Judge Jeanine Pirro destroys Obama on the Navy Yard Shooting, Obamacare, NSA, guns, and more…
Remember way back in 2010 when Barack Obama and far-left members of the House and Senate felt compelled to rush the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through Congress, even though the Democrat Party controlled both chambers quite comfortably? That was a first-rate tip-off that something genuinely shady had to be going on with ObamaCare.
Since then, the IRS has mangled the Constitution; HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has extorted money from the very insurance providers she will regulate; the White House has illegally rewritten portions of the Act; and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has prostituted himself, decimating his legacy and betraying his country. All of this and more just to get where we are today.
And where we are today is in perfect continuity with the rest of the ObamaCare plot line. For states are now passing legislation to defend residents from the anticipated corruption and incompetence of ObamaCare “navigators”–the people whose job it will be to make certain that Americans are eligible to enroll in the Affordable Care Act.
Think about that. We now need the States to provide Americans with legal protection against criminal schemes that are fully expected to be carried out by federal employees! In fewer than 5 years, the reputation for corruption and guile of an American president has compelled the American people to seek the protection of the courts, convinced that in anything Barack Obama plays a role, felonious intrigue will follow.
On August 14th, the Attorneys General of 13 States wrote HHS Secretary Sebelius, warning her of the consequences of the slipshod manner in which ObamaCare “navigators” were being trained and managed. “As it now stands, it is inevitable that HHS’s vague “standards” will result in improperly screened or inadequately trained personnel. These individuals will be more prone to misappropriate–accidentally or intentionally–the private data of consumers.”
Nationwide, thousands of navigators will be responsible for collecting the most sensitive and personal of information from millions of individuals intent upon the purchase of health insurance. Yet nowhere in the HHS-issued, July 17th Final Rule on the Standards for Navigators is it required that candidates be subject to criminal background or fingerprint checks prior to being hired. In fact it doesn’t even state that “…ANY prior criminal acts are per se disqualifying.” As the AG’s write Kathleen Sebelius, “…this is a privacy disaster waiting to happen.”
Navigator standards in the ACA exchange rule state that, “…a navigator must meet any licensing, certification or other standards prescribed by the state or exchange.” And to their credit, states are taking advantage of this opportunity to protect the interests of their residents.
Iowa and Maine have passed legislation to license/certify their navigators.
Maryland has passed a certification statute.
Ohio will demand that navigators fulfill state training and certification standards and pass a background check.
Sixteen states now require navigator certification to state satisfaction.
Tennessee will fingerprint navigators, perform background checks, and limit the advice navigators may give potential ObamaCare customers.
In May, “…a top Obamacare official told GOP lawmakers that navigators will not be required to undergo background checks. Criminal records are not automatically disqualifying — and that includes identity theft. The federal rule-makers will require online training of…20 hours.”
Perhaps this was the case in May. But don’t expect many navigators sporting these “credentials” to work in Republican-managed states. The community organizer mentality is just not going to fly.
During Jihadists’ Kenyan Mall Massacre, Jihad Flag was Flying Proudly over the Streets of New York City
The Republican Party is at a crossroads, not only on Benghazi, but on Obamacare. Does the GOP have the will to fight? The media are stirring with unease at the thought that Republican congressional leaders will finally and forcefully confront Obama about his scandalous foreign and domestic policies.
The decision has been made by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), in response to internal pressure, to fight to defund Obamacare. Will he also permit the conservatives to investigate the truth about Benghazi?
AIM’s September 16th conference on Benghazi came under a frenetic attack from Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, who fears that pressure on Boehner will force him to agree to a Watergate-style committee investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack and cover-up. Such a probe, greatly feared by Obama and his allies, could finally get to the bottom of the scandal involving arms smuggling to terrorists in the Middle East and the deaths of four Americans. Rep. Frank Wolf’s (R-VA) H. Res. 36, to establish such a committee, has 176 co-sponsors. This is a strong majority of the Republican majority in the House. Yet, Boehner has so far refused to authorize the special committee.
Until recently, Speaker Boehner had no plans to use the budget battle to defund Obamacare. But pressure from within, from Tea Party and conservative Republicans, has forced him to act. The move is being distorted and twisted by the media, citing people like Karl Rove and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), into an effort that will only succeed in closing the government down and giving Obama a political victory of some kind. This is an argument, of course, for business as usual in Washington, another victory for Obama and the Democrats that will leave conservatives dispirited and demoralized.
The media know that the health care law is unpopular and that the Republicans have a winning issue in their fight to repeal it. Obama has delayed implementation of key aspects of the law because it was poorly conceived and rushed through without adequate review. Defunding the law is the only legislative mechanism available to House Republicans to save the American people from this unfolding disaster. The House has the power of the purse, and the media know it.
