Time for Righteous Indignation

If there was ever a time for righteous indignation, it is now.  Brent Bozell let the grievance mongers have it with both barrels.  Here is an excerpt:

You cultural fascists have struck again.

 You have shown you will say most anything, and do most anything to advance your radical agenda. But that’s not enough, is it? Your intent is to ban any opposition. Your goal is to ban even the expression of dissension.

 You’re doing it everywhere. You are insisting scientists skeptical of global warming be banned from symposia discussing the subject. You shout down, even physically attack conservatives who dare express opinions on college campuses – that is, if you don’t succeed in banning them altogether.  You demand TV networks fire Christians who dare to quote Scripture publicly. You pressure advertisers to stop their sponsorship of conservative talk shows, inventing scandals to justify your campaigns. You pressure businesses to fire employee for supporting traditional marriage. You call on government to imprison Christians who will not abide by the gay agenda.

Now it’s the Confederate flag.

 I don’t know what’s more offensive, your disgusting character assassination or the outright embarrassment of politicians and businesses quaking in their shoes at the thought  they might be next on your hit list.

Read the rest at Fox News.

Supreme Court Values Federal Power Over Citizenship

The Supreme Court added insult to injury when they reaffirmed what many of us have come to believe and that is the federal government does not value American citizenship. 

Arizona passed a law requiring proof of citizenship when registering voters.  The Supreme Court refused to hear this case.  Here is an excerpt from Roll Call:

The case, Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, et al., was about whether Arizona and Kansas could require voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote with the so-called “federal form.” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach led the suit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which was an appeal of a lower court decision.

Both Kansas and Arizona have state laws that require applicants to prove their citizenship when applying to vote with state forms (for state or federal elections). But the U.S. EAC denied the states’ requests to have their citizenship laws applied when would-be voters use the standardized federal form

 Here is the real reason the federal courts ruled against Arizona:

By not hearing the case, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Arizona and Kansas in November 2014, saying the EAC did not have to modify its form to meet state laws. Under the federal form, would-be voters need only swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

“This is a very big deal,” University of California Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen wrote on his election law blog Monday. “Kobach had the potential to shift more power away from the federal government in administering elections toward the states,” he added.

Forget the integrity of the vote, or the value of citizenship; it’s all about the federal government’s power over the States.  That seems about right.

Source:

http://www3.atr.rollcall.com/supreme-court-victory-for-voting-rights-advocates/?dcz=

Lawless Supreme Court Rewrites U.S. Constitution on Congressional Districts

The Supreme Court, once again, spit on the Constitution of the United States by allowing an unaccountable and basically untouchable commission to draw congressional districts in the state of Arizona.  Article One, Section Four specifically states:

The times, places, and manner of holding elections, for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.

I guess the Supreme Court is having a hard time understanding what constitutes a “state” and a “legislature.”  After the judicial gymnastics of Obamacare and gay marriage, it’s safe to say this is no longer a court of law, but a court of activist.

There is no doubt the Supreme Court consist of four dedicated liberals and two gutless wonders masquerading as jurist.  Here is the real reason these “justices” ruled the way they did as reported by Roll Call:

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Arizona’s congressional map, declaring in a 5-4 ruling the use of an independent redistricting commission that drew House district lines in the 2012 cycle did not violate the Constitution.

If the court had thrown out the state’s map, it could have sent the 2016 elections into chaos in Arizona and it could have had implications for neighboring California’s map, drawn by a similar independent commission.

Is the avoidance of chaos a reason to rule in favor of a badly written law, such as Obamacare; or in this case, a violation of the U.S. Constitution?  We know why the four liberal justices voted for this “independent commission.”  Roll Call went on to explain:

Had the court tossed the maps, the Republican-controlled Legislature in Arizona would have had the power to redraw the state’s nine congressional districts more to their liking to make what were competitive districts more favorable to the GOP. Currently, Democrats hold 4 of the 9 seats.

