CPAC 2013 - Senator Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas closed out the annual Conservative Political Action Conference by calling on the thousands of people in attendance to join him in standing up for the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Cruz also poked fun at Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who labeled him and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky as “wacko birds” because of the outspoken brand of politics they’ve brought to Capitol Hill.

“I have to admit when Rand and I first heard that we thought it was a new kind of drone, ” Mr. Cruz said. “But if standing for liberty and standing for the Constitution and standing for liberty makes me a wacko bird, then count me a proud wacko bird.”

Mr. Cruz’s closing remarks — in particular his jab at Mr. McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee — marked a fitting end to the three-day conference, which was billed as “America’s Future: The Next Generation of Conservatives — New Challenges, Timeless Principles.”

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Killing the Obamacare Zombie: Hope Lives!

“But Republican governors are folding like cheap lawn chairs,” you say. “And political eunuchs in the GOP establishment are bowing to Obama like he bows to foreign dictators. Any hope of repeal is long dead, and besides, Chief Justice John Roberts put the final nail in the judicial coffin last summer, didn’t he? Any chance of killing the Obamacare zombie is gone, right?”

Wrong.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media paid it little attention, but back in November the U.S. Supreme Court shocked many in the legal community by granting Liberty Counsel’s motion for a rehearing on its multi-pronged challenge to Obamacare. The high court ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments. This is extremely rare and means, almost certainly, that Chief Justice Roberts will get another bite at the rotten apple – this time, with a whole new quiver of legal arrows.

Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Liberty Counsel recently filed its brief in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner. The Christian civil rights firm represents Liberty University and two private individuals in this case. While there are other legal challenges to the employer contraceptive/abortifacient mandate, Liberty Counsel’s is the most comprehensive case pending in the country.
The lawsuit challenges:

1. ) the employer mandate for all employers;
2. ) the abortion mandate for religious employers;
3. ) the abortion mandate for individuals;
4. ) the entire law because tax bills must originate in the House and Obamacare originated in the Senate.

This case is the only one in the country that challenges the entire employer mandate for all employers. Like other pending cases, Liberty Counsel’s also challenges the so-called “Preventative coverage” mandate, which requires employers to provide free contraceptives, sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and IUDs, of which the latter two cause abortion.

Additionally, Obamacare compels individual citizens to violate their conscience by making them directly fund abortion homicide – both surgical and chemical – under penalty of law. It forces all employees who are part of a plan that offers abortion coverage to pay $1 per month directly to a “free” abortion fund. There is no opt-out provision, and information relative to which plans offer abortion is intentionally covered-up. This too is part of the case, so don’t let anyone tell you that Obamacare doesn’t require you to fund abortion on demand. If they do, they’re simply lying through their triple-grande-four-pump-hazelnut-mocha-stained teeth.

Finally, Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that Obamacare is invalid because, since it’s a tax – as the Supreme Court already ruled in June – it violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause. To pass constitutional muster, tax bills must originate in the House, not the Senate.

Before the Democrat-led Senate rammed it through in the dead of night, Christmas Eve 2009 – Senate President Harry Reid used a House bill unrelated to Obamacare, struck all the language and the title so that only the former HR number remained, and then inserted a new title and over 2,000 pages of job-killing, economy-crushing, health-care-rationing compost.

Sneaky? Yes. Typical? No doubt. Unconstitutional? Absolutely. It’s like dropping a Ford Pinto engine into a totaled Ferrari body, patching it up and then selling it to some unsuspecting dupe as a “brand new Ferrari.”

Unfortunately, America was that unsuspecting dupe.

Well, the jig’s up. The Constitution is unambiguous on this matter: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Const. art. I §7, cl. 1.

As Liberty Counsel’s brief notes, “Though denominated with a House bill number, the Act actually originated in the Senate, and therefore violates the Origination Clause.”

“Obamacare represents a frontal attack to religious freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Obamacare is a train about to collide with the fundamental right to free exercise of religion. Not only does Obamacare violate the rights of religious employers because of its abortion mandate, it violates the rights of individuals who oppose abortion and the rights of all employers, religious or not.

