as if it was codified law. This illegal action taken by the IRS and President Obama’s support of it is the crux of the Halbig v. Burwell case. If the U.S. Court of Appeals upholds the rule of law in this case it will mean the end of Obamacare in 34 states. In turn, it may be the final death blow to an unconstitutional and wildy unpopular law.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,IRS,Surpreme Court,Burwell,PPACA. ACA,Affordable Care Act,Halbig v. Burwell,Hope,HealthCare Exchanges,Insurance Exchanges,Knowledge Is Power,U.S. Court of Appeals,Standing-Up,Stand-Up America,Law,Taxpayers

1,295,571 Obamacare Enrollees Are Illegals

I believe what makes me the maddest about this particular situation is that I have 3-friends, Americans in their late-50’s and early 60’s (in California) who have lost their jobs over the past few years, and all 3 have been turned down for coverage under ObamaCare.  Then they were told that they would be contacted my MediCal for possible coverage… and after 6-months, not one has heard a word from them or anyone.  Welcome to Obamaland… Welcome to ObamaCare… Welcome to Socialized Medicine and Progressivism.  Now people in Central America are being told that America’s borders are open and to come in now…

by Wynton Hall – Originally Posted on 1 Jul 2014 at Breitbart.com:

A devastating new Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General report released on Tuesday reveals that the Obama administration has yet to determine whether 1,295,571 of the over 8 million Obamacare enrollees are U.S. citizens lawfully in the country.

The finding, located on page 11 of the report, states that 44% of the remaining 2,611,780 application "inconsistencies" are related to verifying "Citizenship/national status/lawful presence." Another 960,492 application inconsistencies were related to verifying whether subsidy applicants provided accurate income information. 

Moreover, the Inspector General report only covered the federal Obamacare exchanges to determine how the Obama administration resolved verification problems through December 2013. As for the 15 state-run Obamacare exchanges, the report says four--Oregon, Nevada, Vermont, and Massachusetts--are simply "unable to resolve inconsistencies." 

As the Washington Post reported in May, as many as one million Obamacare enrollees may be receiving incorrect taxpayer-funded subsidies due to Obamacare's continued technical failures and inability to properly verify income and citizenship eligibility. 

One year ago, conservatives warned that the Obama administration's decision to use the so-called "honor system" for income eligibility was merely a backdoor way to get as many individuals on the public dole as possible.

The Office of Inspector General determined that "the federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies."   

Obamacare will cost U.S. taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the next ten years.   

Related:

‘Humanitarian Crisis’: Obama Refuses To Visit Border, Illegal Alien Child Holding Centers While In Texas For Fundraiser

Enforcing the Secrecy of Obama’s Refugee Camps

Buses of Illegal Aliens Turned Away in Murrieta, Protestors Block Road – Updated  

Rick Perry with Bill O’Reilly… Gov Perry Explains His Law Enforcement Surge on the Border

Cloward-Piven at Our Border…

Capsizing the Republic – Cloward and Piven on the Southern Border

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Obamaland,HHS,MediiCal,Illegals,Wake-Up America,Destroying America,Cloward-Piven,Creating Chaos,Oregon,Nevada,Vermont,Massachusetts,Insurance Exchanges,Overwhelm the System,The Plan,Created Crisis,Cloward and Piven

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

Huckabee's EXCLUSIVE interview with Justina Pelletier who was abducted by Mass DCF

Originally Posted on July 1, 2014 by Marion Algier -  Ask Marion

Governor Mike Huckabee played a critical role in getting Justina Pelletier released!

Thomas Sowell:

[...]

This arrogant abuse of power (speaking about the IRS in the previous paragraph0 does not end with the federal government. In Massachusetts, teenager Justina Pelletier was taken from her parents’ custody and held virtually incommunicado for over a year, because her parents preferred to continue to have her treated as the physicians at a medical facility associated with Tufts University had treated her, even though shrinks at Children’s Hospital in Boston said her problems were in her head, and took her off some of her medications.

