Conflicting Court Rulings May Have Big Implications for Employer Mandate

Within a few hours of each other, two federal appeals courts issued conflicting rulings on Obamacare. The final outcome could have major implications for employers.

The legal question of involves whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows people to receive subsidies for health plans purchased on federally-run exchanges—covering 34 states and the District of Columbia–or only through state-run exchanges. In a 2-1 decision, the DC Circuit ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that under the law, only those buying through state-run exchanges are eligible.

Judge Griffith wrote in the court’s split opinion:

The fact is that the legislative record provides little indication one way or the other of congressional intent, but the statutory text does. Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available only on Exchanges established by states. And in the absence of any contrary indications, that text is conclusive evidence of Congress’s intent.

Judge Randolph concurred:

[A]n Exchange established by the federal government cannot possibly be “an Exchange established by the State.” To hold otherwise would be to engage in distortion, not interpretation. Only further legislation could accomplish the expansion the government seeks.

A few hours later, in King v. Burwell the 4th Circuit unanimously upheld those same subsidies:

For reasons explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying deference to the IRS’s determination, however, we uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.

Why is it important to know who is eligible for a health plan subsidy? As the DC court’s Judge Edwards explains in his dissent, it triggers the employer mandate, [emphasis mine]:

Specifically, the ACA penalizes any large employer who fails to offer its full-time employees suitable coverage if one or more of those employees “enroll[s] . . . in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable tax credit . . . is allowed or paid with respect to the employee.” (linking another penalty on employers to employees’ receipt of tax credits). Thus, even more than with the individual mandate, the employer mandate’s penalties hinge on the availability of credits. If credits were unavailable in states with federal Exchanges, employers there would face no penalties for failing to offer coverage. The IRS Rule has the opposite effect: by allowing credits in such states, it exposes employers there to penalties and thereby gives the employer mandate broader reach.

No subsidies, no employer mandate penalties.

Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute health policy expert, estimates that if the Halbig ruling stands, more than 250,000 firms would not be subject to the employer mandate.

There is no immediate change to the law, since the courts are a long way from settling the subsidies question. There will be appeals, other courts may weigh in with additional rulings, and since two circuit courts issued conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court may hear the case. Also, Congress could pass a bill to clarify the law. Not likely in the current political environment but possible.

What we do know is that the employer mandate imposes complex reporting costs and isn’t necessary. At the same time it gives employers the perverse incentive of either not hiring workers or hiring part-time workers instead of full-time ones. Obamacare is a law packed with problems that needs to be fixed in order to have a health care system that has high quality, expanded access, and lower costs.

Follow Sean Hackbarth on Twitter at @seanhackbarth and the U.S. Chamber at @uschamber.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (A.K.A. “Obamacare”) in 2010. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

Growing Concern that Diseased Illegals are Headed to Florida

Florida resident Carol Hartman in an email to Congressman Daniel Webster voicing concerns that illegals are being housed in Orange County, FL asks:

What are you doing about this?

They are housing these illegals right in our own Apopka at the Hope Community Center. Not sure if your district covers the physical location of this center, but it really doesn’t matter, these illegal aliens are still in FL. Your vote/support or lack thereof affects everyone, so district doesn’t really matter. I do not see your name as a co-sponsor listed [on House Resolution 675] in the link below. Have you since joined as a co-sponsor since this article was written?

Please read the other [World Net Daily] article re: the seriousness of all kinds of diseases that are being spread throughout this country, jeopardizing our lives. You know they don’t sterilize the airplanes between flights, so who knows how many innocent people are carrying these diseases home to spread around.

After you read that article, the only conclusion you MUST come up with is to deport these illegals. The American citizens are not requesting anymore, we are demanding action, for our very lives are at stake.

Thank you for taking a positive stand for the American citizens.

EDITORS NOTE: The Hope CommUnity Center denies it is a “processing center”.

It appears Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Department of Health have the same concerns as does Hartman. The following letter from the Florida State Surgeon General was sent on July 18, 2014 to HHS and FEMA.

 July 18, 2014

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary                                              Craig Fugate, Administrator
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services                       Federal Emergency Management Agency
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.                                                   U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20201                                                                     500 C Street SW Washington, DC 20472

Secretary Burwell and Administrator Fugate:

The Florida Department of Health has received unconfirmed reports that the federal government is bringing unaccompanied minors from the border to Florida today. On July 17, we received unconfirmed information that dozens of children were being brought by plane into Miami on Friday. This same day, ABC news reported that “the federal government is so overwhelmed by the current tide of migrants crossing the border it cannot provide basic medical screening to all of these children before transporting them, often by air, to longer-term holding facilities across the country.” (Feds Struggling to Cope with Medical ‘Breakdown’ at the Border, ABC News, July 17, 2014.)

Specifically, ABC News reported that your Health and Human Services Department’s Director of Refugee Health said you, “identified a breakdown of the medical screening processes.” This breakdown was described in the news report as “a systemic failure of the handoff of these children between Customs Border Protection (CBP) and Health and Human Services (HHS).”

If these reports are accurate, this “systemic failure” in the federal system is extremely worrisome. In order to fulfill my duties as Florida’s State Surgeon General, I am asking you to immediately provide the below information. This information is urgently needed to guard the health and safety of Florida communities across our state and is vital to the well-being of those children from the border who may have come through the flawed federal system.

  • Will you notify the Florida Department of Health immediately of any current or future unaccompanied minors coming to, or placed in, Florida, including their current location?
  • Are you conducting health screenings both at the border and again at the time the children are placed in shelters?
  • What medical services, if any, were provided to any children placed in Florida?
  • Do you have any records of infectious diseases associated with the children currently in federal care in Florida?
  • Have any of the children been hospitalized in Florida with fevers accompanying their illnesses? If so, where are they being treated?

Because of the urgency of this request, this letter is being immediately emailed and faxed to you. I expect a prompt response to my request for information on existing unaccompanied minors in Florida and would like to stress the importance of future timely communications.

Sincerely,

John H. Armstrong, MD, FACS
State Surgeon General and Secretary
Florida Department of Health

This is not about immigration. It is about the federal government sanctioning of human trafficking on a massive scale. Some have called this crisis “human dumping.” The dumping ground is America.

UPDATE: Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D., Protective Intelligence and Assessment Specialist, reports —

Texas Governor Rick Perry will announce today at 2:00 p.m. at the Texas State Capitol, he has decided to act and deploy 1,000 Texas National Guard to the border in the Rio Grande Valley. Yesterday afternoon in Iowa, Governor Perry stated: “If the federal government does not do its constitutional duty to secure the Southern border of the United States, the state of Texas will do it.” The Texas National Guard troops will be deployed to the Rio Grande Valley along with an increase of Texas Department of Public Safety who already has been operating at the Texas border. The joint work by and between these two assets is to keep drug and human trafficking south of U.S. Highway 83 and with the goal of keeping smuggling from entering major highways to transport throughout the state. The cost of deployment of the Texas National Guard will be $12 million per month, with $9.8 million for personnel and vehicle costs and $2.4 million for deployment of additional helicopters. The “call-out” will be formalized today when the Governor makes the announcement, but it will take up to one month to reach full contingency.

This action raises a question as to whether or not the flow of illegals into Texas will now redirect to Arizona.

