Republicans Break Faith With America

I believe medical insurance reform is essential. I also believe the Obama/Dem effort at reform was a debacle of lies to Americans. Obamacare/ACA must be completely scraped to rebuild an actual affordable medical insurance plan. Justin Smith has the critique.

JRH 10/2/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

**************

Republicans Break Faith With America

A System Going South

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 10/1/2017 1:23 AM

Americans need insurance plans that translate into real affordable health care and solutions for the mess created by Obamacare, which cannot be found in more Republican nonsense and Obamacare Lite bills, like Graham-Cassidy. More spending and continued regulation only moves America one-step closer to a nationalized single-payer health care system, and if Republicans truly believe Obamacare has harmed America, as often asserted, they have a duty to revitalize the free market segment of health care insurance, through a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

No matter how many welfare dollars Congress pours into these fabricated markets or any amount of price fixing they set, the exchanges are unsustainable, and Graham-Cassidy offered a permanent drain on this already strained system and the U.S. treasury. It also added a $700 billion dollar deficit next year to America's $20 trillion dollar debt, without repealing a single Obamacare insurance regulation.

The only real solutions exist in a clean slate and a full repeal of Obamacare, ripping it up by the roots. At least a full repeal would save over a trillion dollars in spending over the next decade, instead of trying to save pennies on the dollar and leaving a poor health care system largely intact, through a bad bill like Graham-Cassidy.

Fortunately, Graham-Cassidy failed to be presented for a vote in the Senate, during the last week in September. It failed, after Susan Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) made it clear they would vote "no", keeping it from the 51-vote threshold in a reconciliation vote.

Only Senator Rand Paul held the moral high ground in his decision. On September 20th, Senator Paul told Real Clear Politics: "That [Graham-Cassidy] is not what I promised voters. I promised repeal [of Obamacare]. ... Block granting Obamacare doesn't make it go away."

Described as "a lousy process", the New York Times (September 26th, 2017) quoted Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska stating: "The U.S. Senate cannot get the text of a bill on Sunday night, then proceed to a vote just days later, with only one hearing -- and especially not on an issue that is intensely personal to all of us."

Senator John McCain complained Republicans should have worked with Democrats, to restructure America's $3 trillion per year health care system, which is simply asinine, in light of the fact, Obamacare is an entirely Democrat partisan piece of legislation, and it widely restructured a vital part of the national economy. These same Democrats destroyed dozens of governing norms through their lies, and they manipulated the Congressional Budget Score, in order to coerce every American's participation.

Perhaps, once the problems associated with Obamacare compound themselves or Obamacare actually collapses, the Democrats will make an honest effort to compromise on substantive changes, rather than seek more spending and regulatory controls on consumer choice. However, to date, these Commie Travelers have had millions of ideas on how to expand the welfare state and not a single one to save Americans from it.

Many Americans should already have the option of circumventing Obamacare through the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). This act enables people to buy inexpensive insurance across state lines, by joining an insurance group or co-op through one's workplace; and, it proves the U.S. really doesn't need such an expansive program as Obamacare, which makes people pay for many services they don't want or need, like abortion.

Americans want freedom of choice on their health insurance plans and plans with less comprehensive coverage than Obamacare allows, which would reduce the cost of premiums. They want the expansion of health savings accounts and an end to mandate taxes and penalties. And if possible, most of us would truly appreciate Medicaid reform.

Currently, the Alexander-Murray stabilization package offers subsidies to insurance companies to reimburse them for reducing out-of-pocket expenses for low income people and more freedom for sates to restructure their insurance markets. While the Democrats see the subsidy payments as essential, most Republicans, especially in the Freedom Caucus, see the subsidies as bailouts for insurance companies that would prop up Obamacare. Sensible leaders will not readily burn more of the taxpayers' money in a system going south.

President Trump has the full authority to place a sunset deadline on the Obama administration's unconstitutional subsidy payments, which it created to keep Obamacare from imploding, and he should do so immediately. Let the Democrats howl "sabotage". There is not any political, policy or moral reason for the GOP to continue the payoffs.

