Written by Peter LaBarbera
A pro-natural marriage advocate at the conservative Heritage Foundation said President Donald Trump “should not cave” to LGBT activists by failing to issue a strong executive order defending Americans’ religious liberty, a leaked draft of which has been the subject of intense criticism on the Left.
Heritage senior fellow Ryan Anderson said, based on a document first leaked to the leftist magazine The Nation, that the order would be a “great place to start” for President Trump to honor his pledge to strongly defend the freedom of people to exercise their spiritual and moral conscience.
Homosexual and transgender activists are vociferously complaining the proposed order would constitute a “license to discriminate” against LGBTQ individuals and events like homosexual “marriages.”
Based on the leaked draft of the executive order, Anderson describes what it would do:
- “It tells the entire federal government to respect federal statutes and U.S.
… Continue Reading
Written by Daniel Horowitz
This week, President Donald Trump fulfilled his promise to nominate a very qualified and intelligent conservative judge. Neil Gorsuch is likely a very good pick. However, given the past history, the enormous post-constitutional pressure even in some circles of the conservative legal movement, and so much terrible court precedent, it is yet to be determined if Gorsuch has the resolve to not get sucked into the swamp.
This point was best encapsulated in a statement from U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla. (B, 87%), himself a conservative constitutionalist lawyer. After praising Gorsuch’s background, he noted that there is still more to see:
Perhaps the most important quality for a constitutionalist Supreme Court justice is something that Scalia demonstrated in spades: backbone. There will be times when the proper reading of the Constitution will diverge sharply from the conventional wisdom of D.C.
… Continue Reading
Written by Joshua Withrow
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%) has been nothing if not vocal about his belief that a new set of health care reforms should be voted on at the same time as a repeal of Obamacare. This week, Sen. Paul has revealed his proposal to replace Obamacare, by introducing S. 222, the Obamacare Replacement Act.
His bill is obviously designed to work in tandem with the partial repeal that was passed by Congress last year, in that it sweeps away the parts of Obamacare that the other bill leaves behind, particularly the regulations. While the bill being passed via the budget reconciliation process repeals only the taxation and spending portions of Obamacare, if Paul’s plan were advanced at the same time, the two bills would add to up to a fairly complete repeal of Obama’s health care takeover.… Continue Reading
Written by Daniel Horowitz
What happens when Republicans pursue a half-baked repeal of Obamacare and sell it to the public as full repeal of Obamacare? Premiums go up because of the core Obamacare provisions left behind, yet that increase will be blamed on the false pretense that Obamacare was indeed repealed.
Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a budgetary and economic score of the presumptive GOP plan to “replace” Obamacare. CBO concluded that not only will premiums fail to decrease, but will increase by 20-25% and 27 million more people would be uninsured. The Left is using this as proof that repeal of Obamacare is a net negative. In fact, this CBO score explicitly states that full repeal of Obamacare would decrease premiums, but only chose to score the GOP’s half-baked repeal, which retains Obamacare itself while repealing only the funding mechanisms.… Continue Reading
Written by Dr. Brian Joondeph
Repeal and replace. That was and still is the Donald Trump promise for Obamacare. Congressional Republicans are ready to join in. Not that they haven’t been trying for the past six years, with over 60 attempts at repeal at the congressional level, all quickly dispatched by the Obama veto pen.
Now that there is a new sheriff in town, the veto threat is gone. Repeal and replace may actually happen. What will it mean?
In my local paper, The Denver Post, is an article, written not by anyone at The Denver Post, but instead by The Associated Press, claiming that 30 million people will lose their health insurance if Obamacare is repealed. The article describes a recent study from the Urban Institute looking at the scenario of repeal only – no replacement – and predicts an increase of 30 million uninsured people over the next three years.… Continue Reading
Written by Riely Brands and Frank Newport
Americans’ assessments of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) remain relatively unchanged after the Nov. 8 election, with more continuing to disapprove (53%) than approve (42%) of the law. Going forward, the vast majority of Americans want to see the law changed. This includes the 37% who want it repealed and replaced, along with a total of 43% of Americans who want the law kept, but with major changes.
In its annual November Healthcare update, conducted Nov. 9-13, Gallup asked Americans who approve of the ACA if they would like it kept in place as is, or kept but with significant changes. Similarly, Americans who disapprove of the ACA were asked if they wanted to keep it but with significant changes, or repeal and replace it.… Continue Reading
Written by Hollis Hurd
In the case of King v. Burwell, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 2015, President Barack Obama won the day by convincing six justices that Obamacare would collapse if he lost. The case involved the so-called “individual mandate,” which imposes a financial penalty on those who neglect to buy health insurance. To many observers, the wording of Affordable Care Act seemed to impose the financial penalty only in states where a state exchange had been set up, not in states where the federal exchange operated by default.
At that time, only 16 states (and the District of Columbia) had set up state exchanges; the federal exchange covered the remaining 34 states. Thus, the specter was presented of no financial penalty for not buying health insurance in the 34 states covered only by the federal exchange. … Continue Reading
Maryann Trump Barry and her brother Donald Trump
Written by Frank Cannon
Donald Trump says a lot of things. We’ve become all too used to that now. Some of these things should probably be taken with a grain of salt — “Only Rosie O’Donnell” comes to mind — but some deserve to be analyzed more closely.
Here’s an example. Remember Trump’s discussion about U.S. Supreme Court Justices back in August with Bloomberg Politics? Mark Halperin asked Trump, “Is there someone out there today who isn’t on the [Supreme Court], but say, this is the kind of person I would consider for the court? How about your sister? Think she’d be a good Supreme Court Justice?”
Trump responded, “Well, I don’t want to mention names, I think it’s inappropriate to mention names, certainly at this stage so early when we have a long way to go.… Continue Reading
Written by Robert Knight
Over and over, progressives give us simplistic formulae, plus name calling if we’re on the “wrong” side of an issue.
This is not happenstance; it’s the way they shame people into adopting their agenda or at the very least silencing opponents.
When Democrats were selling Obamacare, then-Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid decried Tea Party members as “evil mongers.” Americans were either selfish skinflints or compassionate souls who favored healthcare for all. If you opposed Obamacare, you hated the poor. In fact, you hoped they came down with everything from heart failure to the heartbreak of psoriasis.
The same goes with failing to support massive programs that create multi-generational dependency and are bankrupting us. Any resistance to even more spending is likened to kicking people into the gutter.… Continue Reading
Now we know who the masters are: the black-robed dictators of the U.S. Supreme Court. And we know who the slaves and the serfs are: you and me.
Written by Bryan Fischer
The judicial tyrants of the U.S. Supreme Court, headed by chief oligarch John Roberts, have abandoned the Constitution, reason, and their oath of office by trashing the plain language of ObamaCare to reach an illogical, irrational, and judicially abominable result.
This 6-3 ruling is a juristic catastrophe. The chief justice justified his ruling by saying the words “established by the state” are “ambiguous.” What is remotely ambiguous about the words “established by the state?”
The only way Roberts could reach this conclusion is by forsaking rationality, logic, and the plain meaning of words. We have now plunged headlong into the linguistic abyss of Alice in Wonderland, where words can mean anything you want them to mean.… Continue Reading