A Message From Lucianne  



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

Supreme Court may not
protect Obamacare this time

Washington Post, by Ruth Marcus

Original Article

Posted By:Dreadnought, 7/24/2014 10:35:53 PM

Don’t be so sure that the Supreme Court is going to save Obamacare. Again. The question is enormously important: Are health-care consumers entitled to subsidies if they buy coverage on insurance exchanges established by the federal government, as they are with insurance from state exchanges? Two federal appeals courts have reached contradictory conclusions, at least so far. (The Obama administration plans to ask the full federal appeals court in Washington to review the three-judge panel ruling against the subsidies, and that court is newly stocked with liberals.) Cases are headed to two other appeals courts. Which adds up to:


Post Reply  

Reply 1 - Posted by: Safari Man, 7/24/2014 10:47:42 PM     (No. 9939032)

The Supreme Court simply isn’t going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people in order to teach Congress a lesson about grammar

Its not an issue of grammar, its an issue of the Feds wanting to force states to each have their own exchange and punish the states that do not comply. The Feds do this all the time by withholding various funds from states which don´t follow the wishes of the Federal mandates.

If the court "ducks the issue", it will be the greatest shirking of responsibility imaginable and would make me wonder if the Supreme Court should simply be disbanded.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    39 persons like this.

Reply 2 - Posted by: Truth Czar, 7/24/2014 11:16:55 PM     (No. 9939071)

The wording of the law was intentional. The drafters intended to coerce the states to build healthcare exchanges by only allowing subsidies in state exchanges. They believed this would force the states to build exchanges at their own expense.
But the law of unintended consequences intervened. States rebelled by not giving in.

With such a crappy result, the libs are now trying to change the intentions!! What was purposely written is now the words are ambiguous and the law meant to say all exchanges.

Total bull crap.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    39 persons like this.




Reply 3 - Posted by: lil dotty, 7/25/2014 12:11:12 AM     (No. 9939101)

Until the decision is announced, we will know nothing. Earlier today it was read that Scalia had shown his hand in some fashion and the court decision would likely land on o-care side. At this point it is anyone´s guess. All we can do is pray harder and more often.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    17 persons like this.

Reply 4 - Posted by: Nevadadad46, 7/25/2014 12:19:08 AM     (No. 9939106)

Nope! SCOTUS 1) Probably will not hear it if the panel agrees with the DC court. SCOTUS will hear it if the Panel strikes it. SCOTUS will then full approve the ACA as written...Result, Full steam ahead for the final destruction and collapse of the U.S. economy.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    13 persons like this.

Reply 5 - Posted by: miceal, 7/25/2014 1:12:43 AM     (No. 9939130)

What does it matter? This administration will do what it wants regardless of what these four LIEbral, 4 semi-conservative, and the absolute worthless "leader" decide.......

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    18 persons like this.

Reply 6 - Posted by: stablemoney, 7/25/2014 1:58:52 AM     (No. 9939145)

If our laws are now to be interpreted based upon what the drafters intended to say, rather than what they said, I cannot see much reason for having drafters. Why not just a King´s whim?

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    29 persons like this.

Reply 7 - Posted by: enuf8, 7/25/2014 3:48:06 AM     (No. 9939172)

Roberts gave Boehner the tool to totally wipe out this monster obamacare once and for all by calling it a TAX. Since the ´law´ did not originate in the House he should have raised the situation at the time and had it nullified.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    27 persons like this.




Reply 8 - Posted by: Trigger2, 7/25/2014 5:21:06 AM     (No. 9939190)

By Barry calling for the full federal appeals court, packed by libtards, to review the case, the fix is already in. Here´s the result: 3 courts will have ruled that the federal crap exchange is the same as the state crap exchanges; ergo, no need for the Supreme Court to review anything. Besides, there´s always NSA and its spying database to glean out any tidbit for blackmail purposes.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    12 persons like this.

Reply 9 - Posted by: franq, 7/25/2014 6:04:53 AM     (No. 9939210)

"disband it"
I like that idea. Most of the higher federal courts are rogue entities anyway. The legal process has become one expensive game.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    13 persons like this.

Reply 10 - Posted by: Really?, 7/25/2014 7:47:38 AM     (No. 9939275)

I looked at a Social Security report from 2012 the other day. It showed that I had paid SS and Medicare taxes (including my employer contributions-which sometimes was me) totaling over $ 400,000 over the years. My expected payout at age 66 was about $2,200 a month.

