Saturday, June 30, 2012
WSJ Economics Writer Stephen Moore Tells Fox and Friends That Obamacare Costs Will Be Shouldered by Those Making Less Than $120,000 per Year | Video | TheBlaze.com
WSJ Economics Writer Stephen Moore Tells Fox and Friends That Obamacare Costs Will Be Shouldered by Those Making Less Than $120,000 per Year | Video | TheBlaze.com
Government
Stephen Moore, an economist with the Wall Street Journal, appeared on Fox News recently to discuss the ramifications of the president’s new health care law…and his analysis is sure to come as a shock to those who haven’t been following the matter closely.
Though Barack Obama assured the middle class he would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year, Moore’s research shows that in reality, a significant percentage of the burden will be shouldered by those making $120,000 or less by the year 2016.
Here are rough numbers of how the costs will increase over the next few years:
“Why do you think that somehow,” host Alisyn Camerota asked, “this equates to a tax to everyone?”
“Well, the court decided this the other day, didn’t they Alisyn?” Moore responded with a smile.
“And you know there’s an old saying that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. I’ll tell you this, for Americans who are going to have to pay these fines, penalties, taxes, whatever you want to call them…What we found is it’s going to be pretty darn expensive. The taxes phase in over time so next year they might be pretty modest, by about 2015 or ‘16, for families that choose not to buy health insurance, you’re talking about a fine, Alisyn, that could be over $2,000 a year.”
From there, Camerota said that she had an example of these fines, “or taxes, as you call them.”
Rather than reiterate that a primary reason the bill was upheld was because it was determined to be a tax by the Supreme Court, Moore concluded: “You remember the president’s promise that when he was elected, no one making under $200,000 would pay a dime more in taxes…Again, whatever you want to call it Alisyn, fines, taxes, penalties, but three quarters of those costs will fall on the backs of families who make less than $120,00 a year, so it’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class families.”
The Cost of health care on the Employers of America, people will loose their jobs, insurances, worse. This is by design as the Obamanations desire All to eventually come begging at their $$$ table for all your needs... then they will choose if you deserve it or not... such is Obama Care.
Government
WSJ Economist: Brunt of ‘Obamacare’ Costs Will Be Shouldered by Those Making Under $120K
- Posted on June 30, 2012 at 12:24pm by
Erica Ritz - Print »
- Email »
(Photo: Screen Shot/Fox News)
Though Barack Obama assured the middle class he would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year, Moore’s research shows that in reality, a significant percentage of the burden will be shouldered by those making $120,000 or less by the year 2016.
Here are rough numbers of how the costs will increase over the next few years:
(Photo: Screen Grab/FOX)
“Well, the court decided this the other day, didn’t they Alisyn?” Moore responded with a smile.
“And you know there’s an old saying that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. I’ll tell you this, for Americans who are going to have to pay these fines, penalties, taxes, whatever you want to call them…What we found is it’s going to be pretty darn expensive. The taxes phase in over time so next year they might be pretty modest, by about 2015 or ‘16, for families that choose not to buy health insurance, you’re talking about a fine, Alisyn, that could be over $2,000 a year.”
From there, Camerota said that she had an example of these fines, “or taxes, as you call them.”
Rather than reiterate that a primary reason the bill was upheld was because it was determined to be a tax by the Supreme Court, Moore concluded: “You remember the president’s promise that when he was elected, no one making under $200,000 would pay a dime more in taxes…Again, whatever you want to call it Alisyn, fines, taxes, penalties, but three quarters of those costs will fall on the backs of families who make less than $120,00 a year, so it’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class families.”
Madison Rising - The Star Spangled Banner - Rock Band Defends National Anthem against Liberal attacks...
Rock Band Defends National Anthem Against Liberal Attacks With This Patriotic ‘Star Spangled Banner’ Challenge
- Posted on June 29, 2012 at 5:26pm by
Billy Hallowell - Print »
- Email »
In the past, we’ve brought you conservative rock bands who mesh patriotism with lyrical genius and obvious musical talent. Among those musicians and groups making a splash is Madison Rising, a band founded upon basic American values. This week, the band announced an interesting initiative to commemorate Independence Day and the upcoming general election battle — the “One Million Star Spangled Banner Challenge.”
(Related: Liberal Talk Show Host: National Anthem Is an ‘Abomination’)
Through the initiative, Madison Rising will offer an opportunity for Americans to rail against the negative comments that liberal commentators have uttered about the National Anthem (Current TV’s Bill Press recently called it “an abomination,” as you may recall).
Here’s a video recap of negative comments that have been uttered of late about the famed song:
The band is hoping to get one million people to view its rock version of the “Star Spangled Banner” by November 6th (election day). Also, group members are encouraging fans to download the music file and to add it to their music collections and mp3 players.
A recent press release has more about the band’s version of the song and the importance of instilling support for the patriotic hymn:
Earlier this month, Madison Rising released a distinctive and widely acclaimed rock version of the Star Spangled Banner, updated with a special addendum to reflect our nation’s struggles at the dawn of the 21st century. “We’ve re-worked the National Anthem in an absolutely unique way, but staying as true and respectful to the original version as possible,” said lead singer Dave Bray, a Navy veteran. “It updates and re-energizes one of the best-known songs in American history in way that lifts the American spirit and instills once again a sense of pride in our great nation.”Watch the video, below:
The music video has already received thousands of rave reviews with virtually everyone who watches it calling it among the best renditions ever. The song itself is available on iTunes, Amazon and numerous other outlets. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 during which Francis Scott Key originally penned the Star Spangled Banner.
