Has Al Gore sold out American interests to dangerous foreign influences? The former vice president’s “sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera is not a laughing matter,” says investigative journalist Cliff Kincaid.
“This transaction is a homeland security threat that violates numerous U.S. laws,” says Kincaid, who has called for a congressional invesigation of the reported $500 million sale and writes:
Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Afghanistan, who interviewed bin Laden, was sent to prison for being an agent of al Qaeda. In Iraq, after the American invasion, the same thing occurred. Al Jazeera’s first managing director was exposed as an agent of the Saddam Hussein regime and the channel promoted the anti-American insurgency. The coverage inspired foreign Jihadists to come to Iraq to kill American soldiers, as captured terrorists acknowledged in interviews.
Kincaid warns that even “conservative members of Congress are silent” about the Al-Jazeera deal. In order to call attention to the issue, Kincaid will hold a 1 p.m. press conference Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Kincaid will be joined at the event by Pamela Geller, the conservative blogger and author who has led opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque in New York, and by broadcaster Jerry Kenney, who has filed complaints with the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission over Al Jazeera’s illegal broadcasts into the U.S.
Wyoming is looking better and better. Aesthetically, the state is spectacular, and politically, it’s one of the most conservative members of the union.
The Cowboy State twice showed the reason for its ranking this week. CBS News reports that in anticipation of new federal gun control laws, the Wyoming House “voted in favor of a bill that would seek to block the federal government from restricting assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
The Wyoming Senate also shot down a proposal to expand Medicaid, denying the addition of about 17,000 adults to the government’s medical tab.
Romney earned 69% of Wyomingites’ votes in the fall election, but the state is not without its disappointments. A state Senate committee voted against Senate File 88, a bill that would have required women to wait 24 hours to get an abortion, and would also require them to get an ultrasound. Additionally, physicians would have to tell women about risks associated with abortion, as well as inform them of the alternatives, give them the opportunity to listen to the heartbeat, and describe the fetus’ age and physiologic characteristics.
Wyoming is a beacon of hope in an increasingly left-wing country, but even it leaves something to be desired.
By a show of hands (or comments), who would rather be Clinton-free and who would rather be Obama-free?
Here’s a thought experiment for you:
If you could remove Obama as president but replace him only with Hillary Clinton, would you do it, with the caveat (because I think the question is too easy otherwise) that Hillary would be able to run again in 2016 whereas Obama won’t?
In my article yesterday (which many conservative readers of these pages were none too fond of) I suggested, as Marco Rubio has, that credible border enforcement is a an absolute prerequisite to anything even vaguely representing amnesty or even leniency for illegals.
The word “credible” is of utmost importance.
Today, The Hill is reporting that “Under a bipartisan Senate framework, Democrats say, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano would have final say over whether the border is secure enough to put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.”
On the one hand, I understand the initial lean toward the Secretary of Homeland Security having the authority to declare the border “secure enough.”
But thinking about who that person is today, and understanding that even if “Big Sis” Napolitano left during the Obama administration, her replacement would likely be no less feckless and unserious than she is, and leaving the decision to a political appointee will keep immigration a political football which immigration reform should try to avoid.
Republicans should come up with definable metrics for what would constitute a “secure enough” border, and then create a six-person standing committee, a majority vote (4 out of 6) of which would be required to make that declaration. The committee should include a representative of each border state (CA, AZ, NM, TX) along with two non-politician and non-bureaucrat citizens appointed by the House and/or Senate Homeland Security Committees. The committee should at all times include an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.
In the mean time, this seems like starting the discussion with a poison pill. I wouldn’t let Napolitano or this DoJ be in charge of security at my house, and I sure wish we had a choice along our border.
Matt Purple rejoiced over the fact that for the first time in 30 years neither Clinton holds public office.
I have a feeling that his jubilation will be shortlived. Barring a severe decline in her health, it is inconceivable that Hillary won’t run for President in 2016.
Even if the Clintons don’t hold public office that doesn’t mean they don’t wield considerable influence.
In Russia, each woman gives birth to an average of 1.7 children. This birth rate does not please President Vladimir Putin, who in addition to banning the adoption of Russian children by Americans, has encouraged Russian families (sometimes with material incentives), to strengthen the country by having at least three kids.
Groups of three seem to be to Putin’s liking, as he plans to utilize the services of R&B group Boyz II Men in his mission to up reproduction numbers. The Moscow Times reports that, just in time for Valentine’s Day, the Boyz will “perform a selection of their classic and new romantic ballads, hopefully giving Russian men some inspiration.”
One may think the president’s own personal virility campaign, what with its very bareback horseback riding, tiger hunting, judo fights, not blinking, and so forth, would be inspiration enough. But Putin knows a little outdated, soulful, American Motown, with classic hits like “Uhh Ahh,” can’t hurt.
Back on February 3, 1913, the states approved the 16th Amendment, which authorized a federal income tax. It didn’t much matter then. Rates were low and most people didn’t pay it.
Moreover, people felt free to avoid it even when they were formally liable. Jay Starkman points out in the Wall Street Journal:
After the tax law was passed, judges embraced it—for everyone else, just not themselves. Judges across the land proclaimed that the Constitution prohibited diminishing their salaries (and those of the president and state employees) through taxation. They emphasized the point by issuing court rulings in their own favor, excusing themselves from the tax. This lasted until the Depression, when the force of public opinion essentially shamed them into relenting. Under a law passed in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt became the first president subject to the income tax, but he refused to pay an increased rate that he helped enact in 1934. FDR insisted on paying the lower 1932 rates.
Those were the days!
Today half of people don’t pay. That would be fine if it was a minor levy. But when it is the most important means of financing Leviathan, exempting so many people creates the illusion of a free lunch. Vote for more programs because someone else is paying.
Can America last another century when so many people want to live beyond their means at everyone else’s expense?
Does the air feel a little cleaner this afternoon? If so, it may have something to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton just formally resigned as secretary of state. That means, for the first time since 1983, neither Bill nor Hillary hold public office.
Who brought the champagne?