The recent request for a twenty-three percent rate hike by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina [Blog Editor: BCBS asked for an updated a reduction to 14.1% 8/2/17] further illuminates the corruption within the current system. The company acknowledges that it would have asked for only an 8.8 percent increase, if President Trump had agreed to fund the federal subsidies through 2018, and so, the U.S. taxpayer gets raked over the coals and robbed blind by Obamacare once more.

Premium prices have doubled and quadrupled, and doctors are harder to find. Barack Obama promised Obamacare would boost the economy, but across America, small and large businesses report Obamacare impedes their ability to expand and hire.

One must wonder how much of the Republican Party's reluctance to fully repeal Obamacare lies with lobbyist efforts and donations to Republicans. Records show that between 2011 and 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell received a total of $424,650 from Kindred Healthcare, Humana and Blackstone. Sen. Orrin Hatch received $133,500 from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Cancer Treatment Centers of America, while Sen. Lamar Alexander took $61,100 from Blue Cross Blue Shield and Community Health Systems in Franklin, Tennessee. And the list goes on.

After seven years of promises, where are the voices in the Senate offering passionate arguments for repeal? Where is the unified effort from the Republicans to speak for millions of Americans, who currently suffer under Obamacare's spiking premiums and decreasing choices? It has all seemingly vanished, since repeal became a possible reality.

America's well-being is more important than any political party's legacy and any insurance company's bottom line, and so, Republicans must not allow this abominable and failed Obamacare "law" to be prolonged and continue to hurt the American people in despicable fashion. The next Democratic administration will surely expand its reach and push towards a single-payer system, if it is not soon repealed, as suggested by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT).

The Republicans and America really do not have any reason to save a failed Obamacare, and they certainly cannot afford to let it become more entrenched, while it cuts a liberty destroying path through our society. Until Republicans gather the backbone to counter the ACA or fully repeal it, the Republicans have broken faith with the American people.

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text enclosed by brackets and All source links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Americans Demand Full Repeal

Obamacare (mislabeled the Affordable Care Act) is a debacle on affordable healthcare that was based on lies to gullible Americans ready to believe any Dem propaganda coming from the likes of the un-American President Barack Hussein Obama.

Justin Smith shows why Obamacare should be completely scrapped with a true affordable healthcare reform to replace the Obama debacle. Here are some intro words from Justin to me in submitting this editorial:

There is an expanse of convoluted information on even the limited scope of this piece, which looks at repealing the ACA, rather than replacing it. All the double talk these politicians are doing is going to have to catch them one day. Soon I hope.

JRH 7/24/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

****************

Americans Demand Full Repeal

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/23/2017 10:55 AM

"Experience hath shown that, even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- President Thomas Jefferson

Americans elected a Republican majority to Congress in 2016, in large part, to repeal Obamacare and find solutions that would make health care more affordable for all. We didn't send Republicans to D.C. to give concessions to Democrats, who advocate for a single-payer communist system and didn't care two-cents about Republican concerns in 2009. We didn't vote for Obamacare-lite and more bailouts for insurance companies, or earmarks for special interests. We don't want "repeal and replace". Americans want to reduce the cost of health care for all Americans, and Americans demand a full repeal.

One might think that repealing the corrupt, failed Obamacare racket would be a fairly straightforward and necessary matter. However, on July 17th, many Republicans, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, proved themselves to be no better than con-men and liars, along the same lines of Democrats, who promised Americans an affordable health care system that allowed them to keep their doctors, when Republicans attempted to bring a bill to the floor, that left much of Obamacare intact and the Medicaid expansion in place through 2024. They also created a $50 billion market stability fund nearly identical to the Obamacare "risk corridors", rightly described as "bailouts" by some conservative Republicans, such as Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) demanded $1.32 billion from the Stability Fund for Alaska in exchange for her vote on the 17th. And, the South Dakota Purchase guarantees Indian Health services clients a 100 percent federal Medicaid match, which is currently only allowed through the Indian Health Service Department.

