Thread: Will this court case shatter Obamacare?

WND EXCLUSIVE

Will this court case shatter Obamacare?

'The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated'

Published: 17 hours ago

The United States Supreme Court

The Obama administration may be alarmed over the dismal number of people signing up for Obamacare, the rising health-care costs for Americans, the legal challenges to the religious discrimination embedded in the law and other problems.


But all of that would be of no consequence if a lawsuit in federal court in Washington succeeds. It alleges senators overstepped their authority in creating the Affordable Care Act and the law, therefore, is null and void.
The case argues that since the U.S. Constitution requires that revenue-raising measures originate in the U.S. House and Obamacare was created in the Senate, the law is unconstitutional. The case is headed toward the Supreme Court.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has been leading the Obamacare charge since its inception, took a House-passed bill, deleted its contents and then substituted the Senate’s 2,000-page bill.
Now dozens of members of the U.S. House of Representatives are signing onto the battle, claiming the Senate didn’t have the authority to pass the bill.
They argue taxes only can originate with the House, the representatives closest to the American people.
That requirement is so important, according to the members of Congress, that the Constitution never would have been adopted without it.
According to a brief dozens of House members have filed in the case, the principle “behind the Origination Clause – sometimes phrased as ‘No Taxation Without Representation’ – was the moral justification for our War of Independence.”
“With this war for freedom and liberty in mind, the Origination Clause of our Constitution was written; and without it at the core of the ‘Great Compromise of 1787,’ the 13 original states would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution,” the brief states.
“The primary dividing issue between the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was the question of how to resolve the method of representation in the upper chamber. The small states preferred to retain the equal representation they had enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation, while the large states wanted to shift the national legislature to a proportional representation of the American population. No disagreement threatened the success of the convention and the new Constitution more than this one. After a month of heated debate and threats of secession, the delegates finally agreed to the Great Compromise of 1787; a bicameral legislature with equal representation of states in the upper branch, and proportional representation of the nation in the lower branch. That Great Compro0mise was only made possible by agreement of both sides to restrict the upper branch from originating money bills.”
It continues: “The power of the purse was unquestionably reposed in the People’s House, and it has remained in that chamber throughout our history. If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill which does not raise taxes and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, in explicit contravention of the supreme law of the land, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all.”
The brief was filed by attorneys representing Reps. Trent Franks, Michele Bachmann, Joe Barton, Kerry L. Bentivolio, Marsha Blackburn, Jim Bridenstine, Mo Brooks, K. Michael Conaway, Steve Chabot, Jeff Duncan, John J. Duncan, Jr., John Fleming, Bob Gibbs, Louie Gohmert, Andy Harris, Tim Huelskamp, Walter B. Jones, Jr., Steve King, Doug Lamborn, Doug LaMalfa, Bob Latta, Thomas Massie, Mark Meadows, Randy Neugebauer, Steve Pearce, Robert Pittenger, Trey Radel, David P. Roe, Todd Rokita, Matt Salmon, Mark Sanford, David Schweikert, Marlin A. Stutzman, Lee Terry, Tim Walberg, Randy K. Weber, Sr., Brad R. Wenstrup, Lynn A. Westmoreland, Rob Wittman and Ted S. Yoho.
Their argument notes that at the 1787 convention, George Mason explained why the Senate was not allowed to raise taxes.
“The Senate did not represent the people, but the states in their political character. It was improper therefore that it should tax the people … Again, the Senate is not like the H. of Representatives chosen frequently and obliged to return frequently among the people. They are chosen by the Sts for 6 years, will probably settle themselves at the seat of Govt. will pursue schemes for their aggrandizement – will be able by weary[ing] out the H. of Reps. and taking advantage of their impatience at the close of a long session, to extort measures for that purpose.”
U.S. senators originally were selected by state legislatures, not a direct vote of the people. That was changed by the 17th Amendment in 1913.
The challenge to Obamacare based on the Origination Clause was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
“We are grateful for this powerful support from Congressman Franks, a leading authority on the Constitution, and from many other key lawmakers,” said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II.
“This support from members of the House is especially significant because PLF’s lawsuit defends the constitutional authority of the lower chamber, the legislative body that is closest to the people. We argue that Obamacare was enacted in a way that deprived the House of its authority to ‘originate’ new taxation. By extension, taxpayers were deprived of a core constitutional protection against reckless and oppressive use the federal taxing power.”
PLF’s challenge focuses on the individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to buy a federally prescribed health insurance plan or pay a penalty to the federal government – a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court identified as a “tax” in its 2012 ruling on Obamacare.
The foundation explained that because Obamacare’s “individual mandate is a tax – and, indeed, Obamacare includes more than $500 billion in new taxation, in all – the law should have been initiated in the House, where Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution says new taxes must “originate,” in order to keep the taxing power close to the people.”
“However, in defiance of this constitutional requirement, Majority Leader Harry Reid launched the law in the Senate, by taking an entirely unrelated House bill on housing for veterans, stripping it, and inserting the language that became Obamacare.”
Beard said the “current attempts to roll out Obamacare are frankly a fiasco.”
“These chaotic problems are symbolic of how, from the first, this law was foisted on the American people in a rushed and arbitrary way that ignored the careful and considered process laid down in the Constitution. The Constitution’s requirement that new taxes must start in the House is not a dusty formality. It’s an important safeguard for taxpayers, and for care and deliberation in the enactment of new taxes. Because this mandate was violated so flagrantly with Obamacare, and because the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare’s structure, our suit argues that the entire law must be struck down.”
The case is on behalf of Matt Sissel, a small business owner who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own, rather than buy health insurance. He objects on financial, philosophical and constitutional grounds to being ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of a penalty tax.
“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I am grateful for support from members of the House in this important litigation. I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned that Obamacare was enacted in violation of the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”
Beard explains the significance:

