Conservative Happenings

Friday, June 26, 2015

[BREAKING Supreme Court delivers win for gay marriage backers, forcing states to authorize same-sex unions all across the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that gay marriage is the law of the land.

The landmark ruling, delivered just in time for Pride weekend festivities in San Francisco and New York City, says that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees gays and lesbians must have the same right to marry as heterosexuals.

The justices also ruled in the issue that has bitterly divided the nation that states without gay-marriage laws on the books must recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

The decision came on what will be remembered as a seminal date in gay rights history. June 26 was also the calendar date that saw the high court rule on Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and United States v. Windsor two years ago.

All three majoroity decisions were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

LET THE STREET PARTIES BEGIN: Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states

OUT AND ABOUT: Supporters of gay marriage ralled Thursday in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., expecting a ruling that came 24 hours later

Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democratic senator and a supporter of broad rights for gays in America, celebrated the ruling minutes after it was read in open court.

'By recognizing the constitutional right of all people to marry the person they love, the Supreme Court has guaranteed that, across the country, same-sex couples will have their relationships treated with the full legal dignity and respect that they deserve,' Kaine said in a statement.

Not everyone in Washington shared his sentiment. Four of the Supreme Court's justices dissented, including Chief Justice John Roberts – and each one of them wrote a separate opinion outlining why.

'If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision,' Roberts wrote.

'Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.'

Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative rock on the court since 1986, wrote his own stinging rejoinder and called the decision a 'threat to American democracy.'

'Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall,' he wrote. 'With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them – with each decision that is unabashedly not based on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this Court – we move one step closer.'

But the five robed justices who banded together to expand the Constitution's protections of gays and lesbians worded their ruling just as strongly.

'No union is more profound than marriage,' thy wrote, 'for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. ... [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.'

Via: Daily Mail

Impeach the 6 justices who upheld health care law, group urges

Here’s one group’s way of stopping Supreme Court decisions like Thursday’s health care ruling: Impeact the six justices who voted to uphold a key part of the law.

“The six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold ObamaCare should be impeached for abandoning the rule of law,” said Larry Klayman, a former federal prosecutor who now heads Freedom Watch, a conservative group.

"These six Justices have violated their own long-established rules of interpretation for applying statutes to instead advance their own political objectives or burnish their public persona. Such personal goals corrode the role of the Court. The justices abandoned the rule of law and have become merely a political focus group."

Impeachment of any justice, let along six, is highly unlikely.

Klayman remains insistent. “To preserve the Republic in its last gasps, Congress must impeach these Justices. The U.S. Constitution provides in Article III, Section 1, that "’the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.’ It does not give judges a term for life but only ‘during good Behavior.’’

Via: McClatchy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/25/271193/impeach-the-6-justices-who-upheld.html#storylink=cpy

Our game has been removed from AppStore

As you may have been already informed (Read Facebook link), Apple has removed our game from AppStore because of usage of the Confederate Flag. Ultimate General: Gettysburg could be accepted back if the flag is removed from the game's content.

We accept Apple's decision and understand that this is a sensitive issue for the American Nation. We wanted our game to be the most accurate, historical, playable reference of the Battle of Gettysburg. All historical commanders, unit composition and weaponry, key geographical locations to the smallest streams or farms are recreated in our game's battlefield.

We receive a lot of letters of gratitude from American teachers who use our game in history curriculum to let kids experience one of the most important battles in American history from the Commander's perspective.

Spielberg’s "Schindler's List" did not try to amend his movie to look more comfortable. The historical "Gettysburg" movie (1993) is still on iTunes. We believe that all historical art forms: books, movies, or games such as ours, help to learn and understand history, depicting events as they were. True stories are more important to us than money.

Therefore we are not going to amend the game's content and Ultimate General: Gettysburg will no longer be available on AppStore. We really hope that Apple’s decision will achieve the desired results.

We can’t change history, but we can change the future.

Via: Ultimate General

[VIDEO] Hannity: Why Stop Selling Confederate Flags If You Can Still Buy Rap Music?