Shortly after Senator Mitch McConnell decided to pull this bill, Senator Rand Paul stated: "... the new bill is the same as the old bill except for it leaves in place more taxes, increases taxpayers subsidies to buy insurance, and adds $70 billion to the insurance bailout superfund. I don't see anything in here remotely resembling repeal. And I've said for some time now that the bill has to look more like repeal to get my vote. I can't support it at this point."

One is left wondering, about the Republican's political will to do the right thing and set America's health care system back on a free choice, free market path, that will allow it to succeed. The House passed a Senate repeal bill by a vote of 219 to 212 in March 2010, which Obama didn't sign; and yet, the Republicans chose not to defunded Obamacare, when they could have.

Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Shelley Capito (R-WV) both voted for a pure repeal bill in 2015, but now object to voting for a similar bill. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) also stated that she wouldn't vote to advance a pure repeal.

What health care legislation and reforms would these Senators support, if they had to live under it too, without their current exemptions?

On July 19th, President Trump called on the U.S. Senate to "repeal and replace" Obamacare once again, when he should have been giving a speech on the wonderful virtues of the free market. He missed a key opportunity to explain that communism fails every time.

America's health care left the free market after the 1929 Baylor University experiment with some Dallas, TX school teachers and Blue Cross, and by the end of the 1930s, a health insurance model that swept away excellent cost effective health care arrangements was created by the American Medical Association, which called those arrangements "commercial" and "unethical". This AMA creation evolved into a miserable mixture of government and private sector power for insurers, that drove costs sky-high, even before Obamacare, because federal tax policy and subsidies encouraged doctors to charge exorbitant rates and rewarded companies for providing employees with medical insurance.

Both the 1965 Medicare program and the 2010 ACA incorporate the misguided logic of extending the influence of health insurance companies over health care, supervising physicians and regulating medical care, all in the name of controlling costs. This is a socialist and crony-capitalist model that has failed Americans, and it must be eradicated, while immediately implementing structural changes that create a real world free market for both health insurance and health care.

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study released on May 23rd, 2017 revealed average annual premiums increased from $2784 in 2013 to $5712 on Healthcare.gov in 2017. This is a 105 percent increase.

Too many Americans mistakenly believe that they can take more money out of the system, while receiving top-of-the-line treatment and care, with minimal wait times and less money going into the system in the form of premiums, co-pays and deductibles. They seek a fantasy, rather than real solutions that provide the most good for all Americans.

When Senate Republicans sought negotiations with the Democrats this spring, Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia and Tom Carper of Delaware wanted funding (tax payer dollars) to offset larger than expected insurance claims for health insurance companies participating in the state and federal insurance exchanges. Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) wouldn't even agree to a meeting, without an upfront Republican agreement to no per capita Medicaid block grants to the states and no rollback in Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) told NBC (Tues-July 18th) that he was "not interested in bailouts for insurance companies alone without reforms". He specifically dismissed any plan for guaranteed cost sharing reduction payments, which are considered to be insurers most important demand.

During the first GOP debate, candidate Donald Trump said, "What I'd like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. ... Get rid of the artificial lines (50 state insurance commissions) and you will have yourself great plans. And then we have to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves ... through a different system."

Of course, the President and Congress should take a few more actions to lower costs and create a real health care free market. It must be made legal again for a person to buy any health insurance plan suited to one's specific needs and choices, because people shouldn't have to pay for items they don't need, like abortions, addictions and sex change operations, in order to fund other people's health care. Congress must end all federal government subsidies to health insurance companies, doctors and medical facilities, and also start tort reform. And a strong free market will emerge to provide and guarantee great health care at good prices.

Most importantly, anyone who really loves their family must fight with every last ounce of their intestinal fortitude to ensure our healthcare is maintained in a free environment, free from the arbitrary high-handed authoritarian decisions of some Washington bureaucrat. Cost becomes irrelevant, if a bureaucrat under a government operated system can deny a person treatment, like the U.K. did in little baby Charlie Gard's life and death case. Let's keep all health care services attainable for all Americans.

