Hobby Lobby Ruling Escalates Liberal Lies
Jul 2, 2014 Commentary
The Supreme Court ruled that private corporations who have religious objections to certain types of reproductive medications cannot be compelled to provide them. The liberal left has its collective panties in a wad over this and it has been out in full force lying about the decision.
The left claims that the ruling means women will be denied birth control. Let us look at this claim.
First of all, the Hobby Lobby ruling did not deny women access to any drug. The ruling only determined who had to pay for it. In other words, the Court did not deny women access to any medication and only stated that if they wanted those medications they had to pay for them with their own money.
Second of all, the ruling only concerned a certain class of reproductive medications. It dealt specifically with those medications that induce abortion and can terminate life.
In fact, Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 reproductive drugs required under the Obamacare Law. Given that fact it is disingenuous to claim that this ruling denies birth control to women. The company involved does not deny birth control to women it only refuses to pay for drugs that induce abortions. Hobby Lobby provides the contraceptives but not the abortifacients. You see, a contraceptive, by definition, is a drug that prevents pregnancy. Once a pregnancy occurs any drug taken to end it is not a contraceptive, period.
But the left keeps harping on this subject as some kind of attack on women. Hobby Lobby pays a minimum wage that is nearly twice the federal minimum wage and offers great benefits which includes health care plans that cover 16 contraceptives ranging from condoms to hormones to implants.
It just will not cover the abortifacients. Women however, are still free to use those drugs so long as they pay for them with their own money.
And that is all the ruling says.
That, of course, is not good enough for liberals who believe that everything should be provided for everyone. With regard to reproductive medication liberals believe that anything a woman wants to use must be paid for by the employer or the government. We must, according to them, stay out of their wombs and mind our own business but at the same time they want others to pay for their medications.
My good friend Kender McGowan made a great point. Given the liberal position on providing a woman with whatever birth control she wants and also paying for that control Kender asks; if a woman decides to keep her clothes on as her form of birth control does her employer have to pay for her wardrobe?
A great point indeed.
The SCOTUS ruled correctly when it ruled that a privately owned corporation could not be forced to violate its religious beliefs. Birth control is NOT a right. Freedom of religion is.
To make matters worse the liberals are arguing that women must get birth control (something that is NOT required to live) while ignoring the lack of medical treatment and life saving medications our veterans deserve.
While liberals argue for free reproductive medications veterans are dying while waiting for care that is actually life saving.
And unlike reproductive medication, the care veterans deserve is care they actually earned.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, hobby lobby, liberals, lies, obamacare, religion, scotus
Did Obama Win The Battle Only To Lose The War?
Jun 30, 2012 Political
Last week the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare can stand but only after the Judicial Branch majority became legislators. The Court basically rewrote the law that Congress passed and inserted the word TAX to replace the word PENALTY. This flies in the face of everything the left has been saying about the law. Obama emphatically denied that the penalty was a tax. Now that the Court has changed the law the reality is that Barack Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
When all is said and done Obamacare will impose nearly a TRILLION dollars in taxes on Americans. Keep in mind, this is not an income tax it is a tax on something other than income. Some of the tax increases will pay for the massive expansion of government but the most onerous tax is the one where a person pays a tax for doing absolutely nothing. I have seen in several places an imaginary exchange that highlights how this works:
CUSTOMER: No thank you, I would NOT like a pack of gum.
CLERK: OK, the tax on that will be $2.35.
If Americans ever went to a store and declined to buy something and were forced to pay a tax for doing so they would be marching on DC with pitchforks and torches and lynching those in Congress.
But the very same thing has taken place under the health care law. If you report that you do not have health insurance (whether you can’t afford it or declined to buy it) you will have to pay a tax. This is a nightmare for Obama and I think he would have rather had the mandate ruled unconstitutional than have it upheld as a tax because now he has to defend breaking his promise. Remember, the taxes on the middle class would not be raised one dime, per Obama.
