Saturday, January 5, 2013

Mark Steyn On The Fiscal Cliff: "Spending Two Months Negotiating 10 Hours Of Savings "

Writing in the Orange County Register:

Washington keeps proving the point. The political class has just spent two months on a down-to-the-wire nail-biting white-knuckle thrill-ride negotiation the result of which is more business as usual. At the end, as always, Dr. Obama and Dr. Boehner emerge in white coats, surgical masks around their necks, bloody scalpels in hand, and announce that it was touch-and-go for awhile but the operation was a complete success – and all they've done is applied another temporary Band-Aid that's peeling off even as they speak. They're already prepping the OR for the next life-or-death surgery on the debt ceiling, tentatively scheduled for next Tuesday or a week on Thursday or the third Sunday after Epiphany.  No epiphanies in Washington: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the latest triumphant deal includes $2 billion of cuts for fiscal year 2013. Wow! That's what the Government of the United States borrows every 10 hours and 38 minutes. Spending two months negotiating 10 hours of savings is like driving to a supermarket three states away to save a nickel on your grocery bill.

MA Senator Elizabeth Warren Can't Define "Middle Class"

Hobby Lobby CEO David Green Pens Open Letter On Obamacare Birth Control Mandate


The letter from Hobby Lobby CEO David Green:


When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn’t much bigger than most people’s living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God‘s word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation’s largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

 We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.
But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief.
So, Hobby Lobby – and my family – are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

David Brooks: It Is Not Government That Is Dysfunctional, But American People Wanting "To Take The Future’s Money And Spend It On Ourselves"

Friday, January 4, 2013

Labor Secretary Solis On CNBC Making No Sense: Unemployment Benefits Saving Millions Of Jobs

Rick Santelli Loses It Over "Lunatic Republicans"

Samuel L. Jackson: It's Not About Gun Control, It's About Not Being Taught Violence

 Actor Samuel L. Jackson is taking a position that might surprise you:

“I don’t think it’s about more gun control,” said Samuel L. Jackson, who stars as a conniving house slave in Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming revenge fantasy “Django Unchained.” “I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.” Parents and role models who emphasize that value, he said, will accomplish more than legislators reducing the number of firearms.

Michael Bloomberg Defends John Boehner From Attacks By Chris Christie Over Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill

Unexpected support:


Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who previously declined to slam House Speaker John Boehner over Congress’ stalled Hurricane Sandy aid, took his argument to the next level this morning and suggested federal lawmakers are partially to blame for the delay in the vote on the package because they insert “things that are totally extraneous” into bills such as this. Although Mr. Bloomberg didn’t specify the extraneous problem items, the legislation has been criticized by Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan for being “packed with funding for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof repair of museums in Washington, D.C.”
“There’s this ‘Christmas Tree effect’ where legislators put in their favorite bills and tack them onto something. The [Obama] administration does that, that’s why you have an omnibus bill–to force everybody to vote for things that would never stand up in the light of day if they were individual,” Mr. Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show with John Gambling. “I’m sympathetic. Yelling and screaming at [Mr. Boehner] is just not my style. It may be effective, it may not be. Everybody’s got to make their own decisions. I think the legislative leaders who criticize and those in the Legislature should stop and think, they do exactly the same thing in terms of ladling on things that are totally extraneous but it’s the only way they get them through.”

Al Gore Sells Current TV To Al Jazeera




From the NYT Media Decoder blog: 

Al Gore’s Current TV was never popular with viewers, but it was a hit where it counted: with cable and satellite providers. When he co-founded the channel in 2005, Mr. Gore managed to get the channel piped into tens of millions of households — a huge number for an untested network — through a combination of personal lobbying and arm-twisting of industry giants. He called on those skills again after deciding in December to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera for $500 million. To preserve the deal — and the estimated $100 million he would personally receive — he went to some of those same distributors, who were looking for an excuse to drop the low-rated channel, and reminded them that their contracts with Current TV called it a news channel. Were the distributors going to say that an American version of Al Jazeera didn’t qualify, possibly invoking ugly stereotypes of the Middle Eastern news giant? “The lawyers for the carriers couldn’t find their way around it,” said a person briefed on the negotiations who described them on condition of anonymity.

