Saturday, December 28, 2013

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility

By Patrick Howley

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.
 
The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.
 
The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”
 
“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority. 
 
The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton. 
 
Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare. 
 
Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.
 
 

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Obama's terrible, horrible, very bad year

By John Podhoretz

When Barack Obama sings “Auld Lang Syne” on New Year’s Eve, he will have reason to think back, with a deep sense of nostalgia and not a small amount of regret, on the last time he sang the song.

If he gets a lump in his throat as he recollects that glorious night one year ago, who would blame him? After all, he was riding about as high as a man can ride on New Year’s Eve 2012.

There he was, almost literally the master of the universe — the canny victor of the 2012 election, having run what was instantly regarded as the most brilliant technical campaign in American history. He used that victory to prevail in a “fiscal cliff” showdown with Republicans the last week of December that led to the significant tax increases on the well-to-do he had sought since the beginning of his first term. He had a 53% approval rating; only 40% disapproved.

In a few weeks, he would be inaugurated for a second term and, liberated from the demands of running again and emboldened by his win, he would that day offer the country an unabashedly and unapologetically left-wing vision of the American future toward which he was guiding it.

“Preserving our individual freedoms,” he said in a startling turn of phrase, “ultimately requires collective action.”

There were guarantees to move forward on climate-change legislation, on new tax hikes as a means of combatting inequality, and on a panoply of liberal social policy goals from so-called “pay equity” to further steps on gay rights beyond his support for marital equality. And let us not forget the issue on everyone’s mind — gun control, in the wake of the Newtown school massacre of December 2012.

This was his moment. And moments of blissful triumph for great men are precisely why legend has it that Roman emperors hired men to walk beside them as they paraded through the Eternal City, whispering the words “Caesar, thou art mortal.”

For, as he rings in the new year of 2014, Obama has rueful cause to reflect on the words of the prophet Samuel: “Oh, how art the mighty fallen.”

In his case, we can calculate the fall precisely — anywhere from 10 to 15 points in his job-approval rating. And he has taken severe hits when it comes to how much people like him and how trustworthy they find him.

All in all, when it comes to public opinion, Barack Obama ends his fifth year in worse shape than any president since Richard Nixon. And Nixon didn’t even manage to finish his sixth year.

That fate will not befall Obama, obviously. But as the hopeful stories pour out of Washington about how he’s retooling his White House to dig himself out from under the rubble of the ObamaCare launch, and as liberals continue to assure themselves that once the website is working all will be well, the truth is that Obama’s return to his former glory in the coming year is highly unlikely.

For one thing, the president has gone from being someone in charge of events to someone who is being buffeted about by them — and once a leader loses his hold on the levers of power it’s very difficult to get them back.

Machiavelli says in “The Prince,” the greatest analysis of political power ever written, that successful leaders work to control their fortunes the way people construct dams and dikes to contain and direct powerful rivers.

“Fortune shows her power where the brave have not made preparations to resist her,” Machiavelli writes. “She turns her forces where she knows that barriers and defenses have not been raised to constrain her.”

In the eyes of his friends and admirers, who are shocked at how badly things have gone, Obama did not raise “barriers and defenses” to prepare for the exigencies of fortune and now “everything is flying before it, all are yielding to its violence, without being able in any way to withstand it.”

His response to the nightmarish ObamaCare rollout was only the capper in a year when his general response to questionable behavior by the executive branch was, almost literally, to play dumb.

When the IRS confessed it had inappropriately targeted conservative groups for scrutiny entirely owing to their political stances, the White House expressed bewilderment, some concern and upset, but acted as though it was happening far, far away — in some field office in Cincinnati.

Meanwhile, senior IRS officials were taking the Fifth before Congress, there were hurried retirements, and a general sense that something very, very dirty had gone down. The president’s general attitude was that he hadn’t known and anyway it wasn’t his business.

Over at the Department of Justice, it came to light that his attorney general Eric Holder had approved a highly problematic surveillance of the Associated Press in its effort to find a leaker, and had consented to the appalling designation of Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “criminal co-conspirator” in another leak investigation. The president’s response was no response: “I have complete confidence in Eric Holder as attorney general.”