Following the renewed national discussion on the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag,retailers, manufacturers, and many other organizations have all picked up the trend of distancing themselves from it and any related confederate paraphernalia. During his radio show on Wednesday, Sean Hannity questioned if there was any point in removing the flag when there are so many things still on the shelves that he finds offensive.

Hannity hypothetically began to ask whether Walmart or Amazon would still be selling music from rappers like 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg if the Confederate flag will no longer be available. “Why do I say that,” Hannity explained, “because a lot of the music by those artists is chock-full of the ‘N word,’ and the ‘B-word,’ and the ‘H-word,’ and racist, misogynist, sexist anti-woman slurs none of those retail executives would be caught dead using.”

Hannity also brought up the increase in sales the Confederate flag saw on Amazon before it was taken off, and wondered whether rap music would have experienced a similar rush. Hannity then went on to call President Obama a hypocrite for speaking against racism in America after previously inviting music power couple and harsh-language-users Jay Z and Beyonce to the White House.

“If it’s okay for Obama’s teenage daughters and people to go into these stores and buy music chock-full of the n-word, the b-word, well maybe we should consider banning that too,” Hannity said. “We’re in the process of banning everything.”

Via: Mediaite

[VIDEO] FNC’S ‘SPECIAL REPORT': SCHWEIZER’S ‘CLINTON CASH’ SCANDALS CAUSE HILLARY TO DROP IN POLLS

On Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” on Wednesday, White House correspondent Ed Henry broke down a Fox News poll showing Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton sliding in the polls after a series of scandals were revealed in Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash.”

Henry pointed to the latest Fox News poll showing her underwater in terms honesty and trustyworthiness.

“Amid the drip, drip of revelations about her family’s foundation, Hillary Clinton’s image continues to take a hit,” Henry explained. “A new Fox poll found when asked if she’s honest and trustworthy — 45 percent say yes, 52 percent say so. Republican pollsters believe she’s missing a key ingredient that allowed former President Bill Clinton to survive one scandal after another.

Henry continued by going into detail about one controversy in particular involving the Russian government and its efforts to bolster its position in the international uranium market.

“Controversies like the sale of uranium to the Russian government during her time as secretary of state may not have helped,” he said. “In an interview with WMUR in New Hampshire, Clinton denied that a $500,000 speaking fee to her husband by a Kremlin bank and millions in contributions to the Clinton Foundation were tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin, getting a corner on the uranium market.”

“The former secretary telling WMUR quote, ‘I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,’” Henry said. “‘Clinton Cash’ author, Peter Schweizer scoffed declaring in an op-ed quote, ‘The transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium, the stuff used to build nuclear weapons to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s time and attention?’”

Via: Breitbart

[VIDEO] Ted Cruz, angered by Obamacare ruling, tells ‘rogue justices’ to resign and run for Congress

Sen. Ted Cruz delivered a full-throated critique Thursday of the Supreme Court, saying that it is clear that the “rogue justices” that ruled in favor of Obamacare subsidies are “lawless” political

foot soldiers that have joined forces with the Obama administration.

Speaking on the Senate floor, the Texas Republican and 2016 GOP presidential candidate said that if the “justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office

.”

The remarks came shortly after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Obama administration is lawfully doling out Obamacare’s subsidies in dozens of states despite contested language in the law that sparked a legal battle with major political and economic ramifications.

PHOTOS: Bang for your buck: Best handguns under $500

“The Supreme Court willfully ignored the words that Congress wrote, and instead read into the law their preferred policy outcome,” Mr. Cruz said. “These judges have joined with President Obama in harming millions

of Americans.”

He continued, “Those justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes. They have joined a team, and it is a team that is hurting Americans across this country.”

Mr. Cruz said the 2016 election

will be a referendum on Obamacare, which he said is hurting millions of Americans.

Via: Washington Times

House bill would force the Supreme Court to enroll in ObamaCare

A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.

“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.

