ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion quietly enables states to confiscate assets from dead seniors – mail.com – Gmail
Dec 23, 2013 06:13 am | Coach Collins
by Doug Book, editor
The Affordable Care Act was designed to dramatically increase the number of Americans who qualify for Medicaid. In fact, the ACA will literally FORCE many low income seniors onto Medicaid rolls as subsidies for regular ObamaCare plans are NOT available to those over 55 years of age who earn less than 138% of the federal poverty level ($15,856 for individuals; $21,403 for married couples). And without such subsidies, ObamaCare plans are generally far too expensive for older, low-income individuals or couples. (1)
Why should any of this matter to those getting “free” healthcare via Medicaid?
Because: “If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.” (2)
The government has long been permitted to………….
NEW Marriage ADA Video: A Warning for Parents…[3rd Graders w/Pretend Same Sex Weddings!]… ~ “Third grade classrooms having pretend same-sex weddings… textbooks featuring pictures of cross-dressing carpenters… children being taught that there are “six genders.” “
NEW Marriage ADA Video: A Warning for Parents…[3rd Graders w/Pretend Same Sex Weddings!]
National Organization for Marriage ^ | 4/12/13
Posted on Friday, April 12, 2013 12:08:38 PM by SoFloFreeper
Dear Marriage Supporter,
“If same-sex marriage is passed in your state, your children—your grandchildren—will be exposed to the same kind of instruction.”
Rush: Why Draw the Line at Couples?… “RUSH: You don’t have to worry, the Republican Party’s moving in that direction, it is.”
Why Draw the Line at Couples?
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 26, 2013 | Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: Here’s Art in Windsor, Connecticut, as we go back to the phones. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Rush, how you doing?
RUSH: I’m fine, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Look, I just think, you know, there used to be laws that said black people can’t marry white people. I don’t think this is any different. I mean, if you’re gay and you want to marry somebody who’s gay, marry somebody who’s gay. That’s your business. What is the business of the state government or the federal government telling me who I can and can’t marry?
RUSH: You are serious with this? You want to equate interracial marriage to homosexual marriage?
CALLER: Yeah, I think that a person should be able to make their own personal decision. I think actually this should be something the Republican Party should be in support of. It’s individual rights, you can marry whoever you want.
RUSH: You don’t have to worry, the Republican Party’s moving in that direction, it is.
ANTONIN SCALIA: ‘When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?’
Business Insider ^ | 03/26/2013 | Brett LoGiurato
Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:41:44 PM by SeekAndFind
During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples. “We don’t prescribe law for the future,” Scalia said. “We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?”
WHEN WERE WE WRONG — THEN OR NOW?
boblonsberry.com ^ | 03/26/13 | Bob Lonsberry
Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:34:25 AM by shortstop
In one regard, it will be a momentous decision.
In another, it will be completely meaningless.
To Save Traditional Marriage, End State Involvement in Marriage (Bingo)
Townhall.com ^ | March 20, 2013 | Ben Shapiro
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:57:00 AM by Kaslin
Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land.
With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status.
Making fun of traditional marriage?
Filed under: News — Leave a comment
December 3, 2012
Reblogged from Fellowship of the Minds:
Lesbians threaten to ‘steal your boyfriends’ in hilarious same-sex marriage spoof
DailyMail: Among the historic Election Night wins earlier this month were three states that voted in favor of gay marriage. Maine, Maryland and Washington State joined six others that already approve same-sex unions.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State evidently sent copies of this letter to 60,000 pastors recently. It’s important to remember that Americans United is not an official agency of any governmental entity. This letter has no force of lawand is just their opinion.
Permanently Disqualified From Everything Part 2
Posted by Ann Barnhardt – September 1, AD 2012 9:57 PM MST
As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives. No longer was the man the head of the household. No longer was he responsible for his wife. Now the wife was a “co-husband” at best, or a flat-out adversary at worst. The notion of a man making the final decision about what was best for his wife and family per his God-given vocation as husband and father was now over. Now all he was good for was bringing home the bacon – but even that wouldn’t last.
