The Beginning Of The End Of Obamacare: Supreme Court Sides With Hobby Lobby

It is a great day for America! The Constitution Stands!  The First Amendment that allows for freedom of religion has faced it's greatest test and has won! 

The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans.

Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later.

Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama’s campaign for re-election.

On Monday, dealing with a small sliver of the law, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. The court’s four liberal justices dissented.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.

He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.

Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups’ insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

The accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, but the court said Monday that the profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.

The administration said a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what’s best for their health, not whether they can afford it. The government’s supporters pointed to research showing that nearly one-third of women would change their contraceptive if cost were not an issue; a very effective means of birth control, the intrauterine device, can cost up to $1,000.

The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

Nearly 50 businesses have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like those involved in the Supreme Court case, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized. Other companies object to paying for any form of birth control.

There are separate lawsuits challenging the contraception provision from religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges and charities.

A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employers already had offered such coverage before the health care law required it.

It is unclear how many women potentially are affected by the high court ruling. The Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-crafts stores is by far the largest employer of any company that has gone to court to fight the birth control provision.

Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. The Greens are evangelical Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.

The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa., owned by a Mennonite family and employing 950 people in making wood cabinets

Same Sex Marriage? Not So Fast Appellete Court Judge Issues Dissent Otherwise

Yesterday marked the first time since then a federal judge has argued for keeping a state ban on same-sex marriages.

Judge Paul J Kelly, Jr.

Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. was in the minority in his opinion as the two other judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel found the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of gay couples to marry. Kelly has broken the string of 16 state and federal judges who sided with gay marriage advocates in cases across the country over the past year.

Legal observers and friends both say that's not a surprise. "He's not afraid to be the only guy taking a position if he believes it's correct," said Hal Stratton, a former New Mexico Attorney General who served with Kelly in the state legislature in the late 1970s.

Kelly, 73, is a Republican and appointee of President George H.W. Bush who is known for his fondness for bow ties, withering questioning at oral arguments and willingness to rule against law enforcement and for civil rights. On Wednesday, in his 21-page dissent, Kelly warned that his colleagues were overreaching in striking down Utah's voter-approved gay marriage ban.

 Creating a national mandate for gay marriage, even in states where it is unpopular, "turns the notion of a limited national government on its head," he wrote, adding later: "We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment.”

After two terms, Kelly moved to Santa Fe to run his firm's office there and left elected office. He joined the volunteer fire department in his rural community and even well into his 60s would dash out of dinners to rescue people from car crashes. In a 2008 interview, Kelly, then 67, told the Santa Fe New Mexican he worked out four times a week. "I work to keep up with the younger guys. ... We're swinging axes at metal walls and if you didn't keep in shape, you'd die."

Bush appointed Kelly to the 10th Circuit in 1991. His highest-profile case was when he presided over Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh's appeal. U.S. marshals accompanied him and his wife on an airplane from Albuquerque for the hearings in Denver, where the circuit is based. In his interview with his former clerk, Kelly also proudly cited his opinion in a 1998 case where he ruled that police cannot offer plea deals in exchange for courtroom testimony. Federal prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies were outraged and the full 10th Circuit reversed Kelly's opinion.

Kelly didn't budge, writing a dissent from the new opinion. "Courts," he wrote, "must apply unambiguous statutes as they are written."

Russian Police Women: Acceptable Uniforms Mini Skirts and High Heels?

Russia’s Interior Ministry is cracking down on a growing number of police officers wearing skimpy uniforms.

The ministry declared all uniform modifications unacceptable in response to a growing number of women shortening their skirts, and men cutting their shirt sleeves, The Moscow Times reported Monday. They’ve also prohibited mixing uniforms with civilian clothing, and wearing wrinkled clothing.

Deputy Interior Minister Sergei Gerasimov told notified department heads that taking liberties with police uniforms undermines the authority of the Interior Ministry and discredits the entire police force.