“And to boot,” continued Staver, “the entire law is invalid because tax bills must originate in the House, and Obamacare originated in the Senate.”

Yep, doctor shortages, medical-school dropouts, skyrocketing premiums, no money for pre-existing conditions, trillions more than promised, forced taxpayer funding of abortion, critical health-care rationing and a bankrupt nation.

Welcome to America’s fall.

Welcome to Obamacare.

Zombies eat brains. If they weren’t already dead, they’d most certainly starve to death on the squalid diet of grey matter served-up by Obama, Reid, Pelosi and every other cracked skull who voted to open the curtain on this unconstitutional Obamacare freak show.

Thankfully, Chief Justice Roberts, whom I strongly suspect regrets voting to uphold it, looks to have another chance to bury it once and for all.

I wonder if that was his strategy all along.

I sure hope so.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Americans for Prosperity - The Medicaid Funding Scam

Medicaid is a complex and burdensome system, covering 55 million low-income individuals, and costing taxpayers $400 billion per year. Find out how states work with providers to fleece federal taxpayers by using "provider taxes" as an excuse to increase funding.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - More Republican Governors Drink Medicaid Kool-Aid

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has become the eighth Republican governor to agree to expand Medicaid coverage in his state under the provisions of Obamacare.

Is the last line of Republican resistance to Obamacare disintegrating?

In 2011, 26 states joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the provision of Obamacare, which forced them to participate in expanding Medicaid coverage as a condition to continue to participate in the program.

The Supreme Court ruled in their favor last year, negating the mandatory requirement, so it is now voluntary for states to expand Medicaid coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office still estimates that expanded Medicaid coverage, though now voluntary rather than mandated on states, will contribute about a third of the reduction in the number of uninsured Americans brought about by Obamacare by 2022.

So it was assumed, once expansion of Medicaid became voluntary, that this was a line Republican governors would not cross. Refusal of Republican governors to play ball could be a serious setback for Obamacare to advance and plant its institutional roots.

But one by one, Republican governors like Christie, and just before him Florida’s Rick Scott, are playing ball.

Christie was graphically honest in describing the perverse dynamics going on.

“…I am no fan of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)…I think it is wrong for New Jersey and I think it is wrong for America…. However, it is now the law of the land and I will make all my judgments as Governor based on what I believe is best for New Jersey.”

By expanding the qualifying conditions for Medicaid, Obamacare opens the door, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimate, to adding another 11 million to the almost 68 million already in it.

Those 68 million are paid for by a combination of state and federal funds. However, as incentive to bring in the additional 11 million, the federal government is paying 100 percent of the costs for the first three years.

Christie and seven other Republican governors are agreeing to take the bait.

And Christie says, clear as a bell, that he is doing so even though he knows he is strengthening a program that is bad for his country.

Assume that Christie’s assessment is correct. Multiply by fifty and we can have fifty states agreeing to take a bribe to strengthen and advance a program that will hurt the country.

A classic explanation for why free markets produce prosperity and socialism does not is that individuals benefit in government run markets by taking from someone else. In free markets, individuals benefit as result of serving others, making everyone better off.

Medicaid violates basic management principles.

One, there is no clear institutional responsibility. It has grown through funding from both state and the federal government. Anyone who has ever run an organization knows that absence of clear responsibility produces bad results.

Medicaid spending has grown from .5 percent of GDP in 1970 to 2.7 percent of GDP in 2010 and according to Medicaid’s chief actuary, “From program inception, the cost of Medicaid has generally increased at a significantly faster pace than the U.S. economy.”

And there is no individual responsibility. Medicaid is a pure welfare program. Participants have 100 percent of their costs covered by the government. And once you have qualified, there is no time limit. There are no incentives to behave and spend efficiently.

The only direction of Medicaid is to spend more and more money less and less well.

Delivering health care to low income Americans is a real challenge. But to keep America great, we need to behave intelligently as well as compassionately. If we are going to subsidize health care for the poor, it should be through some kind of voucher to buy insurance. Not through welfare.