video at link below

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/will-this-court-case-destroy-obamacare/#jF7VYVJrTevGB5k6.99

WND reported earlier as the case started developing.
Beard said then that the Supreme Court was not asked about, and did not address, Obamacare’s constitutional failure.
“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.
Sissel’s case was filed before the Supreme Court ruled last year that Obamacare was constitutional because the individual mandate was a tax.
The plaintiffs in the original Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.
His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.
That, however, raised the issue of the origination clause.
The members of the House noted how the American public held House members responsible for the Obamacare taxes.
“In 2010 the party that did not cast a single vote in the House in favor of the ACA in 2009 gained the largest seat change for a midterm election since 1938. The entire House was up for reelection. The Senate, by contrast, enjoyed having two-thirds of its members insulated from popular accountability for the measures they had passed.”
They continued: “Since the 2010 elections, the people’s immediate representatives have voted some 40 times to repeal or defund the ACA, but the senators, who sit for six years unchallenged, have never agreed. The Framers exact fear of taxation without adequate representation has materialized due to the complete disregard of the mandates of the Origination Clause by the U.S. Senate.
“What is most alarming and dangerous about this case, is that the senators knew exactly what they were doing in circumventing the Origination Clause. As explained by Sen. Reid’s own ‘senior health counsel’: ‘Basically, we needed a non-controversial House revenue measure to proceed … so that is why we used the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act. It wasn’t more complicated than that.’”
A House resolution adopted this year confirmed that “the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 did not originate in the House of Representatives.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/will-this...VJrTevGB5k6.99

WND EXCLUSIVE

Proof of Obamacare's intentional deception

Radicals' poll-tested language soothed fears of nation

Published: 22 hours ago

Editor’s note: This is the second WND report investigating the Herndon Alliance, the group behind the marketing of Obamacare. The first article, which exposed Herndon’s ties to many radical groups, can be read here.