All I could think of was that several families were getting subsidies for ACA policies of similar amounts for not contributing a dime.

How can anyone think that the country can absorb such enormous costs without collapsing. Oh....of course I DO realize that NONE of my SS taxes have been save in a "lock box" like we were promised...the funds have all been spent.

Sorry, but I sincerely believe that excessive Democrat spending and irresponsible budgeting will be the ruin of the entire country. Obama is just the worst to come along yet. Unfortunately there will be more.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    20 persons like this.

Reply 11 - Posted by: dodge boy, 7/25/2014 8:03:54 AM     (No. 9939299)

After Obie gets done threatening Roberts with something else and Roberts ends up backing Obie again, we´ll be back to square one.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    14 persons like this.

Reply 12 - Posted by: Rinktum, 7/25/2014 8:08:51 AM     (No. 9939311)

I have zero faith in the SCOTUS since CJ Roberts decision to unilaterally change the wording of the ACA in order to allow it to chug along and financially ruin this country. Politics was the driving force behind that decision. Roberts´ attempt to save the reputation of his court backfired on him big time. When politics trump the rule of law, there is chaos and Roberts served the mess that is Obamacare to us on a silver platter. I can´t see him having the courage to actually interpret the law instead of reading intent into it. He failed the integrity test the last time around, I don´t expect him to do any better this time.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    15 persons like this.




Reply 13 - Posted by: walcb, 7/25/2014 8:45:31 AM     (No. 9939364)

As someone said when they called Rush yesterday, Congress didn´t have any intent when they signed this bill, they didn´t even know what was in it, per Nancy Pelosi "we have to pass this bill to find out what is in it".

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    13 persons like this.

Reply 14 - Posted by: Hobbiest, 7/25/2014 8:46:33 AM     (No. 9939367)

The language is clear on its face and there is not one iota of contemporaneous evidence that the intent was something different. When the language in the law is ambiguous a court may rely on legislative committee reports from the time the law was under consideration to determine intent. But the courts have long rejected self serving statements of intent that date from after the bill was drafted, passed and signed into law.

Overturning the law on these grounds fits with Chief Justice Roberts philosophy. Elections have consequences. So does ramming through a hastily drafted, largely unread bill that was becoming ever more unpopular as people learned what was in it.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    16 persons like this.

Reply 15 - Posted by: stryker714, 7/25/2014 9:07:23 AM     (No. 9939403)

Come on, let´s be more optimistic. This aspect of the case, subsidies, coming before the Supremes is much different than the individual mandate case. There is no reason to chart the outcome of this case to the old one. Roberts must know the backlash he created and the damage he did to the court, so perhaps he´ll interpret differently this time. Remember the ACA just got pulled from US territories and that should help set a precedent.

What would be hysterical though is if Roberts rewrites it again, declares it something else other than a tax to help the miserable democrats with yet another mistake they made.
Call it whack a mole for "today´s interpretation", lol.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    13 persons like this.

Reply 16 - Posted by: Butch59, 7/25/2014 11:42:46 AM     (No. 9939695)

This country has been living under SC rulings for many, many years (I´d guess at least 200yrs) by courts making rulings by interpreting the legislators "intentions" rather that what is actually written down. How many times have you heard someone (usually Dims) blathering on about "the intent of the founders". I´ve always thought that it is the height of hypocrisy to assume that he/she has the ability to go back in time and read the minds of someone who has been dead for over 200yrs. This Obozocare thing is the same. There are those that just "know" what the Congress persons that voted for it intended but failed to write it down in the law. My take is that they are reading those nearly empty minds after someone called them on just what is actually written. And anyone that disagrees with them just can´t see the forest for the trees.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    8 persons like this.

Reply 17 - Posted by: hicokid, 7/25/2014 12:50:39 PM     (No. 9939835)

SCOTUS does not need to determine the intent of Congress as they would in a case of the founding fathers and our Constitution. Congress is in session just across town. They should send it back to Congress for clarification. The politics of whose in power is none of the court´s business.

It burns me up that these lefty judges ponder the consequences of a different Congress "gutting the law."

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    9 persons like this.




Reply 18 - Posted by: dman, 7/25/2014 2:21:13 PM     (No. 9939980)

We still need a Supreme Court, #1. We just need to vacate the "judicial review" precedent of Marbury v. Madison.