"A Nation Of Laws And Not Men": Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli Gets Federal Judge To Slap Down EPA Attempt Bid To Regulate Water As A Pollutant


Winning:

A federal district judge Thursday shot down a “novel” EPA attempt to regulate the flow of water as a pollutant, stopping dead in its tracks what otherwise would have been a major regulatory expansion. …  Cuccinelli personally argued the case before O’Grady on Dec. 14, warning the EPA’s attempt to regulate the flow of water into state waterways would amount to a “tremendous expansion” of its regulatory power. …  Assuming the judgment withstands appeal, it would spare Fairfax County an estimated $300 million in compliance costs. Nationwide, three other lawsuits against the EPA’s recent assertion of its authority to regulate water flow are pending. …“EPA’s thinking here was that if Congress didn’t explicitly prohibit the agency from doing something, that meant it could, in fact, do it,” said Cuccinelli in his statement. …“You know it’s bad when a partisan Democrat board of supervisors, like Fairfax County, will join us to sue the EPA,” he said. “That’s how bad it’s gotten.”... “If you want to boil down what ties us all together as Americans,” Cuccinelli told Newsmax, “it’s that is a nation of laws and not of men. Some people in government forget that sometimes.”

Thursday, January 3, 2013

British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks vs. Richard Dawkins

The Constitution vs. Liberal Law Professor: Let's Give Up On Liberal Law Professors



Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of Constitutional law at Georgetown University, wrote one of the most inane articles on the Constitution to be be published in a major newspaper. Yet, perhaps because of his credentials, in combination with the vacuousness of his message, it was published by the New York Times. The opinion piece was entitled "Let's Give Up on the Constitution." One might wonder why such an op-ed is worthy of a response at all, and one could easily argue the best response would be to ignore his nonsense. The real reason to respond to the words of the Georgetown professor is not just because of the level of wrongness in his argument, but because his ideas unfortunately actually represent the wider liberal view of the Constitution. It is critical to realize that this is not just one opinion article, but a largely held viewpoint among so many in the liberal sectors especially in academia, let alone the media, politics, and elsewhere, when it comes to the Constitution. 

In order to rebut Seidman, I shall quote him directly in the portions of his column most worthy of addressing. To rebut every inanity would fill volumes, but central pillars of his argument easily crumble upon a cursory examination. 
An "Evil" Constitution?
This member of one of the most prestigious centers of higher legal learning opens by pompously declaring that our nation's fiscal woes are due to "our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions." The Constitution today contains not a single evil provision. The professor does not point to one because he cannot point to one.  Do the various protections of the Bill of Rights fall under that description? Or is it only the limits on government intended by our Constitution that meet that description? Perhaps it's the structural checks and balances the Founders intended for us? In truth nothing in the Constitution comes close to meeting a single adjective that this columnist arrogantly authors. 

How do I know that? Consider only the example he provides immediately thereafter. He asks, "Why should a lame-duck House...have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?" Firstly, according to the Constitution, “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations” regarding matters such as the date upon which Americans vote in federal elections, such that they could eliminate lame-duck sessions should they so desire. The Constitution provides no obstacle to this. Right off the bat a Constitutional law professor attacks the Constitution while exhibiting an astounding ignorance of it.

Further, this argument attacking the bicameral legislature that is Congress would never have been put forth if those he agreed with maintained all majorities. What he is taking issue with at heart is the existence of both a House and Senate, especially when under opposing control. The professor would do well to look back to Federalist William R. Davie who explained the purpose of having both a House and Senate at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788. Davie explained, "In order to form some balance, the departments of government were separated, and as a necessary check, the legislative body was composed of two branches. Steadiness and wisdom are better insured when there is a second branch, to balance and check the first. The stability of the laws will be greater when the popular branch [House of Representatives], which might be influenced by local views, or the violence of party, is checked by another [Senate], whose longer continuance in office will render them more experienced, more temperate, and more competent to decide rightly." And regardless of any preferred outcome, the "fiscal cliff" deal itself shows that this vision remains the case today. In order to avert the cliff a Senate compromise was required. Those elected to the House face elections every two years, and are thus more accountable to the electorate in the short-term. A popular branch and a higher branch of legislature are precisely there to check each other’s excesses; one to make sure legislation does not devolve into the law of the mob, the other to make sure it does not become the rule of nobility. 

Furthermore, the Senate is certainly malapportioned, but it is precisely in order to allow States with lower populations to be equally represented in the making of our laws. In fact, prior to the 17th Amendment Senators were selected by State legislatures, such that the State governments had a very substantive check on the Federal government. While this was (unfortunately) altered, it remains the case that California, New York, Florida, and Texas should not be able to legislate for our entire broad land, with so many other States with their own interests needing representation.

