CONSERVATIVE RIGHT- "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.": March 2013

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Founding Father's Quote

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grant[s] a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison, 1794

EPA Unveils Regulations That Will Increase Gas Prices

EPA Unveils Regulations That Will Increase Gas Prices
on Sat, 30 Mar 2013

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its "Tier 3" rule to lower sulfer in gasoline by 2017 that critics said would make national gas prices go up like gas prices in California, a state already burdened by similar environmental regulations.

Daniel Simmons, of the American Energy Alliance, said the rule would cause gasoline prices to skyrocket nationally like they have in California.
"California already has these type of regulations which is part of the reason why California’s gasoline prices are 40 cents a gallon above the national average," Simmons said. "The Tier 3 rule is one more example of the administration’s desire to increase energy prices for Americans. It is never 'common sense' to drive up gasoline prices when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet."

As The Hill notes, "the new requirements for vehicles and fuels include a mandate that refiners cut the sulfur content of gasoline by more than 60 percent to 10 parts per million in 2017." The rule is intended to "improve the performance of catalytic converters."

The American Petroleum Institute (API) argued "the measure will increase the cost of gasoline production by up to nine cents per gallon, for little benefit" while the Obama administration said gas prices would increase by one cent per gallon.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said that "increases in gas prices disproportionately hurt the nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families," and the Obama Administration could not be more "out of touch" with the concerns average Americans.

The Hill noted Gina McCarthy, the "EPA’s top air quality official," will be grilled on this rule when the Senate holds hearings on her nomination to lead the EPA.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the top Republican on the committee (Environment and Public Works) responsible for McCarthy's nomination, said the new rule signaled a "frightening flood of new rules under the potential Gina McCarthy-led EPA and represents one of a litany of likely regulations that require transparency to justify both the costs and the benefits."

U.S. Army Says No Purple Hearts for Ft. Hood Victims

U.S. Army Says No Purple Hearts for Ft. Hood Victims
on Sun, 31 Mar 2013

On March 29 the U.S. Army decided not to award Purple Heart medals to the victims of the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting, claiming that giving them medals would damage Major Nidal Hasan's "ability to receive a fair trial."

The Army issued a "position paper" in which it expressed concern that awarding the medal to the shooting victims "would set the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist." And this is because the Purple Heart is awarded to those who have been "wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States."

Neal Sher, a New York-based attorney representing Ft. Hood victims, says the Army's excuse for denying the Purple Hearts is "rubbish." Sher adds: "This is cynical travesty. The only thing the government has done is guarantee anything done to help the victims will effectively impair and prevent Hasan's prosecution."

On Nov. 5, 2009, Hasan opened fire on a group of soldiers preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. He killed 13 and wounded 32 before he was shot and stopped. He faces the death penalty if convicted of premeditated murder before a military jury.

How to fight the left-wing hate machine | Mobile Washington Examiner

Judging from the oral arguments in the two gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court this week, it appears the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be ruled unconstitutional on federalism grounds, and that the court will punt on California's same-sex marriage law, effectively allowing every state to define marriage as it wishes.

Freedom Quote

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy

Saturday, March 30, 2013

The Federal Government Is Grabbing Unprecedented and Dangerous Raw Power | CNS News

The seizing of power is not always accomplished by military coup or even at the ballot box. As the old saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat, some being so subtle and gradual, flying below the radar and stealthily creeping piecemeal into society in the guise of benefiting the "greater good" that by the time a slumbering society is awakened to the danger, it is firmly entrenched and extremely powerful.

The early stages of such takeovers seldom affect the whole of society at any one time. It's accomplished by fostering confusion, class envy and the feeling that somebody is not paying their "fair share," that there are people who don't want the masses to have a level playing field, don't want poor people to have health care or adequate food and housing and the problems of the underclass are all their fault.

A public which is mostly convinced that the system needs changing and don't really mind the painful ones as long as it's "them" not us that it happens to, not realizing that the pain will eventually fall on them, also.

Can it happen in America? The answer to that is that it's already happening in America.

The unchallenged presidential fiat, a legislative body too politically expedient or just too lazy to fully read or comprehend the bills they pass, giving too much latitude to government agencies run by appointed bureaucrats with some idealistic ax to grind.

The give an inch, take a mile regulation of agencies that turn out reams of meaningless caveats make breaking their petty rules all but impossible.

