Poll: Only 31 Percent Believe Obamacare a Good Idea

Comments Off on Poll: Only 31 Percent Believe Obamacare a Good Idea

A large number of Americans continue to adamantly oppose the nation’s new health-care law and believe it will produce damaging results, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Forty-four percent of respondents call the health-care law a bad idea, while 31 percent believe it’s a good idea — virtually unchanged from July’s NBC/WSJ survey.

By a 45 percent to 23 percent margin, Americans say it will have a negative impact on the country’s health-care system rather than a positive one.

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Attendees cheer at the Tea Party Patriots ‘Exempt America from Obamacare’ rally on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, September 10, 2013.

And 30 percent of respondents think it will have a negative impact on their families. Just 12 percent think it will be positive and a majority — 53 percent — don’t believe it will have an impact one way or another.

Responses to an open-ended question in the poll about the law are especially revealing, showing little has changed in the public’s perception as the Obama administration races to meet implementation deadlines next month.

“We’re going to get worse health care, and it’s going to increase the debt,” said one Republican-leaning female from North Carolina. “There are death panels in there, and they’re going to decide whether people get treatment or not.”

Continue reading:

Poll: Obamacare remains highly unpopular as implementation looms – First Read.

Advertisements

46 of 99 U.S. Senators Vote To Give Your Constitutional Rights to UN

Comments Off on 46 of 99 U.S. Senators Vote To Give Your Constitutional Rights to UN

3

senate floor 46 of 99 U.S. Senators Vote To Give Your Constitutional Rights to UN

This is in regards to Senate Bill 139 of the 113th Congress, which was presented to prevent the Second Amendment rights of the USA from being given to the UN.

I went through the data and found that 99 Senators voted, with 46 of them voting “Nay” (which means they were willing to give our rights per our Constitution in regard to the Second Amendment to the United Nations.) This vote was recorded on March 23, 2013 which was just a few months after the Election in Nov. 2012.

With this data, I then found that the following 16 Senators will be up for re-election in Nov. of 2014 and will finish their term on Jan. 3, 2015. I am doing this to inform you of the danger of this group (Class II) being re-elected at that time. Their behavior, which is in conflict with their oath of office, shows their willingness to give our rights to another governing body. Please refuse to vote for them in Nov. of 2014. The 16 are in alphabetical order as follows:

Baucus, Max (D – MT); Coons, Christopher A. (D-DE); Cowan (Replacing John Kerry and then replaced by) Markey, Edward J. (D-MA); Durbin, Richard J. (D-IL); Franken, Al (D-MN); Harkin, Tom (D-IA); Johnson, Tim (D-SD); Landrieu, Mary L. (D-LA); Levin, Carl (D-MI); (Markey see previously mentioned Cowan); Merkley, Jeff (D-OR); Reed, Jack (D-RI); Rockefeller, John D., IV (D-WV); Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH); Udall, Mark (D-CO); Udall, Tom (D-NM) and Warner, Mark R. (D-VA).

Now there are 10 Senators in Class III that also voted to give our rights to the UN and will finish their terms on Jan. 3, 2017. They will be up for re-election in Nov. of 2016, and they alphabetically are as follows:

Bennet, Michael F. (D-CO); Blumenthal (D-CT); Boxer, Barbara (D-CA); Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT); Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD); Murray, Patty (D-WA); Reid, Harry (D-NV); Schatz, Brian (D-HI); Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY) and Wyden, Ron (D-OR).

The last 20, which are in Class I, were just elected in Nov. 2012 and will go out of office on Jan. 3, 2019. They also want to give our rights to the UN. They will face re-election in Nov. of 2018. They are listed alphabetically as follows:

Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI); Brown, Sherrod (D-OH); Cantwell, Maria (D-WA); Cardin, Benjamin (D-MD); Carper, Thomas R. (D-DE); Casey, Robert P., Jr. (D-PA); Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA); Gillibrand, Kirsten E. (D-NY); Hirono, Mazie K. (D-HI); Kaine, Tim (D-VA); King, Angus S. Jr. (I-ME); Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN); McCaskill, Claire (D-MO); Menendez, Robert (D-NJ); Murphy, Christopher (D-CT); Nelson, Bill (D-FL); Sanders, Bernard (I-VT); Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI); Warren, Elizabeth (D-MA) and Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI).

In summary, there are 44 Democrats and 2 Independents on this list. It just so happens that there are no Republican Senators in this group.

46 of 99 U.S. Senators Vote To Give Your Constitutional Rights to UN.

Obama says he wants to ‘partner’ with American business

Comments Off on Obama says he wants to ‘partner’ with American business

Don’t do it American businessmen…you’ll be sorry. The government will be telling you how to run your business, just like they are doing with GM now.