“When you meet people, the first thing you see is their clothing, and for a police officer fulfilling his duties, it is crucial to have a tidy and neat appearance,” Gerasimov said. “From time to time, we have seen instances of officers improperly wearing their uniforms. … Heads of departments must pay more attention to the appearance of their subordinates.”

Here’s one example floating around Twitter:

The Balanced Budget Amendment Constitutionalizes Obamacare

Peter Konetchy

Today we welcome a guest post from +Peter Konetchy candidate for Congress in Michigan's 4th Congressional District.

Assume you understood that Obamacare had nothing to do with healthcare but with the imposition of absolute control over the people, that it was 100% unconstitutional, and though actively being implemented, was unlawful and could be legally ignored by the people and the states, or could possibly be overturned by a future court.

If you supported this program, what would be a fail safe solution to ensure it could never be eliminated?

Remember Rahm Emanuel’s quote “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Following suit, Washington created a crisis of unsustainable spending which will force our economic collapse unless immediately addressed.

The carefully crafted “solution” is to develop a groundswell of support for a “common-sense” Balanced Budget Amendment forcing Washington to limited spending to what it is able to collect — theoretically averting this government created catastrophe. 

What are the actual ramifications of a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Spending will no longer be based on delegated constitutionally authority, but on what government is able to collect through taxation — a very significant difference.  The end result will be that Congress can spend money at its sole discretion to promote any program whatsoever – as long as it doesn’t spend more than it collects.  Think of the incentive to impose the highest tax possible, on every aspect of society, to fund this insatiable lust for power.

Funding of programs which are now unconstitutional, such as Obamacare, will be immediately be re-classified as constitutional — as long as they can be funded without incurring a deficit.  If money is tight Congress can use its discretion to cut critical programs such as defense and immigration — unless additional money can be extorted from the people.

The true solution, which the establishment, media, and talking heads will not address, is to enforce the existing provisions of the Constitution which restrict federal taxation and spending to that directly needed to provide for our defense, maintain our sovereignty, and represent our interests in world affairs.  When adhered to throughout the majority of our history, federal spending averaged just 2-3% of GDP, we had no income tax, no IRS, no debt, and a vibrant economy which elevated our nation to a world class superpower in every regard.

Government despises our Constitution because a free people have no need of federal oversight or control.  Passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment will achieve the long sought after goal of allowing Congress to rule by its discretion, and will irrevocably destroy any concept of a constitutionally limited government of the people.

We must think before we act.

If you think Congress need's more common sense people like Peter Konetchy, please visit his website www.peterkonetchy.com and offer to help by making a donation of any amount, no amount is too small and by sharing his articles.

BLACK MICHIGAN PASTORS SAY REPUBLICANS WHO FILED BRIEF SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE ARE RACIST

Pastor Stacy Swimp, Revive Alive Ministries

Are Republican's that filed a brief supporting gay marriage racist? Many black pastor's in Michigan seem to think so.  

Pastor Stacy Swimp, of Revive Alive Ministries-Flint, Michigan, took aim at the hypocrisy of the Republicans in question.  Here is what he wrote on his Facebook status:

Detroit, Michigan, June 19th, 2014- A coalition of Republicans, which includes a national activist opposed to affirmative action for Blacks, as well as a former Michigan Speaker of the House- who initially pushed for a ban on marriage redefinition- have filed a brief in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals supporting the March 21 ruling that briefly struck down Michigan’s voter approved Marriage Protection Amendment.

 “As conservatives, moderates and libertarians we embrace the individual freedoms protected by our Constitution,” said Rick Johnson, the former GOP speaker who paved the way for the gay marriage issue to make its way to the 2004 statewide ballot.

“We embrace Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party must be a ‘big tent.’ We believe in the importance of limited government, individual freedom and stable families. We believe that these values are advanced by recognizing civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.” Jennifer Gratz, who led the efforts to ban affirmation action at the University of Michigan, has also joined the Republicans in seeking to redefine marriage.