RELATED ARTICLES:

City Journal: Refugees bring numerous health problems with them to your towns; more reporting needed
Florida schools brace for flood of border kids – EAGnews.org
Gutiérrez: ‘I Think We Can Get 3 or 4, Maybe Even 5 Million People’ Amnesty via Executive Action (+video)
No-Brainer: The ‘BlueServo’ Solution To Border Insecurity
White House: We’ll Put Illegal Immigrants Wherever We Want, And We Won’t Tell You
Lie at Heart of “Immigration Reform” Exposed
The Border Crisis Stories the Networks Aren’t Telling You About – Media Research Center

Sen. Ted Cruz: Faith Fines Have No Business in Our Democracy

Senator Ted Cruz speaks on the move by Harry Reid and Senate Democrats for punish those who are Americans of faith. The failed legislation was anti-First Amendment and anti-religious liberty. Fines and litigation against Little Sisters of the Poor is not a main stream position it is a “radical fringe position.” Cruz, “If you are litigation against nuns, then something is wrong.” Democrats appear to be following off of cliff.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/lyoW75DYiDY[/youtube]

Colorado Expert: Florida on the path to legalizing recreational pot

Marijuana policy expert joins the growing Don’t Let Florida Go to Pot coalition.

A Colorado expert who helped state officials there develop regulations after voters approved legalized marijuana is warning Floridians that they too could be on the path to legalizing recreational use of the drug if they support Amendment 2 in November, which would authorize marijuana under the guise of medicine.

Colorado made history in 2012 by becoming the first state to legalize recreational use of marijuana. But the story actually began 14 years earlier, when voters passed a constitutional amendment approving marijuana as a compassionate solution for desperately ill patients that led to massive fraud and abuse, said attorney Rachel O’Bryan, who was appointed to work on marijuana regulatory issues by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. O’Bryan now serves as spokesperson for Smart Colorado, a non-profit group, formed in 2013, dedicated to minimizing the negative consequences of legalizing pot in that state and especially its impact on youth.

After Colorado voters legalized marijuana as “medicine,” they saw how easy the drug was to obtain and how widely it was being used for recreational—rather than medicinal—purposes. So two years ago, they voted to totally legalize pot for anyone 21 or older as a way to bring back honesty to the state’s marijuana laws, O’Bryan said. She suggested that Floridians educate themselves on Colorado’s experience with legalizing marijuana, because the Sunshine State is on a very similar path.

“In November, Florida voters will be faced with a choice of legalizing marijuana for medical use. Voters should ask themselves now whether they want commercialized, recreational marijuana use legalized in Florida, because that is the direction Florida is headed with Amendment 2,” O’Bryan said.

O’Bryan spoke Wednesday during a news conference at the Florida Press Center in Tallahassee, where she was joined by Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger and representatives of the Don’t Let Florida Go to Pot coalition. O’Bryan announced that she is joining the growing coalition, which provides information to Floridians about the social, educational and health consequences of legalizing marijuana use.

“Rachel O’Bryan has witnessed firsthand what happened after Colorado voters legalized marijuana under the guise of medicine, and she has been in the trenches assisting her state in grappling with the many negative implications from that decision,” Sheriff Eslinger said. “The lessons she brings from Colorado are critical for Floridians to understand in order to make their own informed choices.”

O’Bryan pointed out that Florida’s Amendment 2 contains three “fatal flaws” that mimic problems with Colorado’s law that legalized marijuana under the guise of medicine—and that ultimately opened the door to legalizing recreational use of pot in that state.

First, Florida’s Amendment 2 allows for any medical condition to qualify for marijuana treatment by defining a “debilitating medical condition” as one that includes “other conditions for which a physician believes the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient.” The likely result of this open-ended language is that individuals will use marijuana recreationally, despite the amendment’s stated intent not to allow this, O’Bryan said.

Colorado’s amendment legalizing marijuana as so-called medicine did the same thing by stating broadly that pot could be used to treat “severe pain.” As a result, Colorado’s patient registry statistics show that only one percent of patients use marijuana to treat HIV, AIDS, or glaucoma; only two percent list seizures; only three percent list cancer; while 94 percent list “severe pain,” a highly subjective, unverifiable condition.

Second, Florida’s Amendment 2 allows “medical” marijuana treatment centers to develop food products, even though most other types of medicines are not imbedded in food. These food products make it easier to discreetly consume marijuana, even on school property or at work. Colorado’s amendment legalizing marijuana as “medicine” also allowed food products. Today in Colorado, marijuana is infused in brownies, soda, breakfast cereals, cookies and snacks, cooking oil and salad dressings. Some “medical” marijuana companies are even buying children’s candies like Swedish Fish or Sour Patch Kids and spraying them with marijuana oil, O’Bryan said.

Third, Florida’s Amendment 2 places no age limits on “qualifying users” and also provides for user confidentiality. Coupled together, these two provisions open the door for Florida teenagers to be able to legally obtain marijuana without their parents being notified, O’Bryan said. This has significant social and educational implications for Florida’s youth, as long-term studies have shown that weekly marijuana use before age 18 is associated with a permanent decline in IQ.

Colorado’s amendment legalizing marijuana under the guise of medicine also placed no age limits on recipients, O’Bryan noted. As a result, the state has recently seen an explosion of “medical” marijuana users who are 18 to 20 years old. The number of people in this age range has increased by more than 46 percent since the end of 2012, while the state’s total “medical” marijuana patient registry only increased to two percent. Meanwhile, the latest Healthy Kids Colorado Survey found that 52 percent of high school seniors said it is “very easy” to get marijuana; 51 percent know someone with a medical marijuana card; and more than 11 percent said they had gotten marijuana within the previous 30 days from someone with a medical marijuana card.

O’Bryan noted the ballot summaries for proposed constitutional amendments in Florida are limited to just 75 words, which is typically all that voters read. Based on her expert interpretation of Florida’s Amendment 2, she said the ballot summary could read this way:

Allows for the use of marijuana for ANY medical condition. Allows teenagers to obtain marijuana without parental notification. Allows for the development of marijuana-infused foods, including candy and snacks that appeal to children. Does not recognize private property rights of landlords or condominium associations to prohibit the use of marijuana in multi-unit dwellings. Waives a patient’s right to medical malpractice claims against their physician related to their treatment with marijuana. 

“Would Florida voters still support this amendment if they had a full and accurate summary of what the amendment does?” O’Bryan asked.

Legalizing marijuana as a so-called “medicine” has literally changed the landscape in Colorado, especially Denver. Today, there are 493 pot shops in Colorado and 195 alone in Denver, where so-called medical marijuana shops now outnumber pharmacies, liquor stores, McDonald’s and Starbucks.

“Marijuana is smelled on the street and smoked in front yards,” O’Bryan said, adding this warning: “Florida voters, you may think you won’t go as far as Colorado and Washington, but you will be one step closer.”

ABOUT DRUG FREE AMERICA FOUNDATION, INC.

Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. is a national and international drug policy organization promoting effective and sound drug policies, education and prevention. www.dfaf.org.

For more information on Drug Free America Foundation, please visit www.dfaf.org, follow us on Twitter @DrugFreeAmerica and like DFAF on Facebook.

The Don’t Let Florida Go to Pot coalition is a collective effort of more than 100 local and state organizations to educate Floridians on the dangers of marijuana. From law enforcement to substance abuse groups, the coalition is working statewide to ensure public safety and the future of our youth. 