President Barack Obama told business leaders today that he wants close cooperation between his government and their companies.

 

“We want to be a consistent partner with you on a whole range of issues,” he told the D.C.-based Business Roundtable, an association for the CEOs of major U.S. companies, which, combined have more than $7.3 trillion in annual revenues and employ nearly 16 million people.

 

The proposed partnership would have CEOs lobby Congress for passage of Obama’s goals, including passage of a Senate bill that triples the rate of immigration to add 33 million immigrants over the next decade, and passage of a budget that doesn’t cut Obamacare’s federally-run health-care system, Obama suggested.

 

“It is going to be important for all of you, I think, over the next several weeks to understand what’s at stake and to make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way you can,” said Obama.

 

Many major CEOs ask Obama’s deputies for exemptions from painful regulations and taxes. They also ask his regulators for valuable subsidies, targeted tax breaks and favorable regulations, such as access to cheap foreign labor.

 

Since 2009, Obama has increased government’s power in many sectors of the economy, including the health-care, auto, education, energy, banking and real-estate sectors. He’s now pushing for an increased role in managing the supply of workers, via passage of an immigration rewrite.

 

Obama is not a socialist, because he does not believe the government needs to own companies and factories. Instead, he’s a progressive who believes the nation’s economy and society should be managed by government experts, not by the varied preferences of individual CEOs, parents and workers.

 

The president’s call for a partnership came after he spent two days early this week slamming the private sector.

 

“Our businesses are creating new jobs and have broken record profits, [and] the top 1 percent of Americans took home 20 percent of the nation’s income last year, while the average worker isn’t seeing a raise at all,” he said Sept. 16, on the fifth anniversary of the 2008 Wall Street crash.
Read more:

Obama says he wants to ‘partner’ with American business | The Daily Caller.

Nullification for Lawyers

Comments Off on Nullification for Lawyers

 

blindfolded-manA recent article by Cato Institute chairman Robert Levy published by Investor’s Business Daily provides a ray of sunlight for supporters of nullification.

Instead of taking the position of most folks in mainstream political organizations and denouncing nullification in all situations, the CATO head offers support for the principles, at least some of the time.

Levy acknowledges that the federal government cannot force states to enforce or enact federal law.

Are states required to enforce federal laws and enact regulatory programs that Congress mandates? The answer on both counts is “No.”

In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.

In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

But Levy stops short of approving nullification efforts that would actively block implementation of unconstitutional federal acts. He contends that an act remains constitutional until a federal court declares otherwise. He makes a solid argument from a lawyer’s perspective, but understanding nullification requires a historical perspective that often gets buried in American jurisprudence. Perhaps a slight shift in the theoretical framework will move CATO all the way into the nullification camp.

Like most lawyers, Levy believes that the Supreme Court makes the final and definitive decision on the constitutionality of an act. This makes perfect sense from a legal perspective. Lawyers rely on court precedent to build arguments, and modern American jurisprudence holds that the Court determined early on that it was the ultimate judge of constitutionality.  But the argument falls apart when placed in the framework within which political power was delegated in the American system. In essence, the Court claimed power for itself that it never had the authority to claim in the first place. Furthermore, most legal scholars and attorneys badly misconstrue the case cited as the root of federal court supremacy.

We find the first fatal flaw in Levy’s argument early on when he confuses Jefferson and Madison’s reasoning in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Levy writes:

But consider those resolutions in context: Jefferson and Madison had argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters.

Jefferson and Madison did not base their principles of nullification on the fact that the Constitution had not established an ultimate authority. They based their principles on the fact that the people of the states ARE the ultimate authority – not the federal government they created. Jefferson makes this clear in the first few lines of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers.

Madison makes the same point in his report of 1800.

The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

Nullification follows from the delegation of power in the American system. The sovereign people first created independent, sovereign political societies – States – and delegated powers to their state governments. Then, the people, through those preexisting political societies, delegated specific, enumerated powers to a general government in order to form a union. The ratifiers made it clear that their states were only giving up sovereignty over those objects delegated to the federal government, and that they retained ALL powers not delegated. And they insisted on amendments (The Ninth and Tenth) to make this explicit.

If the federal government gets to decide the extent of its own power, through its own judicial branch, and the people of the states possess no mechanism to hold its creature in check, the whole notion of a federal government with limited enumerated powers becomes a farce.

Nullification for Lawyers | Tenth Amendment CenterTenth Amendment Center.

Private health insurance exchanges growing fast

Comments Off on Private health insurance exchanges growing fast

Walgreen’s announcement that it will send its workers to a private health insurance exchange to buy their own plans is a sign of the times that isn’t going away.