America is at a crossroads, and the Republican fight to repeal Obamacare is worth having, in order to halt any movement towards a catastrophic single payer system, by Democrats who are unwilling to accept any significant conservative reforms. Republicans have a brief window in time, to undo the damage to our health care system and stop Americans from being hurt further by the ACA, and great legislative leaders would not hesitate in the face of a hard task.

Failure to fully repeal Obamacare is unacceptable and a crime against America.

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links are by the Editor

© Justin O. Smith

Jenny Beth Martin on IRS scandal: ‘We need to know what happened’

Remember how Obama’s IRS targeted Conservative groups – ESPECIALLY Tea Party groups – to prevent Conservatives from campaigning against Obama?

Remember Lois Lerner was involved in IRS targeting then took the 5^th in Congressional hearings to save her buttocks? She is now retired with a healthy pension. Thanks to Sixth Circuit Appeals Court, Lerner is going to be forced to testify.

Remember how the IRS Commissioner John Koskinen did next to zero to bring IRS culprits to justice? Apparently, President Trump has forgot to drain the IRS portion of the swamp because Koskinen is still the IRS Commissioner.

VIDEO: Donald Trump Says He Is Will "Drain The Swamp in Washington DC"

JRH 5/21/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

***************

Jenny Beth Martin on IRS scandal: ‘We need to know what happened’

Sent by Tea Party Patriots

Sent 5/19/2017 4:36 PM

In a recent interview with Fox & Friends’ Steve Doocy, Tea Party Patriots Co-Founder Jenny Beth Martin demands that testimony from today’s hearings into the IRS targeting scandal be made public so we, the American people, are able to “get to the bottom” of why some groups applying for tax-exempt status were singled-out for added scrutiny during the Obama administration.

“…[W]e need to know what happened. They need to testify and the public needs to hear that testimony to be able to get to the bottom of what happened to us so we can finally have justice,” Jenny Beth said of the former top IRS officials, who requested their testimony be sealed out of concern for their well-being.

Numerous Americans were targeted under Lois Lerner’s scheme at the IRS, and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen stonewalled congressional investigation into the matter. Click here to join Jenny Beth Martin in demanding justice for those Americans targeted by the IRS and for IRS Commissioner John Koskinen’s immediate dismissal.

Impeach Koskinen

The IRS scandal, and continued calls for our elected representatives to follow through on their promise to fully repeal Obamacare, keep us busy every day at Tea Party Patriots. As health-insurer Aetna announces it’s getting out of Obamacare, we’re reminded daily that a health-insurance infrastructure that places more power in the hands of government arbitrators than it does in the hands of the American people is fundamentally un-American. Click here to help Tea Party Patriots encourage our lawmakers to fully repeal Obamacare.

America’s future – as with the Obamacare repeal – can sometimes look bleak as lawmakers continue to go soft on their promises, but don’t lose heart. When our mainstream news media is more concerned with how many scoops of ice cream President Trump prefers eating compared to his guests (yes, this “story” actually garnered a headline), you know it’s time now, more than ever, to get America back on track and tackling the issues critical to our continued well-being and our children’s well-being – something former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich emphasizes in a recent column for Fox News.

“Republicans must decide if they are going to fight for what they believe in or retreat to the tenuous safety of the beltway bubble,” he says.

One promising development is the more than 120 seats on federal lower courts President Trump has the opportunity to try and fill – assuming Republicans and some Democrats can come together as they did during the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

As Jenny Beth says in a Washington Times opinion piece, “What’s better than another Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court? How about another Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court and another 10 Antonin Scalias on lower federal courts, ready to rule and move up when the time is right?” Click here to help Tea Party Patriots urge our senators to confirm to our courts judges who respect our Constitution!

______________

© 2017 Tea Party Patriots, Inc.

Tea Party Patriots CorePrinciples

Tea Party Patriots stands for every American, and is home to millions who have come together to pursue the American Dream and to keep that Dream alive for their children and grandchildren.

