A Message From Lucianne  







S-G1




























ST-GC


   
 
Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google


Obamacare in chaos as federal court
strikes down tax credits for low-income
Americans who buy insurance in 36 states –*

Daily Mail [UK] & Associated Press, by Francesca Chambers

Original Article

Posted By:Attercliffe, 7/22/2014 6:37:25 PM

The future of Obamacare was uncertain today after a federal court in Washington, D.C. struck down tax subsidies for Americans who bought insurance through federally-funded exchanges. Within hours the same policy was held up by another court, setting up a Supreme Court showdown. The cases revolve around four words in the Affordable Care Act, which says the tax credits are available to people who enroll through an exchange ´established by the state.´ The rulings affect consumers who purchased their coverage through the federal insurance marketplace--or exchange--that serves 36 states. If the first ruling is upheld by the nation´s

Comments:
* but different court backs policy within hours

      


Post Reply  

Reply 1 - Posted by: grace1798, 7/22/2014 6:44:49 PM     (No. 9935920)

Virginia. I told you........I hope and pray the decision of DC Court is upheld. But IF it has to go to the Supreme Court.....many will die before it comes up and is decided on and God only knows what Justice Roberts will do. Obama will pay him off again.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    23 persons like this.


Reply 2 - Posted by: Coy860, 7/22/2014 6:55:34 PM     (No. 9935930)

Shocking that Judges can be so lacking in basic reading comprehension.
Subsidies for policies purchased through STATE exchanges...NOT Federal exchanges.
Most States chose not to join exchanges.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    23 persons like this.


   

 

R-G1
  


 
Reply 3 - Posted by: Bpl40, 7/22/2014 6:57:54 PM     (No. 9935934)

´Wholeness and coherence´ are weasel words intended to overthrow constitutional governance. Administration of the law of the land is not pizza delivery. The SCOTUS will have to step in to stop this nonsense.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    15 persons like this.


Reply 4 - Posted by: Philipsonh, 7/22/2014 7:01:45 PM     (No. 9935936)

No matter the "intent" of the law, the wording says something different. THAT means Constitutionally it is up to those that wrote the law to make changes. The Administration well knows that without a majority of Democrats in BOTH house of Congress Obamacare stands little chance of surviving. Of course, the challenge will go to the Supreme Court and they may well make up another new law just as they did the previous time. They appear unable to separate themselves from the other branches of Government.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    15 persons like this.


Reply 5 - Posted by: KTWO, 7/22/2014 7:50:47 PM     (No. 9935979)

The law plainly says "state exchanges". If Roberts is consistent he will accept those words as written and the issue will go to Congress.

OTOH, Roberts sometimes seems to believe using the word "tax" - as in "tax credits" - allows government to do anything.

The differing district court opinions means the USSC should promptly handle the appeal.

Promptly is good. Or it will be if it happens.





  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    15 persons like this.


Reply 6 - Posted by: stablemoney, 7/22/2014 8:55:56 PM     (No. 9936057)

A disgustingly corrupt regime that always has their unconstitutional behavior in a second favorable court to cover their loss in a court that rules against them.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    12 persons like this.


Reply 7 - Posted by: Jethro bo, 7/22/2014 9:01:22 PM     (No. 9936065)

Can we as taxpayers bring a suit against Obambi and his thugs to stop the subsides since we are harmed by our money being used in an unconstitutional scheme?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    27 persons like this.


   

 

R-VAR_AD
  


 
Reply 8 - Posted by: berthabutt, 7/22/2014 10:15:13 PM     (No. 9936121)

Pray-Pray-Pray for our courts & judges to be of steadfast moral fiber, to abide by our Constitution and not bend to political popularity!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    11 persons like this.


Reply 9 - Posted by: bubby, 7/23/2014 7:00:15 AM     (No. 9936357)

Look I still maintain that if the SC upholds the DC court obama will play a round of golf with Speaker Boner and the House will pass a fix to obamacare to include Federal exchanges rather than use the ruling to repeal it. That way everyone is happy the SC, obama and the Democrats along with Speaker Boner and the Rinos. The only ones unhappy with that outcome will be the the Tea Party. To the Republicans that is a win/win!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    10 persons like this.