Let’s keep in mind that the plaintiff is the Arizona Legislature, the very body that is constitutionally mandated to draw congressional districts.  Here is Justice Ginsberg’s reasoning:

“So long as a State has ‘redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof’ — as Arizona did by utilizing the independent commission procedure in its Constitution — the resulting redistricting plan becomes the presumptively governing map,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion.

She completely rewrote that clause in Article One, Section Four!  This is a lawless Supreme Court.  The only way to put a check on Washington D.C. is for an Article V States’ convention.  But then we may run the risk of having these liberal justices rewrite whatever constitutional amendment that convention ratified.

Source:

http://atr.rollcall.com/supreme-court-arizona-redistricting/?dcz=

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf

US Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage. Now what?

Standing For Biblical Marriage- Righteous Resistance

Gawker a Class Act in Victory

I've seen 5 year olds show more class than these buffoons.

H/T:  Weasel Zippers

N.C. Liberals Want Big Government for Everybody But Them

This past week proved beyond a doubt liberals demand an all intrusive and encompassing federal government dictating to the States what they can or cannot do.  Their orgasmic responses to the Supreme Court’s decisions to create law and rights out of thin air is something we long suspected and that is, despite what they say, liberals don’t care about the democratic process.

   

There is no pretense of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and the concept of a United States of America.  To them there is only a Federal Government of America.  So, I find it surprising libtards are up in arms when the North Carolina Senate proposed doing away with the state’s Fair Housing Act and eliminating the Human Relations Commission.  Why have redundant bureaucratic agencies when the federal government covers it?  Think of the money the taxpayers will save.  But I would be wrong.

The Charlotte Observer, the liberal rag of the Piedmont, decries the citizens of North Carolina would be rendered a disservice.  Here is an excerpt of their protestation:

What would Senate leader Phil Berger and his colleagues do with their complaints about housing bias?  Take them to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development?

The answer to that is yes!

And this:

Kill the commission, and those facing housing discrimination will face longer delays, waiting for federal officials.  As Ken Schorr, head of Legal Services of Southern Piedmont, told the editorial board, “it is a peculiar view of the state’s responsibilities to pass control back to the federal government.”

If libtards want a Federal Government of America, then you’re going to get it.  So shut your teat squawking pie hole and go stand in line.

 Source:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article25620139.html

Walmart makes ISIS cake, refused Confederate flag cake.

A couple more presidents like Obama and ISIS cakes will be mandatory.

Homeless Can't Afford Obamacare Deductibles

The ultimate goal of Obamacare is to get as many people insured as possible, no matter how worthless the policy maybe, by that I mean paying for care that don’t pertain to your needs and having outrageous deductibles.  What a scam.  But this is nothing compared to the latest outrage.  Homeless people are being taken advantage of by insurance companies and predatory agents looking for a quick buck.

Here is an excerpt from the Charlotte Observer:

Normally, the Carolinas’ most impoverished residents don’t qualify for help under the Affordable Care Act. In states that didn’t expand Medicaid, as the act intended, people who fall below the federal poverty line get nothing while those who earn just above $11,700 can get hundreds of dollars a month in federal aid.

Kennedy, 43, a tax accountant turned insurance agent, says he found a legal, risk-free way to work around that. He encourages the homeless to estimate income from barter, panhandling and “street hustling” at $11,700 a year, which, he says, can get the federal government to foot the entire bill for high-deductible insurance. It’s not ideal, he says, but it’s better than having no insurance.

“What I have done, and what I make no apology for, is to work diligently to inform low-income individuals about their rights under the ACA and to help those who qualify obtain the health insurance for which they are eligible,” Kennedy said.

The CoventryOne plans Kennedy sold cost the federal government between about $2,500 and more than $7,000 a year, depending on the customer’s age and smoking status. Those payments go directly to the insurance company, which is owned by Aetna, and Kennedy gets a monthly commission on each policy. Kennedy and Aetna declined to say how much that commission is, but two agents familiar with Aetna’s commissions say it’s about $15 a month. For 600 policies, that would come to $9,000 a month.

