Dr. Rich Swier endorses Richard DeNapoli in the Florida House District 74 primary

Richard DeNapoli has proven to me that he is the best pick to represent District 74 in the Florida House of Representatives. I live in District 74 and will be voting for Richard.

denapoli and family

Richard, Brigita and Victor DeNapoli.

Richard is pro-family, pro-Christian and a man of strongly held conservative beliefs. What I found to be most powerful about him is he is a fighter for Republican principles. You see one of Richard’s strengths is that he was the Chairman of the Republican Party of Broward County. He knows what it means to fight tooth and nail for the Republican Party in a very blue county. His experiences in Broward tested his metal and he will carry what he learned there into the District 74 seat.

Danita Kilcullen, TEA Party Fort Lauderdale, sent this comment to me, “Richard DeNapoli was a fantastic Chairman of the Broward Republican Executive Committee.  He brought tens and tens of new memberships and put his own money where his mouth is. Especially memorable was the evening when CAIR’s South Florida Leader, Nasar Hamze, after months of heckling and creating chaos at Allen West’s Town Hall meetings, decided he would join BREC.  What Richard did to prevent this was maverick and read much like a Perry Mason courtroom drama.  When he tells you he’ll fight for you, that is exactly what he does.”

Richard is, like me, a Catholic. Catholics are under siege by the Obama administration domestically and globally.

Obamacare is the greatest threat to religious liberty ever passed into law by any political party. Obamacare targets Catholics in particular and Christian people of faith in general. Florida needs a strong man like Richard in Florida’s House to stop Obamacare and protect seniors, middle class families and Christians alike.

I interview Richard early on in his campaign. What impressed me most during that interview was Richard’s passion for doing the right thing. Richard served as a prosecutor in Orange County, Florida for a short time after law school, prosecuting third degree felonies, before returning to South Florida to care for his grandmother when his grandfather passed away in June 2003.

This is why I fully endorse Richard and I ask that you support him with donations and your vote on August 26th.

To learn more about Richard DeNapoli click here.

Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee: The Impeachment of President Obama is now a real possibility

The title of this column is the subject of an email sent out by the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee to Florida supporters. The fund raising email states:

If you’re wondering why you’re getting all this email on a Friday night, it’s simple:

THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOW A REAL POSSIBILITY

No other President in history has had to face the prospect of being taken to court by Congress. And the White House alerted us today that it could lead to impeachment.

Johnathan Topaz from Politico reports, “One third of Americans think President Barack Obama should be impeached, a new poll says.” The impeach Obama movement has grown to the point that even Congress is taking notice. The U.S. House of Representatives has decided to restore the balance of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Impeachment is becoming a hot topic for discussion in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Constitution, Article. I., Section. 1 reads:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article. II., Section. 1. states:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

[ … ]

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article II., Section 3. states:

 [H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

Politico’s Lauren French reports:

Republican-selected witness Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University professor, called the lawsuit a “worthy” effort. He noted that he voted for Obama and supports a national health care system.

“Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. We are seeing the emergence of a different model of government in our country — a model long ago rejected by the Framers,” Turley said.

Turley and Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University College of Law, argued that the House does have standing to bring a suit against the White House. Citing past case law, Foley described how the draft resolution put forward by House Republicans detailing that case meets a four-pronged test to establish standing.

“When a president unilaterally waives, delays or suspends a law such as the ACA, he squelches any opportunity to have a robust, political debate about the workability of the law, and thereby undermines democracy itself,” she said.

Simon Lazarus, an associate director of public policy for President Jimmy Carter, who testified at the request of Democrats, said the 2013 delay to the employer mandate was a “minor” “course correction.”

This issue will not go away because of a growing grassroots movement to hold all branches of the federal government accountable. The standard against which each branch is held — the United States Constitution. Like with President Nixon, a tipping point will be reached and impeachment proceedings could move forward. What will be a deciding factor? If the Republicans regain control of the U.S. Senate on November 4th, 2014.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Another Court Rules Against President Obama’s Unilateral Actions
Yet Another High-Profile Conservative Demands Obama’s Impeachment
New IRS Form Proves Obama Lied About Individual Mandate Tax

Should the Government Tell You What to Eat?

Given the successive scandals and monster laws like Obamacare that have been imposed on Americans, the federal government’s efforts to control and determine what you eat doesn’t receive the attention that it should. The ultimate question is whether the government should tell you what to eat and then seek to enforce their views about it? The answer is no.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is one of those federal entities that should have no role in determining what is on your plate, but among its recommendations is the promotion of “a plant-based diet, reduced meat consumption, and only eating fish after reading up on which are good for you.” Meanwhile the food police have been warning against the natural element of mercury in fish even though it is so small as to constitute no health threat.