And that may be good news for consumers, though it’s too soon to tell, experts say.

These private exchanges, which have only existed for about a year, are run by outside benefits companies and typically offer more insurance choices than those offered by employers. Employers contribute a set amount and employees choose which plan best suits their needs.

The Walgreen exchange, announced Wednesday with benefits company Aon Hewitt, is similar to the state exchanges required under the Affordable Care Act. In those exchanges or marketplaces, uninsured Americans will buy health insurance plans on their own that are often subsidized by the federal government. In this case, Walgreen provides the financial assistance.

In five years, more than a quarter of the estimated 170 million people now covered by insurance through their employers will be getting their benefits this way, according to research from consulting firm Accenture. At that time, enrollment in these private exchanges is expected to top that of the new state exchanges. That’s despite the fact most Americans are unaware of private insurance exchanges, Accenture says.

Private health insurance exchanges growing fast.

Obama Admin Stopped From Forcing Family Business to Obey HHS Abortion Mandate

Comments Off on Obama Admin Stopped From Forcing Family Business to Obey HHS Abortion Mandate

A federal court has stopped the Obama administration from forcing a family-run business in Colorado to obey the pro-abortion HHS mandate that requires such companies to pay for abortion-causing drugs and birth control for their employees.

The mandate went into effect last year on August 1 and the very minimal religious protections were set to go into effect August 1, but they will be implemented and enforcement will take place starting on January

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The case Armstrong v. Sebelius, is a case filed by two families who own, manage, and operate Cherry Creek Mortgage Co., Inc. The Armstrongs and the Mays do not want to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs that abortion is immoral by providing insurance coverage for life-ending drugs and devices.

Previously, a federal district court denied the families’ request for a preliminary injunction, which would have barred enforcement of the HHS Mandate against them and their business. The Armstrongs and the Mays appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In briefs with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, pro-life groups argued the Obama Administration’s HHS Mandate—which forces many employers to provide insurance coverage for life-ending drugs and devices without regard to the employers’ consciences or religious beliefs—violates the First Amendment freedom of conscience.

The appeals court issued an  order in Armstrong v. Sebelius that stops enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against Cherry Creek Mortgage Co.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Michael J. Norton responded to the ruling in an email to LifeNews.

“People of faith in this nation, including business owners, have the constitutionally protected freedom to live and do business according to their faith. The Obama administration should not be attempting to deprive Americans of this cherished liberty. Former U.S. Sen. Bill Armstrong together with the other members of his family and the May family who own Cherry Creek Mortgage Co. have long desired to honor God in all they do. Today’s court order allows them to continue to do that while this case proceeds so that they are not forced to act contrary to their religious convictions.”

The head of a pro-life group that issued legal papers supporting the company explained why her group backed Cherry Creek Mortgage.

“Defending the conscience rights of all Americans is the liberty issue of our day, and a priority for the legal team of Americans United for Life,” said AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest.

“Americans who own and operate businesses have the same First Amendment right of conscience as Americans who work for churches,” said Dr. Yoest. “The First Amendment was written to protect our rights and must not be discarded to suit the political whims of this administration.”

Obama Admin Stopped From Forcing Family Business to Obey HHS Abortion Mandate | LifeNews.com.

Walgreens Doesn’t Want Obamacare for Its Employees

Comments Off on Walgreens Doesn’t Want Obamacare for Its Employees

Walgreen joins several other large employers in the move toward private insurance exchanges. These include Time Warner, International Business Machines (IBM) and Sears Holdings, which owns Kmart.

 

Walgreens — the store whose mission it is to be the first choice in health and daily living for every Americanrejected Obamacare on Wednesday.

Walgreens announced today that it will provide more than 160,000 eligible employees with employer-sponsored health insurance coverage in 2014 through its proprietary “Live Well Benefits Store,” a marketplace that is an outsourced solution through Aon Hewitt Corporate Health Exchange.

Seventeen other companies, including Sears and the parent organization of Red Lobster, Olive Garden and Yard House, similarly chose to purchase health coverage through online market exchanges.

The private sector company Aon Hewitt “is a managed insurance marketplace where multiple carriers compete in offering employees a choice of fully insured group plans.”

Walgreens continues to offer benefits to employees through this plan with monthly co-payments as low as $5. According to Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, Walgreens senior vice president and chief human resources officer:

Under this new program, employees will have expanded choices to personalize their health care coverage in a competitive environment, giving our diverse workforce the flexibility they need to meet their healthcare needs.

Everyone, including Congress and Union workers, seems to be trying to skirt the impending legislation pushed by the Obama Administration

Walgreens Doesn’t Want Obamacare for Its Employees – Sarah Jean Seman.

Older Entries