Obama and his sock puppets are already trying to rewrite the SCOTUS decision that involved rewriting the law. They are out saying that this is not a tax and is a penalty. Sorry liberals, you cannot have it both ways. If you are going to implement Obamacare because the Court ruled in your favor then you have to implement it based on the ruling.
This is not an accident. The New York Times has described this as a penalty and made the claim that the SCOTUS upheld the penalty.
WRONG. IT IS A TAX – PERIOD.
It is the largest tax increase in our history and it demonstrates that Barack Obama is a tax and spend liberal and nothing more.
While he is out saying the ruling is a win for the middle class the reality is that the middle class will get hit hard by the taxes. Wealthy people, by and large, have health insurance so they will not be affected by the tax for not having it. Those who cannot afford it will get screwed and they will pay other taxes to fund the monstrosity as well.
This is by no means a win for the left no matter what they claim because the ruling allows several things to take place. It allows states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion (which will leave a lot of poorer folks with no insurance and a tax for not having it) which is a big deal. The ruling also allows any future Republican majority in the Senate to repeal the law with a simple majority of 51 votes. Because this is now a TAX issue it will only take 51 votes to repeal it.
The ruling also had some intangible benefits. It has motivated a huge segment of society that now knows the only way to repeal Obamacare is to get rid of Obama and get a majority in the Senate (assuming the majority in the House holds). Around 66% of Americans disapprove of Obamacare and those people will be out in force on election day. They will be out to repeal Obamacare via the ballot box because the system of government that the Founders gave us failed them when an activist Court rewrote a law to make it Constitutional.
John Roberts might have felt he had to do this to preserve the integrity of the Court (though I fail to see how that happened) but he was wrong in what he did. I know, he has the law degree and he is the highest judge in the land but he is WRONG. And if he does not think it was wrong to rewrite the law then he does not belong on the bench. I am open to him demonstrating where the power he exerted is authorized in the Constitution but I doubt he can find it. The Legislative Branch WRITES the laws and the Judicial Branch interprets them to see if they are Constitutional. There is no provision that allows them to rewrite the laws.
Roberts might have done this in an effort to force Obama to defend a huge tax increase and to show he is a liar. He might have done it to make it easier to repeal it. He might have done this to keep the Court from being viewed as political (too late, the ruling was political and not Constitution based) and then again, he might just be a coward.
I don’t know. I think that if he did all these things he might just be a genius by giving Obama defeat while making him think he achieved a victory.
I don’t think this is what courts are supposed to do but the deed has been done and we have to drive on from here.
In 2010 the major issue was Obamacare. The Democrats took a beating because of that ONE issue. They will claim that the economy is what matters to everyone and while that is true does Obama really want to run on that issue?
Those who were not inclined to vote or who were not reliable voters might not have voted based on the economy but they will get out and vote based on Obamacare.
Americans can go through bad times and we know this is part of life. What we will not do is allow government to overreach and to make us slaves to them. That was the message in 2010 and it is the message in 2012.
In November we will take out the trash.
As a last thought, it has always been a joke that if the government could figure a way to tax you for breathing it would. Since we now have to pay a tax for being an American who does not participate in a certain activity it would appear as if government figured out how to tax us just for breathing.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, john roberts, lies, november, obamacare, scotus
We Will Still Pick Up The Tab For Obamacare
Aug 13, 2011 Political
When will the politicians in DC learn about the Constitution? The individual mandate of Obamacare has been shot down by several courts as unconstitutional but the regime is pressing on with implementation. It argues that some courts have found it Constitutional and that it will press on. All sides know this will make it to the Supreme Court. The regime wants that process to take as long as possible so it can claim that trillions of dollars have already been spent so why go back?
The law should have been stopped when it was ruled unconstitutional. There are disagreements among the courts so the law should be on hold until the SCOTUS reviews it and rules. The regime cannot have this because stopping now would take away its plan to have it implemented before a ruling takes place.
