Won’t Back Down

Bachmann: A Woman Among Spineless Men

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann has taken heat and ridicule lately due to her adamant claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is and has been infiltrating the halls of American government. And while Bachmann is not alone in her claims (four other Republican representatives have made similar accusations), she is taking the largest portion of the backlash. Never one to back down from a fight, Bachmann continues to encourage others to follow the same paper trail that she did by simply reading the documentation. She, of all people, should know that Americans don’t read, especially once they are elected to political office.

Turning Reagan’s famous phrase, “Trust, but verify,” on its head, most modern congressmen—including the consistently disappointing John McCain—have adopted a “Don’t Trust, Don’t Verify” philosophy when it comes to potentially controversial topics. Bachmann should be credited as one of the few willing to take the road less travelled and stand her ground on this and many other hot-button political issues. Why does it take a woman to show the men how to do their jobs? If what she is claiming is so demonstrably false, why can’t one of these congressional seat-fillers show the evidence to back up their claims, rather than simply trying to dismiss Bachmann with a wave of their magical (and limp-wristed) hand?

One of the few to actually respond to Bachmann, albeit ineffectively, was fellow Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison. Ellison has the distinction of being one of only two (professing) Muslim congressmen, gaining infamy years ago by swearing into office on a Koran instead of a Bible. Ellison’s response to Bachmann deliberately added words to a State Department letter in order to water down the force of Bachmann’s argument. Bachmann’s response, which was apparently read only by her own staff, doesn’t allow Ellison’s wordplay to stand. However, political correctness demands that Bachmann must be wrong, so facts really have nothing to do with the “truth” of the situation.

What is distressing about this whole affair is not the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood may be gaining access to American government thanks to the State Department. Let’s face it; this has been happening for years, well before Hillary Clinton took charge. What is really disturbing is that 530 congressmen out of 535 are unwilling to investigate the claims. What this means is that the Republican majority in the House (not to mention the whole of Republican senators) is, in reality, meaningless.

This is a presidential election year and conservatives are foaming at the mouth and doing everything they can to get rid of Obama, meanwhile the vast majority of Republican congressmen are unmoved by documented claims that people with connections to a known terrorist organization are receiving high-level access and security clearance. Apparently Obama isn’t the only threat to America. Conservatives should be putting just as much effort into vacating 530 chairs in Congress as they have been putting into replacing Obama. It will matter little to have removed Obama from office without also removing every other congressman who values political correctness over political truth.

Attribution:

Bill of Goods

During every election cycle, virtually every Republican candidate affirms his or her support for limited government, free markets, and balanced budgets.  They all tout their conservative credentials on the flashy flag-waving issues of the day in an effort to ingratiate themselves with Republican primary voters.  However, it is the “inside baseball” issues such as the farm bill that expose many of them as frauds.

Put simply, the farm bill is anathema to free enterprise, limited government, and individual responsibility.  The House version (H.R. 6083) authorizes $957 billion in spending over 10 years, 80% of which will go towards food stamps.  Despite erroneous claims in the media regarding severe cuts to food stamps, this bill actually consummates the Obama-era baseline into our entitlement empire forever.

Furthermore, this bill adds an additional 3 crop insurance and price support programs that distort the market, encourage risky behavior, protect parochial interests, and are tendentious towards large farms.  This bill also continues the egregious coddling of rich sugar farmers and the dairy supply regulations that you so aptly referred to as “Soviet style.”

Unfortunately, a bipartisan group of 38 Republicans and 24 Democrats, led by Reps. Kristi Noem (R-SD) and Peter Welch (D-VT), have sent all of congress a letter requesting floor consideration for this big-government, budget-busting monstrosity.  If Republicans allow this bill to pass the House and become law under Republican-control of Congress, they will essentially be abrogating all their campaign promises to limit government, terminate special interest politics, decrease dependency and welfare, and balance the budget.  In one fell swoop, they will blur the distinction between the two parties to the extent that they are virtually indistinguishable.

This is not the message we need to telegraph to loyal Republican voters ahead of a crucial election.  Moreover, if we are going to continue the bond between urban and rural special interests, we will never wean dependency from the broad populace – even among those in conservative states.  If we are going to continue imposing Soviet-style intervention in red states, and elect representatives from those localities who support such odious policies, where are we going to implement free market policies and elect conservatives?  From blue America?

Let’s win this election decisively by standing on the bold free market, limited government principles that buoyed the Republican majority into power in 2010.  Then, after assuming control of all branches of government, we can pursue new policies from a position of strength.

Let’s begin by decoupling food stamp spending from agriculture programs so we can break the indissoluble bond between multiple special interest groups.  We understand that food stamps and agriculture programs will not disappear overnight, but we must recognize their deleterious effects on our economy, free markets, and self respect.  And it must be our ultimate goal to phase out and wind down these programs in an effort to restore our Constitutional Republic to the entity that it was when originally conceived.

Please reject all calls to bring this bill to the floor during this Congress.  Now is the time for us to stand on principle.