Scott Brown has decided not to seek the GOP nomination for next June’s special Senate election here in Massachusetts.
I am not surprised by this decision. If Brown managed to win he would have to run again in the 2014 mid-term. Methinks he’s had his fill of that.
I do think Brown will run for office in 2014 but, as I have argued previously, it will be for Governor.
Becky Norton Dunlop, vice president of external relations at the Heritage Foundation, who also served as a senior official in the Departments of Justice and Interior during the Reagan administration, spoke yesterday about something she said “controls almost everything we do in life.”
“Principles of a Conservative Environmental Vision: The American Conservation Ethic” was the subject of Dunlop’s talk, given to the Conservative Women’s Network. Dunlop paired the topic of the environment with freedom, a theme synonymous with the conservative cause.
Freedom in the United States of America, Dunlop said, is the “freedom to do good,” and not license to live in a way that negatively affects society.
Bearing this attitude in mind, Dunlop expounded on the Heritage Foundation’s “Eight Principles of the American Conservation Ethic,” codes with which Dunlop, the former secretary of natural resources for the state of Virginia, is well-acquainted:
“People are the most important, unique, and precious resource.
Renewable natural resources are resilient and dynamic and respond positively to wise management.
Private property protections and free markets provide the most promising new opportunities for environmental improvements.
Efforts to reduce, control, and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits.
As we accumulate scientific, technological, and artistic knowledge, we learn how to get more from less.
Management of natural resources should be conducted on a site-and-situation specific basis.
Science should be employed as one tool to guide public policy.
The most successful environmental policies emanate from liberty.”
Here’s hoping the principles of the Heritage Foundation and like-minded individuals triumph over the Obama administration’s crippling regulatory mandates which threaten nearly every aspect of everyday life.
I well understand that the title of my article today, Amnesty Versus Bigotry, might be read to imply that I think those who oppose amnesty are bigots. I want to make it clear: that is absolutely not the case. I understand that the arguments against almost any path toward legalization of the current population of illegal immigrants are based on real, important matters including the rule of law, economic impact, and moral hazard for the future.
I am not denigrating those who steadfastly support anything that has even the slightest whiff of “amnesty” about it.
I believe that legislation that allows some sort of eventual path toward legal status, and eventually (but hopefully not too soon) citizenship for most current illegals is inevitable. It can either happen with Republican participation (and therefore get a tolerable, if not optimal, outcome) or without it, in which case we get the immigration equivalent of Obamacare.
My point is not that Republicans/conservatives are bigots. It is that the party’s positions on immigration and gay marriage make it all too easy to portray the GOP that way. And while I don’t consider myself conservative, and I recently dropped my Republican Party registration and became unaffiliated, the GOP is the nation’s only real hope at this point. Unfortunately, the GOP knows neither how to market their brand nor really what their brand is.
This morning, I received a long comment to my article. The gentleman, whom I will not name, was not happy with me. I would like to share it, along with my response, with you:
Mr. Kaminsky:I have been informed and enjoyed your previous columns. Your latest shows me you care not one bit about this country.As a German immigrant, who became a citizen on my 18th birthday and spent 3 years in the military - including combat duty in Vietnam -, I found your column very deceitful and traitorous.America has a unique culture and identity and you propose to destroy that culture and identity with people who have no respect for our laws and our traditions.We are already bankrupt as a nation and you want to legalize another unskilled 40-60 million people who will receive welfare. (The 10-15 million illegals and the other 30-40 million relatives who will be allowed into this country for purposes of ‘family reunification’.)Worst of all, you propse turning this nation into a place of men instead of laws and a ‘thurd world’ country.It is not bigotry to believe in the rule of law.It is not bigotry to believe that we have a right to our own culture and traditions.It is not bigotry to believe that I should not have to pay welfare to criminal foreigners.It is not bigotry to believe that we should keep America as a large majority white European, Judeo-Christian country.It is not bigotry to believe we should follow the Constitution.It is not bigotry to believe that Americans, not illegal criminal invaders, have the authority and right to determine who enters this country. (You seem to have a problem with that.Finally, I have come to the conclusion it would be far better to split the country. No doubt you will join the Liberal Fascist anti-America side.America has three enemies:1) Islam2) Liberalism3) The business elites who have no allegiance to any country. You are in that group.(Name signed here.)
And here’s my response:
You very much misunderstand me.
I do not want millions more on welfare. In fact, I would rather see most of the illegals leave than stay under any circumstance. But we have to live in reality; they’re not leaving.
I do not propose to destroy the culture. I believe that a good understanding of American history, the Constitution, and some real level of proficiency in English should be required of any citizen. I believe that the balkanization of the country, esp. with people not speaking English, is a big problem.
I would not increase the use of family visas unless the family can prove that they won’t need welfare, and unless states can refuse them welfare.
I want to enforce the borders as well as other immigration-related laws, but still we have the policy problem of the people who are here already and the political problem of the damage this issue is doing to the only major political party that does love and respect what this nation stands for.
In your “It is not bigotry…” list, I am for every proposition you suggest except that I don’t see how it’s possible to ensure forever that we are a majority of a particular color or even religious background, though the former is clearly more at risk than the latter.
As for me personally, I’m hardly “business elite.” I work for myself, don’t make a lot of money, etc. My parents were both officers in the US Navy, I lived on and around military bases, and I am extremely patriotic and think that the Constitution and Declaration are the most important political documents in the history of mankind and should be respected and honored.
My primary point in the article was a political one: A combination of issues is being spun by opponents of the Republican Party to make the GOP look like bigots. It’s working. It’s killing the GOP. Now you have to decide whether you want to be absolutely pure to everything you consider a principle and proceed to lose every election and have a government which destroys every principle you believe in, or whether you are willing to give up a little around the edges (but only a little, hopefully) and have a chance at winning elections and returning this country toward respect for our Founding documents and principles.
In my experience, some things that people think about as political “principles” are better thought of as goals, in the sense that some things are worth refusing to compromise on, but other things can be compromised on without selling your soul. I do not claim to be the arbiter of where the line is drawn other than for myself. I simply suggest you ask yourself where those lines are for you, and the varying implications in both policy and politics based on where they are drawn.
