Friday, June 26, 2015

The ‘Public Health’ Cabal’s War on E-Cigarettes

Ever since the abominable Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Actgiving oversight over tobacco to the FDA, was passed in 2009, I and many of my colleagues in public health have watched in disbelief and horror as the crusade against e-cigarettes swung into high gear. It seemed for a moment as though the Golden Age had come to pass regarding smoking: the twin goals of FDA regulation and a truly low-risk method of delivering nicotine to addicted smokers without the lethal tar was at hand, at last.

Then the prize slipped through our fingers like sand: the FDA and all of the other federal health agencies (especially the CDC) led a crusade against these disruptive devices, initially trying to simply ban them as drug delivery devices (alongside a propaganda campaign alluding to various toxins in their vapor, all imaginary). When the federal courts blocked that path, the drug agency decided to enforce the Tobacco Control Act in the most stringent manner by promulgating a regulatory schema deeming e-cigs and vapor products as candidates for regulation as tobacco — despite their total lack of that substance. Such over-regulation would effectively ban these products, despite their proven and accelerating popularity among smokers trying to quit. The anti-vaping crusade has since been eagerly joined by most of the academic centers, “public health” nonprofits, and politicians far and wide, ostensibly to “protect our children from Big Tobacco.”

Of course, as soon as your hear a politician chant the “for the children” mantra, get ready to have your pocket picked. And, no surprise, the real motivation behind these campaigns became clear: follow the money. Once that realization came, the whole issue became clear, depressingly so.

Via: American Spectator


Continue Reading.....

Republican Presidential Candidates Blast Gay Marriage Ruling

Republican presidential hopeful, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal addresses an economic summit hosted by Florida Gov. Rick Scott in Orlando, June 2, 2015. (REUTERS/Steve Nesius)The Republicans running for the White House blasted the Supreme Court’s ruling released Friday that will allow gay couples in all 50 states to get married, expressing concerns about the “religious liberty” of Christians who support traditional marriage.
“This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said. “This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.”
“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said. “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.”
Added Bush: “It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the supreme being can do-redefine marriage,” Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said. “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
“Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input,” said Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. “The stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices.”
“While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land,” said Ben Carson, who prefers civil unions for gay couples. “I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs.”

SCOTUS Rewrites ObamaCare to Save It

One might think a 2700-page, largely unread healthcare bill passed solely by Democrats that remains as unpopular as ever might chasten the president who championed it. Especially when that effort was based on a litany of lies, one of which earned Obama Politifact’s 2013 Lie of the Year Reward.

Yet as FactCheck.org has documented, the president remains determined to double down on his continuing effort to deceive the American public. And sad to say, yesterday morning the Supreme Court rewarded the administration for its mendacity. In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS upheldthe Obama administration’s unilateral decision to provide insurance subsidies on healthcare exchanges in every state, despite wording in the original bill limiting such subsidies to exchanges “established by the state.”

We begin with Obama’s insistence that Americans who had insurance prior to the passage of ObamaCare “got a better deal now” in reference to the additional insurance requirements provided by the law. Yet those additional requirements come at a higher cost for many Americans, and many of those requirements, such as maternity care coverage provided to single men or the elderly, are nothing more than subsidies that force some Americans to underwrite the healthcare of other Americans.

webpage promoting the president’s assertion that “129 million people who could have otherwise been denied or faced discrimination now have access to coverage,” is grossly misleading. Most of those Americans already had access to healthcare through their employers, before ObamaCare was even launched. Furthermore, if the business mandate was so great, why was it unilaterally delayed by the White House until 2015, and why have so many businesses cut employee hoursbelow the 30-hour-per-week threshold at which the employer mandate to provide health insurance kicks in?



School Lunch Rules Creating Black Market For Junk Food

A congressman's son is part of a black market at school to sell junk food, the child's mother revealed on Fox News.

[AUDIO] Cruz: Rulings among the 'darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history'

 

“Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” he said on The Sean Hannity Show, the Fox pundit’s radio program, on Friday.

“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism.”
 
While many other Republican presidential hopefuls sent out statements deriding the Friday decision, Cruz’s campaign did not. 

He took to the Senate floor to slam the Affordable Care Act ruling on Thursday, panning it as “disgraceful.”
 