That is why the media enthusiastically quote “experts” such as Rove in order to try to derail the push to defund the law. CNN’s Gloria Borger argued, “… even Karl Rove in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal today said look, Republicans are essentially on a fool’s errand here.”
In the end, Senate Democrats will protect Obama and his law. But is that a reason not to engage in a public fight to defund it?
Rove had argued that “…any strategy to repeal, delay or replace the law must have a credible chance of succeeding or affecting broad public opinion positively.”
Yet, through his column and numerous media appearances, especially on Fox News, he undermines those trying to influence public opinion in the right direction.
In a column, before GOP leaders in the House decided to change tactics and use the budget battle to defund Obamacare, Erick Erickson of RedState had warned that the Republican establishment and its conservative base were moving far apart. “If the GOP does not make a stand against Obamacare, they will not see the energy they need to effectively compete in 2014,” he said.
The Republican establishment in the House finally got the message on Obamacare.
When Boehner caved in, Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest Tea Party political action committee, said that the voice of the grass roots “was too loud for the House leadership to ignore.”
What’s missing from the coverage is an examination of the record of Republicans such as Rove and McCain, and whether their political “expertise” is worthwhile. Rove spent $300 million in 2012 to try to elect Mitt Romney and guarantee a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate. He failed.
In order to make the case that Republican efforts to defund Obamacare are “self-defeating,” Rove cites a poll purporting to show that such a move would turn off independent voters. But polls haven’t been kind to Rove and other “experts” who had used them to predict a Romney victory in the 2012 presidential election. Rove’s controversial record and predictions were a factor in his being dropped as an analyst by Fox News after the election, before being inexplicably rehired.
Since his failure as the Republican nominee for president against Obama in 2008, McCain has emerged as one of the biggest supporters of Obama’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood policy in the Middle East. Most Egyptians welcomed the overthrow of the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime in their country. But McCain went to Egypt on Obama’s behalf to argue for the return of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in some fashion.
McCain has been in the news lately as a proponent of arming the Syrian “rebels,” many of them identified as connected with al Qaeda. To promote this policy, he quoted a Wall Street Journal writer, Elizabeth O’Bagy, who had claimed a non-existent Ph.D. She has been fired not only by the Institute for the Study of War, where she worked, but by a Syrian rebel group she had been serving as “political director.”
However, I have not seen Senator McCain being questioned by anyone in the media about his reliance on this fake scholar. McCain always remains a media favorite, no matter how ridiculous he looks.
Having deferred to conservatives on Obamacare, Speaker Boehner and other members of the Republican establishment are now feeling the heat over Benghazi. AIM’s conference to launch the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi captured much of the unrest over Boehner’s curious failure to create a Watergate-style committee to investigate the scandal. Speakers said that the scandal could implicate the President in illegal operations that are international in scope.
Special Operations Speaks launched a billboard campaign to pressure Boehner to create the special committee, while Revive America USA has been running “Fire the Speaker” ads over his resistance to the idea. Those ads have run on Fox News, Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, and the Mark Levin radio show.
The ads say:
Speaker Boehner promised he’d repeal Obamacare, but now refuses to even defund it!
He surrendered to Obama’s higher taxes and spending, and when House Republicans complained, Boehner punished them. Speaker Boehner won’t allow a special ‘Watergate’ committee to investigate the 9/11-Benghazi terror attack, even though a majority of House Republicans demand it! After 3 years of broken promises and secret back-room deals with Obama—You’re Fired, Speaker Boehner!
Boehner has caved on Obamacare. Will he do so on Benghazi?
In the Senate, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked for unanimous consent for passage of his Senate Resolution 225 to create a special committee in that body to investigate Benghazi; but liberal Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer (CA) objected, thereby defeating the idea.
“Given the yearlong collective failure of our government either to gain clarity on what happened in Benghazi or extract any retribution for the terrorist attack,” Cruz said, “Congress should form a Joint Select Committee to launch a proper investigation.”
Despite the clear case for such a committee, Cruz has only 23 co-sponsors. McCain and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) are not among them.
Despite what the Republicans may think or do, of course, the Senate is run by Democrats like Boxer; and they will never agree to a special committee to investigate the Obama policies that resulted in Benghazi. The House is a different matter.
Bob Adams of Revive America says that Boehner is under tremendous pressure to authorize the special committee on Benghazi, or get out of the way and let the conservatives do the job. The argument that the Senate won’t agree with the House doesn’t apply in this case, since House Republicans can set up this special committee on their own.
The future of Boehner’s speakership, the Republican Party, and even Obama’s presidency may hang in the balance.
This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo credit: terrellaftermath
UPDATE 9/25/13: Watch Part 2 here.