“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.

Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.

His move follows the Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday morning that upheld the subsidies under ObamaCare that are provided by the government to offset the cost of buying insurance.

The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said consumers purchasing health insurance from the federal exchange in roughly 34 states could continue to do so.

The ruling in King v. Burwell has spurred anger on the right, with conservatives questioning the logic of the decision.

“They deserve an Olympic medal for the legal gymnastics,” Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, told The Hill.

Via: The Hill

King v. Burwell Decision Doesn’t Change That Obamacare Remains Unworkable, Unaffordable and Unpopular

Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration to allow Obamacare subsidies to flow through HealthCare.gov. This is a disappointment for the rule of law and for the states that have fought to keep some of Obamacare’s flawed policies out of their states.

While the administration and Obamacare supporters attempt to convince the American people that it is now smooth sailing for Obamacare, nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite the decision, the problems with Obamacare are real and not getting better. The law’s flawed foundation continues to make Obamacare unworkable, unaffordable and unpopular.

As my colleague Ed Haislmaier skillfully points out, “The complexity and cascade of adverse effects are the inescapable byproducts of major flaws in the legislation’s basic design.” For instance, the complexity of the tax credits has resulted in two-thirds of those receiving subsidies, having to repay some portion of the subsidies they received, according to H&R Block.

Nothing in the court’s ruling will change this moving forward. Each year individuals wishing to claim a subsidy will have to estimate their income for the year in advance. Any miscalculation, specifically underestimating their income, necessitates a repayment to the IRS.

Removing ACA Regulations Would Reduce Premiums in These 34 States

In King v Burwell, the Supreme Court could decide that ACA subsidies are no longer available to individuals in the 34 states that chose not to set up a state exchange. Americans affected by such a decision will need access to more affordable coverage. Select above to see how much you could save if Congress removed the ACA insurance regulations that are driving up the cost of coverage.

Today, a majority of the Supreme Court chose to overlook the clear language of the statute. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent it is “quite absurd” that Congress meant to allow subsidies in the exchange established by the federal government when it expressly limited those subsides to state-run exchanges. This flawed ruling allows the administration to continue making the law, rather than enforcing it.

The law continues to be unaffordable for everyday Americans. Obamacare’s costly insurance regulations have made coverage more expensive. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the subsidies to flow through HealthCare.gov only helps a few million people pay for coverage leaving millions more facing higher, not lower, health care costs.

Even now, double digit rate increasesare being submitted for 2016. These trends fuel the mounting budgetary pressures facing the law, as my colleagues Robert Moffit and Pat Knudsen have well documented.

Via: Daily Signal

Massachusetts Flag Is ANOTHER A Symbol Of White Supremacy, Says Boston Columnist

THESE PEOPLE HAVE GONE AROUND THE BEND!!!!

In the wake of Governor Nikki Haley’s decision to remove the Confederate flag from South Carolina’s capitol building, a columnist from Boston has started to profess that the Massachusetts flag is also offensive and racist.

“Though the Massachusetts state flag is not as overtly abhorrent as the one that flies on South Carolina’s state capital grounds,” Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham wrote on Thursday, “it is still pretty awful.”

The state flag of Massachusetts depicts the state’s Coat of Arms: a blue shield on a white plain marked by a white star, a gold arm wielding a sword, a Latin motto that translates to, “By the sword we seek peace, but peace under liberty,” and the central figure — a gold Native American man holding a bow and arrow.

The Coat of Arms is riddled with symbolism that refer to the state’s history. The single star is meant to represent Massachusetts as one of the first Thirteen Colonies, while the Native American’s arrow is positioned downwards to symbolize peace.

Abraham, however, believes that while it may be a representation of Massachusetts history, it’s overall message is indicative of one of the state’s more shameful moments in state history.

“It is hard to read it all together as anything but a flag designed by and for the colonial conquerors who made the Bay State,” Abraham wrote, “The ones who won the land by all but eradicating the people who got here first.”