This difference of opinion as to the best medical treatment for Justina Pelletier was enough to get a judge to side with headstrong bureaucrats and override her parents’ rights. So a girl who was ice skating before ended up in a wheelchair under the “care” of shrinks.

Fortunately, enough media attention, especially by former Governor Mike Huckabee on Fox News Channel, finally got this child freed. Perhaps we can hope that all is not lost — yet. But if this case is a symbol of Americans fighting back, it is also a symbol of why it is desperately important to fight back.

That spirit is the best birthday present for America… especially this birthday!

Video: Huckabee’s EXCLUSIVE interview with Justina Pelletier who was abducted by Mass. DCF (6 Mins)

Video: Huckabee’s EXCLUSIVE interview with Justina Pelletier who was abducted by Mass. DCF Part 2 (4:18 Mins)

Video: Huckabee’s EXCLUSIVE interview with Justina Pelletier who was abducted by Mass. DCF Part 3 & 4  (7:24 Mins)

This video includes the Intro, Opening statement and first segment interview – (13:49 Mins)  Justina starts at 4:54 Mins

Video: Kidnapping? – Justina Was Held By Mass DCF For 16 Month Over Medical Disagreement – Huckabee

  Reference: The making of another Justina?

Technorati Tags: Justina Pelletier,Asshats,Huckabee,Massachussetts,DCF,Obamaland,Wake-Up,Parental Rights,Healthcare,Big Brother Tactics,MIke Huckabee

Good News for Justina Pelletier: She May Finally Get to Go Home

Some very good news…

Life News: In a dramatic reversal, the Massachusetts’ Department of Children and Families (DCF) has filed a motion with the courts agreeing with our petition to have Justina Pelletier returned home to her family.

The motion for review of reconsideration and dismissal in the case of Justina Pelletier follows Liberty Counsel’s motion to return Justina home which was filed less than two weeks ago. The motion indicates that DCF is in agreement with returning custody of Justina to her parents!

DCF’s concession completely undercuts their argument and reasoning for performing a “parent-ectomy” and removing Justina from the care of the Pelletiers in the first place.

She is now getting treatment from Tuft’s medical providers where she was receiving effective treatments before Boston Children’s Hospital intervened.

The entire process is now waiting on the judge. At this point, there is no reason to delay. There’s no reason why he can’t act immediately!

We have filed a motion asking Judge Joseph Johnston to expedite a ruling since all parties are in agreement. A ruling could come any day now.

Every hour she’s not back with her family is an hour she can’t ever get back. Once she does get home, she’ll have a long road to recovery — physically, mentally and spiritually.

Justina has now lost well over a year of her life with her family. The Pelletiers have spent untold hours and an enormous amount of resources fighting “Goliath” to get their daughter back from the misguided actions of an out-of-control state agency.

Justina has recorded a special video plea to Juvenile Court Judge Johnston and Governor Deval Patrick begging them to allow her to go home.

LifeNews Note: Mat Staver is the Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action and Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

Technorati Tags: Justina Pelletier,Pelletier,Victory,Parenting,Big Brother Tactics,Obamaland,HealthCare,Parental Rights,Wake-Up

Did NSA Blackmail Roberts to OK ObamaCare?

Klayman: 'Tyranny is greater today than in 1776'!

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed to approve Obama care after being spied on by the NSA and CIA, says Larry Klayman, the attorney who has come to be known as “the NSA slayer” for his successful legal battles against the National Security Agency.

 WND - May 18, 2014 – Cross Posted at AskMarion: 

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed to approve Obamacare after being spied on by the NSA and CIA, says Larry Klayman, the attorney who has come to be known as “the NSA slayer” for his successful legal battles against the National Security Agency.

During an appearance Sunday night on Aaron Klein’s New York City radio show on 970 The Answer, Klayman suggested the blackmail possibility when asked by a caller if the Supreme Court could be sued for its approval of the Affordable Care Act.

“Unfortunately, there’s no way to sue the Supreme Court for decisions that it makes. There should be, and there should be a way to remove these justices for making decisions like that,” explained Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch who now heads Freedom Watch.