Meanwhile, the evil geniuses in Washington have devised a way to get even Republican governors to buy into a welfare program they know can only hurt our nation.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - Hobby Lobby and the Loss of America’s Soul

Originally posted at American Thinker

---

In America, established rights such as religious liberty and the right to bear arms are currently under attack. Liberals are in charge and they seem to feel that straightforward Constitutional precepts require alteration or eradication.

Take for instance the “right to privacy” – the left has had no problem broadening the meaning of “privacy” to include the right to kill an unborn child. As for religious liberty, unless you’re a Muslim demanding a Ramadan meal, liberals like Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor, rather than uphold religious liberty, facilitate Barack Obama’s effort to redefine the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Currently, Obamacare is ushering in a new definition of “religious liberty.” So far, the Catholic Church has already received fair warning that when it comes to providing insurance that covers birth control and abortion, there are limits on “religious liberty.” Moreover, they are also finding out that refusal to conform to progressive edicts could result in the federal government raining down fire and brimstone on the defiant.

So, in conjunction with the updated version of the “right to bear arms,” right about now liberals should provide a lexicon that defines religious liberty in the following way: The right for the government to demand, by law, that religious institutions be forced to support policies that contradict their core beliefs.

Take for example the Oklahoma-based companies craft store giant Hobby Lobby and booksellers Mardel Inc. In 2010 Hobby Lobby grossed $2.6 billion in sales, and employed 13,000 people in 455 outlets in 42 states.

Both companies are owned by Bible-believing Christian families who close up shop on the Sabbath and pay full-time employees a minimum wage of $11 per hour versus the federally required $7.25 minimum wage.

Currently, Hobby Lobby is the largest religiously-owned non-Catholic business to have filed a lawsuit against the HHS birth control directive. Yet, despite the fact that they’ve been founded and run on Christian principles, Oklahoma U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton ruled that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations and therefore subject to the federal birth control dictate.

Because the Christian-owned company maintains that the mandate “violates the religious beliefs for their owners,” it’s evident that Hobby Lobby must think “religious liberty” is defined in a way other than how it is being defined by liberals at this time.

Hobby Lobby maintains that the “morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman’s womb.” Therefore, “defy[ing] a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill” is the company’s way of staying true to its core convictions.

In the meantime, for failing to meet what she called “the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief,”Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied a request for an injunction while the Hobby Lobby lawsuit is pending. If the injunction were granted that would have prevented the birth control mandate from beginning on January 1st.

Because it was denied, until the lawsuit reaches the lower courts, Hobby Lobby had better submit to the HHS mandate or, starting January 1, 2013, figure out a way to come up with $1.3 million a day in IRS excise taxes.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case, if government can now force Christians to pay for insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, shouldn’t they also require other religiously-based businesses like Halal food markets to sell foodstuffs considered haram? After all, in the words of the Honorable Joe Heaton, a food market is not a religious organization. Right?

Attorney Kyle Duncan of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty speaking for Hobby Lobby said the company would continue to “provide health insurance to all qualified employees.” But while its lawsuit is pending, the company does not intend to offer health insurance that provides pharmaceuticals that induce spontaneous abortion.

On behalf of Hobby Lobby, maybe Duncan should point out that the $3.75 per hour over and above the $7.25 per hour the Christian-run business’s full-time employees would be earning if they worked 40 hours a week elsewhere comes to $150 extra per week, which should be more than enough money to purchase emergency birth control.

Despite facing millions in fines, the noncompliant Hobby Lobby and Mardel Inc. CEO and founder David Green refuses to surrender the companies’ religious convictions. Green has said he’d rather abandon the business. A $2.2 billion-a-year company that is willing to close itsdoors rather than compromise its core principles? Now that’s impressive.

Green maintains that Hobby Lobby, “[b]y being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith, or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow. We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.” Sounds like Hobby Lobby’s David Green believes verbatim the Scripture verse that asks “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?”

In the end it is clear that Hobby Lobby’s CEO is more concerned about his standing before God than his standing in the business world, hence proving that in their effort to gain the world, liberals’ redefinition of “religious liberty” forfeits our nation’s soul.