Abraham expresses that she believes the sword, and therefore the Latin motto as well, are meant to represent the English settlers’ victory and oppression over the Native Americans, thus making the entire state flag culturally offensive.

On the other hand, the secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts attributes the arm and sword to the Massachusetts province’s fight for freedom from the control of England as the imagery was added to the state seal during the American Revolutionary War.

Additionally, many vexillologists — professional flag scholars — have interpreted the centrally-focused figure to be a loyal Native American ally of the Massachusetts settlers.

Via: Daily Caller

Dem. Senator Hopes The DOJ Sues Global Warming ‘Deniers’

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is not a fan of anyone who disagrees with him about man-made global warming. And at an event hosted by environmentalists, he made it clear just how much he doesn’t like skeptics.

“But, this vast denial apparatus that propagates the false doubt, that props up the phony science, that gets these yahoos who can’t survive … peer-reviewed scrutiny onto Fox News, onto the cable shows, saying that their scientists, they create an artificial conflict about this and that’s why I think there’s doubt,” the Rhode Island Democrat told attendees at a League of Conservation Voters event in last month, according to a recently published Youtube video.

“A lot of people haven’t seen through the scam that’s being perpetrated,” Whitehouse said. “So that’s one of the reasons I hope that we get another lawsuit out of the Department of Justice, like the one they brought against the tobacco industry that showed that the whole fraudulent scam was a racketeering enterprise, held them accountable for it.”

This is not the only time Whitehouse suggested the federal government prosecute global warming skeptics under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for being a “racketeering enterprise.”

Whitehouse essentially wants the Justice Department to prosecute skeptics the same way it prosecuted the tobacco industry in the late 1990s.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May — The video that was recently posted to Youtube, was from an event that took place before his op-ed was written.

“The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking,” Whitehouse added.

Whitehouse, however, was forced to admit at the end of his op-ed that he didn’t actually know “whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry.” But, of course, he suggested there’s a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.

Ironically, Whitehouse’s support for using RICO against global warming skeptics came one month before he appeared at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank, to unveil a bill he wrote that would slap a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. While at AEI, Whitehouse talked about how a carbon tax was the “conservative” answer to global warming.

Via: American Spectator

Rep. Ed Royce Continues His Attack on Shareholders, Favors Running Fannie and Freddie with No Capital

During a House Financial Services Committee hearing this week on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, Royce, in an exchange with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, continued his anti-shareholder bias and also demonstrated his lack of understanding of basic math.

A video of the exchange, posted by Rep. Royce’s office, can be found here, and we’ve pulled some of the notable excerpts below:

“One of my colleagues asked if the GSEs have repaid the money that they have borrowed from the American taxpayer. The simple answer that my colleague tried to illicit, I think, is that the payments they have made to the government now exceed the rescued funds that they received. But, Mr. Secretary, I think you agree here, this is not the real answer nor the real question. The real question is have they repaid their debt to the American taxpayer, and for that answer I think we can go to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York… The New York Fed said thattaxpayers are entitled to substantial risk premium…The false narrative that is perpetuated is that the taxpayers have been repaid, it’s time to end conservatorship, and return the GSEs to the control of shareholders. From your comment earlier, I assume you disagree with this narrative…”

Yes, taxpayers are entitled to significant compensation for the risk borne in the $187 billion bailout of Fannie and Freddie, just as they are entitled to recompense for the $426 billion dollars in bailouts of the big banks and auto industry authorized under the TARP program. What Rep. Royce fails to mention, however, is that the GSE’s are already far and away America’s most profitable bailout, having returned over $40 billion to date in profit on top of what the Treasury invested. The “real question” here, for which we have yet to receive a “real answer,” is, “Why does the government continue to let taxpayers bear all of risk at the point of first-loss under the guise of repayment?” Secretary Lew kind of acknowledges this in his response:

“I totally agree… the risk is being borne by taxpayers on an ongoing basis and the conservatorship is not over….So I think that the right thing is to do GSE reform and get on to a new restructured system, but it is not the right time to be talking about ending the conservatorship and paying dividends.”