Seidman continues arguing that “[o]ur obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago." Actually, our Constitution has done no such thing. If we are a divided nation it is because we have an ideologically opposed citizenry, with the contrasts in ideals more stark than they have ever been. And the Constitution provides for checks and balances such that one side cannot control the entire government with ease. This is a function of our Constitutional system, not a dysfunction at all. The extreme hubris of this ivory tower teacher in thinking he understands liberty and tyranny better than James Madison should be enough to disqualify him. The fact is that our nation was founded on ideas fought for in a revolution, the principles finally enshrined in a fully functioning Constitution. Not abandoning the American Revolution for the whims of the day will keep America free and prosperous, and it is only forgetting them that has allowed for the opposite to take place. 

The professor asks if “a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?” Firstly, what is wrong with white propertied men? I certainly have no ingrained prejudice against white men who own property, let alone white propertied men who were the greatest men of the Enlightenment who pledged and risked their livelihoods and very lives to remove a repressive king and establish responsible self-government based on the principle of all men being endowed with natural rights by our Creator. And did they really know nothing of our present situation? Is government tyranny a bygone phenomenon? Is protection of fundamental rights a thing of the past? What is it about, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “bind[ing] [government] down from mischief by the chains of the constitution” that is passé? It is supremely rational to believe that actual adherence to the Constitutional compact inevitably leads to the lessening of government oppression.  And given that the Constitution provides for a government of laws, bound by laws, not of men and their momentary passions, it is certainly critical that lawmakers adhere to the supreme law of the land.  If they disagree with it, then they should campaign to have it amended, as the Constitution explicitly provides for in Article V. The same goes for the law professor. If Professor Siedman sees flaws in the document as it exists today, let him contribute to his field of education by explicitly pointing out provisions that particularly vex him, and writing about amendments that would fix what he sees as current problems resulting from the document that defines the role of our government.  But to call for the Constitution to be abandoned is mindless drivel more than serious thinking.
Does American History Render The Constitution Irrelevant?
Explaining his point about the Constitutional Convention “acting illegally under existing law” Siedman states that “[i]n fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.” But he leaves out the fact that the Continental Congress did not balk at the members of the Convention stretching their mandate. On September 28, 1787, the Continental Congress said: “Resolved, unanimously, That the said report, with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in order to be submitted to a Convention of delegates chosen in each state, by the people thereof, in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.” Further, non-ratifying States were not to be bound by the new compact, though of course eventually all the States joined the new agreement. 

This legal light continues, “No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.” How exactly does an example of abandoning the Constitution in order to trample on freedom of speech lend itself toward an argument for complete abandonment of the Constitution? It was by referencing the First and Tenth Amendment that men like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were able to wage their campaign against President Adams. In response to the Sedition Act of Adams which criminalized criticism of his administration, Madison in his Report of 1800 explained that under the Constitution "[i]n the United States the case is altogether different. The People, not the Government, possess the absolute sovereignty. The Legislature, no less than the Executive, is under limitations of power. Encroachments are regarded as possible from the one as well as from the other... They are secured, not by laws paramount to prerogative, but by constitutions paramount to laws."

Siedman states that Jefferson "believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers." This is an overly simplistic history, and perhaps Siedman should stick to teaching established legal rules rather than oversimplified past events. A more accurate history is that Jefferson no doubt had serious reservations, but there were others who argued otherwise and eventually convinced Jefferson. Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (who was certainly from the same school of Constitutional interpretation as his boss) wrote President Jefferson, “But does any constitution objection really exist? The 3d Section of the 4th Article of the Constitution provides: 1st. That new States may be admitted by Congress into this Union. 2d. That Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States... [T]he existence of the United States as a nation presupposes the power of every nation of extending their territory by treaties, and the general power given to the President and Senate of making treaties designates the organs through which the acquisition may be made... To me it would appear: 1st. That the United States as a nation have an inherent right to acquire territory. 2d. That whenever that acquisition is by treaty, the same constituted authorities in whom the treaty-making power is vested have a constitutional right to sanction the acquisition.” Thomas Paine made a persuasive argument to Jefferson: “The cession makes no alteration in the Constitution...it only extends the principles of it over a larger territory, and this certainly is within the morality of the Constitution.” Historian Forrest McDonald wrote “[t]hat cut to the heart of the matter, and in that spirit Jefferson abandoned his reservations.” Furthermore, Jefferson’s constitutional scruples were largely regarding the organization of the territory, not about the purchase itself. In January 1803 when Secretary of State James Monroe was being dispatched to France, Jefferson had written Gallatin that “there is no constitutional difficulty as to the acquisition of territory; and whether, when acquired, it may be taken into the Union by the Constitution as it now stands will become a question of expedience.” The fact that Jefferson took the Constitution so seriously that even when it came to something as important as the Louisiana Purchase he sparked a debate within his administration is not an argument against the Constitution. It is an example provided by one of the Founders himself of not allowing expediency alone to countervail against Constitutional considerations. 

