Grand Theft Obama: The Biggest Heist in U.S. History

Photo Credit: APOur nation is being stolen before our very eyes. The American people are being robbed of their livelihoods, their security and their freedom. President Obama makes grand sweeping gestures and delivers soaring rhetoric about helping the poor and achieving fairness. But he merely draws our attention away from the hand that is reaching deep into our pockets. Such is the nature of his extremist legislative agenda. Call it Grand Theft Obama, but it is no video game; this is for real.

And it is not merely monetary theft, as is apparent from Obamacare. America is being fundamentally transformed, as Obama promised. This is one promise that he clearly intends to keep, no matter how many people lose their health insurance policies, their jobs, or their productive futures.

Even the liberal media have been forced to acknowledge President Obama’s lies regarding the Affordable Care Act, especially the whopper about being able to keep your own health insurance policy.

Consider what we have learned so far as the lies are being exposed:

Despite repeatedly being told we could keep our healthcare plans and doctors, the White House estimated three years ago that 93 million people would lose their plans. Obama knew this and has been lying about it all along.

Obamacare provides millions of dollars to leftwing community organizers, including ACORN descendants. A radical illegal alien is running the NYC Obamacare “navigator” program.

Rather than provide healthcare, the Obamacare website is being used to boost low-income Democrat voter registration. Election integrity activists have called it “The biggest voter registration fraud scheme in history.” The Soros-funded Demos has bragged that Obamacare exchanges will register “68 million people to vote.”

Progressive activist Jeanne Lambrew, now in charge of Obamacare implementation, traded confidential taxpayer information with the IRS.

While some of this is now being discussed and debated, the revelations come three years after the passage of the health care legislation. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi famously said they would have to pass the legislation to find out what was in it, but the media should not have used that same excuse. They failed in their jobs to uncover the hidden costs and real agenda. They failed, in other words, to do their jobs.

Simply put, they took Obama at his word—that he just wanted to help the poor. His actual agenda was political power.

For the most part, until the Obamacare lies became a national story, Obama was aided and abetted in this process by the institutionally corrupt and ideologically driven mass media. They attack, smear, and assassinate the character of anyone with the gall to speak the truth. Today’s media do not provide information, but misinformation. As Pat Caddell famously said, the mainstream media have literally become the “enemy of the American people.”

For modern-day progressives, lying is not merely something one does to avoid getting caught, lying is tradecraft. Thus our President lies. But these are no ordinary lies; they are grand, sweeping, all-encompassing lies. He says exactly the opposite of truth, consistently, to confuse people, and tops it off by accusing his opponents of doing what he does.

This may sound harsh, but Obamacare provides the proof.

Media Malpractice

During the 2008 election one commenter stated, “It’s like running against God. The media have anointed him.” Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe claimed 90 percent of the media were behind Obama. This was reflected in the unwillingness of the major media, such as The Washington Post, to subject candidate Obama to elementary vetting. Hence, his relationship with Communist Frank Marshall Davis and backing from the Democratic Socialists of America were topics considered off-limits. Even some conservatives in the media thought Obama would turn out to be a centrist.

The important film “Media Malpractice” catalogs the breathtaking conspiracy of media advocacy for Barack Obama during the 2008 election.

This may be changing, judging by media reporting on the Obamacare lies and the belated coverage by the CBS “60 Minutes” program of the official lies about what caused the Benghazi terror attacks.

Shutdown Police State Tactics

To understand how lies drive the administration’s policies and agenda, consider the coverage of the recent government “shutdown.” From what you probably heard in the media, Republicans forced the government shutdown. Actually, Republicans provided funding for most government activities except the problematic Obamacare. Obama orchestrated the shutdown to pin blame on Republicans and improve chances for Democrats to retake the House of Representatives in 2014. With media help, the strategy worked perfectly.

