Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Five reasons the IRS scandal won’t go away

Five reasons the IRS scandal won’t go away

  • irs-logo-tax-1040-form

  • IRS.jpg
    The 10-page document, a portion of which is shown above, was addressed to a certified public accountant in Thousand Oaks, Calif., but was erroneously sent to a fax machine at a tire supply warehouse in the same town. It contains “wage and income” data from 2010-12 of a Simi Valley man whose sensitive data was seemingly exposed without his knowledge. (FoxNews.com)
Let’s be honest. It’s hard to concentrate on more than one scandal at a time, and the ObamaCare meltdown could be the most consequential government policy failure in modern American history.
But let’s not forget another scandal, one that could well be one of the most consequential acts of sheer governmental malice in modern history – the IRS’s systematic targeting of conservative groups, targeting that had a profound impact on the conservative grassroots during the 2012 election.
And that scandal is not going away. Here are five reasons why:
First, it’s still ongoing. At the ACLJ, we’ve filed a lawsuit against the IRS on behalf of 41 conservative groups in 22 states. While the IRS targeted all of these groups – delaying some of their tax-exempt applications three years or more – a number of them still haven’t received IRS approval. Even now. Even after the IRS apologized for its misconduct.
Apology not accepted.
Second, with every new revelation, it keeps getting worse. In May, we were told that IRS misconduct applied only low-level employees in one office in Ohio.
Now we know the wrongdoing goes to the highest levels of the IRS, it also crosses agency lines (into the Federal Election Commission) and involves far greater misconduct than initially disclosed. The IRS not only targeted groups for unlawful review, it also illegally disclosed donor information to friendly, liberal media, and has engaged in a pattern of retaliatory audits – and that’s the tip of the targeting iceberg.
Third, IRS scandals are now widespread. The targeting scandal has placed the IRS under unprecedented scrutiny, and – quite frankly – the IRS is showing that it’s not only partisan, it’s corrupt, incompetent, and mean-spirited.
Corrupt? The IRS wastes absurd amounts of taxpayer money on extravagant conferences and other perks for its employees.
Incompetent? According to an internal audit, in the past decade, the IRS has paid out as much as $132 billion in “bogus claims” under the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Mean-spirited? Did you know that for a two-year span the IRS audited almost 70 percent of adoptive families? The normal audit rate for middle-class families is closer to one percent.
Fourth, scandal goes straight to the top. Last month, I wrote a column called “Obama’s fingerprints all over IRS Tea Party scandal” that quickly went viral. In this piece I noted that President Obama’s involvement has been hiding in plain sight, as he publicly and repeatedly condemned citizens’ groups like the targeted Tea Party groups and raised the very questions the IRS later unconstitutionally investigated.
Fifth, the IRS targeting scandal is directly relevant to the mother of all policy disasters, ObamaCare. With the IRS set to function as ObamaCare’s enforcement arm, every story of corruption, incompetence, and malice casts doubt on the IRS’s ability faithfully and lawfully discharge its responsibilities within our health care system.
At this point, the IRS and ObamaCare scandals are now dependent and self-reinforcing. Scandal in one area undermines confidence in the other, and the Administration is now in the position of explaining to the American people not only why it can be entrusted with directly managing one-sixth of the American economy when they can’t even build a functioning website, but also why the government’s most corrupt agency should enforce ObamaCare mandates.
Some commentators have called the disastrous ObamaCare rollout President Obama’s “Hurricane Katrina moment” – the moment when perceived government incompetence bursts out on the national stage in a way that no American can ignore.
But in this case, the Administration’s “Katrina moment” is amplified by its Nixon characteristics – the malicious use of government against political enemies. And just as Americans cannot and will not ignore the Administration’s destructive incompetence in the health care arena, they will not ignore the Administration’s malicious actions against their conservative fellow citizens.
The IRS scandal is not going away. It’s too important – too consequential – to the health of our Republic. Instead, the national response to the scandal must be clear and unequivocal, sending a message to this (and future) presidential administrations:
The government belongs to the people, not the President, and it must never be turned against the people to serve the President’s (or any) political agenda.

Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Follow him on Twitter@JaySekulow.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/18/five-reasons-irs-scandal-wont-go-away/
 

Monday, November 25, 2013

Obamacare and Snap of the Fingers Government


Obamacare and Snap of the Fingers GovernmentBy Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute.
 