A group that has been the driving force in branding Obamacare has recommended a series of phrases, some deceptive, that the White House and Democrats have used to sell the health-care law to the public, WND has found.
The little-known Herndon Alliance has been behind the marketing of Obamacare since the inception of the legislation.
It was the group that crafted President Obama’s false claim that Americans can maintain their “choice” of doctors and insurance plans.
Along with advising the Obama administration, Herndon has been providing strategy to Enroll America, the main organization pushing for the uninsured to sign up for Obamacare. Enroll America’s executive director, Ron Pollack, was a founding member of Herndon.
The Herndon Alliance is “the most influential group in the health arena that the public has never heard of,” reported Politico in 2009.
Politico reported that when Obama repeatedly announced Americans can maintain their “choice” of doctors and insurance plans, he was “using a Herndon strategy for wringing fear out of a system overhaul.”
Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office” is available, autographed, at WND’s Superstore
The Herndon Alliance, based in Seattle, describes itself as “a nationwide non-partisan coalition of more than 200 minority, faith, labor, advocacy, business, and healthcare provider organizations.”
As WND reported in February 2012, the group received a grant from the lobbying arm of the progressive Media Matters for America to help the White House to craft and market Obamacare.
Using polling data about what Americans like and don’t like about Obamacare, Herndon concocted a list of words and statements to use in selling the legislation to the country.
Herndon recommended avoiding the following terminology: “Universal health care,” “Canadian Style Health care,” “Medicare for All,” “Competition,” “Government health care for all,” “Regulations,” “Required,” “Public or Government health care,” and “Basic health care.”
Key phrases to use in the messaging of Obamacare include “Quality affordable health care,” “American solutions,” “A choice of private and public plans,” “Choice and control,” “Giving security and peace of mind,” “Sliding scale, pay what you can afford,” “Government as a watchdog, ensure a fair playing field,” “Affordable health plans” and “Smart investments.”
Many of these phrases were incorporated in the marketing material released by the White House and groups like Enroll America.
Herndon specifically labels women, particularly those over the age of 65, “a key persuadable audience.”
“We need to show them how the new law will benefit them. Remember that when messaging to women, start with our core message to build trust,” continues Herndon.
The core message: “Reform requires that Members of Congress get their healthcare coverage from the same plans as millions of Americans.”
However, the Affordable Care Act actually locks lawmakers and their staffers out of the federal government’s group health plan and instead puts them into state insurance exchanges.
Herndon recognized the public was finding it difficult to accept Obamacare will bring health-care costs down.
So to avoid a conversation on costs, Herndon suggested what it called a “long-term effort to ‘move’ the public along by focusing the conversation on specific benefits of the law that will most affect them.”
On Medicare, Herndon concocted two key selling points: “The law protects Medicare and provides preventive care with no co-pay.”
In actuality, it has been widely reported the government is scaling back Medicare funding to help defray the costs of Obamacare, with the likely loss of some benefits while raising premiums.
In one immediate ramification, the country’s largest provider of Medicare Advantage plans, UnitedHealth Group, said it will need to reduce the number of doctors in its network nationally by 10 to 15 percent in the next year alone.
For those who say they don’t trust the government, Herndon posits the best response “is one that says the law requires us all (consumers, doctors and nurses, hospitals, insurance companies) to take responsibility and play by fair rules.”
“Our government is a government for all the people, not just for the privileged,” Herndon recommends saying.
However, that talking point may surprise critics of what has been described as waivers of some provisions of the health-care law for a number of businesses and unions.
The Department of Health and Human Services allowed lower annual caps on the total amount of medical bills some firms and unions pay for each subscriber. Reportedly the temporary waivers were offered to 722 businesses, 417 groups of small employers bound by collective bargaining

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/deception...gqcRyC1fyqK.99

Options
The John Birch Society


"The key question not being asked frequently enough is this: How could the president himself, who claimed to be a “constitutional law professor, not know about the Take Care clause and that his “fix” would be unconstitutional?"

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...constitutional



Friday, 15 November 2013 15:35 Obama’s “Fix” of ObamaCare's Debut Is Unconstitutional

