Immigration “Reform” Bill the Worst Ever at the Worst Time Ever – Tea Party Nation

Immigration “Reform” Bill the Worst Ever at the Worst Time Ever – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

If you liked Obamacare, you will love the proposed immigration “reform” bill which is all about the politics of the Left with no regard to the welfare of U.S. citizens by birth and naturalized citizens. Its final length remains unknown, but it was more than 1,500 pages by late April. The Senate takes up the bill this week.

The fact that Congress is revisiting the immigration issue is testimony to the estimated eleven million aliens illegally here due to law enforcement failures and limitations, and the political implications of granting them and eventually their families what is essentially instant citizenship, though fretted with a variety of fines and other factors.

The immigration bill gives the finger to those waiting, often for years, to go through the naturalization process and to the millions of Americans in need of employment during the worst economic times since the Great Depression.

As Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, wrote in the June 11 edition of The Wall Street Journal, “Mass joblessness is a shameful waste of human resources, a source of misery to millions, and now threatens to create an underclass of long-term unemployed whose skills are atrophying and whose hopes are vanishing.”

The “gang of eight” is composed of Senators of the far Left such as Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), along with RINOs (Republicans in name only) such as John McCain (R-McCain) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Others include Marco Rubio (R-FL) who is either going to vote for it or against it depending on what day it is. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Michael Bennett (D-CO) complete the list.

You can ignore the promises of increased enforcement of laws to protect our southern border as these laws have been ignored for years. In January, a federal judge ruled that ten Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and officers had the right to challenge the so-called Morton Memo on prosecutorial discretion and the DREAM directive on deferred action that essentially ordered agents to violate federal laws for face adverse employment actions against them. The Memo prohibited ICE agents and officers from arresting or removing, i.e. deporting, any but the most violent criminal aliens; both initiatives of the Obama administration.

As NumbersUSA pointed out in May, the U.S. Senate’s S-744 bill “would give lifetime permits to 33 million more foreign citizens to complete with Americans for scare U.S. jobs” over the next decade when the 20 million Americans are currently seeking work. “That’s like putting the entire population of Canada in line for American jobs.”

The 33 million new work visas in the decade ahead would be almost as many as all immigrants who ever entered the U.S. in its history through to today.

The Center for Immigration Studies says that S-744 “assures the continuation of poverty for the American underclass for the foreseeable future, noting that in the first quarter of this year, the “broad unemployment rate for Americans without a high school degree has reached 30% and is close to 20% for citizens with only a high school education.”

“There are now 55.4 million working-age Americans who are not working.”

NumbersUSA provides another way of looking at S-744, pointing out that is that it is comparable to “re-creating ALL of the Top 20 cities in the United States, filling them entirely with foreign citizens and giving them lifetime work permits to compete with America’s struggling workers—and in just ten years’ time.”

The bill when it was released in April had approximately 1.14 waivers or exemptions per page. The 2,409 page Obamacare bill had 0.78 waivers and exemptions. S-744 is filled with 85 mentions of “unless”, 150 uses of “except”, 18 inclusions of “exempt”, 95 mentions of “waiver”, 47 offers of “discretion”, 47 uses of “notwithstanding” and 618 uses of “may” in its original 876-pages. As noted, the bill now has some 1,500 pages. These are the work of the countless lobbyists who have influenced the bill.

In addition, the immigration “reform” bill includes two “slush funds” amounting to $150,000,000 that may be supplemented with additional taxpayer dollars for years to come. These funds would go to “public or private, non-profit organizations such as La Raza, Casa de Maryland, and the American Immigration lawyers Association! These and other organizations are devoted to helping illegal immigrants apply for legal status.

It gets worse if that is possible. The bill not only provides amnesty for illegal immigrants, but does so as well for their employers. As the Center for Immigration Studies points out, “Illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking laws for which American citizens are routinely punished” such as the use of fraudulent Social Security cards, while imposing a $1,000 penalty that “in many cases would be waived. Then they would be issued a new Social Security number without any past bad credit or arrest records.”