Unlike previous shutdowns, agencies got specific orders to “make life as difficult for people as we can.” In many cases this actually cost the government more than if they left things running. Breitbart compiled a list of 47 outrages the Obama administration committed to pressure Republicans, while Obama consistently refused to negotiate. This list included:

1. Suspending Treatments for Children Suffering From Cancer
2. Barricading the World War II Memorial
3. Blocking sports and entertainment programming to overseas troops
4. Closing the Vietnam Memorial and Overseas Memorials
5. Closing base exchanges but leaving the Andrews Golf Course open for Obama
6. Forcing residents out of private homes
7. Locking Yellowstone tourists in hotel rooms under armed guard
8. Closing 1,100 square miles of Florida ocean to fishing
9. Closing private businesses on federal land
10. Attempting to block people from even LOOKING at Mt. Rushmore

Finally, Obama furloughed intelligence operatives, putting our entire nation at risk, according to his own Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

When protests over one aspect of the shutdown, the barricades in front of the monuments, became too impossible to ignore, the media smeared the protesters. Leftist “comedian” Bill Maher said, “[WW II veterans are] the greatest generation—nobody said they were the brightest generation.” Radio host Bill Press called veterans of the Million Vets March “Idiots.” Meanwhile Democrats called Republicans everything including jihadists, arsonists, blackmailers, and terrorists running around with bombs strapped to their chest.

As a result, the conventional wisdom is that Republicans have suffered from the shutdown. The “conventional wisdom” is provided by the media, and their often-skewed polls designed to exaggerate that effect.

Debt Limit Brinkmanship

Prior to the latest debt limit agreement, Obama threatened to default on the federal debt—sending jitters through financial markets. It would have been the first default in history. Obama’s Treasury Department also issued a report titled, The Potential Macroeconomic Effect of Debt Ceiling Brinkmanship. But President Obama was the one engaged in “brinkmanship,” even while accusing Republicans of doing so.

To avoid default, the government needs only to pay interest, about $35 billion per month. The Treasury collects about $250 billion per month, more than enough. But Obama claimed he didn’t have the authority.

To call him on it, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act, making the authority explicit, but Obama promised to veto it—implicitly admitting he could avoid default if he wanted. But Obama was willing to threaten a major financial collapse to achieve short-term political objectives.

However, all we heard from the media was a non-stop barrage of angry “news” reports accusing Republicans of trying to destroy the economy.

Stimulating his Cronies

Obama’s background as a “community organizer” was well-known when he ran for the presidency. But less well-known was his role as a board member of five non-profits in the 1990s, when he used his position to shower money on friends and political associates. When he later ran for office, they returned the favor. President Obama has applied this corrupt, Chicago machine method on a national level, most spectacularly with his so-called “economic stimulus,” the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

The secret goal of the stimulus was to execute Obama’s political agenda. The bill was originally crafted by Obama transition staff and congressional Democrats almost as soon as he was elected. It recommended a Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (RATB), to oversee disbursement of stimulus money, and incredibly, gave RATB power to block IG investigations into their activities. Subsequent events demonstrate why the “most transparent administration in history” needed RATB.

In 2004, the Apollo Alliance—a constellation of radical leftist labor, environmental, civil rights, business, and political leaders—was specifically created to direct “green jobs” funding. Its New York branch was led by Jeff Jones, a former Weatherman terrorist and friend of “Bomber Bill” Ayers. He quit when his identity was revealed.

Yet, Apollo’s national steering committee had included Van Jones, the former communist who was Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar” until exposed by Trevor Loudon and Glenn Beck and forced to resign. Jones landed back on his feet, as a “fellow” at the Center for American Progress and later as a co-host on CNN’s new “Crossfire” show.

The fate of Van Jones is instructive. No matter how disgraced they become, Obama’s leftist allies never give up and always maintain their credibility with the media. Likewise, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who left four Americans to die at Benghazi, is running for president in 2016, with media interest and encouragement. Even Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) makes headlines by saying she did a good job, except for Benghazi.

The Green Jobs Scam

Although the Solyndra bankruptcy served as a glimpse into the use of tax dollars for political purposes in order to benefit Obama’s cronies, the story is not over. In total, $150 billion, including $80 billion from the stimulus, is supposed to be spent on “green energy” projects between 2009 and 2014.

So far, 33 companies that were provided $7.4 billion in tax dollars have either gone bankrupt, are declaring bankruptcy or are on the edge. And this is just the beginning. Even The Washington Post agrees that the entire “green energy” program has been “infused with politics,” with Obama supporters invested in green energy companies selected for stimulus funds, and others joining the administration to oversee the program.

But we have to dig deeper, in terms of the effect on the economy. President Obama promised that the “stimulus” would “create or save” 3.5 million jobs by 2011 and that the unemployment rate would never rise above 8.5 percent. His economic advisors predicted that unemployment could rise to 8.8 percent if the stimulus was not enacted.

