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

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

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

McCaughey: Obamacare is About Funding Democrats

By Marion Algier - Ask Marion  -  h/t to MJ 

Betsy McCaughey – Author of Obama Health Law

McCaughey was a guest on the Mark Levin Show and talked about how O-care funds are being used – and that the illegal immigration bill also contains the same slush fund mechanisms in it.  Here’s a very brief write-up...

Betsy McCaughey, one of the few people on Earth who’s actually read the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (aka Obamacare), wrote this recent article which I believe is worth adding to the echo chamber.

If you have to keep it a secret, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

But the California legislature and the new Covered California health insurance exchange are conspiring to keep secret how they will dole out more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to contractors. The lion's share of the money is going for what the exchange budget terms "outreach."

In truth, the money is going to build Democratic Party enrollment.

The Obama administration granted a whopping $910 million to California to set up its insurance exchange. That money is not for bandages, surgery, nurses and doctors to care for the sick. Nor is it for insurance plans, though $910 million could buy generous coverage for at least 113,000 people!

Shockingly, the $910 million is slated for bureaucracy, including rich compensation packages for exchange employees ($360,000 a year for the executive director) and contracts for computer equipment, public relations and "outreach."

Outreach is the largest expenditure and where the real monkey business occurs.

Amazingly, California legislators passed a law that the exchange could keep secret for a year who received the contracts and indefinitely how much they were paid. California's open-records laws would otherwise prohibit such secrecy.

Last week, Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and four other Republican senators on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee called for an investigation of California's concealing information on contracts awarded using federal taxpayer money.

What is known so far suggests that California politicians are exploiting health reform to enroll millions of the uninsured in the Democratic Party and fill the coffers of left-wing interest groups with taxpayer money.

Here are the facts to back up that cynical picture:

California lawmakers passed a law (Senate Bill 35) requiring that voter registration be part of the health insurance exchange.

Last month, Covered California announced $37 million in grants to 48 organizations to build public awareness about the opening of the health exchange on Oct. 1.

Of the 48 organizations that got grants, only a handful are health-care related. The California NAACP received $600,000 to do door-to-door canvassing and presentations at community organizations.

Service Employees International Union, which says its mission is "economic justice," received two grants totaling $2 million to make phone calls, robo-calls and go door to door.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO got $1 million for door-to-door, one-on-one education and social networking. It describes its role as "engaging in both organizing and political campaigns, electing pro-union and pro-worker candidates."

Community Health Councils, a California organization with a long history of political activism against fracking, for-profit hospitals, state budget cuts and oil exploration, got $1 million to conduct presentations at community and neighborhood meetings and one-to-one sessions.

These organizations, closely allied with the Democratic Party, are being funded by your tax dollars to conduct "outreach," meaning the kind of phone banking and door-to-door canvassing that activists do to turn out the vote. They will turn out the uninsured to enroll on the exchanges and in the Democratic Party.

The $37 million awarded last month is only the first installment of California's $190.4 million to be spent on contracts for "outreach" through December 2014.

In addition to outreach, California's actual enrollment process is also outsourced to employees of community organizations, unions and health clinics. These enrollment "assisters" will be paid $58 for each enrollee they sign up. An additional $49 million is budgeted to pay them the first year, but in future years, assisters will be paid out of the premiums collected by the exchange.

The template is repeated in every state. The Obama health law creates a permanent stream of funding for unions and community activists by outsourcing insurance enrollment to them.

Assisters will also guide the uninsured to sign up for whatever non-health social services they may be eligible for, including welfare, food stamps and housing assistance, according to the manual prepared by the Community Health Councils for California's implementation.

Anyone who remembers the days of James Curley, Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall gets the picture. If you were poor or a newcomer to this country, you went to the local ward boss and got whatever you needed in exchange for your vote.

The difference is that back then, politics was local. Now the Obama health law is institutionalizing this corrupt style of politics across the country. Whether you live in California or New York, local community activists and unions will be recruiting people to enroll in ObamaCare and sign up to be part of the permanent, beholden Democratic voting majority.

And just ask anyone who comes from a country with a one-party system… they will tell you horror stories upon horror stories.

Her basic premise is that Obamacare is not about health care (even a synopsis of the bill tells you that), it’s about funding a permanent Democrat majority.