The so-called immigration reform bill is the worst bill at the worst time. It is an invitation to millions more to illegally enter the United States.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

 

The Worst President Ever – Tea Party Nation

The Worst President Ever – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

All through George W. Bush’s two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented “a culture of corruption” and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration’s governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.

This term, however, marked Barack Obama’s first term and now his second which is currently imploding from a confluence of scandals involving Benghazi-Gate, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Justice. Let’s not forget “Fast and Furious.”

The very first example of the changes that would mark his administration was the announcement of Obama’s “czars”, a shadowy group of advisors whose power to set and influence government policy without any congressional oversight appears to have transcended that of his cabinet members, many of whom would contribute to lengthening the recession he “inherited” as the result of the 2008 financial crisis while increasing the national debt and deficit to heights never before seen in the history of the nation.

What we have come to learn in his first term was that Obama had scant regard for the Constitution, the guiding instrument of governance. It was in his view an “imperfect” instrument and yet, with amendments, it has guided the nation to superpower status since its ratification in 1791, a process that took four years from the 1786 Annapolis Convention that called for a Constitutional Convention.

What we learned though in his first campaign and first term was that Obama lies about everything, starting with his personal life. What we have learned is that his answer to everything is to give another speech, hold another press conference, issue another executive order, and to dismiss any criticism as “a sideshow”, and to host a number of dinners to give the impression he is willing to work with Republicans in Congress. In truth, he rarely interacted even with Democrats in Congress.

In short, Obama has never addressed his duty to govern. He has instead maintained a non-stop process of campaigning and fund-raising. It did not work in 2010 when voters returned power to the Republicans in the House and now he is doing everything he can to regain Democrat control there in 2014.

His priority on September 11, 2012, the night in which he was informed of the attack on the Benghazi consulate in Libya, was to go to bed in order to get a good night’s sleep before flying off to Las Vegas for more fund-raising the next day, skipping his daily intelligence briefing. An American ambassador had been killed along with three other personnel, but it did not alter his schedule.

This is a President who spent his entire first term blaming his predecessor, George W. Bush, for every problem that crossed his desk and demanded his attention.

This is a President whose foreign policy in the Middle East failed to address events there while delegating responsibility to his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton who as of 2 AM the morning of September 12th knew that it was an orchestrated attack by al Qaeda. And then, in concert with the White House, told Americans that it was the result of a video and was a “spontaneous” event.

This is a President who has withdrawn U.S. troops from Iraq, a nation now wracked with daily bombings and has set in process the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a nation that will fall once again under the control of the Taliban. The alleged ally of America, Pakistan, now fears for its stability from the same threat. Both wars, the longest since the Vietnam War, were and remain unpopular, but both were intended to reduce the role of al Qaeda in the Middle East. That role has now expanded into the Syrian civil war and was manifest in Mali.

His response was to depend on isolated drone attacks in Yemen and elsewhere, and of course his authorization of the assassination of Osama bin Laden for which he took total credit despite the fact that the effort had begun in the Bush years.

In the years prior to Benghazi-Gate we have now learned that Obama was using the Internal Revenue Service to harass organizations associated with the Tea Party movement, that identified themselves as “patriots”, or had a pro-Israel agenda. In a similar fashion his Environmental Protection Agency was denying Freedom of Information inquires to organizations opposed to its policies while granting access to those who supported it.

In his first term, his Department of the Interior pursued policies that denied access to drilling for oil and natural gas on federally owned lands and while his Department of Energy wasted billions on “renewable energy” companies manufacturing solar panels no one wanted to purchase, going bankrupt one after another. At one point the President advocated using algae—pond scum—as a source of energy.

This is a President who promised his “stimulus” program would put Americans back to work and revive the economy.

This is a President who has continued to tell Americans that global warming is the greatest threat to the nation and the world despite a sixteen-year cooling cycle in progress.