“Six justices joined the Obama administration, you now have Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oath,” he told Hannity Friday. 
 
He then shifted to Friday’s decision. 
 
“Today, this radical decision purporting to down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution,” he said. 
 
“They are simply making it up. It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamental legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”
 
Cruz has warned against this decision for months and filed text for a constitutional amendment in April that defines marriage as heterosexual. 
 
In a narrow victory for advocates of same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the four liberal-leaning justices on Friday to make those marriages legal across the country. He framed marriage as a fundamental right and argued that it would be a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause to bar same-sex couples from marrying. 
 
But all four conservative justices penned dissents criticizing that ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision has “nothing to do” with the constitution. Fresh off of his scathing dissent in Thursday’s 6-3 decision to back the administration’s expansion of health care subsidies to those in states that hadn’t set up localized exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia also penned his own dissent. 
 
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” he wrote. 
 
“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.”

Via: The Hill
Continue Reading....

House Rebels Warn of Blowback for Boehner

The House Freedom Caucus has a secret it wants to share with Democrats.
“If the Democrats were to file a motion to vacate the chair and were to vote for that motion unanimously, there probably are 218 votes for it to succeed,” one member of the House Freedom Caucus told CQ Roll Call Tuesday night, as he exited an meeting in the basement of Tortilla Coast.
If that’s true, Democrats could certainly use a vote to remove Speaker John A. Boehner as leverage in any number of upcoming battles: the Export-Import Bank, a highway bill, all sorts of spending measures. But absent any real talk from Democrats, the official response from Boehner’s communications director, Kevin Smith, was simply to dismiss CQ Roll Call’s reporter.
“Matt Fuller is a prop for Freedom Caucus propaganda,” Smith wrote via email.
While the HFC member in question wouldn’t say whether a vote to take Boehner’s gavel was part of the discussion Tuesday — and other members said it was not — it’s clear the decision to strip North Carolina Republican Mark Meadows of his subcommittee chairmanship has stirred the already excitable Freedom Caucus into a new frenzy.
The HFC looks ready for war, as does GOP leadership and more moderate Republicans who are sick and tired of conservatives voting against the team — and that could signal more retaliation to come from both sides.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the HFC chairman, and Raúl R. Labrador, one of the founding members of the secretive conservative group, had plenty to say to CQ Roll Call Wednesday about leadership’s recent moves against members who voted against the rule for Trade Promotion Authority.
“The reason this is happening is pretty clear,” Labrador said of Meadows’ demotion and the dismissal of other HFC members from the whip team. “The leadership is afraid.”
Labrador said GOP leaders sense their influence slipping, as 34 Republicans defied Boehner and others on the TPA rule. “And they know that that 34 is really not 34,” Labrador said. “They know that that number is really much larger.”
That may be true, with HFC membership now up to around 40 — according to Jordan’s best estimate, because he said he didn’t have the classified roster in front of him.
There’s been some discrepancy in reports on the size of the caucus — The Daily Caller put its total at 70. The Hill says it’s between 50 and 60 — but that’s due in part to group’s own obsessive secrecy about its rules and membership. And, for the record, it takes a four-fifths majority to reach an official position, according to members.

America's Obamacare Nightmare Is Just Beginning

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could continue to subsidize health-insurance coverage through Healthcare.gov, the federal exchanges. An ecstatic President Obama declared that Obamacare is “here to stay.”
No, it’s not.
A judicial victory doesn’t automatically translate into a political victory, let alone a policy success. Once they’ve quaffed their celebratory champagne, the president and White House staff will need to suit up and get ready to play some hard-nosed defense.
Here’s why. The driving force behind health reform has been the desire to control rising health-care costs. From 2008 onwards, President Obama promised that his reform agenda would reduce the annual cost for the typical American family by no less than $2,500. After a while, it became a rather tiresome talking point. But it was pure nonsense from the start.
Health-care spending increases were slowing down well before Congress enacted Obamacare. But with the onset of Obamacare, health-insurance premiums in the exchanges jumped by double digits, while deductibles increased dramatically. If you liked your doctor, you would be able to keep you doctor, the president insisted, but maybe not, in reality, depending upon whether or not your physician networks narrowed. Looking toward 2016,health insurers say premium costs will soar.
In the days, weeks and months leading up to the King v. Burwell decision, commentators obsessed over the roughly 6.4 million persons who could lose health-insurance subsidies. With the Court’s ruling, they can keep the federal subsidies. But that doesn’t come close to ending the debate.
Roughly 6.4 million persons in thirty-four states could have been negatively affected if the Court struck down the federal exchange subsidies. But there is a much wider universe of persons adversely affected by the law: the roughly 15 million persons in the individual and small group market who don’t get—and won’t get—the federal government’s health-insurance subsidies. Under Obamacare, millions of Americans are forced to pay more for their government standardized coverage, regardless of whether they like it or not, whether they want it or not, or whether or not it forces them to pay for medical procedures that violate their ethical, moral or religious convictions.  