Last week a senior Washington political journalist told me this story.
According to the journalist’s inside-the-administration sources, a memo went from the Obamacare website developers to the White House several months ago. It laid out in detail the problems with the now-infamous website and recommended – maybe begged is closer to it – the launch’s delay. Otherwise, they said, the website was sure to fail.
Sounds familiar, yes? Here is the twist. The memo was returned to the sender with a one-sentence note scrawled on the top. The note was from senior presidential advisor (who some consider the shadow president) Valery Jarrett. It read, “Failure is not an option.”
That one sentence – “Failure is not an option” – written shortly before the launch of such a hugely complex and sensitive project as the Obamacare website highlights the mix of Greek-tragedy-proportioned hubris and almost adolescent naivety that lies behind the unfolding Obamacare fiasco.
The White House seems to believe that with power all things are possible: We say it (snap of the fingers); it is done.
Throw the vast resources of the federal government at an issue – any issue – and, voila, solution.
Companies — the White House crowd seems to believe — are moved only by greed and so will not serve people’s needs. Private enterprises have the wrong will and, let’s be honest now, insufficient resources. All big tasks – all tasks that matter – belong in the government.
The Obama people show no sense that, unlike the government, companies fail if they fail their customers. Or that delivering “world-class service” – as the president once promised of the Obamacare website experience – is a hard task. It looks easy, because Amazon, American Express, Land’s End and so many others worked so hard and so long to get it right
But behind each successful site is years of tinkering, testing, and revision, in small steps that usually begin with comparatively simple, small sites and build from there. The learning is not just on the part of contractors but within large sections of the companies themselves. Anyone with an iPad can tell from all the app revisions how constant and consuming this process must be.
Anyone can see it, except, it seems, the senior staff of this hubris-blinded White House.
To be clear, I am not talking about the president’s famous declaration, “If you want to keep you insurance, you can keep it.” In that case, the president was talking about a formal feature of the health care law. When it came to how that law was designed, the president and the lawyers, counselors and economists around him were the equivalent of the website developers. They knew that what they were promising could not happen. But when they sent their memo up the chain of command (that would be to the American people, including you and me), they did exactly the opposite of what the designers of their program’s website did.
Maybe even the Nancy Pelosi-types who passed the legislation so they could find out what was in it knew more than they were letting on, too. But if Pelosi and her miserable minions in the House Democratic Caucus and co-conspirators in the Senate Democratic Caucus didn’t actually know that the White House was lying, it would have been out of willful ignorance. There is not a clean pair of Democratic hands in official Washington, today.
But no, the hubris and naivety I am talking about is the snap-the-fingers mindset.
We saw this mindset in action last week with the change in the Senate rule on the limits of debate. It was George Washington who said that the Senate was to be like the saucer of a coffee cup, where the hot liquid of legislation would sit for a while to cool down.
But the Senate filibuster was getting in the way of packing a pivotally placed court. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit deals with regulatory agencies, that is, with the administrative state. Think EPA on coal, Dodd-Frank and the financial sector or the regulatory mountain generated by the Affordable Care Act. The court has leaned strongly toward the view that law by decree is not law, despite what the administration says — hence the desire to pack it.
Hubris, naivety, will to power, snap-the-fingers view of government: those who created our Constitution knew what evil lurks in the hearts of men – what folly, too. They designed a system of limited government and checks and balances to contain it. For decades the liberal… or progressive… or modern (whatever you choose to call them) forces have little by little compromised that system.
When does compromise become destruction?
 

Exemptions to Obamcare Doled Out to President's Supporters

Exemptions to Obamcare Doled Out to President's Supporters

By Jennifer G. Hickey
 
While most of the nation is facing the prospect of getting healthcare through the Obamacare exchanges, the administration continually has doled out exemptions to the law to its political allies.

Labor unions, which were some of the more ardent supporters of getting the law passed, have been on the receiving end of numerous administration exemptions to the law.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) political action committee, for example, spent $27 million toward electing President Barack Obama and several of their local unions have been recipients of waivers to the law's provisions.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

On Tuesday, 11 Republican senators introduced the Union Tax Fairness Act, a bill to prevent the administration from granting more favors to labor by exempting union healthcare plans from the Obamacare reinsurance tax.

"Unions should not be granted a special exemption from Obamacare's reinsurance tax just because the president fears further union backlash on his signature law," said Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. "These unions agreed to pay this tax when they endorsed Obamacare, but now that they are finding out what the law means for them and their plans, they want out."

The Obamacare reinsurance tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and requires all self-insured plans to pay a $63 tax for each person covered. Thune’s bill would prevent the White House from providing a special fix for unions that would exempt them from the fee, which was intended to generate $25 billion in revenues over three years.

Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said the bill insures that unions won't get a special break not available to others.

"The Obama administration should not reward its labor union friends and allies who helped pass the healthcare law by giving them a carve-out from the law's worst provisions," said Alexander. "This hefty reinsurance fee is one of the many job-killing taxes that helped pay for the passage of the law – the administration should be embarrassed that it would consider exempting their union cronies without providing similar relief to our nation's employers and faith-based and charitable organizations."

Unions have not been alone in seeking exemptions from the law they lobbied so hard to pass.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's12th Congressional district in San Francisco — with a median income of $69,000 — secured almost 20 percent of the waivers nationwide in the first year after the president signed the law.

Nevada, the home state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also secured a partial waiver from Obamacare in 2011.

Throughout the life of the waiver program the administration rebuffed congressional efforts to bring transparency to the decision-making process. In February 2011, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah wrote Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), seeking detailed information about a rapid increase in the number of waivers granted.

Hatch noted in December 2010, that HHS announced that 222 waivers had been granted, but a month later, in January 2011, it reported a total of 733 waivers — an increase of more than 200 percent.

In 2011, HHS announced an end to the waiver program but that has not prevented the administration from exempting special groups from Obamacare mandates.

In January of 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that a total of 1,231 companies and labor unions were granted waivers from the Obamacare's restrictions on annual benefit caps.

In June, the administration ruled that native Alaskans and American Indians would be exempted from having to purchase healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Prior to the ruling, only members of federally recognized tribes and shareholders in Alaska Native corporations were considered exempt.

In September, the entire state of Arkansas secured a Medicaid waiver.

The most controversial distinction involves Congress itself. While Congress and their staff are technically not considered "exempt" from Obamacare, they do enjoy favored treatment as a result of a legislative fix passed in 2010. Like other federal employees, congressional staffers are covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), which picks up two-thirds of their cost of insurance.

An amendment to the Afforable Care Act, sponsored by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, required Congress to give up their FEHBP insurance and enter the insurance exchange. But a ruling by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) permitted Congress to keep their employee subsidies under the plan and cited as justification a legal loophole written into the law itself.

Grassley maintains his intent was to make Congress play by the same rules as average Americans, but that was not the result. Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana continues to pursue a legislative remedy that would reverse the OPM ruling, but it has failed to advance in the Senate.

