THE FOUNDATION
"There is in the nature of sovereign power an impatience of control, that disposes those who are invested with the exercise of it, to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 15, 1787TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Pentagon, Congress Keep Boots on Ground an Option
The White House wants another Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress to give Barack Obama the legal permission to continue degrading ISIL. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) says the AUMF must not rule out American boots on the ground, or it won't pass the committee. While Obama wants to wage a war from 30,000 feet, some members of Congress seek to give the U.S. military more options in the fight -- something more in line with what the Pentagon says is needed. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress, "We're going to need about 80,000 competent Iraqi security forces to recapture territory lost, and eventually the city of Mosul, to restore the border." And if competence is not found in the Iraqi Army, then Dempsey doesn't rule out American troops. He also said Thursday, "I'm not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by U.S. forces, but we're certainly considering it."Comment | Share
White House Changes Syrian Strategy
The White House now realizes what many have been saying from the onset: Airstrikes alone won't stop ISIL in Syria. Now, the administration has dusted off its toothless demand that for a lasting peace, Bashar al-Assad must be removed from power. (No word yet on whether Barack Obama has drawn another red line in the Syrian sand.) CNN reports, "In October the United States stressed an 'Iraq first' strategy with efforts to degrade [ISIL] in Iraq as the priority and operations in Syria done to shape conditions in Iraq. Washington hoped that would give time for the U.S. to vet, train and arm a moderate Syrian rebels fighting force to combat [ISIL], and ultimately the regime of al-Assad. But with the Free Syrian Army struggling in a two-front battle against al-Assad's forces and extremists from both [ISIL] and other extremist groups such as al-Nusra, U.S. officials recognize the 'Iraq first' strategy is untenable." But the new strategy has its challenges. While the coalition to fight ISIL all agree to the destruction of the group, not all countries agree Assad must be removed. Furthermore, ISIL will stop fighting the al-Qaida affiliate Nusra Front in Syria. Once enemies, they are now allies and threaten the so-called moderate rebels. Having no strategy wasn't a great idea. Imagine that. More...Comment | Share
Russia Flexes Air Power Against West
Russia is ramping up its military might against the West by flying long-range Russian bombers on regular patrols in the Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. The Associated Press reports, "Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to call this a Russian provocation. He said the Russians have a right, like any other nation, to operate in international airspace and in international waters. The important thing, Warren said, is for such exercises to be carried out safely and in accordance with international standards." But combined with the Great Bear's aggression in Ukraine, it's another sign -- in the words of former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev -- "The world is on the brink of a new Cold War." Cold War? We thought the real threat was global warming.Comment | Share
DOJ Spied on Americans' Phones
It's a brave new world when the Justice Department loads technology that mimics a cellphone tower onto Cessna airplanes to trawl the sky, scooping up Americans' cellphone information -- who they are and their location. DOJ sifts through the information to track criminal suspects. Chief Technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union Christopher Soghoian told The Wall Street Journal that the program started in 2007 is "a dragnet surveillance program. It's inexcusable and it's likely -- to the extent judges are authorizing it -- [that] they have no idea of the scale of it." On Wednesday, the Pew Research Internet Project released a study finding a vast majority (80%) of Americans agree or strongly agree the country should be concerned about the government's monitoring of cellphones and the Internet. Americans have a real reason to be concerned about the power wielded by big data -- large companies like Facebook and the government's surveillance arm. Today is the future, and the future is bleak. More...Comment | Share
School Assignment Promotes Islam
The anti-religious Left vehemently promotes the misconstrued separation of church and state -- as long as we're talking about Christianity. When it comes to Islam, however, the standard is altogether different. The latest example comes from the Southeast, where one school assignment -- tasking students with differentiating "Peaceful Islam" and "Radical Fundamental Islam" -- was so gung-ho about the Muslim faith that school officials might as well have adopted the slogan, "In Allah We Trust." The Washington Times explains, "A North Carolina mom turned to the media to express outrage at a worksheet distributed at her son's Union County high school that outright suggested Muslims have stronger religious beliefs than Christians. The mother ... said the one sentence that bothered her the most read: 'Most Muslims' faith is stronger than the average Christian.'" Another answer asserted, "Islam, at heart, is a peaceful religion." While it's true that not all Muslims are jihadists, all jihadists are by definition Muslim. And all Muslims are united by the Koran, which at its core is very much radical. That unification extends to radicals on the Left, because their real crusade is against Christianity -- a mission grossly disguised as "tolerance." More...Comment | Share
For more, visit Right Hooks.
|
RIGHT ANALYSIS
Who Better to Make the Case Against Obama's Amnesty Than Obama?
|
To make the case against this executive amnesty, we call Barack Obama to the stand.