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Ted Cruz - Meet the Press - Political Round Table

NBC's David Gregory hosts the Political Round Table panel comprised of: Ted Cruz - Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate in Texas; Kasim Reed (D) - Mayor of Atlanta, GA; E.J. Dionne - Columnist for the Washington Post; Peggy Noonan - Columnist for the Wall Street Journal, and Chuck Todd - Political Director for NBC News. Today's Topics: The Paul Ryan effect on the tone of the campaign, Medicare, and VP Joe Biden's gaffes.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

PJTV Trifecta - You Will Have ObamaCare, But Will You Have a Physician?

Sure you will have insurance under ObamaCare, but you might not have a doctor. The nation faces an imminent shortage of physicians. Will doctors simply stop taking insurance and Medicare? Can government cure this problem, or did government create the doctor shortage? Find out on this Trifecta.

Related Article - Click Below.
22 Year Old Kane Gorny died of Dehydration in a Hospital

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Angela McGlowan - Santita Jackson - Sean Hannity - Romney and the NAACP

Governor Mitt Romney addresses the NAACP Convention in Houston, and in spite of some boo's when he mentions his plans to repeal Obamacare if elected, he also receives plenty of cheers and a standing ovation by the end of his speech. FNC's Sean Hannity sits down with Angela McGlowan and Santita Jackson to weigh in on exactly what happened and why.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Katie Pavlich - "This IS a tax!" - War on Obamacare

"Obama broke his promise to the American people" says Katie Pavlich - Author of 'Fast and Furious' and News-Editor for Townhall.com in regards to the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold Obamacare leading to the biggest tax hike in American history. Ryan Lizza - CNN Contributor; and Charles Blow - Op-Ed Columnist for NY Times weigh in with their opinions as well. Things get extremely heated starting at the 10:00 mark of this video segment.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

PolitiChicks - Can ObamaCare Be Repealed? Jenny Beth Martin and PolitiChicks

Jenny Beth Martin, Tea Party Patriots Co-Founder, updates PolitiChicks on the resounding success of the recent 'Road to Repeal' Rally in Washington DC, and discusses why the Supreme Court will likely repeal Obamacare.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Are We Still Serious About Our Republic

"...Are you serious?"

Those are three simple words that form one simple question. And the question has led us to this moment in time.

Recall in October of 2009, when then-Speaker of the U.S House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi was asked about the formulation of the Obamacare bill, and she asked that very question of a reporter. “Madam Speaker,” a reporter from CNSNews.com said to her, “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Ms. Pelosi seemed surprised. Her indignant “are you serious?” response was followed with a slight bit of nervous laughter, as she then repeated herself. “Yes,” the reporter answered Ms. Pelosi, “yes I am."

Pelosi’s Press Secretary Nadeam Elshami stated that the reporter’s inquiry was “not a serious question,” Pelosi shook her head in disbelief, and they both moved on to address another reporter, completely ignoring the question about “constitutionality.”

And after ignoring concerns about constitutionality for over three years, Democrats are now watching the Administration of their party Leader, Barack Obama, struggling to answer serious questions before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The left’s disregard for the limitations of government has been apparent for decades – President Obama himself was on record years before his election lamenting that the Constitution only stipulates what the government cannot do to you, instead of specifying what the government should do for you.

But now a moment of truth is staring all Americans in the face, as the Supreme Court will soon determine if the government can force you to buy something, along with determining whether or not the distinction between “citizen” and “non citizen” (as in Arizona’s illegal immigration law) matters any longer. As President Obama’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright once famously said, “America’s chickens… are comin’ home to roost..”

The fact is that when Presidents and members of Congress dismiss the Constitution as Mr. Obama and his party have, the only thing standing between the individual citizen and the raw, brutal force of governmental power is the Supreme Court itself. The American founders understood some things about the history of the world, as it existed leading up to our nation’s birth, and they recognized the natural human tendency of those in power to control and ultimately brutalize those beneath them. This is why our Constitution stipulates that we are governed by three co-equal branches of government (not just one or two), and why those branches intentionally create a “check and balance” between each other.