Unions were initially among the biggest supporters of Obamacare but since its passage their tune has changed and they have employed the same lobbying resources toward seeking waivers and exemptions from Obamacare that they did in securing its passage.

The lobbying campaign to exempt unions from the reinsurance fee has been going on for months. In June, Joseph Hansen, president of the 1.3 million-member United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, wrote an editorial in The Hill calling on the administration to use the regulatory process to achieve that goal.

"We’d be open to a legislative fix, but ultimately this is the administration's responsibility. They are leading the regulatory process. It's their signature law," wrote Hansen.

In September at its annual convention, the AFL-CIO adopted several resolutions related to Obamacare, including a proposal to eliminate the reinsurance fee and giving union plans access to tax credits for lower-income members.

In September, the administration rebuffed union efforts to allow their workers to receive premium tax credits, but there were news reports that the administration was seeking alternative means to address union concerns by giving into another demand — relief from the punitive reinsurance fee.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

On October 30, HHS took a first step by issuing a proposed rule that included a provision to exempt "certain self-insured, self-administered" plans for Obamacare's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/obamacare-exemptions-unions-republicans/2013/11/20/id/537720?promo_code=1031D-1&utm_source=www.powerlineblog.com&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2lKEtIKxv

A Very Dangerous Game

A Very Dangerous Game
Young blacks who attack people of other races for fun are getting no media attention.
 

Aftermath of a "knockout game" attack.
 

Thomas Sowell

New York City police authorities are investigating a series of unprovoked physical attacks in public places on people who are Jewish, in the form of what is called “the knockout game.”
The way the game is played: One of a number of young blacks decides to show that he can knock down some stranger on the streets, preferably with one punch, as they pass by. Often some other member of the group records the event, so that a video of that “achievement” is put on the Internet, to be celebrated.
The New York authorities report a recent series of such attacks and, because Jews have been singled out in these attacks, are considering prosecuting these assaults as “hate crimes.”
Many aspects of these crimes are extremely painful to think about, including the fact that responsible authorities in New York seem to have been caught by surprise, even though this “knockout game” has been played for years by young black gangs in other cities and other states, against people besides Jews — the victims being either whites in general or people of Asian ancestry.
Attacks of this sort have been rampant in St. Louis. But they have also occurred in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. In Illinois the game has often been called “Polar Bear Hunting” by the young thugs, presumably because the targets are white.
The main reason for many people’s surprise is that the mainstream media have usually suppressed news about the “knockout game” or about other and larger forms of similar orchestrated racial violence in dozens of cities in every region of the country. Sometimes the attacks are reported, but only as isolated attacks by unspecified “teens” or “young people” against unspecified victims, without any reference to the racial makeup of the attackers or the victims — and with no mention of racial epithets used by the young hoodlums exulting in their own “achievement.”
Despite such pious phrases as “troubled youths,” the attackers are often in a merry, festive mood. In a sustained mass attack in Milwaukee, going far beyond the dimensions of a passing “knockout game,” the attackers were laughing and eating chips, as if it were a picnic. One of them observed casually, “white girl bleed a lot.”
That phrase — “White Girl Bleed a Lot” — is also the title of a book by Colin Flaherty, which documents both the racial attacks across the nation and the media attempts to cover them up, as well as the local political and police officials who try to say that race had nothing to do with these attacks.
Chapter two of the 2013 edition is titled “The Knockout Game, St. Louis Style.” So this is nothing new, however new it may be to some in New York, thanks to the media’s political correctness.
Nor is this game just a passing prank. People have been beaten unconscious, both in this game and in the wider orchestrated racial attacks. Some of these victims have been permanently disabled and some have died from their injuries.
But most of the media see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. In such an atmosphere, the evil not only persists but grows.
Some in the media, as well as in politics, may think that they are trying to avoid provoking a race war by ignoring or playing down these attacks. But the way to prevent a race war is by stopping these attacks, not trying to sanitize them.
If these attacks continue, and continue to grow, more and more people are going to know about them, regardless of the media or the politicians. Responsible people of all races need to support a crackdown on these attacks, which can provoke a white backlash that can escalate into a race war. But political expediency leads in the opposite direction.
What is politically expedient is to do what Attorney General Eric Holder is doing — launch campaigns against schools that discipline a “disproportionate” number of black male students. New York City’s newly elected liberal mayor is expected to put a stop to police “stop-and-frisk” policies that have reduced the murder rate to one-fourth of what it was under liberal mayors of the past.
Apparently political correctness trumps human lives.
Providing cover for hoodlums is a disservice to everybody, including members of every race, and even the hoodlums themselves. Better that they should be suppressed and punished now, rather than continue on a path that is likely to lead to prison, or even to the execution chamber.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2013 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

http://nationalreview.com/article/364322/very-dangerous-game-thomas-sowell

Sunday, November 24, 2013

The Future—As Seen from Restoration Weekend

The Future—As Seen from Restoration Weekend
by Ron Radosh

coulter_restoration_weekend_radosh_11-15-13-1
Ann Coulter at Restoration Weekend. (Photo by author.)