How? McCaughey believes that this is done through “awareness” programs using typical Democrat muscle (unions, community organizations, the usual suspects) to receive much of this government funding to help get the word out about Obamacare. It’s a money laundering scheme using taxpayer’s money to ultimately assist Democrat get-out-the-vote drives, very much like what the Stimulus was used for.

Audio: Mark Levin Discusses What's Really Going on with Obamacare with Betsy McCaughey Part I

Audio: Mark Levin Discusses What’s Really Going on with Obamacare with Betsy McCaughey Part 2

Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, Governor Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh also featured similar discussions on their radio shows this past week:

Rush Limbaugh/EIB:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I hate to do this to you, but the Investor's Business Daily had an editorial yesterday, and they have discovered the purpose of Obamacare.  It has nothing to do with health care.  The purpose of Obamacare got nothing to do with your health, and nothing to do with your insurance. 

It's about building a permanent, undefeatable, always-funded Democrat majority.  One example: The exchanges.  We're being told that the government's running way behind on setting up the exchanges, and we're being told it's because the bill so complicated, big, unmanageable. Nobody could possibly get this done on time.  IBD has tracked how these exchanges are being set up, and basically the health care exchanges in these states are going to be Democrat political action committees, funded with your tax dollars. 

They're going to operate under the guise of selling you your health insurance when in fact what they're going to be doing is providing employment for Democrats and Democrat voters and Democrat operatives. They are going to use the exchanges to give out money to sympathetic Democrats and people who vote for other Democrats.  I'll give you the details.  It's on a par with how I've tried to explain that the stimulus was a money-laundering operation for Democrat campaign coffers. 

Because the vast majority of stimulus money went to keep government union employees working.  It went to make sure they weren't laid off in a really bad and down economy.  State and local union employees pay dues.  They're required to pay it.  The dues are collected by Democrat union leaders. They run all the union organizations, and the dues are what fund Democrat campaigns.  Well, you can't collect dues if the people aren't working. If you're the Democrats, you can't (not yet, anyway) just write a check for $900 billion to the US Treasury and then start giving it away.

But you can come up with a "stimulus" bill that you tell people it's all about creating jobs and roads and bridges and building up infrastructure. Then you get the check, and you are in charge of how the money is spent and where it goes, and you see to it that it ends up ultimately in the back pockets of union employees so that they continue to be employed and paying dues.  So it's a roundabout way of getting $900 billion, or a percentage of it, back to the Democrat Party in campaign contributions. 

That's what the stimulus bill was!

I'll take a break.  Take a couple phone calls, and then I will share with you the dirty details of the Investors Business Daily editorial on what is really happening with Obamacare and the exchanges.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, on to the Investor's Business Daily.  They have an editorial that explains in quite extensive detail how Obamacare is actually a funding operation for Democrat Party operatives and a technique for improving increasing Democrat Party voter registration. 

"The Obama administration granted a whopping $910 million to California to set up its insurance exchange. That money is not for bandages, surgery, nurses and doctors to care for the sick. ... Shockingly, the $910 million is slated for bureaucracy, including rich compensation packages for exchange employees."  In fact, the executive director of the exchange in California will make $360,000 a year.  The exchange money, this $910 million, is being used for computer equipment, public relations, and outreach. 

What is the exchange?  It's supposedly where you go, by mandate, to buy your health insurance.  The exchange is supposed to just be a catalog, basically.  And the only thing in the catalog are insurance policies, and you go there and you pick yours.  You go there, decide what you want.  That's what the exchange is.  Instead, the regime has decided to use these exchanges, probably part of the original plan, as Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts complete with walking-around money and employment for loyal Democrats. 

"California lawmakers passed a law (Senate Bill 35) requiring that voter registration be part of the health insurance exchange." California lawmakers, again, passed Senate Bill 35 that requires voter registration be part of the health insurance exchange.  Now, you think you're going to the exchange to pick your insurance policy.  Guess what?  You're gonna get pressured to register to vote, if you're not, and maybe even if you already are.  "Last month, Covered California announced $37 million in grants to 48 organizations to build public awareness about the opening of the health exchange on Oct. 1."