Obamacare Must Be Repealed

While the issue of immigration is uppermost in people’s minds right now, it is likely at this point halfway through his second term that President Obama will be identified by historians most closely with his signature, namesake legislation, the Affordable Patient Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

They will do so for two reasons; that he lied to everyone about it and it has been a failure in countless ways from the moment its website was introduced.

Obamacare_Paying_For_It_Poster (1)

For a larger view click on the image. Graphic courtesy of The Peoples Cube.

In April PolitiFact, a project of the Tampa Bay Times, announced the “most significant falsehood of the year” and it came as no surprise it was “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” An April Fox News poll revealed that 61% of respondents said the Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues. Only 15% thought he was completely truthful.

By July 2 a Quinnipiac University poll announced that its survey had determined that 33% of the respondents believed Obama was the “Worst President Since WWII.” The poll also revealed that between 54% and 44% believed the Obama administration was not competent to run the government.

If you want proof of that, you need only follow the horror story of Obamacare.

In September 2013, prior to Obamacare’s implementation the following month, Daniel Henninger, a Wall Street Journal columnist, wisely noted that “Obamacare is the biggest bet that American liberalism has made in 80 years on its fundamental beliefs. This thing called ‘Obamacare’ carries on its back all the justifications, hopes and dreams of the entitlement state.”

“If Obamacare fails, or seriously falters, the entitlement state will suffer a historic loss of credibility with the American people” adding that “only the American people can kill Obamacare.”

The great Prohibition experiment was killed by the American people and it took a Constitutional amendment to do it. It was a monumental failure.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that no Republican voted for Obamacare. It was entirely a Democratic Party creation, one it has wanted going back to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.

What Americans have learned in the short time since Obamacare has been implemented is that virtually everything they were told about it was and is a lie.

People who were insured lost their health plan—six million had been cancelled by May, nor could they keep their doctor because many health care plans sold on federal and state exchanges have a limited number of in-network physicians from whom to choose. The costs of Obamacare plans costs are frequently in excess of those from the previous free market and include elements that do not fit the age or sex of those who sign up, such as maternity coverage for women beyond childbearing age.

Obamacare exists because the Supreme Court deemed it to be a “tax”, but it is demonstrably unconstitutional insofar as it represents the mandate of the federal government that everyone buy something that they may not want and, more importantly, cannot afford. When the government can tell you what you must buy, you are no longer living in a free society.

Sharyl Attkisson, writing in Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, reported one source as saying, “In general healthy people are paying more and unhealthy people are paying less.” There isn’t even a “smidgen” of fairness in this.

At no point before or since its inception has the Obama administration told the truth about any aspect of Obamacare, particularly how many legitimate enrollments there have been thus far. In April the number cited was eight million. Attkisson reported that observers immediately pointed out that “the figure is overstated because it counted people who weren’t actually covered because they hadn’t paid their premiums. That actual enrollment was likely closer to between 6.4 and 6.8 million, both below the eight million figure and the stated target of seven million.”

Arnold Ahlert, writing for CanadaFreePress.com, noted in early July that “A pair of reports released by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General reveal ‘internal’ controls for evaluating healthcare applications are ineffective, and 85% of 2.9 million data ‘inconsistencies’ on Obamacare applications cannot be resolved, even after nine months of attempting to do so.” Not only did many of the 39 state exchanges fail to work, but the enrollments are plagued with evidence of both data errors and fraud.

Obamacare - Lipstick on a PigObamacare is so flawed that the President has had to unilaterally and unconstitutionally step in to alter the terms of the law thus far. That is an impeachable offense.

Obamacare is a massive travesty and, hidden below the headlines is the fact that the failures inherent in its implementation are causing some to die because of bureaucratic delays encountered while waiting to receive the care their plans are supposed to provide, if they were even able to secure a plan.

The election in November of enough Republicans to control the Senate and an increase in the House would permit them to act upon the numerous bills the House has passed to end Obamacare and which are blocked in the Senate by Harry Reid, its Majority Leader. Ending Obamacare would truly be a blessing for all Americans.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

America, the Bullied

Perhaps it is because as a child, I witnessed Zaggy torturing chubby Butterball every morning at the school bus stop. Consequently, I have an extremely low tolerance for Leftists bullying Americans into submission and getting away with it.

Fear caused Butterball to endure daily humiliating facial slaps, punches and extortion of his lunch money. Frustrated for Butterball, I asked, “Why don’t you hit Zaggy back?” Butterball replied, “He will beat me up”. My retort, “He is beating you up every day!”

One morning to the delight of us kids, Butterball, while crying his eyes out, went wild on Zaggy. Nothing seriously violent, but Zaggy was the one crying and afraid.

My fellow Americans, we are being bullied like never before by Leftists which include Obama and the MSM. We are being forced not only to tolerate, but embrace their liberal far-left radical socialist/progressive agenda. Their agenda is particularly hostile towards Christians, the unborn, American traditions and exceptional-ism. Noncompliance or opposing points of view are not tolerated; either total submission or suffer total destruction.

For example.

Christian twins, Jason and David Benham had their Home & Garden Television (HGTV) show, “Flip it Forward” canceled when the Left learned that the brother’s faith based views were not in step with the Left’s mandated thinking. Even though the twins proclaimed their love for all people and vowed never to discriminate, it still was not good enough for the Left. Every American is required to agree or suffer the consequences.

David Benham’s heartfelt statement: “We love all people. I love homosexuals. I love Islam, Muslims, and my brother and I would never discriminate. Never have we – never would we.”

Despite HGTV canceling the TV show and withdrawing its financial support, the Benham brothers are still moving forward, renovating the homes for the families who would have been featured on their TV show.

Like many Americans, my black brother is a low-info voter. He is not politically engaged and gets his news from the MSM. Consequently, he was not up to speed on the Hobby Lobby case. He was shocked to learn that the case was really about the Obama Administration attempting to bully the business into betraying its Christian faith. He was stunned learning that Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 contraceptives mandated in Obamacare, only refusing to fund the four that kill babies. He replied, “Wow!”

I explained to my brother how the Left is scamming the public. The Left has launched a campaign to disguise its attack on religious freedom; claiming that Christians who refuse to be bullied into betraying their faith are engaged in a war on women. 

In the Left’s relentless efforts to “bully” a 175 year old order of Catholic nuns into betraying their faith, the National Organization for Women (NOW) which is an extreme Leftist group placed the Little Sisters of the Poor on its Dirty 100 list.

It is chillingly evil to call sweet humble elderly nuns who provide loving care for seniors in the late stages of life, “dirty”. Nothing could better illustrate the sick and depraved mindset of this vile organization. Like harden mercenaries, Leftist operatives take no prisoners. Furthering their agenda trumps common sense, compassion and decency.

Even blacks, whom the Left claims to champion, end up on the Left’s excrement list when they get too uppity. A Leftist major union bullied the United Negro College Fund, scolding and placing it on a blacklist for accepting a $25 million donation from the conservative leaning Koch brothers. Now get this folks, $18 million will provide scholarships for 3,000 black youths.

Is this the behavior of true advocates for black empowerment or plantation overlords committed to keeping blacks under their thumb of dependency?

Master connivers, deceivers and manipulators, the Left portray themselves as victims of intolerance while they bully us into submission under the radar; emboldened under Obama.