The professor's main attack on Abraham Lincoln consists of stating that when "the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)" Is Siedman suggesting that those States that left the Congress and created their own Confederate States of America, should have still have been considered a voting bloc within that Congress? General Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at the Appomattox Court House took place on April 9, 1865. Lincoln had signed the Thirteenth Amendment on February 1, 1865. Once the Civil War ended does Siedman believe that the ex-Confederate States should have not been able to partake in its ratification? President Andrew Johnson, after Lincoln had already been assassinated, strongly recommended that the ex-Confederate states ratify the amendment. The point being made here by Siedman is incomprehensible gibberish, hardly to be taken seriously as an argument against the existence of our Constitution. 

Michael Siedman writes that "Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations." But as legal scholar Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute writes, "Just so. And that treatment of the Constitution as 'advisory only' is what has brought us to the fiscal chaos we’re enjoying today." 
The Constitution Has No Meaning?
This Georgetown genius continues, "The two main rival interpretive methods, 'originalism' (divining the framers’ intent) and 'living constitutionalism' (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled. Some decisions have been grounded in one school of thought, and some in the other. Whichever your philosophy, many of the results — by definition — must be wrong." That is not an argument against the Constitution, but an argument against one of the methods of interpretation. And one is wrong. Originalism is indeed the only legitimate method of understanding the constitutional text. I in fact strongly call on our nation to restore the lost Constitution and return to originalism rather than abandon the Constitution completely. One important step in that direction would be teachers of the Constitution who understand the importance of the Constitution.

Siedman gives the game away when he writes that it is "obvious" that "much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions." This is utter and complete nonsense. James Madison wrote in Federalist 45 that "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." We may have moved far away from that original vision, but the argument made by Siedman about an "infinitely wide range of positions" is not a reflection of the Constitutional reality envisioned by those who adopted the document. In fact, it is an unchanged argument used by those Anti-Federalists who did not want to see the document ratified at all. Anti-Federalist Brutus argued that the new federal government would "extend the powers of the government to every case" rather than there being the limited and defined role argued by the likes of James Madison. 

This leaves us with an important lesson. Our task is not to rehearse the arguments of those who opposed the Constitution's ratification as if they are unique modern innovations, but for the American people to loudly demand a return to the principles of the Federalists who ratified the Constitution and restore the federal government to its intended role.  It is not in any way an argument for abandoning our nation's guiding charter completely. 
Conclusion
I will end not with my own summation, but by telling this professor he would do well to heed the words of a young Abraham Lincoln, at the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, on January 27, 1838:
"As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide... But, it may be asked, why suppose danger to our political institutions? Have we not preserved them for more than fifty years? And why may we not for fifty times as long?... [One reason is that] the scenes of the revolution...must fade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by the lapse of time. In history, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the Bible shall be read;—but even granting that they will, their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. Even then, they cannot be so universally known, nor so vividly felt, as they were by the generation just gone to rest... They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and law."

NAACP President: Tim Scott, The Only Black U.S. Senator, Doesn't "Believe In Civil Rights"

Reprehensible, but not shocking .

Former Obama OMB Director: Obama Is Going To Have To Negotiate Spending To Avoid Hitting Debt Limit, He May Have "Won The Week, But Lost The Quarter"

Senator Pat Toomey: GOP Must Be Willing To Force Government Shutdown Rather Than Raise Debt Ceiling Without Serious Spending Reforms

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi In 2010: "We Should Employ All Forms Of Resistance Against" These Israeli "Blood-suckers"

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Thomas Sowell On "Tax Cuts For The Rich"

The "Fiscal Cliff" Failings Headed For Obama's Signature

The "fiscal cliff" deal is better than the legislatively manufactured automatic alternative.  Rep. Paul Ryan explained his vote in favor of the resolution to the "fiscal cliff" saying that "there are clearly provisions that I oppose. But the question remains: Will the American people be better off if this law passes relative to the alternative? In the final analysis, the answer is undoubtedly yes. I came to Congress to make tough decisions—not to run away from them. Now, we must return our attention to the real problem: out-of-control spending. Washington’s reckless spending drives the debt. And this debt is hurting the economy today. Unless we get at the heart of the problem, Americans will face a debt crisis—one that will threaten our most vulnerable in particular. It is our responsibility to prevent such a crisis.” 