Recall that when Obama was asked in 2011 about the prospect of an executive order fast-tracking citizenship for illegal aliens, he said, "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. ... The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws."
That same year, he said, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
In the 2008 campaign, he promised, “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”
Those were the good old days.
Fox News reports that Obama's 10-point amnesty draft includes, among other things, expanding his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) order to more children brought into the U.S. as minors, as well as to illegal alien parents of children born in this nation. These “anchor babies” are already allowed here because they're granted automatic citizenship under a flawed interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Needless to say, conservatives are outraged. Political analyst Charles Krauthammer called it “constitutionally odious," also saying it would be "an impeachable offense."
Local sheriffs may be getting into the act as well, with a planned protest and meeting with members of Congress in December.
But the key to whether the Obama amnesty will go forward rests with Congress. A number of conservative members want to use the upcoming continuing resolution fight to remove funding for enforcement of these executive amnesty proposals, but that risks a government shutdown knowing Barack Obama would veto a spending bill without that funding. The day of reckoning would be Dec. 11, when current funding expires.
Newly elected Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insists, “We’re not shutting the government down or threatening to default on the national debt.”
Likewise, House leadership believes the GOP would take the brunt of criticism for not appearing to work across the aisle. Instead, Speaker John Boehner says an overall immigration deal can be struck with more time. Republican leaders like Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers want to give away leverage by passing an omnibus spending bill to fund the government through the rest of fiscal year 2015, which expires Sept. 30. By that time, the excuse for maintaining the status quo will be the impending 2016 election.
Yet Boehner promises to fight "tooth and nail" against Obama's actions. "Our goal here is to stop the president from violating his own oath of office and violating the Constitution,” he said. We'll see.
If anything can go forward, it would likely be during the lame-duck congressional session, because Harry Reid still rules the Senate until January, and he would no doubt block anything House Republicans request. Even after the 114th Congress is seated, though, overriding any presidential veto would take cooperation from Democrats. Then again, that may not be such a difficult task given the obvious unpopularity of Obama.
While the Leftmedia is spinning this policy as only being fair to those illegal aliens who are otherwise law-abiding and have given a lot to stay in America, the question is really one of whether ours is a nation of laws. Once Obama legalizes these millions of new constituents, what's to stop him from, say, allowing the parents of those thousands of unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala from being reunited with their children here in America?
Whether it's just another manifestation of Obama's sheer narcissism or the next step in “fundamentally transforming” America, the current debate over whether to reward illegal immigration is truly a fight for America's life.
Comment | Share
ObamaCare's Foundation of Lies
|
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber told the audience. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass.”
There can be no better example of the hubris, arrogance and utter lack of respect for the democratic process than the words of this elitist.
Enraged yet? Wait, there's more.
In that same clip, Gruber said, “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” Gruber also responded to a charge made earlier in the panel that the law had a “dumb way” of subsidizing high-risk insurance customers. Gruber tacitly granted as much, but said, “If you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in -- you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Caught in the act, Gruber went on MSNBC this week to explain himself. “I was speaking off the cuff," he said. "And I basically spoke inappropriately, and, uh, I regret having made those comments.” This non-apology apology was nothing more than Gruber saying he's sorry the comments were made public.
Shortly after his MSNBC appearance, another clip surfaced from another 2013 forum where he explained how the Democrats collectively worked to fool voters and get the bill passed: "That passed because the American voters are too stupid to understand the difference."
Gruber was also recorded thanking a Massachusetts "hero" for inventing the so-called "Cadillac tax" on premium health plans: "John Kerry said, ‘No, no. We’re not going to tax your health insurance. We’re going to tax those evil insurance companies. We’re going to impose a tax that if they sell insurance that’s too expensive, we’re going to tax them.’ And, conveniently, the tax rate will happen to be the marginal tax rate under the income tax code. So, basically, it’s the same thing: We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basically exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
The White House is now doing damage control. White House spokeswoman Jessica Santillo said, "The Affordable Care Act was publicly debated over the course of 14 months, with dozens of congressional hearings and countless town halls, speeches and debates. ... Not only do we disagree with [Gruber's] comments, they’re simply not true." Another anonymous White House official said, "[Gruber] did not work in the White House." Then why was he paid nearly $400,000 for his work?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi went even further, telling reporters Thursday, "I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill."
Maybe if she had read the bill, she would have found out what’s in it -- or at least who wrote it.
In truth, Pelosi praised Gruber's work in 2009 before it became inconvenient to know him. And her website cites him by name in at least seven places.