Thank you for your patriotism and your service to our great nation.
Former New York City Mayor and Congressman Ed Koch passed away this morning of congestive heart failure. He was 88.
A native of the Bronx, Koch served as an infantryman during WWII earning two Battle Stars. Upon his return to the U.S., Koch attended City College of New York and attended law school at New York University. Koch became active in Democratic politics and was a fierce foe of Tammany Hall. After a brief stint on the New York City Council, Koch was elected to Congress in 1968 and re-elected four times.
However, Koch is best known for his three terms as Mayor of New York City, a post to which he was first elected in 1977. The avuncular life-long bachelor became well known outside of New York for his frequent appearances on Saturday Night Live.
In 1982, Koch sought the Democratic Party’s gubernatorial nomination but was defeated by Mario Cuomo who served as New York’s governor for three terms. Meanwhile, Koch remained at Gracie Mansion and, for the most part, lived up to his billing as “a liberal with sanity.”
Koch sought a fourth term in 1989 but beset by corruption scandals within his administration (though not himself) was defeated by David Dinkins who went on to defeat Rudy Giuliani that November.
In the late 1990s, Koch appeared on The People’s Court.
A staunch supporter of Israel, Koch occasionally supported Republicans as he did with President George W. Bush in 2004 and with Bob Turner in the 2011 special congressional election following the Anthony Weiner scandal.
However, Koch supported President Obama in both 2008 and 2012. However, it was only last month that Koch said he knew Obama would “renege” on his support for Israel with his nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Koch just didn’t think it would be so soon.
Nevertheless, Koch was a colorful figure who was unabashed in his love for New York City and America in good times and bad.
Ironically, a documentary about Koch is to be released today.
When watching Chuck Hagel being eviscerated by John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz just remember that we could have been spared from this sorry spectacle if not for the hubris of President Obama.
But no!!! Obama just had to foist Hagel upon us. He did so for three reasons. First, to give Israel yet another thumb to the eye. Second, to give comfort to Iran that we will not stop them from going nuclear and, above all else, to be a rubber stamp for Obama’s gutting of our military.
The problem, as it turns out, is that Hagel can’t string two sentences together. He’s no Hillary who can ask the Senate with a straight face, “What difference does it make?”
What happened today is a direct consequence of President Obama’s poor judgment. If the Senate doesn’t reject Hagel then they too will be guilty of poor judgment.
Patty Andrews, the last of The Andrews Sisters, passed away yesterday of natural causes. The youngest of the three Andrews Sisters was 94.
Along with LaVerne and Maxene, the trio began singing together as children in the 1920s. They attained the height of their success during WWII most notably with their song “Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy From Company B” via Abbott & Costello.
By the end of the '40s, the Andrews went their separate ways with Patty at odds with her older sisters.
Yet their musical influence endured perhaps most notably with Bette Midler who essentially launched her career with a cover of “Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy” that was the faithful to the original. Christina Aguilera’s 2007 song “Candyman” was directly inspired by The Andrews Sisters.
I leave you with Patty and Maxene harmonizing one last time when they received their star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1987.
“Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something.” Former congresswoman Gabby Giffords appealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday with these words to request quick action to prevent gun violence.
From the very beginning of the “What Should We Do About Gun Violence?” Senate hearing, I detected an underlying reverence for the 2nd Amendment, beginning with Senator Patrick Leahy’s description of it as a “fundamental, individual right.” Until Senator Dianne Feinstein started speaking, the focus of the hearing was mostly universal background checks and enforcement of existing federal laws.
This brought to my attention a fine organization named “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy,” a national coalition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. They are both working to prevent the illegal purchases of firearms by “straw purchasers,” which is already a federal crime.
As a conservative, I am skeptical of brand-new, innovative legislation. Wayne LaPierre’s testimony further convinced me that the federal government under the Obama Administration has neglected to prosecute existing gun crimes. While I understand the country’s reliance on the federal government to do something, it has already done many things which remain negligently unenforced.
As LaPierre stated in his testimony, federal weapons prosecutions per capita were down 35 percent in 2011 from their peak in the Bush Administration (as calculated from DOJ data accessible here).
Out of the 76,000 federal background denials in 2010, the ATF referred only 62 of those to federal prosecutors. Of these 62, prosecutors declined 18, while only 13 resulted in a guilty plea by the defendant.
U.S. attorneys charged 22 people for submitting falsified information, along with 11 convicted felons for possessing firearms and seven domestic offenders for holding weapons.
With the recent mass shootings, violence is obviously a big problem; that’s why we have prosecutors to uphold the law that enforcers apply. Where are they in this debate?
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee today, Chuck Hagel was grilled by Senator John McCain. McCain immediately brought up Hagel’s opposition to the Iraq surge, including his calling it a “quagmire”, and wondered why he opposed it “even as it became clear that the surge was succeeding”.
Hagel waffled a bit and McCain cut him off, demanding a yes or no answer. Finally Hagel said, “I’m not going to give you a yes or no. I think it’s far more complicated than this.” He said he would defer to the judgment of history whether he was right and called the Iraq war “the most fundamentally bad experience since Vietnam.”
“I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it,” McCain shot back. McCain said Hagel’s refusal to give him a yes-or-no answer would be a factor in his vote. “Any casual observer will know that the Surge was the fundamental factor” in securing Iraq, McCain said.
McCain also interrogated Hagel over Syria, and Hagel was again cautious. “How many more would have to die before you would support arming the resistance and establishing a no-fly zone?” McCain asked. Hagel deferred to the administration, which was “looking at those options.”
Also of note, Hagel earlier called President Obama perhaps the strongest president on Israel since Harry Truman supported its creation.
Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearings began today in the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his opening statement, Hagel declared that, though the world is a dangerous place, we must use American power with intelligence and wisdom.