You can download the rock version of the “Star Spangled Banner” here and check out the rest of the band’s music videos on the Madison Rising YouTube page.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Chaffetz Sponsored Hydropower Legislation Passes The House | Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Chaffetz Sponsored Hydropower Legislation Passes The House | Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Chaffetz Sponsored Hydropower Legislation Passes The House
Jun 22, 2012
Washington, DC – Today, the House of Representatives passed HR 460, legislation sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) that addresses hydro power on the Diamond Fork System of the Central Utah Project. HR 460, the Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act passed the House as Title II of HR 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act by a vote of 232 - 188.
HR 460 will spur development of hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System of the Central Utah Project. The tunnels and canals of the Diamond Fork System currently move water from Strawberry Reservoir to Utah and Salt Lake Counties. The water that flows through these same tunnels and canals is expected to generate approximately 50 megawatts of clean, renewable hydropower.
“Utah is a great place to live, work, raise a family, do business, and recreate,” said Rep. Chaffetz. “The Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act will empower responsible, local economic development, facilitate job creation, and reduce cumbersome federal red tape.”
Current law prevents development of this renewable resource. HR 460 would change the law to promote development. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $4 million in federal revenue would be generated within the first ten years alone.
The House previously passed HR 460 during the 111th Congress, but it failed to advance in the Senate. HR 2578 now moves to the Senate for consideration.
HR 460 will spur development of hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System of the Central Utah Project. The tunnels and canals of the Diamond Fork System currently move water from Strawberry Reservoir to Utah and Salt Lake Counties. The water that flows through these same tunnels and canals is expected to generate approximately 50 megawatts of clean, renewable hydropower.
“Utah is a great place to live, work, raise a family, do business, and recreate,” said Rep. Chaffetz. “The Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act will empower responsible, local economic development, facilitate job creation, and reduce cumbersome federal red tape.”
Current law prevents development of this renewable resource. HR 460 would change the law to promote development. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $4 million in federal revenue would be generated within the first ten years alone.
The House previously passed HR 460 during the 111th Congress, but it failed to advance in the Senate. HR 2578 now moves to the Senate for consideration.
###
Chaffetz Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare | Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Chaffetz Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare | Congressman Jason Chaffetz
“Today’s Supreme Court decision establishes Obamacare as one of the biggest middle class tax increases in American history. The President’s firm pledge that “no family making under $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase” joins a litany of broken promises that now threaten our long-term economic stability.
Repealing Obamacare now becomes Priority One for the 113th Congress. Having already voted 30 times to repeal the law, I remain committed to full repeal.
I am disappointed in this decision and its implications for the US economy. Between the budgetary impacts of the law, the economic fallout from the tax increases, and the driving up of health care costs inherent in the policy, we simply cannot afford to let this law stand.”
Chaffetz Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare
Jun 28, 2012
Washington, DC – Congressman Jason Chaffetz released the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:“Today’s Supreme Court decision establishes Obamacare as one of the biggest middle class tax increases in American history. The President’s firm pledge that “no family making under $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase” joins a litany of broken promises that now threaten our long-term economic stability.
Repealing Obamacare now becomes Priority One for the 113th Congress. Having already voted 30 times to repeal the law, I remain committed to full repeal.
I am disappointed in this decision and its implications for the US economy. Between the budgetary impacts of the law, the economic fallout from the tax increases, and the driving up of health care costs inherent in the policy, we simply cannot afford to let this law stand.”
Obama Administration Delivers Knock-Out Punch to Arizona- Punishment for Obeying and following the Laws.
United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary
  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justice Department Protects Attorney General Eric Holder From Fast and Furious Criminal Contempt Charges | TheBlaze.com
Justice Department Protects Attorney General Eric Holder From Fast and Furious Criminal Contempt Charges | TheBlaze.com
(The Blaze/AP) — Not surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Justice moved quickly Friday to protect Attorney General Eric Holder from criminal prosecution after the House voted to hold him in criminal contempt of Congress Thursday, including 17 Democrats.
In a Friday letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the DOJ would not pursue prosecution against Holder, his boss. Cole wrote that the attorney general’s refusal to turn over duly subpoenaed “Fast and Furious” documents “does not constitute a crime.”
“Therefore the department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the attorney general,” the letter said.
By advancing the criminal contempt resolution the House essentially gave themselves the power to refer the case to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who could bring it to a grand jury. However, it was seen by many experts as a largely a symbolic vote as U.S. Attorney Machen is a subordinate of Holder and President Obama has asserted executive privilege over the Fast and Furious documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is after.
(Related: ‘Judgment Day’: House Finds Eric Holder in Contempt (Including Numerous Dems))
In past cases, courts have been hesitant to settle disputes between the executive and legislative branches of government. Further, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey also refused to refer two Bush White House aides to a grand jury after they were held in contempt of Congress, Fox News reports.
Cole says the decision is in line with long-standing Justice Department practice across administrations of both political parties.
“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote.