So what if the Supreme Court says that Barack Obama is wrong? What if the Justices collectively determine that our government cannot force the individual citizen to buy something, and that the distinction between being a citizen and an illegal immigrant is real? The Democrats would prefer a Supreme Court stacked with Obama appointees, who would then presumably approve of everything that Obama wants, but (thankfully) they haven’t achieved this yet.

If Democrats must campaign for the final months of this year’s election against a backdrop of Obama failures at the Supreme Court, we may see a well-financed P.R. assault against the Supreme Court Justices themselves. History provides a lesson about this matter, becausePresident Obama is not the first White House occupant to desire more power than the Constitution allows.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, angered when the Supreme Court overturned some of his “new deal” (read “big government”) programs that he believed were unquestionably necessary to save the country, famously began maligning the Justices of the Supreme Court, publicly labeling them as the “9 Old Men.” Additionally, as a means of overcoming the “separation of powers” obstacle, he proposed to “reform” the old, antiquated Supreme Court system by adding up to six new justices – justices that would all be selected and appointed by himself.

Thankfully FDR didn’t get his way. The Congress rejected his court reform legislative proposal (the checks-and-balances phenomenon worked again), and the American people took a dim view of Roosevelt trying to circumvent the Constitution.

But that was the America of 1937. Today, it’s not difficult to imagine that President Obama could curry the favor of millions of Americans, if he chose to campaign against the Justices who may vote to overturn his all-important “Obamacare” law.

Who would stand with Obama in a campaign of Supreme Court bashing? Start with the entire AFL-CIO. Then add the entire “occupy” movement, and the burgeoning “99% Spring” uprising, and eventually one could include all the prevailing powers of the Democrat Party.

Put them all together, and you’ve got a critical mass of Americans who neither care nor understand a wit about history, “limited government,” the U.S Constitution, or the Separation of Powers. They want “stuff” – “free” healthcare, education, or whatever – and they want raw power in Washington to deliver that stuff to citizen and non-citizen alike, and by whatever means.

So is America serious about a constitutional government? Many of us are far more serious about receiving “things” from our government than the idea of a constitutional republic.

Depending on how the high court rules this summer, we may see Democrats campaigning on an agenda of “constitutional and judicial reform” before November arrives.

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Barack Obama, The Road We Really Traveled

Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle skewer and parody Barack Obama's "Road We Traveled" campaign video. Sponsored by Free Enterprise Alliance's Halt The Assault project.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

PolitiChicks - Rep. Steve King at Road to Repeal Rally in DC

“If there’s anybody in America who has pounded on the repeal of ObamaCare persistently and relentlessly every day, it’s me,”
Rep. SteveKing.

King’s dedication to repealing ObamaCare comes from a principled standpoint. “I want a country full of liberty, and freedom. And our vitality is diminished by ObamaCare, that’s my Number One argument against it.”

The Democrats embracing of ObamaCare come from a worldview that is not in sync with the American people, according to King. First, he blames ObamaCare on the Democrats’ overarching philosophical goal of “creating dependency.” He said in all areas of government, the Democrats “want to expand the dependency class because that’s what expands their political support.”

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Barack Obama's Deceit, Lies and Obfuscations Coming Back to Haunt Him

It is a tad unfortunate that just days after the White House embraced the term "Obamacare" - previously regarded on the Left as a pejorative label - a majority of the nine Supreme Court justices have given strong indications they will rule it unconstitutional.

Even more ironic is that the justices, or five of them at least, look like they might force President Barack Obama back to the drawing board partly on the basis of the argument one Senator Obama made against then Senator Hillary Clinton in 2008.

At issue today was the so-called 'individual mandate" - the federal government's act of compelling Americans to buy health insurance. It is the centrepiece of the Affordable Health Care Act - aka Obamacare - which is the signature achievement of Obama's presidency thus far.

But back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: "A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it. And that's why my plan emphasises lowering costs."