The government simply cannot force people to buy a product. The argument that people without insurance cost all of us because we pick up the tab for their health care is not a reason to force us to buy insurance. While it is true that we do end up paying it is because people decide not to pay their bills. People do not need insurance to get health care. They can go to the doctor and pay out of pocket. If they paid their bills we would not have an issue. But government has enslaved so many people and told them they have a right to something for nothing that we now have people who do not pay and who expect to get what they want for free.
Would it make sense for the government to require us all to buy and eat healthy food because those who do not make the rest of us pick up the tab for their unhealthy ways? If government can force healthy choices, then why does the government continue to allow the sale of tobacco? It impacts health care and the rest of us pay for the costs (even if we have insurance). Maybe it is because Obama needs his smokes…
The White House claims that the latest ruling from an appeals court will not stand because failure to have insurance impacts us all and therefore is authorized under the Commerce Clause.
The individual responsibility provision – the main part of the law at issue in these cases – is constitutional. Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us – when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab. White House
Notice how it is an individual responsibility provision instead of a mandate? The pinheads in DC should know that you cannot legislate responsibility. If someone forces you to do something that is not the definition of taking responsibility.
The bigger issue is that we end up picking up the tab regardless. If people without insurance get health care services and don’t pay then the cost is passed on to us. Under the government plan the government pays for people who can’t afford health insurance. While Democrats have a hard time understanding this, when government pays for something it is really the taxpayer who ends up paying for it. Therefore, we end up picking up the tab either way.
The Supreme Court will end up ruling on this and will decide that the individual mandate (not the nicely named responsibility provision) is unconstitutional. I expect the liberals on the court will decide that it is OK to force people to buy a product but their anti Constitutional views will go down in flames by those on the Court that follow the Constitution.
If they can force us to buy health insurance what will stop them from forcing us to buy a Chevy Volt. It is our responsibility to buy green energy using cars and everyone, at one time or another, will end up in a vehicle. Plus the taxpayer owns part of GM so it is our duty to buy from them to get our money back.
How would a liberal who believes it is OK to force people to purchase a product feel if a bill were introduced that required all Americans to buy a gun? Crime impacts everyone and when a person engages in crime it affects commerce. The cost of criminal activity is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and more police officers so, since it affects everyone and it affects commerce, we all need to buy a gun.
The liberals, including those judges who have ruled in favor of Obamacare (and those on the SCOTUS who will) would go nuts and declare that the government cannot force people to buy a product.
The big difference is there is a Constitutional provision that allows all citizens to own and carry a firearm without permission of government (though government routinely violates that provision – see Maryland) and there is no provision to provide health care to everyone. I do not think that government can force people to buy guns any more than it can force them to buy health care but if the SCOTUS decides that government can force us to buy a product then it can force us to buy guns and the Constitution says we can carry them. You know how liberals would act, now don’t you?
This is going to be interesting.
The liberals are going to push us until they get push back they do not like.
Sources:
Politico
al-Reuters
Politico
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: commerce clause, health care, lies, obamacare, scotus, us constitution
Obama Dresses Down SCOTUS With Lies
Jan 29, 2010 Political
Last night during the State of the Union Address Barack Obama did something one would be hard pressed to find an incident of in the history of such addresses. Obama dressed down the Supreme Court for its recent, and correct, decision on corporate money going to political campaigns or issues.
Barack Obama mischaracterized the ruling when he said:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems. White House.gov
The ruling by the court specifically rules out foreign donations as does federal law. That was not overturned. The issue at hand dealt with an organization that was not allowed to air a movie prior to an election. The court ruled it was a free speech issue which it is. Obama was absolutely incorrect and his lie resulted in Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words “not true” (it looked to me like he said “simply not true”).
Today the focus was on Alito, who did nothing wrong, and not on the huge error Obama made. The funny thing is that the focus on this took some of the attention off Obama’s SOTU and agenda.
Obama was wrong to use that forum to lash out at a coequal branch of government. He picked on people who show up and sit still the entire time. They do not stand or applaud for issues to maintain impartiality.