In its letter, the department also relied in large part on a Justice Department legal opinion crafted during Republican Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
Although the House voted Thursday to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt, Republicans probably are still a long way from obtaining documents they want for their inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, a flawed gun-tracking investigation focused on Phoenix-area gun shops by Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The criminal path is now closed and the civil route to get the documents will probably not be resolved anytime soon. However, Congress can now try to force Holder’s hand by arguing their case in court.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is leading the effort to get the material related to Operation Fast and Furious and said Thursday they will pursue the case civilly.
“The House has authorized me to hire staff and legal staff who can pursue civilly through the courts to try to get a federal judge to order, separately, this discovery,” he said.
Fox News has more on the options still available to the House committee:
“This is pure politics,” White House spokesman White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the vote.
Republicans demanded the documents for an ongoing investigation, but their arguments focused more on the need for closure for the family of slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Two guns identified by the Fast and Furious tracking operation were found near his body after a shootout in Arizona.
Democrats promised closure as well, but said a less-partisan Republican investigation was the only way to get it.
(Related: ‘I Will Not Compromise When it Comes to the Truth’: Watch Rep. Trey Gowdy Throw Down the Gauntlet For Democrats During Contempt Vote)
Adding to the emotion of the day, the family of the slain agent issued a statement backing the Republicans.
“The Terry family takes no pleasure in the contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder. Such a vote should not have been necessary. The Justice Department should have released the documents related to Fast and Furious months ago,” the statement said.
The contempt votes happened on the day that Obama’s health care law survived in the Supreme Court, prompting some Democrats to speculate that the votes were scheduled to be overwhelmed by news stories about the ruling.
About five hours after the court ruled, with news sites flooded with information about the health care ruling, the House voted 255-67 to declare Holder in criminal contempt.
A second vote of 258-95 held Holder in civil contempt and authorized the House to file a lawsuit.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Justice Department Protects Eric Holder From Contempt Charges, Will Not Prosecute
- Posted on June 29, 2012 at 6:00pm by
Jason Howerton
- Print »
- Email »
Attorney General Eric Holder addresses media after contempt vote (Photo by Chris Graythen/Getty Images)
In a Friday letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the DOJ would not pursue prosecution against Holder, his boss. Cole wrote that the attorney general’s refusal to turn over duly subpoenaed “Fast and Furious” documents “does not constitute a crime.”
“Therefore the department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the attorney general,” the letter said.
By advancing the criminal contempt resolution the House essentially gave themselves the power to refer the case to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia who could bring it to a grand jury. However, it was seen by many experts as a largely a symbolic vote as U.S. Attorney Machen is a subordinate of Holder and President Obama has asserted executive privilege over the Fast and Furious documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is after.
(Related: ‘Judgment Day’: House Finds Eric Holder in Contempt (Including Numerous Dems))
In past cases, courts have been hesitant to settle disputes between the executive and legislative branches of government. Further, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey also refused to refer two Bush White House aides to a grand jury after they were held in contempt of Congress, Fox News reports.
U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“We will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege,” Cole wrote.
In its letter, the department also relied in large part on a Justice Department legal opinion crafted during Republican Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
Although the House voted Thursday to find Holder in criminal and civil contempt, Republicans probably are still a long way from obtaining documents they want for their inquiry into Operation Fast and Furious, a flawed gun-tracking investigation focused on Phoenix-area gun shops by Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The criminal path is now closed and the civil route to get the documents will probably not be resolved anytime soon. However, Congress can now try to force Holder’s hand by arguing their case in court.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is leading the effort to get the material related to Operation Fast and Furious and said Thursday they will pursue the case civilly.
“The House has authorized me to hire staff and legal staff who can pursue civilly through the courts to try to get a federal judge to order, separately, this discovery,” he said.
Fox News has more on the options still available to the House committee:
For now, the Obama administration can argue that its executive privilege claim over the documents protects Holder from the possibility of prosecution.More than 100 Democrats walked out of the House chamber to boycott the first of two contempt votes, saying Republicans were more interested in shameful election-year politics than documents.
But if a civil court rules that claim invalid, Hill said, “then basically Justice has lost that shield.”
If the administration still refused to turn over the documents the Republicans want, then they could start looking at prosecution more seriously.
Republicans technically have a handful of other options if the Justice Department still refused to take the case to a grand jury.
Republicans could move to appoint a special prosecutor or even move to impeach. The last time that happened with a Cabinet member, though, was in 1876 — with the impeachment trial of war secretary William Belknap.
Democrats stage a walkout in protest of Thursday's House contempt vote.
Republicans demanded the documents for an ongoing investigation, but their arguments focused more on the need for closure for the family of slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Two guns identified by the Fast and Furious tracking operation were found near his body after a shootout in Arizona.
Democrats promised closure as well, but said a less-partisan Republican investigation was the only way to get it.
(Related: ‘I Will Not Compromise When it Comes to the Truth’: Watch Rep. Trey Gowdy Throw Down the Gauntlet For Democrats During Contempt Vote)
Adding to the emotion of the day, the family of the slain agent issued a statement backing the Republicans.
“The Terry family takes no pleasure in the contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder. Such a vote should not have been necessary. The Justice Department should have released the documents related to Fast and Furious months ago,” the statement said.
The contempt votes happened on the day that Obama’s health care law survived in the Supreme Court, prompting some Democrats to speculate that the votes were scheduled to be overwhelmed by news stories about the ruling.