Reply 10 - Posted by: Udanja99, 7/23/2014 7:33:05 AM     (No. 9936393)

Now we know exactly why that reprehensible weasel, Reid, had to have his "nuclear option". He should suffer a slow and painful demise.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    13 persons like this.


Reply 11 - Posted by: Stryker714, 7/23/2014 8:25:45 AM     (No. 9936447)

The cauldron of activist judges the DC commies have at their disposal strikes again. The pizza analogy is one of the most ridiculous comparisons ever. Obama always has to have some legal loon help him, connect the dots to draw a donkey.
No, the analogy should be that the pizza purchaser saw a commercial for Dominos on tv, that if one says "avoid the noid"(90´s ad theme, noid meaning cold pizza), they get $3.00 off. Then the pizza purchaser gets mad bc pizza came from Pizza Hut and no rebate because Pizza Hut never created any discount promos. Plus, unlike the activist judges sheer speculation, simply having the advertising budget$ to possibly have a discount promo does not mean a discount is implied. Pizza purchaser thought it was the same at both places because they advertise on the same channel! Lol.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    15 persons like this.


Reply 12 - Posted by: Rinktum, 7/23/2014 8:42:23 AM     (No. 9936470)

Most of us are not lawyers but are able to understand the written word even when it is written in haste for pure political reasons. Actually the intent is crystal clear if you think about it. The intent was to convince the states to set up exchanges in order to get the subsidies for their enrollees. (Obama needed enrollees!) The language was put in there purposefully as a means to an end. Now they find themselves hoisted on their own petard and they don´t like it. The law clearly states tax subsidies are given to enrollees through an exchange established by the state. Pretty clear if you ask me. Obama´s scheme just backfired on him, but I am sure he is confident if this goes to the SCOTUS considering his pal, CJ Roberts, changed his paper the last go ´round.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    11 persons like this.


   

 

B-G1


 
Reply 13 - Posted by: D S Craft, 7/23/2014 11:31:48 AM     (No. 9936730)

Now, tell me America´s court system has not become thoroughly politicized. Given that, just how much faith should I have in it? People, we are in very deep doo doo.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    13 persons like this.


Reply 14 - Posted by: strike3, 7/23/2014 12:18:31 PM     (No. 9936811)

If you like your subsidy you can keep your subsidy.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    10 persons like this.


Reply 15 - Posted by: snapper451, 7/23/2014 12:58:59 PM     (No. 9936861)

How can it happen that the White House could get another court to rule within hours of this ruling? No one is asking questions about that. Did they have them on call? There were comments yesterday that the WH response was so smug because they must have had inside information that the 2nd ruling was coming. What happened to separation of powers in this country? Tyranny is here!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.


Reply 16 - Posted by: Clinger, 7/23/2014 2:57:46 PM     (No. 9936995)

Tyranny indeed. Regarding the second ruling, Congress abrogates their constitutional obligations by delegating to agencies under control of the Executive branch and now the Judicial branch defers to one of those agencies. That´s directly handing the executive branch dictatorial powers. Just brilliant ya nit wits.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    6 persons like this.


Reply 17 - Posted by: Ida Lil, 7/23/2014 5:34:34 PM     (No. 9937161)

The second case was not tried in the DC appeals court and only a ruling by the total justices of that court has standing.
The second court did not have jurisdiction over this exact suit.


  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    10 persons like this.


   

 

R_DBL_B
  


 
Reply 18 - Posted by: ColonialAmerican1623, 7/23/2014 7:29:12 PM     (No. 9937246)

What about the people that enrolled online and paid for insurance no doctor will accept ?

It´s getting easier to spot the liberal judges, who like Sotohead "make the law" not enforce the laws.


  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.