The purchase of heavy-duty weapons, armored vehicles and millions of rounds of ammunition by Homeland Security, an agency with no mandate to raise an army, especially one to be deployed on American soil.

The first small harbingers of Obamacare are starting to show their heads and, bit by bit, as America's health care nightmare unfolds, citizens will begin to understand how inept, corrupt and incompetent our government has grown. Then, apathy will turn to anger, and anger to frustration, as these and other manifestations of Obama's power-grab start to manifest themselves.

The impassioned plea for gun control, banning certain calibers of firearms and magazines is only the beginning in the incremental disarming of America and as each increment is enacted they will move quickly on to the next phase until, like prewar Germany and many other nations who learned the hard way, law-abiding citizens will be left without protection.

You only need talk to a logger in Oregon, or a fisherman in New England to find out how restrictive and many times silly some of the restrictions these desk jockeys can come up with really are.

America's Coal Belt is being decimated, not just an industry, but also a way of life, as generations of miners are being uprooted by Obama's war on coal. Not a "let's find a way to make this work" attitude, mind you, but a "coal is dirty and needs to go now" attitude that's having disastrous effects on a region that has had its share of trouble.

In my opinion, the military of the United States is being systematically looted via budgets cut to the detriment of our readiness, retirement of experienced officers and the slowing of the research and development of new weapon systems that would keep our fighting forces up with, or ahead of, our enemies.

Raw power is being handed over to the federal government in unprecedented and dangerous amounts and, once the power becomes strong enough, the true purposes will be exposed as America succumbs to the very dictatorial system it fought against for a century.

Do you think I'm wrong?

Let's both hope so.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Survey: Economic Pessism On The Rise As Obama’s Approval Declines « CBS DC

Friday, March 29, 2013

FLASHBACK: President Reagan on Judeo-Christian Heritage: â€˜Here in America, Religious Beliefs Are Central to Our Founding Principlesâ€™ | CNS News

FLASHBACK: President Reagan on Judeo-Christian Heritage: ˜Here in America, Religious Beliefs Are Central to Our Founding Principles | CNS News

(CNSNews.com) – On April 17, 1981 President Ronald Reagan issued a statement on the “Celebration of Passover and Easter.”

“This weekend, people across the world will join in holy celebrations, drawing spiritual sustenance from their worship,” Reagan said. “Here in America, religious beliefs are central to our founding principles.

“We draw special strength from our unity as a people who trust in God, and from the lessons for us and our children in our rituals,” Reagan said.

“Saturday night, Jewish people everywhere will sit with their families and friends for the celebration of Passover—a celebration of freedom,” Reagan said. “Beginning with the traditional Seder meal, Passover is rich with tradition and symbolism.

“Its observance reminds us that the fight for freedom and the battle against oppression, waged by Jews throughout their history, is one of which all free people are a part,” Reagan said.

“Beginning today and culminating on Sunday morning, Christians will celebrate with their families the resurrection of Christ, His victory over death,” Reagan said. “We will remember that He gave His body and His blood—washing clean the faults and the shortcomings of the world.

“In our rejoicing we will renew the hope that is ours through the risen Lord,” Reagan said.

“Nancy joins me in extending to all who celebrate Passover or Easter our warmest wishes for a time filled with joy and spiritual fulfillment and our hope that one day men and women everywhere will be able to worship God in the manner of their choosing,” Reagan said.

Energy security in America - chicagotribune.com

Enough dawdling. Obama should approve the Keystone pipeline.

The president should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would link the rich oil sands in the Canadian province of Alberta to U.S. refineries and ports in the Gulf of Mexico. Last Friday evening, 17 Democrats joined all of the U.S. Senate's Republicans in urging Obama to do just that. The 62-37 vote was nonbinding but signaled bipartisan frustration with the administration's reluctance to approve the project.

The president is expected to make a decision by this summer. He rejected a Keystone plan a year ago, in the midst of his re-election campaign. That was applauded by some environmental groups and angered the Canadian government. But the most significant impact was this: It kept Americans from getting good-paying jobs.

The U.S. has made great strides toward energy independence, thanks to conservation efforts and an incredible boom in exploration for domestic oil and natural gas. A recent report from Citigroup projected the U.S. could become North American energy independent by 2020. That is, this nation could get all of its energy from the U.S. and Canada.

The U.S. would no longer be reliant on supplies from the volatile Middle East. This country would become a net exporter of oil, and lower energy costs would help to fuel broad economic growth.

But those projections depend on the U.S. making the right decisions about supply and consumption.

One of those decisions is approval of the Keystone pipeline.

Why Not Separate Marriage and State? - John Fund - National Review Online

Why Not Separate Marriage and State? - John Fund - National Review Online

Cultural civil war can be avoided by getting government out of marriage!

There is no question that the media, political, and cultural push for gay marriage has made impressive gains. As recently as 1989, voters in avant-garde San Francisco repealed a law that had established only domestic partnerships.

But judging by the questions posed by Supreme Court justices this week in oral arguments for two gay-marriage cases, most observers do not expect sweeping rulings that would settle the issue and avoid protracted political combat. A total of 41 states currently do not allow gay marriage, and most of those laws are likely to remain in place for some time. Even should the Court declare unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, we can expect many pitched battles in Congress. The word “spouse” appears in federal laws and regulations a total of 1,138 times, and many of those references would have to be untangled by Congress absent DOMA.

No wonder Wisconsin’s GOP governor Scott Walker sees public desire for a Third Way. On Meet the Press this month he remarked on how many young people have asked him why the debate is over whether the definition of marriage should be expanded. They think the question is rather “why the government is sanctioning it in the first place.” The alterative would be to “not have the government sanction marriage period, and leave that up to the churches and the synagogues and others to define that.”

Governor Walker made clear these thoughts weren’t “anything I’m advocating for,” but he gave voice to many people who don’t think the gay-marriage debate should tear the country apart in a battle over who controls the culture and wins the government’s seal of approval. Gay-marriage proponents argue that their struggle is the civil-rights issue of our time, although many gays privately question that idea. Opponents who bear no animus toward gays lament that ancient traditions are being swept aside before the evidence is in on how gay marriage would affect the culture.

Is America Still a Good Country? | CNS News

Is America Still a Good Country? | CNS News

"Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

So wrote Alexis de Tocqueville.

Yet, judged by the standards of those old "pulpits aflame with righteousness," is America still a good country?

Consider the cases taken up this week by the Supreme Court.

In one, the court is asked to rule on California's Proposition 8, where voters declared marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. In the second, the court is asked to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal support for same-sex marriages.

Whatever their beliefs, the justices, one trusts, will leave this to the states and people. For Roe v. Wade, where seven justices found the right to an abortion lurking in the penumbras of the Ninth Amendment, poisons our politics to this day. We don't need a re-enactment of that civil war.

PAUL: A duty to preserve the Second Amendment - Washington Times

When Congress reconvenes next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring gun control back to the Senate floor. If this occurs, I will oppose any legislation that undermines Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms or their ability to exercise this right without being subject to government surveillance.

Restricting Americans’ ability to purchase firearms readily and freely will do nothing to stop national tragedies such as those that happened in Newtown, Conn., and in Aurora, Colo. It will do much to give criminals and potential killers an unfair advantage by hampering law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves and their families.Potentially on the table are new laws that would outlaw firearms and magazines that hold more than just a handful of rounds, as well as require universal “background checks,” which amount to gun registration.We are also being told that the “assault weapons” ban originally introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein is not happening. We can only hope. But in Washington, D.C., bad ideas often have a strange way of coming up again.

Tubby Tyrant Kim Jong Un tosses his weight around; vows North Korea rocket strikes on Washington and Texas - Washington Times

Kim Jong Un tosses his weight around; vows North Korea rocket strikes on Washington and Texas - Washington Times

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is vowing to hit specific points on America’s mainland: Washington, Los Angeles - and Austin, Texas.

He’s also promised to strike Hawaii, Guam and South Korea, Fox News reports.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama - Washington Times

Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.

The government said the recession ended in 2009, The Wall Street Journal reports, but enrollment in the food stamp program didn’t wane, as would be expected in an improving economy. Since 2008, it’s been on a steady rise, The Journal reports.

Laffer and Moore: The Red-State Path to Prosperity - WSJ.com

You can tell a lot about prosperity in America by observing the places people are moving to and where they are packing up and moving from. New Census Bureau data on metropolitan areas indicate that the South and the Sunbelt regions continue to grow, while the Northeast and Midwest continue to shrink.