I’m writing this column from Restoration Weekend, the yearly confab of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a good a place as any to get a sense the mood of conservatives and Republicans, as they watch the implosion of Obamacare alongside the entire nation.
The political journalist Michael Barone told me at lunch that he thinks it’s the equivalent of the fall of France, when the great nation collapsed in a few days during World War II. Despite differences between Tea Party conservatives and other Republicans, all seemed to agree that Obamacare will get only worse and that the emphasis of all campaigns should be on presenting market-based alternatives to the worst policy fiasco in our nation’s history.
With her usual sharp humor, Ann Coulter warned of the dangers of wasting time and effort challenging Republicans already in House or Senate seats during primaries, with so-called “more pure” conservatives, many of whom never won elected office and have no experience. Coulter said such candidates are only chosen because someone has proclaimed them more conservative, singling out in particular Jim DeMint for intervening in a Georgia primary against a solid conservative with popular support. She also said she wished Liz Cheney would have gone to South Carolina to live and waged a campaign against Lindsey Graham, instead of challenging a conservative incumbent in Wyoming who otherwise would definitely win his seat again. During another panel, Fox News contributor and former Bush administration official Richard Grenell argued the opposite, praising Cheney for running, since he regards her as someone not afraid to take on Washington in support of tough foreign policy positions needed to offset the many fiascos of the current administration in Syria, Benghazi, and Iran.

And so we get to the growing disaster of Obamacare, the problem of which was boldly displayed on television a night ago by Fox News’ liberal contributor Kirsten Powers. By now, most of you have heard of her angry rant about the cancellation of her very good insurance policy, which gave her exactly the coverage she wanted, which was not substandard, and which she would have to replace with a policy on the exchanges that would cost more and give her less, and force her to pay for coverage she did not need or want. As Powers put it:
My blood pressure goes up every time they say that they’re protecting us from substandard health insurance plans, because there is nothing to support what they’re saying. I have talked about how I am losing my health insurance. I’m having, if I want to keep the same health insurance, it’s going to cost twice as much. There’s nothing substandard about my plan. All of the things they say that are not in my plan are in my plan, all of the things they have listed. There’s no explanation for the doubling of my premiums other than the fact that it’s subsidizing other people.
They need to be honest about that, that that’s the reason they don’t want to change it. It’s because they’re basically taking the people who are responsible enough to get health insurance in the individual market and asking them to subsidize other people. So they’re taking young healthy people and asking them to subsidize other people. I don’t think that’s going to last, frankly. I think they’re trying to buy time until they think they’re going to reach this next deadline.
Powers hits upon the very premise of Obamacare. It is meant not as a health policy, but as a mechanism for redistribution of wealth, created in the guise of medical insurance. By insisting that people pay for what they do not need, it is in effect a mandated policy imposed on the young and healthy, who are asked to pay big bucks for things they don’t need, to cover the costs of elderly people on the exchanges whose medical needs they will be paying for.
That is the big secret about why people are getting cancellation letters for their individual policies and why, much later, people who get policies through employers will find the firms they work for dropping the policies and forcing them into the Obama exchanges as well. It was meant to do precisely that, because otherwise the entire program would collapse.
On Facebook, University of Chicago political scientist Charles Lipson explained its real meaning in these words:
Why do I keep emphasizing the fundamental problems with Obamacare? Not just because I think it is a full-scale public policy shambles, the worst domestic policy mistake since high-rise public housing. Not just because I think the President either didn’t understand his own signature achievement or else he deliberately deceived the public when he said you could keep your policy and your doctor. Not just because the same problems that affect individual insurance policies will swamp group plans next year. Not just because I think the President’s statement yesterday was lawless when he said he would simply ignore the ACA’s specific provisions. (What happened to his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws?) All these are indicia of a deeper problem: Washington has become an overreaching Nanny State, run by smug elites who know better than ordinary people what we should do, think, buy, invade, or snoop on. This Nanny State is precisely the GOAL of this administration, sometimes nudging but more often simply ordering. It goes well beyond providing an essential safety net, which I favor. It starts to mandate more and more behavior, strip away the liberties of a free people, transfer wealth for the sake of distributional equity, and muddle headlong into complex markets with no understanding of the unintended consequences. That is EXACTLY what you are seeing with Obamacare. It raises the most fundamental questions about the country’s future–ultimately a choice between a European-style social democracy and an American-style central government of limited and specified powers.
Lipson has it right. Barack Obama is trying his best to implement “the fundamental transformation” of the United States he spoke about as his goal in the 2008 presidential campaign. Obamacare is but the first step. It is now up to conservatives and Republicans to stop fighting each other, and to unite around the common goal of stopping the political victory of the Left, embodied in the program that exemplifies its goals and that is now slowly eroding. No wonder the people attending Restoration Weekend are optimistic about the future.

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/11/15/restoration-weekend/?singlepage=true

Obama’s Massive Fraud



If schadenfreude had calories, I'd weigh 300 pounds.

If schadenfreude had calories, I'd weigh 300 pounds.



As Obamacare continues its spectacular public impersonation of the LZ Hindenburg, dropping flaming wreckage across the politico-economic landscape, I am still just utterly gobsmacked at the dazed bafflement on the face of the true believers in government.

"How could this be going so spectacularly wrong?" goes the hand-wringing lament.

How could it not? Seriously! You think a bunch of people can sit down and... Lux Fiat! ...re-write the rules for how 15% of the economy works in one fell swoop, in what amounts to a giant bong-fueled bull session, and have nothing go wrong? You might as well try to change the spark plugs on your car while the engine's running.

Then again, these are people who think that the efficiency of internal combustion engines or the amount of water it takes to carry off a turd are governed by legislative magic and not the laws of physics.

The naive credulity these people have towards the power of government, their blind faith that they can tamper with the machinery without it hurting anybody, differs in kind nor quality not one lick from the most snake-handlin' Pentecostal's faith that Jesus will keep the serpent from biting.


(As an aside, I'll note that stuff like this happens in microcosm all the time, when government decides to meddle with one industry or another, but rarely does it meddle on such high profile with an economic sector that affects everybody all at once, and on such short notice, to boot.

