FYI: GOP Alternatives to ObamaCare Monstrosity Were Thrown Out by Dems

The Republicans submitted several good alternatives to ObamaCare, and every single one was dismissed by the Dems before they rammed ObamaCare through the legislature. They contain preventive health care, tax credits, reduction of fraud and abuse in existing federal health care programs, and tort reform.

The Patient’s Choice Act of 2009
https://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pcasummary2p.pdf

Health Care Freedom Plan, S. 1324
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

Empowering Patients First Act, H.R. 3400
https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3400

CEO John Mackey’s:
http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/2009/08/14/health-care-reform-full-article/

Millions of Americans lost the affordable healthcare they already had before ObamaCare forced them out of it and into a socialist Frankenstein fraught with sky-high premiums and incredible tax hikes.

The subsidies that the idiots at the SCOTUS just foisted on the taxpayers, will run into the billions.

The healthcare system in this country is spiraling out of control.  Doctors are refusing patients, small businesses are being squeezed, and is putting a dent in jobs and the economy.

Of course, the same DemProg assholes who shoved ObamaCare down our throats, wouldn’t dare subject themselves to the same screwed up healthcare system.

Related posts:

https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/obamacare-taxes-kick-in-dems-squeal/

https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/obamacare-frankenstein-unleashed-dems-spew-epithets-name-calling-at-opponents/

https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/the-side-effects-of-obamacare/

https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/how-bad-is-obamacare-not-even-the-chief-irs-enforcer-wants-it/

Related article:

http://townhall.com/columnists/scotterickson/2013/10/10/the-economic-ill-effects-of-obamacare-n1720958

Boehner: ‘ObamaCare battle not over, despite court ruling’

What a fucking joke. The GOP let it get this far, and they won’t do a fucking thing about it. Our best hope is a Republican president in the next election (Walker or Cruz, preferably) and kicking Boehner off the podium.

From Fox News.

Obama declared Thursday that “the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” after winning yet another round in the Supreme Court.

But the battle’s not over — a host of legal and political challenges remain, and if anything, Republicans say they are more emboldened than ever to repeal the law.

“ObamaCare is fundamentally broken, increasing health care costs for millions of Americans. Today’s ruling doesn’t change that fact,” House Speaker John Boehner charged in a statement Thursday, vowing to continue efforts on Capitol Hill to “repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions.”

……But several court cases are still wending their way through the system, including a challenge by House Republicans over the estimated $175 billion the administration is paying health insurance companies to reimburse them for covering poor people and cases over whether the law is forcing religious organizations to pay for employee contraceptives.

Further, Republicans are weighing a repeal strategy that could lead to a veto showdown with the president before the end of the year. That’s not to mention what might happen if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, with a GOP majority on the Hill.

……”It’s a terrible [court] decision and to see the court sort of invent more ways to save the law time  — and again, it’s frustrating — but it reaffirms the point that that Congress is going to have to be the ones to get rid of it,” said Dan Holler, spokesman for the conservative Heritage Action.

The biggest fight may come on Capitol Hill, as Republican opponents consider using a filibuster-proof process called “budget reconciliation” to push a measure through the Senate and, with the help of the GOP majority in the House, get a repeal bill before the president.

Using this tactic is not unprecedented. When Democrats did not have the typically required 60 votes to pass ObamaCare in 2009, they used “reconciliation,” which only requires a 51-vote majority, to pass parts of it through the Senate. The option of using the same process to get rid of the law, with only a simple majority, has been a topic of conversation among opponents ever since.

Boehner is a deplorable pussy.  He’s been Obama’s doormat for 7 years, and he insults Tea Party patriots and constituents who object.  This latest bluster is all bullshit.

Related post:

https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/message-to-senator-sherrod-brown-d-oh-and-rep-betty-sutton-d-oh/

Gaystapo Wins Supreme Court Decision to Marry in all 50 States

Next, you’ll be permitted to marry your dog, your cat, your goldfish, your son, daughter, mother, father, and any other object of your affection. Oh wait, they do allow incestuous nuptials in New Jersey.

I don’t care if homosexuals want to cohabitate, live their own lives, and sing Broadway show tunes to their little fluttering heart’s content.  Just as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others to voice their own opinions and exercise their own right to associate and do business with whom they choose.

The decision was not based on the Constitution, but rather how the liberal justices felt about it.

IAW the Constitution, Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court interprets the law. There has been no law passed by Congress legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states.  Therefore, it’s a states rights’ issue.  36 states and one territory legalized  homosexual marriage before Obergefell v Hodges. 13 states had bans.

What 5 robed judges did was make an unconstitutional  law. So what happens if a state decides to stand up for its rights and continue its ban on homosexual marriage by interpreting the ruling as “they’re allowed to, but there’s no law passed by Congress that can force us to concur.” Remember, this ruling does not reflect any law passed by Congress.   The liberal malfeasants on the SCOTUS violated the rights of the people to debate, decide, and govern.