Later he addressed the issue of Iran’s nuclear program:
I am fully committed to the President’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and – as I’ve said in the past – all options must be on the table to achieve that goal. My policy is one of prevention, and not one of containment – and the President has made clear that is the policy of our government. As Secretary of Defense, I will make sure the Department is prepared for any contingency. I will ensure our friend and ally Israel maintains its Qualitative Military Edge in the region and will continue to support systems like Iron Dome, which is today saving Israeli lives from terrorist rocket attacks.
The Washington Post has the full text of Hagel’s opening statement and FoxNews.com has a live feed of the hearing. Worth your time? Hagel’s a former senator appearing before current senators, which portends plenty of comradely blowharding and back-patting. But Sen. Jim Inhofe did come out swinging, so a few fireworks may be in order.
Was Democrat New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez just conducting first hand investigations during his jaunts to the Dominican Republic on a Florida ophthalmologist’s private jet? Were the alleged sexual relations on foreign soil with underage prostitutes simply diligent and selfless preparation for his assuming the Chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
By Asher Embry
Did a dirty old Sen. from N.J.
Jet to D.R. to “go all the way”?
With the “press” still ignoring
His underage whoring
Bob chairs Foreign Relations today?
(You can read more of Asher Embry’s Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Congressman Stephen Lynch is expected to announce his intent to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry. He is opposed by longtime Congressman Ed Markey.
Lynch was elected to Congress in October 2001 in a special election following the death of Joe Moakley who represented the district for nearly 30 years.
While Markey has more money and organization I think Lynch would be a far tougher opponent for Scott Brown should Brown decide to make another bid for the Senate. It would be a battle of two blue collar guys. Before practicing law and entering politics, Lynch was an ironworker. While his politics are virtually identical to Kerry’s, a Senator from Southie would be a contrast to a bilionaire from Beacon Hill.
The Democratic (and Republican) primaries have been set for April 30th while the special election has been scheduled for June 25th.
Imagine. ObamaCare is forcing up costs. And the unions are upset!
That is, the unions which worked so hard to pass ObamaCare. It seems someone finally noticed that mandating benefits and imposing regulations has a tendency to … increase costs. Increases which workers are stuck paying. Who would have imagined such a result? It’s not like anyone warned them, right??
Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.
Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.
To offset that, the nation’s largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.
In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans.
It’s nice that economic reality sometimes intrudes in the world of organized labor.
Well, only partially. Naturally, the unions’ solution is more government subsidies. Obviously the fact that Americans already face $222 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities is of no consequence. Just open Washington’s spigots a little more and all will be well.
I report on it here, at CFIF. This is about the long-running eco-suit against Chevron, pushed by dicey U.S. plaintiffs’ lawyers in conjunction with the corrupt, leftist government of Ecuador. Yet another judge in the case now says he was offered big bucks to rule against Chevron. Read all about it — and about why this is a public policy issue, and one where Obama, as usual, is either asleep or on the wrong side.
In the last quater of 2012, real U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by 0.1 percent, after a third quarter increase of 3.1 percent. The decrease is attributable to a few factors: a drop in private inventory investment, a decline in government spending (in particular military spending), and a drop in exports. This was partially offset by increased consumer spending, nonresidential fixed investment, and a decrease in imports.
Is the fourth quarter drop in GDP an indictment of “austerity,” implying that more government spending is needed to boost GDP? As economist Garrett Jones writes at EconLog, it’s important to recognize that GDP is an accounting identity with some measurement peculiarities. Consider his example:
Scenario 1: ExxonMobil hires an unemployed petroleum engineer for $100K per year. After a year, the engineer finds no oil.
GDP does not change. No oil is found. No consumer goods are purchased. Thus, there is no extra GDP. GDP captures personal consumption expenditures purchased by persons. It doesn’t count private sector employee compensation.
Scenario 2: The federal government hires an unemployed petroleum engineer for $100K per year. After a year, the engineer finds no oil.
GDP increases by $100K. Here, the government does the hiring. Government expenditures which is counted in GDP includes public employee compensation.
In sum, when the government hires people, it raises GDP by virtue of how GDP is defined.
This hints at the artifact in the accounting. But what about the economics? Would more government spending stimulate economic growth?
This claim rests on the Keynesian theory that in economic downturns government can create jobs and put idle capital to use. Unfortunately, without the information contained in profit and loss, government agents are in a position of guessing; and borrowing funds from the private economy where wealth is actually created. Moreover, these decisions are driven by the interests of politicians and not by what is revealed by consumers in the marketplace. My colleague, Matt Mitchell takes a look at the recent claim that fiscal stimulus almost always has positive effects. The evidence is very mixed, and where stimulus is found to be effective, the results are nuanced. One of the biggest problems with government stimulus is that over the long run, government spending eventually crowds out private consumption, investment and borrowing, leading to low growth. Even stimulus advocates, including President Obama’s former advisor, Larry Summers, point to the need for “timely, temporary and targeted” stimulus spending.
The notion of a permanent stimulus to boost GDP on the books is not unlike over-dosing the patient with painkillers while failing to treat the underlying disease: you eventually end up with a corpse.
Betsy McCaughey highlighted some salient points about how the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare) will affect ordinary people in an address to the Heritage Foundation today. Her book, Beating Obamacare, is designed to help people anticipate and survive the changes to healthcare coming through this 2,572 page “law.”
The former lieutenant governor from the state of New York, a constitutional scholar and patient advocate, began solemnly: “Most Americans get their health insurance through a job… In the coming months they are going to be getting some bad news … many are going to be called into their employer’s office and hear the words, ‘I’m sorry but we’ve decided not to offer coverage any longer.’”
She cited new “one size fits all” federal coverage mandates as the culprit for rising prices, and anticipated that employers will either opt to pay the penalty, or push their workers down to a part time status that will save them from even paying the penalty.
Where will people go in this imminent situation? To the new state insurance exchanges, which, she promised, would be everywhere, even in states that ‘opt out’ of them. “It will be like going to a supermarket that only sells cereal…” she continued. “Ignore the differences between bronze, silver, gold and platinum … there won’t be any difference in actual care … just a smaller co-pay and a smaller deductible (if you spring for platinum).”