Then came the discovery of what may be the worst security breach in US history, with contractor Edward Snowden dancing around the globe with tens of millions of highly classified documents. The president looked powerless and feckless when he proved unable to get the Chinese or the Russians to intercept or intercede to assist in Snowden’s return — indeed, Snowden is now living under the Russian umbrella.

In response, a peeved Obama cancelled a visit to Russia — only to find himself in Vladimir Putin’s perverse debt a month later. The president had announced he would strike Syria because of its use of chemical weapons, but was clearly reluctant to do so. Putin said he’d get the Assad government to cough up the weapons and Obama was let off the hook at the cost of an evil going unpunished and the regime solidifying its hold on power.

None of this made the president look good — even avoiding military action in Syria didn’t, because he was the one who had said he would do it in the first place.

The one moment when he seemed to have gotten the upper hand was the government shutdown at the beginning of October, but that was only because the Republicans looked worse. And that was illusory in any case, because polls during the shutdown showed he was accruing little or no benefit from it — the public blamed the GOP more but people blamed him plenty too.

And, of course, there came ObamaCare — two months of unrelievedly disastrous news followed by news that wasn’t so bad only by comparison with what had preceded it. Most important for Obama’s future, the killer moment wasn’t when the website didn’t work but when everybody had to acknowledge his four-year claim that “if you like your plan you can keep it” was an out-and-out lie.

This was so important because it exposed another lie — what you might call the great cover story of 2013.

People have come to believe Obama is out of touch and in over his head because having us believe these things was actually the least bad option for the president this year. It is actually better (or less damaging) for Obama to look incompetent than for him to look purposeful.

That’s one leadership device even Machiavelli didn’t foresee.

So now his admirers and supporters worry the job is too much for him, while those who are neither watch the spectacle with a certain grim satisfaction.

And so Barack Obama’s 2013 comes to its ignominious close. Auld lang syne, indeed.

Obama’s 2013: A year to forget

January 16 — In the wake of the Newtown shootings, Obama outlines his gun-control proposals. After a backlash, nothing gets passed. In fact, gun sales skyrocket — up 55% in Texas and 46% in Pennsylvania.

January 20 – Obama is sworn into his second term; his inaugural address is “heavy on broad rhetoric and light on policy specifics” according to the Washington Post. More people talk about Beyonce lip-synching the National Anthem.

January 29 – In Las Vegas, Obama addresses the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. Though the Senate passed a bill in June, Obama again couldn’t get anything passed in the House.

February 12 – President Obama delivers the State of the Union address and announces a drawdown in Afghanistan. While “green on blue” insider attacks on US troops continue, President Karzai of Afghanistan holds out on signing any sort of security agreement. Without the deal, all US troops will be gone from Afghanistan in 2014.

March 1 — Despite saying his sequestration plan “will not happen” during the 2012 presidential campaign, Congress fails to reach a deal and sequestration cuts $85 billion across the board.

March 2 — Open-air parks like the WWII memorial are closed by the parks department. Insiders later tell reporters the reason was political. The administration wanted the public to “feel the pain” of sequester cuts.

May 10 — Lois Lerner, a director in the IRS, responds to a planted question at a speaking engagement, admitting the tax agency targeted conservative groups — delaying and denying their tax-exempt status. It’s later alleged that the IRS leaked tax returns of conservative groups and ordered up audits of political enemies.

May 12 — It’s revealed that the administration, angry that the AP broke a story about a terrorism plot, had the private phone records of reporters secretly subpoenaed. Attorney General Eric Holder denies knowing about the seizure, but defends it because of the “very, very serious leak.”

May 22 — Lerner claims before Congress she “didn’t break any laws” then invokes the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.

May 23 — At the National Defense University, Obama tries to placate the left about his drone attacks by saying, “To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power — or risk abusing it.”
Apparently that “discipline” is “whatever Obama thinks is right.” Drone attacks continue unabated — including a strike on a Yemen wedding party earlier this month that killed at least 11.