Gratz states "I am against special preferences based on race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, and sexual orientation- namely for heterosexuals." Pastors from a coalition of over 200 Black Pastors and Christian leaders from outstate Michigan take issue with the Republicans who fought against affirmation action for Blacks, yet fight for special preferences for homosexuals and lesbians. "Mrs. Gratz is obviously confused as she desires to defend the rights of the approximate 1.4% homosexual population at the expense of the 98.6% heterosexual population.

Perversion has never been acceptable in a moral society, but now she desires to see it not only be accepted, but also promoted in our judicial system, schools and halls of higher education ultimately receiving special privileges. Is that not what she just fought against? Sure makes one wonder the thinking processes of Mrs. Gratz."- Pastor Rodney McTaggert, Bread of Life Ministries, Saginaw, Michigan

 "How ironic that so called Republicans, whose party platform allegedly advocates the constitutional principles of limited government, would file a brief in support of marriage redefinition, which has attached to it the nefarious agenda of discriminating against the individual freedom of Christians who decline to endorse homosexual behavior." - Stacy Swimp 

The pastors say that discrimination against Christians is the direct consequence of marriage redefinition, citing an incident where owners of a Christian bakery -who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple- were found "guilty" of violating the so called civil rights of a lesbian couple, because the bakers' religious conscience would not permit them to make a cake dedicated to marriage between two women. 

The pastors also believe that racism is at the heart of the agenda of the Republicans who fought against affirmative action and so called special preferences for Black Americans, but are now advocating special preferences for homosexuals and lesbians. 

"Republicans, such as Jennifer Gratz and Leon Drolet- who ran the anti-affirmative action campaign in Michigan and Arizona- have revealed themselves as morally bankrupt racists. This is demonstrated by their focus on gutting civil rights for Blacks and replacing them with special preferences for homosexuals. "- Pastor Leonard Jackson, Beth-El Community- Church of God in Christ, Detroit, Michigan Pastor Jackson says that there has always been a correlation between racism and the homosexual agenda. "I vividly recall that, when the voter approved Marriage Protection Amendment passed in California, LGBT activists spewed all kinds of racial epithets at Black homosexuals, as they blamed the Black community- which voted 70-30 for traditional marriage- for the failed bid to redefine marriage. Black homosexuals in California learned that the homosexual culture was racist. So it comes as no surprise that the same people who fought against affirmative action for Blacks would fight for special preferences for homosexuals"- Pastor Leonard Jackson concluded. 

The pastors say they are not in the least discouraged or dismayed by the Republicans who have joined in to redefine marriage. "Imagine if our forefathers had started out with the same abominable, despicable concept of marriage as these groups have today. We would have no society.", states Elder Dr. Rader Johnson, Greater Bibleway Temple, Bay City, Michigan. "So I say to those who promote this wayward anti-Christ agenda of marriage redefinition to cease and desist your destructive, confused, anti-social concept of family. If you won't, we are prepared to fight against you for the purpose of preserving our God given traditional marriage!'

Read more about what Pastor Swimp had to say on his website.  

As previously reported , according to  Macomb Daily Political Reporter Chad Selweski , in his Sept 1st 2013 report, and Joel Kurth's editorial in theDetroit News on May 14, 2013 it is noted that  Leon Drolet is known as a gay man.  

It is also known that Jennifer Gratz, who led the fight against affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan but now is a permanent resident of Fort Myers Florida.

Government Hates Competition: Shut's Down 9 Year Old's Little Free Library

/9 year Spencer Collins and his mini-free-library on his parent's front lawn

A 9-year-old Leawood boy is doing his part to promote reading, but he's hit a roadblock.

Leawood city leaders have told Spencer Collins that he has to stop sharing books with his neighbors.

Collins had to take down his little free library, essentially a communal bookshelf, on Wednesday. The motto of the sharing center had been "take a book, leave a book," but Collins learned there's a lot less give and take in city government.

His Father, Brian Collins, who lives near the intersection of 89th Street and Ensley Lane, installed a Little Free Library his father-in-law had given his wife for her birthday around three weeks ago. Collins went out of town for a few days last week, and when he arrived home, he found a letter from the city’s codes enforcement officer informing him that the Little Free Library was not permitted under city code because it was a “detached structure” and that he had until June 19 to come into compliance.