A 2011 study by the Mercatus Center showed just how wrong they were. Chart 1 compares the President’s forecast unemployment rates assuming the stimulus bill was passed (blue), and the unemployment rates that actually obtained (red).

Chart 1

The President’s advisors further forecast that by 2012, unemployment would be down to 6.0 percent. The official civilian unemployment rate is now 7.3 percent.

By any objective measure, the Obama policies have failed. But were they designed to succeed? Or just benefit Obama and his allies?

The more accurate measure of unemployment includes discouraged workers—those who have given up looking for work. This stands at 13.7 percent, more than six percentage points higher than the official rate. Furthermore, the gap between the official rate and the discouraged worker rate has grown, suggesting that a greater proportion of the working age population is staying out of the labor force. (See Chart 2).

Chart 2

Obamacare Could Cost Over $1 Trillion Per Year

With the media finally paying attention to the lies that gave rise to Obamacare, it is worth taking a detailed look at this program, dubbed Obama’s “signature” legislation.

The number of lies, deceptions and payoffs that went into enacting Obamacare could fill an encyclopedia. People who criticize Senator Ted Cruz for his historic 21 hour Senate speech should recognize that he focused the nation like a laser beam on Obamacare’s many flaws. His stand was vindicated by the seemingly endless series of stories now appearing about not only the Obamacare website malfunctions but the millions of Americans losing the health policies they were promised they could keep.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) initially estimated Obamacare’s 10-year cost at under $1 trillion. They dishonestly counted costs from 2010, though the program wouldn’t officially start until 2014. And with $900 billion in “savings” from increased taxes and Medicare cuts, Obamacare would be free! As humorist P.J. O’Rourke quipped, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

CBO’s projected cost for 2014 to 2023 is $2.5 trillion. But the CBO ignored additional burdens faced by businesses and individuals that government does not pay. This and other factors could raise the 10-year cost to over $6 trillion.

Even this doesn’t tell the full story. Market distortions and future law changes are sure to add more costs as Obamacare is likely to be transformed into a single-payer system as in Britain, where expenditures have grown 1,000 percent since the program began. Currently they spend $170 billion annually, serving a population of 53 million. Extended to America’s 315 million people, it would cost $1.2 trillion per year.

Whatever the final cost, Obamacare will not save money. According to a Senate Budget Committee report, Obamacare will add $17 trillion to the government’s unfunded mandates over the next 75 years, raising the total to $82 trillion, including Social Security and Medicare.

Obama claimed health insurance premiums would go down by as much as $2,500 per year. In fact, individuals and families will see increased premiums in 45 of the 50 states.

Subsidies will lower costs for about 15 percent of the population, who will defend the program once it becomes entrenched, but quality will decline for everyone. Ultimately it will falter, just as Britain’s system is failing now. More taxpayer dollars and more central government control will be required to prop it up.

Clearly, Obama’s goal was not improved healthcare, but more political power and benefits for his political party and his allies. A good example is Canadian website contractor CGI.

Consider:

CGI Federal received a $93.7 million Obamacare website contract, as part of a $678 million contract for work on the Medicare/Medicaid websites.

CGI executives have donated extensively to Obama, while website contractor CGI Federal’s Senior VP attended Princeton with Michelle Obama.

The CGI CEO became an Obama donor after being awarded the contract.

CGI gave a website design subcontract to a former Obama campaign manager—When this became news, all evidence was erased. When evidence that it was erased became news, they put it back.

CGI received an $11 billion contract for IT security from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) this spring.

CGI received a no-bid contract to distribute $1.7 billion of aid to Hurricane Sandy victims. The victims are still waiting.

Before the Obamacare website rollout, the media mindlessly fawned over it. CNN’s new Crossfire co-host, former “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, heralded it “a huge breakthrough” for the uninsured. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz enthused that it was easy to navigate. Bloomberg’s Peter Gosselin equated it to shopping on Amazon. CBS’s Jill Schlesinger thought it was like Travelocity. ABC’s Rebecca Jarvis compared it to mall shopping.

Premeditated, Manufactured Chaos

Considering the debacle it has become, the media should not only expose the glaring problems that continue to unfold, but also examine whether this is the result of incompetence or design.