What’s wrong with that?  At least they’re insured, right?  Who cares if they can't afford the deductibles.  Who can?  Why should the homeless get special treatment.

Source:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/health-care/article25671634.html#storylink=cpy

Supreme Court Rules Americans

If there was ever an argument for an Article V States convention, this past week was it.

Source:

Muskegon Pundit

White House Gets a Makeover

Source:
The Lonely Libertarian

Gordon T Long: Elites' Goal of Cashless Society Has Started War on Cash

Obama Recruits Doctors to Lecture Patients about Global Warming

Is there anywhere an American can go without being confronted by White House propaganda?  King Obama isn’t satisfied shoving his agenda down our throats with executive orders and bureaucratic mandates and regulations.  No, he wants doctors to lecture us on the finer points of global warming while they finger our prostate.

 

The Daily Caller reported the following:

Americans trust their doctors, so the White House wants these medical professionals to be a mouthpiece for President Obama’s global warming agenda.

“We also need doctors, nurses and citizens, like all of you”President Obama said in a taped speech presented to medical professionals gathered at the White House, “to get to work to raise awareness and organize folks for real change.”

The Obama administration has been hard at work trying to draw a link between global warming and public health issues. The summit included the U.S. Surgeon General, top administration officials, and public health experts from around the country telling doctors, nurses and other conference goers how to talk about global warming with their patients.

The central message: doctors should warn their patients that global warming could make their health worse.

The last thing I want to hear is someone lecturing me about this fraud while I’m being invaded. 

Source:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/the-white-house-wants-your-doctor-to-teach-you-about-global-warming/#ixzz3eH8huivd

Facebook Page Sums Up Gay Marriage Ruling

We all know this is going to happen.  Only fools would believe otherwise, and unfortunately the country is full of them.

Source:

http://www.youngcons.com/facebook-post-right-after-supreme-court-ruling-knocked-it-out-of-the-park/

Democratic Party Conundrum: Selma or San Francisco?

Same-sex marriage is here to stay!  The debate is over!  The Supreme Court has ruled!  Get over it!  That is what we are being told by liberals.  But the debate is far from over and millions of Americans will not accept this ruling.

Democrats have an unexpected problem.  How can they reconcile gay money with black votes? 

"If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we're going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement," said Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of CAAP. "We will not obey an unjust law."

"The politicians and courts have tried to take God out of this country," continued Owens. "This country was founded on Godly principles. We will not stand back."

Rev. David Welch, president of the Pastor's Council in Houston, Texas, spoke out at the conference explaining the lengths people of faith might go to resist gay marriage.

"God created marriage between a man and woman and no Supreme Court jurisdiction can define this," said Welch. "We stand clearly saying we will acknowledge God's law no matter what the cost, no matter what the price. If they want to fill jails with pastors across the nation of every color, denomination and every size who will stand for the laws of God and His truths."

Selma or San Francisco?  What street will Democrats march down on?

Source:

 http://www.christianpost.com/news/coalition-of-african-american-pastors-threatens-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court-passes-gay-marriage-law-140842/#z3s2uqPvCfUu47yX.99

Bad Economic Policies Weaken a Nation's Foundation

I have to laugh when liberals blame the 2008 economic collapse on the Bush administration.  They would have us believe a systemic collapse could be caused by one man’s policies within his tenure as president.  Hell, formulating an economic policy takes about half a term and implementing it the remainder.  The consequences of that policy don’t show up until years later.

I blame President George W. Bush for many things, but the housing bubble isn’t one of them.  He, like many others, tried to warn the American people, but Democrats dismissed critics as racist.  Look what happened.

No, it takes years for an economic collapse of that magnitude to transpire.  Carolina Journal discusses ‘emergency room economics’ with Dr. Peter Boettke, university professor of economics and philosophy at George Mason University.  Here is an excerpt:

Kokai: You mentioned Dodd-Frank, which would give people some example of some of these unintended consequences. I imagine that just as difficult, or even more, though, are these policies that have long-run, negative economic consequences that you really can’t point to.