The current scandals, derided as being “politicized” by Republicans, suggest that impeachable offenses have been authorized and committed by branches of the administration he leads. The current makeup of Congress in which the Senate is still controlled by Democrats suggests that impeachment would be difficult to pursue, but the 2014 midterm elections could and should change that.

The worst of his offenses is Obamacare, described by members of his own party as “a train wreck”, and a program to be administered by the IRS!

It is not hyperbole to say Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the nation.

Ask the millions of Americans who are still unemployed more than four years since his first inauguration.

Ask the millions of new graduates from colleges and universities who cannot find jobs commensurate with their degrees.

Ask the millions of Americans unable to retire due to the agonizingly slow recovery of the economy.

And ask the mainstream media, after years of ignoring his failures have suddenly awakened to the seizure of Associated Press phone records after acting as mere stenographers for his daily “talking points.”.

The question is how long before he is either impeached or forced to resign as the dream of “hope and change” has turned to hopelessness and the change has become the “transformation” of America from the greatest economy the world has ever known to a debtor nation disrespected by allies and enemies alike.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

 

Barack Obama’s war on America – Tea Party Nation

Barack Obama’s war on America – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

obamashreddingconstitution1Barack Obama and the Party of Treason hate America.   It is no longer a policy difference.  With Obama and the far-left shills for the Democrats, it has never been about policy.   They do not want to debate issues and let the best idea win.  They want to defeat anyone who disagrees with them at all costs. 

 Now the Obama Regime is showing its total contempt and hatred for those who disagree with it.

 How are they doing this?

 In advance of the Budget Sequestration that is set to start on March 1st, the Obama Regime is releasing illegal aliens into American communities. 

 The sequestration has not even hit yet and the Obama Regime is trying to hurt Americans.

 The illegal aliens being released are not simply illegal aliens, but these are criminal illegal aliens.    These are illegal aliens who have been charged or convicted of criminal offenses.  Usually it is more than one. 

 

Instead of deporting these criminal aliens, the Department of Homeland Security is literally turning them out of the prisons.    Where is most of this happening?

 Arizona.

 A5XskvhCIAEhXcA.jpg largeThat is no accident.

 Arizona is a red state.  Arizona dared to defy Barack Obama and even took him to the Supreme Court and won.

 Over the weekend, in Pinal County, Arizona, DHS released hundreds of criminal illegal aliens.  They did not even notify the local sheriff they were releasing these criminals.

 The Obama Regime claims they must do this because of the upcoming budget sequester.

 The sequester is not causing the release but the Obama Regime is desperate to create a crisis.

 Why?

 What happens if the modest 2% cut in spending goes through? 

 Probably nothing.  Most Americans will not see any change.

smugpackage That is the great fear of the Obama Regime.

 If the world does not end with this modest spending cut, then the Republicans and the American people will start asking, what else can we cut.  Where else can we cut?

 For Barack Obama who is determined to bankrupt America before the end of his second term, this is unacceptable.

 So Barack Obama is releasing criminal illegal aliens onto the streets of at least one red state. 

 How many people will die because Obama is releasing criminal illegal aliens?  How many people will be injured?   How many crimes will be committed?

 Obama doesn’t care.  Arizona is a red state.

notvotingbecause He doesn’t care because for Obama, the ends justify the means.   Obama does not care that he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution because the Constitution means nothing to him.    Obama does not care because he hates America and Americans.

 Instead of being responsible, Barack Obama is trying to make the spending cuts as painful as possible.  Instead of stopping a few of those crony grants to “green energy” projects, he is keeping the Navy tied up in port.  Instead of cutting advertising to promote food stamps, he is releasing criminals on the streets to rampage and make the people of America pay for daring to elect Republicans to try and stop him.

 Barack Obama is hell bent on destroying America.  Americans will die because of his desire to punish those who disagree with him.

 The question is will the Republicans in Washington ever stand up to him?

 

Another liberal human shield – Tea Party Nation

Another liberal human shield – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

A_GGYrOCUAMcAQM.jpg largeLiberals, like tyrants and terrorists, love human shields.    Human shields, whether they are in war or politics have the same goal.  They want to use a person or people to stop the other side from attacking.  The strategy is simple.  The publicity blowback from the attack on an innocent person would be so severe it deters someone from attacking.