What the deal demonstrates, however, is the wide gap between the two parties, in that the insurmountable differences between them lead to an agreement that actually solved no major issue other than averting a crisis of Washington's own creation. The agreement, which the Senate approved only three minutes after all Senators received it, failed to address the debt ceiling and a possible national default. The package did nothing to address rigid high levels of unemployment (12 million Americans still out of work). The deal in no way fundamentally tames the government’s soaring debt. As even the liberal Washington Post reported (not an op-ed) regarding the law, "The nation’s long-term finances remain in peril, with federal spending projected to rise dramatically as a wave of retiring baby boomers turns to the government for help in paying for ever-more-costly health care" (and in fact the bill increases federal spending by $332 billion over the next ten years). Sequester spending cuts were a can kicked a mere two months down the road to coincide with the debt ceiling debate. Even in reaching a deal, the level of dysfunction of your federal government (no matter your side of the aisle) should be apparent.

What needs to be realized now is that taxes are off the table. The Congress and President went through machinations ending with a down to the wire deal that essentially finally resulted in a bipartisan resolution on taxes. This "fiscal cliff" deal represents the tax compromise, and it must be viewed as such. When the debt ceiling is to be hit in a couple months, the issue can therefore legitimately only be government spending. And on this the Republicans must demand seriousness in confronting the nation's debt crisis.

This is not a matter for debate. It is a reflection of reality. As Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson of the "Simpson-Bowles Commission" reacted to the compromise headed for Obama's signature, “Washington missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code, and fix our entitlement programs. We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming. In fact Washington politicians set it up to force themselves to seriously deal with our Nation’s long term fiscal problems. Yet even after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt.” 

------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Rand Paul was one of only 8 to vote against the package in the Senate, and here are a couple excerpts of his Senate floor speech:

House Vote On Fiscal Cliff Bill Breaks GOP 3-Day Pledge To Allow Public To Read The Bill


(CNSNews.com): 

When the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass a Senate bill to avoid the fiscal cliff around 10:45 PM on Tuesday, it violated its pledge to allow three days for the public to read the legislation, a promise House Republicans made to voters before the 2010 elections. The House passed the bill with a vote of 257-167 in evening on Tuesday, less than 24 hours after the Senate had drafted and passed the bill close to 2:00 AM Tuesday morning. In its Pledge to America document, House Republicans promised: “We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.” In all, the 154-page “fiscal cliff” bill was available for approximately 22 hours before the House voted on it Tuesday night. If a member of the public was awake when the bill first became available after the Senate vote, approximately 1:39 AM Tuesday, they would have to read an average of one page of dense legislative text every 8.6 minutes to finish reading the bill in the 22 hours between House and Senate passage. The bill needed significant Democratic support to pass, which it received, along with 85 Republican ‘yea’ votes, including that of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Senators Got 154-Page "Fiscal Cliff" Bill 3 Minutes Before Voting on It


CNSNews.com: 

The U.S. Senate voted 89-8 to approve legislation to avoid the fiscal cliff despite having only 3 minutes to read the 154-page bill and budget score.  Multiple Senate sources have confirmed to CNSNews.com that senators received the bill at approximately 1:36 AM on Jan. 1, 2013 – a mere three minutes before they voted to approve it at 1:39 AM.

Washington Post Reports On The Failures Of The Fiscal Cliff Compromise

The liberal Washington Post reporting (not an op-ed) on the indisputable failures of the fiscal cliff deal:

"The agreement, which the Senate approved only hours after the government hit the limit on federal borrowing, fails to defuse the prospect of a...national default two months from now. Nor does the package do anything to address stubbornly high levels of unemployment, with 12 million Americans out of work. Instead, the deal could aggravate the problem...[b]y allowing the payroll tax cut to expire... And, finally, the deal is too modest to fundamentally tame the government’s soaring debt. The nation’s long-term finances remain in peril, with federal spending projected to rise dramatically as a wave of retiring baby boomers turns to the government for help in paying for ever-more-costly health care."
Of course this does not mean that Republicans need have opposed the legislation given the automatic alternative of the "fiscal cliff." But is worth nothing the wide gap between the two parties such that the agreement they do come to actually does not deal with a single one of the major issues.