Written by Bob Adelmann





Within two hours of President Obama’s announced “fix” for the fumble he caused in his ObamaCare rollout, the insurance commissioner from the state of Washington rejected it, on practical grounds. It took only slightly longer for a legal scholar to reject it on constitutional ones.
Said the president (shown) on Thursday, "I think it’s legitimate for Americans to expect me to have to win back some credibility. And, you know, that’s on me. I mean, we fumbled the rollout on this."
And then, using what the White House called the president’s “enforcement discretion,” the president said he would delay for one year the part of ObamaCare that requires all plans to meet stringent standards of coverage. He said he would “allow” state insurance commissioners to make the final determination in that proposed delay. Two hours later Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler rejected the Obama fumble fix:
I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans ... but I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and, more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.
I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington. We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.
Part of the problem is legal: Most insurance companies are required to give their state’s insurance commissioners a 60-day notice before launching new policies, and that date has passed. In addition, changing or rescinding previous policy cancellations isn't something that can be done overnight. As one health insurance actuary stated:
New premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers [established], letters [sent] to the consumers.… These things take time.
Such rescissions of previous cancellations would likely have national repercussions as well, reducing traffic to the health exchanges and further slowing the enrollment into ObamaCare that insurers were counting on when building their premium structures. Such a slowdown would likely mean that in 2015 when those reinstated policies are finally terminated, the premiums for new coverage would be even higher.
From a constitutional perspective, the Obama fumble fix has vastly larger implications. Put simply, it is unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, the powers of the president are clearly stated, which include: "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Known as the Take Care clause, it was deliberately inserted there, according to Ken Klukowski, a constitutional lawyer on the faculty of Liberty University’s School of Law,
to abolish the Royal Prerogative that the framers of the American Constitution knew from their lives as Englishmen. It was the power of the king of England to disregard or effectively suspend Acts of Parliament. The king could not make laws, but he could shelve a law that Parliament had passed.
By using his so-called enforcement discretion — something unknown in the Constitution — Obama has overreached his powers. Said Klukowski:
This is a frightening claim of a sweeping power that is completely inconsistent with the Constitution.… There is no “enforcement discretion” [for Obama] to determine which laws on the books he will enforce….
It is a flagrant and undeniable violation of his constitutional duty under the Take Care clause.… Only Congress can change those parts of the Affordable Care Act….
It’s an open and shut case that this president’s actions are unconstitutional, again.
It’s this gradual usurpation of power not granted under the Constitution that leads to tyranny. As Mike Adams at Natural News warned, “This is how Hitler rose to power, of course. It’s how every tyrant throughout history got [his] start. It’s also precisely what the United States Constitution prohibits.”
Many have raised various questions. How would those cancelled policies be reinstated? How would insurance companies recalculate their premiums? What would be the impact on the health exchanges if cancellations were rescinded? What about the viability of ObamaCare itself as the result of such a delay?
The key question not being asked frequently enough is this: How could the president himself, who claimed to be a “constitutional law professor, not know about the Take Care clause and that his “fix” would be unconstitutional?

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...constitutional

The Dictator-In-Chief Has Spoken. On Thursday Barack Obama Decreed That If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep It... Maybe... Perhaps… Not Really… For Another Year.

Let's cut to the chase. Barack Obama's latest decree to "fix" the health insurance market that he destroyed with ObamaCare is no "fix" at all. It is yet another lie in his massive ObamaCare fraud — one that would force any private citizen or corporate CEO to be thrown out in the street and publicly shamed.

Our Constitution Is Being Usurped By The Obama Administration's Arrogance And Contempt.
David Hogberg, Ph.D., a senior fellow for health care policy at the National Center for Public Policy Research put Obama's proposed "fix" in its proper perspective:

"Today President Obama displayed the arrogance and contempt for the American people that have become a hallmark of his Administration. He proposes to take action for which he has no legal authority and he is using insurers as the propaganda arm of ObamaCare."

"The law does not permit the President to let people who bought coverage after ObamaCare passed to keep their plans. Fixing that is something that... can't be done by presidential decree. But, as has happened so many other times with ObamaCare, the President is ignoring the law to do what is politically convenient."

Rep. Michelle Bachmann echoed those sentiments: "A decree brought down on high from President Obama is not how the legislative process works. It is unconstitutional for the president to repeatedly bypass Congress and unilaterally change the law to fit his daily political objectives."

And Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, said: "The 'fix' amounts to new legislation — but enacted without Congress. The president has no constitutional authority to rewrite statutes, especially in ways that impose new obligations on people, and that is what the fix seems to entail."

Make no mistake, our lives, our health care system, our economy and our Constitution all hang in the balance and there is only one way to stop the madness.

ObamaCare must be repealed before it takes full effect, and we're going to keep sending that message until our elected officials get the message and make it happen.

It took insurance carriers three years to gear-up to do Obama's bidding and it would be the epitome of foolishness to believe for one second that carriers can just scrap it all — and in a matter of days — hit the reset button and start reissuing policies and plans for another year that they were forced to cancel under ObamaCare.

Don't be deceived by the politically motivated lies. As long as ObamaCare is the law of the land, no "fix" is going to stop ultimately hundreds of millions of Americans from losing their coverage... and Barack Obama knows it.

Obama's latest political prestidigitation only illustrates what Senator Ted Cruz has said all along: "ObamaCare is fundamentally flawed. We don't need 'fixes,' we need a full repeal."