June 6 — The Washington Post and Guardian newspapers both publish information about spying programs by the NSA, courtesy of Edward Snowden, a former NSA employee who stole the material and fled to Hong Kong.

June 23 — Edward Snowden arrives in Moscow, where Vladimir Putin refuses to give him up, and smirks when asked about him.

June 25 — In a speech on climate change, Obama again waffles on the Keystone pipeline, pleasing neither side. As months go on without it being built, Canada has been making plans to ship oil by sea to China instead.

July 2 — After taking off from Russia, the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales is re-routed to Austria and searched, on reports he could be carrying Snowden. He isn’t — and the heavy-handed stop increases pressure on the US and angers NATO allies.

July 19 — Obama decides to weigh in on one criminal case out of thousands nationwide, saying, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago” after George Zimmerman is found not guilty of murdering the teen. Obama calls for “soul searching.”

August 31 — Obama claims Syria has used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war, crossing the “red line” he had laid down. Obama claims he doesn’t need authorization to strike, but will ask Congress anyway. He later says even if Congress even says no, he can still do it.

September 15 — Weeks after his Syria ultimatum, Obama accepts a Russian deal that allows Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to stay in power if he gives up chemical weapons. Putin smirks.

September 23Lois Lerner retires suddenly; the investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative groups is ongoing.

October 1 — Despite passing in 2010, the actual launch of ObamaCare is a complete failure — the website crashes, few if any people can sign up and millions discover that their insurance is cancelled. Obama is forced to admit that his promise that “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance” is a lie.

October 1 — Unable to reach a budget deal, the government shuts down.

October 17 — In a rare Obama victory, the shutdown ends with no concession to Republicans on the budget.

October 23 — Snowden’s leaks reveal the US listened to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone calls. She angrily confronts Obama and latter compares the behavior to the Stasi.

November 1 — Obama signs an executive order saying local governments must prepare for the “impact of global warming” — like making buildings stronger.

December 10 — With the selfie seen round the world, Obama upstages Nelson Mandela’s memorial with a cellphone picture with UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Danish PM Helle Thorning Schmidt.

December 18 — Congress passes a bipartisan budget agreement. Bob Woodward says deal was reached, “because Obama was not part of the negotiations.”

December 19 — Under pressure, Obama says people who have had their insurance cancelled don’t have to pay the penalty for not having insurance for one year. It’s the 14th change to the law since passage.

December 31 — Estimates indicate more people may find their old health-care policies cancelled than who successfully signed up for new health insurance from ObamaCare.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/21/obama-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-year/  

____________________

Story of the year

By Charles Krauthammer

The lie of the year, according to Politifact, is “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” But the story of the year is a nation waking up to just how radical Obamacare is — which is why it required such outright deception to get it passed in the first place.

Obamacare was sold as simply a refinement of the current system, retaining competition among independent insurers but making things more efficient, fair and generous. Free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Free mammograms and checkups for you and me. Free (or subsidized) insurance for some 30 million uninsured. And, mirabile dictu, not costing the government a dime.

In fact, Obamacare is a full-scale federal takeover. The keep-your-plan-if-you-like-your-plan ruse was a way of saying to the millions of Americans who had insurance and liked what they had: Don’t worry. You’ll be left unmolested. For you, everything goes on as before.

That was a fraud from the very beginning. The law was designed to throw people off their private plans and into government-run exchanges where they would be made to overpay — forced to purchase government-mandated services they don’t need — as a way to subsidize others. (That’s how you get to the ostensible free lunch.)

It wasn’t until the first cancellation notices went out in late 2013 that the deception began to be understood. And felt. Six million Americans with private insurance have just lost it. And that’s just the beginning. By the Department of Health and Human Services’ own estimates, about 75 million Americans would have plans that their employers would have the right to cancel. And millions of middle-class workers who will migrate to the exchanges and don’t qualify for government subsidies will see their premiums, deductibles and co-pays go up.

It gets worse. The dislocation extends to losing one’s doctor and drug coverage, as insurance companies narrow availability to compensate for the huge costs imposed on them by the extended coverage and “free” services the new law mandates.

But it’s not just individuals seeing their medical care turned upside down. The insurance providers, the backbone of the system, are being utterly transformed. They are rapidly becoming mere extensions of the federal government.

Look what happened just last week. Health and Human Services unilaterally and without warning changed coverage deadlines and guidelines. It asked insurers to start covering people on Jan. 1 even if they signed up as late as the day before and even if they hadn’t paid their premiums. And is “strongly encouraging” them to pay during the transition for doctor visits and medicines not covered in their current plans (if covered in the patient’s previous — canceled — plan).

On what authority does a Cabinet secretary tell private companies to pay for services not in their plans and cover people not on their rolls? Where in Obamacare’s 2,500 pages are such high-handed dictates authorized? Does anyone even ask? The bill itself is simply taken as a kind of blanket warrant for HHS to run, regulate and control the whole insurance system.

Remember the uproar over forcing religious institutions to provide contraception coverage? The president’s “fix” was a new regulation ordering insurers to provide these services for free. Apart from the fact that this transparent ruse does nothing to resolve the underlying issue of conscience — God sees — by what right does the government order private companies to provide free services for anyone?

Three years ago I predicted that Obamacare would turn insurers into the lapdog equivalent of utility companies. I undershot. They are being treated as wholly owned subsidiaries. Take the phrase “strongly encouraging.” Sweet persuasion? In reality, these are offers insurers can’t refuse. Disappoint your federal master and he has the power to kick you off the federal exchanges, where the health insurance business of the future is supposed to be conducted.

Moreover, if adverse selection drives insurers into a financial death spiral — too few healthy young people to offset more costly, sicker, older folks — their only recourse will be a government bailout. Do they really want to get on the wrong side of the White House, their only lifeline when facing insolvency?

I don’t care a whit for the insurance companies. They deserve what they get. They collaborated with the White House in concocting this scheme and are now being swallowed by it. But I do care about the citizenry and its access to a functioning, flourishing, choice-driven medical system.

Obamacare posed as a free-market alternative to a British-style single-payer system. Then, during congressional debate, the White House ostentatiously rejected the so-called “public option.” But that’s irrelevant. The whole damn thing is the public option. The federal government now runs the insurance market, dictating deadlines, procedures, rates, risk assessments and coverage requirements. It’s gotten so cocky it’s now telling insurers to cover the claims that, by law, they are not required to.

Welcome 2014, our first taste of nationalized health care.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer122013.php3#.UrPDYrTDv-I

_______________________

What Didn’t the President Know, and When Didn’t He Know It?

By Ed Driscoll

Political theorists will study Obama’s “one news cycle at a time” survival tactic for generations to come.  It got him re-elected despite four years of grinding unemployment and fabulous Solyndra-style corruption.  He was able to slink past scandals that would have ended anyone else – probably even Bill Clinton – because he could rely on the media’s reluctance to create damaging “narratives” around him.  He got past one scandal avalanche after the next, because everything instantly became “old news” once the Administration “won” a few games of Sunday-show parcheesi.  The board was always completely reset for Barack Obama.  He got away with portraying himself, every month for four long and onerous years, as a total outsider who just showed up in Washington yesterday, and couldn’t believe what he found.  Why, he’s just as surprised, frustrated, disappointed, and angry about [fill in the scandal] as you are!

That last line dovetails perfectly with Ramirez’s cartoon, doesn’t it? And it also ties in with John Podhoretz’s latest column at the New York Post, on “Obama’s terrible, horrible, very bad year:”

All in all, when it comes to public opinion, Barack Obama ends his fifth year in worse shape than any president since Richard Nixon. And Nixon didn’t even manage to finish his sixth year.

That fate will not befall Obama, obviously. But as the hopeful stories pour out of Washington about how he’s retooling his White House to dig himself out from under the rubble of the ObamaCare launch, and as liberals continue to assure themselves that once the website is working all will be well, the truth is that Obama’s return to his former glory in the coming year is highly unlikely.

