Responding to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Congressional Republicans have scheduled a vote in the House to repeal the law and Mitt Romney pledged to undo the measure if he’s elected president in November.
But unless the GOP wins a super majority in the Senate — a scenario no one thinks is plausible — it can do little more than weaken Obamacare’s regulations and defund some of its provisions.
Here is why:
1) Romney has no authority to issue waivers.
Romney has promised to expand a provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows states to opt out of certain sections of the law to permit states to ignore it entirely. But the executive branch and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) likely don’t have the authority to grant such broad waivers.
According to the law, HHS (together with the IRS) have waiver authority, but only if the states meet very specific requirements.
Neither have blanket waiver authority, which would have to come from Congress.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — the author of the waiver provision — has challenged Romney’s claims, saying, “Anybody who tries to move outside the standards of the bill — which is the coverage and costs and the like — well I’ll certainly fight that. But I think lots of other people will too.”
2) Congress can’t repeal the full law through reconciliation.
Without the necessary 60 votes in the Senate for full repeal, Republicans are pledging to use a budget reconciliation bill to undo the ACA.
But this process would only apply to the budget-related elements of the law and would thus leave many portions — including the mandate — intact.
As health care expert Robert Laszewski put it, “Romney could end up creating a chaotic environment driven by enormous uncertainty over just which parts of the new health care law would be implemented–for consumers, health care providers, and insurers.”
3) Republicans have nothing to replace it with.
David Frum explains that since the expansion of coverage provisions go into effect in 2014, Romney would have just one year to both repeal and replace the law.
Republicans haven’t even coalesced around a single plan — and many in the party believe that the federal government should leave health care alone and want to leave the entire reform process to the states.
Thus, “if replacement does not happen in the first 100 days, it won’t happen at all—that is, it won’t happen as a single measure, but rather will take the form of dozens of small incremental changes adopted episodically over the next 20 years.”
4) Americans support Obamacare’s provisions.
While Americans may not like “Obamacare” — and the political process of passing it — they do support its major provisions and are likely to resist any effort by Republicans to take away their benefits.
A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that while 56 percent of Americans oppose the law as a whole, 61 percent of respondents favored allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26, 72 percent wish to maintain the requirement that companies with more than 50 workers provide health insurance for their employees, and 82 percent of respondents favored banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
As more benefits roll out in 2014, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to argue for their repeal.
This includes the Mandatory Coverage provision which allows the Federal Government to Penalize Citizens who Refuse to purchase Health Care Insurance or who Refuse to Enroll in any kind of Health Care Insurance program, not excluding Medicaid & Medicare.
Many U.S. Presidents have tried however only one Truly Succeeded in Reforming our nation's Health Care Insurance System FOREVER.
Is it a Perfect Law?
Of Course Not!
However Perfect should NEVER be the enemy of what is Good.
Thus the Affordable Health Care Act is a Good Law which not only allows Children/ Dependents to remain on their Parents' Health Care Insurance plans until the age of 26, but also prohibits Health Care Insurance Companies from Denying Citizens the right for Coverage due to Pre-Existing Conditions.
The Affordable Health Care Act will Also help Create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs in the Health Care Industry.
And......
Most Importantly it will ultimately within the next 3 years Lower Health Care Insurance Premiums, allowing more Uninsured people to have Health Care Insurance Coverage versus using Hospital Emergency Rooms to receive Medical Care.
What about the PEOPLE who Elected them into Public Office?
What about the Millions of Uninsured, Underinsured, Sick people who will benefit from this ruling?
Don't they matter?
Apparently NOT!
Because Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, John Boehner & Michelle Bachmann are planning to use ALL of their Political Capital and more Taxpayer Money to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act i.e,., "Obamacare".
GOP Leaders have now launched a Tax Mandate/ Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign to Defeat Pres. Obama this Fall and Completely Ignore the recent SCOTUS ruling of his Affordable Health Care Act.
This is So Sad!
Thus Regardless of whom this GOP Repeal Effort will harm (American Voters), GOP Leaders are Hell-bent on making the Affordable Health Care Act Obsolete.
Regardless of the fact that Mitt Romney created the Original Blue Print for the Affordable Health Care Act via "Romneycare", GOP Leaders are Laser-Focused on Obliterating "Obamacare".
By the way "Romneycare"has been Very Successful in the State of Massachusetts, with more than 98% of the Population in that State being Properly Insured and the Health Care Insurance Premiums more Affordable than in other states.
Regardless of the Hundreds of Thousands of Health Care Industry JOBS that will be
Destroyed, GOP Leaders are Determined to wipe the Affordable Health Care Act off the Face of this Earth.