As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated… (“If you have read me for any length of time you could probably write this next paragraph yourself. Satan has used this healthy feminine dynamic, perverted by suffrage, to systematically replace men with the government as the providers in society. A woman no longer has any need of a man. “)
Permanently Disqualified From Everything Part 2 Posted by Ann Barnhardt – September 1, AD 2012 9:57 PM MST As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives.
No longer was the man the head of the household. No longer was he responsible for his wife. Now the wife was a “co-husband” at best, or a flat-out adversary at worst. The notion of a man making the final decision about what was best for his wife and family per his God-given vocation as husband and father was now over. Now all he was good for was bringing home the bacon – but even that wouldn’t last. Women are made with a healthy, innate desire to be provided for and protected.
I know this because I am a woman, despite the pair of enormous brass balls I have to carry around.
Joun Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the US, said, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” The fIght to redefine marriagehas implications for every church in America. If same sex marriage is made law of the land,
any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it’s tax-exempt status. This situation would be analogous to cases where churches post Civil Right refused interracial marriage. The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status.
Pastors refusing to perform these ceremonies which go against the clear word of God could also be sued personally for damages and attorney fees under Civil Rights law. Homosexuals have tried to make their campaign analagous to the struggle of African Americans. A host of legal protections is what they truly want.
grassroots group – comprised of the more than 3,000 members – is a launching a national campaign to support marriage between one man and one woman and to oppose the Obama administration’s efforts to advance same-sex marriage.
The U.S. House of Representatives approved an amendment to the 2013 defense appropriations bill that would ban money from being used in violation of federal law prohibiting same-sex marriage in the military.
POLITICO ^ | July 19 2012 | Kate Nocera
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:24:49 PM by scottjewell
In my previously published article “Secrets Revealed,” I concluded that what President Obama is concealing on his genuine long-form birth certificate (not the digital PDF forgery released to the public) is that his mother signed her maiden name.
Terence Weldon, the same anti-Catholic radical homosexual activist who has suggested that Pope Benedict XVI has a homosexual inclination and who has blasphemously asserted that Our Lord Jesus may have been a homosexual, is now angry with Archbishop Vincent Nichols (his own Bishop). Why? It seems that Archbishop Nichols, while delivering a homily at Westminster Cathedral to celebrate marriage, warned of the damaging consequences which would result if homosexual unions were legally recognized and marriage essentially redefined in the United Kingdom.
But the Archbishop was merely emphasizing what the Church already teaches: that the legal recognition of homosexual unions would only weaken marriage and devalue it further. In its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refuted the objection often raised by homosexual activists that laws allowing homosexual unions would not impose anything or harm the common good:
A newly republished 1995 commentary of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger linked the breakdown of marriage to the rise of the acceptance of homosexuality, warning of the rise of “pressure groups” that could manipulate public opinion on such issues.
The future Pope Benedict XVI said it is not a coincidence that the growing social acceptance of homosexuality should be “accompanied by a serious crisis in the area of marriage and the family.”
Societal changes in the wake of the 1960s “sexual revolution” resulted in sexuality being more detached from marriage, and rejection of Catholic teaching on homosexuality made the pastoral care for homosexual persons “more difficult.”
“The satisfaction of the sexual impulse was propagandized as the way to happiness and to the true development of the personality,” he wrote. “Values like self-control and chastity were accepted less and less.”
The Pope’s comments came years before the Netherlands became the first country to recognize “gay marriage.”
No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
The New American ^ | 16 May 2012 | Selwyn Duke
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:49:29 PM by Paladins Prayer
In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so. What am I talking about?
Barack Obama’s coming out party notwithstanding, the question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot.
For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.
This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.
“Have you gone off your rocker, Duke?! This is precisely what we’re fighting!” some will now say.
Actually, no, it isn’t.