Among the 10 fastest-growing metro areas last year were Raleigh, Austin, Las Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte, Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio and Dallas. All of these are in low-tax, business-friendly red states. Blue-state areas such as Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Providence and Rochester were among the biggest population losers.

This migration isn't accidental. Workers and business owners are responding to clear economic incentives. Red states in the Southeast and Sunbelt are following the Reagan model by reducing tax rates and easing regulations. They also offer right-to-work laws as an enticement for businesses to come and set up shop. Meanwhile, the blue states of the Northeast, joined by California, Minnesota and Illinois, are implementing the Obama model of raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy to fund government "investments" and union power.

The contrast sets up a wonderful natural laboratory to test rival economic ideas.

Consider the South. We predict that within a decade five or six states in Dixie could entirely eliminate their income taxes. This would mean that the region stretching from Florida through Texas and Louisiana could become a vast state income-tax free zone.

US ECONOMY EXPANDS AT 0.4 PERCENT RATE

News from The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. economy grew at a slightly faster but still anemic rate at the end of last year. However, there is hope that growth accelerated in early 2013 despite higher taxes and cuts in government spending.

The economy grew at an annual rate of 0.4 percent in the October-December quarter, the Commerce Department said Thursday. That was slightly better than the previous estimate of 0.1 percent growth. The revision reflected stronger business investment and export sales.

Analysts think the economy is growing at a rate of around 2.5 percent in the current January-March quarter, which ends this week.

Steady hiring has kept consumers spending this year. And a rebound in company stockpiling, further gains in housing and more business spending also likely drove faster growth in the first quarter.

The 0.4 percent growth rate for the gross domestic product, the economy's total output of goods and services, was the weakest quarterly performance in almost two years and followed a much faster 3.1 percent increase in the third quarter. The fourth quarter was hurt by the sharpest fall in defense spending in 40 years.

For all of 2012, the economy grew 2.2 percent after a 1.8 percent increase in 2011 and a 2.4 percent advance in 2010. Since the recession ended in mid-2009, the economy has been expanding at sub-par rates as a string of problems from higher gas prices to Europe's debt crisis have acted as a drag on the U.S. economy.

Growth appears to be strengthening this year even after taxes increased on Jan. 1 and automatic government spending cuts totaling $85 billion started to take effect on March 1. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the combination of tax increases and spending cuts could trim economic growth this year by about 1.5 percentage points. The CBO is predicting just 1.5 percent growth for 2013.

But so far, the economy is showing signs of holding its own against the fiscal drag.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

SCOTUS May Throw Out DOMA Cases Due to DOJ Refusal to Defend

SCOTUS May Throw Out DOMA Cases Due to DOJ Refusal to Defend
on Wed, 27 Mar 2013

The Supreme Court’s justices spent a full hour in today’s DOMA case, U.S. v. Windsor, debating whether the case should be in court at all.

In each DOMA lawsuit—including Windsor—the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) has a responsibility to defend DOMA against a constitutional challenge. But President Obama declared that he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered DOJ not to defend it.

The justices discussed whether this means no federal court has jurisdiction to decide the lawsuit. Article III of the Constitution only gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide a “case or controversy.” As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, an essential element of this is that the lawsuit must be adversarial, meaning both parties try to win the case by making a good-faith argument to persuade the court to side with them.

When the plaintiffs sued to get DOMA struck down, DOJ made it clear they wanted the plaintiffs to succeed.

DOMA is defended by Paul Clement and lawyers hired by the U.S. House, but they are not the defendants in this case. The Court must decide if the Constitution allows anyone to step into the shoes of the actual defendants.

As Justice Antonin Scalia noted today, when a defendant agrees with a plaintiff, typically a federal court will only enter a consent judgment, making it official that the parties agree to something and will be bound to continue abiding by that agreement. The Court does not have the power to then consider striking down a law—any law.

If that happens here, all the current DOMA lawsuits would be dismissed, and DOMA would remain on the books until Congress repeals it or a new administration tries to defend it in court.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski filed briefs for social scientists in the marriage litigation at the Supreme Court.

Dr. Ben Carson fights back against 'Uncle Tom' attack - Washington Times

If Same-Sex Marriage Is a ˜Right,' There Are No Rights | CNS NewsA

If Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right,' There Are No Rights | CNS News

The old adage that one lie leads to another is never more apparent than when modern American public officials deal with issues arising from sexual immorality.

