Kathleen Sebelius’s Scare Tactics on Obamacare

large group we wont take it any more

The Heritage Foundation

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is already claiming that seniors would be adversely affected by House-passed legislation defunding Obamacare. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obamacare is the program inflicting harm on seniors–because, as Nancy Pelosi said, the law “took half a trillion dollars out of Medicare” to fund Obamacare. Defunding the law would make seniors much better off.
http://herit.ag/14rnst7

Obama’s coldest and cruelest act

obama_contemptlive

Tyrant in our whitehouse

from: Ron De Jong Grassfire Communications Director

While watching my daughter’s soccer practice last night, I started chatting with “Ted,” the father of one of my daughter’s teammates and a retired Naval officer. We had a fascinating conversation that touched on ObamaCare and his concerns over his wife’s ongoing cancer treatments, as well as the tinderbox in Syria and other global hotspots.

However, when the conversation turned to President Obama’s waiving a law so he could use tax dollars to provide military arms to radical Islamic groups — including al Qaeda — in an attempt to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, the decorated veteran of multiple tours of duty became incensed:

“I put my (butt) on the line for that man, and this is what we get in return?!”
Much of the conversation that followed isn’t printable here. But, expletives deleted, Ted’s points are all well taken.

Without question, this is Obama’s coldest and cruelest act — a slap in the face to the 6,727 U.S. military men and women who have perished during the “War on Terror.” By clearing the way for your and my tax dollars to fund al Qaeda, our “Commander-in-Chief” also disrespects each of the nearly 3,000 people murdered during the horrific events of September 11, 2001.
+ + Obama Weakens America At Home & Abroad
The diplomatic failures of Barack Hussein Obama are many and have succeeded only in making our nation weaker and more vulnerable both here and abroad.

Now to callously brush aside federal law to fund and embolden our sworn enemies — terrorists bent on destroying our nation and our people — is obscene.

In response to the madness that frames the Obama presidency, Grassfire has released an eye-opening and timely resource arguing for the impeachment of our 44th president.

The Case To Impeach reveals how it’s not one scandal or one outrageous act that creates the strongest case to remove President Obama from office, but rather it is the “long train of abuses” that our Radical-in-Chief has unleashed against the Constitution and the American people.

Lois Lerner is the scowling face of this state, which has earned Americans’ distrust.

by George Will

As soon as the Constitution permitted him to run for Congress, Al Salvi did. In 1986, just 26 and fresh from the University of Illinois law school, he sank $1,000 of his own money, which was most of his money, into his campaign to unseat an incumbent Democratic congressman. Salvi studied for the bar exam during meals at campaign dinners.

He lost his campaign.- Today, however, he should be invited to Congress to testify about what happened 10 years later, when he was a prosperous lawyer and won the Republican Senate nomination to run against a Democratic congressman named Dick Durbin.

In the fall of 1996, at the campaign’s climax, Democrats filed with the Federal Election Commission charges against Salvi’s campaign alleging campaign finance violations. These charges dominated the campaign’s closing days.* Salvi spoke by telephone with the head of the FEC’s Enforcement Division, who he remembers saying: “Promise me you will never run for office again, and we’ll drop this case.” He was speaking to Lois Lerner.

After losing to Durbin, Salvi spent four years and $100,000 fighting the FEC, on whose behalf FBI agents visited his elderly mother demanding to know, concerning her $2,000 contribution to her son’s campaign, where she got “that kind of money.” When the second of two federal courts held that the charges against Salvi were spurious, the lawyer arguing for the FEC was Lois Lerner.

More recently, she has been head of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, which has used its powers of delay, harassment and extortion to suppress political participation. For example, it has told an Iowa right-to-life group that it would get tax-exempt status if it would promise not to picket Planned Parenthood clinics.

 Last week, in a televised House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), Salvi’s former law partner, told the riveting story of the partisan enforcement of campaign laws to suppress political competition by distracting Salvi and entangling him in bureaucratic snares. The next day, the number of inches of newsprint in The Post and the New York Times devoted to Roskam’s revelation was the number of minutes that had been devoted to it on the three broadcast networks’ evening news programs the night before: Zero.

House Republicans should use their committee chairmanships to let Lerner exercise her right to confront Salvi and her many other accusers. If she were invited back to Congress to respond concerning Salvi, would she again refuse to testify by invoking her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination? There is one way to find out.

Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, defeated Salvi by 15 points. He probably would have won without the assistance of Lerner and the campaign “reforms” that have produced the FEC’s mare’s-nest of regulations and speech police that lend themselves to abuses like those Salvi experienced. In 2010, Durbin, who will seek a fourth term next year, wrote a letter urging Lerner’s IRS division to pay special attention to a political advocacy group supporting conservatives.

Lerner, it is prudent to assume, is one among thousands like her who infest the regulatory state. She is not just a bureaucratic bully and a slithering partisan. Now she also is a national security problem because she is contributing to a comprehensive distrust of government.

The case for the National Security Agency’s gathering of metadata is: America is threatened not by a nation but by a network, dispersed and largely invisible until made visible by connecting dots. The network cannot help but leave, as we all do daily, a digital trail of cellphone, credit card and Internet uses. The dots are in such data; algorithms connect them. The technological gathering of 300 billion bits of data is less menacing than the gathering of 300 by bureaucrats. Mass gatherings by the executive branch twice receive judicial scrutiny, once concerning phone and Internet usages, another concerning the content of messages.

The case against the NSA is: Lois Lerner and others of her ilk.

Government requires trust. Government by progressives, however, demands such inordinate amounts of trust that the demand itself should provoke distrust. Progressivism can be distilled into two words: “Trust us.” The antecedent of the pronoun is: The wise, disinterested experts through whom the vast powers of the regulatory state’s executive branch will deliver progress for our own good, as the executive branch understands this, whether we understand it or not. Lois Lerner is the scowling face of this state, which has earned Americans’ distrust.