Almost nothing gives rise to more national intrigue than the murder of an American president. And on November 22, 2013, the nation will experience the 50th anniversary of one of the most traumatic events in modern American history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
There’s an ongoing effort by President Obama and fellow “progressives” not only to continue to blame George W. Bush for every economic woe facing America — even as every economic indicator is far worse under Obama — but to permanently discredit the value of tax cuts. Tax cuts are an unmitigated evil that progressive crusaders must forever exorcise.
For President Obama and his allies, this is a project they’re taking back to the Reagan years, starting with an assault on President Reagan’s enormously successful 1981 tax cuts. Their campaign, however, can’t end with Reagan. They need to venture way back to Andrew Mellon in the 1920s.
Mellon was Treasury secretary throughout the Republican administrations that followed Woodrow Wilson’s exit from the White House in 1921. He was a superb Treasury secretary, with few peers before or since.
Unemployment under Wilson’s “progressive” presidency had hit almost 12 percent. In 1921, the newly inaugurated president was Republican Warren Harding. As Harding’s Treasury secretary, Mellon argued against spending increases as “stimulus” for economic growth and, instead, pushed for tax rate cuts. It was a Reagan-like move, with Reagan-like results. By 1923, unemployment dropped to under 3 percent, where it (roughly) remained throughout the 1920s under Harding and his Republican successor, Calvin Coolidge.
The economy did not begin its crash and sustained slide until the presidencies of Herbert Hoover, a Republican, and FDR, a Democrat. Both Hoover and FDR jacked tax rates through the roof. The federal tax rate on income reached a breathtaking 94 percent under FDR. As historian Burt Folsom shows, FDR actually considered raising the upper rate to 99.5 percent on income above $100,000. (Yes, you read that right.)
FDR, for the record, despised Andrew Mellon. He subjected Mellon to an intense, intrusive investigation of his income-tax returns, pursuing him to his deathbed. FDR had a vendetta against Mellon’s entire philosophy on taxation. It became personal as well as political.
Here’s a Mellon insight that FDR no doubt detested: “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates.”
FDR certainly didn’t understand, though his Treasury secretary (Henry Morgenthau) eventually came to that conclusion. “We have tried spending money,” said Morgenthau. “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”
Morgenthau figured out what Andrew Mellon already knew. Said Mellon: “The problem of government is to fix rates which will bring in a maximum amount of revenue to the Treasury and at the same time bear not too heavily on the taxpayer or on business enterprises.”
And so, during the Harding and Coolidge administrations, Mellon succeeded in promoting tax-rate cuts rates across the board, with upper-income rates reduced from 73 to 24 percent. The cuts were very similar to Reagan’s in the 1980s. And like under Reagan — and contrary to liberal mythology — total tax revenue to the Treasury actually increased.
Under Reagan, federal revenue rose from $599 billion to almost $1 trillion. Under Mellon’s stewardship in the 1920s, revenue went from $700 million to above $1 billion. And unlike under Reagan, Mellon’s policies eliminated the budget deficit. (Coolidge was able and willing to cut spending where Reagan did not.)
For President Obama and his fellow liberals, these are inconvenient, unwelcome facts. They believe they need higher taxes to feed and sustain their government class. Democrats are banking on that government class — which they want to expand and unionize — to keep them in power not another four years, but another 40 years.
Tax cuts are anathema to our president and progressives. And so is the wisdom of Andrew Mellon.
Editor’s note: This column first appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and New York Times best-selling author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”
Photo credit: Steve Rhodes (Creative Commons)
After 240 years, it’s time we threw a Tea Party for the Longshoremen (and all other trade and industrial unions)
I’ve been intrigued with the sudden awakening of the trade and industrial unions to the fact they’ve been had by Obama and his Sorosian handlers.
The union movement got its spiritual base about 122 years ago with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum – on Capital and Labor. It also explains why Catholics continue to cling to the Democrat Party, even though it left its principles in the sump of an outhouse decades ago.
Ronald Reagan–the nation’s only labor leader President and one who successfully took on the communists in Hollywood–joined with Pope John Paul II to work with Poland’s Solidarity Union leader Lech Walesa to bring down the Soviet hegemony – maybe even the empire.
What few people remember is that Reagan wisely called on the late Frank Fitzsimmons, then President of the Teamsters International Union, to advise and work with Walesa.
Today, I see an opportunity to bring the Tea Party philosophy into the union movement. They are certainly ripe for solutions. The key is not just solidarity, but subsidiarity – not one or the other, but both applied in unison. Personal responsibility and e pluribus unum are what made this country great. Pope Benedict XVI covered it quite well in his encyclical Caritas in veritate – Charity in truth – specifically points 57. and 58.
I was intrigued when 40,000 Longshoremen walked out of the communist-run AFL-CIO over Obamacare. Seems the Tea Party and the Longshoremen haven’t had a serious encounter since that 1773 incident in Boston Harbor. Hmmm! December 16th is the 240th anniversary. Isn’t it about time?
By the way, here’s some food for thought:
Participating in a gun buy-back program because you think that criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbor has too many kids. Problem is – this makes sense to a “progressive!”
Photo credit: WSDOT (Creative Commons)
“I do not want to drive across a bridge designed by an engineer who believed the numbers in structural stress models are relative truths.” – R.C. Sproul
I was delighted to speak on Sunday at Faith Christian Center in Arlington, Texas. I joined that community of believers in celebrating the 25th anniversary of the church’s affiliated school, St. Paul’s Preparatory Academy. The topic of my discussion was “How to Raise Christian Children in Today’s Culture.”
As I was preparing my remarks, it occurred to me that raising children to both love and faithfully serve the Lord and Creator of the universe, Jesus Christ, is not unlike a primary goal of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University.
In 1971, Dr. Falwell launched LU – now the world’s largest Christian university – and quickly got about the business of “training champions for Christ.”
I submit that “raising Christian children in today’s culture” and “training champions for Christ” are one in the same, and that both fruitful endeavors stem from the same rich soil.
But what is today’s culture exactly? What is a champion for Christ? And, perhaps most importantly, what – or Who – is truth?
Merriam Webster’s defines “champion” as “someone who fights or speaks publicly in support of a person, belief, cause, etc.” It is not merely a passing suggestion that Christian parents and educators train champions for Christ. It’s a command given to us by God Himself: “Start children off on the way they should go (train them), and even when they are old they will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6).
We faithful are additionally tasked with an unambiguous calling on the way we (and our children) should go: “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned’” (Mark 16:15).
The Apostle Paul admonishes in Romans 1:16 that we should not be “ashamed of the gospel,” but, rather, should “Do [our] best to present [ourselves] to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
In addition to leading by example, this means steeping Christian children and young people in the “word of truth” – the Holy Scriptures – and equipping them, in love, to champion (to “fight or speak publicly in support of”) the infallible, unchangeable, and absolute truths found therein.
This is so even when the absolute truths of Scripture have become unpopular in a world that prefers the absolute lie of relativism.
Indeed, though some may wander the prodigal’s path for a time, and still others may remain lost, we can only then – having obeyed the command to train our children in the way they should go – release, hope, pray, and have faith that the Holy Spirit will be that eternal light to illuminate temporal life’s perilous path – that Christ will be a lamp unto the feet of our beloved.
Jesus commands His followers to be His hands and feet – to be salt and light in a rotting world that loves darkness (Matthew 5:13-16).
True, salt preserves; but in an open wound, it also burns. Today’s relativist culture is an open wound.
True, light’s bright glare can be illuminating to those eager to see. But it is also blinding to those whose eyes have become adjusted to darkness.
When the light of Christ is shined, it sends lovers of evil scurrying for the shadows.
For this reason, Christ warned, “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22).
In a culture that slaughters the unborn, mocks purity, celebrates sexual sin, and makes a joke out of the institution of marriage by imagining sin-based counterfeits, it remains a daunting task for Christian parents to raise children with both the courage and conviction to stand unashamed for God’s truth. From an earthly standpoint, it seems counterintuitive to both welcome and find joy in being hated by the world.
Even more, for young people who might prefer popularity over principle – at least for now – the prospect of being “hated by everyone” lacks a certain level of appeal.
That’s OK. Stand strong, parents. Persevere.
Because, ultimately, that’s the price of admission.
It boils down to instilling in our children a biblically orthodox Christian worldview – that is to say, absolute truth. Anything else is nothing at all. Anything else is relativism, which holds that there is no absolute truth and imagines, absolutely, that, as theological giant Francis Schaeffer often described, “Man is the measure of all things.”
As history has proven, when man is the measure of all things, all things can (and usually do) go horribly wrong. Consider, for example, the hundreds of millions killed under the relativist regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al.
Indeed, train your children in “the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.” They will use God’s Word, the true measure of all things, as they endeavor to actually measure all things.
Funny thing, absolute truth. It’s absolute. It’s like a buoy pulled beneath the lake’s surface and fixed tight with rope. With time, and against the tide of Christ’s love, that rope – the lie of relativism – eventually rots. It snaps under its own weakness, hurling the buoy, truth, from cold darkness to warm sunlight.
If steeped in scripture, children – even the prodigal child – may be pulled under and tied down for a time by relativism’s glittery allure. But when the relativist rope rots, fear not; for those who have been fastened to “the way, the truth and the life” – who is Christ – will burst back into the light.
And then what champions they will be.
Photo credit: Fr. Stephen, MSC (Creative Commons)