“Your take a book leave a book structure must be attached to the house,” the letter read

Collins loves reading. He doesn't just dive into a book -- he swims through its pages.

"It's kind of like I'm in a whole other world and I like that," he said. "I like adventure stories because I'm in the adventure and it's fun."

When he tried to share his love for books, it started a surprisingly frustrating adventure.

"When we got home from vacation, there was a letter from the city of Leawood saying that it was in code violation and it needed to be down by the 19th or we would receive a citation," said Spencer's mother, Sarah Collins. 

Leawood said the little house is an accessory structure. The city bans buildings that aren't attached to someone's home.

The family moved the little library to the garage, but Spencer Collins said he plans to take the issue up with City Hall.

"I would tell them why it's good for the community and why they should drop the law," he said. "I just want to talk to them about how good it is."

"We empathize with them, but we still have to follow the rules," said Richard Coleman of the City of Leawood. "We need to treat everybody the same. So we can't say if somebody files a complaint but we like the little libraries -- we think they're cute -- so we ignore it. We can't do that."

Leawood said it has received two complaints about Spencer Collins' library.

Collins said he's trying to think outside the box, looking for ways to keep the library going within the letter of the law.

"I thought, why not get a rope and attach it to our house and the library?" he said.

He has also set up a Facebook page for it.

Gov. Rick Perry directed the Texas Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) to immediately begin law enforcement surge operations on the Texas-Mexico

Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Speaker Joe Straus today directed the Texas Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) to immediately begin law enforcement surge operations on the Texas-Mexico border to combat the flood of illegal immigration into the

state in the absence of adequate federal resources to secure the border. State leaders have authorized DPS to fund border security operations at approximately $1.3 million per week.

“Texas can’t afford to wait for Washington to act on this crisis and we will not sit idly by while the safety and security of our citizens are threatened,” Gov. Perry said. “Until the federal government recognizes the danger it’s putting our citizens in by its inaction to secure the border, Texas law enforcement must do everything they can to keep our citizens and communities safe.”

In a joint letter to DPS Director Steve McCraw, state leaders authorized DPS to conduct law enforcement surge operations using any funds appropriated to the agency. DPS surge operations will continue at least through the end of the calendar year. DPS must periodically report the results of the law enforcement surge to the governor and the legislature.

“The federal government has abdicated its responsibility to secure the border and protect this country from the consequences of illegal immigration, but as Texans we know how to lead in areas where Washington has failed,” Lt. Gov. Dewhurst said. “Last year DPS conducted Operation Strong Safety and achieved astounding results. Crime rates related to drugs, cartels, transnational gangs, and illegal border activity plummeted because of the resources we allocated to stop illegal entry at the border. It’s time to make this type of presence on the border permanent.”

The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) has apprehended more illegal immigrants in the Rio Grande Valley in the first eight months of the current federal fiscal year (over 160,000) than it did for all of fiscal year 2013 (154,453). In May 2014 alone, USCBP reported apprehending more than 1,100 illegal immigrants per day in the Rio Grande Valley. This year, like last year, more than half of the individuals apprehended at the Texas-Mexico border by USCBP are from countries other than Mexico. Additionally, 34,000 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) have been apprehended in Texas so far this year, with estimates that number will reach 90,000 by the end of the fiscal year. By comparison, 28,352 UAC were apprehended in fiscal year 2013.

“In this current security and humanitarian crisis, the federal government's failure to secure our border is resulting in serious consequences for Texas,” Speaker Straus said. “To immediately address these issues, today I join with Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst to direct the Texas Department of Public Safety to use the appropriate resources to keep our state safe.”

Previous law enforcement surge operations in the border region, such as Operation Strong Safety in 2013, have proven effective in reducing criminal activity and violence associated with human smuggling and drug trafficking in the border region.

Who Pulled The Troops Out Of Iraq? Obama changes course and says "Not Me!"