President Bill Clinton, for example, started a chain of lies when he decided to have an adulterous relationship with a White House intern.

Clinton first lied to his wife, then to a federal court, then to the American people.

Nor could Clinton's lies, delivered as president, be his lies alone. His partisans in Congress either had to abandon him or add another link to the chain of lies by declaring that perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court, so long as they were intended to cover up presidential adultery with a White House intern, were not the sort of high crimes and misdemeanors that ought to be considered impeachable offenses under the Constitution of the United States.

Yet, as corrosive as Clinton's perjury was to the public understanding of right and wrong and true liberty, it was not as corrosive as the left's current crusade to get the Supreme Court to declare same-sex marriage a "right."

Clinton's perjury was at least predicated on the assumption that people not only would see his behavior with a White House intern as a transgression against marriage, but also that they ought to do so.

If they are to succeed in their cause, those who now claim that same-sex marriage is a "right" must eradicate from American law and society the true — and only sustainable — rationale for any right at all.

That, of course, is that rights are immutable things that come from God — that they are part of the natural moral law that all men and all nations have an inescapable duty to obey.

The Founding Fathers of this nation not only believed in the natural law created by God, but insisted it was the justification for the United States becoming a nation.

The "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," they said, "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station" of an independent state.

Sessions slams Leahy for immigration rush | The Daily Caller

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republicans on the Senate’s banking committee, is pushing back at Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy’s newly publicized commitment to rapidly push a massive immigration rewrite through the Senate’s judiciary committee.

“No member of Congress who believes in democratic procedure can acquiesce to the ramming through of a thousand-page bill that will dramatically and directly impact the taxes, wages, and security of our constituents,” Sessions said in a statement to The Daily Caller.

The pending Senate bill would provide amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants, ease immigration by their extended family members, and allow companies to bring in large number of guest workers for unskilled and professional jobs.

Egyptian mosque turned into house of torture for Christians after Muslim Brotherhood protest | Fox News

Islamic hard-liners stormed a mosque in suburban Cairo, turning it into torture chamber for Christians who had been demonstrating against the ruling Muslim Brotherhood in the latest case of violent persecution that experts fear will only get worse.

Such stories have become increasingly common as tensions between Egypt’s Muslims and Copts mount, but in the latest case, mosque officials corroborated much of the account and even filed a police report. Demonstrators, some of whom were Muslim, say they were taken from the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in suburban Cairo to a nearby mosque on Friday and tortured for hours by hard-line militia members.

Government should get out of the marriage business - The Week

By Edward Morrissey | March 26, 2013

his week, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that could lead to decisions changing the traditional definition of marriage. That definition, let's remember, is based on thousands of years of Western culture in which such a union has been between one man and one woman. The justices might change that definition to a union of any two adults.

Polls show that the acceptance of same-sex marriage in the United States has rapidly increased in just a single generation. Politicians in both parties have begun jumping on an expanding bandwagon, beginning last year with Joe Biden in the middle of a presidential campaign (which momentarily left his boss twisting in the breeze). Barack Obama later "evolved" from his previously stated opposition to same-sex marriage to support of it, though at the time, Obama declined to provide any direct action to change the definition of the institution.

"Me Too" Republicans | RealClearPolitics

Many ideas presented as "new" are just rehashes of old ideas that have been tried before -- and have failed before. So it is no surprise that the recent "Growth and Opportunity Project" report to the Republican National Committee is a classic example of what previous generations called "Me too" Republicanism.

These are Republicans who think that the key to winning elections is to do more of what the Democrats are doing. In effect, they say "me too" on issues such as immigration, in hopes of gaining more new votes than they lose by betraying their existing supporters.

On same-sex marriage: Tolerance. Remember the word? - chicagotribune.com

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Same-Sex Marriage

Opponents of gay marriage demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday as the justices take up the question of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex matrimony in California before a lower court overturned it. (Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg photo / March 25, 2013)

John Kass

March 27, 2013

With the issue of same-sex marriage argued before the Supreme Court and raging elsewhere in America, a question:

Is it possible to be a traditional Christian or Muslim or Orthodox Jew — and hold to one's faith on what constitutes marriage — and not be considered a bigot?