 Who is the latest liberal human shield and what are they trying to do?

 The latest human shield is former Congressman and liberal Democrat Gabriel Giffords.

 Giffords is the former Congressman from Arizona and she holds the distinction of being the least deserving person to have a navy ship named after them.

 In January 2011, a deranged man in Tucson critically wounded Giffords.  She went through an extensive rehab program and eventually returned to Congress and public life.

 Yesterday she showed up as a witness in the Senate hearings on gun control.   The fact that she was the first witness was no accident.  It was a deliberate strategy.

 Gabriel Giffords, the latest liberal human shield.

 The strategy is simple.

 No Republican would dare attack poor Gabby Giffords on this issue.  She gets to stand in front of the Senate and tell them to, “Be bold. Be courageous,” as the Senate strips Americans of their rights.

 The trap sits there, just like a split finger fastball in baseball.   The pitch looks like a great pitch down the middle and when the batter cannot resist the impulse to swing, the pitch drops out of the strike zone.

 The Obama propaganda media fawned over Giffords and was praying to the statue of Walter Cronkite that some Republican would challenge Giffords so they could make the Republican look like a bully for challenging this poor victim. 

A_Pw2EzCcAA5H99.png large The real story here is the media strategy of the left.  They do not want a debate on gun control because they know they will lose.  Americans overwhelmingly do not want gun control. 

 Of course, the left is never concerned with what the American people want. 

 There is a witness I would love to see at a Senate Hearing.  This will never happen but maybe House Republicans will show some courage and invite her.

 On New Year’s Eve 2011, 18-year-old Sarah McKinley was at home with her 3 month old child.  The child’s father had died just a week earlier.  Two men, one armed with a 12 inch hunting knife, broke into her home.  She was on the phone for 21 minutes with 911 begging them to get help as the two men tried to enter her home.

 When they finally broke into her home, she took a gun, shot and killed one of the two intruders.  The other fled.

 What would have happened that night had she not had a gun?

 Well it is safe to say those two were not trying to see the ball drop in Times Square on McKinley’s TV. 

 Another woman, Melinda Herman, probably won’t get an invitation to speak to the Senate either.  Earlier this month, she was at home alone with her two children when she saw a suspicious man.  This man then tried to break into her house.  She was on the phone for ten minutes with 911 while the man not only got into her home but also systematically worked his way through it.

 Finally he kicked the door open to the room where Melinda was hiding with her children. 

 Glock has a great series of commercials showing criminals going to commit crimes where the people own Glock pistols and the punch line of the commercial is “wrong house” or “wrong girl.”

 In Melinda Herman’s case, for the criminal it was both the wrong house and wrong girl.  She opened fire striking him five times. 

 Instead of having real Americans talk about how their gun rights saved lives, the left only wants to put up a human shield, so no one can debate them. 

 Real Americans should remind those who are allegedly our public servants that the 2nd Amendment exists not only to stop those who want to take our property but also to stop those who want to take our liberty and freedom as well.choice1

Two-Thirds of American Gun Owners Would “Defy” a Federal Gun Ban – Leah Barkoukis

Two-Thirds of American Gun Owners Would “Defy” a Federal Gun Ban – Leah Barkoukis.

AR-15-300x176It’s safe to say Feinstein, Obama and the rest of the gun control gang face an uphill battle when it comes to limiting any Second Amendment rights. According to a Fox News poll, most Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—would defy any new laws that would take away their guns.

But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: “If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?”

The response: 65 percent reported they would “defy the law.” That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.

The good news is that it probably won’t come to this. Analysis from Bloomberg shows that if a vote were held today, Feinstein’s proposed gun control legislation, which would prohibit the sale or transfer of an estimated 158 “assault weapons,” would fail to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate.

At least six of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus have expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote. […]

The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.