A new CBS News/New York Times Poll shows a solid majority of Americans support legal recognition for same-sex couples – though not necessarily through the official act of marriage – and the number of people who do support full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples is significantly higher among younger generations.
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum got jeered for comparing the legalization of same-sex marriage to that of polygamy, but, whether or not the comparison is rationally sound, thoughts of the former’s facilitating the latter bring a smile to many Islamists. If the definition of marriage can evolve in terms of gender, some Muslims ask, why not in terms of number?
It is well know that in the Western cultures of Europe and now in America, that the God ordained institution of marriage – which was ordained before the world began (Eph 5:28-33) – has been rapidly falling by the way side.
This out right rejection of the institution of marriage is found mostly in liberal/progressive circles and is a progressive liberal trait. What is most alarming is that these “western” countries – which once embraced the Judeo/Christian moral absolutes of the Bible – are now secular wastelands reaping the whirlwind of their anti moral absolute rebellion. As history has always testified, when a nation, people or culture turn their back on the Word of God, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, the void is always filled with a progressive secular socialism, an apostate form of Christianity, horrific war and immoral decadence (Rom. 1:18-32).
Lesbian Judge Refuses to Marry Straight CouplesBET ^ | 2/27/12 | Danielle WrightPosted on Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:38:17 AM by marshmallowTonya Parker says until same-sex licenses are legal in Texas, she will not sign the forms.
A Black, openly lesbian Texas judge is refusing to conduct straight-couple marriage ceremonies in her state until same-sex couples can wed.The judge, Tonya Parker, recently explained her decision during a Stonewall Democrats of Dallas monthly meeting.
“I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said, reports the NY Daily News.Parker says she is using her decision as an opportunity to give a lesson about marriage equality in the state.
“So I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people,’” she says
President Obama Allegedly Sent This Congratulatory Letter to a Recently-Married Gay Couple
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:32:27 PM by mandaladon
President Barack Obama has characterized his views on same-sex marriage as “evolving.” While he has traditionally opposed gay marriage, some intriguing developments — including a wedding card he purportedly sent to a gay couple — are leading to questions surrounding whether he’ll soon change his mind. With the campaign cycle heating up, this may be a demographic he’ll more actively pursue. Regarding the alleged note: A recently-married gay couple has come forward saying that they received a random card from the president. The note, which offers them well-wishes as they start their life together, may be further evidence that Obama is preparing to turn a corner on his views on gay matrimonies (or, at the least, it‘s an indicator that he’s ready to actively pursue votes among this electoral cohort).
The letter, which was dated Dec. 8, 2011, offers congratulations “on this special occasion.“ It goes on to say that both Michelle and the president ”hope it is blessed with love, laughter, and happiness.”
The Auburn Citizen ^ | Posted: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:30 am | Justin Murphy
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:18:04 AM by Behind Liberal Lines
The inmate, 31-year-old Ronald Cook, married 34-year-old Marc Rodriguez, a former Auburn inmate, in a simple civil ceremony Monday morning.
When the New York state legislature rammed through a law “legalizing” same-sex “marriage” this last summer, countless New Yorkers disagreed with the decision. Among them were Christian town clerks who could not in good conscience sign marriage licenses for a union they consider sinful.
Clauses were written in the law that supposedly protect clergy from being forced to act against their faith. However, such clauses do not apply to town clerks or any other government official.
Clerks are told point blank, either accept the law, or resign. Town clerk Rose Marie Belforti of Ledyard, New York found out the hard way. When the law passed, Belforti, a dairy owner and cheese maker, decided her Christian conscience would not allow her to sign same-sex “marriage” licenses. She did not deny them a license but merely asked that another official sign such licenses in her place. Since that other official is not always in, applicants are now asked to make an appointment.