EXCLUSIVE: West Hollywood Mayor Says SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Also About Immigrants’, Workers’ Rights

WEST HOLLYWOOD, California — The streets remained quiet in Los Angeles’s rainbow colored West Hollywood neighborhood Friday morning following the historic announcement by the Supreme Court of the United States (by a vote of 5-4) that gay marriage would be legally recognized in all 50 United States.

The decision makes America the second country in the world, after Brazil, to arrive at this choice through judicial imposition.
All will not remain quiet for long. A “Decision Day Celebration Rally” is set to take place at 6 p.m. Friday evening in West Hollywod Park (at the intersection of San Vicente and Santa Monica Boulevards). The Facebook invitation has so far seen over 2,600 RSVPS, with that number expected to grow.
“We knew that the Supreme Court would want to be on the right side of history,” West Hollywood’s recently elected Mayor Lindsey Horvath, 32, told Breitbart News. Horvath took office in April of this year. She said today’s historic decision “Is not just about marriage equality… It’s also about immigrants rights, and workers rights”:
The fight for protecting immigrants and immigrants rights will continue and we want to be at the forefront of that conversation as well… This is a coalition and we will all stand shoulder-to-shoulder taking steps forward until we all have equality for all.
Echoing President Barack Obama, she said “And today, love wins.”
A man named Nick also said he was not surprised at today’s Supreme Court ruling. “Good job. Finally. Long-waiting and long-deserved… Just based on what has happened in the past couple of years, I knew everything was going to move quickly.” Nick celebrated his 7-year anniversary with his husband on Thursday. They were married in West Hollywood in 2008.

Scalia Dissent: SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Represents ‘Threat to Democracy’

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued yet another of his trademarked biting dissents in Obergefell v. Hodges, calling the majority’s pro-gay marriage ruling a “threat to democracy.”
Scalia joined Chief Justice John Roberts‘ chief dissent, but dissented separately to voice just how disappointed he was in the decision. Scalia voiced indifference to the issue of gay marriage itself, but wrote that it was the legislatures’ responsibility to address the issue, not the courts.
“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,” Scalia wrote. “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.”
 
He continued to say that it was unimaginable that the drafters in the of the Fourteenth Amendment back in the 1860’s intended to make gay marriage bans unconstitutional. “The five Justices who compose today’s majority… have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”
Scalia even went after the justices’ personal history, accusing them of being unrepresentative of the American public. “Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.”
“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges…” Scalia wrote.

Source: New York escapee Richard Matt shot and killed; Sweat being pursued

Malone, New York (CNN)Richard Matt, one of two escaped murderers from an upstate New York maximum-security prison, was shot and killed by officers involved in a massive three-week manhunt, three law enforcement sources said Friday.
Officers are still pursuing fugitive David Sweat but don't have eyes on the convict, according to law enforcement sources.
A possible ending to the 21-day manhunt began around 1:30 p.m. when police received a call of shots fired near Route 30 in the vicinity of Malone, New York, according to law enforcement officials briefed on the matter. About 20 minutes later, more gunshots were heard.
The driver of a recreational vehicle called 911 when he heard the initial shots and later when he realized his camper was hit, the officials said.
About 3:45 p.m., a law enforcement officer saw a man in a wooded area in Malone, the state police said. A man believed to be Matt was shot and killed but a positive identification is pending, according to state police.
Matt approached an officer with a shotgun and was shot by a border patrol tactical team, law enforcement sources said.
    Bob Willett, a Malone resident, also called 911 Friday afternoon when he found a liquor bottle on the kitchen table at his cabin, his cousin Mitch Johnson told CNN.
    Willett was speaking with responding authorities in his yard when gunfire erupted behind the house, according to Johnson.
    Willett was told to go into the house, where he has been since, Johnson said.
    Two sets of footprints were found in the area, the law enforcement officials said. The second set are believed to belong to Sweat.
    The search for Sweat was unfolding around Elephant Head, northwest of Lake Titus and about 10 miles from Malone, according to Clinton County Sheriff David Favro.
    At a command center near the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, law enforcement helicopters were taking off to join the search. Passing motorists honked in approval at news of Matt's death.
    The shooting occurred on a day the New York State Police reported that Matt and Sweat might have been headed to Canada.
    Investigators were conducting DNA tests on potential new evidence, a source close to the investigation said.