How much longer will America put up with this man’s lies?  In 2011, President Obama went to all media telling everybody and  anybody that would listen about an

Former Congressman Joe Wilson had it right when
he called Obama a liar! 

arrangement he had facilitated to completely withdraw troops from Iraq.

in 2011:

These are Obama’s words nobody else’s “As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end…. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. … So, today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.

Via the Washington Post:

In 2014

Q: Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government. We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces. We had a core requirement, which we were require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is — is that they are provided immunity at the — since they are being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they’re not somehow hauled before a foreign court. That’s a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity.

For those still enamored by Obama and can’t grasp what was written above, here is the Obama Iraq Policy For Dummies version

(2011):  “I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.”

(2014):  “Any regrets about that decision in 2011?” a reporter asked.  “Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me,” Obama said.

ISIS puts out photo of members hanging out with John McCain In Syria

If you haven't been following the news, ISIS is the terrorist group taking over Iraq and killing innocent civillians as it attempts to overthrow the Iraqi government and make it into an Islamic State.

Isn’t it nice to know that the US government is talking out of one side of their mouths and doing the complete opposite on the other side? Remember in 2013 when John McCain made that trip to Syria to hang out with ISIS radicals? Now, ISIS is using that photo of them hanging with John McCain as propaganda for themselves.

Military Web Access Censored In Violation Of First Amendment

Yesterday the  U.S. Military has blocked the website Infowars.com,  to over 700,000 service members worldwide having been labeled “violence/hate/racism.”  This is a direct violation of the first amendment of the constitution

Numerous military personal copied the message on their computer and quickly shared it on Facebook and numerous other social media sites.

After the uproar the site was quickly brought back up on military servers.

This is the 3rd attempt to take or shut down a business by liberal in the last 2 months under the guise of racism.

First under attack was Donald Sterling owner of the LA Clippers, then Dan Snyder owner of the Washington Redskins, now it is Alex Jones' Infowars.com

Feminist Judge Orders Custody of 6 Year Old Away From Navy Father And Gives To Abusive Mother

Being posted on a submarine in the Pacific Ocean does not exempt a father from obeying child custody orders, a judge ruled Monday in Michigan's Lenawee County Circuit Court.

If Matthew Hindes is not available, then his current wife should have returned his daughter to the girl’s mother, said Lenawee County Circuit Judge Margaret M.S. Noe.

A Navy submariner is in the battle of his life trying to keep his little girl in a custody dispute.

A judge has ordered Matthew Hindes to appear in court or face contempt, despite the fact that he's out at sea and there's a federal law meant to help those who are deployed.

The word "mom" comes easily for 6-year-old Kaylee. Benita-lynn Hindes is actually her step-mom, but she has been her primary parent for the last 4-years because her father Matthew Hindes is a regular crew member aboard the guided missile submarine USS Michigan.

Hindes and his ex-wife Angela are now locked in a custody dispute back in Michigan with a mandatory court hearing on Monday.  It's one he's unable to attend because the Michigan is deployed in the Pacific.

Hindes' Navy commanders point to the "Servicemembers Civil Relief Act."  It says, "In an action covered by this section in which the defendant is in military service, the court shall grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days..."

But circuit court judge Margaret Noe in Michigan denied that protection for Hindes. The Daily Telegram quotes the judge, "If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother."  But sailor Hindes argues the child was taken from the ex-wife four years ago for neglect.

Still, Benita-Lynn says they have no choice. She's going to fly back to Michigan with Kaylee to be in court Monday with the possibility the ex-wife will get temporary custody and the sailor won't be there to say goodbye.

"Or be able to tell her, ''I'll always be with you. I love you,' and everything like that,"  Benita-Lynn said.

Military lawyers are now joining the effort to get a delay in the case.  In the meantime Hindes remains deployed serving his country.

"He's protecting the rights of others, but who's protecting his rights?" Benita-Lynn said.

She ordered last week that the child be placed in Angela Hindes’ custody in Adrian, Michigan pending the outcome of a hearing on a custody petition she filed last year.