Post Reply   Close thread 793700




Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "Attercliffe"

and

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)




Most Recent Articles posted by "Attercliffe"



Senate Declares Israel a
‘Major Strategic Partner’
Arutz Sheva [Israel], by Ben Ariel    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/19/2014 6:37:55 PM     Post Reply
The U.S. Senate unanimously adopted the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act on Thursday evening, reports JNS. The bipartisan bill, which declares Israel to be a “major strategic partner,” was authored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) and had 81 co-sponsors. [Snip] Besides generally elevating the status of the U.S.-Israel relationship, the bill expands the Jewish state’s trade status to expedite export licensing, increases cooperation on energy and other technologies, maintains Israel’s qualitative military edge in the Middle East, and increases U.S. weapons stockpiles in Israel as well as Israeli access to them.

Cameron vows to push through ´English
votes for England laws´ as Boris slams
´reckless´ election promises to Scotland
Daily Mail [UK], by Tom McTague    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/19/2014 6:13:58 PM     Post Reply
David Cameron this morning skewered Labour leader Ed Miliband with a pledge to introduce ´English votes for English laws´ after Scotland rejected independence. The Prime Minister said Scotland had had its say and it was now time to listen to the ´millions of voices of England´ by banning Scottish MPs voting on English-only laws. [Snip] Mr Miliband ducked the issue in his first response to the ´No´ referendum victory this morning--only declaring that he supported ´devolution´ in England. But Labour MPs are split on the issue, in a stand-off which threatens to derail the Government´s timetable for devolving further powers

Humza Yousaf MSP:
The Islamist-Linked ‘Radical’ Behind
Salmond and Scottish Independence
Breitbart London [UK], by Raheem Kassam    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/19/2014 1:58:54 PM     Post Reply
GLASGOW, United Kingdom--As Scotland votes on independence, in a campaign led by Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and a coterie of advisors, few can claim more influence than Member of the Scottish Parliament Humza Yousaf. [Snip] We know he studied politics in his hometown of Glasgow, and according to the Guardian he became involved in politics just after 9/11. He was firmly opposed to the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was prolific in the Stop The War movement, helping to organise coaches from Glasgow Central Mosque to the two million strong rally against the war in Iraq.

   

 



 
So Britain is Still Great.
But For How Much Longer?
Breitbart London [UK], by James Delingpole    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/19/2014 1:36:58 PM     Post Reply
First the good news. Thanks to last night´s "No" vote in the Scottish referendum Britain has been spared the following: a run on the pound; the hasty exodus of Scotland´s finance industry; the premature death of UKIP; the gloating of Alex Salmond; a Red-Wedding-style outbreak of backstabbing and bloodletting among Tories and Labour alike; a collapse in the markets; at least two years of procedural sclerosis in the British and Scottish parliaments; the entirely unnecessary and utterly ill-considered rupture of a the greatest Union between nations the world has ever known; waking up this morning to find ourselves no longer

Washington will be hugely
relieved by Scotland’s ´No´ vote
Telegraph [UK], by Nile Gardiner    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/19/2014 1:17:58 PM     Post Reply
Scotland’s rejection of independence from Great Britain will be greeted with a huge sigh of relief in Washington, on both sides of the political aisle. [Snip] There were also major concerns in the Pentagon over the desire of Scottish Nationalists to remove Britain’s nuclear deterrent from Scottish waters. The president himself made an intervention in the Scottish debate, and dozens of Members of Congress signed on to a resolution urging Britain to remain intact. With a crisis brewing in the Middle East, and the United States fighting a war against a barbaric Islamist army in Iraq that is now stronger

Scottish independence:
Scotland votes No
Scotsman [UK], by Staff    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/19/2014 8:33:09 AM     Post Reply
Alex Salmond’s dream of independence has been shattered after Scotland voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. Scotland today rejected independence and voted to remain part of the United Kingdom at the end of the most intense political campaign the country has ever seen. The silent majority finally raised its voice on a tense yet utterly compelling night of political history. During a referendum that attracted record numbers of voters and was hailed as a triumph of democracy, the people voted to maintain the 307-year Union. A decisive No vote was the culmination of two and a half-years of

Scotland votes No:
what happens now?
Telegraph [UK], by James Kirkup    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/19/2014 8:21:35 AM     Post Reply
Scotland has voted against independence. Here’s a quick look at what happens--and doesn’t happen--now: The Union stands. That is all. A political union that has lasted for 307 years continues. Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom. Border posts are not thrown up in the Cheviots. Britain’s nuclear-armed submarines remain based in Scotland. The pound, though it may wobble, does not tumble on currency markets. Billions of pounds invested in Scottish banks mostly stays put. As do the banks. The biggest constitutional crisis in British history does not happen. Alex Salmond has some tricky questions to answer.