It is Congress´ responsibility to oversee the courts, not the other way around. If there is a Constitutional issue, it should be taken up with the states and the people, not with a handful of robed lawyers.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    12 persons like this.

Reply 19 - Posted by: Libertygal, 7/25/2014 2:46:16 PM     (No. 9940019)

Again. I will repeat myself. This portion of the law was written BY SCOTUS. Check the history of the changes to the bill. If SCOTUS rules against it, they will, in fact, be ruling against themselves!

They must uphold the first decision, or rule against themselves!

As I stated, again in other posts, Roberts encouraged in his opinion, to fight this decision in the courts. He knew there were flaws. He, and the other justices will uphold law, I can promise you, regardless of what Obie has on him. The text, as written, is plain and clear. Intent doesn´t matter, facts are all that matter in law.

It was clear the purpose, it was clear Obambi expected more states to accept Federal dollars. The SCOTUS was standing up for states´ rights, and then encouraged us, the people, to fight back if we had it in us.

We do, and we did. I think this is what Roberts wanted. He wrote that portion of the bill. To rule any other way would be total insanity.

Study the history of the bill, then calm down!

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    10 persons like this.

Reply 20 - Posted by: fed-up, 7/25/2014 4:34:24 PM     (No. 9940123)

Whoever wrote the thing anyway? How many pages was it?? We saw the stack of how high it was, and now they say the wording was wrong? You can´t make this stuff up. Im starting to think that was the reason for the thousands of pages of legal jargon. There´s probably not 4 people in the US that has read the whole thing.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    9 persons like this.

Reply 21 - Posted by: msjena, 7/25/2014 4:48:36 PM     (No. 9940144)

How did Roberts, a sitting Supreme Court Justice, write any portion of Obamacare? If he is consistent, he and his fellow conservatives will rule that Congress, not the Court, has to fix the wording. It´s too bad for the Democrats that they no longer control Congress, but if they hadn´t rammed the law through without any bipartisan support, they wouldn´t be in this quandary.

  Click Here if you Like this Comment

    7 persons like this.

Post Reply   Close thread 794057

Below, you will find ...

Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"


Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)

Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"

Bill Maher announces he’s
targeting Rep. John Kline.
He picked the wrong guy.
Washington Post, by Aaron Blake    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/13/2014 12:00:56 AM     Post Reply
Comedian Bill Maher announced Friday night that he will personally target Republican Rep. John Kline (Minn.) for defeat in the November election -- the culmination of his longstanding "Flip a District" contest in which the HBO host allowed his viewers to pick which Republican he would attempt to unseat. The final four were Kline and Reps. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) and Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.). Maher made the announcement Friday from his show in Washington, D.C. Maher in 2012 donated $1 million to the super PAC devoted to reelecting President Obama, so it´s clear he puts his money where

Glitch in health care law
allows employers to
offer substandard insurance
Washington Post, by Jay Hancock    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/12/2014 11:57:02 PM     Post Reply
A flaw in the federal calculator for certifying that insurance meets the health law’s toughest standard is leading dozens of large employers to offer plans that lack basic benefits such as hospitalization coverage, according to brokers and consultants. The calculator appears to allow companies enrolling workers for 2015 to offer inexpensive, substandard medical insurance while avoiding the Affordable Care Act’s penalties, consumer advocates say. Insurance pros are also surprised such plans are permitted. Employer insurance without hospital coverage “flies in the face of Obamacare,” said Liz Smith, president of employee benefits for Assurance, an Illinois-based insurance brokerage. At the same

Obama´s ´Now Watch This Drive´
Moment A Political Tipping Point
Breitbart Big Government, by Mike Flynn    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/12/2014 9:38:29 PM     Post Reply
In politics, gallons of ink and countless hours of argument and debate can be swept aside or solidified by a single inflection point. Carter battling the "killer rabbit," Reagan thundering that he "paid for this mic" or Bush prematurely swaggering beneath a "mission accomplished" sign cemented voter perceptions far more than countless opinion writers or pundits were able to achieve. Moments like these define a Presidency. Obama´s moment came as he reached for a driver, moments after speaking to the world about the beheading of American journalist James Foley. For years, pundits argued that Obama was preternaturally aloof and detached.