About five hours after the court ruled, with news sites flooded with information about the health care ruling, the House voted 255-67 to declare Holder in criminal contempt.
A second vote of 258-95 held Holder in civil contempt and authorized the House to file a lawsuit.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Support Mitt Romney-Promises to Repeal Obamacare - To Renew Respect for the Contitution
Support Mitt Romney
| ||||
|
South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy Gives Fiery Speech on House Floor During Holder Contempt Vote in Fast and Furious | Video | TheBlaze.com
South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy Gives Fiery Speech on House Floor During Holder Contempt Vote in Fast and Furious | Video | TheBlaze.com
In one of the most intense and impassioned speeches you may ever hear on the House floor, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) lived up to his name of “Fast and Furious rockstar” after he absolutely blasted Democrats Thursday for refusing to put politics aside in the failed gun-walking investigation so that Congress can get the “whole truth” for the American people and the family of slain Border Agent Brian Terry.
Gowdy stepped up to speak during today’s House hearing in a last-ditch effort to convince Democrats to break ranks and vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a duly issued subpoena requesting documents related to Fast and Furious. It is unclear whether his statements were responsible, but 17 Democrats supported criminal contempt charges and 21 voted for civil contempt charges against Holder.
(Related: ‘Judgment Day’: House Finds Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress (Including Numerous Dems))
“This is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. For those of us that respect the rule of law,” Gowdy began. “For those of us who believe the same rules apply to everyone regardless of whether they live simple lives of peace and quiet or whether they live and work in the towers of power, prestige and authority, the same rules apply to everyone. It is the greatness of this country.”
The congressman from South Carolina was just getting warmed up. He set his sights on Democratic lawmakers, questioning whether or not they were really interested in uncovering the truth. With every passing moment, the volume and emotion in Gowdy’s voice swelled until he was practically screaming.
(Related: ‘Here’s the Proof!’: Rep. Gowdy Raises Voice, Invokes Stephen Colbert in 6-Minute Diatribe Blasting Holder, Obama)
“For those of you who want a negotiation, a compromise, an “extraordinary accommodation,‘ to use the attorney general’s words. For those of you who want to plea bargain — My question to you is simply this: Will you settle for 75 percent of the truth? Is 50 percent of the truth enough for you? Is a third? Or do you want it all? Because if you want all the truth then you want all the documents.” Gowdy said, raising his voice.
He said meeting with Brian Terry’s family, who lost their child as a result of Fast and Furious, was a “life-altering” experience. At certain points, it sounds almost as if Gowdy gets choked up, like his emotions were getting the best of him.
“All they want is the truth,” Gowdy said about the Terry family. “They want answers, they want justice and they don’t want part of it, they want all of it. And I will not compromise, Mr. speaker, when it comes to the truth.”
Watch the all of Gowdy’s epic tirade on the House floor, below:
He went on, “Congress is right to pursue this no matter where it takes us. No matter which administration was in power and no matter what the facts are – we are right to pursue this.”
Speaking directly to Democrats who made it clear they would oppose any measure to find the attorney general in contempt, Gowdy asked them, ”Can you tell the American people why the Department of Justice approved this lethal, fatally flawed operation? For those of you who are voting no, can you tell the American people how the tactic of gun walking was sanctioned? To those of you who are voting no, can you tell Brian Terry’s family and friends how a demonstrably false letter was written on Department of Justice letter head-on Feb 4?… That letter was written on America’s stationary.”
“Our fellow citizens have a right to know the truth and we have an obligation to fight for it, Mr. Speaker, the politics be damned,” said Gowdy.
“I want the truth. I want all of it. We should never settle for less than all of it and we have to start, today.”
Holder was found in criminal and civil contempt of Congress Thursday in a bipartisan vote that included as many as 21 Democrats.
‘I Will Not Compromise When It Comes to the Truth’: Watch Rep. Gowdy Throw Down the Gauntlet for Democrats During Contempt Vote
- Posted on June 28, 2012 at 8:53pm by
- Print »
- Email »
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)
Gowdy stepped up to speak during today’s House hearing in a last-ditch effort to convince Democrats to break ranks and vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a duly issued subpoena requesting documents related to Fast and Furious. It is unclear whether his statements were responsible, but 17 Democrats supported criminal contempt charges and 21 voted for civil contempt charges against Holder.
(Related: ‘Judgment Day’: House Finds Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress (Including Numerous Dems))
“This is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. For those of us that respect the rule of law,” Gowdy began. “For those of us who believe the same rules apply to everyone regardless of whether they live simple lives of peace and quiet or whether they live and work in the towers of power, prestige and authority, the same rules apply to everyone. It is the greatness of this country.”
The congressman from South Carolina was just getting warmed up. He set his sights on Democratic lawmakers, questioning whether or not they were really interested in uncovering the truth. With every passing moment, the volume and emotion in Gowdy’s voice swelled until he was practically screaming.
“For those of you who want a negotiation, a compromise, an “extraordinary accommodation,‘ to use the attorney general’s words. For those of you who want to plea bargain — My question to you is simply this: Will you settle for 75 percent of the truth? Is 50 percent of the truth enough for you? Is a third? Or do you want it all? Because if you want all the truth then you want all the documents.” Gowdy said, raising his voice.