Hanns Kuttner, a senior research fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington, D.C. domestic and foreign policy think tank, says that the working premise of the committee is that a “good diet would increase consumer’s costs and imply the end of entire sectors of American agriculture—all in an effort to regulate behavior that has nothing to do with nutrition.” The committee, since 2010, “has not included a member who has any knowledge of food production and food regulation.”

The committee reflects the United Nations global campaign to encourage the consumption of insects. If you love dining on bugs, the UN wants this to be a part of everyone’s diet. According to Eva Muller, the director of Food and Agricultural Organizations Forest Economics, Policy and Products Division, bugs “are nutritious, they have a lot of protein and are considered a delicacy in many countries.”

It should come as no surprise that Michelle Obama is leading the food police at this point. A program of the U.S. Agriculture Department announced new rules in 2013 to remove high caloric food and drink items from cafeterias and campuses of schools around the country. As of this year, sodas, sports drinks, and candy bars are banned. Only diet drinks, granola bars, and fruit are acceptable.

This is Big Government at work, but no one expects that kids will go along, nor are shoppers likely to embrace a U.S. Department of Agriculture report that wants to steer them toward more fruits and vegetables and away from sugar and fat-laden items. The new guide was written for the 47 million Americans who participate in the food stamp program. Yes, 47 million!

Michelle Obama also favors costly–$30,000 each—grocery carts that are color-coded to “help” consumers selected approved food items. This kind of intrusiveness is obnoxious.

Victor Skinner of the Education Action Group noted in early July that “The federal government’s attempt to force public school students to eat ‘healthier’ lunches is falling apart at the seams.” The New York Times News Service reported that the School Nutrition Association (SNA) which initially welcomed the bans is now lobbying Congress to dial back on the “overly prescriptive” and expensive changes.

“Congress is listening,” reported the Times, “and is considering legislation to delay the nutrition regulations for a year, some of which have already gone into effect.” The SNA is pointing out that many students are throwing away the additional fruits and vegetables included in their lunches, amounting to $684 million in food waste every year—or roughly “enough to serve complete reimbursable school lunches to more than 228 million students.” Moreover, the “nutritious” federal lunch menu is also proving costly for many school districts that are now forced to purchase more expensive foods to comply with the regulations.

We have reached the point where some schools are banning birthday cakes or cupcakes in classrooms where such celebrations have gone on for decades. Meanwhile many parents have noticed that their children just skip lunch at school and wait to come home to eat instead.

For as long as I can remember Americans have been told that something they eat or drink is dangerous to their health, even though Americans now enjoy the highest life expectancy since such data has been studied. Almost everything we have been warned against has turned out to have some beneficial aspect to it.

In March, the journal, Annals of Internal Medicine published a study that concluded that “Saturated fat does not cause heart disease.” Nina Teicholz, writing in the Wall Street Journal in May noted that “One consequence is that in cutting back on fats, we are now eating a lot more carbohydrates—at least 25% more since the early 1970s…instead of meat, eggs and cheese, we’re eating more pasta, grains, fruit and starchy vegetables such as potatoes.”

“The problem is that carbohydrates break down into glucose, which causes the body to release insulin, a hormone that is fantastically efficient at storing fat… excessive carbohydrates lead not only to obesity, but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very likely, heart disease.” Thanks to Big Government dietary guidelines and regulations, “the U.S. population (is) growing sicker and fatter while adhering to official dietary guidelines has put nutrition authorities in an awkward position.”

The latest group to join the Food Police are those opposed to food grown with genetically modified organisms (GMO), calling for the labeling of them. This is intended to boost the sales of “organically” grown crops that allegedly do not use pesticides or herbicides. It is pure propaganda because, as Mishcha Popoff, a former organic farmer and USDA-contract organic inspector, and the author of “Is It Organic?” recently noted in a Daily Caller article that “A whopping 43% of all certified-organic food sold in America now test positive for prohibited pesticides.” And, of course, “organic” food items cost more.

Simply put, crops need to be protected against insects and weeds. Always have and always will. There is no evidence that the proper use of insecticides and herbicides pose a health hazard. As one farmer told me, “My family eats what I grow. Do you think I would do anything to harm them?” Popoff notes that “The GMO industry is now well-established, with 35 years of science and over 20 years of commercial success behind it.”

The government has no business telling Americans what they should eat. It too frequently offers bad science and almost always propaganda. In the home of the brave and land of the free this is yet another intrusion in the lives of Americans. What you eat and even how much is an individual freedom and choice.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Planned Parenthood’s War on Women: Counselor Tells Teen to Let Her Boyfriend Beat Her

LifeNews.com reports:

Abortion activists claim pro-lifers are engaging in a “war on women:” by passing legislation to protect women and unborn children from abortion. But a new expose’ video catches a Planned Parenthood staffer engaging in her own war on women.