Leftist “thought police” enforcement has not yet progressed to physical detainment. However, anyone deemed pro-life, too conservative, politically incorrect and too Christian risk losing everything; job, career or property.

We are living in a very scary time in America.

So how do we defeat Leftist bullies? Like battered chubby kid Butterball, we decide enough is enough. We go politically wild on them, sending them packing, crying and afraid.

World Leaders: Please Stop The Kinsey Institute

Hat tip to Dr. Judith Reisman for pointing us to the following effort to Stop the Kinsey Institute:

On April 23, 2014 the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction was granted special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC).

This decision was based in part on misleading testimony regarding the nature of their work provided by a Kinsey Institute representative to the United Nations Committee on Nongovernmental Organizations.

From their fraudulent sex research, to their collaboration with pedophiles to publish their sex experiments on children, to their promotion of risky sexual behaviors as healthy and normal, which has formed the basis of dangerous sexuality education programs worldwide, the Kinsey Institute has caused incalculable harm to children, adults and families. For this reason the UN’s decision to grant ECOSOC status to the Kinsey Institute has outraged parents, government and civic leaders, lawmakers, researchers, and victims of sexual crimes around the world who understand how harmful the Kinsey Institute’s work has been, especially for the world’s children.

The goal of the Stop Kinsey Coalition is to educate world leaders and citizens about the past and present actions, goals and aims of the Kinsey Institute, and to demonstrate why the Kinsey Institute merits condemnation and censure rather than the legitimacy, prestige and access that UN consultative status affords them and which enables them to perpetuate their harmful work on a much larger world stage.

Summary of the Kinsey Institute’s Work

For more than a half century, most developed nations have been undergoing a “sexual revolution.”  This radical shift in traditional sexual norms, values and expectations has led to the liberalization of laws regulating sexual behavior.  This in turn has caused a dramatic increase in heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity contributing to the breakdown of the family and other social problems.

Many of these dramatic changes in sexual norms and laws can be traced back to the fraudulent sex “research” and sexual ideologies of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, founder of the Kinsey Institute.  Kinsey has been called the “father of the sexual rights revolution” because many sexual rights advocacy organizations rely on his ideologies to support their positions.

The Kinsey Institute’s philosophy that “children are sexual from birth,” has been used by pedophiles to justify sexual crimes against children.  The Institute’s sexual ideologies also form the basis of harmful sex education programs commonly known as “comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).”

These CSE programs are being aggressively promoted in UN documents, meetings and reports  as the solution to many world problems, including poverty, violence against women, teen pregnancy, the AIDS pandemic, and much more.  In fact, the Bali Youth Declaration and the more recent Colombo Youth Declaration promote access to CSE as a human right and also advance many other alleged sexual rights that are based on Kinsey’s sexual philosophies.

CSE programs are mostly sexual indoctrination programs designed to liberalize the sexual attitudes of the rising generation to accept and even celebrate heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity.  CSE programs also prepare youth to become sexual rights advocates to further liberalize laws that regulate sexual behaviors in their countries.

The main organizations behind the Kinsey-based sexual rights movement and CSE programs are International Planned Parenthood (IPPF), the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Advocates for Youth, the World Organization of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, and the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA).  More recently, UNESCO and the World Health Organization have released sexuality education guidelines heavily influenced by IPPF and SIECUS and reflecting Kinsey ideology.  The aforementioned NGO organizations, especially International Planned Parenthood, usually hide their agenda to sexualize children under euphemistic language disguised as solutions to world problems.  In addition to promoting sexual rights for children, these organizations also aggressively promote abortion and LGBT rights under the banner of “sexual and reproductive health rights” or SRHR.  Kinsey-based sexuality and sex education programs are intended to change cultures and norms in harmful ways—just as has occurred in the United States and a number of other Western countries.  One of the key methods of sexual rights advocates is to establish adolescent and child rights to confidentiality and privacy, so that they can reach them with their sexual ideologies without the knowledge or consent of parents.

We have extensively documented the harmful activities and objectives of the Kinsey Institute, IPPF, and the other sexual rights advocacy organizations that promote the Comprehensive Sexuality Education agenda in several policy briefs posted at www.StoptheKinseyInstittute.org.

Governments need to understand that the sexualization of the children in their countries leads to big profits for many of these organizations. They make billions of dollars annually by providing sexuality education (often disguised as family life skills or HIV prevention education), contraceptives, abortion, HIV and other STI testing, treatment and associated care, and much more.

With its recently granted UN ECOSOC status, the Kinsey Institute and its allies will have even more influence and greater access and prestige to advance their harmful sexual rights ideologies, especially in developing countries, unless they are exposed and stopped.

Our website has a list of questions that the Kinsey Institute should have been required to answer before ever being considered for consultative status by the UN Committee on NGOs. The Kinsey Institute should still be required by the UN to answer these questions to help expose the harmful nature of its work.  Governments can also require the Institute to answer these questions as a condition of allowing them to work in their respective countries.

Nations would do well to carefully monitor any activities of the Kinsey Institute and their allied groups in their countries.

Note: Please beware of the Kinsey Institute’s new mobile phone app called “The Kinsey Reporter,” described in detail in the policy brief on our website entitled “The Kinsey Institute Exposed.”  This app will be used to try to show widespread promiscuity in countries and use that as a basis to call for the liberalization of sex-related laws by claiming that current laws need to be updated to reflect “reality.”  More information on this phone app as well as extensive information on the problems with the Kinsey Institute can be found at in our policy brief posted at www.StoptheKinseyInstitute.org 

For more information visit our website at www.StopTheKinseyInstitute.org

Please see our summary below of the harmful nature of the Kinsey Institute’s work.  Please also visit our website to view the extensive documentation we present in our policy brief: The Kinsey Institute Exposed:  A Warning to Parents & Governments Throughout the World

Making Gay Okay — and Criticizing It Taboo: An Interview with Robert Reilly on his book on the rationalizing of homosexual behavior

Last month Robert R. Reilly published a new book “Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behaviour is Changing Everything.” “Despite its high-interest subject matter, it met with a media blackout. Neither The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal or even more conservative publications wanted to review the book – not even to tear it to shreds, as some partisan websites have done,” notes Alvino-Mario Fantini from MercatorNet.com.

making gay okIn Making Gay Okay Reilly asks, “Why are Americans being forced to consider homosexual acts as morally acceptable? Why has the US Supreme Court accepted the validity of same-sex “marriage”, which, until a decade ago, was unheard of in the history of Western or any other civilization? Where has the “gay rights” movement come from, and how has it so easily conquered America?”

The answers are in the dynamics of the rationalization of sexual misbehavior. The power of rationalization the means by which one mentally transforms wrong into right drives the gay rights movement, gives it its revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest because the security of its rationalization requires universal acceptance. In other words, we all must say that the bad is good.

Fantini interviews Reilly about his book. Fantini’s first question:

What is the connection between sexuality, contraception, and same-sex marriage?

Once you separate sex from diapers through contraception, you’re on a slippery slope. In the U.S. legal system, we went from a Supreme Court case that first allowed contraception only for married couples, to a case that then allowed contraception for all adults, to another case which legalized contraception for everyone, including minors and children. In tandem to that, in Roe v. Wade the court said: If your contraceptive has failed, you oughtn’t be penalized by the child that is then so conceived and you may, therefore, eliminate it. The capstone came with the U.S. v. Windsor decision a little more than a year ago in which the Supreme Court said that sodomy basically can serve as the basis for marriage.