Federal District Judge Orders Temporary Halt To Obamacare Contraception Mandate On Domino's Pizza

Domino's Pizza owner will not be forced to violate their religious beliefs under the birth control mandate while District Court challenges take place:

A federal judge has ordered a temporary halt on the Obama administration’s birth-control coverage policy for Tom Monaghan, the Catholic billionaire who founded Domino’s Pizza.  Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff issued the decision Sunday, less than two days before the policy would have taken effect and exposed Monaghan to fines for non-compliance. “Plaintiff has shown that abiding by the mandate will substantially burden his exercise of religion,” Zatkoff wrote. “The government has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its actions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. … This factor weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion.”  

Gallup: Most Americans Unsatisfied With Country’s Direction


A USA Today/Gallup Poll:

Now, 23% express satisfaction with the country’s course — still significantly lower than when previous recent presidents took office for their second terms. For Bush in 2005, 45% were satisfied; for Bill Clinton in 1997, 43%; for Ronald Reagan in 1985, 52%…  In the poll, more than a third say either they or one of their closest family members have suffered a “major financial setback” in the past year; just one in five report a major financial gain in their family. While the economy, in fact, is growing again — the recession officially ended in June 2009 — just a third of Americans see it that way. They’re outnumbered by the 44% who say it’s in a recession or a depression.

Calm Down Chris Christie: Hurricane Sandy Aid Bill Packed With Senate Democratic Pork, Needs Time To Be Implemented Responsibly

The Weekly Standard reports:

New Jersey governor Chris Christie, a Republican, blasted Speaker of the House John Boehner for ending the congressional session before voting on the Hurricane Sandy relief bill. "I called the Speaker four times last night after 11:20 and he did not take my calls," said Christie, who said Congress had not delivered on the aid needed to clean-up after the hurricane and Boehner had avoided giving him answers as to why. "There’s no reason for me to believe anything they tell me, because they’ve been telling me stuff for weeks. And they didn’t deliver." But one of the big objections to the bill was that Senate Democrats had filled it with pork. In fact, "Democrats expanded the legislation during a mark-up to include not just areas affected by Sandy, but also to provide money for 'storm events that occurred in 2012 along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast within the boundaries of the North Atlantic and Mississippi Valley divisions of the Corps that were affected by Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac,'" we reported previously. The expansion of the bill was a way to provide a financial incentive for senators from red states--"two Republicans senators from Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, and the one Republican senator from Louisiana"--to vote for the bill. "The Sandy kickbacks provide an incentive for those Republicans to vote on the bill," we wrote. It is true that the Sandy bill in the House strips the legislation of at least some of the pork, but after yesterday's fight over the "fiscal cliff" deal it seems reasonable that Congress might not have been up for another battle just yet. Nevertheless, the House leadership has promised that the Sandy bill will be the first priority for the next Congress, which will be sworn in tomorrow. "Getting critical aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy should be the first priority in the new Congress, and that was reaffirmed today with members of the New York and New Jersey delegations. The House will vote Friday to direct needed resources to the National Flood Insurance Program. And on January 15th, the first full legislative day of the 113th Congress, the House will consider the remaining supplemental request for the victims of Hurricane Sandy," say Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a joint statement released after Christie's remarks.

Suha Arafat, Widow Of Yasser Arafat: The 2000 Intifada Was Premeditated, Planned by Arafat

Australian Islamist: We Will Establish a Caliphate, Instate Shari'a, Make Arabic Official Language

Mufti Of Australia And Delegation Meet With Hamas Prime Minster And Officials In Gaza

Deputy Head Of The Muslim Brotherhood Party In Egypt On Israel: Israel Will Cease To Exist

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Des Moines Register Op-Ed Columnist Calls For Repeal Of Second Amendment And Death Of Gun Owners

In an op-ed at the Des Moines Register, retired columnist Donald Kaul called for, among other things, a repeal of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the forced elimination of the NRA as an organization, and the death of gun owners who refuse to give up their arms, Newsbusters reported Monday.

Retiring Congressman Ron Paul On Fiscal Cliff: "Republicans And Democrats, They Pretend They Are Fighting"

Obama On Benghazi: We Had "Sloppiness" In Protecting Embassies

41 To 1 Ratio Of Tax Increases To Spending Cuts In "Fiscal Cliff" Deal

41:1:

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said after today's first conference meeting that the lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill "was a universal concern amongst members in today's meeting."  
"The Speaker and Leader laid out options to the members and listened to feedback," Buck said. "Conversations with members will continue throughout the afternoon on the path forward."