In other words, they're treating this as the grand opening of a great shopping center, a great mall.  They're doing this to attract all kinds of people. It's a government bureaucracy.  It would be no different than if the DMV started running ads to get you to show up. 

"Of the 48 organizations that got grants, only a handful are health-care related."  For example, Covered California announced $37 million in grants to 48 organizations to build public awareness about the opening of the health care exchange.  Now, why in the world would the California NAACP get $600,000?  But they did.  The California NAACP got $600,000 of Obamacare money, California exchange money, to go door-to-door canvassing and registering voters, and to create presentations at community organizations, presentations about the Democrat Party, presentations about registering and supporting the Democrat Party and its candidates. 

"Service Employees International Union, which says its mission is 'economic justice,' received two grants totaling $2 million to make phone calls, robo-calls and go door to door." Now, what in the world does a health exchange need a union going door-to-door for?  I'm talking about in the strict structure of these exchanges.  Remember, our low-information people have no clue what's gonna hit them here, folks. 

You think they know what a health care exchange is?  You and I know what it is.  It's a place where we're gonna have to go to get our insurance policy.  Little do we know that when we show up we're going to be hit with Democrat Party propaganda.  Little do we know that the insurance exchanges are gonna be giving money to the NAACP and the Service Employees International Union to go out and do "voter outreach," voter registration drives, show up at community organizing centers.

They're gonna be making robo-calls, phone calls all about getting out the vote.  "The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO got $1 million for door-to-door, one-on-one education and social networking." For what?  An insurance policy? "It describes its role as 'engaging in both organizing and political campaigns, electing pro-union and pro-worker candidates.'" That's the AFL-CIO.  That's how it describes itself. 

So we have the NAACP in California getting 600 grand to go door-to-door to register voters, to do this or that.  "Service Employees International Union, which says its mission is "economic justice," received two grants totaling $2 million to make phone calls, robo-calls and go door to door," to the outreach, open community centers, make phone calls, robo-calls, register voters, get them to the polls.  The AFL-CIO getting another million. So just in three groups, we're at $3,600,000 from a health exchange to basically gin up support for the Democrat Party.

"Community Health Councils, a California organization with a long history of political activism against fracking, for-profit hospitals, state budget cuts and oil exploration, got $1 million to conduct presentations at community and neighborhood meetings and one-to-one sessions." So health care exchange money for California has been given to a group that opposes fracking, for-profit hospitals, and opposes state budget cuts, opposes oil exploration.

They get a million bucks to "conduct presentations at community and neighborhood meetings" against all of these things.  In other words, Community Health Councils, California group, got a million dollars to promote the Democrat Party.  The AFL-CIO, $1 million to promote the Democrat Party.  The Service Employees International Union, $2 million to promote the Democrat Party.  The NAACP, $600,000 to promote the Democrat Party.

It's $910 million total of taxpayer money to the state of California -- and by the way, gonna happen in every state.  This is not just California.  But you might be asking, "Wait a minute, Rush! Wait a minute! What about getting people actually signed up for health care, insurance policies?"  Well, guess what?  That has also been assigned to constituencies in the Democrat Party.  Basically what's happening is Obamacare's exchanges are being funded, money is being given. 

The same people who got stimulus money, folks.  You didn't.  Your shovel-ready job didn't. Your school didn't. Your road, your bridge, none of those things got it. Your job didn't get it.  Democrat loyalists got the money. The same thing is happening with the Obamacare exchanges. Democrat supporting groups are being given millions of dollars to promote the Democrat Party, register Democrat voters, and get them to the polls on Election Day.  The purpose?  To set up a permanent one-party system in this country.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Investor's Business Daily.  This story, it's actually an editorial, it's written by Betsy McCaughey.  And folks, what's happening with these health care exchanges, again, we're gonna link to this Investor's Business Daily editoral at RushLimbaugh.com and it's gonna be in our Rush in a Hurry.  You know what?  I don't pitch this enough, but I really should. 