This isn't trying to gradually phase out gas guzzlers over ten years; this is making all cars that don't get >30MPG illegal to drive in January. But don't worry! If your cars don't meet the standard, the government will have a new car ready for you on the 1st. Promise! They've almost got the car factory finished!)
 
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2013/11/if-schadenfreude-had-calories-id-weigh.html

Saturday, November 23, 2013

James Madison on Obamacare

James Madison on Obamacare

by Steven Hayward in Obamacare

So Obama has thrown the entire health insurance market into complete chaos. I’ll discuss later whether this was the deliberate intent, or whether it is just another extension of Uhlmann’s Razor. For now, here’s how James Madison sized things up in Federalist #62:
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.

 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/11/james-madison-on-obamacare.php

Lee Harvey Oswald: Epstein’s short course

Lee Harvey Oswald: Epstein’s short course



Thirty years ago the Wall Street Journal published Edward Jay Epstein’s essay “Who was Lee Harvey Oswald” on the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. Ed has sent along his draft of the essay with the question: “How much has changed?” If anything has changed, it is the ever increasing quantity of ignorance and stupidity abroad in the land on the subject of the Kennedy assassination. Here is Epstein’s 1983 short course on Lee Harvey Oswald:
The endless tangle of questions about bullets, trajectories, wounds, time sequences and inconsistent testimony that has surrounded the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and has obsessively fascinated, if not entirely blinded, a generation of assassination buffs-probably never will be resolved.
Within this morass of facts, however, there is a central actor, Lee Harvey Oswald. His rifle, which fired the fatal bullet into the president, was found in the sniper’s nest. His cartridge cases were also found near the body of a murdered policeman on the route his flight. He was captured resisting arrest with the loaded murder revolver in his hand.
In light of this overwhelming evidence, the issue that ought to have concerned Americans was not Oswald’s technical guilt but his dangerous liaisons abroad. Only eight weeks before the assassination he had excited FBI and CIA interest in his activities by renewing his contacts with Cuban and Soviet intelligence officers in Mexico City. Although these foreign connections remained of great concern to the two U S. intelligence agencies, they were considered too sensitive to be aired publicly in the emotional aftermath of the president’s slaying.
Oswald was not a “loner” in the conventional sense. Ever since he was handed a pamphlet about the Rosenberg prosecution at the age of 15, he had sought out affiliations with political organizations, front groups and foreign nations that opposed the policies of the U.S. When he was 16. he wrote the Socialist Party “I am a Marxist and have been studying Socialist Principles for well over five years” and he requested information about joining their “Youth League.” He also attempted to persuade a friend to join the youth auxiliary of the Communist Party. He subsequently made membership inquiries to such organizations as the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Labor Party, The Gus Hall-Benjamin Davis Defense Committee, the Daily Worker, The Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the Communist Party, USA — correspondence that brought him under surveillance by the FBI,
While still in the early stages of his flirtation with political causes, 0swald joined the Marine Corps. In October 1959, after a two-year stint as a radar operator, Oswald became the first Marine to defect to the Soviet Union, In Moscow, he delivered a letter stating: “I affirm that my allegiance is to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
Not only did he publicly renounce his American citizenship but he told the U.S. consul that he intended to turn over to the Soviet Union military secrets that he had acquired while serving in the Marines, adding that he had data of “Special interest” to the Russians. Since he indeed had exposure to military secrets such as the U-2 spy piane and radar identitification system, and since he may have collected data while on active duty, his defection had serious espionage implications.
Oswald thus had compromised all the secret data he had come in contact with in the Marines. He had also through this act put himself in the hands of his hosts. He was now completely dependent on the Soviets for financial support, legal status and protection.
Before disappearing into the Soviet hinterland for a year, Oswald spelled out his operational creed in a long letter to his brother. From Moscow, he wrote presciently of his willingness to commit murder for a political cause: “I want you to understand what I say now, I do not say lightly, or unknowingly, since I’ve been in the military …. In the event of war I would kill any American who put a uniform on in defense of the American Government –”, and then ominously added for emphasis, ” Any American.” Although his letter was routinely intercepted by the CIA and microfilmed, no discernible attention was paid to the threat contained in it.
When Oswald returned from the Soviet Union in June 1962 (with a little help from a State Department eager to demonstrate that it could win back a defector from the Soviets), joined by a Russian wife, he retained his militant convictions. In Dallas, where he settled, he purchased a rifle with telescopic sights and a revolver from a mail-order house under a false name. He also lectured his more liberal acquaintances on the need for violent action rather than mere words. General Edwin A. Walker, an extreme conservative, who had been active in Dallas organizing anti-Castro guerrillas became in the Spring of 1963 a particular focus of Oswald’s attention. He repeatedly suggested to a German geologist, Volkmar Schmidt, and other friends, that General walker should be treated like a “murderer at large”. He did not stop at fierce words. For weeks, he methodically stalked Walker’s movements, photographing his residence from several angles.
He then had his wife photograph him, dressed entirely in black, with his revolver strapped on a holster on his hip, his sniper’s rifle in his right hand, and two newspapers — The Worker and The Militant — in his left hand. He made three copies of the photograph — one of which he inscribed, dated “5–IV-63″ and sent to a Dallas acquaintance, George De Mohrenschildt. He then left with his rifle wrapped in a raincoat, telling his wife he was off to “target practice,” but his target, General Walker, was out of town that night. Five nights later, Oswald returned to Walker’s house, and fired a shot at him that missed his head by inches, demonstrating that he had the capacity as well as the willingness to kill “Any American.”