Facebook´s Marc Andreessen:
Jeff Sessions ´Clinically Insane´
for Supporting U.S. Workers
Breitbart Big Government, by Tony Lee    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/12/2014 9:36:31 PM     Post Reply
Do not dare challenge the Masters of the Universe, the Party of Davos, or the Permanent Political Class with facts. After Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), in a thunderous Wednesday speech on the Senate floor, denounced Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg for pushing amnesty on foreign soil and high-tech executives for demanding more guest-worker permits while laying off American workers, Facebook board member Marc Andreessen maligned the Alabama Senator in a series of incensed Tweets. "Outright slander from an odious hack," Andreessen Tweeted on Thursday evening. "Mark has directly & indirectly created 10s, maybe 100s, of thousands of US jobs." He implied that

Full-Frontal Environmentalism:
We Knew It All Along
Power Line, by Steven Hayward    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/11/2014 11:09:13 PM     Post Reply
There’s an old line that environmentalists are “watermelons”—green on the outside, red on the inside. A lot of environmentalists will take great offense if you say this: No no! We like economic growth and capitalism just fine! We just want it to be “sustainable,” whatever that means. And don’t ask for specificity about what “sustainability” means in detail, unless you have a lot of time and a full bottle of hootch handy. Before long you’ll figure out that “sustainable” is just a code word for green things we like, and that it has no rigor whatsoever aside from old-fashioned factor-efficiency,

Arab coalition behind Obama not quite clear
Washington Times, by Dave Boyer    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/11/2014 10:53:02 PM     Post Reply
President Obama’s plan to defeat Islamic State terrorists contains weak links, from the unreliable Syrian rebels who must do the fighting on the ground to suspicion in key Arab states that Mr. Obama lacks the resolve for a long-term campaign, analysts said Thursday. The strategy, which Mr. Obama outlined in a prime-time address Wednesday night, relies heavily on arming moderate Syrian rebels, combined with U.S. air power, to rout the militants in their own backyard. Some of the training for the rebels would be provided by Saudi Arabia, which agreed to a U.S. request this week to provide a base

Obama inevitably will need to
use ground troops to defeat
Islamic State, experts warn
Washington Times, by Rowan Scarborough    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/11/2014 10:50:42 PM     Post Reply
Trying to uproot and destroy the Islamic State’s army of terrorists in Iraq without American ground troops, as President Obama promoted Wednesday night, is doomed to failure, national security experts say. At the least, the president needs to get ground troops closer to the fight, say some politicians and analysts. He should introduce special operations units to advise and join the Iraqis on hunt-and-kill missions against Islamic State leaders, as well as insert controllers to point out targets for warplanes. “What a waste of time,” said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department. “We

Obama losing the confidence
of key parts of the coalition
that elected him
Washington Post, by Karen Tumulty    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/11/2014 10:47:32 PM     Post Reply
Kimberly Cole was part of the coalition that voted in 2008 to make Barack Obama the 44th president and gave him another four years in 2012 to deliver on his promises of hope and change. Now, the 36-year-old mother of three young children in Valencia, Calif., is among the majority of Americans who have lost confidence in Obama’s leadership and the job he is doing as president. “He’s been faced with a lot of challenges, and he’s lost his way,” Cole said in an interview. She worries that Obama lacks the resolve needed at a time when things at home

Obama’s uncertain trumpet, again
Washington Post, by Charles Krauthammer    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/11/2014 10:42:03 PM     Post Reply
In his Islamic State speech, President Obama said many of the right things. Most importantly, he finally got the mission right: degrade and destroy the enemy. This alone will probably get him a bump in the polls, which have dropped to historic lows. But his strategic problem remains: the disconnect between (proclaimed) ends and means. He’s sending an additional 475 American advisers to Iraq. He says he’s broadening the air campaign, but that is merely an admission that the current campaign was always about more than just protecting U.S. personnel in Irbil and saving Yazidis on mountaintops. It was crucially

U.S. weakens al-Qaeda groups
around the world but hasn’t
wiped any out
Washington Post, by Greg Miller and Craig Whitlock    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/11/2014 10:39:11 PM     Post Reply
In declaring that the United States would degrade and “ultimately destroy” an al-Qaeda offshoot in Iraq and Syria, President Obama articulated an objective that the United States has yet to achieve against any of the Islamist adversaries it has faced since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Through two wars, thousands of drone strikes and hundreds of covert operations around the world, the United States has substantially weakened al-Qaeda and its affiliates, eroding their capabilities in ways that have reduced the threat they pose to the United States. The scope of that conflict is poised to expand again as U.S. military