In February 2008, he said that you could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home:

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

THP Videos - Barack Obama's Economy

Deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Michael Hichborn - Obamacare: Ending the Elderly

American Life League exposes the euthanasia agenda of the sponsors of HR 3200. Henry Waxman and co-sponsors John Dingell, George Miller, Peter Stark, and Frank Pallone all voted against a federal ban on use of drugs for physician assisted suicide. Not only that, Barack Obama equates physician-assisted suicide with "end of life issues" and the elderly.

ObamaCare 'Death Panels' Revisited - (September 2009)

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Obama's Attack On Religious Freedom - Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Joe Manchin on Fox News

Sens. Joe Manchin (D – W. Va.) and Marco Rubio (R – Fla.) made a joint appearance on Fox & Friends Thursday morning, and before they could even get a word in to start the interview, host Gretchen Carlson began raving about the duo agreeing to appear together.

“Wow, fantastic!” Host Gretchen Carlson exclaimed. “I’m seeing a Republican and Democrat standing next to each other in the same shot. Good morning to both of you! That’s a new revelation in the world we’ve been living in in the last couple of years.”

“There’s more of us than you think,” Manchin said.

Carlson began by asking Manchin why he decided to join forces with Rubio to try to get rid of the mandate. Manchin first explained that it shouldn’t be a political issue, then told Carlson that he had done everything he could in trying to talk the White House out of issuing the mandate.

“I thought it was wrong and encroachment on religious freedom and [the] Constitution, and that’s really what it should be,” he explained. “Marco and I — you know, there are more of us that are working together on common issues and what we think moves this country forward than just playing politics.”

Rubio agreed that it’s a Constitutional issue. “This is a very straightforward concept,” he said. “Here’s the question: should the federal government have the power to go in and tell a religion that it has to pay for something that the religion teaches is wrong? It’s a very simple question. And I think the answer to that is ‘no.’” Rubio added that President Obama, “should have followed the advice of Vice President Biden…who told him not to do this.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Star Parker - The Declaration of Independence Defines Our Principles

It is encouraging news that the Supreme Court has decided to consider the constitutionality of key provisions of Obamacare.

By the end of next summer we’ll know if the federal government can force individuals to buy health insurance and if they can force states to comply with a newly expanded Medicaid program.

Professor Walter Russell Mead blogs that in the debates to ratify the Constitution, it was considered a weakness “that important laws could be passed and would operate for some time before people knew whether they were legal…”

He points out that there are more clever ways that forced purchase of insurance could have been constructed by Obamacare drafters that would have made it less vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.

But is that really the point?

Is it not sad that the most fundamental aspects of our ability to live as a free people boil down these days to how nine Supreme Court justices choose to read and interpret a word or phrase?

Is it not sad that most basic violations of individual liberty are not intuitively obvious to so many citizens and members of Congress?

Or perhaps even sadder, that liberty may no longer be the objective?

It so happens that this is the anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, delivered November 19, 1863 – one hundred forty eight years ago.

Lincoln opened the address with his famous “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty…..”

His point of reference defining the vision of the nation was 1776 – The Declaration of Independence.

One hundred years after the Gettysburg address, Dr. King stood in front of Lincoln’s statue and gave his most famous speech, and the words he chose to quote also were those of the Declaration, about the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to review Obamacare, a lot of jokes are circulating recalling how cavalier then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats were regarding the constitutionality of what they were doing.

But regardless of how they may or may not have thought about how the words of the Constitution might justify what became Obamacare, it would be impossible to justify such actions through the lens of the ideals of liberty stated in the Declaration.

To suggest that a nation “conceived in Liberty” can tolerate a handful of Washington bureaucrats telling several hundred million citizens what health insurance is and forcing them to buy it is beyond absurd.

Perhaps what the ongoing saga of American history is about is the struggle to understand and apply our operating manual – our Constitution – in a manner consistent with the principles of our nation’s founding.

We, of course, began day one off track by rationalizing slavery into the Constitution.

The evidence today is we have a long way to go to align with those founding principles. A good start would be to even think about them and see them as relevant.

If we did, there is no way Obamacare would have passed.