McCaughey went on to cite some parts of the law she expected would run into more legal resistance, including Section 1311, which “empowers the federal government to dictate how doctors should treat privately insured patients.” She anticipated it being challenged in court based on the Supreme Court case Gonzalez vs. Oregon—but not before it goes into effect in 2014.
She warned that the law gave tax incentives to hospitals that spent less per senior. She cited evidence from the Archives of Internal Medicine showing that reducing costs in such a fashion leads to a real rise in the hospital senior death rate, partly because hospitals realize the cuts by laying off nurses.
She also pointed out where the Act really gets more Americans healthcare coverage—vast expansions in Medicaid eligibility. Since this is a burden shared with the states, Dr. McCaughey speculated that many states were expecting to be saddled with the costs of this expansion, which is why a number of them are doing their best to opt out.
McCaughey proves herself to be one of the few who really understand the Affordable Care Act (although there are unconfirmed reports that Nancy Pelosi has finished reading it now). Her prognoses, though at times ominous, are at heart pragmatic, based on common-sense, and well-intentioned. The investment in her book, Beating Obamacare, will likely prove to be a wise decision many times over.
Coming to you directly from the Hart Senate Office building where the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting the first hearing on gun regulation since the Newtown Mass Shooting, entitled, “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”
As the hearing wraps up, with many of the senior committee members having long since departed for other more pressing matters such as lunch, it is interesting to note that two facts went unmentioned during the proceedings. The first is that long guns are involved in less than 3% of all violent gun incidents. The second is that mass shootings are exceedinly rare and mass shooting deaths have been flat in the last decade or so, including the last year in which incidents at Aurora and Newtown prompted a critical revisitation of our nation’s gun control policies and politics, and 2011 when Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head. If mass shootings constitute a crsis, it is not a recent one, and many other crises that meet the same standard.
The question of gun violence has no clear, easy answer. There are myriad opinions yet no formally established causal relationship between gun ownership and violent crime, at least in the United States. Politicians on both sides of a debate have little incentive to dismiss it when a consumed public demands answers and action. The gun regulation debate is set to continue, and will intensify as legislative proposals are made. Moving forward, it would behoove us to consider expert witness Dave Kopel’s assessment of the last assault weapons imbroglio: “It took public debate away from measures that might have been more effective and life-saving.” If he is right, one can only hope that tragedy does not repeat as farce.
The Washington Post took Capitol Hill’s temperature over the sequester this morning, and found resigned optimism:
Adding to the sense of inevitability is the belief that the cuts, known as the sequester, would improve the government’s bottom line without devastating the broader economy. Though the cuts would hamper economic growth, especially in the Washington region, the forecast is far less dire than with other recent fiscal deadlines, and financial markets are not pressing Washington to act.
But that was before we knew GDP took a hit last quarter, largely thanks to deep cuts in defense spending. The sequester requires a further 9.4% reduction in military programs. Will there be further economic damage from such a significant reduction in military spending?
The cold answer may be, yes, but too bad. Ultimately we may need to suffer stymied economic growth in the short term to prevent a greater debt crisis in the long term. Congress won’t cut spending on its own, so the sequester is only way.
No doubt we’ll be hearing a lot of debate on this in the coming days. Our own G. Tracy Mehan delved into it yesterday and concluded: “Maybe it is time to start loving the sequestration.”
Coming to you directly from the Hart Senate Office building where the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting the first hearing on gun regulation since the Newtown mass shooting, entitled, “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”
In his remarks, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) continued a trend of citing emotionally wrenching anecdotes involving particularly vulnerable individuals, up to that point roughly a dozen dead children and one young mother. And then there were two.
Graham discussed an incident in which a Georgia woman hiding from an intruder with her two infant children emptied a revolver into his face, striking him five times. He displayed a poster comparing a revolver with a semi-automatic handgun and a high-capacity magazine side-by-side, as well as a wood-bodied rifle and a black military-style rifle.
Gayle Trotter’s earlier assertion that she speaks for millions of women in advocating lawful access to assault weapons for personal defense had elicited widespread laughter from the public gallery. Mr. Graham pointed to this as an illustration of honest differences in perspective and life experience, which he understood. He also noted that he has an AR-15 in his home because he thinks that is the best option for his personal self-defense. His discussion hung on a single question: “Am I an unreasonable American?”
“Yes,” murmured someone in the public gallery, rejecting his desire to give law-abiding citizens, such as the Georgia mother, access to high-capacity magazines. What if she had faced a second intruder, he queried.
“I do not think I am an unreasonable person because I think there are some circumstances in which a fifteen-round magazine makes sense,” he ultimately concluded, offering this as his reason for opposing “the legislation” that would broaden the definition of and ban assault weapons.
They say you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone, and consumers are realizing how good they had it now that the 2 percentage point cut in the tax every worker pays to finance Social Security has expired.
Consumer confidence plummeted dramatically since the sudden tax hike wiped out all gains registered in 2012. Taxpayers who ignorantly bought into Obama’s promise to raise taxes only on the rich, who “can afford to give back a little bit more,” were apparently taken by surprise.
According to the Washington Times:
Surveys at the time it was enacted showed that many consumers weren’t even aware of an increase in their take-home pay. But after two years of spending the extra cash from week to week, consumers clearly were missing the spare change, which added up to about $1,000 a year for the average taxpayer.
Consumer confidence dropped 8.1 points, the lowest reading in 14 months, as the payroll tax increase took effect this month. Gross domestic product also shrank for the first time in 3 1/2 years during the fourth quarter. Keep up the good work, Mr. Obama!
Coming to you directly from the Hart Senate Office building where the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting the first hearing on gun regulation since the Newtown mass shooting, entitled, “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”
Chairman Leahy’s (D-VT) exchange with NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre has been the most interesting so far. Mr. Leahy challenged Mr. LaPierre to answer a yes-or-no question of whether the latter believed background checks for sales at gun shows should be extended to those between private individuals, which are currently exempted under the so-called “gun show” loophole. “Do you support instant criminal background checks at gun shows, yes or no?” He had begun his line of questioning by noting that, in 1998, Mr. LaPierre stated that he did.