The reality, as these and many other lawmakers recognize, is that piling on new laws won’t solve the problem. In fact, The Washington Timesanalysis of recent state laws shows “no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower gun-crime rates in the states.” It’s time our leaders used reason—not emotion—to guide their legislative endeavors.

 

EDITORIAL: Dangers of U.N. disabilities treaty – Washington Times

 

EDITORIAL: Dangers of U.N. disabilities treaty – Washington Times.

Proposed pact is a challenge to U.S. sovereignty

Americans are second to none when it comes to showing compassion for those in need. Yet the United States could soon find itself taking orders from international bureaucrats on how to treat people with disabilities. We don’t need the help.

On Wednesday, the United Nations kicks off its fifth conference on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), a treaty already ratified by 153 countries. The event is being held in New York to pressure U.S. lawmakers to make it the law of the land here, too. The Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee endorsed the agreement in July with a 13-6 vote, and the full Senate could take up ratification at any time.

The CRPD is an invitation to join U.N. internationalists on the slippery slope away from sovereignty. Article 4 of the pact calls on signatories to “undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability.” Shifty lawyers can interpret such loose legal language in unexpected ways. For example, U.N. bureaucrats could call on the federal government to supply every wheelchair-bound citizen with a motorized model, or proclaim that each home must be wheelchair-accessible.

Democrats and Republicans take opposing positions on the the treaty. President Obama is urging the Senate for ratification. The Republican platform unveiled at the national convention several weeks ago rejected the pact along with other U.N. treaties “whose long-range impact on the American family is ominous or unclear.” Should the disabilities treaty remain unratified and Democrats get their clock cleaned in November, Republican President Mitt Romney would urge a GOP-majority Senate to ensure it stays that way.

The agreement’s Article 7 directs, “States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them … .” Families beware: “Ratification of the CRPD would fundamentally alter the parent-child relationship in any family where the child has a disability,” writes home-school advocate Michael Farris. Senators shouldn’t have to be warned that Americans don’t take kindly to government busybodies insinuating themselves between parents and their children. Mothers and fathers of disabled kids — not Uncle Sam — are best prepared to meet the needs and “views” of their children.

Pro-life advocates see a potential abortion mandate in the pact. Article 25 orders signatories “to provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programs as provided other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public-health programs.” Senate Democrats insist the treaty wouldn’t override U.S. law on abortion, but pro-lifers worry the sweeping language could do exactly that. Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, attempted to add an amendment that would exclude abortion from the phrase “sexual and reproductive health,” but it was defeated in committee.

Americans don’t need advice from the U.N. on how to protect the rights of the disabled.

The Washington Times

 

Florida 1, Eric Holder 0 – Tea Party Nation

Florida 1, Eric Holder 0 – Tea Party Nation.

You knew this news would come out on a weekend so it does not gain any traction, but Eric Holder’s efforts to allow the dead to vote and many to vote early and often have suffered a serious setback.

 From Fox News:

 Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott on Saturday lauded the Obama administration‘s new announcement that gives the state access to a federal database, but he also called the standoff-ending decision a “significant victory” for Florida.

The Department of Homeland Security reportedly informed Scott this weekend that Florida would have access to the agency’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database.  

The database, known as SAVE, is a list of resident non-citizens maintained by the agency and would help the state to challenge people’s right to vote if they are suspected of not being U.S. citizens.

The Obama administration had for months denied Florida’s request but relented after a judge ruled in the state’s favor in a related voter-purge matter.

“Access to the SAVE database will ensure that non-citizens do not vote in future Florida elections,” the governor said. “I’m appreciative that the federal government is working with us cooperatively… This commitment from the United States Department of Homeland Security marks a significant victory for Florida and for the integrity of our election system.”

Voting rights groups, while acknowledging that non-citizens have no right to vote, have expressed alarm about using such data for a purpose not originally intended — purging voter lists of ineligible people. They also said voter purges less than four months before a presidential election might leave insufficient time to correct mistakes.

  Anyone want to scream every time the media refers to these groups as “voting rights groups.”   

 They are not voting rights groups they are voting fraud enablers. 