***Here are the members who took a leadership role in pushing the Speaker to radically expand the size of government:***

Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Robert Schilling (R-Ill.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), Bill Owens (D-N.Y.), Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), Tim Walz (D-Minn.), Austin Scott (R-Ga.), Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), David Loebsack (D-Iowa), Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Rick Berg (R-N.D.), Larry Kissell (D-N.C.), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Gregorio Sablan (D-MP), Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), Sam Graves (R-Ga.), Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), Jeff Landry (R-La.), Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.), Martha Roby (R-Ala.), Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), Tom Latham (R-Iowa), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Sanford Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Dan Benishek (R-Mich.), Billy Long (R-Mo.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), Charles Boustany Jr. (R-La), Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Candice Miller (RMich).

Attribution: Unknown

Who Needs Enemies…

Republican Surrenderists for Obamacare

by: Michelle Malkin

During the summer of 2009, conservative activists turned up the heat on Democratic politicians to protest the innovation-destroying, liberty-usurping Obamacare mandate. In the summer of 2012, it’s squishy Republican politicians who deserve the grassroots flames.

In case you hadn’t heard, even if the Supreme Court overturns the progressives’ federal health care juggernaut, prominent GOP leaders vow to preserve its most “popular” provisions. These big-government Republicans show appalling indifference to the dire market disruptions and culture of dependency that Obamacare schemes have wrought.

GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three Obamacare regulatory pillars: federally imposed coverage of “children” up to age 26 on their parents’ health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded “slacker mandate”), federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue,” which leads to an adverse-selection death spiral) and closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the “donut hole fix” that will obliterate the program’s cost-controls).

Some Republicans are even trying to out-Obama Obamacare. GOP Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio is pushing a proposal to increase the mandatory coverage age for dependents to age 31. And once a fire-breathing dragon for repeal, GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee hem-hawed when asked by the liberal Talking Points Memo website whether Republicans would be introducing specific bills to preserve the guaranteed issue and slacker mandate provisions.

“Well, I think we need to be prepared,” Alexander told TPM. “And we will be prepared.”

How about getting informed? As I reported while the Obamacare backroom wheeling-dealing was going on, some 20 states already had passed legislation requiring insurers to cover adult children before the federal rule was imposed, and nearly 20 others were already on the expensive path toward doing so. In New Jersey, Wisconsin and elsewhere, these top-down benefits mandates were among key factors driving up the cost of insurance and limiting access instead of expanding it.

Fortunately for fiscal conservatives, GOP Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina still has his head screwed on straight. Last week, he blasted GOP enablers of the welfare state. He notes that “multiple studies have suggested that every 1 percent increase in premiums increases the number of uninsured by approximately 200,000 to 300,000 individuals nationwide.” The slacker mandate has raised premiums by at least 1 percent since it was enacted, DeMint adds, meaning “that hundreds of thousands of individuals have lost coverage — because they were priced out of the individual market, or because their employers decided to stop offering coverage — as a result of the new requirements.”

This is no textbook hypothetical. No less than the Service Employees International Union Local 1199 — one of Obamacare’s biggest cheerleaders — dropped health care coverage for children in late 2010 because of costly mandates, including, you guessed it, the slacker mandate. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible,” the SEIU 1199 benefits managers wrote in a letter to more than 30,000 families, “and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Chris Jacobs, senior analyst for the Senate Joint Economic Committee, points to a new study by the left-leaning Commonwealth Fund that reveals that the benefits of the slacker provision have “disproportionately accrued to affluent and wealthy families.” Moreover, this unfunded mandate is fostering greater dependency — and providing employment disincentives — by encouraging high numbers of young adults to reject other forms of insurance in order to take advantage of “free” parental coverage.

Where does presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney stand? Despite repeated assurances that he will abandon Obamacare in its entirety, Romney is surrounded by GOP socialized medicine helpmates. In January, Romney adviser Norm Coleman said, “(We’re) not going to repeal the act in its entirety … you can’t whole cloth throw it out.”

Earlier this month, Romney named former Utah GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt his transition leader. Leavitt supports and has profited handsomely from Obamacare’s health care exchange mandate. Then there’s the Romneycare mandate in Massachusetts, conceived by Obamacare architect and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, which includes the very same slacker mandate provision enshrined in the Democrats’ law.

Who needs enemies when you’ve got Republican Surrenderists for Obamacare waiting in the wings?

We Must be LOST

by:  

Just like a horror movie series, evil-minded Soviet-era treaties just keep coming back to life, aided by their acolytes in the United States Senate.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and mate of the Heinz ketchup fortune, last week decided to revisit the aptly named Law of the Sea Treaty — or LOST.

This treaty was originally rejected by President Reagan, but the LOST agenda has been lurking around the corridors of the United Nations ever since.

The treaty, which was endorsed by the former Soviet Union, would reduce our military power, rob us of rights over our own coastal resources, subject U.S. actions in international waters to the authority of foreign countries and submit our country to an international taxing agency that would “redistribute” our wealth to other nations, including some of our enemies.