Click here to read the full interview with Robert Reilly.

“Plato teaches that societies take on the features and tastes of the persons most prominent in them. Reilly shows how America’s ruling class is shaping our society according to its taste for homosexuality and its distaste for natural families. If you want to know the philosophical and legal background of the revolution that is being imposed upon America and its consequences read this book.” — Angelo M. Codevilla , PhD Professor Emeritus, Boston University; Author, The Character of Nations.

George Orwell wrote, “The more a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image titled “Unreality Balloons” is courtesy of Life Site News.

Woman Business Owner Challenging HHS Contraceptive Coverage Gets Relief from 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

Karen Mersino, one of 14 female owners of for-profit companies challenging the HHS Mandate, is finally free to continue offering health insurance to her employees that does not cover contraceptives and abortion causing drugs. Reacting to the 6th Circuit Court’s order, she commented, “It’s a real win for religious freedom.”

Mersinos-300x192

Rod and Karen Mersino

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which represents Karen Mersino, her husband Rod, and their business, Mersino Management Company, announced that yesterday the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, issued an injunction halting enforcement of the HHS Mandate.   The 6th Circuit acted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby and without opposition from the Department of Justice.

Click Here to Read the Order

Erin Mersino, TMLC Senior Trial Counsel, stated, “In the aftermath of the Hobby Lobbydecision, we were able to gain concurrence for immediate relief from the illegal aims of the HHS Mandate that violate our clients’ sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The initial challenge to the HHS Mandate, which forced employers to provide health insurance which included co-pay free coverage for abortion causing drugs and devices or pay crippling IRS fines, was filed by TMLC in March 2013. In all, TMLC represents 10 for-profit companies totaling 30 plaintiffs in challenges to the HHS Mandate.  TMLC is also challenging the HHS Mandate on behalf of 6 non-profit entities.

The Mersinos provide their employees with health care coverage which is superior to coverage generally available in the Michigan market. Based on their deeply held religious beliefs, however, the Mersinos have never offered insurance which included coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortion, or abortion causing drugs and devices. They believe, in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, that these procedures involve gravely immoral practices and the intentional destruction of innocent human life.

All of the Mersinos’ corporate offices display a document that reflects their core value: “Honor God in all we do by serving our customers and employees with honesty and integrity.”

TMLC’s Erin Mersino, reflected, “It has been an honor to represent Karen and Rod Mersino- two individuals who truly live out their faith everyday through the integrity with which they treat others, through their numerous charitable works, and through their overwhelmingly selfless devotion to their community and Church.”

Breathtaking Lawlessness: The Supreme Court has restrained the Executive Branch — for now by Iain Murray

America’s federal executive branch has met some setbacks as of late. Two recent Supreme Court rulings have constrained the administration’s impulse to act as it wishes. Yet, the mere fact that the administration has overreached as it has—and would have continued to do so had the court not stopped it—should send us a clear warning: The instincts of executive power are always toward accumulating more power. In both cases, the court found, the administration clearly ignored the express instructions of the Constitution in favor of its own convenience.

The first decision concerned an attempt by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to restrict the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. But the Clean Air Act’s emissions strictures posed a problem, because they would require the agency to restrict emissions above a certain threshold from stationary sources. Carbon dioxide is emitted in large amounts from even small sources, so applying the Clean Air Act would mean subjecting schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings to the same standards as industrial power plants.

The EPA, realizing how unpopular this would be, took it upon itself to rewrite the law, issuing what it called a “tailoring rule,” a scheme my colleague Marlo Lewis described as an act of “breathtaking lawlessness.” The attempt to amend, in the absence of congressional intent, clear, numerical, statutory provisions was a stark usurpation by the executive branch. Remember, the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress.

The court agreed. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it was “patently unreasonable—not to say outrageous—for EPA to insist on seizing expansive power that it admits the statute is not designed to grant.” The court said the EPA was “laying claim to extravagant statutory power over the national economy,” and that if the court agreed with it, it “would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers.” Yet this shot of good sense came with a bitter chaser (more on that later).

In the second decision, just last week, the court found unconstitutional President Obama’s recess appointments of some members of the National Labor Relations Board whose nominations had been blocked in the Senate, because the Senate had not declared itself to be in recess. The administration argued that it was entitled to use the power whenever “the Senate is not open for business.”

The court rejected that view unanimously. As Case Western University law professor Jonathan Adler observed, “None of the justices were willing to accept the position of the Obama Administration, which was unnecessarily extreme. In choosing to make the recess appointments in the way it did, such as by not following precedents set by prior administrations (including Teddy Roosevelt) and filling some Board spots that the Senate never had time to fill, the Administration adopted a stance that was very hard to defend, so it could not attract a single vote.” (My organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed an amicus brief in the case before it reached the Supreme Court.)

The administration’s expansive view of its own enumerated powers is disturbing. But it should not be surprising. It is in the nature of executive power to seek to accrue more power. Throughout history, executives have claimed more power for themselves, whether by imperial decree or the new variant of “pen and phone.” And they’re not just raiding the legislature. Executives have a tendency to usurp judicial power too, whether by Star Chamber or administrative court.

This is why free societies must always be on guard against executive “mission creep.” As James Madison said, “There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Now, about that chaser. In its decision on the EPA rule (where the court only slightly limited the agency’s ability to regulate emissions from stationary sources), four of the nine justices agreed that the EPA should have the power to rewrite the law. When the English Parliament gave Henry VIII such a power in 1539, the philosopher David Hume later said that it “made by one act a total subversion of the English constitution.” In other words, basic freedom from executive law-making survived by just one vote last week.

So, while the idea of liberty is extremely resilient, its practical restraint on government by such means as constitutions is always fragile. The question therefore must be whether we can develop “antifragile” institutions of liberty.

Perhaps. The developing “sharing economy” might be seen as a “sharing constitution” in its early stages. Uber’s righteously defiant reaction to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s “cease and desist” orders may be an indicator of a way forward. Yes, the road from Virginia traffic court to constitutional convention is a long one, but could we be seeing an “application revolution” in action that increases citizens’ power over runaway executive magistrates?

ABOUT IAIN MURRAY

Iain Murray is vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

EDITORS NOTE: The features image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Unleashed Upon America: Obama Unchained!

My fellow Americans, we are all bit players in the making of a metaphoric slasher movie, “Obama Unchained” starring Barack Hussein Obama.

Here is a summary of the movie. It is a heartwarming tale about how the mainstream media and Democratic Party suckered America into electing their extreme far-left dream president; a Trojan Horse in the form of a black man.

Once in the Oval Office, Obama began incrementally implementing his socialist/progressive agenda and iron-fist pressure on Americans to conform. Everyone, including a 175 year old order of elderly Catholic nuns were forced to comply to Obama’s decreed anti-biblical new moral standards or face termination. Only donors, labor unions and favored friends of his royal Obamaness totaling over 2000 are unlawfully granted exemptions from his tyrannical overreaches hidden in Obamacare.

Unchained from pretending to be a moderate to get reelected, Obama is releasing his judgment and rage upon America; wielding his executive pen sword, causing a bloody massacre of our economy, national security, world standing, freedoms, liberty and culture.