The 6-year-old girl, Kaylee, is in Washington state with Matthew Hindes’ wife, Benita-Lynn Caoile Hindes.

Attorney Rebecca Nighbert of Adrian asked for a stay in the case under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The law provides a 90-day stay in civil court proceedings if military service affects a member’s ability to participate.

Matthew Hindes is a petty officer in the United States Navy, currently assigned to the USS Michigan. The submarine is now somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Nighbert said. She presented a letter from a Navy administrative officer to confirm his duty posting.

Noe denied the motion for a stay, ruling that he could have arranged for his wife to bring the child to her mother.

“At this point, I don’t think I have any alternative but to enter a bench warrant for his arrest,” Noe said.

“If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother,” Noe said.

Nighbert said the wife has put together money to pay for a flight from her home in Washington, but does not yet have money to rent a car to drive to Adrian from the airport.

Angela Hindes offered to drive to the airport to pick up her daughter. Noe agreed to waive an existing order that the wife not be present during the transfer of custody for parenting time.

Noe delayed her order for a bench warrant until Friday to allow the wife to bring the child to the airport. Noe also ordered the pre-trial hearing in the custody case to continue at 9 a.m. Monday, June 23.

Matthew Hindes was given custody of his daughter in 2010 after she was removed from Angela Hindes’ home by Michigan Department of Human Services’ Child Protective Services. An Oct. 1, 2010, divorce judgment gave him permanent custody, but Angela Hindes petitioned for a change in the custody order in August last year.

"He's protecting the rights of others, but who's protecting his rights?" Benita-Lynn said.

Supporters of Hindes havestarted two Facebook pages to raise awareness about the story.

Federal Government: Washington Redskins Trademark No Longer Valid

If you are keeping track, this is the 2nd straight incident in as many months where a sports team owner is losing his property because liberals thought either he or his franchise was deemed racist.  

First it was Donald Sterling who had his private conversation illegally recorded by his mistress when he decided to set boundaries and the National Basketball Association is ripping the team out of his ownership.   

Now we have The Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder about to lose hundreds of  millions with his franchise as  today the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration!

 We now have set precedent where any business entity or private entity can lose their property based on someone being offended.  This is not America! 

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, an extremely rare move the office said it made because the name is offensive to Native Americans.

Trademarks that disparage or belittle other groups are not permitted under federal law. The ruling Wednesday pertains to six different trademarks containing the word “Redskin.”

Native American groups have been fighting the football team, its owners and sponsors for decades to change the name.

The decision can be reviewed by a federal court. The ruling does not mean that the trademarks can no longer be used by the NFL club, only that they are no longer registered, the statement said.

The ruling opens the door for outside sellers to sell Redskins merchandise without paying royalties to the NFL. Merchandise royalties are split equally among all NFL teams, except for the Dallas Cowboys.

This is the second time the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has faced a petition to cancel these registrations. The first was in 1992; that case was overturned on a technicality.

Many other sports teams, professional down to grade schools, have names derived from Native American roots. But few have received more scrutiny or backlash than the Redskins. Some, including the Fighting Illini, have changed their mascots amid controversy.

Auditors: Michigan Improperly Spent $160 Million in Medicaid Money.

State auditors say Michigan improperly spent $160 million over three years caring for Medicaid recipients needing in-home se

rvices.

The audit released Tuesday faults the state Community Health and Human Services agencies and includes two "material" findings that are more serious. Auditors warn the state could be forced to repay nearly $100 million to the federal government.

The audit says Michigan didn't have service logs, invoices and other documentation required to support payments made to providers from 2010 to 2013.

State officials agree sufficient documentation wasn't always obtained and say they're fixing the problem. But they say estimated improper payments are extrapolations from limited sample sizes and are too high.

The audit also says state caseworkers didn't complete six-month reviews to ensure clients received the most appropriate care.

Polls show gay marriage support slipping in Michigan yet some Republicans are giving up on family values to push the gay agenda

As recent polls show more and more Michiganders are now moving away from supporting gay marriage, the pro-gay marriage side tries to push their agenda through at a rapid pace. 