Nor would we have concluded that our financial crisis was caused by too much freedom rather than too much government. Now we’ve hamstrung our whole financial services sector with ill conceived new laws while the government backed entities that caused the whole thing – Fannie and Freddie – remain standing unscathed, still sucking up billions of taxpayer funds and paying their executives million dollar bonuses.

How about a government that wastes hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds in uneconomic “clean energy” ventures and then rejects a pipeline project that would deliver millions of barrels of oil, create tens of thousands of jobs, and their only request from government is a permit?

It’s obvious what’s wrong today. We’ve either forgotten what being American means, or we no longer care.

Star Parker

---

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

ObamaCare Heads to the Supremes - Should Justice Kagan Recuse Herself?

Justice Elena Kagan was Obama's Solicitor General and even cheered the passage of ObamaCare. Should she recuse herself from hearing any arguments on Obama's health care law so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety? Hear what the Trifecta gang thinks.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Star Parker - Sexual Responsibility and Fiscal Responsibility Go Hand in Hand

Originally Published October 21, 2011.

Last week the House passed with bi-partisan support the Protect Life Act, which amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to assure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortion. It also assures that health care providers which do not wish to provide abortions are not forced to by government.

The bill’s Republican sponsor, Joe Pitts (R-PA), had co-sponsored essentially the same amendment along with then-congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), when Obamacare was in the making in 2009.

Because a similar provision was not in the Senate version of the bill, and had no prospect of making it through the Senate, Stupak stood as a major obstacle to the passage of Obamacare.

In the end, the ways of Washington prevailed, and Stupak caved to pressure from the White House. He agreed to support the health care bill without his anti-abortion provision, in exchange for President Obama issuing an executive order prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions in health care provided in the framework of Obamacare.

An executive order is a flimsy substitute for law, thus Rep. Pitt found another pro-life Democrat, Dan Lipinski (D-IL), to co-sponsor his amendment, which has now passed the House 251-172.

However Pitt’s new bill faces the same prospects as the amendment that he co-sponsored with Stupak in 2009. Its chances of passage in the Senate are remote.

So why bother?

After the bill passed, I was asked on a PBS talk show, To the Contrary, if Republicans were being frivolous in taking up congressional floor time to deal with abortion when what Americans want today is congressional action on the economy.

My response was “no, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and actually in light of Obamacare, it is critical for lawmakers to protect healthcare workers and hospitals with a conscience clause.

In fact, the attention that the bill has gotten in the short time since it passed the House indicates that the level of interest in abortion, and the potential use of taxpayer funds for it, remains high.

Two high post Democrats – former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Democratic National Committee chairperson - issued statements criticizing the bill shortly after it passed.

According to Pelosi, the provision assuring that health care providers, including hospitals, are not forced to provide abortions, even thought they receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, means “that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene.”

Wasserman Schultz said “This extreme legislation is dangerous for women’s health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis facing American families.”

Liberals love to frame the killing of developing humans as being about women’s lives, health, and rights.

But, according to the Center for Disease Control, about 3% of abortions are performed for reasons of a woman’s health. Abortions that are performed because a woman’s life is in danger amount to a fraction of one percent. That leaves more that 96% for convenience with some 50% repeat customers.

Regarding abortion, the liberal agenda is really about two things. One, an alleged right to sexual promiscuity and two, an alleged right to have others bear social and financial responsibility for that promiscuity.

Fortunately, a sizeable part of the American population doesn’t see things this way. And, fortunately, a sizeable part of our population remains in awe of the miracle of life and our responsibilities toward all aspects of life, both in and outside of the womb.

It doesn’t take that much thought to realize the fallacious thinking that suggests that matters of economy and matters of morality have nothing to do with each other.

The “right to abortion” culture is simply a subset of the entitlement culture, the culture that says your life is about making claims on others rather than personal responsibility.

Disrespect for life and disrespect for property go hand in hand. We can’t divorce our sexual promiscuity from our fiscal promiscuity. Restoring personal responsibility in both areas is what we need today to get our nation back on track.

Star Parker

---

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---