When two applicants of the same sex did indeed ask for a license, the arrangement did not satisfy them. They were outraged by the inconvenience of making an appointment with the clerk’s substitute who now signs all licenses. The case has raised a tempest among the homosexual network nationwide. Indignant cries of religious bigotry and disregard for the law have been leveled against Rose Marie Belforti. Her dairy’s Facebook page now has abusive comments charging her with homophobia where once there were compliments about her bleu cheese.
In the sleepy town of less than……………….
In today’s lousy economy, men can take comfort in knowing that there is one sought-after good that is becoming steadily more affordable: sex.
Regnerus likens the price of sex to the housing market. Too many foreclosures in one community, and the price of neighboring homes start to plummet. This is why single women in New York sometimes feel as though sex on the first date is a given: According to the market, it is.
“Every sex act is part of a ‘pricing’ of sex for subsequent relationships,” Regnerus said. “If sex has been very easy to get for a particular young man for many years and over the course of multiple relationships, what would eventually prompt him to pay a lot for it in the future — that is, committing to marry?”
Did you answer, “Love”? You’re adorable.
“Sexual strategies for making men ‘fall in love’ typically backfire, because men don’t often work like that,” Regnerus says.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the USCCB, wonders if “late night comics who mock the church … have set the tone of the government’s current salvos against religious freedom”, and then warns:
In the effort to redefine marriage, we see the government threatening religious discrimination in the name of–you guessed it–preventing discrimination. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, declares that marriage is between one man and one woman. But the Department of Justice, which is charged with defending Acts of Congress like DOMA against constitutional challenge, declared in March that it would stop doing so. In July, Justice went further and started filing briefs that attack DOMA’s constitutionality. Most disturbing in this flip-flop is its rationale: DOMA’s definition of marriage must be abandoned and then attacked because it is motivated by bias and prejudice, comparable to racism. That is, the Justice Department simply writes off as bigots those with longstanding support for traditional marriage. And if the Justice Department gets its way in court, those considered bigots by the federal government will be marginalized with the full moral, economic and coercive power of the state.
For example, an employer who provides unique employment benefits to the actually married risks being disqualified from government funding – and most other government cooperation – and likely being sued for “discrimination.” A government clerk who expresses a conscientious objection to cooperating with same-sex civil union ceremonies risks a pink slip.
In short, this is what happens when the view that marriage is between a man and a woman becomes a violation of the U.S. Constitution. And this is what the Justice Department urges–apparently forgetting that imposing special disabilities on people and groups because of their religious beliefs offends the First Amendment at its core.
Read her entire post, “Looks Like Leno, Letterman Setting Tone at HHS, Justice Department” (Sept. 22, 2011). What was it that Benedict XVI said, quoting St. Augustine, in his first address on his visit to Germany?
“Without justice – what else is the State but a great band of robbers?”, as Saint Augustine once said (1). We Germans know from our own experience that these words are no empty spectre. We have seen how power became divorced from right, how power opposed right and crushed it, so that the State became an instrument for destroying right – a highly organized band of robbers, capable of threatening the whole world and driving it to the edge of the abyss.
It’s an very bad thing to have your money and property stolen. It’s even worse to have your rights stripped away in the name of “tolerance” and under the false pretense of “discrimination”. Alas, it seems that the cynical promises of hope and change are proving to be half right and completely wrong.
DADT gone, but unequal treatment of gays still here [Now, it starts]:
(CNN) — In the very early hours of this morning, “don’t ask, don’t tell” ceased to be U.S. policy.
As a result, today is the first day I can write about being the partner of a gay military serviceman without fear that he will lose his job. …
The battle has only been half won. Gay servicemen or servicewomen can no longer be discharged simply for being gay, but they are still treated inequitably.
Only by using their newly won free speech can they hope to reap the same benefits as their straight colleagues.
(Excerpt) Read more
(CNN) — While the Bible Belt is known for its devotion to traditional values, Southerners don’t do so well on one key family value: They are more likely to get divorced than people living in the Northeast.