 They do not care about voting rights, what they care about is helping the Party of Treason steal elections. 

 Florida has complained about non-citizens on the voting rolls but the Federal Government has not wanted to help.  Finally they are being forced to.

 Good.

 We must be diligent this fall.  The Party of Treason will be rolling out every trick it can to steal this election.

 Our Republic will remain safe, as long as we protect it against those who would destroy it.

The Invincible Lie – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com

The Invincible Lie – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com.

Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda rhetoric has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama. On Monday, July 9th, for example, he said that Republicans “believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth.”

Let us begin with the word “spend.” Is the government “spending” money on people whenever it does not tax them as much as it can? Such convoluted reasoning would never pass muster if the mainstream media were not so determined to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to Barack Obama.

Ironically, actual spending by the Obama administration for the benefit of its political allies, such as the teachers’ unions, is not called spending but “investment.” You can say anything if you have your own private language.

But let’s go back to the notion of “spending” money on “the wealthiest Americans.” The people he is talking about are not the wealthiest Americans. Income is not wealth — and the whole tax controversy is about income taxes. Wealth is what you have accumulated, and wealth is not taxed, except when you die and the government collects an inheritance tax from your heirs.

People over 65 years of age have far more wealth than people in their thirties and forties — but lower incomes. If Obama wants to talk about raising income taxes, let him talk about it, but claiming that he wants to tax “the wealthiest Americans” is a lie and an emotional distraction for propaganda purposes.

The really big lie — and one that no amount of hard evidence or logic seems to make a dent in — is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will “trickle down” to the rest of the people.

Some years ago, a challenge was issued in this column to name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing. Not one example has yet been received, whether among economists or anyone else. Someone is always claiming that somebody else said it, but no one has ever been able to name and quote that somebody else.

Once we have put aside the lies and the convoluted use of words, what are we left with? Not much.

Obama is claiming that the government can get more tax revenue by raising the tax rate on people with higher incomes. It sounds plausible, and that may be enough for some people, but the hard facts make it a very iffy proposition.

This issue has been fought out in the United States in several administrations — both Democratic and Republican. It has also been fought out in other countries.

What is the real argument of those who want to prevent taxes from rising above a certain percentage, even for people with high incomes? It has nothing to do with making them more prosperous so that their prosperity will “trickle down.”

A Democratic president — John F. Kennedy — stated the issue plainly. Under the existing tax rates, he explained, investors’ “efforts to avoid tax liabilities” made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made “certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings” for the country.

Ironically, the Obama campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney for putting his money in the Cayman Islands substantiate the point that President Kennedy and others have made, that higher tax rates can drive money into tax shelters, whether tax-exempt municipal bonds or investments in other countries.

In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower tax revenues for states, the federal government and other countries. Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all depends on the circumstances.

But none of this matters to Barack Obama. If class warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line, whether the government gets a dime more revenue or not. So long as his lies go unchallenged, a second term will be the end result for him and a lasting calamity for the country.

BOEHNER: Congressional Republicans resolved to repeal Obamacare – Washington Times

BOEHNER: Congressional Republicans resolved to repeal Obamacare – Washington Times.

House Republicans pitching repeal to the Senate

By Rep. John Boehner

There’s no doubt that the president’s health care law is hurting our economy. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Obamacare, the president’s law was driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. The court’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety, which House Republicans stand ready to do.

After enacting his massive “stimulus” spending bill in 2009, President Obama spent more than a year trying to push the health care law through Congress over the objections of the American people, who wanted the president to focus instead on policies that would remove obstacles to private-sector job creation. During that time, the president angrily denied that the penalty the health law would impose on Americans who fail to comply with the mandate was a tax, dismissing the charge as politically-driven rhetoric from his critics.

On June 28, the Supreme Court confirmed that the centerpiece of the president’s health care law does not violate the Constitution because … it is a tax. The president and his allies celebrated the ruling. But when you look at the impact the law is having on our economy, there is nothing to celebrate.