Chief Justice John Roberts

“But let’s take this possibility: Why did Chief Justice Roberts at the eleventh hour change his decision? He was going to side with the other justices and find that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Is it something that was dug up on him by the NSA or the CIA? Was that used against him to blackmail him?

“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing], and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA. It can happen in a democracy. So that may help explain it, and perhaps we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA cases. I intend to get the truth on this.”

Klein himself sounded taken aback by Klayman’s suggestion.

“This is actually a staggering response to believe the government could have spied on a Supreme Court justice … and that information is somehow utilized … against him to pass Obamacare,” Klein said. “This is huge.”

Klayman warned that “every aspect of Americans’ lives is being accessed and monitored by the government.”

“It’s not just telephone metadata that’s being monitored,” he alleged. “They’re also listening to the content, that’s coming out in recent weeks.

“I’m a lawyer. I have an attorney-client privilege, and I can no longer talk to my clients on the telephone and expect that there’s any confidentiality. It changes the whole nature of how you operate.

“We also know that the NSA and CIA – as Communist China, as Russia can do, as any sophisticated country – they can turn your cell phone on anytime and listen to you. And they do.”

Listen to Part 1 of Larry Klayman’s appearance with Aaron Klein HERE

Klayman said such activity is “simply not acceptable in a democracy.”

“And even if they are not accessing our records directly, the fact that the American people know about it, and it’s been documented what’s been going on, it has a chilling effect on our ability to communicate and our ability to criticize the government or take strong action against the government.

“If the government wants to destroy you, it has to access the information that it can use to do it, and that’s why this is so frightening. [It has] a greater capability than King George III had in 1776. The tyranny is greater today than it was at the time of the American Revolution.”

Regarding the status of the legal cases against government spying, Klayman said, “The bottom line is this: Our so-called government is trying to delay final adjudication of the constitutionality of the CIA and NSA’s programs, and as a ruse, President Obama is claiming he wants to make modifications to those programs. They’re not modifications at all.”

Klayman also said it’s not just the Obama administration citizens should be concerned about.

“Can you imagine Hillary Clinton having the power to use this?” he asked.

Listen to Part 2 of Larry Klayman’s appearance with Aaron Klein HERE

No wonder the White House counsel picks show Obama preparing to be impeached…

Related: 

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ‘ObamaCare’? Senator Mike Lee Presents the Evidence 

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare…

Technorati Tags: NSA,Surveillance,CIA,SCOTUS,Supreme Court,Big Brother Tactics,Obamaland,ObamaCare,High Crimes and Misdemeanors,John Roberts,Balance of Power,Corruption,Impeachment,Separation of Powers,Tyranny,Thuggery,Wake-Up,Chief Justice John Roberts

The Obama Administration’s Deserving Victims | National Review Online

The campus sexual-assault controversy is of liberal higher ed’s own making

National Review Online:

For decades, universities have nurtured the most lunatic forms of feminism, denying the biological differences between males and females, promoting the idea that Western civilization is endemically sexist, and encouraging in their students ever-more-delusional forms of victimhood. It is therefore deeply gratifying to see these same universities now impaled by the very ideology that they have so assiduously promoted.

The Obama administration has released the names of 55 colleges and universities that it is investigating over their sexual-assault policies, part of an accelerating campaign against universities for allegedly turning a blind eye to the purported epidemic of campus rape. The list is top-heavy with the elite of the elite — Harvard, Princeton, UC Berkeley, Swarthmore, Amherst, and Dartmouth, among others. A more deserving group of victims would be hard to find.

Parroting over 20 years worth of feminist propagandizing, the White House claims nearly 20 percent of female college undergraduates are sexually assaulted during their college years. To put that number in perspective: Detroit residents have been fleeing the city for years due to its infamous violent crime. And what constitutes an American urban crime wave? In 2012, Detroit’s combined rate for all four violent felonies that make up the FBI’s violent-crime index — murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — was 2 percent. The rape rate was 0.05 percent. And yet, despite an alleged campus sexual-assault rate that is 400 times greater than Detroit’s, female applicants are beating down the doors of selective colleges in record numbers.