He said meeting with Brian Terry’s family, who lost their child as a result of Fast and Furious, was a “life-altering” experience. At certain points, it sounds almost as if Gowdy gets choked up, like his emotions were getting the best of him.
“All they want is the truth,” Gowdy said about the Terry family. “They want answers, they want justice and they don’t want part of it, they want all of it. And I will not compromise, Mr. speaker, when it comes to the truth.”
Watch the all of Gowdy’s epic tirade on the House floor, below:
He went on, “Congress is right to pursue this no matter where it takes us. No matter which administration was in power and no matter what the facts are – we are right to pursue this.”
Speaking directly to Democrats who made it clear they would oppose any measure to find the attorney general in contempt, Gowdy asked them, ”Can you tell the American people why the Department of Justice approved this lethal, fatally flawed operation? For those of you who are voting no, can you tell the American people how the tactic of gun walking was sanctioned? To those of you who are voting no, can you tell Brian Terry’s family and friends how a demonstrably false letter was written on Department of Justice letter head-on Feb 4?… That letter was written on America’s stationary.”
“Our fellow citizens have a right to know the truth and we have an obligation to fight for it, Mr. Speaker, the politics be damned,” said Gowdy.
“I want the truth. I want all of it. We should never settle for less than all of it and we have to start, today.”
Holder was found in criminal and civil contempt of Congress Thursday in a bipartisan vote that included as many as 21 Democrats.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Supreme Court has made its ruling on Obamacare - Utah Att.Gen. John Swallow coments
 | |||||||
|
Supreme Court Decision: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional | Video | TheBlaze.com
Supreme Court Decision: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional | Video | TheBlaze.com
(video at the link above)
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that President Obama’s landmark healthcare bill, including the controversial “individual mandate,” is constitutional by a 5-4 majority.
“The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter [because] there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power,” SCOTUS Blog reports. “The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”
The court’s decision comes as a major defeat to those who have fought against the healthcare overhaul since before President Obama signed it into law in 2010. U.S. citizens are still legally required to purchase insurance via the federal government and the bill’s expansion of Medicaid, although now limited, still stands. This means roughly 30 million uninsured low-income Americans are still eligible for coverage through the bill’s expansion of the state-run entitlement program.
However, if it’s any consolation, the court also ruled that the Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to compel Americans to purchase a product. So at least there‘s there’s that, right?
“I am disappointed with today’s Supreme Court decision because the Court has cleared the way for what looks like a very broad use of the tax power. But we can still be very thankful that the court has defended the contours of the Commerce Clause,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel, Judicial Crisis Network.
Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor in upholding the mandate.
“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,” Roberts wrote in his opinion (page six).
“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 [emphasis added],” he added.
Needless to say, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion has shocked many people.
“Wow. So Kennedy voted with conservatives, Roberts with liberals. Umpire, indeed,” the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted.
In his dissent, Justice Kennedy said “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”
After hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the bill in March, the Supreme Court Justices focused on these four points:
Several analysts predicted that if the court ruled against the mandate, it would have negative long-term consequences on the president’s legacy and would weigh heavily on his reelection bid.
It doesn’t seem that way now.
Chief Justice Roberts, whose vote saved “Obamacare,” announced the court’s decision at 10:07 EST.
(video at the link above)
Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional
- Posted on June 28, 2012 at 10:16am by
Becket Adams - Print »
- Email »
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that President Obama’s landmark healthcare bill, including the controversial “individual mandate,” is constitutional by a 5-4 majority.
“The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter [because] there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power,” SCOTUS Blog reports. “The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”
The court’s decision comes as a major defeat to those who have fought against the healthcare overhaul since before President Obama signed it into law in 2010. U.S. citizens are still legally required to purchase insurance via the federal government and the bill’s expansion of Medicaid, although now limited, still stands. This means roughly 30 million uninsured low-income Americans are still eligible for coverage through the bill’s expansion of the state-run entitlement program.
However, if it’s any consolation, the court also ruled that the Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to compel Americans to purchase a product. So at least there‘s there’s that, right?
“I am disappointed with today’s Supreme Court decision because the Court has cleared the way for what looks like a very broad use of the tax power. But we can still be very thankful that the court has defended the contours of the Commerce Clause,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel, Judicial Crisis Network.
Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor in upholding the mandate.
“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 [emphasis added],” he added.
Needless to say, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion has shocked many people.
“Wow. So Kennedy voted with conservatives, Roberts with liberals. Umpire, indeed,” the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein tweeted.
In his dissent, Justice Kennedy said “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”
After hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the bill in March, the Supreme Court Justices focused on these four points:
- Whether the “individual” mandate is constitutional
- Whether SCOTUS has the authority to rule on a tax law even though it hasn’t come into effect
- If the individual mandate is overturned, will it be cut from the rest of the law as a separate entity or will other provisions fall with it?
- Whether the law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional
Several analysts predicted that if the court ruled against the mandate, it would have negative long-term consequences on the president’s legacy and would weigh heavily on his reelection bid.
It doesn’t seem that way now.
Chief Justice Roberts, whose vote saved “Obamacare,” announced the court’s decision at 10:07 EST.