After much dancing and dodging, Mr. Leahy threw down a gauntlet, insisting that Mr. LaPierre answer the question directly. Should we have mandatory checks for all gun sales, he asked. Does the NRA believe that?
“No, we do not,” Mr. LaPierre finally conceded, parrying, “I do not believe that the way the laws are working at present,” it would make sense to extend the background check requirement to private sales. He referred to at least 44 laws on the books related to illegal possession and use of firearms, and specifically decried cases under said laws which “this administration is failing to prosecute.” (Later on, fellow-witness David Kopel referred to a University of Syracuse study that found a dramatic decline in such prosecutions since their 2004 peak under the Bush Administration.)
Mr. LaPierre made a few other points. Mr. Leahy eventually cut him off — “my time has expired” — but took a few moments to add, smiling, that that was not the question he was asking. There was laughter from the public gallery.
Not as many sparks are flying as might have been anticipated, but they are certainly not absent.
Immigration is heating up again as a political issue with the second term president and others discussing possible answers to the low level chaos which currently characterizes the movement of workers between Mexico and the United States. The basic outlines of plans to address the problem shift to fit familiar lines of argument. I would like to suggest a novel approach.
To state the matter very succinctly, we should deal with immigration in the context of the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA provided for the free movement of goods across the border. The best way to handle the immigration problem is to provide for the free movement of workers across the border, as well. We could accomplish this goal by negotiating a worker addendum to the agreement in existence.
How would it operate? Citizens from the countries involved in the agreement would be free to enter the member states to work. All they would need to do is to register as a foreign worker, obtain a proxy for a social security number which would allow for simple payment of taxes, and find employment.
This solution would simplify matters significantly. Workers would not need amnesty as they would not be in the country illegally. They would not need to fear reporting crimes or traffic accidents because they need not fear deportation. American states could provide things like driver’s licenses without fear of creating some presumption of citizenship.
There would still be the matter of children of registered workers being born in the United States with birthright citizenship. However, those children would no longer be tied to parents living in the United States in a quasi-criminal, illegitimate way.
Rather than giving amnesty to the many illegals in the United States today and setting yet another bad precedent to encourage future law breaking, we can offer current illegals a simple path to living legitimately in the U.S. as a NAFTA registered worker. Capital moves freely. Goods move freely. Why not let the workers move freely? We can protect the value of American citizenship, while simultaneously ending the problem of having a large population of illegals within our borders.
Coming to you directly from the Hart Senate Office building where the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting the first hearing on gun regulation since the Newtown Mass Shooting, entitled, “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”
The hearing opened with a statement by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. She spoke haltingly but clearly, still dealing with the brain injuries she suffered two years ago when she was wounded by a shooter who killed six others in Tuscon, Arizona. After thanking the committee for hosting her, she made this appeal:
“Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Thank you.”
After making these remarks, Ms. Giffords was helped out of the Committee chamber by her husband. Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) then commenced with his opening statement, followed by ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
Coming to you from the Hart Senate Office building where the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting the first hearing on gun regulation since the Newtown, Conn., shooting, entitled, “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”
I will be giving key updates about this highly anticipated event all morning. Scheduled to appear are:
Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.)
Americans for Responsible Solutions
Professor David Kopel
Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law
Denver University, Strum College of Law
Chief of Police
Baltimore County Police Department
Chair, National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
Attorney and Senior Fellow
Independent Women’s Forum
Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer
National Rifle Association
In addition, retired Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, wife of Mark Kelly, is expected to make an appearance.
So much for the so-called recovery:
The economy unexpectedly contracted in the fourth quarter, suffering its first decline since the recession ended more than three years ago as businesses scaled back on restocking and government spending plunged.
Gross domestic product fell at a 0.1 percent annual rate after growing at a 3.1 percent clip in the third quarter, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday.
That was the worst performance since the second quarter of 2009 and showed the economy entering the new year with no momentum, but economists cautioned against reading too much into the decline in output.
That’s an enormous drop, especially considering GDP grew by 3.1%, 1.3%, 2%, and 4.1% in the last four quarters respectively. Economists may be cautious but, as Reuters later notes, the economists it surveyed predicted continued growth of around 1.1%. None of them saw this coming.
The Spectacle Blog will be weighing in on this throughout the day. On a separate note, our own Luca Gattoni-Celli is attending the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, where Wayne LaPierre of the NRA is testifying, and will be keeping us posted.
Lots of news today. Stay tuned.
Checking out the redesigned New Republic today, I came across this bizarre sentence in an essay by Michael Kinsley:
At this point, before he remarried, [Edward] Kennedy’s dual reputation for girth and senatorial statesmanship had not yet overcome his reputation as a party boy.
What does “girth” mean in this context? I honestly have no idea. I just checked Chambers (no OED unfortunately), and have found these two nouns*:
So Kennedy had a reputation for being in possession of a (presumably large) waist? This has got to be the most circumspect way of calling someone fat I’ve ever run across in (pseudo) print.
As for “senatorial statesmanship,” I’m thinking this is just some kind of lazy attempt at “style”: alliteration and all that. But since senator was the only office Kennedy ever held, his “reputation” as a statesman could never been anything but “senatorial,” making “senatorial statesmanship” a tautology to boot.
* Urban Dictionary (to which I shall refrain from linking) tells me that there are, ahem, other definitions as well…
A new study released by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity reports that 37% of employed college graduates don’t need their degrees to perform the jobs they have.
The implication of the study is that attending college is a waste of time. This assumption might be true if a person’s reason for attending college is solely to gain practical training for entering the workforce.
At a liberal arts school, students study many subjects which might not seem relevant to a person’s livelihood. Literature, language, religion, art, and history aren’t considered worthwhile by realistic, money-driven types. They don’t produce jobs like the fields of finance, computers, medicine, and engineering do.