A brief signed by 25 past and present Republicans is among 31 briefs filed Monday supporting throwing out Michigan’s ban on same sex marriage.

The brief was signed by 15 former members of either the state or U.S. House of Representatives, including former Speaker of the House Rick Johnson, of LeRoy, U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, of Battle Creek, and state Rep. Chris Ward of Howell.

Jennifer Gratz

It was also signed by Richard McLellan, a well-known constitutional attorney who has advised many Republican politicians, Jennifer Gratz, who led the fight against affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan but now is a permanent resident of Fort Myers Florida and Greg McNeilly, a prominent Republican staffer who was Dick Devos’ right hand man.  

Greg McNeilly was the Campaign Manager for Devos for Governor and is Chief Operating Officer of Devos’ The Windquest Group.  Greg McNeilly is also is founder of the Michigan Freedom Fund, a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal political organization

Greg McNeilly, 42, left of Grand Rapids, attempting to marry his 

longtime partner Doug Meeks, 37, of Lansing, 

outside the Ingham County courtroom

that has attacked Dave Agema and other Christian conservatives.  Greg McNeilly was also one of about 300 same sex couples who were married in the hours after U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down Michigan’s ban on same sex marriage as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Leon Drolet

Former state Rep. Leon Drolet, a Macomb County Libertarian leaning Republican also signed the brief.  According to  Macomb Daily Poltical Reporter Chad Selweski , in his Sept 1st 2013 report, and Joel Kurth's editorial in the Detroit News on May 14, 2013 it is noted that  Leon Drolet is known as a gay man..  Leon Drolet said the brief serves two purposes: showing federal judges how prominent Republicans feel about the issue and providing an example for fellow Republicans.  

“Republicans in general and activists who do support equality for gay citizens can feel that they’re not alone out there and they can come out of the closet so to speak in support of equality,” said Drolet, one of three Republicans who voted against the same sex marriage ban in 2004.

The briefs filed Monday in support of throwing out the ban included labor organizations, law professors, and a group of 53 large and small businesses, including Starbucks, Google, Marriott Intl., Oracle, Pfizer and Intel.

Others former Republican lawmakers from Michigan signing the brief are: former state Reps. Daniel Acciavatti, Lyn Bankes, Jan Dolan, Susan Grimes Gilbert, Patricia Godchaux, Doug Hart, Dave Honigman,

Patricia Godchaux

Mike Pumford, Judith Scranton and Jerry Vorva.

They came the same day as the U.S. Court of Appeals scheduled Aug. 6 oral arguments in the case same sex couple April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse filed so they could adopt each others special needs children. The case turned into a trial on Michigan’s ban on same sex marriage, passed by voters in 2004 by a 59-41% margin.

Friedman struck down the ban on March 21 and for a day in Michigan, same sex marriage was legal, allowing 299 couples to marry. State Attorney General Bill Schuette appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals and asked them to halt the marriages until they could hear the case, which the appeals court did.

"Republicans shouldn't back down"said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, a

Gary Glenn

Republican primary hopeful for U.S. Senate in 2012. Standing firm against gay marriage could attract blacks, Hispanics and union members to the party, Glenn said in 2013.

Gary is right on this issue and Stacy Swimp a prominent black conservative speaker  and minister agrees.  It was told to this author by Rev Swimp, that blacks in Detroit are fiscally and socially conservative.  The are looking for a political party to listen to them and address their needs. For many years they thought that party was the Democrat party with all the perks they were getting, but now they feel the Democrat party has abandoned  them by abandoning family values.

Stacy Swimp

Just this past March Stacy Swimp and other pastor's reached out to the Michigan Republican Party and to the unproven appointed RNC State Director of African American Engagement for Michigan but there was not one reply to their repeated requests for help keep marriage between a man and woman.

The Republican Establishment would rather sell out the party's values just to remain in power.