Following the shutdown/showdown debacle, Obama gratuitously accused Republicans of a “manufactured crisis.” It is interesting that Obama accused Republicans of such a plan, given the title of a viral 2008 article, “Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.” There is such a strategy; Obama has known about it for decades and is using it now.

It was developed in the 1960s by Columbia University professors Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who published an article in Nation magazine titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” By packing welfare rolls with new beneficiaries, they hoped to bankrupt local governments and foment a blazing revolution when benefits dried up. It came to be known as the “Cloward Piven Strategy,” or simply “Crisis Strategy.”

The strategy helped explode welfare rolls in the 1960s and 1970s, and precipitated New York City’s near bankruptcy in 1975. Speaking of that crisis, New York Mayor Rudolf Giuliani accused the pair of economic sabotage.

Cloward and Piven created the organizations tasked with executing this strategy, most notably ACORN. Subsequently, the strategy was applied to: 1) Housing, where the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and similar groups colluded with the Clinton White House to foment the subprime mortgage crisis that led to the 2008 crash; 2) Voting, through enactment of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, (aka Motor Voter), again with Clinton complicity; and 3) Illegal immigration.

Cloward and Piven were the authors of Motor Voter, which turns motor vehicle and other state offices into defacto low income voter registration drives. This law allowed the nationwide explosion of voter registration fraud conducted by ACORN, and is largely responsible for today’s 24 million bad registrations nationwide. Motor Voter also made Obamacare’s online voter registration possible.

Obama has connections to Cloward and Piven, ACORN and its voter registration arm, Project Vote, going back to the early 1990s. The Holder Justice Department has been caught colluding with Project Vote in Motor Voter lawsuits. Matthew Vadum, author of the ACORN exposé, Subversion Inc, reports that former ACORN leaders are still working with Obama.

One has to consider the distinct possibility that Obamacare is part of a deliberate strategy to overwhelm the American people with crisis upon crisis until they throw up their arms in despair and give up.

Voter Manipulation

Obama and the Democrats’ latest complaint is that voter ID laws suppress the vote. The Holder Justice Department has turned that accusation into a legal assault against voter ID laws. The charge is absurd on its face. The reason that Democrats don’t want voter ID laws is because they don’t want their various vote fraud schemes exposed. We know they engage in vote fraud.

But even if they had not stolen a single vote, Democrats have been using tax dollars to buy off entire voting blocs of Americans with trillions of dollars in benefits and created thousands of taxpayer-funded non-profits that are actually ground armies for leftist activism.

This has been going on for decades. In 1961, Richard Cloward co-founded a welfare program that became the model for President Johnson’s “War on Poverty,”[1][*] which birthed the Office of Economic Opportunity. Conservative activist Howard Phillips ran OEO in 1973, and identified Cloward and Piven as OEO’s “ideological architects.” He said OEO financed “10,000 organizations employing several hundred thousand people” to radically transform U.S. policy outside the political process.[2]

Democratic politicians justify the burgeoning welfare state as reflecting compassion for the “poor and oppressed.” Cloward and Piven were much more honest: “If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors.”

It worked. In 1960, only 58 percent of black voters were Democrats. By 1968, 92 percent were Democrats and only three percent were Republicans.

In 1932, FDR used this same kind of strategy to deliver Democrat majorities in Congress for the next 60 years. Cloward and Piven explained:

Although these [New Deal] measures were a response to the imperative of economic crisis, the types of measures enacted were designed to secure [a] new Democratic coalition.

Today, close to 50 percent of Americans pay no taxes, and lower income groups can obtain government benefits that provide the equivalent of up to $50,000 per year, strongly encouraging welfare dependency.

Democrats don’t care. It was Cloward and Piven’s explicit goal to create misery and strife sufficient to trigger a blazing revolution. As they reported in their “Weight of the Poor” article:

“Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely…”

The consequences of welfare state policies are evident everywhere. Consider the following statistics:

49 percent of Americans receive some kind of public assistance.

More people collect means-tested benefits today (108.6 million) than there are full-time workers (101.7 million)

1.2 million homeless children attend public school, up 72 percent since the recession began.

46.6 million people receive food stamps, the highest number in recorded history.

46.5 million Americans live in poverty. This is the first time the poverty rate has remained at or above 15% three years running since 1965.