Scottish independence:
referendum results - live
Telegraph [UK], by Georgia Graham    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/19/2014 12:10:33 AM     Post Reply
Latest 04.59: John Curtice, professor of politics at University of Strathclyde says it is likely to be No and by a bigger margin than any recent polls suggested. 04.57: Scottish Borders opts for No by big margin - Yes: 27,906 No: 55,553. 04.55: THE VOTE SO FAR: Yes: 1,036,810 (46.34%) No: 1,200,695 (53.66%). 04.53: Glasgow votes Yes - Yes: 194,779, No: 169,347. 04.52: Glasgow coming now, this is big turnout 75%. 04.49: Perth and Kinross votes no. Yes: 41,475 No: 62,714. 04.48: South Lanarkshire has votes No for the Union - Yes: 109,990, No: 121,800

Salmond hammered in his own backyard:
First Minister flies to Edinburgh as his
dream of Scottish independence is rejected
again and again by voters, including in his*
Daily Mail [UK], by Matt Chorley    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/18/2014 11:44:54 PM     Post Reply
A miserable Alex Salmond boarded a private jet at Aberdeen airport this morning, as his dream of Scottish independence was shot down in flames by voters across the country. In a bombshell first result, Clackmannanshire--rated by Credit Suisse as the most likely to vote Yes--dramatically rejected independence by 54 percent to 46 percent. After Orkney and the Shetland Islands also voted no, it emerged voters in Mr Salmond´s own backyard in Aberdeenshire also look set to have rejected separation in his own backyard, just as the SNP conceded defeat in West Lothian. Senior figures in the Better Together campaign now

Scottish independence campaign - live
Telegraph [UK], by Matthew Holehouse    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/18/2014 8:10:54 AM     Post Reply
12.40 In Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, a demonstration takes place in support of Scottish independence. "I support the Scots. Their referendum is going peacefully, without war. I´m very jealous, and I wish them all the best," tells Natalia Isaeva tells the patriotic Russian channel LifeNews. Why´s it significant? Moscow watches the referendum closely. In part, because Scottish independence puts a big question mark over the future of Britain´s nuclear arsenal, and the Nato patrols that intercept stray Russian flights. [Snip] 12.30 Around 1,000 people, including leaders from the Better Together and Yes campaigns, are expected to attend the Church of Scotland’s

Scots Should Vote
No on Independence
Breitbart London [UK], by Peter Morici    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/18/2014 2:31:23 AM     Post Reply
Scots will be worse off if they vote for independence. It’s not good economics and not much else is at stake.[Snip] Independence has been seized by the professional left—academics, artists of all kinds and other “social thinkers”—who believe an independent Scotland could raise taxes and spend more to affect more progressive social values. The Scots do support Labor candidates for Westminster in much greater numbers than do the English. Scotland is hardly shortchanged by London. It accounts for 8.3 percent of the UK population but receives 9.2 percent of public spending. Nevertheless, advocates of independence say if Scotland got control

Cases of rare and severe
respiratory illness enterovirus 68
confirmed in 14 states as it spreads
quickly among children across America
Daily Mail [UK], by Associated Press & Alexander Klausner    Original Article
Posted By: Attercliffe- 9/18/2014 2:10:31 AM     Post Reply
Health officials say 14 states now have respiratory illnesses caused by an uncommon virus--enterovirus 68 which is marked by severe breathing problems and will continue to infect children in more states. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials say Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania together have 130 lab-confirmed cases. As of Wednesday both Minnesota and New Jersey also have confirmed cases of the severe virus. [Snip] The Star Tribune reports that The Children’s hospitals in Minneapolis and St. Paul have been averaging a combined total of around 300 children transferred to



Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)



Democrats Slam Debbie Wasserman Schultz
46 replie(s)
Breitbart InstaBlog, by Dan Riehl    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 9/17/2014 8:56:27 PM     Post Reply
Politico reports that "long-simmering doubts" and a renewed lack of confidence in Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the White House, congressional Dems and other Washington Democrats has Schultz struggling to try and hold onto her job. They´ve lost faith in her as "a unifying leader and reliable party spokesperson" just as we approach a mid-term election that already has Democrats at a disadvantage. Recently, Wasserman Schultz criticized the White House’s for it´s handling of the immigration crisis and also border crisis and also compared the political right to wife beaters. The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee

Michelle Obama: Americans ´Take for
Granted´ How Much Barack Has Improved US

44 replie(s)
Breitbart Big Government, by Charlie Spiering    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 9/19/2014 10:49:59 AM     Post Reply
First Lady Michelle Obama proudly defended her husband’s record at a Washington, D.C. fundraiser, reminding the attendants how far the country had come since the Obamas entered the White House. “Just think about how different our country looks to children growing up today,” she said. “Think about how our kids take for granted that a black person or a woman can be President of the United States.” She also praised President Obama for changing history on gay marriage and the Supreme Court. “They take it for granted that for the first time in history, there are three brilliant women serving

Obama slaps down top
general and insists there
will be NO combat boots on
the ground in battle against
ISIS as he rallies troops
at air base

41 replie(s)
Daily Mail (UK), by David Martoski    Original Article
Posted By: pineledger- 9/18/2014 5:14:05 AM     Post Reply
President Barack Obama insisted on Wednesday that he would not send ground troops into Iraqi combat zones to fight the ISIS terrorist army, directly contradicting his top general who said a day earlier that the president asked him for boots-on-the-ground recommendations ´on a case-by-case basis.´ (Snip)´As your commander-in-chief,´ Obama insisted, ´I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.´ On Tuesday, however, Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers that circumstances on the ground could drive him to push for American combat troops to be embedded with Iraqi army

Michelle Obama: ´Being Married
to the President ... Can Be Hard´

39 replie(s)
Weekly Standard, by Daniel Halper    Original Article
Posted By: jackson- 9/18/2014 8:45:39 AM     Post Reply
First Lady Michelle Obama visited sick children at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, where she complained about living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and being married to the president of the United States. She made the comments in response to being asked about her "favorite part about being in the White House." "About being in the -- about being First Lady is being able to do stuff like this, really. And it is so special for me to get to meet kids like you guys," Michelle Obama started. "Because sometimes living in the White House and being married to the

Rift widens between Obama,
U.S. military over strategy
to fight Islamic State

37 replie(s)
Washington Post, by Craig Whitlock    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/18/2014 10:18:03 PM     Post Reply
Flashes of disagreement over how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and U.S. military leaders, the latest sign of strain in what often has been an awkward and uneasy relationship. Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group. Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee

Obamacare Creator: Die At 75!
35 replie(s)
Breitbart, Big Government, by Ben Shapiro    Original Article
Posted By: Vastrightwingconspirator- 9/18/2014 5:00:01 PM     Post Reply
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the masterminds behind Obamacare, has now explained that he wishes to die at age 75. In an article in The Atlantic, Emanuel writes, “Seventy-five. That’s how long I want to live: 75 years.” He explains that his daughters disagree; so do his brothers and his friends. But, he says, “I am sure of my position…here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but

Hillary Clinton: Congress Out of
Touch on Women´s Issues

34 replie(s)
NBC News, by Kasie Hunt    Original Article
Posted By: BaseballFan- 9/18/2014 5:15:18 PM     Post Reply
Congress is living in an "evidence-free zone" as it debates issues of equal pay and family-friendly work policies, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday. "Unfortunately, reality is not always the context in which these decisions are made. The Congress increasingly -- despite the best efforts of my friends and others -- is living in an evidence-free zone," she said during a roundtable discussion at the Center for American Progress focused on women´s issues. "What the reality is, in the lives of Americans is so far from the minds of too many who don´t place the highest priority" on