Is Gilligan Running The Ship: Obama reverses says he's sending troops to Iraq

So Obama is now sending 275 troops to Iraq.  Didn't he just say that there would be no troops sent in the other day?    

This is what happens

when you place an unqualified person in the White House.  The job in Iraq was not done! We pulled our troops out too early due to the ineptness and arrogance of the Omnipotent one, Obama.  We destroyed Iraq, it was our job to 1) Help rebuild and strengthen that country, like we did Japan,  and 2)take the oil  for payment as to the victors go the spoils.  

Close to 4500 troops died and 2.2 trillion was spent for what?!?!?!? We got rid of a murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein , that had chemical weapons (which went to Syria, minus some yellow cake we found that went to Canada) and replaced the region with murderous terrorists that are killing innocents in Iraq and trying to topple Assad's regime in Syria. 

 Can you imagine, if they get whatever chemical weapons are left?  By the way, these are the same terrorists that Arizona Senator John McCain wanted to arm in Syria.    Who is the destabilizer in all of this?  Iran, whom Obama thinks is ok to have a nuclear program.

Immigration: Has America Fallen Off The Cliff?

Today we welcome a guest post from +Peter Konetchy candidate for Congress in Michigan's 4th Congressional District.

Peter Konetchy

This video should scare the life out of you. It's all true. (Listen to the commentary starting around 1:47 into the video.)

The focus of the government of the United States is no longer to secure our Liberty but to force upon the people crisis upon crisis, then use the mainstream media to manipulate the perception of the people into believing that additional federal power is the only solution. Amnesty is not the solution to the “immigration crisis”; the Balanced Budget Amendment is not the solution to the “spending and debt crisis”; Obamacare, or its replacement, is not the solution to the “healthcare crisis”; warrantless searches and indefinite detention of American citizens– directly negating our Constitutionally protected rights — is not the solution to the “terrorism crisis.” Far too many people are willing to give up their liberty for perceived security.

The only true crisis we have in the United States is complete anarchy in Washington. The force of government is being used against the people. The laws we have had on our books for generations protecting our sovereignty are not just being ignored, but the states are prohibited from enforcing them.

The president must be impeached for more reasons than can be numbered. Most in Congress are just as responsible and refuse to hold the president accountable. At the very least they should be voted out of office, but in reality tried for treason. They are betraying their oath to support the Constitution, and are directly aiding and abetting the enemy against the interest of the people with whose Liberty they are charged with securing.

;

Parents Of 12-17 Year Old Children In Michigan Just Lost Their Parental Rights To The State

When Christy Duffy took her 17-year-old daughter to her local hospital in Michigan, she was stunned to see a notice posted alerting parents that a nurse will need to “have a short 5 minute private conversation with your child.”

In a fiery blog post published on Monday, Duffy took a bold stand in favor of parental rights. She explains how the situation unfolded:

I was there last week for an appointment for Amy. She hurt her foot, which makes dancing difficult, so we had to get that checked out. Amy is 17; I asked if this policy was in effect and if so, how could I opt out. The receptionist told me it’s a new law and there is no opting out. Working to keep my cool, I said, “I’m sure there is.” She said, “No, there isn’t.” At which point I asked if I needed to leave and go to the urgent care center because I was not submitting my daughter to such a conversation.

That did not go over well

The receptionist closed the window. Almost immediately, the office manager turned the corner and said, “Mrs. Duffy, may I speak with you?”

She said there was a new policy that would allow a child to access his/her medical records online and the child would be allowed to block a parent from viewing the website. The nurse would also inform my children that the doctor’s office is a safe place for them to receive information about STDs, HIV and birth control. That is what the nurse would be chatting about with my children without any pesky parental oversight.

Refusing to back down, Duffy then says she “politely” informed the office manager that no one would be talking to her child privately and asked how she may opt out of the policy before she returned to the hospital for her daughter’s physical the next month.

“Make sure this is crystal clear: what they want to do is talk to your child about sex and drugs (maybe rock and roll – who knows?) without your input,” Duffy writes. “Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be ‘safe’?”

She also made sure to snap a picture of the notice: