The Only Way to Stop ObamaCare Is to Cut Off Its Funding

Comments Off on The Only Way to Stop ObamaCare Is to Cut Off Its Funding

It’s the president who is threatening to shut down the government, though the media won’t cover it that way.

Few Americans are clamoring to shut down the federal government, but polls indicate that a majority of Americans agree that ObamaCare will be a disaster for their family’s health care and for the nation’s economy. So why is President Obama threatening to shut down the government if Congress sends him a year-end spending bill to fully support government operations but without funding for his (unfair, unworkable and unaffordable) health-care law?


This question is not being addressed fairly by the media, so the American people are not being told the truth about the coming political showdown over ObamaCare. Here’s what’s really happening.


The full implementation of the federal takeover of America’s health-care system is approaching the point of no return, when tens of millions of Americans will be forced to sign up for government-controlled health care beginning this fall. Virtually all Republicans in Congress have run their election campaigns promising to stop ObamaCare, and every one of them has voted to repeal it.

Democrats should have supported repeal as well, because the president’s new system will be unaffordable and unfair for many of the nation’s low-income and younger Americans. ObamaCare will likely cause insurance premiums to double or triple for the young and healthy, and lead to a decline in wages for low-income Americans due to compliance regulations and penalties on their employers.

House Speaker John Boehner stands next to a printed version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act during a news conference on Capitol Hill in May.

Yet despite all the grand speeches, votes and chest-pounding by Republicans promising to try to stop this destructive new law, none of this has required much courage so far—nor has it been effective. ObamaCare can be stopped only if Congress denies funding for it in the next spending bill, which must be passed in September. That would immediately halt the implementation of ObamaCare and fulfill a defining GOP promise to the American people. Voting for a spending bill that excludes ObamaCare will take courage and integrity.


The president has not been forthright with America about health care. He promised that people would not lose their health-care plan if they wanted to keep it, but now we know that millions will lose their current coverage. He promised that premiums would decrease, but premiums for employer-sponsored coverage have increased, on average, by $2,370 per family since 2009. The president promised that the law would be fair, but he is forcing every American to buy government-approved health-care plans while delaying that mandate for businesses and granting exemptions to members of Congress and unions. 


There are some who argue that ObamaCare can’t be defunded because most of its spending is deemed “mandatory.” Their assertions are wrong. According to the Congressional Research Service, ObamaCare “administrative costs will have to be funded through the annual discretionary appropriations.” Furthermore, annual appropriations bills routinely carry funding limitations to mandatory spending and often block a wide range of potential government activities. The Hyde Amendment to a 1976 appropriation bill, for example, blocked all taxpayer funding of abortion, and has every year since 1976. Congress can disallow funding for ObamaCare and effectively stop the implementation of the law.

Yet doing that will require resolve. President Obama, along with all the Democrats, will accuse Republicans of trying to shut down the government by giving the president a spending bill that he must veto. But there is no “must” about it. If the president opts to shut down all of government instead of just ObamaCare, that will be his choice, not the wish of conservatives.


The truth is rarely a factor in today’s political battles, though. Much of the media will echo the White House talking points about Republicans shutting down the government. Seniors will be told that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy if ObamaCare is not funded, the poor will be threatened with loss of benefits—well, you know the rest.


This is why some Republican leaders and consultants are pleading with conservatives in the House and Senate not to pick a fight with the president over ObamaCare. The Republican old guard warns that any fight could jeopardize the GOP’s chances of taking the majority in the Senate in 2014 and keeping the House majority. Their do-nothing strategy? Allow ObamaCare to be fully implemented so the American people will see what a mess it is.


The problem with this logic is that once ObamaCare is fully implemented, it will destroy what’s left of our personalized, free-market health system and make it very challenging to bring affordable, high-quality health care to Americans. The bureaucracy and the costs of national health care will grow dramatically, becoming increasingly difficult to dismantle as they grow.

ObamaCare will destroy the private-insurance market, incentivize businesses to cancel current health coverage for their employees, create physician shortages, and force Americans and states into total dependency on the federal government. After all that, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the free market to resurrect a private health-care system built on doctor/patient decision-making.

So the fight to stop ObamaCare now is an urgent matter. Elected leaders in both parties should summon the courage to put their political futures on the line, because the future of America is truly on the line. Politicians who oppose ObamaCare should not vote to fund it. Those who want a socialized health-care system should vote to fund it. There is no middle ground and no place to hide.

Republicans could lose the national debate. But a failure of Republicans to show the courage of their convictions on such a fundamental issue will inspire no one and will further alienate the American people from their government. This carries far greater risks to the nation’s future than the threat of a government shutdown or the risk of losing the next election.

Mr. DeMint, a former Republican senator from South Carolina, is president of the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Needham is president of Heritage Action for America, a grass-roots advocacy organization.

Read more:

The Only Way to Stop ObamaCare Is to Cut Off Its Funding… Congress will send him a year-end spending bill to fully support government but without funding Obamacare ! – The Constitutional Conservatives.

Advertisements

Black Citizens Group Files ‘Articles of Impeachment’ Against Obama

Comments Off on Black Citizens Group Files ‘Articles of Impeachment’ Against Obama

Black American citizens file “Articles of Impeachment” against Obama.

Black Citizens Group Files 'Articles of Impeachment' Against Obama - Fox Nation

by Dr. Richard Swier

The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) based in Sarasota, FL, headed by Chairman Frances Rice, filed Articles of Impeachment against President Barack Obama with the following language:

We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.  Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”  –  Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

ARTICLE 1

He has covered up, delayed, impeded and obstructed the investigation of the Benghazi Battle.

Specific conduct includes: (1) failing to adequately secure the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi; (2) failing to send a response team to rescue embattled US citizens in Benghazi; (3) lying to the American people about why the US Consulate and the CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi; and (3) hiding from the media and congressional investigators the Central Intelligence Agency personnel and other wounded US citizens who were on the ground in Benghazi by scattering them throughout the United States, forcing them to adopt new identities and subjecting them to monthly polygraph tests.

Benghazi Battle elements that are under investigation:

On September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya was targeted in a premeditated, preplanned attack launched without warning by Islamist militants.

Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed men attacking the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and mortars.  It was not an act of savage mob violence, nor a spontaneous protest in response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

In that attack, four American citizens were killed:  US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Officer Sean Smith; and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs.  Ambassador Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.

ARTICLE 2

He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of  Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’

ARTICLE 3

He has authorized and permitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department, to conduct Operation Fast and Furious, wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians and two rifles sold to a smuggler in January 2010 ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

ARTICLE 4

He has authorized and permitted confidential income tax returns information from the Internal Revenue Service to be provided to unauthorized individuals, organizations and agencies.

ARTICLE 5

He has caused investigations and audits to be initiated or conducted by the Internal Revenue Service in a discriminatory manner, including harassment and intimidation of conservative, evangelical and Tea Party groups applying for non-profit status between 2010 and 2012.

Elements of this illegal conduct include the facts that: (1) the head of the Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt organization division, Lois Lerner, admitted during a telephonic press event that illegal targeting occurred, then invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions before Congress about the targeting out of fear of self-incrimination; (2) two other career Internal Revenue Service employees stated that they acted at the behest of superiors in Washington — Carter Hull, a retired Internal Revenue Service Attorney and Elizabeth Hofacre, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office which oversaw tax-exempt applications; and (3) Carter Hull stated that he was directed to forward the targeted applications to, among others, one of only two political appointees in the Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel William Wilkins.

ARTICLE 6

He has (1) authorized and permitted the National Security Agency to conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans; (2) given access to National Security Agency surveillance data to other intelligence units within the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the law; and (3) conducted the surveillance of average Americans unconstrained by Congress, the United Supreme Court or the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has, to this date, functioned as a rubber stamp, having approved every request made of it in 2012 and rejecting only two of the 8,591 requests submitted between 2008 and 2012.

ARTICLE 7

He has authorized and permitted the Department of Justice to wiretap and secretly obtain two months of telephone and e-mail records of Fox News Reporter James Rosen and over one hundred Associated Press journalists.

ARTICLE 8

He has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.

ARTICLE 9

He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1)  he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2)  he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

ARTICLE 10

He has intimidated whistleblowers and brought twice as many prosecutions against whistleblowers as all prior presidents combined.  Egregiously, while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, he prosecuted former Central Intelligence Agency employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.

Wherefore Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Black Citizens Group Files ‘Articles of Impeachment’ Against Obama – Fox Nation.

In praise of Lamar Alexander

Comments Off on In praise of Lamar Alexander

Mark Russell, the great political comedian, used to say:  “We Washingtonians are just like other Americans. Doesn’t everyone curl up at night with the Congressional Record?”

 

I’m a long-time Washingtonian, and therefore I am just like other Americans. I’m sure that everyone wakes up thinking about Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican seeking a third term in the Senate.

 

I am conflicted about Alexander’s bid for re-election. As a Democrat, I fervently believe in the importance of keeping a Democratic majority in the Senate. But as a student of the Senate, I strongly believe that Alexander plays an important role, and is needed there for not just the next 16 months, but for the six years that follow.

 

Men and women reach the Senate via many paths. Carl Levin vaulted to the Senate from the Detroit City Council; Bill Bradley was a famous basketball player; Maria Cantwell, a high-tech entrepreneur. Elizabeth Warren seized the public consciousness by battling the big banks. There are always many members of the Senate who successfully climbed the political ladder, reaching the Senate after serving in the House of Representatives, or as the attorney general of their states.

 

But Lamar Alexander is a recognizable Senate type — a person who comes to the Senate having already established a record of great accomplishment in public life. Most of these senators were governors of their states, such as Abraham Ribicoff, Gaylord Nelson, Ed Muskie, Fritz Hollings, Mark Hatfield, David Boren, and, most recently, Tim Kaine. Alexander had one of the most distinguished backgrounds, coming to the Senate at the age of 62, after having been Tennessee’s governor and a cabinet officer — Secretary of Education in the administration of George H.W. Bush.

 

Lamar Alexander was an exceptional governor. In the early 1980’s, America was struggling to recover from what was then the deepest recession since Great Depression. Many Americans harbored doubts about our ability to compete with Japan, and trade tensions with Japan were rising. Alexander was one of the first public officials to work intensively on attracting Japanese investment to his state. He understood, before others did, that Japanese investment in the United States could help spark a U.S. economic comeback, and benefit his own state. The Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, was the crown jewel of his efforts.

 

Alexander was also one of a handful of governors in the first generation of education reformers after the Reagan administration’s landmark report on “The Nation at Risk,” a group that prominently included Bill Clinton. Alexander pursued creative education reforms so intensely that President Bush picked him to be Education Secretary.

 

As a Democrat, I often disagree with Alexander’s positions. And his achievements in the Senate do not compare to the achievements of Ribicoff, Nelson, and Muskie because he has served in a Senate that is a bad joke compared to their Senate. But Alexander exemplifies the qualities that a senator should have: wisdom that comes from experience, independence, a commitment to bipartisanship, and a willingness to seek common ground and reach principled compromise.

 

In 2010, the START nuclear arms control treaty faced a steep upward battle for ratification in the Senate. The Republican leaders were fiercely opposed to the treaty negotiated by the Obama administration. At a key juncture, Senator Alexander, who was thought to be opposed to the treaty, attended a briefing by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He came out, announced that he was convinced of the treaty’s merits, and endorsed it. He listened to the arguments, weighed the merits of the case, and exercised independent judgment. It was the way the great Senate used to work, but it happens all too rarely now.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/14/in-praise-of-lamar-alexander/#ixzz2c0HZo9QZ

In praise of Lamar Alexander | The Daily Caller.

» Rand Paul: Obama’s Actions On Healthcare Legislation Are “Illegal And Unconstitutional”

Comments Off on » Rand Paul: Obama’s Actions On Healthcare Legislation Are “Illegal And Unconstitutional”

In an appearance on Fox News Tuesday, Senator Rand Paul slammed the president over the delay of a key provision in the Affordable Healthcare Act, accusing him of “illegal and unconstitutional” acts in attempting changing laws without congressional approval.

Paul was asked for his reaction to the news of a delay in implementing yet another provision, this time to cap out-of-pocket health care costs. As reported by the New York Times, the Obama administration is allowing select insurers and employers a one-year grace period to adhere to the limit on consumer costs, which otherwise would have capped the amount at $6,350 a year.

The grace period will allow insurers to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014, the Times reported, noting also that the administration buried the grace period announcement in regulatory material back in February.

“The president doesn’t get to write legislation, and it’s illegal and unconstitutional for him to try and change legislation by himself,” Paul told the hosts of America’s Newsroom.

“If he says to you, you are a political contributor of mine, and I know Obamacare is going to be hard on you, I’m going to give you an exemption,’ that’s illegal, that’s not equal protection under the law, and that’s what he’s been doing for years now.” Paul asserted.

Responding to the president’s charge this week that Republicans have made it their “holy grail” to prevent 30 million Americans from having affordable healthcare, Senator Paul stated “We all want people to have more insurance. My fear is that he’s going to make insurance so expensive that the people that currently have insurance will lose it.”

“People that currently have their insurance through their employer may well lose their insurance because their employer may well say ‘I may as well pay a $2000 penalty than provide $12,000 worth of insurance’. He’s creating an economic incentive for people to actually drop their insurance.” Paul added.

In a further appearance on The Daily Show, Paul again passed comment on Obamacare, saying that he believes the law will have the opposite effect of what its advocates suggest.

» Rand Paul: Obama’s Actions On Healthcare Legislation Are “Illegal And Unconstitutional” Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!.

The people support defunding ObamaCare

Comments Off on The people support defunding ObamaCare

A new Heritage Action poll finds broad support for defunding ObamaCare:

  • Likely voters support defunding 57%-34%.
  • Among those with strong opinions on either side, those who “strongly support” defunding outnumbered those who “strongly oppose” defunding by a 41%-22% margin, signifying much greater intensity among opponents of the law.
  • Independents, support for defunding 57%-34%, exactly mirroring the result in the overall sample.
  • A large majority, 77% favor either a slow down in implementation or an outright repeal.
  • Just 42% of Democrats fully embrace ObamaCare, with 36% agreeing that it should be slowed down, and 17% favoring repeal.
  • Only 5% of Republicans and 17% of Independents favor proceeding with ObamaCare fully and without changes.
  • The people support defunding ObamaCare | RedState

The poll was conducted on August 7-8, 2013, by Basswood Research in ten Republican-leaning but not safe-Republican Congressional districts — six presently held by Republicans and four by Democrats:

Steve Southerland, R (FL-2)
Aaron Schock, R (IL-18)
Leonard Lance, R (NJ-7)
Renee Ellmers, R (NC-2)
Patrick Tiberi, R (OH-12)
Greg Walden, R (OR-2)
John Barrow, D (GA-12)
Mike McIntyre, D (NC-7)
Jim Matheson, D (UT-4)
Nick Rahall, D (WV-3)

Only 20% of voters in these districts support going forward with ObamaCare unchanged.

By a two to one margin (60%-29%), voters approve of a temporary slowdown in nonessential federal government operations, which still left all essential government services running.

More encouraging for defunding supporters is that the potential of President Obama forcing a partial government shutdown over defunding ObamaCare will not be blamed solely on Republicans. Thirty-three percent would blame “Republicans in Congress” or “The TEA Party,” 41% would blame “Democrats in Congress” or “President Obama,” and 17% would blame “all of them.” Independents would spread the blame among groups on the Right, 36%, groups on the Left 30% and 26% would blame both.

Heritage Action for America CEO Michael A. Needham said,  “House Republicans should be much more concerned with the fallout of failing to defund ObamaCare than with the imaginary fallout of doing so.”

The poll found that a majority would be less likely to support the reelection efforts of House members who voted to continue ObamaCare funding while 48 percent said they’d be more likely to support a member who did “everything” they could to slow down implementation of the law.

You can read the poll’s top line results here (PDF link), and the full poll and cross-tabs here (PDF link).

The poll is good news for defunding supporters such as Sen. Ted Cruz.

The people support defunding ObamaCare | RedState.

Betsy McCaughey: The Rule Of Law Versus King Obama

Comments Off on Betsy McCaughey: The Rule Of Law Versus King Obama

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | At an August 9 press conference, President Barack Obama said that when Congress won’t agree to what he wants, he would act alone. That statement, which he has made before, should send shivers through freedom-loving Americans.

 

Betsy McCaughey: The Rule Of Law Versus King Obama

 

The president was asked where he gets the authority to delay the Affordable Care Act ‘s employer mandate, even though the law states that the mandate “shall” go into effect Jan. 1, 2014. The Obama administration had announced the delay on July 3, without seeking Congress’ help in changing the law.

 

In response, Obama said that “in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the Speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law … so let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do.”

 

But Obama explained that he took a different route because Republicans control the House of Representatives and ardently oppose Obamacare.

 

Obama ‘s statement reveals how disconnected this president is from this nation’s history and constitutional principles. Divided government is the norm in the United States. Most modern presidents have had to govern with an uncooperative Congress or at least one house of Congress controlled by the other major party. With the exception of Richard Nixon, these presidents — from Eisenhower to Reagan to Clinton and both Bushes — have not tried to exempt themselves from the Constitution.

 

Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution commands the president to faithfully execute the law. Courts have consistently ruled that presidents have little discretion about it. President Obama can’t pick and choose what parts of the Affordable Care Act he enforces and when.

 

The framers duplicated the safeguards their English ancestors had fought hard to win against tyrannical monarchs. Most important, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 barred an executive from suspending the law.

 

The tug and pull between the president and an uncooperative Congress is what the framers intended. It’s checks and balances in action. Obama has no patience for this constitutional system. In June 2012, the president announced that he would stop enforcing parts of the nation’s immigration laws, because “We can’t wait” for Congress to offer relief to young illegal immigrants brought into the country by their parents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now the president is rewriting the Affordable Care Act. Delaying the employer mandate is not a mere “tweak.” Because individuals will be required to have insurance as of Jan. 1, 2014, or pay a penalty, some 10 million currently uninsured or underinsured workers who would have gotten coverage at work under the employer mandate will now have to pay the penalty or go to the exchanges. That means more people enrolling on the exchanges, more dependence on government and a bigger bill for taxpayers it’s not the law that Congress enacted.

 

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has urged Congress to vote against any continuing resolution to fund the federal government after Sept. 30, as long as it funds this distorted version of Obamacare.

 

“Laws are supposed to be made by Congress, not … (by) the president,” Lee explained. If the administration is not prepared to fully enforce Obamacare as enacted, including the employer mandate, it should agree to delay the entire law and remove its funding from the budget.

 

Sadly, most members of Congress are too busy looking out for themselves to stop the president from chipping away at the Constitution. Last week, Republicans and Democrats conspired with the president to weasel out of Sect. 1312 of Obamacare, which requires members of Congress to get health coverage on the newly created exchanges. Congress was happy to let the president unconstitutionally give them a special taxpayer funded subsidy that no one else in America earning $174,000 would get.

 

Such self-dealing brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin warned about when he and his fellow framers finished writing the Constitution. It’s a republic, said Franklin, “If you can keep it.”

 

Betsy McCaughey: The Rule Of Law Versus King Obama.