Harvard this year received over 34,000 applications, about half from females, for a freshman class of about 1,600; every other elite college was similarly swamped with female applicants. According to the White House Council on Women and Girls, “survivors” of the alleged campus sexual-assault epidemic “often” experience a lifetime of physical and mental infirmity that includes depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome. How could highly educated baby-boomer mothers, who have spent their maternal years fending off phantom risks to their children from pesticides and vaccines, suddenly send their daughters off to a crime scene of such magnitude, unmatched even in the most brutal African tribal wars? What happened to the Sisterhood? Shouldn’t it be warning its members and forming alternative structures for educating females? Instead, every year, millions of girls walk into this alleged maelstrom of violence like innocent lambs to slaughter. Even more puzzling, every year those same girls graduate from that cauldron of predation in ever more disproportionate numbers, and go on to lead highly lucrative careers.

It should not be necessary to tell a feminist that rape is the most violent crime — with the emphasis on crime – that a woman can experience, short of murder. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports list rape as the second most serious violent felony. If the campus feminists really believed that campuses are experiencing an epidemic of criminal sexual assault, they would demand that every campus sexual-assault allegation be brought in criminal court, where the assailant can be sentenced to years in prison if convicted. Instead, they favor secret proceedings before an increasingly byzantine set of campus tribunals made up of judicially clueless bureaucrats and professors whose most severe punishment is expulsion. Imagine if a stranger broke into a female’s dorm room at night and raped her at knifepoint. Would that case be taken to the campus Title IX gender-bias tribunal? Unlikely. If someone were merely robbing females of their iPads at gunpoint around the campus library, that case, too, though far less serious than rape, would most certainly be prosecuted criminally.

There are several reasons why no one is pushing to bring campus sexual-assault cases to court. It certainly helps that the procedures before college gender tribunals are egregiously stacked against defendants. The Obama administration recently recommended that campuses deny students facing sexual-assault charges the right to cross-examine their accuser, a trend already well underway on campuses across the country. It also wants campuses to use a flimsy preponderance-of-evidence standard for guilt, and to allow repeated proceedings against a student after an initial acquittal, as KC Johnson and Hans Bader have explained.

The campus sexual-assault tribunal also has a performative aspect: It dramatizes the patriarchy before a sympathetic audience of adults. “Our task is to give voice to the daily forms of violence we too often accept as inevitable,” a Harvard graduate student recently told the New York Times, describing her work protesting Harvard’s sexual-assault policies. The campus sexual revolution began with students’ demand to be free of any intrusive parietal oversight from college officials; now, in a bizarre turnaround, the children of that revolution want colleges to actually write rules for sex and police their enforcement. The colleges are only too happy to comply. In 2013, Yale came up with an embarrassingly graphic set of hypothetical sexual scenarios between gender-unidentifiable students, in an effort to delineate what constitutes permissible sex. One would have hoped that a world-class academic institution would have better things to do. Meanwhile, here is a message to girls: This is sex that we’re talking about, the very realm of the irrational and the uncontrolled. See Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Boccaccio’s Decameron, and Euripides’ The Bacchae (if those texts are still available at your school). Norms of chivalry, courtship, and modesty once tried to channel this primal drive; with those conventions now demolished as sexist, females (and males) are on their own — and often at sea. A highly legalistic definition of consent — the current desideratum of campus sex bureaucrats — is hardly a sufficient substitute for traditional social checks on the sexual instinct and will never be able to regulate the inexpressible and often conflicting emotions around intercourse.

But the main reason “survivors” don’t demand to bring their cases to criminal court is that they know that what they have experienced is something far more complex and compromised than criminal sexual assault, almost invariably involving mixed signals, ambiguity, and a large degree of voluntary behavior on their part.

Girls often drink themselves blotto both before and during parties precisely to lower their sexual inhibitions. The authors of campus-rape surveys discovered early on that when the students whom the pollsters deem rape victims are asked if they think they have been raped, the “victims” overwhelmingly respond in the negative. In the 1986 Ms. survey that sparked the campus-rape industry, 73 percent of respondents whom the study characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped when asked the question directly. Forty-two percent of these supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.