What unites the tea party movement is the same set of core principles that brought America together at its founding, that kindled the American Dream in the hearts of those who struggled to build our nation, and made the United States of America the greatest, most successful country in world history.

At its root the American Dream is about freedom. Freedom to work hard and the freedom to keep the fruits of your labor to use as you see fit without harming others and without hindering their freedom. Very simply, three guiding principles give rise to the freedom necessary to pursue and live the American Dream:

Ø Personal Freedom

Ø Economic Freedom

Ø Debt-Free Future

Bury Obamacare

Justin Smith has some thoughts on Free Market insurance care as opposed to government single payer insurance.

JRH 3/27/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*****************

Bury Obamacare

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 3/26/2017 2:13 PM

Americans cannot gain affordable healthcare through the U.S. government and laws like the disastrous Obamacare or the Ryancare fiasco. They must look towards private sectors, free market based solutions and patient controlled healthcare plans that move Americans far away from an unsustainable, terribly inefficient and rapidly approaching government controlled single payer system. And Congressmen and Senators and any U.S. President, current or future, must remove all roadblocks to this course, if, as many profess, affordable healthcare for Americans is truly their goal.

America didn't have $2.6 trillion when Obamacare passed, and it doesn't have the $2.3 trillion that Ryancare demanded. It is immoral and bad leadership to put such a debt on the backs of American taxpayers, since most of the money goes to the bureaucracy, does not provide timely or even good healthcare and too often never makes it to the patients in need. Overspending, in such a manner, for a healthcare insurance program that does not deliver real care is not a solution.

Initially in 2010, Republicans promised to repeal Obamacare, but gradually their promise evolved to "repeal and replace". Forget replacing Obamacare. Congress must repeal Obamacare completely. Bury Obamacare.

With health insurance deductibles averaging approximately $7000, 6.5 million Americans decided to pay the penalty last year. Millions of other Americans pay premiums but don't go to the doctor due to high deductibles; and now millions more of Americans will soon be left without any insurance, because the Obamacare exchanges are imploding as insurance companies abandon them.

Ryancare [American Health Care Act] didn't offer much improvement over Obamacare, so it was fortunate that it failed to gain complete Republican support, which forced its withdrawal on March 24th, after five hours of discussion. The AHCA replaced the individual mandate and tax penalty with a thirty percent insurance premium surcharge for anyone buying insurance after a lapse in coverage. The AHCA simply placed Obamacare's unreasonable and odious Cadillac Tax on hold until 2025. It also offered another form of income redistribution called "tax credits". And in the end, Ryancare achieved no improvement in access to health care for Americans.

But government provided health insurance is not a right. Under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, there isn't any federal power or duty to ensure "universal health care coverage".

However, as a start, let the free market fill the void and work for all. Advocate for the removal of cost prohibitive federal and state insurance regulatory mandates and all impediments to purchase health insurance across state lines. This will create competition, that will drive the cost of insurance and healthcare down and improve the quality of services, benefitting all and opening doors for any American who wants real Health Care.

Privately insured Americans must also end their practice of filing health insurance claims for every little sniffle they experience. When the majority of Americans use their health insurance to pay for only real medical necessities and emergencies, lowering the cost to companies, health insurance will become more affordable for all Americans.

And, since ninety percent of Americans spend less than $5000 on healthcare annually, people should comparative shop for health insurance and healthcare plans just like they would for a car. Self-paying patients are regularly charged 25 to 90 percent less than insured patients, so always ask any provider for the lowest possible price for someone un-insured.

Another option is Direct Primary Care (DPC). Under this model, a patient pays a fixed monthly amount, often as little as $50, and receives a high level of access to their regular doctor. They receive diagnostic testing and preventative and minor emergency procedures. The DPC model also arranges for other services that have been deeply discounted and pre-negotiated, like an MRI for $400. The DPC is quality health care for the average American that even provides specialists at a fraction of the cost of an insurance model.

Our government, however benevolent it may seem, is incapable of identifying who should qualify for free medical services, even if that was a proper government role. Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid reveals the veracity of this assertion.