How gender mattered in the rise and
fall of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

34 replie(s)
Washington Post, by Nia-Malika Henderson    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 9/19/2014 5:06:33 AM     Post Reply
Devastating. That´s really the only way to describe Politico´s piece on DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (I hereby nominate her for Worst Week in Washington.) (Editor´s note: Three words -- Joseph. Robinette. Biden.) Based on interviews with DNC staffers -- both former and current -- the piece described Wasserman Schultz as something of a modern-day Tracy Flick: over-eager, disloyal and not shy about promoting her ambitions. It would be fair to say that she sounds like, well, a lot like other politicians. And this would be accurate. But the wholesale bashing of Wasserman Schultz at every level of the party -- White House,

Is Obama Wagging the Ebola Dog?
27 replie(s)
American Thinker, by Lauri B Regan    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 9/18/2014 6:40:19 AM     Post Reply
The anti-war president has finally found a way to wag the dog without upsetting his liberal base and war-weary electorate. Despite the beheading of two Americans, establishment of an Islamic caliphate, direct threats to the U.S. homeland, and the destabilization of the entire Middle East, Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are at war with barbaric Islamic jihadists. And he refuses to authorize the requisite boots on the ground. However, Obama just discovered his pre-midterm election method of wagging the dog -- distracting from his incompetent and dangerous response (or lack thereof) to the real threats to America’s national security

Outraged Swiss village of 1,000
residents forced to raise taxes after
African refugee mother-of-seven
moves there and costs them
£40,000 a month in benefits

26 replie(s)
Daily Mail [UK], by John Hall    Original Article
Posted By: Judy W.- 9/17/2014 8:10:03 PM     Post Reply
A village of just 1,000 residents in Switzerland has been forced to raise taxes because an African refugee and her seven children cost the local authority £40,000 in benefits every month. Hagenbuch, in the Swiss canton of Zurich, is understood to be spending close to a third of its total annual budget on the family after they arrived from Eritrea in East Africa three years ago. The massive benefits bill covers day-to-day living expenses such as groceries and cleaning costs, as well as paying for four of the woman´s children to be housed in an orphanage and even bills for

Obama Says Senate Vote To Arm
Syrian Rebels Was US Politics
´At Its Best´

26 replie(s)
Business Insider, by Hunter Walker    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 9/19/2014 5:13:01 AM     Post Reply
The U.S Senate passed a bill Thursday evening that will give President Barack Obama the authority to arm moderate Syrian rebels, which is a key part of his plan to fight the jihadist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS and ISIL). Shortly after the Senate passed the bill, which was passed by the House on Wednesday, Obama spoke from the White House. "I´m pleased that Congress, a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate, have now voted to support a key element of our strategy," Obama said. Obama, who reiterated the fact

Where is Our Voice in the Wilderness
Touting Conservatism?

22 replie(s)
Canada Free Press, by Lloyd Marcus    Original Article
Posted By: tisHimself- 9/18/2014 6:33:24 AM     Post Reply
For crying out loud, will someone “pleeeeease” take a stand for Conservatism? Someone forwarded this article to me, “Why Are Republicans Suddenly Leaning Left?” The article cites numerous examples of the GOP obviously believing it must embrace at least lukewarm Liberalism while backing away from Conservatism to win elections.The article mentioned that Mitt Romney avoided saying “Republican” in an ad supporting Scott Brown’s Senate run. Romney said in the ad referring to Brown, “will buck his own party to do what’s right for New Hampshire.” Romney’s statement implies that Conservatism can be mean, but rest assured that Brown will push

   

Post Reply   Close thread 793700





Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | RSS | Contribute | Register | Rules & FAQs
Privacy Policy | Search | Post | Contact | Logout | Forgot Password | Search Using Google



© 2014 Lucianne.com Media Inc.

FS