It is a bully tactic and was used to score points. Obama wants Congress to do something to correct this decision. It was Congressional action that led to the decision in the first place. This will come back to bite him in a number of ways. I think it is safe to say that any issue of his that hits the SCOTUS had better be in top order.
Linda Greenhouse of the NYT reports this about the decision:
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.
The decision did not change that century old law and it dealt specifically with money from corporate treasuries and airing ads (or movies) in the period just before an election.
Obama got a few other facts wrong last night but one would expect a so called Constitutional law professor to know the facts of a case if he is going to address it.
Saul Alinksy would be proud of him. The only problem is that Alinsky never figured the population would rise in large numbers.
And neither did Obama. Perhaps that is because he is deaf to the increasing roar of the people.
I think in November he might actually begin to hear and understand.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Pelosi Sides with Obama
Feb 15, 2008 Political
I wrote yesterday that the people who are elected to represent us should vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents. I realize that there are many issues that come up that do not require this or that a district is about evenly split so a politician needs to use good judgment (there is a contradiction in terms) but for the most part, they should follow the wishes of those who put them in office. Some people do not agree with this and there has been at least one who resorted to childish insults because of my position. Regardless, Nancy Pelosi thinks I am right.
Today, Pelosi said that the Super Delegates should vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Now I don’t necessarily agree that this should be so with the SDs because the rules allow them to vote however they want though many would be foolish to tick off the people who will vote for them (at least for the ones who hold elected office).
Don’t veto the people’s choice.
“I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said, adding quickly, “I don’t think that will happen.”
She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party’s voters.
“I do think that they have a respect — it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.” SFGate
I agree that this should be done. However, I also believe that Pelosi is being a hypocrite when she says this and I believe it is because she supports Obama in the race. She has not endorsed him but she is leaning that way and it is obvious by what she has said that she wants him to win. Perhaps she will feel threatened by Hillary as president. Here is why she is hypocritical; she keeps voting against the wishes of her constituents. She voted to keep funding the war and she has not voted to stop it.
I am in favor of staying until we achieve victory so I am happy about this but it runs contrary to what she is saying here. She voted for a minimum wage increase that people wanted (everyone wants more pay) but then she excluded the tuna company in her district so they could keep wages low. She has never taken a position against a colleague who voted for or against something contrary to the voters. As a matter of fact, when Republicans vote in accordance with the wishes (not nearly enough do this) of their constituents, Pelosi criticizes them. Let a congressman from a military district vote in favor of funding the troops and she says he is being obstructive despite the fact that military families want their troops funded. Nearly all voters in their right minds (and certainly a majority) want Congress to cut spending and stop using earmarks but none of them do that and Pelosi is not telling them to.
Though it might appear that she agrees with me I guess it only appears that way because she has had to change a position in order to help the candidate she wants to win. Of course, she is also probably worried that ticking off Democrats could put her back in the minority and she won’t be banging that gavel next year.
Reading the comments at the SFGate, the source of this story (linked above), people keep saying comments from Hillary supporters who think she should get the delegates and that Florida and Michigan should be seated. I need to know something from the Democrats. If Hillary and Obama go to the convention and neither has won outright with Obama leading by more than 100 votes (just leading is probably good enough) and the SDs award their votes to Hillary making her the winner will we be able to say Hillary was selected and not elected?
Gore sued George Bush and lost. The appeals went to the SCOTUS and they determined that the recounts had to stop (I actually think they could not recount in select areas) and George Bush won. Since that time Democrats have called him illegitimate and said he was selected, not elected. They claim the SCOTUS put Bush in office against the will of the people.
If the SDs do that with Hillary then their actions would be no different than those of the SCOTUS in Gore vs Bush (except that Bush won). I would just be interested in hearing how the liberals will rationalize this because no matter how you slice it, they are both the same thing. Actually, how liberals describe Florida in 2000 is closer to my hypothetical situation because in mine, Hillary really is behind.
Bush was only behind in the minds of the liberals.
Tags: dns, gore v bush, Pelosi, scotus, selected not elected, super delegates