The alleged campus-rape epidemic could be stopped overnight if women’s advocates sent a simple message to girls: Don’t get drunk and get into bed with a guy whom you barely know. Keep your clothes on and go home to your own bed at night. And most controversially: Demand that any boy court you long enough to reveal his character and his respect for yours before you even think about having sex with him. The feminist advocates are more interested in preserving the principle of male fault, however, than in protecting females from regretted sex. And so rather than sending an unequivocal message of personal empowerment and responsibility, they put the entire onus of sexual responsibility on males, treating females as the invariably helpless victims of the male libido.

The colleges under investigation by the Department of Education may have sustained a public-relations black eye, but sadly, they will suffer not the slightest drop in their endowments or enrollments. They will even continue to coddle their students’ melodramatic oppression fantasies. The Title IX investigations, triggered by student complaints, are premised on the preposterous conceit that colleges are creating so hostile an environment for females that those females are actually prevented from learning. Here’s how the colleges should respond:

“Are you kidding me? Get a grip. This is the most welcoming, safe, lavishly endowed community ever created in human history, where students with the desire to absorb wisdom can do so in leisure, surrounded by supportive faculty and well-meaning administrators. There are millions of girls in Asia who are studying ten hours a day to gain the privilege of learning on an American campus; if they were to come to this ‘hostile’ environment, they would seize every educational opportunity available to them.”

Instead, however, the colleges’ student-services deans and rape counselors, who live precisely for these moments of conflict, will grovel before their accusers and promise to make amends. The New York Times has been hawking an article from Columbia’s student newspaper that purported to expose the college’s inadequate response to sexual assault. The original article triggered campus protests against the administration and penitence from the grown-ups. What it mostly showed, however, was the hold of the gender-studies mentality on far too many students. The student journalists were outraged that the school’s sexual-assault policies refer to “rape” “euphemistically” as “non-consensual sexual intercourse,” and to alleged “rapists” as “respondents.” One “survivor” — “Natalie” (a pseudonym) — complains that a Title IX investigator used abbreviations in taking down her story, resulting in “holes” that made her account not “sound like a strong case” (it probably wasn’t) and keeping her “from having ownership over the retelling of her history with emotional and sexual violence.” Natalie had been in a “fragile state” from a previous “emotionally abusive relationship,” and promptly entered into another “‘destructive and unhealthy’ physical relationship” with another male that was “confusing at best.” That male, the article explained, “often forcefully pinned [Natalie’s] arms back against the mattress during sex; [she] would cry during and after they slept together. Not until months after their break up did Natalie recognize this as non-consensual intercourse.” If Natalie was unhappy with their sexual relationship, she would have been wise to have put an end to it. The Columbia student article provided no evidence of flawed assault policies, beyond the mere fact that the school did not issue guilty findings in Natalie’s case (which she did not fully cooperate with) and one other. The article did, however, reveal the chaotic state of campus couplings in the absence of any normative restraints on casual intercourse, a situation that will claim only female emotional victims.

While the legal risks regarding regretted sex are increasingly stacked against male students, it is hard to shed a tear for them, either. They may not be guilty of rape, but they are almost certainly guilty of taking full advantage of the sexual caravansary on campus, and of acting as brutishly as females will allow them to. Males are the main beneficiaries of no-commitment sex, for males and females are not equals on the sexual battlefield. While there may be few actual rape victims on college campuses, there are undoubtedly thousands of girls feeling confused, betrayed, and exploited by callous partners who are blind to their ambivalence and who leave their bed with no emotional pang whatsoever. If male students respond to the one-sided distribution of risk and responsibility by becoming sexual prudes, society will have suffered no loss whatsoever. But don’t count on the male libido to do anything so sane.

— Heather Mac Donald is a Thomas Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of The Burden of Bad Ideas: How Modern Intellectuals Misshape Our Society.

Technorati Tags: Victims,Obamaland,Libido,Sex,Sexual-Assault,Women,Girls,Students,College Students