Median household income is 9% below what it was in 1999.

Witness the burned out, abandoned buildings staining our cities, especially Detroit. Think of the entrenched crime, drugs, prostitution, and abandoned children that are the face of inner city ghettos, and reflect on Cloward and Piven’s enthusiasm that “the drain on local resources persists indefinitely…” In Detroit, the response of the Obama administration has been to pour more federal money, an estimated $300 million, into the city, in part to demolish public housing originally constructed with federal funds, and then to construct more.

Incredibly, Bill de Blasio, poised to become New York City’s new Democratic mayor on November 5, says, “The federal government must get back in the affordable housing business, and the federal government must get back in the mass transit business and infrastructure business.”

On top of failure after failure, this Obama-backed Democrat wants more of the same. He might as well be a spokesman for the Democratic Party as a whole. Perhaps that will be his role in the years ahead.

Obama and the Democrats are now feverishly working to inflate this roster of the needy by pushing through amnesty for illegal aliens, officially numbering 11 million, but probably more like 30 million people. Congress is currently debating this plan, with some Republicans, such as John McCain, willing to accommodate Obama’s scheme, in the name of “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Spending is THE Problem

The ARRA is the largest single Keynesian stimulus program since the 1930s. And that wasn’t all. There was the $100 billion auto bailout, endless unemployment benefit extensions and the $26 billion teacher bailout. Obama proposed an additional $447 billion “jobs” bill in 2011, which, fortunately, never passed.

As the unemployment analysis showed, these programs do not help; they merely transfer dollars from the private market to government.

Chart 3

Government spending will continue to increase substantially in the coming years. This is a deliberate effort by Obama, who learned from Cloward and Piven how to collapse an economy. The strategy has moved from the local to the national. It will have global repercussions.

__________________________________________________________

This was originally published at Accuracy in Media.

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His articles have been published at American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, Breitbart, PJ Media, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily and others. His regular column is DC Independent Examiner. Follow Jim on Twitter and Facebook

Roger Aronoff
Editor
Accuracy in Media
www.aim.org

[1] Matthew Vadum, Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, WND Books, (New York, 2011), p. 77.

[2] Ibid, p. 79.

Obama and Aides Did Not Want To Clutter Message with the Truth

Photo Credit: APThe Wall Street Journal broke the news this weekend that, even as President Obama was telling the American people they could keep their health plans, “some White House policy advisors objected to the breadth of Mr. Obama’s ‘keep your plan’ promise. They were overruled by political aides.”

Overruled by political aides? This is simply damning.

It’s not easy to get a lie into a presidential speech. Every draft address is circulated to the White House senior staff and key Cabinet officials in something called the “staffing process.” Every line is reviewed by dozens of senior officials, who offer comments and factual corrections. During this process, it turns out, some of Obama’s policy advisers objected to the “you can keep your plan” pledge, pointing out that it was untrue. But it stayed in the speech. That does not happen by accident. It requires a willful intent to deceive.

In the Bush White House, we speechwriters would often come up with what we thought were great turns of phrase to help the president explain his policies. But we also had a strict fact-checking process, where every iteration of every proposed presidential utterance was scrubbed to ensure it was both accurate and defensible. If the fact-checkers told us a line was inaccurate, we would either kill it or find another way to make the point accurately. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the fact-checkers or White House policy advisers would tell us that something in a draft speech was factually incorrect and that guidance would be ignored or overruled by the president’s political advisers.

This whole episode is a window into a fundamentally dishonest presidency. And the story gets worse. After Obama began telling Americans they could keep their plans, White House aides discussed using media interviews “to explain the nuances of the succinct line in his stump speeches.” But they decided not to do so, because “officials worried . . . that delving into details such as the small number of people who might lose insurance could be confusing and would clutter the president’s message.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Treaties Don’t Trump the Constitution

Photo Credit: American Thinker Can the President and Senate invest the federal government with new powers not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution simply by signing and ratifying a treaty? Can the treaty power be used to override the Tenth Amendment and render it a dead letter? Those issues will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 5, 2013, in the case of Bond v. United States.

When I returned to Congress in January, I also wanted to return to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on which I had served almost 20 years ago. I also wanted to serve on the Subcommittee that oversees the United Nations and other international organizations that continue to push treaties on us that could jeopardize the sovereignty of our nation.