For one thing, the president has gone from being someone in charge of events to someone who is being buffeted about by them — and once a leader loses his hold on the levers of power it’s very difficult to get them back.

Machiavelli says in “The Prince,” the greatest analysis of political power ever written, that successful leaders work to control their fortunes the way people construct dams and dikes to contain and direct powerful rivers.

“Fortune shows her power where the brave have not made preparations to resist her,” Machiavelli writes. “She turns her forces where she knows that barriers and defenses have not been raised to constrain her.”

In the eyes of his friends and admirers, who are shocked at how badly things have gone, Obama did not raise “barriers and defenses” to prepare for the exigencies of fortune and now “everything is flying before it, all are yielding to its violence, without being able in any way to withstand it.”

As numerous pundits — including those on the left who supported Obama (at least at the time) have noted, Obama is the most isolated president, the biggest loner-as-president, since Richard Nixon. And as otherwise Machiavellian as both men have been, as Podhoretz notes above that style of personal isolationism doesn’t lend itself to controlling their fortunes “the way people construct dams and dikes to contain and direct powerful rivers.” But hey, as then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Deanna Archuleta promised a group of fellow leftwing eco-zealots early in Obama’s first term, “You will never see another federal dam.” Obviously she didn’t realize her blanket statement would apply metaphorically to her boss as well.

In other words, Hubris, meet Nemesis, meet Barry O., yet again. Which is why, as Glenn Reynolds writes in his newest column at USA Today, if you thought Obama’s year was bad in 2013, just wait until next year: “All told, it’s likely that 2013 won’t be Obama’s worst year ever. Or, sadly, America’s. Happy New Year!”

For both, in no small part because, as Glenn adds, “It’s true that Obamacare has been a debacle, wrapped in a catastrophe, shrouded in a disaster.” Heh, indeed. Read the whole thing.™

Let’s get a jump on the New Year’s Obamaschadenfreude early. What do you suppose the president will not know next? Let me know in the comments below.

Update: The obligatory exit quote is really a misquote in this case: “‘We Screwed the Duck’: CNN Really Misheard Obama’s Health Care Apology…”

Still though, that malaprop seems a fitting eulogy for the horrid year the president inflicted upon both himself, and the rest of us — not to mention CNN’s own terrible, horrible, very bad year. And an entirely self-inflicted bad year, to boot. For as the late Andrew Breitbart once reminded the MSM, “it’s not your business model that sucks, it’s you that sucks.”

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/12/22/all-the-presidents-amnesia/

_____________________________

Lies Told By USA Presidents

LBJ:

We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin).

Nixon:

I am not a crook.

Clinton:

I did not have sex with that woman... Miss Lewinski.

Bush - 41:

Read my lips - No new taxes.

Obama:

"I will have the most transparent administration in history.

TARP is to fund shovel-ready jobs.

I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.

The IRS is not targeting anyone.

It was a spontaneous riot about a movie, Benghazi.

If I had a son….

I will put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division, conflict and cynicism".

You didn't build that!

I will restore trust in Government.

The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.

The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk.

It's not my red line - it is the world's red line.

Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.

We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.

I am not spying on American citizens.

Obama Care will be good for America.

You can keep your family doctor.

Premiums will be lowered by $2500.

If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan.

It's just like shopping at Amazon.

I knew nothing about "Fast and Furious" gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.

I knew nothing about the IRS targeting conservative groups.

I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi.

“I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Congressmen Want to Bring Obama to Court for Not Faithfully Executing Laws

30 members support the House Resolution calling for civil action.

By Daniel Halper
 
Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina, a Republican, is sponsoring a resolution in the House of Representatives that would, if adopted, direct the legislative body "to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch." In other words, Rep. Rice wants to take President Obama to court for not faithfully executing the laws.
 
"President Obama has adopted a practice of picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. In most cases, his laws of choice conveniently coincide with his Administration’s political agenda. Our Founding Fathers created the Executive Branch to implement and enforce the laws written by Congress and vested this power in the President.  However, President Obama has chosen to ignore some of the laws written by Congress and implemented by preceding Presidents," Rice wrote in a letter to fellow House members to ask them to co-sponsor this resolution.
 
"This resolution allows the House of Representatives to bring legal action against the Executive Branch and challenge recent actions, inactions, and policies."
 
The "legal action against the President" would be, according to an aide for Rep. Rice, "for ignoring Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution." Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states,
 
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
 
The resolution alleges that President Obama and his administration have abused executive power and failed to execute the laws of the United States faithfully.
 
Thus, the resolution calls for "CIVIL ACTION.—The House of Representatives shall bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge any of the following policies or actions:
 
(1) The policy of the Department of Health and Human Services that, with respect to health insurance coverage that is renewed for a policy year during the period beginning January 1, 2014, and ending October 1, 2014, health insurance issuers may continue to offer coverage that would otherwise be terminated or cancelled for being out of compliance with various requirements of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act and corresponding portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as announced by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services on November 14, 2013.
 
(2) The 1-year delay in the application of the reporting requirements of sections 6055 and 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and related requirements of section 4980H of such Code), as provided under Department of the Treasury Notice 2013–45, as announced by the Department of the Treasury on July 2, 2013.
 
(3) The policy of the Department of Homeland Security to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children, as announced by the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.
 
(4) The authorization, approval, renewal, modification, or extension of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) that waives compliance with a requirement of section 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 607) through a waiver of section 402 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 602).
 
In plain English, and in the words Rice used to ask fellow members to sign onto the resolution, the complaints are:
 
1.       President Obama recently announced an “administrative fix” in regard to cancelled healthcare plans due to Obamacare.  Of course he plans to provide a “fix” which will substantially alter his signature legislation without involving Congress.
 
2.       Over the summer, President Obama’s Administration announced a one-year delay in Obamacare’s employer mandate without involving Congress.
 
3.       Last year, President Obama’s Administration granted temporary status to illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children without involving Congress.
 
4.       In June 2012, President Obama’s Administrative provided a waiver initiative for the welfare work requirement under TANF without involving Congress.
 
So far, 29 members of Congress are co-sponsoring Rice's Resolution: Bachmann (MN-06), Bridenstine (OK-01), Chaffetz (UT-03), J. Duncan (SC-03), DeSantis (FL-06), Franks (AZ-08), Gowdy (SC-04), Harris (MD-01), Lamborn (CO-05), LaMalfa (CA-01), Marino (PA-10), McClintock (CA-04), Meadows (NC-11), Nunnelee (MS-01), Pittenger (NC-09), Posey (FL-08), Tom Price (GA-06), Ribble (WI-08), Salmon (AZ-05), Sanford (SC-01), Schweikert (AZ-06), Stewart (UT-02), Stockman (TX-36), Walberg (MI-07), Weber (TX-14), Wenstrup (OH-02), Williams (TX-25), Joe Wilson (SC-02), and Yoho FL-03.
 
Here's full resolution, which is expected to be filed with the House clerk's office very soon:
 
RESOLUTION
 
Directing the House of Representatives to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch.
 
Whereas President Obama and officials in his administration have frequently overstepped the limits placed on executive branch power by the Constitution;
 
Whereas because of President Obama’s continuing failure to faithfully execute the laws, his administration’s actions cannot be addressed by the enactment of new laws, be- cause Congress cannot assume that the President will execute the new laws any more faithfully than the laws he has already ignored, leaving Congress with no legislative remedy to prevent the establishment of what is in effect an imperial presidency; and
Whereas it is therefore necessary and appropriate for Congress to turn to the courts to ensure the faithful execution of the laws as required by the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
 
Resolved,
 
SECTION 1. DIRECTING CIVIL ACTION BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN RESPONSE TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTIONS.
 
(a) CIVIL ACTION.—The House of Representatives shall bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge any of the following policies or actions:
 
(1) The policy of the Department of Health and Human Services that, with respect to health insurance coverage that is renewed for a policy year during the period beginning January 1, 2014, and ending October 1, 2014, health insurance issuers may continue to offer coverage that would otherwise be terminated or cancelled for being out of compliance with various requirements of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act and corresponding portions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as announced by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services on November 14, 2013.
 
(2) The 1-year delay in the application of the reporting requirements of sections 6055 and 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and related requirements of section 4980H of such Code), as provided under Department of the Treasury Notice 2013–45, as announced by the Department of the Treasury on July 2, 2013.
 
(3) The policy of the Department of Homeland Security to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children, as announced by the Department of Homeland Security on June 15, 2012.
 
(4) The authorization, approval, renewal, modification, or extension of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) that waives compliance with a requirement of section 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 607) through a waiver of section 402 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 602).
 
(b) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS PROVIDED TO BRING ACTIONS.—Any amounts obligated or expended by the House of Representatives to carry out this resolution during a fiscal year shall be derived from existing appropriations for salaries and expenses of the House for that fiscal year, and nothing in this resolution may be construed as authorizing an increase in the amount of budget authority available to the House for that fiscal year.
 
 

Sunday, December 01, 2013

Racism card looking a little dog-eared

 
By Ann Coulter  

Do liberals have any arguments for their idiotic ideas besides calling their opponents “racist”?
 
The two big public policies under attack by the left this week are “stop-and-frisk” policing and voter ID laws. Democrats denounce both policies as racist. I’m beginning to suspect they’re getting lazy in their arguments.

Stop-and-frisk was a crucial part of the package of law enforcement measures implemented by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that saved the city. Under David Dinkins, who preceded Giuliani, murders averaged about 2,000 a year. There were 714 murders in New York the year Giuliani left office. Continuing Giuliani’s policing techniques, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s New York had only 419 murders last year.
 
Just during his first year in office, Giuliani’s policies cut the murder rate an astonishing 20 percent. Thirty-five percent of the crime drop nationwide from 1993 to 1995 was attributable solely to the reduction of crime in New York City during Giuliani’s first year in office. (The New York Times hailed this remarkable achievement with an article headlined, “New York City Crime Falls but Just Why Is a Mystery.”)
 
It was mostly black lives that were saved by Giuliani’s crime policies. By the end of his administration, the Rev. Calvin Butts, liberal pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, was describing Giuliani as King Josiah of the Bible, who “brought order, peace, the law back to the land.” The black minister told The New York Times, “I really think that without Giuliani, we would have been overrun.”
 
About the same time as the Rev. Butts was comparing Giuliani to King Josiah, Richard Goldstein of The Village Voice claimed he felt less safe in New York under Giuliani. It was the ravings of a madman, like saying winter is warmer than summer. But now, Goldstein’s ideas are being delivered from the federal bench by Judge Shira Scheindlin, who recently held New York City’s stop-and-frisk policies unconstitutional.
 
Yes, Democrat Bob Filner can pat down his female employees, but cops can’t pat down suspected criminals.
 
Liberals wail about guns, but how do they imagine police get guns off the street without going to high-crime neighborhoods and stopping young men acting suspiciously? Giuliani’s policing policies, including stop-and-frisk, reduced gun homicides in New York by 75 percent within five years.

It is precisely the fear of being caught with a gun that induces young hoodlums not to carry them. The word gets out: Don’t carry a gun! It’s not worth the risk.
 
Of course cops don’t find many guns anymore! That’s because they’re doing stop-and-frisk.
By liberals’ logic, the government should stop doing meat inspections because it turns up so few cases of contamination these days, anyway. We can also drop the metal detectors at airports. How many people does the TSA actually catch trying to sneak guns onto airplanes?
 
Have liberals polled the elderly black residents of high-crime neighborhoods on stop-and-frisk? As soon as the word gets out that it’s now safe to carry weapons, spray paint, drugs and stolen goods again, hoodlums will rule the streets and the elderly will, once more, be confined to their homes. As Martin Luther King said, crime is “the nightmare of the slum family.”
 
But liberals don’t care about the innocent black victims of crime. They don’t care about citizens being prisoners in their own homes — as long as it’s not in their neighborhoods. The important thing is, liberals get to self-righteously preen about racism.
 
When a policy that has saved thousands of black lives is attacked as “racist,” the word has no meaning. At this rate, liberals will be claiming that peanut butter sandwiches are racist — except that wouldn’t be as crazy.
 
Voter ID laws don’t actually save black lives the way stop-and-frisk policies do, but it’s not clear how such laws hurt them. I suppose the argument is that by allowing Democrats to steal elections, they can pass all those laws that improve black lives immeasurably, like promoting trial lawyers, gay marriage, abortion and amnesty for illegals. You know, the Democratic policies that really enhance black lives.
 
The claim that modern voter ID laws are a racist Republican plot to prevent minorities from voting is complicated by the fact that, in 2011, such a law was enacted by the overwhelmingly Democratic Rhode Island legislature and, in fact, was pushed through by black Democrats.
 
Despite the pleas of national Democrats who realized their cover was being blown, the state senate’s only black member, Democrat Harold Metts, sponsored a voted ID bill. He said he’d heard complaints about voter fraud for years, telling the story of one poll worker who encountered a voter who couldn’t spell his own last name.
 
A black legislator in the House, Anastasia Williams, complained that when she showed up to vote in 2006, she was told she had already voted. Another time, she saw a Hispanic man vote, go to the parking lot and change his clothes, then go back in and vote again.

If white liberals are so concerned about black votes counting, why don’t they ever vote for black representatives in their own congressional districts? Black Republicans are always elected from majority white districts: Gary Franks, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott and Allen West.
 
But black Democrats apparently can get elected to Congress only from specially designated minority districts. How come white liberals won’t vote for a black representative? Can’t a black person represent Nita Lowey’s district?
 
Democrats do nothing for black Americans except mine them for votes, which they do by telling tall tales about racist Republicans.
 
 

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Public college cites high cost of Obamacare in canceling students' health plans

By Katherine Timpf

·  Bowie State is among the oldest, and most elite historically black colleges in the nation.

·  Student health insurance costs will rise from $50 to $900 per semester.

·  White House says it has 'a bias in favor of historically black colleges and universities.'

Obamacare's new regulations would force the cost of the insurance to rise from $50 to $900 a semester.

Officials at one of the nation's oldest and most elite historically black colleges are citing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the reason they have cancelled a school-wide affordable health care plan they had offered students. 

The official website for Bowie State, a Maryland public school less than an hour's drive from Washington D.C., explains that Obamacare's new regulations would force the cost of the insurance to rise from $50 to $900 a semester. 

"The cost of insurance for domestic students will increase to approximately $1800 per year."

"Bowie State University has suspended offering health insurance for domestic students for the 2013-2014 academic year," states the school's official website. "Due to new requirements of the Affordable Care Act which will go into effect on January 1, 2014, the cost of insurance for domestic students will increase to approximately $1800 per year."

That works out to approximately $900 per semester. The student health insurance plan had cost students $50 per semester for the 2012-13 school year, according to a cached page of the university's description of the plan. The original link to the description has been deleted.

According to an article in The Bulldog Collegian, Bowie State's official student newspaper, the Director of the Bowie State University Wellness Center said that the university decided it would not be worth it to provide student health insurance at all given how expensive it would be to do so under the new regulations.

The student's article, published Nov. 10, had slightly different numbers than the school website's. It states that the student health plan used to cost $54/semester, not $50, and that the new insurance costs would amount to $1,900 per year, not $1,800.

In August of this year, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested that President Obama's would lend special support to the country's historically black colleges and universities. 

"The President and this administration have been strong supporters of historically black colleges and universities all across the country," said Earnest, speaking from the White House on August 20. "Funding for those colleges and universities has increased under President Obama."

"[T]he record -- the President’s record on these issues -- he has a bias in favor of historically black colleges and universities because of the service they provide and because of the quality education that they provide to their students."

Bowie State's Wellness Center did not respond to requests for comment from Campus Reform in time for publication.

Several other colleges and universities, such as community colleges in New Jersey, have also had to cancel student health insurance plans because of Obamacare.

http://campusreform.org/?ID=5235