Boettke: Yeah.

Kokai: I mean, we’re dealing now with bad policies that were made 30 or 40 years ago that are stunting our economy, but how can you point to them? Because it’s hard to say what caused the economic doldrums we’ve had now. 

Boettke: Well … that’s right. I mean, Frank Knight, the great Chicago economist, once said the problem with economics is we don’t have the equivalent of a wrecking ball, right? So if I wanted to demonstrate the negative consequences of smashing a wrecking ball into a building, all you have to do is watch it, and it happens right away. The problem in economics is that the policy — the wrecking ball — hits the building and then the building crumbles 10 years later. What happens is the wrecking ball weakens this foundation and weakens that, and then the consequences are fully seen 10 years [later], but there’s a lot of things in between.

 

So how do I know that it was the wrecking ball that caused it? Minimum wages are a classic example of that. Rent controls — another classic example, where push a rent control and then 20 years later, you have a decline in the quality of the housing that’s there because people haven’t made the investments and whatnot.

 

I think in our current situation, what we have to look at, for example, one shining thing is the changing role of the Fed [Federal Reserve]. So the Fed has deviated considerably from its original intent and, as well, from the rule of law, over this period of time. What are the long-run consequences for the quality of the Fed to be able to do sound money? Can we actually get a sound monetary policy? It’s unclear that we can, so maybe actually something like an auditing of the Fed is called for right now because we actually don’t know all of the things that are on the Fed and, let alone, on the Fed’s balance sheets. And we should actually have that. 

Normally, I might be against completely an idea of an auditing of the Fed because that would really politicize monetary policy, which in theory, it’s not supposed to do. But we’ve politicized monetary policy, and so now, calling for a public auditing of the Fed actually might be a very valuable policy for us.

Source:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=12157

The Roberts Court Exposed

Confederate Flag Confesses to Killing 9 Church Members

H/T:

What Bubba Knows

Judge Napolitano unloads on Obamacre decision

Justice Scalia: Supreme Court is a Threat to Liberty and Self-Government

Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent lends a voice to those of us who are concerned about the implications of the Supreme Courts activism, particularly the imposition of gay marriage and the consequences that has on our federalist system. 

Here is an excerpt:

I write sepa­rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per­sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar­riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange­ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar­riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti­tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Source:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/scalia-court-threat-american-democracy?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-scalia-court-threat

The United States is Dead! Long Live the Federal Government

Top down government!  It doesn’t get any better than this.  This Supreme Court ruling is a victory for future Hugo Chavez’s who believe in a Federal Government of America. 

The right of self-government has been overruled by federal judges and bureaucrats.  States are mere vassals and citizens are subjects.     

The United States is dead!  Long live the Federal Government!

Senator Ted Cruz: Supreme Court Rulings are Contrary to Judicial Oaths

Lawless sums up the latest rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.  These community organizers in black robes created and rewrote laws.  Their fabrications deserve no respect, or fidelity.  Senator Ted Cruz summed it up best.

"Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history," Cruz said after Hannity asked how he was doing, according to audio posted by Mediaite.

Cruz went on to describe both rulings as "naked and shameless judicial activism."

The first of the two decisions Cruz blasted on the radio came Thursday when the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Affordable Care Act. In that ruling, the justices rejected an argument that the way the so-called Obamacare legislation was written prevents subsidized insurance in states where the federal government has set up healthcare exchanges.

According to Cruz, this decision amounted to the judges "rewriting" the law in support of President Barack Obama's agenda.

"The decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare ... for the second time six justices joined the Obama administration," Cruz said. "You now have Barack Obama, [former United States Secretary of Health and Human Services] Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths."

We should show as much fidelity to the Supreme Court’s rulings as they have for the law as written.

Source:

 http://www.businessinsider.com/cruz-supreme-court-rulings-mean-the-darkest-24-hours-in-history-2015-6#ixzz3eDk6BQBb

The Big 14th Amendment Lie!

The Supreme Court, once again, has trumpeted the big lie of the 14^th Amendment by conferring fabricated rights to subset groups, this time gay people.

Liberals would have us believe the equal protection clause confers unlimited rights to aggrieved minorities.  According to them, equal rights means just that – equal rights.  Their sense of superiority will compel them to tell you to “go read the Constitution.  It’s right there in the 14^th Amendment!”

I have a question.  If the 14^th Amendment granted equal protection to all citizens of the United States, then why were southerners denied the right to vote and hold public office?  I thought this was a basic human right.

If the 14^th Amendment meant what liberals say it’s supposed to mean, vanquished southerners wouldn’t have been treated as criminals.  But what am I talking about?  Liberals know this, right?  After all, they’ve read the Constitution and particularly the 14^th Amendment.  Their certitude surely doesn’t belie ignorance.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Source: 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Washington D.C. Commits Bloodless Coup

The Supreme Court dealt a final blow to any pretense that we have a constitutional republic.  Their ruling to legalize gay marriages trampled upon the 10^th amendment and will, without a doubt, lay siege to the 1^st.  Liberal pundits declare this ruling will end the debate.  They couldn’t be more wrong.  We can expect churches and institutions of faith to be sued and eventually lose their tax exempt status, simply because progressives will never be satisfied until this country has conformity of thought and a homogenized attitude.

It is time to end this pretense.  The United States of America no longer exist as founded, or as we once understood it to be.  What we have is a Federal Government of America.  Washington D.C. dictates what we can and cannot do.  This power grab started a long time ago; but was never so prevalent as today.  What we witnessed this past week was a bloodless, Washington D.C. coup.

The Supreme Court has completely lost its credibility.  These progressive justices see themselves as demigods creating rights that only exist in their minds and rewriting bad laws to comport with their idealized version of America.

    

This may or may not be the high water mark for liberalism.  But one thing is for sure, Americans have to notice that we are under siege from a city that knows no limit to its power.  States have to invoke Article V of the U.S. Constitution and restore our constitutional republic. 

Meet the 11 Republicans Punished by House GOP Leadership

Kim Jong Un for President

Hillary Clinton's Confederate Days

H/T:

Moonbattery

Supreme Court Weaponizes Federal Housing Scheme

If you thought the Supreme Court’s latest Obamacare ruling was a complete fiasco wait until you read the latest decision these wise, black robed justices have handed down from the mountain top.  Breitbart reported the little reported and known Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities:

Now, plaintiffs do not need to show there was actual racial discrimination, or an intent to discriminate. Instead, they can just point to the racial makeup of a neighborhood and infer that discrimination must have happened in order to bring a lawsuit and force communities to re-engineer themselves.

The Court comforts itself by claiming that racial quotas still cannot be used to integrate communities. In fact, it has weaponized racial quotas in the hands of the federal government.

It is perhaps just a coincidence that the Texas Housing decision comes as the Department of Housing and Urban Development has announced a policy designed to pressure wealthy communities to build “affordable” housing in their midst.

The goal in Texas Housing, however, is not just to diversify neighborhoods, but to uncover what Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, calls “unconscious prejudice.”

This is unbelievable.  Has the Supreme Court become an arm of the Obama administration?  It makes you wonder.

Source:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/25/worse-than-obamacare-housing-case-lets-feds-target-unconscious-racism/

Republican Establishment Giddy With Obamacare Ruling

The republican establishment is giddy with relief.  Chief Justice John Roberts, once again, disregarded Obamacare’s statutory language and rewrote the law.  Speaker Boehner couldn’t be happier.  The Supreme Court saved him, and his colleagues, from actually having to do some work.

Almost every republican has promised to repeal and replace Obamacare.  They’ve had their chances to defund this law and refused to do it; yet, they expect us to believe, even now, they’ll get rid of this law.  Here is Rep. Robert Pittenger playing the same old song and dance:

Pittenger said he and his lawmaking colleagues on Capital Hill must continue working from a legislative position to bring about the demise of the act.