According to the original 1965 law, Medicaid was designed to be a state administered program for those "unable to support ... their medical needs". But Obamacare now allows able-bodied poor and young Americans to utilize this program, even though it is currently very near bankrupt. The quality and availability of the healthcare received through its networks is also inferior.

Those Americans opposed to repealing Obamacare often ask, "What will happen to people with pre-existing illnesses?"

Anyone with pre-existing conditions could not be denied medical treatment under U.S. law prior to Obamacare, and many received care through "high risk pools" available in 35 states. If they cannot afford non-group health insurance, they will still not be denied medical attention after Obamacare is repealed, which leaves them to pay a medical bill or seek charity.

Americans will receive care one way or another; no one person should lose sleep over this. Americans turn themselves inside out to help each other. Hope Clinic [Murfreesboro, TN], and Vanderbilt's Children's Hospital and St. Jude's Children's Hospital bear testament to this, among many others.

When did Americans become so dependent on Uncle Sam? Can we no longer act independently for ourselves -- take care of ourselves?

Top of the line affordable health care is within the reach of all Americans, but if we are to take hold of it, we must quit paying any price insurance companies demand for premiums and doctors and hospitals demand for services, negotiating cheaper health care prices across the board. We must use our uninhibited creative energy to ensure timely access to quality care programs, as we also remove government obstacles to innovation from our health care system. And through free market initiatives healthcare costs will dramatically drop, efficiency within the system will increase and a new surplus of funds will provide care for our needy.

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled Obamacare subsidies are just fine. Remarkably Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Leftists and a Centrist to pat Barack Hussein Obama to tell him it was just fine to keep screwing up America.

TODAY SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal in ALL 50 States in the Union based on the 14^th Amendment that assured former slaves as equal citizens with equal rights. I wonder if those Northern States that ensured Freedom for Black-Americans would think that the 14^th Amendment’s intent would be used to justify the ungodly abomination of homosexual marriage. This time Chief Justice Roberts went with the godly side but was a part of four losing Justices that lost out to four thumbing their noses Leftist Justices and Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy placed the USA in a dangerous spiritual position in the eyes of God Almighty.

Late last night Robert Smith submitted a post expressing his displeasure with how the three constitutional Branches of our Federal government are forsaking the Constitution. Smith concludes that the unconstitutional government movement will lead to one of two actions: 1) America’s Constitution gets a reset button of Original Intent at the ballot box. 2) Barring the peaceful action of the ballot box, a Revolutionary War-style rebellion will occur with the Americans that are tired of the tyranny of the ungodly Left.

After the Robert Smith post I’m going to cross post the informative story I find most relevant to the Sodomizing of America by five ungodly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

JRH 6/26/15

PleaseSupport SlantRight 2.0

****************************

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

The Constitution is being ripped asunder by the POTUS and the SCOTUS. The POTUS is determined to destroy our country. This is so the Transnational Bankers, Global Politicians and Islamists will have an easier task of subjugating the people of our country and making them accept a NWO and Islam as the one true religion.

In the SCOTUS you have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes the Constitution has out lived its usefulness. [And we have] one Elena Kagan, who believes the Constitution should be supplemented by Sharia Law. And Chief Justice John Roberts who perceives himself as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

They have taken the most sought after health care in the world, emasculated it and made it so costly no one can afford it. The number of citizens who did not have health care prior to O-Bama Care was so small they could have been provided governmental health care paid for, many times over, by the billions already spent by O-Bama Care.

It makes me heartsick to see the country and the Constitution I fought for in three wars so maligned so corrupted by those who have never turned a finger to protect our country and our way of life. This must be corrected. How? I do not have the answers, but I hope it is by the ballots and not the bullets.

We have a Congress that is doing very little to better the situation. They must be replaced by true Conservatives, those who truly love our country.

Most of our voters do not comprehend the serious nature of the problems facing our country today. They are lackadaisical when it comes to checking the backgrounds of those we choose to represent us. They continue to send to Congress people who have only their own selfish interests in mind. This must be stopped!!