Remember Obama also exempted himself and family, majority of all the politicians, along with thousands of other waivers and exemptions for friends and donors!!!


And Here we go again

After Attacking Insurers, Obama May Give Them Subsidies

Posted on November 18, 2013

Obama thinks he can fix anything by throwing money at it.
Check it out:

President Obama has decided to attack the insurers again. But maybe he’s decided to subsidize them even more. Or both.
In waiving the part of Obamacare that outlaws many insurance plans, Obama tried to shift blame for any cancellations to the insurers. But on Friday, he met with representatives from these same companies, sparking speculation that he had plans to offer them subsidies to help smooth Obamacare’s rocky rollout.
This seeming schizophrenia is standard fare in the love-hate relationship between Obama and the insurers.

Obama raised $1.34 million from the “Health Services/HMOs” industry in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is the most any candidate has ever raised from this industry in history, and more than twice what John McCain raised that year.
Continue Reading on washingtonexaminer.com ...

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2013/11/attacking-insurers-obama-may-give-subsidies/#E0zdppZmCCXcqfog.99


Aren't we all just so impressed????

PLEASE HELP US TODAY! WE NEED EVERYONE TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND TAKE ACTION!


TARGETS

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) 202-225-3201

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) 202-225-1956

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) 202-225-4876

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) 202-225-2331

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) 202-225-6511

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) 202-225-2002

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) 202-225-5755

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) 202-225-0453

Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) 202-225-4231

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) 202-225-2811

http://www.alipac.us/f8/3-day-blitz-...ivists-292326/

You Won’t Believe How Obama is Celebrating Christmas

Posted on November 18, 2013


I didn’t think Muslims celebrated Christmas anyway….
Check it out:

Most of us mark the Christmas season by celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. President Obama, on the other hand, will be marking the Christmas season by celebrating Obamacare.
Check out these images that were posted on President Obama’s Facebook and Twitter pages:



Continue Reading on radio.foxnews.com ...

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2013/11/wont-believe-obama-celebrating-christmas/#kBfvlVrYwEWdri1t.99

Here are some comments from the article

• colleenf • 3 minutes ago
  
  What else would you expect of this man?
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  jimbo124816 • 3 minutes ago
  
  
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Obama, I have already been talking to my loved ones about their Health Care.
  I talked to my sister who just lost her Health Care.
  I talked to my brother whose Health Care just tripled in cost.
  I talked to my mother about her Medicare, and she wondered how Obama could take $500 million dollars out of Medicare to give to people who never worked, and she hears again and again how Medicare is going broke.
  I talked to my Senator, who said that you lied about your plan, lied to the Congress, and lied to the people, and because she's a Democrat, my Senator voted for it, because she didn't read it before she signed it.
  I will continue talking with my loved ones and my friends and neighbors so that they won't forget which Party and Administration gave us this fraudulent, faulty, illegal, unconstitutional plan.
  Have a nice Christmas!
• 3
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  Mys77 • 3 minutes ago
  
  
  Celebrate??? What does Obama have to be happy about??? What a pathetic attempt to be funny here....There is no connection between this evil man and Christmas.....and to think there is and that we would care how Obama uses Christmas to push his evil agenda in the name of Christ is beyond evil.
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  dolly • 4 minutes ago
  
  
  Obama has been meting out revenge against all USA citizens who dared to get in his way. Even if his minions also get hit, he doesn't care--he seeks only personal satisfaction..
• 1
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  jb80538 • 6 minutes ago
  
  muslims don't celebrate Christmas do they?
• 3
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  • 
    colleenf jb80538 • 2 minutes ago
    
    No.
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  
  
• 
  Washington22 • 7 minutes ago
  
  Barak Insane Obama is the devil himself. No way to sugar coat it. He stands for all things un-American and is hell-bent on our destruction. As soon as 2014 gets here and we have the votes, The VERY NEXT DAY, impeachment proceedings will begin and he'll be gone. But I don't want to to end with that. Then, Isssa or whoever, needs to file formal charges of all his criminal activities against this nation.............Impeachment isn 't good enough..........the criminl charges and conviction must follow. He is guilty and must do jail time. Our first black president needs to go to jail........
• 5
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  dave. • 10 minutes ago
  