Why?
Because Most GOP Leaders are using the Affordable Health Care Act to hide behind RACISM.
They HATE Pres. Obama and Everything he stands for due to him being a BLACK Leader.
If Mitt Romney or George W. Bush had Passed Comprehensive Health Care Legislation, everyone of those GOP Leaders currently Opposing the Affordable Health Care Act would be 100% on board with Romney or Bush.
However because a BLACK Man passed this Important, Necessary Legislation (FOR THE PEOPLE), GOP Leaders are now Wroth with HATE.
And since the Affordable Health Care Act is Pres. Obama's Signature Legislation, the ONLY way those GOP Leaders can Eliminate his Complete Existence & Legacy is to Repeal that Law.
Please correct me if I'm Wrong but since the SCOTUS has already ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be Constitutional and LEGAL, I don't see how GOP Leaders can Ignore this Law or Repeal it.
So they have instead decided to LIE to Voters for Political Gain by attacking Justice John Roberts a Republican, launch a Massive Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign & Encourage Hospitals and Doctors to Largely Ignore the SCOTUS Health Care Law Ruling.
This is CRAZY!
I've often said that Racism makes people STUPID & Crazy, now I know its True.
It doesn't matter if Pres. Obama attempts to pass Financial Industry Reform, Comprehensive Education Reform, Student Loan Reform, Health Care Insurance Reform, Criminal Justice System Reform, Comprehensive Tax Reform, Affordable Housing Reform, Small Business Reform, Elderly Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, Tort Reform, Employment Discrimination Reform, etc.,
Whatever type of Meaningful Legislation Pres. Obama attempts to Pass, he will ALWAYS be blind-sided by Severe Political Opposition from some RACIST GOP & Democrat Leaders.
So what can the Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team do to Diminish what GOP Leaders are plotting against the Affordable Health Care Act?
Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team Need to Launch a Major Campaign to Educate the American People on ALL the Good, Effective Components & Provisions included within "Obamacare".
Educate the American VOTERS about why Justice John Roberts a True Conservative, decided to cast his Vote with the Court's so-called "Liberal" Justices.
Justice Roberts cast his Vote alongside Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor because the Affordable Health Care Act is Effective, Constitutional Legislation that will HELP All American Citizens including Many Children, have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care without being Denied Coverage by Greedy Health Insurance Monopolies who previously used Pre-Existing Conditions to NOT Provide Insurance.
Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team MUST Broadcast the Benefits of the Affordable Health Care Act from all 4 Corners of American Soil.
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST!!!!
Broadcast those Benefits Non-Stop from Now until the November Election!!
On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding virtually all of the health care reform law (with the exception of a provision on Medicaid that does not really have much practical impact) is a great development, first of all, for Americans. The Affordable Care Act will provide insurance for tens of millions of working people and it will eventually help rationalize and bring down the costs of health care for everyone. This is a huge victory for President Obama at a critical time and a big loss for the right.
The decision also says a lot about Chief Justice John Roberts, who was on the verge of writing himself a reputation after seven years in office as a highly partisan player who was using see-saw majorities to further not just a conservative judicial philosophy but also the broad aims of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party.
This week began, however, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the majority in striking down most of Arizona’s immigration law and strongly reaffirming the power of the federal government to make immigration policy as part of its overall power to make foreign and national security policy.
Today, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, including the individual mandate to buy health insurance. It’s true that he rejected the government’s commerce clause defense—that it can impose a mandate under its power to regulate interstate commerce. With this reasoning, he arguably weakened the Commerce Clause itself, which has been the foundation of so many important laws and court rulings in the modern era, including those guaranteeing all Americans’ civil rights.
The Chief Justice made it clear from the start, in his testimony at his confirmation hearing, that he would apply a rigorous test for Commerce Clause arguments. “It’s not a question of abstract fact,” he said, “does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate.”
That part of the ruling could, in the long run, prove even more significant than upholding the health care reform law. But the health care ruling still was momentous, and it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts was instrumental in making that happen. He did so by taking a relatively refined view: The requirement that all Americans buy health insurance is not really a mandate at all, but a tax, and is therefore constitutional since Congress clearly has the power to tax and spend.
As Scotusblog noted this morning, “That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.”
Chief Justice Roberts could have chosen to ignore that narrow way out and joined the four right-wing judges in striking down the entire law – an act of judicial recklessness that would have been read as an endorsement of Mr. Romney’s presidential candidacy. As it is, the Chief justice could hardly be accused of throwing his support to Mr. Obama.