Now totally unrestrained, with lawless abandonment, Obama dishes out what he believes is well-deserved revenge on America for her crimes against the rest of the world. Obama is delivering the retribution spoken of by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who said, “America’s chickens have come home to roost.”

Pundits say Obama is merely incompetent. They site highly unfavorable approval polling to conclude that Obama’s presidency is in deep trouble. Political analysts believe dismal poll numbers will force Obama to back away from his intensely focused savage attack on America as founded; his vowed fundamental transformation of America. These sycophant, apologist or naive talking heads are missing the point. Obama does not give a rat’s you know what about polling. Nor does he fear lawsuits, Congress, impeachment or anything else.

Remember Michael Jackson’s famous line, “I’m not like other guys”? Obama believes he is not like other presidents. I am Barack Obama, the first black president. I can do whatever I please and no one is going to stop me. Period!

“Obama Unchained”, the movie, is directed by Unknown Socialists/Progressives.

Obama’s supporting cast includes Eric (cited in criminal and civil contempt of Congress) Holder as the corrupt partisan head of the DOJ. Lois (Wicked Witch of America) Lerner as the corrupt, vindictive and evil IRS enforcer.  Kathleen (Yes, you will fund abortions against your faith) Sibelius as the totally incompetent head of the botched Obamacare roll-out. Jay (please don’t make me go out there and lie again with a straight face) Carney as Obama’s Press Secretary. This just in, Carney has been replaced by understudy liar, Josh Ernest.

If the metaphoric Socialists/Progressive’s movie were to snag a Best Song nomination, their song would be titled, “I Believe I Can Lie” performed by Barack Obama. A real trailblazer, Obama is the first U.S. President awarded, “Liar of the Year”.

In my metaphoric scenario, the buzz in DC would declare “Obama Unchained” a shoe in for Best Picture. However, the sentimental payback favorite for Best Picture would be “Sixty-Six Years A Liberal” starring Hilary (don’t asked me about Benghazi) Clinton.

Folks, while I have taken a humorous approach to describing Obama’s Revenge War on America, the situation is extremely serious. The solution is quite simple. It is push back, push back, push back politically. While the Tea Party remains fully engaged, what strong courageous conservative will emerge to lead the charge?

We who love America are metaphorically in the process of producing our own movie titled, “November 4, 2014: Independence Day”.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured graphic is courtesy of Heavy Front Page.

Feds sending Riot Police and Federal Marshals to Murrieta, CA to get Bus Loads of Illegals through Border

Obama is sending Federal Marshall and his political operatives are encouraging Illegal Mexican Immigrant organizations to mount a major protest against American citizens, in order  to suppress peaceful protesters in Murrieta, CA tomorrow.  The American citizens who are residents of Murrieta have been opposing, this the third attempt, to dump Illegal Immigrant children with contagious diseases (further described in the below listed article) into their community to infect the school children in local grammar schools and their families.

We encourage you to support the Patriotic and courageous Americans at 11:00 AM tomorrow on July 7th, who will be exercising their Constitution right to oppose the Obama administration’s agents acting as human trafficking coyotes by transporting thousands of infectious diseased children throughout the Republic in disregard of Federal Immigration Laws.  The assembly of peaceful protestors will be located at the Murrieta Border Patrol Station—the Border patrolmen are with the demonstrators.

SOURCE: FEDS TO BRING IN RIOT SQUAD AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROTESTERS

Its probably going to get ugly in Murrieta tomorrow.  Fedzilla wants their aliens processed and released at Murrieta, local citizens be damned.  If you go to the protest tomorrow, keep your cameras rolling to document how the Feds treat peaceful American citizens.

By the way, 38 of the first 136 load from last Tuesday were diagnosed with scabies along with at least one border patrol agent who caught it from them.  There were also many cases of head lice and at least one suspected case of TB.  Welcome to Obama’s new America.  Orchestrated mass chaos. And its getting worse by the day.  290,000 Central American fake asylum seekers so far just in the past year.

Meanwhile, MS-13 and other dangerous gangs and cartels south of the border are using this crisis get their criminals into the U.S. and our cities.  All adult males, when caught by the Border Patrol are claiming to be 17 and from Central America even if they are older.  There is no way for the Feds to prove they are older.  17 and younger Central Americans qualify for automatic asylum in the U.S. and are not being deported.  This is possibly the biggest scam in the history of the U.S.!  And Obama and House Republicans are doing nothing to stop it.  Call your Congressman tomorrow and demand they stop this insanity this week!

READ MORE …

HOUSTON, Texas–As illegal immigrants continue to spill across the U.S.-Mexico border, federal authorities are attempting to relocate the migrants from South Texas to housing facilities in states across the nation. One such facility is located in Murrieta, California, where a large group of protesters recently blocked a bus full of migrants from arriving. The protesters remain there, adamant that illegal immigrants don’t get dumped in their town. But soon the concerned citizens may be forced to step down–Breitbart Texas has learned that federal agents plan to arrive in Murrieta on Monday with riot gear to ensure that another busload makes it to the housing facility.

Jeremy Oliver, a resident of Temecula, California–a town that neighbors Murrieta–told Breitbart Texas that local police officers warned the protesters that “it’s going to get ugly.”

Oliver said, “The feds are pissed that they haven’t been able to use this facility. Officers out there warned people that federal agents will be in Murrieta on Monday–they are going to get the next bus through no matter what. Riot gear and shields will be used to push the crowd back.”

John Henry, a Murrieta resident since 1991, was told the same thing by local officers.

“We’re being told that federal Marshals or ICE will be here in the next few days and that they are bringing riot gear,” Henry said. “They’re apparently going to be blocking off the street with concrete blockades so that no vehicles can get through. The River County Sheriff’s Department showed up last night and brought huge watch tower that shoots up into the air 35 feet.”

On Friday, six protesters were arrested in Murrieta. One was apprehended for crossing “the yellow tape that blocked protesters from the Border Patrol station entrance,” according to USA Today.

Henry expressed frustration at the fact that the illegal immigrants are being “rewarded” for breaking the law–after illegally crossing the border, they receive a slew of taxpayer subsidized benefits like housing, food, education, vocational training, and legal counsel. Most are then released onto U.S. soil.

When U.S. citizens break the law, on the other hand, they pay the price. “f any one of us were to roll through a stop sign, we’d be pulled over and ticketed,” Henry noted.

On June 4th Breitbart Texas’ Managing Director Brand Darby broke the news that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would be relocating illegal immigrants from Texas to California. Within moments of that story being published, the official Twitter account of the San Diego CBP tweeted at Darby, insisting the report was “erroneous” and asking for it to be removed from the internet.

Days later the San Diego CBP deleted the tweet from their official account. Subsequent reports, outlining plans to fly immigrants to Southern California, proved CBP had indeed planned the relocation all along.

It is unclear how the border crisis will be handled moving forward, especially given that many U.S. citizens oppose the migrants being shipped by the hundreds to their communities.

Jeff Schwilk
Border & Immigration Security Analyst
San Diegans for Secure Borders Coalition

RELATED ARTICLE: GENERAL: BORDER CRISIS THREATENS U.S. EXISTENCE

Why Are “Gay” Activists Freaking Out over the Hobby Lobby ruling? by Peter LaBarbera

It’s easy to understand why hard-core feminists with their frenzied, overblown “War on Women” rhetoric would be outraged by the Supreme Court upholding Hobby Lobby’s right as a Christian-run corporation not to be forced to provide abortifacients to its employees through an Obama-care mandate. (See Hillary’s misinformation on the decision HERE.) But why are liberal “gay” activists freaking out over the Hobby Lobby ruling?