The pro-life group Live Action released the third installment today in its “SexEd” investigative series, showing a Planned Parenthood staffer in Portland, Oregon offering disturbing sex counseling to someone she thinks is a fifteen-year-old girl. The video clearly shows the counselor encouraging the young girl to allow herself to be victimized in violent sexual encounters with her partner.

The staffer tells the investigator that “it’s very common to experiment with different things,” including “being tied up” and “whipped” and “the baby thing, where they will put on diapers[.]”

Some girls like being “spanked,” “hit,” or “whipped,” said the counselor.

Watch the video interview with a Planned Parenthood counselor (WARING: This material is not suitable for children. Viewer discretion is advised):

Read more.

The Portland video is the third in a series. Previous SexEd installments showed Planned Parenthood locations in Indianapolis and Denver offering similarly disturbing advice to investigators posing as minor girls. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, under whose jurisdiction the Denver facilities lie, is now being sued for sending a 13-year-old abuse victim back to her abuser after aborting her baby.

AGENDA: Grinding America Down

All American citizens who hold their FREEDOM dear, and support family values should watch the below listed video entitled “AGENDA: Grinding America Down.”   We’ve received thousands of E-mails each week for 5 years; “AGENDA: Grinding America Down” is one of the most significant presentations we’ve viewed over these past 5 years.

Before you watch “AGENDA: Grinding America Down”, please watch this 19 second video:

The video is about the values you want to ensure your children & your extended family members benefit from, it supports the different religious faiths that provide the foundation upon which human values are based, it’s about supporting the members of the US Armed Forces—many of whom gave their last full measure of devotion in order to defend the Republic—it is mainly about the FREEDOMS accorded to all American citizens in the US Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

AGENDA: Grinding America Down

Using Obama’s own words, when he said that he fully intends to “fundamentally transform” our 238 year old Republic; we now have witnessed his true goal to create a Socialist State by any means necessary.  By repealing President Clinton’s requirement that welfare recipients must work for financial aid from the government, over the past 6 years, Obama has managed to enroll a record number of Americans and illegal immigrants in government welfare program with 40 million on food stamps, and millions of new recipients on the disability rolls.

Obama has been framing traditional US work ethics as the foolish belief that President Ronald Reagan once supported, with President Reagan’s thesis that anyone can lift themselves up by their bootstraps being the promise that always has been America and the success that comes about from hard work.  In order to “fundamentally transform America”,  Obama in his speeches and his bloated bureaucracy has been working to replace President Reagan’s well held belief  in American’s work ethic, that contributed to the most successful economy in the history of mankind with something that has never worked in any country in history.  Obama wants to replace American work ethic with the Marxist principal that government must distribute the wealth created by hard working Americans to those who have little interest in working.  Obama wants to more heavily tax the top 10% of successful American earners who already pay 68% of all the taxes in the nation each year (the bottom 50% of earners in America pay 3% of all the taxes).

Obama’s unrelenting attack on the Second Amendment and the right of American citizen’s to bear arms, and the protections accorded all American citizens by provisions of  the Second Amendment that is under relentless assault by the Obama administration.  Obama’s use of the IRS to suppress the rights of conservative Americans who were trying to exercise their right to participate in a national presidential elections should have a special Prosecutor assigned, but Holder refuses to appoint one.   Obama is also using Holder’s Justice Department to prevent states from issuing voter IDs to endure American citizens only vote once, in the last presidential election 7 million voters voted in two states; voter fraud was not controlled; the fear of rampant voter fraud looms large in the November election.

AGENDA Grinding America Down graph

For a larger view click on the chart

The Obama administration will eventually meet with serious and widespread “unorganized” opposition from American citizens because of his violation of Federal Laws, Immigration Laws, and provisions of the US Constitution.   The  Obama administration has been preparing for possible citizen’s unrest, by creating heavily arming federal police force swat teams in the Capital Police Force, Park Police, DHS, the Wildlife Service, the Marshal Service, in the IRS, the Postal Police, the Department of Defense Police, the Federal Protective Service, the Secret Service, and Obama ‘s National Police Force authorized & funded by the Obamacare Law, while providing DHS with armored vehicles, and purchasing excessive amounts of ammunition (more than the US Army and the US Marine Corps uses each year in training their personnel).

The most important Congressional election in 238 years will be held in about 3 months, we encourage you to support the endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress listed in the attachment.  They have the courage to stand up to bureaucratic excesses, will work to rein in the out of control spending by irresponsible members of Congress & the Obama administration, and will protect and defend the US Constitution.

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.