  And when the day comes that "president Islam" is once and for all kicked out, a priest must be brought in to exorcise, clean and bless the White House. We really have no idea just what Barry and wife may have brought with them.
• 8
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  Rod Huse • 10 minutes ago
  
  bho = north end of a south bound horse!!!!
• 6
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  4lifeandfreedom • 12 minutes ago
  
  He can because he can--remember that he said he would have more leeway after the 2012 election--
  and he believes he is deity, and that whatever he does should not be questioned.
• 4
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  Nellie2 • 17 minutes ago
  
  I can't image why he is doing so much to change this country to his liking unless he plans to stay as our permanent president. He and his policies are so unpopular and can be undone by the newly elected members by the people and a new president. I smell something rotten. He has so little time do all he wants to just step away from everything. I know he doesn't have so many newly trained military within the country that I have hearing about lately that he is just stupid enough to try a coup. He has the press or he did and he maybe he easily get them again. He has the man power. He has the followers that would follow blindly to hell. He has the ego that thinks he can do anything. He has already walked all over the constitution and no one has done a thing to stop him. He is a very, very devious and evil man who hates people while all the time taking our freedom of choices because he knows better. This is much bigger than we think and I hope more people wake before he destroys everything good in this country.
• 14
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  daveveselenak • 19 minutes ago
  
  This megalomaniac, Muslim-Marxist jihadist must be made to vacate the "Outhouse" while there is still a semlbance of a free Republic! His impersonation of a new Hitler has gotten old! WAKE UP, WISE UP, RISE UP!
• 15
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
• 
  Chiron_Venizelos • 22 minutes ago
  
  Ultimately, we all must face judgement in a "higher court." Mr. 0bama is no different.
• One other person is typing…
• 20
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  • 
    Josiah Victor Hoffman Chiron_Venizelos • 15 minutes ago
    
    Very true...but very far from the minds of the majority, and especially the Idiot in the WH!
  • 7
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  
  
• 
  mbm • 22 minutes ago
  
  Pray for him and pray for our country and our leaders. God's intervention in the scandalous corruption taking place is our ONLY help.
• 14
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  • 
    Josiah Victor Hoffman mbm • 4 minutes ago
    
    You need to change your reading material and thoughts so that you will not anger an Just and Holy God! The only rightful prayer fo the leaders of this nation...and I am including the Idiot in the WH, and all of those around him (both Democrat and Republican)...is that God will remove them from our mist, and if need be destroy them! But to return our hearts to a the true God, God Almighty the creator of the Universe! Just a note......God only regards prayers that are presented and backed with actions! Anything else is not represented in the scriptures anywhere! And is part of the Neo-doctrine that has filled this world for the last 300 or so years!
    That same Neo-doctrine is a tool of the evil that is filling our world!
    If we want God to make intervention, then we need to shut off the media, shut off the TV, shut off aything that in any way supports them, and spend time with our families, and instruction in Gods laws, and making the God and the family the center of our nation again! Then and only then will we even have a chance of God hearing out prayers!
  • 1
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • 
    Whitebird mbm • 6 minutes ago
    
    And hope
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • 
    Arizona_Don mbm • 18 minutes ago
    
    • −
    
    I may pray for my country but I will never pray for obama! His goal as I see it is to destroy this country! Therefore I will neither pray for him or wish him well. If someone considers that racist so be it! I do not care.
    
    
  • Show 1 new reply
  • 12
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›

ACID FLASHBACK: Mary Landrieu Said She Would Be 100% Accountable for Obamacare

By Clash Daily / 17 November 2013

In 2009 Mary Landrieu Said She Would Be 100% Accountable for Obamacare.
See more: gopthedailydose.com

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/11/acid-f...pRAPOXwrieT.99

These people we have elected are nothing but moronic puppets, God help us!!!!

Amnesty so Illegals Can Enroll in Obamacare

Posted on November 17, 2013


We seem to give more to illegals than anyone else.
Check it out:

A Colorado Democrat who wanted Obamacare waivers for some of the country’s wealthiest patrons of ski resorts wants the law’s individual mandate to apply to today’s illegal immigrants, which can only happen if they are given a pathway to citizenship.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) said on Friday that the House should pass comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for all of the country’s illegal immigrants so they could get on Obamacare.