Sen. Coburn Repudiates Chief Justice: Did Not ‘Enforce the Constitution’ Today, ‘Is On The Wrong Side’ In Ruling | TheBlaze.com
Sen. Coburn Repudiates Chief Justice: Did Not ‘Enforce the Constitution’ Today, ‘Is On The Wrong Side’ In Ruling | TheBlaze.com
Conservatives across the country were appalled when they learned on Thursday that Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
“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,” Roberts wrote in his opinion (page six).
“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 [emphasis added],” he added.
Among those who believe Justice Roberts failed in his duty to defend the constitution is Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), one of the foremost critics of the president’s healthcare overhaul. In an exclusive interview with The Blaze, Sen. Coburn had some harsh words for the chief justice.
“Do you think that the Chief Justice fell on the right side in this argument?” The Blaze asked
“No, I don’t,” the senator responded.
“It is the Supreme Court’s obligation and duty to enforce the constitution so that when the Congress gets outside of the enumerated powers, that they slap them back,” he added, implying that by voting to uphold the controversial “individual mandate,” Justice Roberts had failed in his duty.
“What I would tell you is that you can’t find anywhere in reading the constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, any intent that was ever thought about that the federal government would be putting forth this type of legislation and this type of control over everybody’s life,” he added, explaining that the mandate includes a “fine” and “not a tax.”
“You no longer, in this country, have the right to decide that you won’t buy health insurance,” the senator continued, “and I think the Chief Justice came down on the wrong side of this.”
Listen to our exclusive interview with him, below:
(See video at the link at top above.)
This story has been updated.
Sen. Coburn Repudiates Chief Justice: Did Not ‘Enforce the Constitution’ Today, ‘Is On The Wrong Side’ In Ruling
- Posted on June 28, 2012 at 5:47pm by Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
Conservatives across the country were appalled when they learned on Thursday that Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
“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,” Roberts wrote in his opinion (page six).
“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 [emphasis added],” he added.
Among those who believe Justice Roberts failed in his duty to defend the constitution is Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), one of the foremost critics of the president’s healthcare overhaul. In an exclusive interview with The Blaze, Sen. Coburn had some harsh words for the chief justice.
“Do you think that the Chief Justice fell on the right side in this argument?” The Blaze asked
“No, I don’t,” the senator responded.
“It is the Supreme Court’s obligation and duty to enforce the constitution so that when the Congress gets outside of the enumerated powers, that they slap them back,” he added, implying that by voting to uphold the controversial “individual mandate,” Justice Roberts had failed in his duty.
“What I would tell you is that you can’t find anywhere in reading the constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, any intent that was ever thought about that the federal government would be putting forth this type of legislation and this type of control over everybody’s life,” he added, explaining that the mandate includes a “fine” and “not a tax.”
“You no longer, in this country, have the right to decide that you won’t buy health insurance,” the senator continued, “and I think the Chief Justice came down on the wrong side of this.”
Listen to our exclusive interview with him, below:
(See video at the link at top above.)
This story has been updated.
House Finds Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt Over Operation Fast and Furious | Video | TheBlaze.com
House Finds Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt Over Operation Fast and Furious | Video | TheBlaze.com
Full video access at the site above.
The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal and civil contempt of Congress over the failed federal gunrunning Operation “Fast and Furious,” largely voting along party lines though several Democrats joined Republicans on each measure. A sitting attorney general never has been held in contempt by Congress.
Many Democrats walked out in protest and did not vote.
Lawmakers passed the criminal contempt resolution 255-67 with 17 Democrats supporting and later approved the civil contempt proposal 258-95 with 21 Democrats breaking ranks.
Two Republicans — Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia and Ohio Rep. Steve LaTourette — voted against the criminal contempt resolution.
The criminal contempt charges will now go to the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., who is a subordinate of Holder. The civil contempt resolution will allow the House to go to court in an effort to force Holder to turn over documents the Oversight Committee wants.
In past cases, courts have been hesitant to settle disputes between the executive and legislative branches of government. Further, the House is unlikely to get the documents anytime soon anyway, because President Obama has invoked a broad form of executive privilege, which protects from disclosure internal documents from executive branch agencies.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee release the following statement following the House votes:
In a memorable call-to-arms before the vote, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) — practically screaming — asked Democrats who stood in opposition to the contempt measure, “What percentage of the truth will you settle for?”
“If you have ever sat on the other side of the table from parents who have lost a loved one: is 50 percent enough? Is that enough of the documents? 75 percent? A third?” Gowdy cotinued. “The truth, the whole truth, so help me God. That’s what we ask witnesses to do, thats what we ask jurors to do and that’s not too much for us to ask the Attorney General of the United States of America to do.”
(Related: Rep. Jason Chaffetz Tells The Blaze Why Eric Holder Should Be Held in Contempt)
In a straight forward address on the House floor, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) explained why he ultimately decided to bring the contempt charges before the full House and urged lawmakers to accept the resolution:
“The Justice Department did not provide the facts and the information we requested,” he said. ”The only recourse left for the House is to continue seeking the truth and to hold the attorney general in contempt of Congress… No Justice Department is above the Constitution.”
House Republicans repeatedly mentioned slain U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry and his family’s right to get answers from the federal government regarding Fast and Furious.
The debate over whether Holder should be held in contempt was contentious and at times, it was downright fiery. House Democrats said they agree gun-walking is wrong and Fast and Furious was disastrous but Republicans need to leave the attorney general out of it.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) doubled down on comments she made last week and once again argued that Republicans could be attacking Holder because he is fighting “voter suppression” and is at odds with them concerning immigration policy. It “could be a coincidence,” she said. “Or maybe it isn’t.”