The case was never about denying women birth control, but you wouldn’t know that from the “reporting” by liberal media and hyperventilating “progressive” bloggers. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of birth control as a health benefit to its employees, but its founders—along with another Christian-owned corporation, Conestoga Wood Specialists—sued HHS over being forced to provide four contraceptive methods that could terminate a fertilized egg.

Hobby Lobby’s founders, David and Barbara Green, are committed Christians who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected. To quote the Court decision, “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’” So strong is the Greens’ commitment to Jesus Christ that they have lost countless millions of dollars in profits over the years by closing their 500 craft stores nationwide on Sunday.

Now, one would think that obtaining cheap, subsidized contraception would be low on the priority list for homosexuals, seeing that two men or two women by themselves cannot produce a child. Nevertheless, Big Gay Inc is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court decision—because Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby isn’t really about contraceptives but rather whether Americans like the Greens will be free to live out their religious convictions.

Immediately after the decision, feminists flew into a rage, circulating crude versions of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and distortions about women being denied birth control by their “male bosses.” Too bad most Americans will never read the actual Hobby Lobby decision—which lays out two diametrically opposed, competing visions about freedom of conscience and the role of government in these United States.

Freedom of conscience vs. Big Government

Hobby-Lobby_store-300x197

Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green, seek to use their business to glorify Jesus Christ. Their 500 stores across the country are closed on Sundays, costing the Greens many millions of dollars in profits.

On the side of preserving and even expanding Americans’ religious liberty were five judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In his concurring opinion Kennedy writes:

“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief….It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”

On the other side—of Big Government overriding citizens’ religious beliefs, restricting conscience exemptions to federal mandates, and putting federal power behind expanded access to entitlements–were Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. In fact, Ginsburg spends nearly two pages in her dissent [see pp. 24-25] defending the idea that Obama-care’s provision of subsidies for IUD’s (intrauterine devices) –one of the four contraceptives resisted by Hobby Lobby as a potential abortifacient—is a “compelling government interest.”

As much as Ginsburg believes the majority’s “immoderate” reading of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is too broad, hers is too narrow: she ends by arguing that exemptions under the RFRA should be limited to explicitly religious organizations—leaving for-profit Christian businessmen like the Greens unprotected.

The bigger government gets–in both its “social justice” mission and the amount of goodies it gives out as “entitlements”—the greater the threat to Americans’ right to freely exercise their faith. This is precisely why homosexual activists are nervous about Hobby Lobby’s victory. If the nation’s highest court grants that even very large “closely held” family businesses like Hobby Lobby (which has more than 13,000 employees) possess a religious liberty claim under RFRA, then surely small family businesses like Elane Photography in New Mexico—owned by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin—should have the right not to use their creative talents to serve homosexual “weddings,” which violate their Christian faith.

Sure, Justice Alito explicitly states that the Hobby Lobby decision is narrow and does not apply to exemptions from nondiscrimination laws. But reading the majority’s language, it is hard to imagine that the same five Supreme Court judges would force mom-and-pop bakeries—or Christian husband-and-wife photographers like the Huguenins—to violate their faith by forcing them to participate in immoral “gay weddings.”

Ginsburg, on the other hand, is quite ready to deny Christian-owned businesses the freedom to live out their convictions in the public square. Why? Because they make a profit—precisely the legal dichotomy shot down by Alito and his four allies on the Court. Ginsburg specifically cites the Elane Photograpy case as evidence of the slippery slope of RFRA/religious-liberty legal claims that she believes will result from the Hobby Lobby decision.

Some libertarian homosexuals like University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter advocate for limited religious exemptions to pro-homosexual nondiscrimination laws. But other, left-leaning homosexual activists—far more vocal and dominant in the LGBT political sphere—are on record defending the absurd proposition that faith-impelled small businessmen who refuse to serve homosexual “weddings” are the moral equivalent of the KKK, resurrecting an “anti-gay” version of Jim Crow laws.

Because, you see, not being able to use the government to force devout Christians, Orthodox Jews or Muslims to take pictures at or bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding”—when there are plenty of competing wedding businesses that would gladly do so–is analogous to Blacks in the 50’s being denied the use of “Whites Only” public restrooms and water fountains. Right. Go ahead and try making that case to a Black American.

Homosexual militant Wayne Besen denounced Hobby Lobby as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever: “Because of this decision, business owners will have enormous leverage to impose their religious beliefs in the workplace, and to coerce employees into abiding by them,” he warned ominously. Besen is hardly alone on the LGBT side in arguing that anyone who enters the stream of commerce—essentially every small business—should be barred legally from “discriminating” against homosexuals.

Last year, the New Mexico supreme court essentially agreed with Besen by unanimously upholding the Huguenin’s “anti-gay discrimination” conviction (including a $6,000 fine) for politely declining to shoot photos at a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” One of the justices, Richard Bosson, asserted in a concurring opinion against the Christian photographers: “In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.” That, the judge said, is the “price of citizenship.”

One Nation, under Tolerance?

One wonders: is this the same America that was founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution and government tyranny? Incidentally, the same Wayne Besen above is leading the “gay” activist crusade to ban pro-heterosexual change therapy for minors—succeeding in California and New Jersey. Besen applauded the Supreme Court for denying cert on a legal challenge to the California case, thus paving the way for the ex-“gay” therapy ban in that state. This is yet another LGBT assault on liberty, self-determination and parental rights.

The reality is, religious and moral freedom are in grave danger in the USA. Pro-life advocates must realize that powerful homosexual groups like Human Rights Campaign—who have long worked hand-in-hand with the pro-abortion lobby—are now joining with radical feminists to deny religious Americans their right to refuse pro-abortion and pro-homosexual government mandates.

I believe Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby portends well for the right of small-business-owning traditionalists to preserve at least some of their Christian principles and integrity by not celebrating sexual immorality. However, pro-family advocates should not get too excited about the Supreme Court—which has already seriously constricted Americans’ freedom to organize against pro-homosexual laws. (See Roemer v. Evans, a 1996 Court decision written by Justice Kennedy that struck down Amendment Two, a statewide measure passed by Colorado voters that barred all levels of state government from enacting “special rights” laws based on homosexuality.)

Justice Kennedy: Hero to Homosexuals

The same Justice Anthony Kennedy who sided with the Hobby Lobby majority also wrote theatrocious 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor eviscerating DOMA , the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by Bill Clinton. That paved the way for pro-homosexual-“marriage” judges across the United States to overturn popular defense-of-marriage amendments and laws in one state after another, most recently in Kentucky.

Kennedy is regarded as a hero by LGBT activists, the brave enforcer of their fallacious ‘homosexuality-as-a-civil-right’ equation. In striking down a core provision of DOMA, he sounded like a “gay “ activist as he arrogantly portrayed opponents of same-sex “marriage”—even the congressional creators of DOMA—as hateful bigots insensitive to the plight of homosexual-led families. Cleary, Kennedy believes that allowing homosexuals to “marry” is a “compelling government interest” —which is why many veteran conservative observers like Maggie Gallagherexpect to see the Supreme Court nationalize “same-sex marriage” when the appeals of judicial take-downs of state marriage amendments collectively reach the Court in the not too distant future.