To vote for a Liberal only ensures the continuation of the situation we now have. The liberals must be replaced by true Conservatives and not by the many RINOs - Republican In Name Only - that we now have serving in Congress; i.e. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and the list goes on.

I hope to see a peaceful change in the direction our country is following but I do hope to see a change!!!!

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

By Ryan Anderson 

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. His amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu­ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun­damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriage makes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. 

 It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the oppor­tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar­riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a ques­tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques­tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘under­standing of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This delib­erative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “[i]t is one thing for the major­ity to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray every­one who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

In conclusion, because the Court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Recommended Citation: Ryan Anderson, Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 4:28 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

SUPREME COURT: 'GAY MARRIAGE' LEGAL NATIONWIDE

<![if !supportLists]>-       <![endif]>By BOB UNRUH; WND; 6/26/15

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human nature – Life Site News; 6/26/15 10:19 am EST

SCOTUS Endorses Same-Sex Marriage - By John J. Bastiat; The Patriot Post; 6-26-15

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justices – By Ben Johnson; Life Site News; 6/26/15 1:14 pm EST

SCALIA: MARRIAGE RULING 'THREAT TO DEMOCRACY' – By ART MOORE; WND; 6/26/15

______________________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

Long Live Freedom

Justin Smith provides some very legitimate thoughts on President Barack Hussein Obama’s unconstitutional actions with his pen and phone. Just a heads up there is a section in Justin’s essay that addresses the wealthy elites of the late 19^th and early 20^th using their Capitalistic attained riches to advance socialistic agendas in Great Britain (these days now more often referred to as United Kingdom).

The families Justin writes about are the Morgans, Rockefellers and Rothschilds. These three names are high fruit on the Conspiracy Theory tree. The Rothschild family holds a particular venom from antisemitic Conspiracy Theorists. (Debunking the NWO spun by Rothschild family: HERE, HERE, HERE & HERE. Promoting Rothschild family NWO laced with antisemitism: HERE and HERE.)

I am certain that the Conspiracy Theorists will come out of the word work with Justin’s post. (Incidentally on a personal level I believe there are some facts involved in the theories, but that the theories too often go off into a ditch on the Left or the Right side of the road.) Justin’s essay is specifically an attack on Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Orders.

JRH 3/8/15

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*************************

Long Live Freedom

By Justin Smith

Sent: 3/7/2015 10:33 PM

"Es lebe die Freiheit" [Long live freedom] - Hans Scholl's [Jewish Virtual Library] last words (White Rose opposition to Hitler)

American freedom and liberty, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers' Original Intent, are being rapidly destroyed by Obama and the Progressive Democrat fascists, who are advancing the U.S. government towards autocratic and dictatorial rule. They are destroying our Shining City on the Hill, through statist policies rife with the cancers of economic and cultural Marxism and other insidious tactics that are eradicating our traditions, national sovereignty and the historical memory of the American people, and Americans must find the determination and courage to fight this anti-American Progressive movement through every means available.

Too often, the Republican Party advances the Progressive agenda, inadvertently or not, through its own statist propensity and love of protected markets and monopolies, despite its protestations of being completely "conservative" and 100% for free market capitalism. During the 2008 economic crisis, fascism became the rule of the day, and the interests of the American people were sacrificed in order to save huge economic conglomerates like AIG, which were deemed "too big to fail."

In 1920, H.G. Wells explained: "Big Business is in no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger the business grows the more it approximates Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to collectivism."

Many men, such as the Morgans, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, funded the socialist takeover of Great Britain, and these very same men helped President Woodrow Wilson create the Federal Reserve Bank (centralized credit) and a heavy progressive income tax, two of the Ten Tenets of Communism; in this context, control of one-sixth of the United States economy through the Affordable Health Care Act by the federal government and future Progressive regimes, like Obama's, puts us all on an open road to serfdom and a new authoritarian world in America.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild often stated, "Let me issue and control a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."