After the failed assassination, Oswald went to New Orleans, where he became the organizer for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Aside from printing leaflets, staging demonstrations, getting arrested and appearing on local radio talk shows in support of Castro that summer, Oswald attempted to personally infiltrate an anti-Castro group that was organizing sabotage raids against Cuba. He explained to friends that he could figure out his “anti-imperialist” policy by “reading between the lines” of the Militant and other such publications.
In August, he wrote the central committee of the Communist Party USA asking “Whether in your opinion, I can compete with anti-progressive forces above ground, or whether I should always remain in the background, i.e. underground.” During this hot summer, while Oswald spent evenings practicing sighting his rifle in his backyard, the Militant raged on about the Kennedy Administration’s “terrorist bandit” attacks on Cuba. And as the semi-secret war against Castro escalated, Oswald expressed increasing interest in reaching Cuba.
Oswald told his wife he planned to hijack an airliner to Havana, suggesting, as the summer progressed, that he might even earn a position in Castro’s government. On September 9, in a report that appeared on the front page of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Castro himself warned that if American leaders continued “aiding plans to eliminate Cuban leaders … they themselves will not be safe.”
The implication of this threat was not lost on Oswald. Telling his wife that they might never meet again, he left New Orleans two weeks later headed for the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. To convince the Cubans of his bona fides — and seriousness — he had prepared a dossier on himself, which included a 10-page resume, outlining his revolutionary activities, newspaper clippings about his defection to the Soviet Union, propaganda material he had printed, documents he had stolen from a printing company engaged in classified map reproduction for the U.S Army, his correspondence with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee executives and photographs linking him to the Walker shooting.
Oswald applied for a visa at the Cuban Embassy on the morning of September 27, 1963. He said that he wanted to stop in Havana en route to the Soviet Union. On the application the consular office who interviewed him, noted: “The applicant states that he is a member of the American Communist Party and Secretary in New Orleans of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” Despite such recommendations, Oswald was told that he needed a Soviet visa before the Cuban visa could be issued. He argued over this requisite with the Cuban counsel, Eusebio Azque, in front of witnesses, and reportedly made wild claims about services he might perform for the Cuban cause. During the next five days, he traveled back and forth between the Soviet and Cuban embassies attempting to straighten out the difficulty.
When he telephoned from the Cuban embassy to arrange an appointment at the Soviet Embassy with an officer called Valery Vladimirovich Kostikov, he set off alarm bells at the CIA, which had been surreptitiously monitoring the phone line. Kostikov was a KGB officer who had been under close surveillance in Mexico by the FBI (and who,in 1971, was identified by a KGB defector in London as the head of sabotage operations in Mexico). By the time the CIA had identified Oswald, and notified the FBI, he had left Mexico.
When he returned to Dallas that October, Oswald assumed a different identity — “O.H.Lee” — and, separating himself from his family, he moved to a rooming house. He also forbade his wife from divulging his whereabouts. He then got a job at the Texas Book Depository, which overlooked the convergence of the three main streets into central Dallas.
On October 18, Oswald’s visa was approved by the Cuban Foreign Ministry (despite the fact that he had not officially received a Soviet visa, as required.) Three weeks later, he wrote another letter to the Soviet Embassy, referring to his meeting with Kostikov in Mexico, and adding cryptically: “Had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business.”
FBI counterintelligence, which had intercepted this letter in Washington, and evidently was interested in Oswald’s “business” in Havana, urgently requested its field agents in Dallas to locate him. An FBI agent, James Hosty, rushed over to the home where Oswald’s family was living, and questioned his wife, but he did not find him Oswald until November 22, when he had been arrested for the murder of a Dallas policeman and President Kennedy.
In the final analysis, the Warren Commission turned out to be right: Oswald was the assassin. He had brought his rifle to work on November 22, carefully prepared a concealed sniper’s position at a sixth floor window, and, waiting in ambush for almost an hour, shot the President as the motorcade passed below. The possibility that he had assistance — for example, someone setting off a firecracker as a diversion — can never be precluded. But the real question is not how but why Oswald assassinated the President.
The most obvious motive was provided by Oswald himself in his letter from Moscow: To kill any American who put on a uniform against his cause. He openly subscribed to the terrorist creed that a man with a rifle could change history; and, as far as Oswald was concerned, President Kennedy and General Walker were both actively working to destroy his avowed hero — Castro.
Whether Oswald, given his clear disposition towards killing an American leader, was prodded or otherwise induced into committing the assassination was the question that vexed American intelligence after the shooting. Oswald had disappeared in the Soviet Union for more than a year, without yielding a trace of what, if any, training and indoctrination he had undergone. The only record of this missing year was a “diary” he brought out with him, which had in fact been written in two days presumably to provide him with a consistent cover story or legend.
His five days with the Cubans in Mexico City were also a blank — although friendly sources within the Cuban Embassy indicated that he was pressured to prove his loyalty and worth. Although the Cuban government insisted, through both official and intelligence channels, that Oswald was presumed crazy and dismissed as such by the embassy staff, it left unanswered the disturbing question of why a visa was approved for Oswald — after the report was received from the embassy. Among the eleven questions prepared by the CIA for Mexican interrogators was one that expressed its direct concern: “Was the assassination of of President Kennedy planned by Fidel Castro…and were the final details worked out inside the Cuban Embassy.”
In Dallas, before Mexican investigators could question their sources, Oswald was shot dead, and with his death ended the hope of unraveling his motive.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/11/lee-harvey-oswald-epsteins-short-course.php