This is going to be hard for right-wingers to swallow, since Chief Justice Roberts was their great standard bearer for conservative judicial and political thought and against “judicial activism.” But he has enhanced, in no small way, the reputation of a court whose standing has suffered greatly since Bush v Gore.
The next step for the right is to try to repeal the health care law through the legislative process. Only about an hour after the Court’s decision was announced, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor scheduled a vote for July 11.
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama’s health care overhaul law, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.
The decision was a victory for Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats, affirming the central legislative achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The vote was again 5 to 4, but in this instance Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more conservative members were in agreement.
The court also substantially limited the law’s expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people. Seven justices agreed that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by coercing states into participating in the expansion by threatening them with the loss of existing federal payments.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who had been thought to be the administration’s best hope to provide a fifth vote to uphold the law, joined three more conservative members in an unusual jointly written dissent that said the court should have struck down the entire law. The majority’s approach, he said from the bench, “amounts to a vast judicial overreaching.”
The court’s ruling was the most significant federalism decision since the New Deal and the most closely watched case since Bush v. Gore in 2000. It was a crucial milestone for the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, allowing almost all — and perhaps, in the end, all — of its far-reaching changes to roll forward.
Mr. Obama welcomed the court’s decision on the health care law, which has inspired fierce protests, legal challenges and vows of repeal since it was passed. “Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law,” he said at the White House.
Republicans, though, used the occasion to attack it again.
“Obamacare was bad policy yesterday; it’s bad policy today,” Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said in remarks near the Capitol. “Obamacare was bad law yesterday; it’s bad law today.” He, like Congressional Republicans, renewed his pledge to undo the law.
The historic decision, coming after three days of lively oral arguments in March and in the midst of a presidential campaign, drew intense attention across the nation. Outside the court, more than 1,000 people gathered — packing the sidewalk, playing music, chanting slogans — and a loud cheer went up as word spread that the law had been largely upheld. Chants of “Yes we can!” rang out, but the ruling also provoked disappointment among Tea Party supporters.
After months of uncertainty about the law’s fate, the court’s ruling provides some clarity — and perhaps an alert — to states, insurers, employers and consumers about what they are required to do by 2014, when much of the law comes into force.
The Obama administration had argued that the mandate was necessary because it allowed other provisions of the law to function: those overhauling the way insurance is sold and those preventing sick people from being denied or charged extra for insurance. The mandate’s supporters had said it was necessary to ensure that not only sick people but also healthy individuals would sign up for coverage, keeping insurance premiums more affordable.
Conservatives took comfort from two parts of the decision: the new limits it placed on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states.
Five justices accepted the argument that had been at the heart of the challenges brought by 26 states and other plaintiffs: that the federal government is not permitted to force individuals not engaged in commercial activities to buy services they do not want. That was a stunning victory for a theory pressed by a small band of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Most members of the legal academy view the theory as misguided,if not frivolous.
“To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the framers, who were practical statesmen, not metaphysical philosophers.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an opinion joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented on this point, calling the view “stunningly retrogressive.” She wondered why Chief Justice Roberts had seen fit to address it at all in light of his vote to uphold the mandate under the tax power.
Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and a champion of the health care law, said that it was “important to look at the dark cloud behind the silver lining.”
“Federal power has more restrictions on it,” he said, referring to the new limits on regulating commerce. “Going forward, there may even be laws on the books that have to be re-examined.”
The restrictions placed on the Medicaid expansion may also have significant ripple effects. A splintered group of justices effectively revised the law to allow states to choose between participating in the expansion while receiving additional payments or forgoing the expansion and retaining the existing payments. The law had called for an all-or-nothing choice.
The expansion had been designed to provide coverage to 17 million Americans. While some states have indicated that they will participate in the expansion, others may be resistant, leaving more people outside the safety net than the Obama administration had intended.
Although the decision did not turn on it, the back-and-forth between Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the four liberals and the joint opinion by the four conservatives — Justice Kennedy and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — revisited the by-now-familiar arguments. Broccoli made a dozen appearances.
“Although an individual might buy a car or a crown of broccoli one day, there is no certainty she will ever do so,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “And if she eventually wants a car or has a craving for broccoli, she will be obliged to pay at the counter before receiving the vehicle or nourishment. She will get no free ride or food, at the expense of another consumer forced to pay an inflated price.”
The conservative dissenters responded that “one day the failure of some of the public to purchase American cars may endanger the existence of domestic automobile manufacturers; or the failure of some to eat broccoli may be found to deprive them of a newly discovered cancer-fighting chemical which only that food contains, producing health care costs that are a burden on the rest of us.”
All of the justices agreed that their review of the health care law was not barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, which allows suits over some sorts of taxes only after they become due. That could have delayed the health care challenge to 2015. The conservative dissenters said that the majority could not have it both ways by calling the mandate a tax for some purposes but not others.
“That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of sophists,” they said.
As a general matter, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision in the case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, offered no endorsement of the law’s wisdom.
Some decisions, the chief justice said, “are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”
Justice Ginsburg, speaking to a crowded courtroom that sat rapt for the better part of an hour, drew a different conclusion.
“In the end,” she said, “the Affordable Care Act survives largely unscathed.”
President Barack Obama on Saturday sharply criticized a Supreme Court decision easing limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest." He also suggested the ruling could jeopardize his domestic agenda.
In its 5-4 decision this week, the high court overturned two decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using their own money to produce and run campaign ads that urge the election or defeat of particular candidates by name.
Portraying himself as aligned with the people and not special interests, Obama said the decision was unacceptable.
"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet message. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don't."
Obama said that means public servants who stand up to Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers and other powerful interests could find themselves under attack when election time rolls around.
"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections."
The court issued its ruling just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way and as Obama's Democratic Party feels the pressure from a string of losses in New Jersey, Virginia and in Massachusetts, where this week Republican Scott Brown came from behind to win a Senate seat Democrats had held for decades.
Obama said the decision will make it harder to enact financial reforms, close tax loopholes, promote energy independence and protect patients from insurance company abuses — key elements of his domestic agenda.
"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans," Obama said. "And we don't intend to."
He said he has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the decision.
"It will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done," Obama said.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday in a challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act, siding with a small Texas governing authority while sidestepping the larger constitutional issue.
The court, with only one justice in dissent, avoided the major questions raised over the federal government's most powerful tool to prevent discriminatory voting changes since the mid-1960s.
The law requires all or parts of 16 states, mainly in the South, with a history of discrimination in voting to get approval in advance of making changes in the way elections are conducted.
The court said that the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 in Austin, Texas, could apply to opt out of the advance approval requirement, reversing a lower federal court that found it could not. The district would appear to meet the requirements to bail out, although the court did not pass judgment Monday on that point.
Five months after Barack Obama took office as the nation's first African-American president, Chief Justice John Roberts said the justices decided not to determine whether dramatic civil rights gains means the advance approval requirement is no longer necessary. That larger issue, Roberts said, "is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today."
Debo Adegbile, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund lawyer who argued for the preservation of the law at the high court, said, "The fact is, the case was filed to tear the heart out of the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act and that effort failed today."
But Hans von Spakovsky, a legal scholar the conservative-oriented Heritage Foundation, said, "It leaves the courts wide open to another challenge. If someone files a new lawsuit, I think there's a very good chance that down the line they might find it unconstitutional."
The court's avoidance of the constitutional question explains the consensus among justices in the case rendered Monday, where they otherwise likely would have split along conservative-liberal lines.
Justice Clarence Thomas, alone among his colleagues, said he would have resolved the case and held that the provision, known as Section 5, is unconstitutional.
"The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains," Thomas said.
Roberts himself noted that blacks and white now register and turn out to vote in similar numbers and that "blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare."
He attributed a significant share of the progress to the law itself. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirement," Roberts said.
Still, the court did not, on Monday, decide that question in what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently described as "perhaps the most important case of the term."
The Voting Rights Act, first enacted in 1965, opened the polls to millions of black Americans. In 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress overwhelmingly renewed the part of the law which provided for the advance approval requirement for 25 years and President George W. Bush signed it.
The Austin utility district, backed by a conservative group opposed to the law, brought the court challenge.
It said that either it should be allowed to opt out or the entire provision should be declared unconstitutional.
Based on the tone of the questions when the case was argued in late April, many civil rights and election law experts predicted the Roberts-led court would indeed strike the measure down.
The court ruled instead on a provision of the law that allows a state or local government to seek to be free of the advance approval requirement.
The three-judge court that originally decided the case said the utility district did not qualify as a local government that is eligible to bail out. The high court reversed that ruling Monday, saying "all political subdivisions" are eligible to file a bailout suit.
The Austin utility district is in the heart of Canyon Creek, an affluent suburb of about 3,500 residents that didn't break ground on its first house until the 1980s. About 80 percent of residents in Canyon Creek are white, according to the 2000 census.
As recently as 2002, voters in Canyon Creek used a neighbor's garage to cast their ballot in their utility board elections. The board wanted to change the polling location to a school, but first had to seek federal clearance.
The community got it, but Canyon Creek's board felt that needing approval from Washington was an unnecessary obstacle in a tiny neighborhood with no history of minority voter discrimination.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