Indeed, I am so concerned about these threats to national sovereignty that I filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court to undo an 86-year old case under which a treaty, in essence, amends the U.S. Constitution. I was pleased to be joined in this amicus curiae brief by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Citizens United’s American Sovereignty Action Project, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, The Institute on the Constitution, The Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Policy Analysis Center, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Tenth Amendment Center. I want to thank each of these groups for their commitment to this issue.

Here’s what this case is about. Mrs. Bond, a Pennsylvania woman learned that her husband had impregnated her best friend, and set about to harm her in some way by smearing some chemicals she obtained from work where the other woman would touch them, including her mailbox. Her attempts only gave her victim a chemical burn on her thumb.

However, based on the woman’s complaint to a mail carrier, the U.S. Postal Inspectors decided to make a federal case out of it. They set up surveillance cameras, searched her car, home and workplace, arrested Mrs. Bond, and incarcerated her initially in a post office. To make it seem like a postal matter, Mrs. Bond was charged with stealing two envelopes. But the Justice Department also charged her with two counts of violating a statute which implemented the Chemical Weapons Convention — a treaty designed to prevent countries from engaging in chemical warfare.

Mrs. Bond’s actions are like the types of cases handled every day by state and local law enforcement. Under Pennsylvania law, she could have been charged with assault, and very likely could have been convicted, and could have received a sentence appropriate for the crime. She was charged under federal law instead. These federal investigations and demands by federal prosecutors for punishment for dubious federal crimes are intruding on the police powers of state and local governments. Congress has no authority to criminalize simple assault, or the use of household chemicals, but claimed the authority based on the treaty the Senate had ratified. The crime with which she was charged was considered a way to implement the terms of the Chemical Weapons treaty.

The concept that the federal government can give itself additional powers by signing a treaty with a foreign power was invented nearly a century ago to justify federal laws regulating bird hunting. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could regulate bird hunting — not because it had that power under the Constitution — but because the Senate had ratified a treaty on bird hunting. A prior federal law regulating bird hunting, the Weeks-McLean Act, had been conceded as likely unconstitutional even by its supporters.

The Missouri v. Holland court decision was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. beloved by left-wing statists as an early proponent of the concept of the Constitution as a “living document.” Holmes declared that cases before the Supreme Court “must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.” Holmes embraced a formula for a nation without a written Constitution – not applicable to the United States of America.

One of my biggest concerns about the Missouri v. Holland case then, and about the Bond case now, is that this method could be used to criminalize other behavior that the federal government may not regulate, such as gun ownership. President Obama and Eric Holder have been searching for a way to implement gun control. Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney, when asked recently about the issue, told us “sometimes these efforts don’t succeed initially, but … this is going to get done.” Could Obama draw on the treaty power to impose further regulations on firearms?

On April 2, 2013, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a treaty designed to regulate global trade in conventional weapons. The Arms Trade Treaty, posted on the UN’s Disarmament page, regulates small arms and ammunition. Article 8 of the Treaty requires the government of any country which imports guns to “take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided” to the government of the exporting country, stating “such measures may include end use or end user documentation.” This and other similar articles in the treaty, such as the duty to maintain a national control system, would open the door to a national registry of guns, facilitating the confiscation of firearms of the citizenry in an emergency declared by the President. Predictably, on September 25, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry signed this treaty on behalf of the United States, presenting it to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

If President Obama could form another “Gang of Eight” Senators to join him to ratify this UN gun treaty, a Supreme Court with just one new member could find an excuse to claim a powerful new theory to erode gun rights. Even since District of Columbia v. Heller, no federal firearms law has been struck down by the Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds. The only federal gun law struck down by the Supreme Court implicated the Tenth Amendment. If Missouri v. Holland is not overruled, a UN treaty could be used as a basis to implement a national gun registry, or other restrictions on guns.

But firearms are just one reason why my amicus brief asks the Supreme Court to recognize the text and meaning of the Tenth Amendment, and to repudiate Missouri v. Holland as unconstitutional. There are other threats as well, including UN efforts to override US law limiting access to nutritional supplements, and to control our use of energy. If we don’t stop the federal government here in the Bond case, the internationalists at home and abroad will keep trying to reduce the individual freedom of Americans, so that we are more like the citizens of other nations. Well, we don’t want to be like the other nations. Our job is to defend America against enemies foreign and domestic — and, sadly, there is no shortage of either.