They also twisted the 14th Amendment to fit their idea of (gay) marriage. The 14th Amendment states the privileges and immunities of citizenship shall not be abridged by the states. Citizenship. It has nothing to do with marriage; gay, straight or otherwise. The amendment was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves.

The entire text of the dissenting opinions, HERE.

Excerpts:

Chief Justice Roberts: 

……But 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.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

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.

Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. 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.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

How nice, ya douchebag,  ObamaCare is also unconstitutional, but you rubber-stamped it anyway. If you had applied the same sound reasoning on that as you did this latest contribution to society’s decay, then the taxpayer wouldn’t be stuck with billions of dollars in subsidies for B. Hussein’s socialist Frankenstein.

Justice Scalia:

……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.
Until the courts put a stop to it.

……The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that,through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”  Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.  Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from abetter informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”  Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)  And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”  What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence.

……The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the“least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has“neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Footnote: If even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Justice Thomas

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty.Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a“liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

The majority’s decision today will require States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process”before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.” I have elsewhere explained the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811–812 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Worse, it invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—“‘roa[m] at large in the constitutional field’ guided only by their personal views” as to the “‘fundamental rights’” protected by that document.

……By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.

……Whether we define “liberty” as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it.Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace.

They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.
Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions.

……Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized.
……The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.

……Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.

Justice Alito:

……The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.

The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage, but the Court holds that the term “liberty” inthe Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits. For today’s majority, it has a distinctively postmodern meaning.To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.

……The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.

The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

……By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turn- about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.
Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.
Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.

Wait until the onslaught of oppression, vilification, and violence by the Gaystapo against church officials who exercise their right night to refuse marriage ceremonies to same sex couples. It’s already happened to business owners who simply refused to cater to gay weddings.

And when I say Gaystapo, I mean Gaystapo. They  engage in behavior  that  says more about their bigotry than the debate over wedding cakes and hotel events.  The so-called ‘tolerant’ rainbow crowd is pretty  hateful and intolerant of opposing viewpoints, Christianity in particular.

This decision opens the way for trampling of the First Amendment rights of people who oppose the violation of individual liberties. They first asked for tolerance. Then they expected acceptance. Then they demanded participation. Lastly, they sued for punishment.

Related post:

https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/didja-hear-about-the-gay-guy-who-walked-into-a-muzzie-owned-bakery-and-was-refused-service/

Related article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_laws_on_same-sex_unions

Muzzie Terrorists Attack Tourist Hotels in Tunisia, 27 Brits Dead

First the attack in France, and now this to celebrate the ‘caliphate’ and ‘Ramadan’

Muslim pigs spreading love and peace throughout the world.

From Sky News.

Gunmen have killed at least 27 people in an attack on two tourist hotels in a Tunisian town popular with British holidaymakers.

Tourists fled from the beach in Sousse to take refuge in hotel rooms after guns were fired on the beach.

One man said his son saw someone get shot as he raced back to the hotel from the sea.

Photographs seen by Sky News show one man in his 60s or 70s lying in a pool of blood in his swimming shorts.

The country’s interior ministry says one gunman has been killed, while another is still on the loose. At least 27 people have been killed.

Local radio reports say British and German tourists make up most of the casualties.

……Back in March Sky’s Sherine Tadros reported that the bulk of foreign fighters who have joined the ranks of IS come from Tunisia.

How’s that complacency working out?

Muzzie Terrorists Attack French Factory, Several Insured, One Beheaded

Allah U Fuckbar…

From Fox News.

One person was decapitated and several others were injured in an apparent terror attack at a chemical factory in eastern France Friday morning, local media reported.

According to Le Dauphine newspaper, a loud explosion was reported at approximately 9:50 a.m. local time in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, northwest of the Alpine city of Grenoble.

According to the paper, a man walked into the company’s offices saying he was a member of ISIS and carrying one of the terror group’s flags. After beheading a man at the company’s entrance, he went into the building and set off several gas canisters.

A French security official (said) that two attackers arrived at the factory in a car, bearing banners written in Arabic, and set off an explosion. One of the attackers was arrested, and local media reported that the man was known to authorities.

French authorities tell Fox News that approximately ten people were injured. A local police deputy described the attack as “definitely” a terrorist act.

More:

Man’s head ‘covered in Arabic writing’ and hung on fence next to Islamist flag in France.

The West had better wake up and realize that these muzzie mutherfuckers are serious and we need to do what it takes to eradicate them from the gene pool.

There are reasons why they feel confident and able to carry out terrorism against Western civilization.

Related post:
https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/french-police-kill-two-muzzies-who-carried-out-terrorist-attack-on-charlie-hebdo-and-one-of-the-terrorists-who-attacked-kosher-deli/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 532 other followers