Southern men and women had higher rates of divorce in 2009 than their counterparts in other parts of the country: 10.2 per 1,000 for men and 11.1 per 1,000 for women, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau released Thursday.
By comparison, men and women in the Northeast had the lowest rates of divorce, 7.2 and 7.5 per 1,000, which is also lower than the national divorce rate of 9.2 for men and 9.7 for women.
“In the South, there are higher rates of marriage and higher rates of divorce for men and women,” said Diana Elliott, a family demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau and co-author of the new report. “In the Northeast, you have people who are delaying first marriages, and consequently there are lower rates of marriage and lower rates of divorce.”
Of the 14 states reporting divorce rates for men that were much higher than the U.S. average — ranging from 10.0 to 13.5 per 1,000 — most were in the South. They included Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
In contrast, men in the Northeast divorced less than the national average. Five of the nine states that had divorce rates for men significantly below the U.S. average — ranging from 6.1 to 8.5 — were the Northeastern states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey , New York and Pennsylvania.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com …
Devvy Kidd — There is no such thing as “same sex” marriage (via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL))
My husband and I have been married for over 3 years (been together 5 years). For the last two years of our marriage, my husband has become obsessed with conspiracy theories. Initially, I chalked it up as a new hobby/interest. But lately (over the past year) his obsession has progressed and has me alarmed. He spends countless hours on the internet researching conspiracy theories, mostly political (i.e. 9/11, new world order, Illuminati, reptilians, and I could go on and on). We can’t have a conversation with him bringing up some sort of theory. He brings them up if were out with other friends or at a party. This concerns me because I feel like he’s not the same person I married. He used to be driven, ambitious, and had career goals. He’s an engineer and once had dreams of starting his own company. But, he doesn’t speak of it anymore. I feel as if we have nothing in common. He becomes defensive and argumentive when I disagree with his theories. One day out of the blue, he went out and bought a huge safe, withdrew all of his savings and bought gold. He wants to to start stockpiling food and supplies for some sort of catastrophic event that he believes is coming. His health history is unremarkable. He does use marijuana daily (which he did prior to our marriage). His younger sister was diagnosed with schizophrenia in her early teens and lives in some sort of assisted living. Should I be worried that he is also showing the beginning signs of schizophrenia, also?
Devvy Kidd — There is no such thing as “same sex” marriage: “A man sent me an email after my last column on the queering of America‘s churches saying I shouldn’t be so explicit in my use of words. Wrong. This country needs some reality and not just more propaganda wrapped up in fuzzy, politically correct words like ‘gay.’ Oh, John and Bill are wonderful gays. Sam and Tom are gay. Well, exactly what does that mean? That the sum total of their sexual preferences are kissing and holding hands? Do people understand how they are being manipulated by words, images and repeated lies?
Is describing what homosexuals do offensive? I have yet to hear one single person say that having sex in someone else’s rectum and feces is normal and healthy. Criticizing the filthy practice of sodomy is called ‘hate speech.’ How else should one describe sodomy practiced by ‘gays’? Perhaps I should call it buggery, but it doesn’t change the act.”
Posted by Gunny G at Monday, June 27, 2011
For newly empowered congressional Republicans, priority one must be an extension of the Bush tax cuts. There should be enough votes not only from a new Republican majority, but also from some of the decimated and dispirited and even newly elected Democrats. If President Obama is smart, he won’t veto the bill.If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, everyone who gets a paycheck and has taxes withheld is going to see less money in the “net” column starting January 1.
Bloomberg.com has published some calculations. It reports that, according to the Tax Institute at H&R Block, “for a married couple earning $80,000 a year, increased taxes would drain $221.48 in withholding from a semi-monthly paycheck. Married individuals earning $240,000 a year” just under the $250,000 standard President Obama defines as “rich” “would lose $557.78 to withholding in a single semi-monthly paycheck.” Double these figures for a month and multiply by 12 and you quickly see the additional drain on the economy at a time of anemic 2 percent growth.