The Obama administration relied heavily, for example, on Gruber's data to predict the effect ObamaCare would have on health care costs. In fact, administration officials praised the computer model he devised. His mouth got him into trouble in 2009 when, in the heat of congressional debate, he admitted the legislation "really doesn't bend the cost curve." This was a point many Republicans, notably Rep. Paul Ryan, made during the debate over the bill.
Gruber himself also tried to qualify his remarks and tried to redirect attention back to Republicans. During his MSNBC appearance, Gruber said, “I think that this comes to the master strategy of the Republican Party, which is to confuse people enough about the law so that they don’t understand that the subsidies they’re getting is [sic] because of the law.”
Wait, who's trying to confuse people? Take a quick look at some of Barack Obama's gems regarding his precious health care law over the last six years:
“If you like your current insurance, you keep your current insurance. Period. End of story.”And then there's this one: "This is the most transparent administration in history.”
"We can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year."
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future.”
Not a single one of these statements contained a shred of truth. Now, thanks to Gruber, it's even more clear these stump comments were never anything more than utter lies.
No matter what Gruber or Obama or Pelosi say now, the fact is the American people were conned and lied to. Obama and his people knew that was the only way ObamaCare would happen.
The future of ObamaCare is in serious doubt, not just legally but politically.
Take for example Ron Fournier, senior political columnist for National Journal and longtime champion of ObamaCare. "Gruber's remarks may not be dispositive, but they certainly are evidence," Fournier wrote this week. "And so even I have to admit, as a supporter, that Obamacare was built and sold on a foundation of lies."
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina may have said it best when asked about the motivations of Gruber and the Obama bureaucrats who supposedly knew better than the American people: "I would say this to the professor: Put down the cognac and the lost writings of J.D. Salinger, if you want to see how stupid our fellow citizens are, take a look at last Tuesday night because they rejected you, this bill and this administration."
And let's not forget that period in time following Obama's election in 2008. No one was clamoring for health care reform. What the citizenry really wanted was a solution to the economic crisis. Yet the Obama administration saw an opportunity to exploit a crisis to its own advantage -- to increase access to abortion, give the IRS unprecedented power to meddle in peoples' lives and increase regulatory reach over the health care sector.
ObamaCare was a vehicle not to solve the nation's health care issues but to expand federal control over the populace. The final product was never, and still is not, popular with the public. It was one of the prime movers of the 2014 midterm elections. And if it was such a good bill, why was it necessary to lie to the American people to get it passed? The answer is now obvious.
Comment | Share
For more, visit Right Analysis.
|
|
|
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
- David Harsanyi: The US-China Climate Change Deal Is Terrible
- Burt Prelutsky: Where Is the Carpathia?
- Charles Krauthammer: The Gruber Confession
- Michael Barone: Is This the Political Map of the Future?
- Michelle Malkin: One Nation Under Godlessness
OPINION IN BRIEF
Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954): "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."Columnist David Harsanyi: "At a Beijing news conference, President Barack Obama called a new China-United States climate deal a 'historic agreement.' ... [T]here are two problems with treating the deal as big news. 1) We’re not really doing anything we weren’t going to do anyway. 2) Neither is China. ... The New York Times (which says the deal allowed Obama 'to reclaim some of the momentum he lost at home') and others treat the deal as a big political victory for the president. Despite voters' tendency to tell pollsters climate change concerns them, the fact is that not a single midterm race was primarily focused on climate change. Not a single candidate, denier or not, lost an election because of his or her position on climate change. Can Democrats say the same about issues such as coal production and the Keystone XL pipeline?"
Comment | Share
Columnist Burt Prelutsky: "Like the Titanic, America seemed unsinkable. Its architects were men like Madison, Jefferson and Washington. The foremen included the likes of Adams, Franklin and Monroe, and the construction crew included the greatest patriots in history, men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to the task of forming a nation as perfect as mere human beings were capable of creating. But look at us now. In Ferguson, Missouri, as well as all over the country, you have black people, including ministers, insisting that if a white policeman isn’t indicted, convicted and sent to prison for shooting a black thug in what, increasingly, appears to be self-defense, it will constitute a whitewash and we can expect violence to break out wherever more than two blacks happen to be gathered. It does strike me as ironic, and terribly sad, that the descendants of those who used to be lynched have developed a taste for it, so long as they’re the ones holding the rope."
Comment | Share
Comedian Seth Meyers: "According to a new report, Detroit, Michigan, is the most dangerous city in the country with Oakland, California, coming in second. And the third most dangerous was somehow Detroit again."
No comments:
Post a Comment