Via: Investors Unite

Continue Reading....

Thursday, June 25, 2015

[VIDEO] Chief Justice Roberts affirms: ObamaCare was poorly written

While Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a blow to ObamaCare foes with a majority opinion upholding subsidies, he backed up the law's opponents on one point: The language in the Affordable Care Act was kind of a mess.

"The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting," he wrote.

The 6-3 Supreme Court decision Thursday upheld the legality of ObamaCare subsidies nationwide. The case centered on language in the law that technically limited subsidies to those who purchase insurance in exchanges established by the states.

Opponents argued this rendered subsidies invalid for insurance purchased through the federal HealthCare.gov.

But Roberts and the majority ruled that Congress never intended that. "Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid," he wrote.

Further, the majority opinion reasoned that the law itself was poorly written, and so the court must look to Congress' intent -- rather than the specific language in the law itself.

"Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through 'the traditional legislative process,'" Roberts wrote.

He proceeded to cite process issues that Republicans have long complained contributed to the bill being rushed.

Roberts wrote: "And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as 'reconciliation,' which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate's normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. ...

Via: Fox News

GOP ESTABLISHMENT CAVES… TO CONSERVATIVES FOR ONCE!!!

While we’re all licking our wounds from being betrayed by Supreme Justice Benedict Roberts, let’s at least savor the fact that conservative criticism actually got the GOP establishment to cave to US for once!!

From the Hill:

Facing enormous blowback, Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Thursday reversed his decision and said he was reinstating Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) as a subcommittee chairman.

Chaffetz stripped Meadows of his subcommittee gavel last week after the congressman joined nearly three dozen other conservatives in voting against leadership on a procedural motion that nearly scuttled a major trade package.

Last week’s move was part of a pattern of punishment targeting conservatives who’ve defied leadership on key votes.

But Chaffetz soon came under heavy fire from conservatives, including Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who’s running for president. By Thursday, Chaffetz had backpedalled, saying a number of colleagues had urged him to reconsider his decision.

Sorry Boehner, but I don’t think Mark Levin is gonna back down even after this minor capitulation.

“Having spoken with Mark Meadows several times during the past week, I think we both better understand each other. I respect Mark and his approach. The discussions and candor have been healthy and productive,” Chaffetz said in a statement.

BOOM! Geez, crapping on conservatives is usually the only time the GOP establishment grows a spine! Mark that a score for the good guys, Smokey.

Via: The Right Scoop

SSA Paid the Dead $46.8 Million Audit:

Feds paid disability beneficiary representatives long after they died

The Social Security Administration (SSA) paid individuals acting as representatives for disabled beneficiaries nearly $50 million even though they were dead.

An audit from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is just the latest example of the SSA’s inability to figure out who on their rolls is still alive.

The audit focused on “representative payees,” or a person who manages another’s finances due to mental or physical limitations. The OIG found that many payees acting on behalf of disability beneficiaries had died.

“SSA did not ensure new representative payees were selected when current payees died,” the OIG said. “Based on our sample results, we estimated 2,548 deceased payees received approximately $46.8 million in [Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance] OASDI benefits and [Supplemental Security Income] SSI payments.”

The total amount estimated to be “managed by deceased payees” was $46,886,205.

The majority of payments were made to dead payees who controlled payments to OASDI recipients, which receive an average $1,182.24 per month.

The OIG based its results on a sample of 200 representative payees, finding that 109 were deceased. The average total benefit payment to deceased payees was $15,762. Many received payments more than 2 years after their death.

The SSA is more likely to continue payments to dead payees than to cut them off, according to the OIG estimates. A total of 2,548 deceased payees received payments, while only 2,014 payees were not issued benefit funds after their death.

Though the OIG said a majority of payments to the dead did not show signs of fraud, the report highlights continuing problems with the SSA’s record keeping methods.

Via: WFB

Friday, June 26, 2015

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Popular Posts