Cheney’s re-emergence complicates
Obama response to Islamic State
Washington Times, by Stephen Dinan    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/10/2014 11:02:23 PM     Post Reply
Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s re-emergence in Washington this week to talk about fighting terrorists in Iraq must have seemed like a bad nightmare for President Obama, who is trying to make a case to skittish voters that the U.S. can expand its military action in the Middle East without repeating the mistakes of his predecessor’s war on terror. For Mr. Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill, the specter of Mr. Cheney and his boss, President George W. Bush, continues to hang over them as they try to grapple with the ascendent insurgents of the Islamic State, also known

Obama’s consistent unseriousness
about the Islamic State
Washington Post, by Jennifer Rubin    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/10/2014 10:56:07 PM     Post Reply
As we suspected, President Obama tried in his Wednesday-night speech to make it sound like he was doing something new when he, in fact, he is not. Moreover, in describing his response, he made plain that he doesn’t take the threat to the homeland seriously. For a threat his advisers say is greater than that posed by al-Qaeda after 2001, he proposed measures suitable for Yemen and Somalia. No, really — that’s the plan. For starters, the president doesn’t believe the Islamic State is a current threat to the U.S.: “So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq

Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)

Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS
53 replie(s)
CNN, by Elise Labott, Laura Smith-Spark*    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 9/11/2014 6:02:43 PM     Post Reply
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, telling CNN in an interview that the administration´s strategy includes "many different things that one doesn´t think of normally in context of war." "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation," Kerry told CNN´s Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "It´s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it´s a major counterterrorism operation that

Palin Family Allegedly
Involved In A Brawl

47 replie(s)
Daily Caller, by Chuck Ross    Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect- 9/12/2014 7:34:06 AM     Post Reply
A majority of the Palin family — Sarah, Todd, Bristol, and Track — was allegedly involved in a booze-filled brawl over the weekend in which the former vice presidential candidate reportedly screamed, “Don’t you know who I am?” According to reports from local bloggers, the Palin crew showed up at a party in Wasilla following a day at the Iron Dog snowmobile race. According to local blogger Amanda Coyne, witnesses at the scene said Palin’s eldest son, Track, showed up to the party in a stretch Hummer. He then confronted a man who had previously dated one of his sisters,

Ted Cruz Stands Up to ‘Hatred and
Bigotry’ at Conference of Middle
Eastern Christians

45 replie(s)
Washington Free Beacon [DC], by Alanda Goodman    Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 9/11/2014 5:53:17 AM     Post Reply
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon that the “hatred and bigotry” he encountered when he was booed off the stage at a Middle Eastern Christian conference for defending Israel on Wednesday night was like nothing he has previously seen in his political career. “I’ve certainly encountered audiences that disagreed with a particular point of view. But this virulent display of hatred and bigotry was remarkable, and considerably different from anything I’ve previously encountered,” Cruz said, just a few hours after his pro-Israel speech to the In Defense of Christians conference was drowned

Obama´s Speech on ISIS, in Plain English
39 replie(s)
Atlantic, by David Frum    Original Article
Posted By: Flyright- 9/12/2014 7:41:48 AM     Post Reply
Qua speech, Barack Obama’s address Wednesday on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was surprisingly terrible: a disorganized mess, insincere and unconvincing. To appreciate just how bad and bizarre it was, compare the president’s speech announcing a new air campaign in Iraq and Syria to Dwight Eisenhower’s 1958 statement on his decision to intervene in Lebanon with 14,000—14,000!—troops. The statement contains no chest-thumping about America’s leadership in science and medicine. No pivot to the auto industry and medical research. Eisenhower simply explained what had been done, and why.