    Electric Cars Are Not as 'Green' as the Public Is Lead to Believe


    The 23,000 buyers who pre-ordered the $70,000 Tesla Model X may have been better off buying a Honda. 
    Tesla claims its next electric vehicle will offer “the most elegant and powerful charging system in the marketplace.” The Model X that will debut in 2018 is expected to be a best-seller. Although Model X buyers may cringe at the $70,000 price tag, they justify their purchase on moral grounds. After all, electric cars are supposed to save the environment.  However, in a new NBER working paper, economists Stephen Holland, Erin Mansur, Nicholas Muller, and Andrew Yates show electric cars are not as “green” as the public is lead to believe. 
    The popularity of electric vehicles is partly due to a $7,500 government subsidy offered to individuals who purchase such a car. Eight states provide additional subsidies for buying an electric vehicle. These payments are defended on the grounds that encouraging people to buy electric cars results in “decreased reliance on imported oil, insulation from oil price shocks, and a reduction in environmental impacts.” Contrary to this assumption, the new research shows that electric cars are in most cases, bad for the environment. Forget subsidies, the environment may benefit more from a tax on electric vehicles.  
    In terms of environmental effects, the study notes that electric cars are not truly emissions free. Seventy percent of electricity is generated from coal or natural gas. Moreover, comparisons of emissions from electric cars and gas-powered cars are misunderstood. 
    When gas-powered cars release emissions, they do so within their immediate area. When electric cars use electricity to charge their motors, the power is generated at power plants, which could be located miles away from the vehicle. Air pollution damages depend upon where emissions are released, so electric vehicles driven in one place lead to environmental externalities in another. 
    Benefits from electric cars are entirely dependent upon whether an area has a power grid that is less polluted than its airspace. For example, in Los Angeles, gasoline damages are large, but electric damages are comparatively small. Driving an electric car in Los Angeles does benefit the environment. But in the Midwest, where coal-driven power grids are prevalent, and damage from gas-powered vehicles is small, choosing to drive an electric car has a negative environmental effect. The researchers find that in only 12 states does driving an electric vehicle benefit the environment. On average, driving an electric car has an environmental benefit of negative 0.5 cents per mile. To put this number in perspective, driving a 2014 electric Ford Focus creates $724 more in environmental damages over its driving lifetime than driving a 2014 gas-powered Ford Focus. 

    Al Sharpton's organization wants the US military to remove 'all remnants of the Confederacy' from its bases

    NAN Protest Fort Hamilton Business InsiderMinister Kirsten John Foy standing with other National Action Network leaders at Fort Hamilton.
    The Rev. Al Sharpton's civil rights group, the National Action Network, wants the US military to rename all of its facilities that honor Confederate Army figures including a street named for Robert E. Lee on Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, New York.
    Sharpton will be holding a vigil in front of Fort Hamilton on Saturday. Ahead of that event, Minister Kirsten John Foy, the National Action Network's northeast regional director, held a press conference in front of the base on Thursday.
    Foy said it is "unacceptable" that the main street running through the base is named "General Lee Avenue." He noted Fort Hamilton's slogan dubs the base the "face of the United States Army in New York."
    "Fort Hamilton is the face of the US Army here in New York and the face of the US Army here in New York is General Robert E. Lee," said Foy. "That is unacceptable as a New Yorker, as an American, and as a person of good conscience."
    Business Insider highlighted the existence of General Lee Avenue on Monday. The street is about a half mile long and is the main street on the base. Lee served at Fort Hamilton in the 19th century before he left the US Army. He went on to lead the Confederate troops during the Civil War.
    The June 17 shooting at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina that left nine people dead has reignited a nationwide debate over Confederate symbols on public lands. Dylann Roof, the alleged shooter, has been linked to a website that featured a racist manifesto and photos of him posing with Confederate imagery. 
    In addition to calling for General Lee Avenue to be renamed, Foy said the National Action Network is pushing for the military to renamed all of its other bases that honor Confederate figures. There are at least ten bases named for Confederate leaders. Military bases are on federally owned land that is outside of local jurisdiction.
    "We will be presenting an official letter to the commander of this base and then sending it up the chain asking that they remove all the remnants of the Confederacy," Foy said. "Taxpayer dollars are supporting a US military that honors the Confederacy."



    SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling Is an Attack on the Rule of Law

    The United States Supreme Court today announced its decision on the landmark Affordable Care Act case, King v. Burwell, which analyzed whether federal premium subsidies issued to residents in states without a state-established exchange are allowable.
    The Court ruled that subsidies provided through HealthCare.gov are indeed lawful, meaning that the federal exchange, which was hastily built after most states refused to build their own exchange, can continue issuing subsidies. This was not how the Affordable Care Act was written.
    This disastrous decision is a terrible attack on the rule of law because it sends the message that the rule of law does not matter; whoever has the most power, the strongest attorneys and the biggest voice wins. Without the rule of law, it becomes the rule of power—all up to interpretation. Claims of intent and outside interpretations of intent will now rule, not the actual words written in the law. When we start allowing the loose interpretation of law based on after-the-fact claims of intent, the foundation of the rule of law crumbles.
    Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom has been educating Americans for five years about the dangers of Obamacare, which is expensive, intrusive, compromises care and ties the hands of doctors.
    Sadly, the Court did not rule on what is actually written in the law. And sadder still, the ruling means that citizens in 37 states, including the 6.5 million Americans receiving Obamacare subsidies, didn’t regain their health freedom today. They will remain trapped in a government health care system of mandates and penalties that does not work, doesn’t look out for their best interests, makes health care unaffordable, and puts their private medical data at risk.
    This was an opportunity to save America from Obamacare—to protect their freedoms from government mandates, taxes and penalties, fewer jobs, work hours that have been cut to the bone, and lower wages. But that chance was squandered.
    Twila Brase is president and co-founder of Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF,www.cchfreedom.org), a Minnesota-based national organization dedicated to preserving patient-centered health care and protecting patient and privacy rights. Celebrating its 20th year, CCHF exists to protect health care choices and patient privacy. Brase, a registered nurse, has been called one of the “100 Most Powerful People in Health Care” and one of “Minnesota’s 100 Most Influential Health Care Leaders.”

    Isis Expansion Along U.S. Borders


    WASHINGTON, D.C. -
    Our southern border is long and U.S. border patrol agents work to fight illegal activity like illegal immigration, drugs and now according to an FBI consultant, the border could be an attractive region for ISIS thanks in part to powerful drug lords.

    "Drug dealers have found a way to move money without it being followed,” said Tyrone Powers, Former FBI Agent. “They found a way to move people in and out and they found a way to move product."

    That product powers refers to is tons and tons of meth, heroin and pot transferred through a labyrinth of tunnels from Mexico.

    Drugs that are headed for the streets of the U.S.

    But these tunnels could easily be an underground highway for ISIS to spawn its brutality here.

    "The stronger they get over there, the more power they have so I can definitely see, in the future, collaboration between terrorist groups and drug dealers to our south," said Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, 2016 Presidential Candidate

    "It's individuals they bring into this country, maybe at some point, suicide bombers which is really scary and then weapons of mass destruction," said Powers.

    Terrorist experts say the epidemic of unstable leadership in Mexico, combined with ruthless drug cartels creates a vacuum.

    "What's been going on in Mexico creates an opportunity for any organization to try to take advantage of it, whether it's ISIS or Al Shabbab," said Brandon Behlendorf, Terrorist Targeting Strategist.

    Two major drug cartels that could attract ISIS cover a lot of land in Mexico. Both skirt the U.S. border.