Obama Isn’t the Only One Who Lied

Obama Isn’t the Only One Who Lied

by John Hinderaker in Obamacare

The Obama administration has run aground on the president’s promise that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it: Scott Rasmussen finds that 55% of voters rate Obama’s performance on health care as “poor.” But, as Byron York notes, at least 27 Democratic senators made the same false promise to their constituents:
The list includes the entire Democratic leadership in the Senate as well as Democrats facing tough re-election races in 2014, like Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich, and Kay Hagan.
Let’s take just a couple of examples. First, Max Baucus:
SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-Mont.): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)
Tom Harkin:
SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-Iowa): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like — existing policies — you can keep them. … we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)

You may have noticed that Baucus and Harkin promised that you can keep your existing plan on the same day–September 29, 2010. That was the date when the Republicans brought on a resolution to disapprove and revoke the grandfather regulations that the Obama administration had promulgated in June 2010. As the Republicans pointed out, the Obama administration itself projected that these regulations would cause many millions of Americans to lose their existing health insurance, whether they liked it or not. Senator Mike Enzi introduced the resolution and began the debate:
Mr. President, the resolution we are debating today is about keeping a promise. The authors of the new health care law promised the American people that if they liked their current health insurance, they could keep it. On at least 47 separate occasions, President Obama promised: “If you like what you have, you can keep it.”
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has broken that promise. Earlier this year, the administration published a regulation that will fundamentally change the health insurance plans of millions of Americans. The reality of this new regulation is, if you like what you have, you can’t keep it. The new regulation implemented the grandfathered health plan section of the new health care law. It specified how existing health plans could avoid the most onerous new rules and redtape included in the 2,700 pages of the new health care law.
This provision was a critical part of the new law. It allowed supporters to argue that current health insurance plans would be exempt from all of the rules and regulations created by the new law. Employers and health plans were told that the grandfathered protections would mean if you have coverage on the day the law passed, you could keep that coverage without having to make any major changes.
… Unfortunately, the regulation writers at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services broke all those promises. The regulation is crystal clear. Most businesses–the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent–will not be able to keep the coverage they have.
What Enzi said was indisputably true. The Obama administration summed up the devastating effect that its own regulations would have on employer-sponsored health insurance plans in this chart, published in the Federal Register along with the grandfather regulations on June 17, 2010:
FederalRegister092
So Enzi wasn’t making anything up, he was merely quoting the Obama administration’s own numbers. The Republican resolution was essentially equivalent to the Upton bill that passed the House today, with 39 Democratic votes: if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Yet every single Democrat voted against it, and Senators Baucus and Harkin, among others, delivered speeches that were delusional, if they meant what they said. They claimed, without ever acknowledging the Obama administration’s own statements about the effects of its regulations, that under Obamacare we can all keep the plans we have. That couldn’t possibly have been an honest mistake, since Enzi and other Republicans had reminded them of the administration’s projections just minutes before. So it can only have been one of the most cynical political performances on record.
Baucus and Harkin are retiring from the Senate, thankfully. But, as Byron points out, the Democratic Senators facing tough re-election campaigns next year joined in promising their constituents that they would be able to keep their existing insurance, in defiance of all the facts. And every one of them voted against the Republican resolution on September 29, 2010, when the Republicans tried to make their promise a reality. Given that stark record, it is hard to see how any Senate Democrat in a swing state can possibly be re-elected next November.
 

Scott Walker: How to Win the Obama-Walker Voters

Scott Walker: How to Win the Obama-Walker Voters

If conservative principles are the problem, then why are so many Republicans in office who campaigned on them?        

Nov. 21, 2013 6:52 p.m. ET
In the wake of the 2012 elections, Republicans are being warned once again that they need to compromise their principles to win at the ballot box. That the only way to win the center is to move to the center.
If this were true, Barack Obama would not be president today—and I would not be governor of Wisconsin.
When I was first elected as Milwaukee County Executive in 2002, pundits said it was a fluke—a Republican elected in a heavily Democratic district in a special election in the wake of a political scandal. To stay in the job, they said, I would have to move to the middle. Instead, I governed as a conservative reformer and won three consecutive elections as county executive, each one by bigger margins. The last one, in 2008, was especially noteworthy. Mr. Obama won Milwaukee County with 67.5% of the vote; I won with nearly 60%.
As governor of the state, my administration reformed collective bargaining in the public sector against enormous odds, turned a $3.6 billion deficit into a $760 million surplus, and cut taxes. In response to the union reform, opponents mounted a recall election in 2012. It was contentious—yet after enduring a hundred thousand or more protesters and tens of millions of dollars in negative ads, we won the recall by a bigger margin than in the gubernatorial election in 2010.
And here is where the results get intriguing: Exit polls showed that roughly one in six voters who cast their ballots for me in the June 2012 recall also planned to vote for Mr. Obama a few months later. These Obama-Walker voters constituted about 9% of the electorate.
 