In this sense, one must question the moral clarity of vision and the political and legal understanding and knowledge of Republicans, such as Representatives Bruce Polinquin (Maine), Bob Dold (Illinois) and John Katko (New York), since they voted against the repeal of the ACA [Obamacare] in February. They were more interested in "fixing" its flaws and having replacement legislation ready. These politicians are symptomatic of the problem America faces.

Who do these Republicans represent after all? Certainly not conservative America.

Free market economies do not need the imprimatur of any government in order to decide what is acceptable to the people. Consumers must be free to decide on purchases for themselves, and health care providers should supply plans that are acceptable to the free market. If they cannot, the consumers’ purchases will guide the market, without government collusion or coercion.

In a July 2012 appearance on Fox News Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell contradicts his October 2014 assertion that 60 votes would be needed in the Senate to repeal Obamacare, as he states: "The Chief Justice said (Obamacare) it's a tax. Taxes are clearly reconcilable (in the budget). That's the kind of measure that can be pursued with 51 votes in the Senate."

Shortly after the House voted to repeal Obamacare (239 to 186) on February 3rd, 2015, Senator Ted Cruz told CNS News: "If it can be passed with reconciliation, it can be repealed with reconciliation. And we need to use every procedural means possible to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare."

Following the G.B. Shaw template to advance a Utopian Hell in America [“Bernard Shaw and Totalitarianism” and “The Language of Degeneration: Eugenic Ideas in…”], Obama has used deception and subverted U.S. law. He has also formed a despotic habit of legislating from the Oval Office, which is not a legitimate and Constitutional function of the Executive Branch.

Far from "prosecutorial discretion", Obama's most recent executive order grants five million illegal aliens "executive amnesty", social security cards, three years of Earned Income Credit back-payments and $25,000 each from U.S. taxpayer money, even though they never paid any taxes. This is illegal and unconstitutional, and Obama is breaking U.S. law, as he helps other criminals in the process.

Obama's illegal "executive amnesty" is an overt attempt to change the face of America and legitimize a mass of people, who are greatly inclined to vote Democrat. This is, in large part, aimed specifically at turning Texas into a Democrat majority state, ensuring that Progressives will be virtually unstoppable election after election and far into the future.

Where is the aggressive action against Obama's "executive amnesty" that Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner and many other establishment Republicans promised?

Sadly, America learned on March 3rd that 75 pathetic Republicans had joined 182 more pathetic Democrats to fund the Department of Homeland Security, as the succumbed to the false narrative that refusing to fund DHS and Obama's executive amnesty would adversely affect national security. This legislation also funds Obama's executive amnesty, and in the process, it severely damages Congressional power for years to come.

Didn't any of these 75 republicans consider that the large number of crimes committed by these illegal aliens against U.S. citizens is a matter of national security?

A brilliant thinker and founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly recently exclaimed: "It's an insult to everyone who voted to elect the Republicans in the last Congressional election. The American people clearly voted against Obama's illegal, unconstitutional bills of all kinds ... He's a disaster for our country, and he doesn't have our national security at heart."

And now, Obama is planning an egregious infringement on our Second Amendment rights by banning 5.62 mm M855 ammo through executive order, because it pierces soft-body armor. This is a deception aimed at the eventual ban on all firearms and ammo, since 168 other rounds (e.g. .308, .223, 30.06) also pierce soft-body armor. If he proceeds, everyone should fill the Oval Office with .223 ammo, by way of UPS or 3000 feet per second muzzle velocity, depending on one's vision for America - Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide.

Even in America vigilance is required to keep freedom and liberty alive. The Progressives of both parties hold, in part or whole, post-Constitutional ideas that advance Obama's fundamental transformation, which eradicates our Founding Principles and traditional precepts concerning the rule of law. They are advancing this Progressive agenda through illegitimate, extralegal and illegal means, as they assault our American Heritage and place many Americans in an unendurable situation, which will eventually lead to armed rebellion, unless any future Statesmen can successfully repel this tide of fascism: If not, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty will fight once more in order to restore Constitutional governance and the Republic in Our Beloved America.

Justin O Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text and/or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith