Did Illegal Surveillance Pass Laws in USA?


John R. Houk

© July 14, 2017

 

I realize there are a lot of unsubstantiated Conspiracy Theories out there. Because of this Conspiracy Theories are much like the old story of a Boy who Cried Wolf. In this day and age of television, video games, laptops, etc.; parents may not share classic stories like Aesop’s Fables that end with a learning moral. The moral of the Boy who Cried Wolf is if you tell an alarming lie all the time, when you tell the alarming truth, no one will believe you.

 

Deciphering the credible from the incredible Conspiracies brings up the Boy who Cried Wolf scenario in believability. I have unappreciated disagreements with Conspiracy Theory enthusiasts about the credible and incredible.

 

The current Deep State conspiracy to bring down the Trump Administration by any lying means necessary is remarkably credible hence believable.

 

The sad thing about this anti-Trump conspiracy is that a huge swath of Americans that ONLY get their information from the primary Mainstream Media (MSM), televised or print, are probably duped into believing President Trump is a corrupt criminal. The problem is the MSM is a part of the Deep State cabal conspiring against President Trump and the agenda he was elected to perform.

 

Ergo, if the MSM actually tells the truth about some info, their dishonesty has been so pervasive, I can’t believe them. AND YOU shouldn’t believe their wolf crying either.

 

Thanks to the Winning America Now e-newsletter, I have discovered some Deep State info that Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed into being the deciding Justice in validating Obamacare.

 

What was the possible dirt collecting method against Chief Justice Roberts? Illegal surveillance by the CIA and/or NSA perpetrated by the Obama Administration.

 

In full disclosure of the credibility/incredibility scale, one of the sources involved in making this public is former Sheriff Joe Arpaio who nearly convinced me that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. Arpaio made some very credible assessments of Obama’s Birth Certificate validity. **

 

** On a personal level of opinion, I believe Obama was indeed born in Hawaii rather than Kenya. However, sometime between Hawaii to Indonesia and back to Hawaii, something hinky happened with Obama’s citizenship status. It is my opinion that Obama’s citizenship records were thus messed up in the travels that may have even gotten him into Occidental College as a foreign exchange student. For me this explains the suspicious Birth Certificate and the reasons Obama school records from childhood through college have been sealed from public exposure. That’s my conjecture and not a proven fact.

 

Below is the illegal Obama surveillance story that if true, should cause a huge Constitutional crisis with Obama forcing an unconstitutional law into constitutional validity via clandestine blackmail.

JRH 7/14/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

EVIDENCE: Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Was ‘Hacked’ By Obama Officials

 

By Patrick Howley, Editor-in-Chief

July 12, 2017 8:07 am EST

Big League Politics

 

Evidence shows that John Roberts, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, was “hacked” by a Deep State surveillance operation overseen by Obama administration CIA director John Brennan and Obama director of national intelligence James Clapper.

 

Roberts, the Bush appointee who made the decisive vote to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare before the 2012 election, was allegedly the victim of the same Deep State surveillance program that spied on President Donald Trump.

 

Tapes released by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow — preserved on a Whistleblower Soundcloud page — show real estate billionaire Timothy Blixseth explaining Brennan and Clapper’s surveillance program to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and detective Mike Zullo. The existence of this surveillance program has been corroborated by Wikileaks’ “Vault 7” release and by the public comments of former CIA and NSA contractor Dennis Montgomery, who says he worked on the program for Brennan and Clapper.

 

Montgomery has gone public with his claims exposing how the program was used to spy on President Donald Trump when he was a private citizen. Montgomery has gained immunity and desperately wants House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes or other lawmakers to call him to testify about what he knows.

 

On the explosive tapes, Blixseth walks Arpaio and Zullo through the details of the program on a computer screen. At one point, the three begin pulling up specific names of targeted individuals.

 

“You know who that guy is? That’s the head of the FISA court they hacked into, Reggie Walton,” Blixseth tells the investigators.

 

“John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, was hacked,” Blixseth tells Arpaio and Zullo.

 

LISTEN TO THE TAPE HERE (18:00 Minute Mark)

 

Insiders have always been skeptical of Roberts’ motives for siding with President Obama on the 2012 Obamacare case. While there’s still no available evidence that Roberts was blackmailed, the allegation that he was “hacked” by Obama officials provides some more context into the justice’s controversial career.

 

As Big League Politics reported, former FBI director James Comey seized and buried volumes of information that demonstrated this wide-ranging government surveillance operation targeting Donald Trump before he became president.

 

Larry Klayman, attorney for former NSA and CIA contractor and whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, delivered to the FBI 47 hard drives and data amounting to more than 600 million pages of documentation on the surveillance scheme. Then-FBI director James Comey’s general counsel James Baker took the data into his possession, according to multiple sources. But despite possessing Montgomery’s bombshell whistleblower revelations, Comey never acted on or publicized the information.

 

Additionally, Comey’s former firm Lockheed Martin granted entry to Montgomery to one of its facilities to help him work on the alleged mass surveillance program, which was allegedly overseen by Obama administration officials John Brennan and James Clapper and specifically targeted Trump.

 

“This guy showed me 900 million phone calls. And I see myself in there. I see people I know. I see Donald Trump in there a zillion times, and Bloomberg is in there,” Blixseth said on the tape, referring to information that Montgomery allegedly showed him.

 

“We don’t have any comment,” the FBI told Big League Politics when questioned about the existence of the program.

 

“I provided to the FBI seventeen businesses of Donald Trump, including the Trump Tower, the Trump leasing programs, all of these different programs, and including Trump himself and the various family members that had been wiretapped under these programs,” Montgomery said in a recent interview. “There has been a wiretap on Trump for years.”

 

“I started by going to Maricopa County and showing that Sheriff Arpaio himself was wiretapped under the Obama administration,” the whistleblower said.

 

“I was a CIA contractor both under John Brennan and under James Clapper and these individuals were running domestic surveillance programs in the United States collecting information on Americans. This isn’t political. They were collecting information on Republicans and Democrats. But they collected everything they could find. Bank accounts, phone numbers, chats, emails, and they collected a massive amount of it under the Obama administration,” Montgomery said.

_____________________

Did Illegal Surveillance Pass Laws in USA?

John R. Houk

© July 14, 2017

__________________

EVIDENCE: Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Was ‘Hacked’ By Obama Officials

 

© 2017 Big League News

 

About Big League Politics

 

Big League Politics is a fast-paced news site led by a team of top-level investigative reporters, filmmakers, and citizen journalists all over the country. We challenge powerful politicians in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. We are not conservative. We are not liberal. We are road warriors fighting the good fight for journalism. How did this happen? It happened because the mainstream media and corporate journalism outlets are bought off by shady interests and they don’t tell the truth. We got sick and tired of it. That’s why most of our writers are completely incapable of getting a job anywhere else.

 

Our Ethics

 

  1. All stories on Big League Politics are factually accurate.

 

  1. All stories on Big League Politics are in the public interest. We don’t suck up to politicians. We expose corruption and give people the best information on the politics of the day. If we’re reporting it, then it’s important.

 

  1. No target is too big or too small. If someone has broken the public trust, we will be there in his/her face with a video camera.

 

  1. We let our writers have a voice. It is not our job to agree with everything that our writers say. But free speech is under attack at most publications and we think that’s wrong. At Big League Politics, censorship is READ THE REST

 

The First Freedom


Justin Smith captures the essence of SCOTUS joining the American Left to destroy Christianity in a stealthy slow whittling manner.

JRH 7/6/15

Please Support NCCR

************************

The First Freedom

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/4/2015 1:41 PM

Natural law – God’s law – will always trump common law. God will have the final word in this matter.” – Alveda King, a Christian leader and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece

The Supreme Court’s recent egregious and error-filled ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, favoring homosexual marriage, has seriously endangered the liberty of all Americans, through its gross distortions of the documents fundamental to American liberty. This ruling, facilitated by five Progressive Justices acting like oligarchs, created through judicial decree a previously non-existent “constitutional right” to sin-based “gay marriage,” and it showed all Americans that they can never again trust in the rulings of the Court, when Liberty hangs in the balance.

The First Freedom — Religious Liberty — is currently in crisis, because the many activist federal judges and “conservative” Justices, like Anthony Kennedy, are willing to move Left, even if they must defy the Constitution. Too many conservatives have refused to stand in defense of religious liberty, and they follow rules that Democrats ignore, as these Progressives unfold their Machiavellian plan. If religious liberty can be undone by decree, and the people allow it, then so too can every other liberty be undone.

The Framers of Our Constitution thought that Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” and would provide “a complete security against the justices’ deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.” [The Essential Federalist Papers; Edited by Steve Straub; The Federalist Papers Project; 10/3/13; Federalist 81- pg. 24 of document – pg. 25 of PDF] But, with Congress currently lacking will and backbone, any prospect of impeachment is virtually non-existent and still offers no remedy.

In March of 1788, Robert Yates, a New York judge, published the ‘Anti-Federalist Papers’ under the name “Brutus.” [You can find the text to all Brutus Anti-Federalist essays HERE.] He noted that the Supreme Court would favor the increase of federal power at the expense of the states [Blog Editor’s opinion: These Brutus essays are must reads to ascertain Justin Smith’s exegesis of Robert Yates’ on SCOTUS, the States and Legislature – XI, XII, XIII and XV], just in the manner we now see state laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman recently eradicated. Brutus also worried that SCOTUS could use its interpretive “principles, whatever they may be” to explain its own power and define that of the legislative branch through the threat of having its laws declared unconstitutional; so the precedent of Obergefell v. Hodges portends terribly evil events surrounding any future legislation on abortion or marriage.

Justice John Roberts’ dissent proves the truth of Brutus’s words:

“The majority’s ruling is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution … The majority expressly disclaims judicial ‘caution’ and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice.'” [Entire Roberts Dissent]

Isn’t it curious and sickening that homosexuality, considered a mental disorder throughout the 1970s by the American Psychiatric Association and considered perverted and criminal by society until this century, is now supposedly acceptable, with homo-marriage “a constitutional right”?

Obergefell v. Hodges effectively nullified the votes of 50 million Americans, representing 60% of votes cast on the matter to date, and negated their affirmation that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus, five Black Robes — the Court — trampled on the constitutional authority of the American people and our elected representatives to make marriage policy.

In part, Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing dissent stated [Search Page: “SCALIA, J., dissenting]:

“The five Justices … have discovered in the 14th Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds … John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand … Hugo Black … could not. ,,, These Justices know that an institution [marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman] as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until fifteen years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance and bigotry. … The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause would conclude that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, “gay marriages”; however, while the First Amendment guarantees the freedom to “exercise” religion, the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges omits any mention of the free exercise clause, suggesting only that the Keepers of the Faith may continue to “advocate” and “teach” our views of marriage.

Without a doubt, a total purge of America’s Judeo-Christian principles and values is underway in the public square and our education systems, and this “gay marriage” and sodomite deviancy nonsense is nothing more than a move to force Christ’s faithful, under penalty of law to abandon Biblical Truth and accept sexual sin in their midst, with the endgame essentially being the silencing of all Christian dissent: I will not let them silence me.

Pat Buchanan recently asked (in ‘Quo Vadis’),

“Does moral truth change? Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?”

Todd Starnes (Fox News Radio) recently reported that Linda Barnette, from Grenada County-Mississippi, left her County Clerk position after 24 years of service, rather than issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. She wrote, “I choose to obey God rather than man,” in her one paragraph resignation letter. Unfortunately, the Court Clerk of Rutherford County, my home, did not have the same moral compass, resolve and strength of conviction, issuing homosexual “marriage licenses” immediately.

This homo-marriage ruling comes straight from Hell’s abyss, even though it supposedly still protects religious liberty. Aside from creating new furious debate, this ruling will also increase Christian persecution, through Leftist Progressive lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals, like Cynthia and Robert Gifford, who recently appealed a $13,000 fine they received for refusing to host a “gay wedding” at their privately owned Liberty Ridge Farm (Albany, NY) in June, as they argue that the lower court did not consider their constitutional freedoms and religious beliefs.

More than equality under the law — more than toleration — the “gay” community wants to force all Americans to validate their immorality. And, as such, Christians must refuse to comply with any ruling that forces us into any unwanted association with homosexuals, and we must demand that Congress restrains the Court by defunding it, if necessary: America — do not obey this rogue Court’s ruling.

Christians must tell the truth and fight back hard, if they don’t want to become second class citizens. Tell about a nation founded on Religious Freedom and rights that don’t end the moment we leave church, and fight for the 70% of Americans who claim to be Christians. Tell about the raw hatred for Christians that is driving the illiberal Progressives to crush religious freedom just as Marx and Engels mandated, and fight for religious freedom acts in all fifty states in order to counter today’s open warfare on Christians by the Left.

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

America Rising


It is gratifying there are Patriots in America displeased with an unconstitutional SCOTUS. Justin Smiths shares some thoughts on the Obamacare subsidy ruling and the Same-Sex Marriage ruling.

JRH 6/28/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

America Rising

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/27/2015 9:30 PM

“The Liberties of Our Country … are worth defending at all hazards … We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors … purchased … with toil … and expense of treasure and blood. — It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation … if we should … be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” – Samuel Adams

Two-hundred and thirty-nine years of freedom and liberty and the American Heritage, as that “shining city on the hill,” a beacon and a place of safety for all peoples that offers a glimmer of hope for a better future and a better tomorrow, are coming to a grinding halt. With Congress moving America towards transnational fascism (TPA) and the Supreme Court acting in a lawless fashion concerning Obamacare – King v. Burwell – and the issue of same-sex marriage, the “land of liberty” is facing the greatest challenges of its entire history.

The majority of Americans stand for American interests to be first and foremost in our foreign policies, and we oppose globalism. We believe this country has the right and obligation to secure Her borders, Her sacred Heritage and Her values. And we believe in a small constrained federal government, with its inevitable corruption confined within the limited role set for it by the Founding Fathers.

When the Supreme Court can arbitrarily decide to provide alternative and false meanings to words written and passed by our elected representatives and ignore other laws, in order to align with the goals and agendas of whoever happens to be in power, we are on the road to tyranny, like it or not.

As noted on June 25th by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia _ a true Son of Liberty:

(On Obamacare) “We should start calling this SCOTUSCare … this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The summersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax … ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

On June 26th Scalia stated his concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision removing state bans on homosexual/gay marriage:

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy … Today’s decree says that … the ruler of 320 million Americans coast to coast is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

In Katie Pavlich’s Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right, the observation is made that Chief Justice John Roberts’ accusation that the Court acted “out of preference” is “an interesting description considering he did the same thing on King v. Burwell.”

Former Governor Mike Huckabee’s assessment on this egregious mess coincides with Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent. Huckabee said: “They [the Justices] didn’t rule on any existing law. They simply redefined marriage”; and Roberts stated: “The majority’s decision was an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

Marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is a part of America’s core traditional value system. Our ancestors were mostly Christian, and, as such, the majority of Americans have understood marriage as set forth in the Bible. They also hold fast to God’s commandment in Leviticus 18:22 _ “Man shall not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination.”

The Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage is nothing less than an attempt to force Christianity out of America’s public square and underground, as the Far Left moves to culturally transform America. Chief Justice Roberts pointedly observed: “As a result the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

All of these disgusting anti-liberty, anti-American developments moves me to tell the fascist Progressives of both parties “You don’t belong here.” Go find a place where the people welcome the idea of a permanent ruling class. There are plenty of them out there, but it’s not here.

Take your tools in the press, your sycophant followers, the poltroons and quislings, your socialist pipedreams and your Hell called “Utopia”. Take your self-serving transnational vision of one borderless world, united under your thumb. That might be fine for others, but it’s not for the Sons and Daughters of Liberty still living in America.

Whatever the motives of Obama and the five Progressive activist Justices, America cannot allow itself to be dragged down into the dung heap of totalitarianism, as a result of the majority’s misapplication of clauses like “due process”, aimed at affording substantive rights at the expense of ‘liberty’ and through a distortion of the principles on which this Nation was founded. Our path can only be up to man’s age-old dream and the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.

The sole thing tyranny fears is the truth, and therein lies a sworn mission for each of us. All who believe in liberty must do everything to convince their fellow Americans of the importance of a conservative path towards freedom. Tell the truth to the good people of the United States, and through that revelation, restore America to the greatness She was founded to attain.

There is a God, and this God of all Creation would prefer us to be free. That means He must love this country, not so much for what we’ve allowed it to become, but deeply for what it was once meant to be.

However, there is a never ending war being waged for the heart of America — because true Evil cannot be stopped and the truly Good will not be moved. [This] is a battle that must be won or lost every day, by one side or the other, and no less than the fate of free mankind hangs in the balance.

The outcome may still be in question, but I know where I stand. To those yet undecided, there’s a place here beside me or out there against me, once you’re moved to make up your mind.

Rise up America and let Liberty’s dimmed light once more burn bright. It awaits an awakening, so this one nation and the love of true Liberty at its heart can be restored to Her old glory. America demands much of those that hear the call, and the first hard thing it asks is courage.

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled Obamacare subsidies are just fine. Remarkably Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Leftists and a Centrist to pat Barack Hussein Obama to tell him it was just fine to keep screwing up America.

TODAY SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal in ALL 50 States in the Union based on the 14th Amendment that assured former slaves as equal citizens with equal rights. I wonder if those Northern States that ensured Freedom for Black-Americans would think that the 14th Amendment’s intent would be used to justify the ungodly abomination of homosexual marriage. This time Chief Justice Roberts went with the godly side but was a part of four losing Justices that lost out to four thumbing their noses Leftist Justices and Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy placed the USA in a dangerous spiritual position in the eyes of God Almighty.

Late last night Robert Smith submitted a post expressing his displeasure with how the three constitutional Branches of our Federal government are forsaking the Constitution. Smith concludes that the unconstitutional government movement will lead to one of two actions: 1) America’s Constitution gets a reset button of Original Intent at the ballot box. 2) Barring the peaceful action of the ballot box, a Revolutionary War-style rebellion will occur with the Americans that are tired of the tyranny of the ungodly Left.

After the Robert Smith post I’m going to cross post the informative story I find most relevant to the Sodomizing of America by five ungodly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

The Constitution is being ripped asunder by the POTUS and the SCOTUS. The POTUS is determined to destroy our country. This is so the Transnational Bankers, Global Politicians and Islamists will have an easier task of subjugating the people of our country and making them accept a NWO and Islam as the one true religion.

In the SCOTUS you have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes the Constitution has out lived its usefulness. [And we have] one Elena Kagan, who believes the Constitution should be supplemented by Sharia Law. And Chief Justice John Roberts who perceives himself as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

They have taken the most sought after health care in the world, emasculated it and made it so costly no one can afford it. The number of citizens who did not have health care prior to O-Bama Care was so small they could have been provided governmental health care paid for, many times over, by the billions already spent by O-Bama Care.

It makes me heartsick to see the country and the Constitution I fought for in three wars so maligned so corrupted by those who have never turned a finger to protect our country and our way of life. This must be corrected. How? I do not have the answers, but I hope it is by the ballots and not the bullets.

We have a Congress that is doing very little to better the situation. They must be replaced by true Conservatives, those who truly love our country.

Most of our voters do not comprehend the serious nature of the problems facing our country today. They are lackadaisical when it comes to checking the backgrounds of those we choose to represent us. They continue to send to Congress people who have only their own selfish interests in mind. This must be stopped!!

To vote for a Liberal only ensures the continuation of the situation we now have. The liberals must be replaced by true Conservatives and not by the many RINOs – Republican In Name Only – that we now have serving in Congress; i.e. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and the list goes on.

I hope to see a peaceful change in the direction our country is following but I do hope to see a change!!!!

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

By Ryan Anderson

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. His amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu­ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun­damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriage makes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the oppor­tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar­riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a ques­tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques­tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘under­standing of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This delib­erative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “[i]t is one thing for the major­ity to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray every­one who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

In conclusion, because the Court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Recommended Citation: Ryan Anderson, Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 4:28 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

SUPREME COURT: ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ LEGAL NATIONWIDE – By BOB UNRUH; WND; 6/26/15

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human natureLife Site News; 6/26/15 10:19 am EST

SCOTUS Endorses Same-Sex MarriageBy John J. Bastiat; The Patriot Post; 6-26-15

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justicesBy Ben Johnson; Life Site News; 6/26/15 1:14 pm EST

SCALIA: MARRIAGE RULING ‘THREAT TO DEMOCRACY’ – By ART MOORE; WND; 6/26/15

___________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

 

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

 

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

Tony Newbill Emails 1/7 to 1/12/14


NWO Globalists

Tony Newbill is the pseudonym for one of favorite Conspiracy Theory authors. I haven’t gotten an update from him in some time. If I had to guess a reason it would be because I haven’t posted any of his emails for some time. Below is a series of emails that date back to January 7, 2014. Obviously there is a chance some of the information might be outdated but I am betting Conspiracy dudes will still be intrigued. Hopefully Tony Newbill will see the post and begin sending me more Conspiracy Theories to keep up with that world that many scoff at, many believe and many are intrigued by the possibility.

 

JRH 3/23/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************

USDA Gives Green Light to 2,4-D Resistant GM Crops

Sent: 1/7/2014 7:02 AM

 

http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/01/03/usda-gives-green-light-pesticide-promoting-gm-crops/#.UsgNl8RDv2Q

 

The USDA has issued a draft statement essentially giving the green light to the marketing, sale and planting of GM corn and soybeans resistant to the hazardous herbicide 2,4-D.

 

Farm, food safety, health and environmental advocates denounced the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which essentially gives the agency’s green light to the marketing, sale and planting of new varieties of genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybean designed to be resistant to the hazardous herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).

 

Sustainable Pulse would like to remind readers that Australia banned the use of 2,4-D HVE in 2013 over environmental concerns.

 

USDA’s “preferred” determination that 2,4-D corn and soy need not be regulated under the Plant Pest Act comes despite intense opposition over the past two years from farmers and over 400,000 other individuals and more than 150 farm, fishery, public health, consumer and environmental groups and private businesses. The agency’s release of its draft EIS today opens a 45-day public comment period.

 

Critics contend that cultivation of the new GE corn, developed under the brand name “Enlist” by Dow AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical Company, will lead to dramatically increased use of 2,4-D, damage to non-GE crops—especially fruit and vegetable crops—and adverse effects on farmers’ livelihoods, as well as rural communities’ health and environments.

 

 

“American farmers and our families are at risk,” said Iowa corn and soybean farmer, George Naylor. “When Dow and Monsanto first brought out these GE crops, they assured us their new, expensive seeds would clean up our environment and reduce pesticide use. That didn’t happen. Today weeds are resistant to RoundUp, so farmers are using older, more deadly herbicides. 2,4-D corn is a giant step backwards; it’s just a terrible idea.”

 

“Enlist” corn is one of 8 herbicide-resistant GE crops pending approval by USDA. The others are herbicide-resistant varieties of soybeans (5), cotton (1) and creeping bentgrass (1). Two of these (soy and cotton) have been engineered to be used with dicamba, another notoriously drift-prone herbicide closely related to 2,4-D and known for easily damaging farmers’ non-GE crops. In 2013, USDA rapidly approved 7 other herbicide-resistant GE seeds, as the agency sought to speed up its GE crop approval process.

 

“GE herbicide-resistant seeds are clearly the growth engine powering the pesticide industry,” noted Pesticide Action Network senior scientist, Marcia Ishii-Eiteman. “These seeds are part of a technology package explicitly designed to drive up herbicide sales. By continuing to rubber-stamp its approval of Dow and Monsanto’s latest products, USDA has abandoned its responsibility to safeguard American farmers’ crops, health and livelihoods.”

 

 

Medical studies have linked 2,4-D and related herbicides to increased rates of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, low sperm counts in farmers and birth anomalies in their children. 2,4-D has also been shown to cause READ ENTIRETY

 

Toxic heavy metals in your food? Natural News Forensic Food Lab announcement

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnnTQaCbayk

 

VIDEO: Toxic heavy metals in your food? Natural News Forensic Food Lab

 

Posted by TheHealthRanger

Published: Jan 6, 2014

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All Norwegians become crown millionaires, in oil saving landmark

Sent: 1/10/2014 8:56 AM

 

All Norwegians become crown millionaires, in oil saving landmark, so why can’t the US Government JUST Balance the Budget???????

 

http://news.yahoo.com/norwegians-become-crown-millionaires-oil-saving-landmark-172511178–sector.html

 

OSLO (Reuters) – Everyone in Norway became a theoretical crown millionaire on Wednesday in a milestone for the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund that has ballooned thanks to high oil and gas prices.

 

Set up in 1990, the fund owns around 1 percent of the world’s stocks, as well as bonds and real estate from London to Boston, making the Nordic nation an exception when others are struggling under a mountain of debts.

 

A preliminary counter on the website of the central bank, which manages the fund, rose to 5.11 trillion crowns ($828.66 billion), fractionally more than a million times Norway’s most recent official population estimate of 5,096,300.

 

It was the first time it reached the equivalent of a million crowns each, central bank spokesman Thomas Sevang said.

 

Not that Norwegians will be able to access or spend the money, squirreled away for a rainy day for them and future generations. Norway has resisted the READ THE REST

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does all of this create an environment of trust???????

Sent: 1/11/2014 10:55 AM

 

 How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare 

 

http://www.libertycaucus.net/forum/index.php?topic=113.msg755

 

[Blog Editor: My Internet protection software blocked access to the above link. Either security issues have been recognized or a concerted effort to block the data has occurred or at least for me. I found an article with the same title from Conservative Political Forum which is probably the same as the LibertyCaucus.net article.]

 

INTRO:

Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent.

According to some sources, Roberts wrote both the majority and a large portion of minority dissenting opinions.   The liberal news outlet Salon.com has a story on July 3, 2012, “Roberts Wrote Both ObamaCare Opinions”, written by law professor Paul Campos, citing “a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process.”

 

 

Roberts Adoptions:

In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish.  Why this matters will become evident.

In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts (sic) life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush.  The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process… however there is more to the story.

 

 

How were the Children Adopted?

According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts’s sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption.

As explained by Families for Private Adoption, “[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency.”2

 

 

It all now makes sense.

The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure.  Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.

This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.

… And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government.  Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

Fukushima Debris Peaks On West Coast – Thousands exposed!

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/01/fukushima-debris-peaks-on-west-coast-thousands-exposed-2871210.html

 

 

According to resistanceunited.com at no time are volunteers offered protective clothing or even a warning that they may be involuntarily exposing themselves and their children to radio-active material. The only warning they get is in the form of waiver. Of course as far as the government is concerned the California volunteers are perfectly safe and use the word “unlikely” even though no real data has been taken that can assist the volunteer in making an informed choice.

 

There is a fierce debate between citizens and government about whether debris from the Japanese Tsunami is radioactive or not.  Private citizens with radiological detecting equipment say beaches and debris are radioactive, while the government sources maintain a veil of secrecy and guarded words about radiation. They hide behind the voice of the Japanese Tsunami Marine Debris Joint Information Center which promises to bring the public the latest information, but was last updated in December 2012! Volunteers are told it is “unlikely” debris washing up in California will be radioactive.  They are also told that testing is being done which shows “no elevated levels of radioactivity”.  They are reassured that California Emergency Management has “qualified emergency responders ready to help” if volunteers come across anything dangerous. By that time it will be too late to safe-guard their health.

 

 

These volunteers have cleaned up millions of pounds of debris from California’s coastline in the last three years since the Japanese Tsunami.  This work was accomplished in everyday clothing with bucket in hand.  None of the citizens were provided protective gear just in case debris turned out to be radioactive.  Please read the full story here:

 

http://theresistanceunited.com/2014/01/09/thousands-flock-to-clean-up-radioactive-beaches/ (READ ENTIRETY)

 

 

McDonald’s poised to embrace new GMO potato farming in 2014 and beyond

http://www.naturalnews.com/043419_McDonalds_GMO_potatoes_French_fries.html##ixzz2q6riX0GP

 

(NaturalNews) A new variety of genetically modified potato could show up in Idaho as early as 2015.