And is faith now a problem to be overcome, first marginalized by the state and then contained, so as not to get in the way of great changes to come?

JOHN KASS
Bio | E-mail | Recent columns
MAPS
U.S. Supreme Court Building, 1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543

Ads by Google

The issue of same-sex unions is by nature contentious and divisive. It is not merely about equal protection under the law, but redefining the foundation of our culture, which is the family itself.

It's not my intention to add to the anger and the noise. If you've followed the news of the crowds outside the Supreme Court this week, and watched those vicious little boxes within boxes on cable TV, with angry people barking at each other, you'll get plenty of noise.

I'm not angry. Yet I am struggling. And I've been silent on the subject for some time, trying to figure it out.

I'm not opposed to same-sex unions. Americans have the right to equal protection under the law, and same-sex couples should be able to expect the same tax benefits and other considerations allowed to those of us who are now being called, in some quarters, "opposite-sex couples."

As far as I'm concerned, Americans have the right to do as they please as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. America is all about liberty and freedom.

Sebelius: Yep, ObamaCare is raising insurance costs

A watershed moment in the ongoing disaster of ObamaCare, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally admits that health insurance premiums are rising because of the President’s health insurance takeover, per the Wall Street Journal:

Ms. Sebelius’s remarks come weeks before insurers are expected to begin releasing rates for plans that start on Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of the health law kick in. Premiums have been a sensitive subject for the Obama administration, which is counting on elements in the health law designed to increase competition among insurers to keep rates in check. The administration has pointed to subsidies that will be available for many lower-income Americans to help them with the cost of coverage.
The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. She noted that the law requires plans to provide better benefits and treat all customers equally regardless of their medical claims.
“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”
Ms. Sebelius added that those customers currently pay more for their health care if their plans have high out-of-pocket costs, high deductibles or exclude particular types of coverage, such as mental health treatment. She also said that some men and younger customers could see their rates increase while women and older customers could see their rates drop because the law restricts insurers’ ability to set rates based on age and gender.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

SCALIA: 'WHEN DID IT BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO EXCLUDE HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES FROM MARRIAGE?'

SCALIA: 'WHEN DID IT BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO EXCLUDE HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES FROM MARRIAGE?'

by BREITBART NEWS 26 Mar 2013, 12:47 PM PDT 56 POST A COMMENT VIEW DISCUSSION
In oral arguments before the Supreme Court Tuesday, Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly pressed Ted Olson, the attorney advocating same-sex marriage, over the issue of when exactly marriage, as it is defined in most states today, became unconstitutional:

"We don't prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination: "When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson asked.

"Well, how am I supposed to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.

"Because in the case that's before you today, the citizens of California decide — after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California — then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married."

DIAZ: Same-sex marriage in the dock - Washington Times

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will commence its two-day consideration of oral arguments in the cases challenging the people’s right to define marriage as it has always been: the union between one man and one woman. Marriage supporters will also gather today for a march from the Mall to the Supreme Court to celebrate marriage and send one message to the justices: We do not need another Roe v. Wade.

Forty years ago, the nation was having a healthy, robust debate about the beginning of life and abortion when the Supreme Court decided to play judicial despots and cut short the process envisioned by our Founding Fathers to invent a new constitutional right to abortion. That dark day, a 7-2 majority of the nine men in black robes decided for the entire country the fate of more than 50 million unborn lives lost through abortion to date and countless women scarred physically, emotionally and spiritually by their “choice.” The American people were robbed by the Supreme Court of the ability to struggle and come up with the best solution to address the concerns of all its citizens.

Few would debate — even among “pro-choice” legal scholars — that the infamous Roe decision is one of the worst tragedies in modern American jurisprudence.

Now once again, the justices stand before that same mountain. The marriage cases before them offer the same allure to “bring progress.” Or, as the other side continues to advertise, the court can be “on the right side of history.” The reality is that these cases should be very simple for them. They should show the judicial restraint envisioned by our Constitution and, having learned from the mistakes of the past, they should allow the American people to continue to struggle and reach consensus on the issue of homosexual “marriage.”

Those who support the biblical model of marriage indeed want the debate. That is the only thing we are asking of the court. Yet radical homosexual marriage supporters are asking the court to once again interject itself into the debate and cut it short. They want the nine justices to impose their will on the entire country by judicial fiat.

The justices should refuse.