Naturally, the liberals like it. And by liberals I mean not just Democrats but some of the RINOs hiding in the GOP camp, such as the five living Republican secretaries of state, from Kissinger to Rice.

The best reasons conjured for approving LOST include joining the international community in regulating the seas, “having a seat at the table” to negotiate rights over resources and having legal recourse should other nations violate our rights. Most incredibly, promoters of this treaty seem to think we’ll believe it increases our national security.

First, joining the international community to regulate the seas: We can already do that without the United Nations being given authority over us. It’s called diplomacy and negotiation.

Having a seat at the table: Unless you’re talking about an invitation to a gourmet feast or at least Thanksgiving dinner, a seat at the table isn’t worth much. Easy marks have a seat at the table, then they get taken for everything they’re worth and dumped in a back alley for their trouble.

Legal recourse against other nations that violate our rights: We have that already, again without the U.N. It’s called the United States military –and it’s a lot more effective than a pronouncement from some international courtroom.

As for increasing our national security, only a liberal could think that joining a treaty that requires us to give away secrets and our best technology to foreign nations that may use it against us is a way to secure the country.

The biggest stupidity of this treaty, however, is its granting of taxing authority to a Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority, especially at a time when the U.S. economy is suffering under its third year of recession. To raise taxes now would drive a stake through American businesses and the middle class.

The LOST convention represents a complete violation of the trust voters put in their representatives. Naturally, President Obama is already on board. Conservative voters need to tell their Senators to vote against it and keep LOST from being ratified.

Sieg Barry!

Is the Obama Administration Using Gestapo Tactics?

By: Gary DeMar at Godfather Politics:

Here’s the way politics works: Liberals overreach and conservatives compromise. In the end Liberals win. Liberals will propose a ten percent tax increase, and Republicans will settle for five, the very number Democrats hoped to get. It might take Liberals longer to get to their goal, but they know that eventually they’ll reach it. They can always count on Republicans to compromise.

What’s true on taxes is also applies to religion. There’s a provision in the health care law which requires religious employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. John Boehner called the rule “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country. If the president does not reverse the department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must,” Boehner said.

Then there’s the accusation that military chaplains were forbidden to read a letter to military personnel about the mandate. Now we’re hearing that the controversy may have been “overblown.”

Did the Obama Administration purposely overreach figuring that the Republicans will broker a compromise? The Administration will get some of what it wants, set a precedent, and the Republicans will leave the negotiating table declaring victory that they were able to get some concessions. In the end, new regulations will force the church to comply with some of the regulations or face sanctions. Republicans will say that the church needs to compromise. Liberals will come back for more at a later time. They won’t stop until they silence the church. We’ve seen this before.

When German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) used his pulpit to expose Adolf Hitler’s radical politics, “He knew every word spoken was reported by Nazi spies and secret agents.”[1] Leo Stein describes in his book I Was in Hell with Niemoeller how the Gestapo gathered evidence against Niemoeller:

Now, the charge against Niemoeller was based entirely on his sermons, which the Gestapo agents had taken down stenographically. But in none of his sermons did Pastor Niemoeller exhort his congregation to overthrow the Nazi regime. He merely raised his voice against some of the Nazi policies, particularly the policy directed against the Church. He had even refrained from criticizing the Nazi government itself or any of its personnel. Under the former government his sermons would have been construed only as an exercise of the right of free speech. Now, however, written laws, no matter how explicitly they were worded, were subjected to the interpretation of the judges.[2]

In a June 27, 1937 sermon, Niemoeller made it clear to those in attendance had a sacred duty to speak out on the evils of the Nazi regime no matter what the consequences: “We have no more thought of using our own powers to escape the arm of the authorities than had the Apostles of old. No more are we ready to keep silent at man’s behest when God commands us to speak. For it is, and must remain, the case that we must obey God rather than man.”[3] A few days later, he was arrested. His crime? “Abuse of the pulpit.”

The “Special Courts” set up by the Nazis made claims against pastors who spoke out against Hitler’s policies. Niemoeller was not the only one singled out by the Gestapo. “Some 807 other pastors and leading laymen of the ‘Confessional Church’ were arrested in 1937, and hundreds more in the next couple of years.”[4]

A group of Confessional Churches in Germany, founded by Pastor Niemoeller and other Protestant ministers, drew up a proclamation to confront the political changes taking place in Germany that threatened the people “with a deadly danger. The danger lies in a new religion,” the proclamation declared. “The church has by order of its Master to see to it that in our people Christ is given the honor that is proper to the Judge of the world . . . The First Commandment says ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ The new religion is a rejection of the First Commandment.”[5] Five hundred pastors who read the proclamation from their pulpits were arrested.

Notes:
1.Basil Miller, Martin Niemoeller: Hero of the Concentration Camp, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1942), 112. [↩]

2.Leo Stein, I Was in Hell with Niemoeller (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1942), 175. [↩]

3.Quoted in William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 239. [↩]

4.Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 239. [↩]

5.Quoted in Eugene Davidson, The Trials of the Germans: An Account of the Twenty-Two Defendants before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, [1966] 1997), 275.