We have an e-mail alert that we send out within a half hour of every program, and it's free.  All you have to do is go to our website and sign up for it.  And there are no strings attached to it.  Now, it does have banner advertising in it, but there are no strings.  You don't have to sign up for anything else.  It's called Rush in a Hurry, and it is a summary with some transcripts and some audio, and it has links to the full website, with full details on everything.  But it is a great, comprehensive summary of the highlights, which is everything that happened on this program every day.  Millions of people already get it, and you can get it, too.  So when I sit here and tell you, "Well, you don't want to miss this IBD editorial," if you're subscriber to Rush in a Hurry, it automatically comes to whatever e-mail address you submit, and the link to it will be right there about 30 minutes after the program. 

Now, we are able to update our website on the fly now because of advancements in website technology.  We used to have to wait 'til six o'clock Eastern time every day to have the whole site up.  You had to do it all at once and then go live with it.  But now we can supplement it as we go, update it as we go.  So the Rush in a Hurry is an absolutely great way -- if you haven't had a chance to listen to the program on a particular day, you get the Rush in a Hurry, two things are gonna happen.  You're gonna know what happened. You're gonna wish that you had been near a radio.  But it is really well done.  It is done with html graphics.  It's not just a straight, flat text e-mail.  It is a miniature website into itself in an e-mail. All you have to do to get it is go to RushLimbaugh.com and sign up for Rush in a Hurry.  That's what it's called. 

Now, the Investor's Business Daily editorial written by Betsy McCaughey details what the health care exchanges in Obamacare really are about.  And she focuses on California because they're getting $910 million to set up the exchanges in California.  Now, the exchanges, folks, are for one purpose and that's for you to go get your health care insurance. Every American, if you don't get your health care from your employer, you're gonna have to go to one of these exchanges to get it. It's a marketplace, it's a clearinghouse, theoretically.  It's a catalog.  You go pick the policy that you want based on what you want to pay -- they're all gonna be expensive.  But it turns out these exchanges are just being used for Democrat Party outreach.  I've detailed how. 

The NAACP is getting $600,000 from the California exchange.  The AFL-CIO is getting $1 million.  The Service Employees International Union is getting $2 million.  And for what?  To go door-to-door, to register voters, to show up at community centers and make presentations on the Democrat Party and sell the Democrat Party agenda.  A group called Community Health Councils, which is a California bunch that opposes fracking, for-profit hospitals, state budget cuts and oil exploration, got $1 million to conduct presentations at community and neighborhood meetings. "California's actual enrollment process is also outsourced to employees of community organizations, unions and health clinics."

So when you show up to get your insurance at a California exchange, you might be dealing to somebody from the AFL-CIO.  You might be dealing with somebody from the Service Employees International Union.  Planned Parenthood is trying to get in on some of this money.  Planned Parenthood wants some exchange money to promote their cause, which is abortion.  It's another slush fund, folks.  The health care exchanges are slush funds just like the stimulus bill was. 

California's Democrat controlled legislature does not want voters to know who exactly is getting close to $200 million in outreach funding, so they passed a law that creates an exception to the state's open records law.  A grand total of $200 million in Democrat Party outreach will be allocated from the $910 million to set up the exchanges.  That's the brunt of it, but I tell you, you need to see the whole thing.  And we'll link to it at RushLimbaugh.com.

Washington Examiner: "The popularity of Obamacare has crashed to its lowest level in nearly two years, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll."  Thirty-five percent support Obamacare.  "Kaiser's monthly tracking poll found that just 35 percent have a favorable view of the health reform being put into place Jan. 1 while 43 percent view it unfavorably. The favorability rating of Obamacare has been worse only once, in October 2011, when it fell to 34 percent."  So it's heading south.

Another story from Wall Street Journal: An ObamaCare Board Answerable to No One.

This is a story about the death panel.  "An Obamacare Board Answerable to No One." A story from the Wall Street Journal about death panels.  It's a disaster.  Immigration reform, it's a disaster.  This, Obamacare, is a disaster, folks.  No other way to describe it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  About these health care exchanges, let me present to you a picture.  Hypothetically, Obamacare is implemented, and along the way, guess what?  Amnesty happens, the Gang of Eight bill is passed, and all of a sudden we've got 11 million people now that we're gonna put on a pathway to citizenship.  Who's gonna be in charge of it?  Obama, the Democrat Party will be with pamphlets, ads on TV and in publications, about how to go to the pathway to citizenship. 