“The more baseless the charge, the higher up they want to go with the contempt,” Pelosi said, shaking her head. “I have always made it habit not to question the motivations of other people.”
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) said today’s vote was “the day of reckoning” for Holder and the Obama administration.
“What are they hiding?” he asked. “Even the attorney general can not evade the law… Today is judgment day, and that’s just the way it is.”
Prior to the vote, Issa said the scope of contempt charges is narrow and only refers to the misleading statements provided to Congress in February of 2011, not to Holder or his administration’s level of involvement.
However, Rep. Elijah Cummings (R-Md.) said the contempt charges facing Holder represented a “failure of house leadership, a failure of our Constitutional obligations and a failure of our responsibilities to the American people.” He argued that even Issa admitted there was no evidence that Holder knew about the tactics of Fast and Furious or proof of a DOJ cover-up.
“It‘s about the attorney general’s refusal to turn over documents not whether or not it was his lieutenants or he that was personally involved in Fast and Furious,” Issa reiterated.
The historic vote was taken just hours after the Supreme Court upheld nearly all of Obamacare, including the individual mandate.
“This isn’t about getting to the truth, this is about politics,” Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said. “This is about doing whatever it takes to attack the Obama administration.”
(Related: Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional)
The Congressional Black Caucus also made good on their threat to stage a walkout in protest during the contempt vote, causing quite a ruckus, however, the majority Democrats also participated.
In Fast and Furious, agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Arizona abandoned the agency’s usual practice of intercepting all weapons they believed to be illicitly purchased. Instead, the goal of the tactic known as “gun-walking” was to track such weapons to high-level arms traffickers who long had eluded prosecution and to dismantle their networks, however, the weapons were lost.
Congressional investigators want to see internal Justice Department communications that occurred after February 4, 2011, when the Obama administration falsely told Congress that guns were not allowed to “walk” to Mexico.
Fast and Furious had been shut down by the time of the false information, investigators want documents showing deliberations during the 10 months it took for the administration to acknowledge the error.
Watch the House conduct the historic and unprecedented vote to hold the sitting attorney general of the United States in criminal contempt of Congress while Democrats storm out of the chambers:
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This story is breaking and updates will be added.
Full video access at the site above.
‘Judgment Day’: House Finds Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress (Including Numerous Dems)
- Posted on June 28, 2012 at 4:49pm by
- Print »
- Email »
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Many Democrats walked out in protest and did not vote.
Lawmakers passed the criminal contempt resolution 255-67 with 17 Democrats supporting and later approved the civil contempt proposal 258-95 with 21 Democrats breaking ranks.
Two Republicans — Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia and Ohio Rep. Steve LaTourette — voted against the criminal contempt resolution.
The criminal contempt charges will now go to the U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C., who is a subordinate of Holder. The civil contempt resolution will allow the House to go to court in an effort to force Holder to turn over documents the Oversight Committee wants.
In past cases, courts have been hesitant to settle disputes between the executive and legislative branches of government. Further, the House is unlikely to get the documents anytime soon anyway, because President Obama has invoked a broad form of executive privilege, which protects from disclosure internal documents from executive branch agencies.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee release the following statement following the House votes:
Today, a bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents in the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. This was not the outcome I had sought and it could have been avoided had Attorney General Holder actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide.Holder also released a statement after the House voted to hold him in contempt, saying Republicans have advanced “truly absurd conspiracy theories” to advance the politically motivated vote. Here’s some of what the attorney general had to say:
My message to my colleagues and others who have fought for answers: We are still fighting for the truth and accountability – for the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, for whistleblowers who have faced retaliation, and for countless victims of Operation Fast and Furious in Mexico. Unless President Obama relents to this bipartisan call for transparency and an end to the cover-up, our fight will move to the courts where we will prevail in getting the documents that the Justice Department and President Obama’s flawed assertion of executive privilege have denied the American people.
Today’s vote is the regrettable culmination of what became a misguided – and politically motivated – investigation during an election year. By advancing it over the past year and a half, Congressman Issa and others have focused on politics over public safety. Instead of trying to correct the problems that led to a series of flawed law enforcement operations, and instead of helping us find ways to better protect the brave law enforcement officers, like Agent Brian Terry, who keep us safe – they have led us to this unnecessary and unwarranted outcome.Watch the attorney general deliver his entire statement here:
In a memorable call-to-arms before the vote, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) — practically screaming — asked Democrats who stood in opposition to the contempt measure, “What percentage of the truth will you settle for?”
“If you have ever sat on the other side of the table from parents who have lost a loved one: is 50 percent enough? Is that enough of the documents? 75 percent? A third?” Gowdy cotinued. “The truth, the whole truth, so help me God. That’s what we ask witnesses to do, thats what we ask jurors to do and that’s not too much for us to ask the Attorney General of the United States of America to do.”
(Related: Rep. Jason Chaffetz Tells The Blaze Why Eric Holder Should Be Held in Contempt)
In a straight forward address on the House floor, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) explained why he ultimately decided to bring the contempt charges before the full House and urged lawmakers to accept the resolution:
“The Justice Department did not provide the facts and the information we requested,” he said. ”The only recourse left for the House is to continue seeking the truth and to hold the attorney general in contempt of Congress… No Justice Department is above the Constitution.”