___________________________________________________

Steve Stockman is a Member of Congress representing the 36th Congressional District of Texas. Steve serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee and its Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and its Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. He also serves on the Science, Space and Technology Committee where he serves on the Subcommittee on Space and is Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research. Follow Steve Stockman on Twitter @SteveWorks4You or on Facebook.

Where’s the Darn Tea Party?

Photo Credit: WNDI don’t know about you, but I’m frustrated by the fact that no one is marching on Washington today despite the fact that the fabric of our nation is being destroyed in the greatest attack on liberty and self-government in the history of our country.

Where, I keep wondering, has the tea party been hiding?

Oh, don’t get me wrong. Like all of you, I get the emails from various tea-party groups busy raising money for pet causes. I see the criticisms of Barack Obama and others in Washington by the self-proclaimed tea-party leaders. I hear the defensiveness of tea-party spokesmen denouncing attacks on the tea party by the bullies in Washington who tolerated the politically motivated targeting of patriotic groups by the Internal Revenue Service.

What I don’t see are people in the streets of Washington – with placards and signs and loud voices. I don’t see any organized opposition. Where is the tea party?

This is not a criticism I level lightly.

Read more from this story HERE.

GOP Can Win by Waiting: Make Democrats Clean Up their Own Mess

Photo Credit: National Review Democrats are pleading for help, in the face of the implosion of Obamacare. House Republicans confronted with these pleas should listen to those who say: “Don’t do something; just stand there.”

It was Obama and the Democratic Senate who caused the disaster now unfolding. Specifically, Democratic red- or swing-state senators such as Mary Landrieu (La.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Ark.), and even Al Franken (Minn.) provided key votes to adopt the monstrosity without a single ballot to spare. Let them face the music; let them reap the consequences. And let them try to fix what’s utterly unfixable.

If they want to delay the individual mandate, fine: They can go first. If they want to fix the grandfathering rules so that people who want to keep their plans really can do so, fine: They can go first on that, too. Let them figure out the details. Let them try to make it work. The House can always vote to add its assent once the Senate has acted — all while noting, accurately, that even the delay or the grandfathering fix won’t make the whole of Obamacare successful or popular.

But with each fruitless effort to correct the uncorrectable, the vulnerable Senate Democrats effectively will be acknowledging that they were wrong to begin with.

The likelihood is that the Senate won’t act. It’s likely that the White House won’t let it happen. It’s likely that the vulnerable senators won’t even be able to get the more liberal members of the Senate Democratic caucus to go along with them. It’s likely that the Hagans and Pryors will be left to look both wrongheaded for having passed Obamacare and ineffectual for being unable to convince their leaders to try to improve it.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obamacare Is Obama Unmasked

Photo Credit: DonkeyHoteyAren’t some of you tired of making lame excuses for him that only serve to make things worse? He has made a mess of nearly everything his policies have touched, and he’s mostly avoided the blame; but he owns Obamacare, and he has nowhere to hide.

When someone with the influence Obama enjoyed upon first taking office sets out to fundamentally transform the nation — and he has the unqualified support of the entire liberal media apparatus, the Democratic Party in lock step, millions of people purchased with government money and/or indoctrinated in liberal universities, and the cudgels of racial shaming and white guilt — the possibilities are endless.

Constitutionalists have observed for years that America has been on a downward spiral as its ruling class has discarded its founding principles — the very ideas that led to this nation’s uniqueness, power, prosperity and benevolence. We’ve known that we could not forever piggyback, with impunity, on America’s system of limited government and its free market economy. Eventually, statist encroachments on both would destroy our prosperity, liberty and power.

But we were thinking in terms of decades into the future, not a matter of a few years. Who would have ever thought the United States would embark on such an accelerated path of national suicide?

At the beginning, people could argue that Obama would usher in a period of prosperity and bipartisanship and that things would get better in America. But after five years of unconscionably reckless federal spending, a wholesale assault on our domestic energy industries, endless abuses of executive authority and other lawless incursions on the Constitution, unprecedented divisiveness and polarization across economic, racial and gender lines, America’s declining power and prestige in the world, an explosion of the welfare state, and the worst economic recovery in 60 years, how can anyone who cares about this nation’s future and the well-being of our children and grandchildren keep supporting this man’s policies?