A liberal arts education might not direct a person towards any one particular profession, but it does hone one’s skills in reasoning, problem solving, critical thinking, and writing, all of which are highly desirable for a career in any field. Having a true education, rather than a certificate which denotes your competency to perform a task, makes for a more cultured, well-rounded, interesting individual who is appreciative of the world and how it works.
Vivek Ranadivé wrote for Forbes last year that “A Liberal Arts Degree Is More Valuable Than Learning Any Trade”:
I think we should make the liberal arts education more rigorous. If you teach students one trade, that skill might be obsolete in a few years. But if you teach people how to think and look at lots of information and connect dots – all skills that a classic liberal education gives you – you will thrive.
College used to have value. Now it’s a post-graduate assumption. With almost 70% of high school graduates now going on to college, not going to college has a stigma attached to it.
It’s impossible to have such widespread higher education and keep quality high. A college degree no longer sets a person apart, but keeps him afloat. Graduates feel lost when their degree in a narrow, specified field doesn’t get them the job they envisioned. If people want a technical job, why squander four years and thousands of dollars of debt on an education that’s often just prolonged job training sprinkled with liberal indoctrination along the way?
Tech schools, community colleges, and apprenticeships are underrated. Not everyone is suited for college, and not everyone wants to go. Everyone in America feels pressured to attend, and a college degree is now, according to Dr. Marty Nemko, a career consultant who appeared on John Stossel’s feature about “The College Scam,” “like a hunting license for a job.”
A college education isn’t necessary for most jobs, but a degree has become a requirement simply to apply for many. The result is paralyzing student loans for a generation, and a diluted sense of what education means. If people do decide to attend college, they should be rewarded with an education that will prepare them for whatever the economy might bring.
President Obama rolled out his own call for comprehensive immigration reform, one day after a bipartisan team of senators did the same.
Although he addressed a campaign-style rally audience in Nevada, the majority of his message was directed at Congress, 2,400 miles away.
The president claimed that the debate was over, that there was already substantial consensus in place, and that “this time, action should follow.” If Congress couldn’t get anything passed in a timely fashion, he warned that he would then send his own legislation and insist that they vote on it right away.
The president listed what his administration had already done about immigration, including claims that illegal border crossings had decreased by 80% and that there were more “boots on the ground” than ever before. He also lauded his own executive order version of the DREAM Act.
He outlined what he thought needed to be the main points in comprehensive legislation.
His points called for a continued focus on enforcement, including penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, and a national system to quickly identify legal immigrants so that businesses can be penalized more effectively. He also called for a clear pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented workers currently in the country, as well as provisions that make immigration possible and attractive to foreign students and entrepeneurs — namely, as he actually said, the Einsteins and the Carnegies of the 21st Century.
The president left for Nevada at 9:25 am and will return to Washington tonight at about 9:00 pm.
I cannot believe that the president just exhorted us to overhaul our immigration system on the basis of, err, Instagram. Oh, where would the economy be without this “online photo-sharing and social networking service that enables its users to take a picture, apply a digital filter to it, and share it on a variety of social networking services, including its own and other leading sites such as Facebook or Twitter”?
Also: “a student… their idea”; singular noun, plural possessive adjective? Reminds me of his “enormity” howler back in November.
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is leaving the Obama Administration. LaHood was one of those bureaucrats behind the curtain, little-known but with an outsize impact. His tenure, flamboyant in its statism even by Obama standards, can be summed up in two of his quotes. The first, referring positively to one of his DOT policies, is: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.” The second is: “People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”
LaHood tossed billions of dollars in grants at rail projects and bike paths. He worked with the EPA to clamp down on car mileage standards. He bullied states into cracking down on drivers using cell phones. And he was, of all things, a Class of ‘94 Republican congressman, allowing Obama to perpetuate his “team of rivals” canard.
The news is out that the Boy Scouts of America, to this point one of the few outfits in these United States of Left to maintain a sensible and principled position on gays and young people, is considering dropping its prohibition against gay scouts and gay scout leaders. Terrific. “Be prepared” may soon have an entire new dimension.
How long before, at the camp-fire of a future BSA outing, we will we hear, “Don’t bother Steve and Bill in their tent. They’re working on their safe sex merit badge”? And how long before a randy, straight Boy Scout, rumbling with the first urgings of puberty, asks to be billeted with the Girl Scouts over the weekend? And if BSA officials decide to enlist gays, how can they say no to this enterprising lad?
BSA has been under tremendous pressure over the past few years to get with it and throw gay and straight scouts and scoutmasters together, and not worry about the results. The organization has apparently finally given in to leftrifugal force, which, in our post-everything Western world, drives everything that is not welded to the ground to the left.
Below are some general observations on the National Review Institute Summit held in Washington, D.C. this past weekend on “The Future of Conservatism.”
Despite the setbacks that were experienced at the national level in 2012, there was a palpable sense among speakers and attendees that the Republican Party has a stronger bench heading into 2016. That much is for certain since there are 30 Republican governors, many of them right leaning, and many of them advancing innovative police solutions rooted in conservative ideas.
Go back over the past few decades, and it would seem governors typically make for compelling presidential candidates than U.S. Senators. Then again, those same U.S. Senators were weighed down by long-careers with public records that could be picked apart. Barack Obama broke the mold here; rising GOP stars like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul can too. Whoever does emerge will need to address the “demographic challenges” that also figured prominently in the discussion.
Here are a few of the highlights:
There was also a lot of discussion of media bias. But conservatism previously found expression when there was less parity in the media than there is today. The Republican governors, who were such a prominent part of the Summit, are not exactly media darlings yet they prevailed with conservative policies that connected with voters. I agree with that part about a deep bench.
MSNBC host Touré (born Touré Neblett) used the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision to tell the story of his abortion experience:
I was in a committed relationship with a woman who I knew was just not “the one.” She also knew it probably wasn’t going to work out. And then she got pregnant.
Right off the bat we see that Touré deploys a rather loose definition of the word “committed.” When two people are in a relationship and both acknowledge it’s not going to “work out” but they stay together anyway that’s not commitment, it’s convenience.