If Kennedy again aligns with the four judges who dissented on Hobby Lobby to create a federal “constitutional right” for homosexuals to “marry”—thus overriding those state amendments—it will mean that millions upon millions of business owners effectively would be forced to provide marital-type benefits for their homosexual employees. To many people of faith, this equates to rewarding sexual immorality with their company’s hard-earned profits, of which they are stewards and through which they seek to honor God.

Christians and religious-minded citizens don’t leave their faith at home or in church—and they shouldn’t lose their First Amendment liberties—just because they make money. This is the essence of the Hobby Lobby decision, but how will it fare against the rapidly emerging liberal legal consensus of homosexual “marriage” as a supposed constitutionally protected “right”?

Most Americans have not thought through the far-reaching ramifications of legalizing “gay marriage.” For one, every child in a public school will be taught that “marriage” between two men or two women is morally equivalent to the real thing. And if “gay” relationships are equal, according to the Left’s simplistic “Love is Love” formula, then homosexual sex must be taught alongside natural sex in health classes. (Remember: we mustn’t judge!) Social engineering of this sort deeply offends faith-motivated parents and it will surely lead to escalating legal challenges pitting religious freedom against “gay” activism.

The “zero-sum game“ cultural war between First Amendment/religious liberties and homosexual “rights” in America will go on for decades. Homosexual activist lawyers are playing for keeps and expect to win. We should be thankful for the Hobby Lobby victory, but sober about the direction of U.S. courts. For as the Greens, Huguenins and many others like them have learned the hard way, “diversity” is liberal code for mandatory “progressive” conformity, and the New Tolerance isn’t really tolerant after all.

ABOUT PETER LABARBERA

Peter LaBarbera is a former reporter for the Washington Times and is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org), based outside Chicago. He can be reached at americansfortruth@gmail.com or by phone at 312-324-3787.

RELATED ARTICLE: Corporation wants to know if employees are ‘ally’ of homosexuals

The Day After Hobby Lobby Decision, Supreme Court Rules For Another Corporation Challenging the HHS Mandate

The day after its ruling in Hobby Lobby, the US Supreme Court granted review of the Thomas More Law Center’s petition on behalf of Eden Foods and its president Michael Potter, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of the Hobby Lobby decision.

Click Here for Supreme Court Order

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, filed Eden Food’s initial challenge to the HHS Mandate in March 2013. After being denied a temporary injunction preventing enforcement of the HHS Mandate by a federal district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, TMLC filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.  That petition had been held in abeyance pending the decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

Eden Foods, co-founded by Potter in the late 1960s, is the oldest natural food company in North America and the largest independent manufacturer of dry grocery organic foods.  In 2009, Eden Foods was selected as the best food company in the world by Better World Shopping Guide, which also acknowledged the company’s outstanding record in social and environmental responsibility. The company employs 150 employees.

For years, Michael Potter, a Roman Catholic, President and sole shareholder of Eden Foods Corporation, for religious reasons, had arranged for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance coverage he designed for his employees to specifically exclude coverage for contraception and abortifacients.  In accordance with his Catholic faith, Potter believes that any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation, whether as an end or means”—including abortifacients and contraception—is wrong.

The HHS Mandate forced Potter to make a choice between violating a foremost tenet of his faith or face fines up to $4.5 million per year.

Potter brought the lawsuit because he cannot compartmentalize his faith and his business practices.

Mr. Potter said in a statement, “We are grateful for the Hobby Lobby decision and look forward to further developments.”

TMLC Senior Trial Counsel Erin Mersino

Erin Mersino, TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel who is handling the Eden Foods case commented on yesterday’s Supreme Court order, “The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby preserves the religious freedom we are guaranteed under the Constitution.  The HHS mandate required business owners to directly violate their faith.  The Supreme Court relied upon the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was signed into law by President Clinton and passed in a bipartisan effort to protect our First Amendment rights, to strike down the mandate.  Under RFRA, the government has to establish a basis for substantially burdening one’s religious faith.  Here, the government failed to do so.”

Mersino continued, “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and proposed parade of horribles has no basis in reality.  No flood gates have been opened.  The truth is that the Supreme Court struck down an unjust law.”

Celebrate Freedom from Rx Drugs: You Can Be Your Own Doctor If You Know the Cause — Most MDs Don’t

Medical textbooks are filled with diseases of “unknown etiology,” and if they don’t know the cause, how can the drug be the cure? Hippocrates was right–”Let your food be your medicine.”

For 40 years the drug industry has made trillions calling medical care ‘healthcare,’ creating the illusion of science and cure while hooking most people over 45 into bondage with drugs that don’t address the cause.

Medical textbooks are filled with diseases of “unknown etiology,” and if they don’t know the cause, how can the drug be the cure? It gives relief of symptoms but spells trouble later as every drug has a long list of adverse side effects that anyone can find in the Physicians Desk Reference at the public library.

Hippocrates was right–”Let your food be your medicine.” What we put in our mouths is usually the cause of medical symptoms. I offer my own example of how we do it to ourselves without recognizing the cause. I developed headaches and consulted the neurologist who taught medical students, only to be told that foods or beverages would be a very rare cause of my headaches.

I later learned the neurologist didn’t know when a colleague tested me and said I was allergic to wheat–bread, pasta, and pastry–foods I liked, but wasn’t smart enough to recognize the cause because my headaches were a delayed reaction.

If we become allergic to something, it acts like a poison to which we develop a tolerance. Tobacco is an example. People don’t get sick when they smoke. They get sick when they try to quit—symptoms come on withdrawal—like over the weekend when I wasn’t eating sandwiches that he took to work.

Many medical conditions are caused this way. It can be gastritis, colitis, arthritis—I had an executive say that sugar bothered his joints. Another one said cheese made his joints ache. A third said meat gave him arthritis. These were smart men who had figured it out on their own.

Symptoms care range from those of hypoglycemia to weakness, dizziness or muscle tension and insomnia and nervousness, or hyperactivity in kids.

My first case was an executive who was wiped out with fatigue and had all kinds of tests without finding the cause. But since she had hay fever, I thought she might have food allergies also, and asked her to avoid everything she ordinarily ate for a week.

She predictably got worse and then better. People can do this and one-by-one, add their regular food back into their diet one at a time, to see when they get their symptoms again.

If your doctor doesn’t know the cause, think food or chemicals because our bodies are built from what we put in our mouths, and we get a mountain load of chemicals with packaged food. If you have health problems, instead of reading the labels, don’t eat foods that came with labels until you sort out the cause.

Most people suffering medical problems could break free of the system with information from several chapters on diet that can be read online.  The author accurately described adverse drug reactions more than a century ago by saying that drugs change the form and location of the disease,

The author, Ellen White, was eulogized by Paul Harvey and Dr. Clive McCay wrote a six-page review and said there is “no better overall guide available today” (50+ years ago when he was head of nutrition  at Cornell University, but it’s still basically true.)

As a retired physician I am enjoying great health and freedom from medical care. I suggest reading Ellen White’s classic book on health and happiness on my website at http://ChooseABetterDestiny.com and viewing the best DVD I have found at http://RichardRuhling.com where visitors can see 5 minutes of it, including Dr. Esselstyn from the Cleveland Clinic on how to reverse cardiovascular disease.