Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Politically Incorrect Facts

June 9, 2015

One of the few people courageous enough to be politically incorrect is Ann Coulter and she does it simply by stating facts – with an “in-your-face” attitude. For this progressive transgression she is scorned and demeaned, but rarely are her facts proven wrong. Currently, she is a voice of reason warning of the danger runaway illegal immigration brings but, unfortunately, far too many people are wrapped up in political correctness to listen.

From Ann Coulter

Although you will miss the lush analytical context of the full case made in my smash new book, “Adios, America : The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole”, here are some more startling facts from my book that the anti-American crowd doesn’t want you to know:

Our ludicrous “anchor baby” policy was invented out of whole cloth by Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote in a Supreme Court opinion in 1982…If an illegal alien drops a baby on American soil, the entire family can access welfare programs that were supposed to be for U.S. citizens…On average, college graduates in the United States pay about $30,000 more in taxes each year than they get back in government services, while those without a high school degree get back about $35,000 more in government services than they pay in taxes…Only about 7 percent of Americans do not have a high school diploma…about 75 percent of illegal aliens do not have a high school diploma…after Israel completed a fence along its border in 2013, the number of illegal aliens entering the country dropped to zero (Contrary to repeated assertions that fences don’t work)… In 2010, New York state prisons held more than 4,000 inmates from 10 Latin American and Caribbean nations, and fewer than 150 inmates from all of Western Europe…There are already more Hispanics than whites in two states, New Mexico and California…

Read more here: IMMIGRATION ADVOCATES FRIGHTENED BY 99-POUND BLONDE

DJH

Survival of Obamacare Will Require More Mandates

November 14, 2013

In order for Obamacare to exist, the oppressive “mandate” for all to purchase insurance needed to be re-defined as a “tax” by the Supreme Court, but it remains a mandate nonetheless. Now that the rollout of Obamacare is proving to be a disaster, more flaws are coming to light and the only way to fix them will be with more government mandates.

Obama is being forced (particularly by Democrats running for election) to fulfill his promise that we can keep the insurance plans and doctors that we have. For that to occur, insurance companies that already cancelled millions of plans will have to re-instate them. That will require a law mandating those insurance companies to do so.

When insurance companies re-instate those plans they may have to increase coverage to meet Obamacare requirements which would raise the cost. Since many want to keep those policies because of low cost, another mandate will be needed to control the cost of those plans in order for people to actually be able keep those plans – or perhaps a mandate to eliminate those existing requirements.

Enrollment in Medicare since the Obamacare rollout is increasing and they will join with new Obamacare enrollees to tax (no pun intended) the existing medical system. There has already been a trend among doctors to refuse Medicare patients because of low reimbursements, so only a mandate to force doctors to accept Medicare patients can stop that trend.

This will eventually result in a shortage of doctors which can only be fixed by mandating that patients must first see a doctor’s assistant or nurse before getting an appointment with a doctor. The Obamacare excise tax on the medical device industry will surely have other unintended consequences requiring fixing by mandate.

The only way to make people do what they don’t want to do is by government mandate – ask the USSR, China, North Korea, Syria, or any other despotic regime. People are finally waking up to find they do not want Obamacare. The choice is between more mandates or repeal (followed by sensible comprehensive health care reform) and the next elections will let you decide.

David J. Hentosh

Mandate = Tax = Mandate = Tax

June 28, 2012

One could probably argue that a tax is actually a form of mandate. It doesn’t seem to have been included in any dictionary or thesaurus as such, but following the synonym tree may eventually reach a branch that contains “mandate”. The reverse, however, has never been considered in the same way – until now.

The Supreme Court has redefined “mandate” as “tax” even after President Obama and his attorneys assured all that it wasn’t. The Supremes’ backs must surely be aching after bending so far to uphold the Obamacare “Mandate/Tax”. The decision is stunning in its “nuance”.

Will this now be considered a tax increase or will “mandate” continue to be substituted in reference to Obamacare? Will voters recognize that taxes have been increased (by the Supreme Court no less) and that a precedence has been set for further “mandates” from this administration – or any administration – concerning almost anything? Will we be paying a federal income tax or federal income mandate?

The path a slippery slope takes is always surprising. It should come as no surprise, however, when the health insurance many now obtain through the company they work for is no longer offered. Why should it be? It is included in your taxes mandates and you’ll only get the coverage the government deems necessary. Obama’s promise of being able to keep the coverage you have was just a “nuanced” explanation.

Publishers of dictionaries and thesauruses are now scrambling to print new and improved versions, sure to also include Obama’s nuanced definition of “illegal” and “law”. Perhaps their stocks will rise as private insurance company’s stocks fall. It’s all so very taxing mandating to think about.

David J. Hentosh

Supreme Court Kick-starts Immigration Reform

May 26, 2011

The comprehensive immigration reform promised, yet undelivered, by Obama may have actually begun taking shape with Thursday’s Supreme Court decision. The direction it provides, however, is not one Obama will be happy with.

From the LA Times

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave Arizona and other states more authority to take action against illegal immigrants and the companies that hire them, ruling that employers who knowingly hire illegal workers can lose their license to do business.

The 5-3 decision upholds the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 and its so-called business death penalty for employers who are caught repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The state law also requires employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new workers, a provision that was also upheld Thursday.

Thursday’s decision is a defeat for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several civil-rights groups and the Obama administration, all of whom opposed the Arizona law and its sanctions on employers. They argued that federal law said states may not impose “civil or criminal sanctions” on employers.

Read more here:  Supreme Court Ruling

DJH

Supreme Court Opens Pandora’s Box in California

May 24, 2011

The sweeping social experiment that California has embraced over the years has now reached a peak that, conversely, could prove to be its bottom. Following a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, tens of thousands of prisoners in California are to be released due to overcrowding which the court says has caused “needless suffering and death”. There was no consideration given to the “suffering and death” of the victims of those prisoners.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy rationalized this move by saying the court had no choice because prison overcrowding has “fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements”. The ruling not only ignores the option of giving prisons more time to fix the problem, it ignores a federal law designed to limit the power of federal judges to release prisoners. It seems the notion of “Supreme” has gone to the heads of five judges.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the ruling “staggering” and “absurd”, predicting that “terrible things are sure to happen” because of it. That, obviously, is much too forward thinking for the majority of five who seem oblivious to any consequences. They are just proud to be so “progressive” and see no danger.

Proving to many that the ruling is absurd, the ACLU totally agreed with the judgment. The director of the ACLU national prison project said: “reducing the number of people in prison not only would save the state taxpayers half a billion annually, it would…lower recidivism rates and create safer communities”. Following this logic, communities would be even safer if all prisoners were released and the state could save all the money it spends on prisons – and there would be no recidivism because there would be no prisoners.

Pandora’s Box is now open in California and the social experiment is in full swing. The Supreme Court has given us a taste of its ideology that will surely surface again when illegal immigration comes before it and amnesty is granted. Some of those released prisoners will end up getting a double-dip of the Supreme Court’s idea of “justice for all”.

David J. Hentosh