Obama losing the confidence
of key parts of the coalition
that elected him

37 replie(s)
Washington Post, by Karen Tumulty    Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought- 9/11/2014 10:47:32 PM     Post Reply
Kimberly Cole was part of the coalition that voted in 2008 to make Barack Obama the 44th president and gave him another four years in 2012 to deliver on his promises of hope and change. Now, the 36-year-old mother of three young children in Valencia, Calif., is among the majority of Americans who have lost confidence in Obama’s leadership and the job he is doing as president. “He’s been faced with a lot of challenges, and he’s lost his way,” Cole said in an interview. She worries that Obama lacks the resolve needed at a time when things at home

Obama’s Betrayal of the Constitution
37 replie(s)
New York Times, by Bruce Ackerman    Original Article
Posted By: LittleHoodedMonk- 9/11/2014 11:05:42 PM     Post Reply
Berlin - President Obama´s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris. Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions (Snip) Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

Obama at the Credibility Gap
29 replie(s)
National Review Online, by John Fund    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 9/11/2014 5:11:38 AM     Post Reply
Rarely has a president faced a greater challenge in establishing his credibility for a new foreign-policy move than Barack Obama did in his nationally televised speech tonight. A CNN poll earlier this week found that just 30 percent of voters thought Obama had presented a clear plan for fighting the Islamic State. While Obama now pledges to ask Congress to train and aid Syrian rebels who would fight the group, voters remember that he backed similar plans in Syria in 2013, when his advisers saw Syrian president Bashar Assad as the major threat. The new Fox News poll out today has more

Obama’s ‘Strategy’ Has
No Chance of Success

26 replie(s)
Weekly Standard, by Frederick W. Kagan & Kimberly Kagan    Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter- 9/11/2014 4:48:56 AM     Post Reply
President Obama just announced that he is bringing a counter-terrorism strategy to an insurgency fight. He was at pains to repeat the phrase “counter-terror” four times in a short speech. Noting that ISIL is not a state (partly because the international community thankfully does not recognize it), he declared, “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” Neither of those sentences, unfortunately, is true. ISIL is an insurgent group that controls enormous territory in Iraq and Syria that it governs. It maneuvers conventional light

Obama says the Islamic State ‘is
not Islamic.’ Americans disagree.

26 replie(s)
Washington Post, by Aaron Blake    Original Article
Posted By: Toledo- 9/11/2014 12:22:13 PM     Post Reply
Throughout his presidency, President Obama has emphasized one point while talking about Islamist extremists: They are not practicing Islam, he has said, they are perverting it. He took that a step further Wednesday night. While announcing that he´s expanding the campaign against the Islamic State extremist group into Syria, Obama said flatly that this group, which is trying to install a caliphate in the Middle East, "is not Islamic." He didn´t say they are perverting their religion; he said they´re not even part of that religion. "No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of [the Islamic State´s] victims

California study: Truancy
data shows racial divide

26 replie(s)
Associated Press, by Julie Watson    Original Article
Posted By: SoCalGal- 9/12/2014 1:08:32 PM     Post Reply
SAN DIEGO — African-American elementary students in California were chronically truant at nearly four times the rate of all students during the last school year, according to a state report released Friday. The report by the California Attorney General´s office is the first time the data has been broken down according to race and income levels. Officials say such data is needed to address the problem. Poverty and suspensions are contributing factors. Overall, more than 250,000 elementary school students missed 10 percent or more of the 2013-2014 school year or roughly 18 or more school days. The absences were highest at the kindergarten and

Chick-Fil-A Banned from
Donating Food to School Event

25 replie(s)
Breitbart California, by William Bigelow    Original Article
Posted By: KarenJ1- 9/12/2014 8:20:36 PM     Post Reply
A high school football booster club in Ventura was prohibited from selling Chick-fil-A sandwiches at its back-to-school night event because the principal didn’t like the restaurant owner’s position on gay marriage, according to CBS Los Angeles. Val Wyatt, principal of Ventura High School, was quoted in the Ventura County Star as stating, “With their political stance on gay rights and because the students of Ventura High School and their parents would be at the event, I didn’t want them on campus.” The principal was echoed by Ventura Unified School District Superintendent Trudy Tuttle Arriaga, who said, “We value inclusivity and diversity

Memorial service for literary lion
Maya Angelou will feature former first lady
and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

24 replie(s)
New York Daily News, by Jan Ransom    Original Article
Posted By: Scottyboy- 9/11/2014 9:03:09 PM     Post Reply
Literary lion Maya Angelou may be gone, but her memory will live on through the day and beyond. A memorial celebration to honor Angelou, the revered writer, poet, actress and civil rights activist who died this year, will kick off at the Riverside Church on Riverside Dr. near W. 120th St. on Friday at 11 a.m. Former first lady, senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will join a group of renowned speakers — including author Toni Morrison and popular poet Nikki Giovanni — to pay tribute to the legendary Angelou, who died at her home on the North Carolina campus

Post Reply   Close thread 794057

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.