The pathway to citizenship's gonna take 'em right to a health care exchange.  They're gonna need health care.  They're gonna be sent right to an exchange where they're gonna be hit up by unions to become Democrats.  That's the first thing that's gonna happen to these illegals! Once we put 'em on the pathway, they're gonna be met on the path by the nearest union worker with a Democrat voter registration form.  That's exactly how this is gonna happen.  

END TRANSCRIPT

Video: Dr. Ben Carson Talks Obamacare Future Disaster Waiting to Happen with Neil Cavuto

After the IBD article, Limbaugh and Hannity also featured discussions of the above article on their radio shows and Dr. Ben Carson, who is working on an alternative solution to ObamaCare and our present healthcare system, was a guest on Cavuto.  Huckabee featured three doctors on his weekly Fox TV show over the weekend who have found their own solutions to circumvent ObamaCare and the ObamaCare exchanges.

Everything done by this administration is connected and part of a greater agenda… an agenda to control the US economy, create a one party system, and to control everything about our lives, a fundamental transformation of America.  Our job is to connect the dots… and then start disconnecting them.

Related:

Investor's Business Daily: Local Governments Reeling Under ObamaCare Costs

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

Wall Street Journal: An ObamaCare Board Answerable to No One

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ObamaCare?

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,smoke and mirrors,manipulation of the public,Betsy McCaughey,Ben Carson,one-party system,elites,Democrats,Democrat Party,McCaughey,power,control,indoctrination,death panels,Investor's Business Daily,IBD,Limbaugh,Mark Levin,Hannity,healthcare,ObamaCare surprises,wake-up,exchanges,ObamaCare exchanges,connect the dots,fundamental transformation of America,Huckabee,slush funds,Justice Roberts,insurance exchanges,California,immigration bill,Big Brother tactics

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

TheBlaze/AP photo: After Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.

On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book: Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare: A Conservative Critique of The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling.

Lee’s argument is not based on the NSA or its monitoring of the nation’s communication.  Rather, Lee said, there are indications that Roberts originally intended to vote against the act, but that a public “campaign of intimidation” made him change his mind.

First, the senator claimed “the opinion was written in a way to suggest he switched his vote,” and that the dissenting opinion reads like it was originally written as the majority.  He added that several news outlets reported that Roberts did change his vote, based on insider information.

Not only that, he said, but the court performed an unusual feat of “legal gymnastics” in upholding the legislation, particularly with regard to whether the fines incurred are or are not taxes.  They had to re-write sections of the the bill not once, but twice.

Lee continued to say that he has “no evidence” that Roberts was being blackmailed, but said that doesn’t mean Roberts wasn’t under any kind of “direct pressure.”

But even if he wasn’t, Lee reminded the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers were open in their warnings to the court, “denigrating the authority of the house,” and saying the Supreme Court would become irrelevant if it failed to uphold ObamaCare.

The argument that Roberts changed his vote has been made in the past, but is certainly lent additional credibility when a U.S. senator writes a book making the case.

Watch Lee’s complete interview, below:

Video: Sen. Mike Lee has a theory on why John Roberts decided to uphold Obamacare in the Supreme Court

Technorati Tags: SCOTUS,Mike Lee,ObamaCare,Obamaland,Justice Roberts,Chief Justice John Roberts,John Roberts,corruption. watch the other hand,manipulation of the public

KILLING OBAMACARE BEFORE IT KILLS US – Part 1: The Political Battlefield

Part 1:  The Political Battlefield

By: AJ  -  Hat Tip: MJ

There are two battlefields in the war against Obamacare.  There is the political battlefield which gave us Obamacare and there is a second battlefield where Obamacare can be made moot on a state-by-state basis.

The political battlefield requires us to organize and educate the voting public so that, in November, we can ‘repeal’ the corruptor-crats who support Obamacare and replace them with politicians who will vote to eliminate it in its entirety.

At the same time, the state battlefield must explore viable solutions to kill Obamacare by making it moot – by showing why it is legally not applicable.

This article will discuss the war waged on the political battlefield and part two will cover the state battlefield.

POLITICAL BATTLEFIELD

The lame stream media propaganda machine is in full force and they want people to believe that support for Obamacare is rising.  Check out Yahoo!’s home-page headline three days after the Supreme Court decision, “Ruling Boosts Support for Obamacare”.  When you click on the link, Reuters’ title is, “Ruling ups support for Obama healthcare, still unpopular”.