A recent report by Bloomberg News noted that the president’s health care law will impose an estimated $813 billion in new taxes on job creators and middle-class families, based on data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey showed that 74 percent of small businesses contend that this law will make job creation at their companies even more difficult. In my home state of Ohio, private-sector job creators are speaking out on the harmful effects of the law. Jamie Richardson, vice president of government and shareholder relations for White Castle, warned in a recent article in the ColumbusDispatchthat the law “will be a cost burden for employers and [will] negatively impact job creation.”

There’s a lot of resolve among my House colleagues, and among the American people, to stop a law that’s hurting our economy, driving up the cost of health care and stunting job growth. Public opinion research consistently shows most Americans not only oppose Obamacare, but support fully repealing it.

At my direction and that of our majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the U.S. House of Representatives on July 11 will vote on legislation that would fully repeal the president’s health care law to stop it from inflicting further harm on our economy. The House passed a similar bill last year, but it died in the Democratic-controlled Senate. By passing our repeal bill in July, we will give the Senate and Mr. Obama a second opportunity to follow the will of the American people.

What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctors they choose, at a lower cost. House Republicans want families to be able to make their own choices in health care, visit the doctors of their choosing, and receive the health care they and their doctors feel is best.

House Republicans understand that Obamacare is bad for our economy and we will act, on behalf of the American people, to repeal it in its entirety. We are ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country this harmful law.

The silver lining? Now Obama owns his tax hikes – Washington Times – Charles Hurt

John Roberts - Caricature

John Roberts – Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

The silver lining? Now Obama owns his tax hikes – Washington Times – Charles Hurt .

Conservatives gathering now for a low-tech lynching of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. need to take a quick breath of air and think about what he managed to accomplish by upholding President Obama’s highly unpopular, signature piece of legislation.

Though he shocked many by joining the left plank on the high court, Justice Roberts. pretty much did what he was supposed to do. He finally put a boundary on how much freedom the federal government can gobble up from states and individuals under the “commerce clause” — that most specious scheme for so much federal thievery.

Then he told President Obama and his kleptocrats in Congress that they can have their health care law, but they cannot keep lying about it. A tax is a tax and they are liars if they call it anything else. And they just stuck the crippled American taxpayer with one of the biggest, broadest, most regressive tax-hikes in history — and during a deep recession!

Finally, Justice Roberts turned to the bumbling, tongue-twisted and goofball opposition party — sometimes called the “Republican” party but usually called the “stupid” or “slow” party — and told them to man up, quit whining and fix the horrific mess that they are so much responsible for. They may have messed their diaper, but he’s not changing it for them.

OK, fine, maybe Republicans didn’t vote for Obamacare. Woo-hoo! And that got us, well, Obamacare anyway.

Yes, Republicans are nearly equally responsible for Obamacare because they set the stage perfectly for Mr. Obama’s unquestioned ascent to the White House and handed his kleptocrats complete control of Congress for the first two years of the Great Taxus Interegnum.

So badly had they mishandled the economy and everything else and so badly had they compromised and corrupted themselves that even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid became viable options for leadership.

It was under the dazed gaze of San Fran Pelosi and the fat-fisted leadership of Vegas Reid that we got stuck with Obamacare.

In response to an ocean of debt, out-of-control spending and taxpayers running out of money, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and Mr. Obama decided to double down on the debt, spend even more money we don’t have and take away what little money taxpayers had left.

And in response to the highest unemployment in decades, they decided to take even more money away from the companies that provide jobs. And then they yoked those companies with Obamacare.

Somehow, Republicans were not able to make a coherent argument against all of this. They could not make the simple argument that if you don’t like your postal service, you aren’t going to like health care brought to you by the federal government either.

Now, going into the election, President Obama has his law and now he must live with it. He must own it. And he must be judged for the massive taxes his law will levy on innocent Americans.

And then it will be up to Mitt Romney and a new set of Republicans to clean up this legislative cesspool.

Because, as Justice Roberts eloquently writes:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation´s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,766 other followers