“American citizens are essentially being forced to pay for the health care costs of people who are here illegally every day, until we pass comprehensive immigration reform,” he said. “We’re wondering why rates are going up… It’s no surprise. When somebody doesn’t have insurance, their costs are shifted onto other people that do.”
Continue Reading on www.breitbart.com ...

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2013/11/amnesty-so-illegals-can-enroll-in-obamacare/#cKuUdsVqhBZfhO6Z.99

more here


America's Voice Now Radio with Michael Evans

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2l1NkyhsM
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Uh... I'd call that Treason... So we should wreck the US economy on a grand scale so that Obamacare can flourish? What kind of idiot would suggest such a thing? Colorado Democratic Representative Jared Polis. His bill HR15 had better fail. Call YOUR rep, 202-224-3121 and tell them to scrap HR15 and charge Polis with High Crimes and Misdemeanor.



Legalizing illegal immigrants is the solution to Obamacare: Democrat


By Stephen Dinan

-
The Washington Times
Friday, November 15, 2013
Rep. Jared Polis said Friday the key problem with health care right now is that illegal immigrants aren’t included in Obamacare, and said part of the solution is to pass a bill granting them citizenship rights.

The House is debating a GOP-written bill that would allow Americans to keep their health plans that have been canceled under Obamacare, but Mr. Polis, a Colorado Democrat, said the chamber should instead be looking at ways to make sure everyone in the country is covered by the Affordable Care Act — including illegal immigrants.

“American citizens are essentially being forced to pay for the health care costs of people who are here illegally every day, until we pass comprehensive immigration reform,” he said. “We’re wondering why rates are going up. … It’s no surprise. When somebody doesn’t have insurance, their costs are shifted onto other people that do.”

Illegal immigrants are one of the few categories of people in the U.S. who aren’t subjected to Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring all people to have health insurance coverage. They also aren’t eligible for taxpayer subsidies to buy insurance on the health exchanges, nor are they supposed to be getting assistance under Medicaid.

But Mr. Polis said leaving them outside of the health mandate means that they end up using emergency care, but don’t end up paying their own bills — leaving the rest of the country to pick up those costs.

He said the solution is to pass House Democrats’ bill, which would grant a long-term pathway to citizenship for most illegal immigrants. The legislation is known by its bill number, House Res. 15

“If we can pass HR, 15 people who are here illegally will have to get insurance on their own instead of forcing Americans to pay for their insurance,” Mr. Polis said.

His comments come two days after House Speaker John A. Boehner ruled out taking up a broad bill such as the one Democrats wrote. Mr.Boehner said the House will operate on its own timeline and won’t even enter into negotiations with Senate Democrats on their broad legalization bill.

The issue of how to handle illegal immigrants and health care has dogged both the health debate and the immigration debate.

Indeed, a bipartisan group trying to negotiate a broad immigration bill in the House failed in part because the lawmakers involved couldn’t agree on how to handle health care costs associated with illegal immigrants who would be granted legal status.

The Congressional Budget Office said that passing the Senate’s version of the immigration bill, which would legalize illegal immigrants and expand legal immigration by granting millions of new green cards, would end up costing $82.3 billion over the next decade in higherObamacare subsidies.

But those would mostly be going to new legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for Obamacare until after they gain green cards, which would come in a decade.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2l1NFQfcc
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

THANKS JACKASS: Sen. Gillibrand: ‘We All Knew’ Obama’s Health Care Pledge Wasn’t Accurate

By Clash Daily / 18 November 2013


Published on Nov 18, 2013
Sen Kirsten Gillibrand Say They All Knew Obama Was Lying
Obamacare Lies - NY Sen: We All Knew Pledge Wasn't Accurate - Pelosi Defends Obama Over Obamacare

Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand wasn’t surprised when Americans began to get letters saying their health insurance policies had been canceled.
Mrs. Gillibrand, New York Democrat, said Sunday that President Obama simply should have been “more specific” when he declared that those people who liked their insurance could keep it, a pledge that clearly has been broken amid growing reports of Americans being booted from their plans because the insurance policies don’t comply with the standards in Obamacare.

“We all knew,” Mrs. Gillibrand said on ABC’s “This Week,” referencing the fact that she and many others were fully aware that Obamacare would result in cancellations.

Read more: washingtontimes.com

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/11/thanks...zM5ODYWc1d3.99