Nearly 13 years ago, customers revolted against Monsanto’s transgenic NewLeaf potato, which contained synthetic bacteria to kill insect pests. Now, a new company, J.R. Simplot Co., aims to bring back genetically modified potatoes to the state and elsewhere.

The Idaho Potato Commission, representing Idaho’s $3 billion potato industry, is in support of the new GMO potato variety but is wary of customer opposition. “Unless your customers are prepared to embrace this product, it’s not going to be successful,” said Frank Muir, president of the Commission.

McDonald’s on the other hand has a financial interest in the new GMO potato business.

McDonald’s vast influence could spur widespread new GMO potato farming

 

With a global daily production of 9 million pounds of fries a day, McDonald’s is looking for better ways to lower the cost of processing potatoes for fry production. This business move may encourage and embrace new GMO potato agriculture, spearheaded by their very own potato distributor, none other than Simplot.

Simplot has come up with a new “Innate” brand of potatoes that don’t use synthetic bacteria. Instead, their variety effectively silences potato DNA to … READ THE REST

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

End the Federal Reserve and let WE the people make our own Decisions

Sent: 1/12/2014 1:25 PM

 

End the Federal Reserve and let WE the people make our own Decisions about how to spend our Money Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Back before the Federal Reserve Act, the lack of getting information out to the public so there could be the ability to make decisions in a real time basis and react to Institutional Criminals. This was why fraud and cronyism with the people’s money ran amuck and thus ushered in the Federal Reserve.

 

It’s not 1913 anymore!!!!!  In today’s Information age we can get Information in real time so informing the public on their monetary issues and making decisions on how we the people’s money should be handled can be done by the society through their engagement in real time with their representatives and get rid of this ideology of Monetary policy that’s run aground the Peoples wealth and resource development!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This guy makes the case for a return of financial responsibility over Monetary Policy and that should Be the Responsibility of We the People NOW before it is too late!!!! To Hell with all these PACs, we need REAL People that will LISTEN to We the People and when we say END the Fed – END IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It’s always about OUR MONEY so LET’S TAKE OUR MONEY BACK AND DO WHAT
WE THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It’s time to END this Being a Victim to a Bunch of STUPID IDEOLOGUES WITH OUR MONEY. Always having to be on the defensive instead of Being a Productive Society producing OUR OWN NEEDS and showing Our families that This is the Only way to Survive and be proud of that fundamental Liberty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Hidden Gold Taxes

http://danielamerman.com/course/bwTWOj3x.html

 

The Golden Solution For Inflation

 

Many investors and financial commentators will tell you that there is no need to read a mini-course in order to learn how to turn inflation into wealth. They say the solution can be found in two words: BUY GOLD.  (Or as some say: BUY SILVER.)

 

I like gold and silver. Gold or other precious metals should likely play a role in the portfolio of any investor who’s concerned about high rates of inflation or the possibility of a currency meltdown.  Depending on your situation and beliefs, there is a case for precious metals related investments composing at least 5% to 10% of your portfolio on the low-end, up to 60% or 70% of your assets on the high-end.  The reason for precious metals is that in a time of crisis there two distinct, essential investment attributes that precious metals can deliver better than just about any other asset in the world.

 

 

Adding Taxes

 

Through placing her money in what is conventionally considered one of the safest possible investments, during a time of high inflation, Kate has lost 50% of her net worth. This is terrible, of course, but at least she should be able to get a nice tax deduction out of this $50,000 loss. Except that when it comes time to fill in her tax return, she starts with $100,000 in her money market fund, and ends with $100,000 in principal in her money market fund. As far as the government is concerned — there is no loss to be deducted.  Kate still has every dollar she started with.

 

Jack decides to lock in his gains by selling his gold investment, redeploy most of his newfound wealth into some new investments, and maybe take a little out to reward himself for having made such a brilliant investment.  When it comes time for Jack to fill in his tax return, it shows that he bought his gold for $100,000 and he sold it for $200,000, thereby generating a $100,000 profit. Effectively, the government looks at Jack’s having dodged the its (sic) destruction of the value of the nation’s money, and says “Great move Jack, you made a lot of money!  Now give us our share.”