   

“We must repeal Obamacare,” he said, “and replace it with common-sense, market-based reform that actually lowers costs, allows freedom of choice, provides a safety net for those truly in need, and ends President Obama’s system of higher taxes and fines.”

Pittenger isn’t going to do crap and we know it.  This is a golden carrot republicans can dangle in front of voters for years to come.  We’re stuck with a bad law and the whole Washington D.C. clique is on it.

Source:

http://www.statesville.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-rankles-iredell-reps/article_f1015546-1b79-11e5-bdd0-4bf45d2a6ded.html

Cocktail Circuit Justices Save Obamacare, Again!

The Washington D.C. cocktail circuit will have the appearance of a presidential inauguration after the Supreme Court once again saved Obamacare by rewriting the law.  Chief Justice Roberts can make his grand entrance into the salons of the political elite knowing he’ll be christened the savior of Obamacare.  What a travesty.

Once again, I’m reminded of the prophetic writings of the pseudonymous writer, Brutus and his dire warnings of an unchecked and unscrupulous Supreme Court.

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.

Justice Scalia summed up the extent of this Supreme Court’s judicial activism in his dissent.

Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent

Source:

 http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/06/supreme-court-rulings-undermined.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/25/justice-scalia-wins-for-most-snarky-line-in-supreme-courts-obamacare-case/

Liberal Agenda: The Federal Government of America

Rush Limbaugh postulated a theory liberals will one day attack the American flag as a symbol undeserving our respect and allegiance.  The Politico reported the following:

The debate over the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina and elsewhere is not really about the banner itself, Rush Limbaugh says. And it won’t stop there, the radio host said during his show on Tuesday.

One day, he said, what is happening to the rebel flag will come to pass for the American flag, too.

To liberals, he added, the American flag “stands for the United States of America and, as such, everything that’s wrong with it.”

“The American flag has flown over a slave nation much longer than the Confederate flag did, folks. The American flag has flown over all kinds of atrocities,” Limbaugh told his listeners, calling the Confederate flag “business” an “all-out assault on what the left thinks is a last remaining enclave of solid Republican voters, and that is the South.”

Since the founding of the republic, there have been provocateurs sabotaging the principles of limited government as dictated by the U.S. Constitution.  This will continue until States are completely subjugated by the federal government.  The institutions that empower citizens will be systematically destroyed.  The notion of self-determination and self-government will cease to exist.

 

Some will say this is hyperbole.  History states otherwise.  Here is what Jefferson Davis had to say about the state of the union in 1850 and the antecedents for secession:

"God forbid that the day should ever come when to be true to my constituents is to be hostile to the Union. If, sir, we have reached that hour in the progress of our institutions, it is past the age to which the Union should have lived. If we have got to the point when it is treason to the United States to protect the rights and interests of our constituents, I ask why should they longer be represented here? Why longer remain a part of the Union? 

If there is a dominant party in this Union which can deny to us equality, and the rights we derive through the Constitution; if we are no longer the freemen our fathers left us; if we are to be crushed by the power of an unrestrained majority, this is not the Union for which the blood of the Revolution was shed; this is not the Union I was taught from my cradle to revere; this is not the Union in the service of which a large portion of my life has been passed; this is not the Union for which our fathers pledged their property, their lives, and sacred honor. 

No, sir, this would be a central Government, raised on the destruction of all the principles of the Constitution, and the first, the highest obligation of every man who has sworn to support that Constitution would be resistance to such usurpation. This is my position." 

Jefferson Davis ~ In the Senate of the United States, June 27, 1850, on the  CompromiseBill ~ Congressional Globe, p. 995-6

The liberal agenda is not a United States of America, but a Federal Government of America.  That’s why Rush Limbaugh’s prediction will come to pass.

Source:

 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rush-limbaugh-confederate-flag-american-flag-119359.html#ixzz3e1uUOEvV

http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2015/06/compromise.html