President Barack Obama Corbis
 
Polls show that about 11% of the people in Wisconsin today support both me and the president. There are probably no two people in public life who are more philosophically opposite—yet more than one in 10 approve of us both.
To make a conservative comeback, Republicans need to win these Obama-Walker voters and their equivalents across the country. In the Wisconsin recall election, we mobilized conservative voters by standing up for conservative principles against enormous pressure. But we also persuaded at least some of President Obama's supporters to support us, too.
There are independent, reform-minded voters in every state. In times of crisis, they want leadership—from either party. What I have learned is that if you step forward and offer a reform agenda that is hopeful and optimistic, they may give you a shot. More important, if you deliver, they will stick with you.
The way Republicans can win those in the middle is not by abandoning their principles. To the contrary, the courage to stand on principle is what these voters respect. The way to win the center is to lead.
That's why those arguing that conservatives have to "moderate" their views if they want to appeal to the country are so wrong. If our principles were the problem, then why are so many Republican governors winning elections by campaigning on them? Since Barack Obama took office in 2009, the GOP has gone from controlling both the legislature and governor's mansion in nine states to 23 states today. Not one sitting Republican governor has lost a general election since 2007.
Republicans did not win those races by running from principles. They won by applying principles in ways that are relevant to the lives of citizens.
In Washington the fight is over "fiscal cliffs," "debt limits," "sequesters" and "shutdowns." In the states, Republicans focus on improving education, caring for the poor, reforming government, lowering taxes, fixing entitlements, reducing dependency, improving health care, and creating jobs and opportunity for the unemployed.
Republicans need to do more than simply say no to Mr. Obama and his party's big-government agenda. They can offer Americans positive solutions for the nation's challenges—to reduce dependency, and create hope, opportunity, and upward mobility for all citizens. They need to make not just the economic case for conservative reforms but the moral case as well—showing how conservative policies and ideas will make America not only a more prosperous society but a more just and fair one as well.
When I faced the need to reform collective bargaining in the government, I wanted to win, but I wasn't afraid to lose and didn't worry about getting re-elected. That was profoundly liberating.
Too many people in politics today spend their time trying not to lose instead of trying to do the right thing. They would better serve the country by worrying more about the next generation than the next election. The irony is that politicians who spend more time worrying about the next generation than about the next election often tend to win the next election—because voters are starved for leadership.
Americans reward leaders who offer positive solutions, keep their promises and get results. If Republicans do that, Americans will stand with them. I know because they stood with me.
Mr. Walker, a Republican, is the governor of Wisconsin and the author of "Unintimidated: A Governor's Story and a Nation's Challenge" (Sentinel, 2013
 

Friday, November 22, 2013

The Cure for Obamacare: The Widely Accepted Alternative and a New Idea to Go with It

The Cure for Obamacare: The Widely Accepted Alternative and a New Idea to Go with It

By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute
At a luncheon in Washington last week, I stumbled across something new in the Obamacare debate.
Most of the attendees were reporters. The inevitable question came up: If not Obamacare, what? And when a Republican ran through an answer (equalizing tax treatment of insurance bought through employers and individually; allowing insurance policies approved in one state to be sold in all; HSAs and high deductible plans; medical liability reform), the reception was attentive, not dismissive.
In other words, Washington is starting to take seriously the prospect of repeal and replace.
An effective reform package will have more items in it that those mentioned at the lunch. Here is a link to short (four and a half minutes) video from Pacific Research Institute that lays out the main points of the widely accepted alternative: http://bit.ly/1jeZYv3. The video was produced to launch the Encounter Broadside The Cure for Obamacare by PRI president Sally Pipes (http://amzn.to/1fOpvLG), which goes through the agenda in detail.
I want to put out an additional reform – at least in concept. It has to do with FDA certification of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Medicine has increasingly become a matter of prescribing drugs and implanting devices, each of which must go through a long and expensive approval process. We all pay for these costs and delays in four ways: 1) the outright expenses of trials, some of which are useful, some are not and some are capriciously imposed; 2) the capital costs on top of the direct costs, which accumulate like compounded interest as delays stretch to a decade and more; 3) the lost lives and restored health in the years that good drugs and devices are kept off the market and 4) the lack of competition because alternatives are trapped in the process.
To give two examples of this price, over the weekend a pair stories appeared about infectious diseases.
The first was a report out of the U.K, as The Independent, which wrote: “Routine operations could become deadly ‘in the very near future’ as bacteria evolve to resist the drugs we use to combat them. This process could erase a century of medical advances, say government doctors in a special editorial in The Lancet health journal.” (http://ind.pn/1gXRZFN).
Beginning in the Lyndon Johnson Administration, the U.S. government started discouraging – including through the FDA — me-too drugs, particularly antibiotics. These were pharmaceuticals with small variants in their molecular structure. Often at least part of the motivation in creating and marketing them was to have a product on-patent or get around another producer’s patent. The government’s idea was that a drug was a drug and the small changes only inflated costs and profits. But the arguable result has been to slow the flow of antibiotic options and, with other factors, to accelerate the emergence of drug resistant bacterial strains.
The second article had to do with the FDA process keeping proven cures out of the United States (http://cbsloc.al/1dMTxxV). A small epidemic of meningitis has broken out at Princeton University. Nothing has been able to stop it. European and Australian authorities have approved a drug called Bexsero that is effective against the disease. The FDA has not done so. In this case, the FDA is offering a green light to Princeton, likely under the weight of criticism from expert professors. But what of those places facing similar dilemmas but without expert professors and well connected alumni?
The FDA process has two parts. The first established the product’s safety. The second determines that it is effective. There has been talk for years about doing away with the effectiveness half of the test. It is very expensive and can stop companies from spreading the word about proven benefits of good medications. My concept goes further.
Yes, do away with superfluous and counterproductive effectiveness trials. But change the safety trial, too. Create three new categories for drugs: legal, advisory and certified.
“Legal” medicines would have no FDA approval and naturally would exclude banned drugs. Any legal drug could go to market.
“Advisory” would be much like the current approval, meaning the FDA would verify safety but trial lawyers could still sue, a major expense to the industry.
“Certified” would carry a stronger FDA backing. The government would assume all liability. Producers would no longer be subject to lawsuits.
The point is both to free up the approval process, allowing more treatments to come available faster, and tighten it, making the ultimate approval a true guarantee to both the consumer and the producer. My guess is that inventors will start new drugs at the low end of the process and work their way to the top as experience accumulates.
The bigger point is that the best reforms will creatively free up the medical care and insurance markets, allowing physicians, insurers and pharmaceutical and device producers new freedom.
Better competition (with functional rather than dysfunctional oversight) is the true cure for Obamacare.