After a strong acknowledgement of the important role of intact families in raising children, Touré admits that he and his sexual partner were far too selfish to take up such a task together.
She decided to have an abortion and some days later she did. We did. And in some ways that choice saved my life. I was not then smart enough or man enough to build a family and raise a child and I only would’ve contributed to making a mess of three lives.
Splitting the rent with a f*** buddy? Good deal. Raising a child? No thanks. Better to end one life than complicate three.
In a twist, Touré admits that later he met a woman, married her, and made the decision to have a child. This time, he was into it — doctors, sonograms and all. The desire for a child created a child where before only inconvenient tissue had been. This was jarring for Touré.
It was a thrill to watch that boy grow inside her, but I must admit that during that second trimester as we watched him move around on 3-D sonograms I saw how human they are at that stage. My lifelong belief in abortion rights was, let’s say, jostled… I had to rethink my position.
The Boy Scouts of America has long been targeted by liberal groups playing the discrimination card over its membership restrictions. CBS News reports that the BSA is now reconsidering its stance on gay members.
Deron Smith, a spokesman for the BSA, said, “The policy change under discussion would allow the religious, civic, or educational organizations that oversee and deliver scouting to determine how to address this issue.”
The BSA reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays only last July. At the time, Smith said maintaining the ban was “absolutely the best policy” for the Boy Scouts.
Scouting officials will make a decision about the policy at a national board meeting next week.
I’ll be guest-hosting for Mike Rosen on Denver’s 850 KOA from 9 AM to noon (Mountain time, 11 AM to 2 PM Eastern time) on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, January 28-30.
If you can’t listen over the air, you can listen online at http://www.850koa.com
Please listen in, and you can join the conversation by calling 303.713.8585
The lack of presidential and Congressional leadership last year affected many industries, but K Street lobbying firms felt the impact directly.
As The Hill reports:
Washington’s lobbying corps bid good riddance to 2012 on Tuesday, reporting steep declines in their earnings after a year of posturing and gridlock on Capitol Hill. […]
“These guys [Congressmen] weren’t literally here,” remarked Rich Gold, head of the public policy and regulation practice for Holland & Knight, of a Congress that took long recesses to campaign, including a seven-week break before the election.
Compounding the woes for K Street, another steady stream of income — regulatory work — slowed considerably as the administration dialed back its rulemaking during President Obama’s reelection bid. […]
“We will not be back in the halcyon days of Obama’s first year in office, but its definitely going to be better than year three and year four,” Gold said.
A ceaseless regulatory state is what keeps guys like Gold in business. I’m inspired to point to Texas’ method of governing: part-time legislative sessions of 140 days every other year.
One of the original drafts of the Constitution specified that the Congress “shall meet on the first Monday in December every year,” a proposed requirement that became a source of debate on Aug. 7, 1787.
According to notes from the convention, James Madison asked why the Constitution specified such a minute detail. Rufus King of Massachusetts then said he “could not think there would be a necessity for a meeting every year. A great vice in our system was that of legislating too much. The most numerous objects of legislation belong to the States.”
Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania agreed, and argued that it was improper to require a Congressional meeting at least once a year. After all, “The public business might not require it.”
I’m not sure I would go that far. But if we eliminated full-time Congressmen and Senators, the ranks of those full-time lobbyists would surely dwindle.
Addressing a packed ballroom at the National Review Summit, Texas Senator Ted Cruz stood without a podium or notes. His rhetorical style, reminiscent of an evangelical minister, conveyed a clear and optimistic message regarding the future of the GOP.
“Tattoo these two words on your arm,” he said gesturing to his forearm. “Growth and opportunity.” Focusing on these inherently positive concepts, he claimed, would have a powerful impact on the electorate by demonstrating more effectively how Republican policies can improve social mobility and generate much needed revenue.
“I would love to double your taxes,” Ted quipped to an imaginary businessman, “after you have doubled your profits.”
Cruz also connected these terms to why he thought Republicans didn’t capture the White House in 2012. Republicans failed to win the argument by not showing how their policies aid the fateful “47% percent”. Focusing like a laser on “Opportunity Conservatism,” he predicted, would win over the youth vote as well as the much-discussed Hispanic vote.
To support this, Cruz cited internal polling of Hispanics in Texas that showed only a very small percentage put any emphasis on immigration reform, compared to the more than 50% that emphasized wealth creation. Regarding the youth vote, he relied on less data and more on his own experience. He claimed that young people are attracted to an optimistic leader and message, such as Ronald Reagan who they voted for overwhelmingly.
“We in Congress were mostly children when Reagan was president,” he explained, and therefore, in more ways than one, “We are the children of Reagan.”
As remnant groups of anti-abortion protestors straggled into Washington DC’s Metro tunnels yesterday afternoon, trying to figure out the foreign subway system and operate the complicated ticket machines with numb fingers, attendees at The National Review Summit were deciding whether it’s all worth it.
“Can politics be hospitable to life?” was the question debated by NR’s first panel as the 40th annual March for Life came to a close. This year’s march reportedly attracted a record-breaking 500,000 people, who, in spite of freezing temperatures and a president unprecedented in his blatant disregard for the unborn, gathered to show their continued rejection of the Roe v. Wade ruling.
The tone of the panelists was an optimistic one. Encouraging signs for the pro-life movement which the panel noted include: the youth and subsequent energy of today’s pro-lifers, the 40 years of science which further arguments made in favor of life, the fact that the conversation is still a relevant one, legislative victories, and challenges being made to Obama’s HHS mandate such as the Liberty University vs. Geithner lawsuit.
The panel agreed that to change the tide in favor of life, anti-abortion advocates must dispel the myth that abortion helps women. Abortion is not something women want, but is a last resort when coercion and abandonment prove too much. Women should be insulted by the left’s custom of simplifying females to little more than “reproductive units.”
Small victories for life are being made, the panelists noted, but until American culture changes significantly, and generations of “man-boys” are taught to protect and provide, the war on innocent life will continue.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?