Read more from this story HERE.

The Madness of Law Enforcement’s Escalating Brutality

Photo Credit: U.S. Government/Reason Law enforcement excesses grab an ever-growing share of headlines. Doors kicked in, people killed, dogs shot, phone lines tapped, curfews imposed—they’re all examples of official overreaching at that unpleasant intersection of private activity and state disapproval. For some people, the implication of such abuses is that more scrutiny and the right people in charge will make law enforcement an enterprise which people need not fear.

But what if that’s not the case? It may be that lawmakers have assigned law-enforcers goals so frustratingly elusive that even angels couldn’t resist the temptation to escalate tactics to insane extremes, trampling liberty and decency along the way.

Deranged escalation resulted in the misguided marijuana raid on the home of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, Mayor Cheye Calvo, during which his dogs were killed. When even a government official like Calvo can’t protect his pets from police overstepping, you know we’ve gone over a cliff.

A similar venture into law enforcement madness resulted in the death of one police officer, and injuries to five others, when Ogden, Utah, resident, Matthew David Stewart, defended himself against the home invasion. Stewart later hanged himself in jail when it became clear that the legal system wasn’t about to admit police errors or recognize his right to self-defense.

But that leap into the void was probably inevitable given the government’s obsession with achieving the impossible: eliminating marijuana consumption. Almost eighty years after Reefer Madness, decades into the War on Drugs, a 2008 survey by the World Health Organization still says that 42.4 percent of Americans have smoked grass.

Read more from this story HERE.

Why So Shocked? You Were NEVER Meant To Keep Your Health Insurance Under Obamacare

Photo Credit: Red State By LaborUnionReport.

It takes some time to fundamentally transform America and, while they may be wrong about a lot of things almost everything, in this instance, Democrats are right about one thing: The term transition is absolutely the correct term when discussing the debacle known as ObamaCare.

You see, while they will never openly admit it (excepting, perhaps, in the darkest recesses of some corner inside the White House or the Center of American Progress), ObamaCare was never meant for Americans to “keep their health insurance plans,” it is a transition plan to drive all Americans* to single-payer (aka nationalized or socialized) health care.

On October 15, 2008, several weeks before Barack Obama’s election and well before ObamaCare was enacted, I wrote (pre-LUR and RedState) a post entitled Obama’s Plan to Socialize Health Care.

In the post, I stated, “Within five years (if not sooner), the U.S. will have full-blown socialized medicine under President Barack Obama.”

This prediction was not based on all of the regulations that were eventually put into the Affordable Care Act–those regulations that are causing millions to lose their individual coverage and another 93 million potentially to lose their employer-sponsored health plans–but was based on simple economics.

Read more from this story HERE.

_______________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Bloomberg NewsYou Also Can’t Keep Your Doctor

By Edie Littlefield Sundby.

Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don’t have a clue how to best proceed.

Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University’s Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Read more from this story HERE.

How Obama Went from Bulls–t to Lies

Photo Credit: APHow Americans see President Obama changed in an important way this week. It’s because there is a huge difference between lies and bulls – – t.

Obama says a lot of things that are not true, even nonsensical. But it’s easy to shrug off most of these, because they aren’t really lies. They’re just bulls – – t…

This week was something new. It was the week Obama was revealed to be a stone-cold liar. Some 10 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance as a direct result of the Affordable Care Act.

On June 15, 2009, Obama said, in one of hundreds of similar statements, “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

This wasn’t just bulls – – t. This was a lie.

Read more from this story HERE.

Media Forced To Report The Truth

TerrellAfterMath.comYou know things are bad when the public outcry over the president’s signature legislation is so strong that it forces the Democrats in the media to report the facts – even though it reflects negatively on the president they’ve been protecting for five years.

Apparently, we now have a national crisis that affects a majority of us: Obamacare. Countless Americans are finding out every day that the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA) is in reality quite unaffordable.

Unlike the IRS or NSA scandals, unlike Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and a dozen others, the new health care law hits many working Americans because it’s a tax.

There are Democrats calling it “a disaster.”

I’ve not often had the opportunity to give credit to some in the media; so I’m thrilled to say “Thanks for doing your job” to those it pertains to.

Read more from this story HERE.