    The Sinalos Federation takes up western Mexico and borders Texas to California.

    Los Zetas occupies eastern Mexico and hugs the southern Texas border.

    Experts say Al Qaeda already tried linking up with drug lords in Mexico roughly 15 years ago. But to no avail.

    But Isis is far more determined than Al Qaeda.

    "It makes logical sense for ISIS to do this,” said powers. “But I do not think they'll be catching the intelligence agencies off guard, because this has been a persistent problem whether it was Al Qaeda or any other group."



    Obama Verbally Jousts with an Illegal Transgender

    It happened during an embarrassing albeit inclusive gay pride celebration.  In the White House East Room, with a beaming Joe Biden standing at his side, America’s first gay president was mid-sentence when transgender lovely Jennicet Gutiérrez exercised his right to free speech by shouting out in a thick undocumented Spanish accent a list of LGBTQ demands.

    Barack Obama, who normally has no problem imposing illegals on the rest of America, was taken aback by the outburst and reminded Mr. Gutiérrez, founder of FAMILIA TQLM, an advocacy group for illegal transgenders, that he was “in his house” and that his attitude was rude and “shameful.”

    So wait – you mean the president doesn’t appreciate having to endure the same type of treatment aggressive illegals impose on Americans in grocery stores, on highways, and in taxpayer-funded venues?  And the president really does believe that the White House is literally his house and not the people’s house?


    Moreover, does Obama’s shutting down and extraditing Jennicet Gutiérrez also mean that if an illegal disturbs the president’s mojo, despite past statements otherwise, he really does have ways to locate and deport undocumented nuisances from the premises?

    Guess so.  But whether he does or he doesn’t, Jennicet Gutiérrez stole the show to make a point.


    [VIDEO] Hillary’s Claim That She Gave State Department All Of Her Emails Falls Apart

    The State Department has revealed that it did not receive emails sent between former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and a longtime ally, obliterating the Democrat’s public claim that she gave the agency all of her work-related records.
    The State Department notified the House Select Committee on Benghazi of the discrepancy on Thursday, the Associated Press reported. The records gap was initially revealed last week when Sidney Blumenthal gave the Committee 60 Libya- and Benghazi-related emails he exchanged with Clinton.
    Blumenthal sent Clinton intelligence reports concerning Libya and other nations though he was not a State Department employee. Instead, he worked at the time for the Clinton Foundation and Media Matters, a non-profit group that is allied with the Clintons.
    According to the AP, Blumenthal provided nine full emails and portions of six others that Clinton had not given the State Department. They were sent before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and included reports Blumenthal sent to Clinton concerning developments during and after the Libyan civil war.
    The revelation completely undermines a claim Clinton made at a press conference in March that she “provided all…emails that could possibly be work-related” to the State Department.
    She said at the time that her team “went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails.” Clinton gave the State Department 55,000 pages of official emails in December. She said that she deleted all personal correspondence she sent on the email account, which was hosted on a private email server.
    Benghazi Committee chairman Trey Gowdy said that the news raises more questions about Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
    “The revelation these messages were not originally produced to the State Department by Clinton is significant and troubling,” Gowdy said in a statement. “This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work. This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record.”

    Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court's Huge Gay Marriage Decision

    June 26, 2015 Same-sex marriage is now a right in every state in the country, following ahistoric 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court Friday. The four justices who disagreed with the Court's opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, each wrote their own dissent laying out just why they believed the majority to be wrong.
    Here's their reasoning.
    Chief Justice John Roberts
    Roberts argument centered around the need to preserve states' rights over what he viewed as following the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said "five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law."
    While Roberts said he did not "begrudge" any of the celebrations that would follow the Court ruling, he had serious concerns that the Court had extended its role from Constitutional enforcer to activist.
    "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law," he wrote.
    While, he recognized the decision would be hailed as a major victory for same-sex couples and their allies, he noted they had been set back.
    "Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," Roberts wrote. "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."
    Justice Antonin Scalia
    According to Justice Antonin Scalia, today's majority ruling represents a "judicial Putsch."
    In beginning his dissent, Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide. He stated he wanted to write a separate dissent "to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy."
    "Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," Scalia wrote. "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law."

    Popular Posts