 

Even in bullion form, gold is currently taxed as a “collectible” in the US, with a 28% capital gains tax rate, or almost twice the long-term capital gains tax rate on investments that the financial industry and government prefer.  We’ll call it 30% to allow for some state capital gains taxes, and to keep the numbers round.  However, this rate is not sufficient to cover government spending, as the federal government is currently running enormous deficits, as are the states and municipalities (particularly when we take into account not only declining tax collections but the pension fund crisis).  So it is reasonable to expect potentially much higher taxes in the not-too-distant future, both in the US and other nations. …

 

 

Turning Gold Into Lead

 

From a gold investor’s perspective, $2,000 an ounce gold may seem like a dream come true. And when we look at the results, $100,000 turning into $200,000, gold does look like a great investment. Until we remember that the reason gold went to $2,000 an ounce was because of inflation and we adjust our investment results for inflation.  We break even.  While not a net improvement relative to today, this outcome is highly desirable compared to what happened to Kate. Gold did indeed act as “real money”.

 

Unfortunately, we then run into one of the most deeply unfair and little understood aspects of inflation and investing in anticipation of inflation. Government fiscal policy destroys the value of our dollars. Government tax policy does not recognize what government fiscal policy does, and is blind to inflation. This blindness means that attempts to keep up with inflation generate very real and whopping tax payments, on what is from an economic perspective, imaginary income.

 

These taxes turn gold from a shimmering dream to a lead weight around our neck, and mean even a successful inflation hedge can lead to a devastating loss in net worth in after-tax and after-inflation terms.

 

So how do we deal with this lead weight of inflation taxes around our neck, trying to READ ENTIRETY

 

We should NOT have to just Prepare for the END!!!!!! This is America for CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

All Roads Lead To Collapse

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_6oSNLHDG0

 

Posted by DEMCAD

Published: Jan 10, 2014

_________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Brackets indicate additions by the Editor

 

© Tony Newbill

Defending The American Dream


obama-roberts hi 5

I cross posted what Erick Erickson had written about Chief Justice John Roberts joining the Left on SCOTUS in affirming Obamacare is Constitutional legislation. Roberts voted with the Left with the proviso that Obamacare cannot force funding by forcing citizens to pay a penalty to the government for not purchasing a product. The product in the case is government mandated insurance. Roberts’ majority opinion indicates thus Obamacare cannot be based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as was the original intention of the Obamacare legislation (Officially known as Affordable Care Act).

 

The only way Obamacare can be Constitutional is as a TAX. Thus, John Roberts attempted to make Obamacare an issue Congress deals with instead of the Courts. At the time I thought Erickson’s analysis of Roberts joining the Leftist Justices was good insight.

 

I was going through my email (I am always behind), I discovered Justin Smith’s take on Chief Justice Roberts joining the Leftist Justices affirming Obamacare. I am now of the opinion that Roberts’ decision had good intentions; HOWEVER by making the penalty for not getting mandated insurance a tax Roberts opened a can of worms that could justify Congressional taxation in future forced penalties the might require Americans to buy a product.

 

Justin Smith has an excellent point.

 

JRH 7/17/12

Please Support NCCR

John Roberts – I’m Not Down on John Roberts


Swearing in of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Erick Erickson of RedState.com defends Chief Justice John Roberts voting siding with the Leftist Justices as part of a greater political/Constitutional chess match concerning the future of Obamacare. Then Erickson qualifies his reasoning.

 

This is how I am going to present Erickson’s thoughts. I am posting the email then the post that is linked to within the email. Both the emails are a near match but the minor differences deserve to be read. I would not be surprised if the RedState.com post is edited to bring some clarity to Erickson’s thoughts.

 

JRH 6/28/12

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

John Roberts

 

By Erick Erickson

Sent: June 28, 2012 11:14 AM

Sent by RedState.com

 

Dear RedState Reader,

 

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision.  Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.

 

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

 

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

 

Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

 

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

 

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

 

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

 

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, I will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

 

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

 

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

 

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

 

Read my full thoughts here.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Erick Erickson
Editor,
RedState.com

________________________

I’m Not Down on John Roberts

 

By Erick Erickson (Diary)

June 28th at 11:35AM EDT

RedState.com

 

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.

 

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

 

Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

 

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

 

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

 

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone.

 

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, I will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

 

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.

 

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

 

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now. Snowe gave it bipartisan cover coming out of committee, but she actually wasn’t the deciding vote.

_____________________________

© 2012 Redstate, Inc., 2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

About


On July 11, 2004, Josh Trevino, Ben Domenech, and Mike Krempasky turned on the lights at RedState, then RedState.org.

 

Shortly thereafter, Erick Erickson and Clayton Wagar signed on to help out and the site took off as the singular hub of conservative grassroots collaboration on the right.

 

Today, RedState is the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill, is the most often cited right of center blog in the media, and is widely considered one of the most influential voices of the grassroots on the right.

 

RedState was the first national political site to tout and endorse Marco Rubio for his Senate bid in Florida. We put Doug Hoffman on the national conservative radar in New York. Across the country we find grassroots candidates and work hard to get them elected.

 

At RedState, we are conservatives in primaries and Republican in general elections and we aim to win.

 

RedState’s day to day efforts are READ THE REST