Charles Krauthammer: "Fiscal Cliff" Deal Is Republican "Surrender"

The Senate-passed fiscal cliff bill that House Republicans passed is a “complete rout for Democrats” and ‘“complete surrender” for the GOP, columnist Charles Krauthammer said. “Look, there are a lot of conservatives in the Republican caucus in the House who hate the bill for good reason. This is a complete surrender on everything,” he said about the ratio of tax hike to spending cuts.

Taxes To Rise On 77% Of Households

Bloomberg reports:


The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.  More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday. 

CBO: "Fiscal Cliff" Deal Adds $4 Trillion To The Debt Over The Next Decade

The Hill reports:


The Senate deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" will add roughly $4 trillion to the deficit when compared to current law, according to new numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  The CBO determined Tuesday that the package, hammered out late Monday evening by Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would — over the next decade — come with a $3.9 trillion price tag. 

Paul Ryan On The Fiscal Cliff Deal Heading For Obama's Signature

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan:

“The American people chose divided government. As elected officials, we have a duty to apply our principles to the realities of governing. And we must exercise prudence. We must weigh the benefits and the costs of action—and of inaction. In H.R. 8, there are clearly provisions that I oppose. But the question remains: Will the American people be better off if this law passes relative to the alternative? In the final analysis, the answer is undoubtedly yes. I came to Congress to make tough decisions—not to run away from them.  Now, we must return our attention to the real problem: out-of-control spending. Washington’s reckless spending drives the debt. And this debt is hurting the economy today. Unless we get at the heart of the problem, Americans will face a debt crisis—one that will threaten our most vulnerable in particular. It is our responsibility to prevent such a crisis.”

Erskine Bowles And Alan Simpson React To "Fiscal Cliff" Deal

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson of the "Simpson-Bowles Commission" reacting to the compromise headed for Obama's signature:

“Washington missed this magic moment to do something big to reduce the deficit, reform our tax code, and fix our entitlement programs. We have all known for over a year that this fiscal cliff was coming. In fact Washington politicians set it up to force themselves to seriously deal with our Nation’s long term fiscal problems. Yet even after taking the country to the brink of economic disaster, Washington still could not forge a common sense bipartisan consensus on a plan that stabilizes the debt.”

Monday, December 31, 2012

Hobby Lobby To Face Millions In Fines Every Day For Refusing To Abide By Obamacare Mandate That Employer-Based Insurance Provide Morning After Pills

CNSNews.com reports:

In a legal argument formally presented in federal court in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration is claiming that the First Amendment—which expressly denies the government the authority to prohibit the “free exercise” of religion—nonetheless allows it to force Christians to directly violate their religious beliefs even on a matter that involves the life and death of innocent human beings. Because federal judges—including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—have refused to grant an injunction protecting the owners of Hobby Lobby from being forced to act against their Christian faith, those owners will be subject to federal fines of up to $1.3 million per day starting Tuesday for refusing to include abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plan. The Obama administration is making a two-fold argument for why it can force Christians to act against their faith in complying with the regulation it has issued under the Obamacare law that requires virtually all health care plans to cover, without co-pay, sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs. The first argument the administration makes against the owners of Hobby Lobby is that Americans lose their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion when they form a corporation and engage in commerce. A person’s Christianity, the administration argues, cannot be carried out through activities he engages in through an incorporated business. “Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not exercise religion,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery in a filing submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. “Because Hobby Lobby is a secular employer, it is not entitled to the protections of the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” Delery told the court on behalf of the administration. “This is because, although the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association are ‘right[s] enjoyed by religious and secular groups alike,’ the Free Exercise Clause ‘gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.’” In keeping with Delery’s argument, the Washington Post, as a corporation, can use its First Amendment-protected freedom of speech to write editorials in support of the Obama administration imposing its contraception mandate on businesses like Hobby Lobby. But the members of the family that created and owns Hobby Lobby, because they formed Hobby Lobby as a corporation, have no First Amendment freedom of religion that protects them from being forced by the government to act against their religious beliefs in providing abortion-inducing drugs. The second argument the administration makes to justify forcing Christians to act against their faith is more sweeping. Here the administration argues it can force a person to act against his religion so long as the coercion is done under the authority of a law that is neutral and generally applicable—in other words, as long as the law was not written specifically to persecute Christians as Christians, the government can use that law to persecute Christians. Hobby Lobby is a family business. David Green created it in his garage in Oklahoma City in 1972. He and his wife, Barbara, and their three children—Steve, Mart and Darsee Green Lett-- have grown the business to where it now operates 500 stores in 41 states. David Green is Hobby Lobby’s CEO; Steve Green is its president; Mart Green is vice CEO; and Darsee Lett is vice president. Mart Green is also CEO of the privately owned Mardel chain of Christian bookstores, which operates 35 stores in 7 states. Through Hobby Lobby, the Greens have created more than 13,000 jobs. Mardel has created 372 jobs. The Greens, who are Evangelical Christians, do not suspend their religious beliefs while running their businesses. Instead, they strive to run them fully in accordance with their Christian beliefs. They are unanimous in stating that they have always “sought to run Hobby Lobby in harmony with God’s laws and in a manner which brings glory to God.” They do not have two sets of morals—one for when they are at church or at home and another for when they are working on their businesses. They have only one set of morals—that they strive to follow at work or any other activity. For example, they close their business on Sundays, so their employees can spend that day with their families, and they pay their full-time workers a minimum hourly wage of $13, which is far exceeds the federal minimum wage. They also provide their employees with a generous self-insured health care plan, and they even operate an on-site, cost-free health clinic at their corporate headquarters. But, guided by their Christian faith, the Greens believe that human life begins at conception and that aborting on unborn life is wrong. In keeping with this, they do not cover in their employee health plan abortions, abortion-inducing drugs or IUDs that prevent implantation of an embryo. Unlike Catholics, the Greens do not believe that contraception and sterilization are morally wrong. In September, the Greens, Hobby Lobby and Mardel bookstores sued Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the departments of Health Human Service, Labor and Treasury. Their complaint said that the Obamacare contraception mandate violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion because supporting abortion or counseling for abortion is contrary to their religious faith. As the mandate now stands, the Greens must begin complying with it on Jan. 1. On Nov. 11, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton refused to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the mandate from being enforced on the Greens while the court decided their case on its merits. In his ruling on the injunction, Judge Heaton determined that the Greens were not likely to establish they had a right to “free exercise” of religion while operating Hobby Lobby. ‘[T]he court concludes plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success as to their constitutional claims,” said Judge Heaton. “The corporations lack free exercise rights subject to being violated and, as the challenged statutes/regulations are neutral and of general applicability as contemplated by the constitutional standard, plaintiffs are unlikely to successfully establish a constitutional violation in any event.” The Greens appealed their request for an injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. A panel of two appeals court judges refused their plea. They then appealed to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sits over that circuit, and she declined to reverse the lower courts and issue an injunction. When Sotomayor ruled against a preliminary injunction on Thursday, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Greens, issued a statement indicating that the Greens would not start complying with the mandate on Tuesday and that they would continue to pursue their case in federal court. “Hobby Lobby will continue their appeal before the Tenth Circuit,” said Becket Fund General Counsel Kyle Duncan. “The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the Tenth Circuit. The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.” As the nation approaches the much publicized fiscal cliff, it also approaches a moral cliff: Will the Obama administration compel Christians to act against their faith? As of now, the answer seems plain: Starting Tuesday, it will.

Senator Rand Paul: Slams "Spending Bill" Fiscal Cliff Deal

Politico reports:

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said preliminary details of a potential fiscal cliff deal that emerged Monday are a “deal killer” for him because they don’t slash spending, though he conceded a scaled-back deal could pass both chambers with bipartisan support. “Not only are they raising taxes — maybe on a smaller percentage of people but a large amount of money — but they’re also going to spend more money,” Paul said. “So it’s a spending bill.” Paul, a tea party Republican, continued, “I object to increasing spending and increasing taxes. That’s really the real deal killer for me. If it were just tax rates, and you told me I had the choice of protecting 99 percent, I would vote … for that. Once Democrats sign on board in the House, it should pass as well.”

Senate Report: Obama Administration "Inconsistent" On Benghazi

The Hill reports:

The committee found that the State Department failed to appropriately assess and heighten security measures after intelligence showed that Americans stationed in Benghazi could be threatened by terror groups, according to reports from media groups that obtained an advance copy of the findings. The report will be released Monday. While the committee report acknowledges that there was no specific intelligence pointing to an imminent attack, officials in Washington failed to take “effective steps” to protect the Benghazi facility and the diplomats there. The report also blames the Pentagon, finding that the Defense Department (DOD) had failed to place adequate resources in the region to respond “in the event of a crisis.” "Although DOD attempted to quickly mobilize its resources, it did not have assets or personnel close enough to reach Benghazi in a timely fashion," the report concludes. The report is also harshly critical of the administration’s handling of the attack, finding the White House explanation in the days following the assault “inconsistent.”

Hollywood Hypocrisy: Mocking New Celebrity Ad Calling For Gun Control