The truth is, a recent Washington Post and ABC News poll finds that only 26% support Obamacare, and 67% are opposed to either the entire law or the individual mandate (now called a tax by Chief Coward Roberts).

People are organizing and we must articulate the facts, establish the narrative and spread the truth.  FreedomWorks, the Tea Party, 912 groups and others are leading this effort.  Educating everyone - especially our youth and our elderly – is crucial and we only have four months in which to do it.

For example, do our elderly know that in 2014, Obamacare cuts $1.05 Trillion from Medicare over the first 10 years and $4.95 Trillion over the first 20 years?  (i.e. Obamacare destroys Medicare)  Do they know that Obamacare is like the government-run healthcare system in Britain that euthanizes 130,000 elderly people every year?  (i.e. Obamacare leads to euthanasia)  These are important, compelling and simple facts that our elderly need to know.

Another example… do all Americans know that Medicaid already covers the poor and disabled?  Obamacare does not help the poor, but it taxes people who make $9,500 and above.  Politicians use “the poor” as pawns to push their agenda; they count on the ignorance of uninformed Americans.

Perhaps our youth can best understand the funding source of Obamacare by its similarity to the mechanism used for Social Security.  Stated simply, young people are forced to pay into another government system that they’re not using.  It will undoubtedly be bankrupt by the time they need it themselves.  Look at Social Security; it will be completely bankrupt in 25 years according to the CBO.

A September 2011 poll found that 71% of the people believe Social Security has major problems (49%) or is in a state of crisis (22%).  And when 18 to 35 year olds were asked if it is accurate to describe the Social Security system as a “monstrous lie” and a “failure”, 42% agreed – the highest percentage of all age groups.

The narrative for our youth may be quite simple… Obamacare is like Social Security; it forces you to pay into a government system that will surely be bankrupt by the time you really need it.  It is imperative that Americans know that before Obamacare, people had the right to choose whether or not they wanted to spend their money on healthcare; now everyone is forced by the government to spend their money on it.

Young people keep hearing “free healthcare for all” from the lame stream media and they have been dumbed-down enough not to realize they will be forced to pay for this the rest of their lives if Obamacare stands.  And the amount they will be forced to pay far exceeds any expense they may incur for contraceptives.

So we can start spreading the truth right now – today – to inform people and motivate them to register (i.e. activate) and vote against the corrupto-crats who support Obamacare.  We know the legislation contains many tyrannical provisions, such as eliminating our 4^th Amendment right to privacy, but providing simple phrases that people can relate to is what may open their minds to help them understand the imminent impact of Obamacare on their lives.

The goal on the political battlefield is to have enough elected officials (in Congress and the Presidency) to repeal Obamacare via reconciliation.  Recall that reconciliation was the method Democrats used to pass Obamacare - before we booted them out of Congress in 2010 for having foisted this job-killing, liberty-ending, economy-collapsing, healthcare-destroying monstrosity onto the American people.  But, as Terresa Monroe-Hamilton correctly points out in her article, “Obama Lies, Taxes Rise”…

“I know the Republicans have sworn to repeal Obamacare, but until conservatives control the Senate and House and have taken back the White House, I don’t see it happening. Even then I have grave doubts because I keep hearing “repeal and replace.” What the hell? Just repeal the damn thing and forget replacing it.”…

“Roberts screwed the pooch on this one, now we have to roll up our sleeves and realize that no branch of our government supports us.”

This is why we must also fight this war on the state battlefield.  We must kill Obamacare before it kills us and the war waged on the state battlefield could very well prevent Progressive politicians on both sides of the aisle from ever attempting to take over our healthcare again.

Stay tuned for part two…

Related:

Supreme Court health care ruling: Where states stand

American Thinker: Supreme Court Helps Obama Fulfill Dreams from His Communist Mentor

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

Obama Lies, Taxes Rise

The Shock Heard Around the World May Save America – Updated

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare,taxes,tax increases,repeal Obama,economic crisis,fundamental transforamtion of America,jewel of socialism,stand-up America,Supreme Court rulings