House Republicans repeatedly mentioned slain U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry and his family’s right to get answers from the federal government regarding Fast and Furious.
The debate over whether Holder should be held in contempt was contentious and at times, it was downright fiery. House Democrats said they agree gun-walking is wrong and Fast and Furious was disastrous but Republicans need to leave the attorney general out of it.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) doubled down on comments she made last week and once again argued that Republicans could be attacking Holder because he is fighting “voter suppression” and is at odds with them concerning immigration policy. It “could be a coincidence,” she said. “Or maybe it isn’t.”
“The more baseless the charge, the higher up they want to go with the contempt,” Pelosi said, shaking her head. “I have always made it habit not to question the motivations of other people.”
U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
“What are they hiding?” he asked. “Even the attorney general can not evade the law… Today is judgment day, and that’s just the way it is.”
Prior to the vote, Issa said the scope of contempt charges is narrow and only refers to the misleading statements provided to Congress in February of 2011, not to Holder or his administration’s level of involvement.
However, Rep. Elijah Cummings (R-Md.) said the contempt charges facing Holder represented a “failure of house leadership, a failure of our Constitutional obligations and a failure of our responsibilities to the American people.” He argued that even Issa admitted there was no evidence that Holder knew about the tactics of Fast and Furious or proof of a DOJ cover-up.
“It‘s about the attorney general’s refusal to turn over documents not whether or not it was his lieutenants or he that was personally involved in Fast and Furious,” Issa reiterated.
The historic vote was taken just hours after the Supreme Court upheld nearly all of Obamacare, including the individual mandate.
“This isn’t about getting to the truth, this is about politics,” Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said. “This is about doing whatever it takes to attack the Obama administration.”
(Related: Supreme Court: ‘Obamacare’ Constitutional)
The Congressional Black Caucus also made good on their threat to stage a walkout in protest during the contempt vote, causing quite a ruckus, however, the majority Democrats also participated.
In Fast and Furious, agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Arizona abandoned the agency’s usual practice of intercepting all weapons they believed to be illicitly purchased. Instead, the goal of the tactic known as “gun-walking” was to track such weapons to high-level arms traffickers who long had eluded prosecution and to dismantle their networks, however, the weapons were lost.
Congressional investigators want to see internal Justice Department communications that occurred after February 4, 2011, when the Obama administration falsely told Congress that guns were not allowed to “walk” to Mexico.
Fast and Furious had been shut down by the time of the false information, investigators want documents showing deliberations during the 10 months it took for the administration to acknowledge the error.
Watch the House conduct the historic and unprecedented vote to hold the sitting attorney general of the United States in criminal contempt of Congress while Democrats storm out of the chambers:
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This story is breaking and updates will be added.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Either You Were Involved in ‘Fast & Furious’ or You Are Asserting a Presidential Power That You Know to be Unjustified: Rep. Issa’s Scathing Letter to President Obama | TheBlaze.com
Either You Were Involved in ‘Fast & Furious’ or You Are Asserting a Presidential Power That You Know to be Unjustified: Rep. Issa’s Scathing Letter to President Obama | TheBlaze.com
Either You Were Involved in ‘Fast & Furious’ or You Are Asserting a Presidential Power That You Know to be Unjustified: Rep. Issa’s Scathing Letter to President Obama
- Posted on June 26, 2012 at 10:32pm by Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House oversight committee investigating the Justice Department’s ill-conceived “Fast and Furious” program responsible for the 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, appears to have lost his patience with the Obama administration.
In a letter to President Barack Obama, Rep. Issa harshly criticizes the White House’s decision to assert executive privileges in order to withhold subpoenaed documents from the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
(Related: ‘I Have Superior Knowledge’: Holder Pressed on DOJ’s Involvement in Fast & Furious, Dismisses Evidence)
Rep. Issa’s letter says the decision to withhold certain documents raises two very serious issues:
Not surprisingly, based on past behavior that is, the White House blew off the congressman’s letter.
“The congressman’s analysis has as much merit as his absurd contention that Operation Fast and Furious was created in order to promote gun control,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz.
“The Courts have routinely considered deliberative process privilege claims and affirmed the right of the executive branch to invoke the privilege even when White House documents are not involved,” he added.
The House is scheduled to vote this Thursday, the same day the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), on recommendations that Holder be held in contempt of Congress for failing to produce requested “Fast and Furious” documents.
(Related: House Oversight Committee Finds Eric Holder in Contempt in Fast and Furious Investigation)
“Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democrats’ chief head counter, said he expected some Democrats to follow the National Rifle Association’s call for a ‘yes’ vote on contempt,” the Associated Press reports.
“The NRA has written to all members of Congress, saying the White House wanted to use the Operation Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation to advance a gun control agenda,” the report adds.
Rep. Hoyer didn’t specify the number of potential defectors.
Rep. Issa Letter to Obama Re: Executive Privilege (click this link to view / read the letter)
(H/T: NJ)
In a letter to President Barack Obama, Rep. Issa harshly criticizes the White House’s decision to assert executive privileges in order to withhold subpoenaed documents from the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
(Related: ‘I Have Superior Knowledge’: Holder Pressed on DOJ’s Involvement in Fast & Furious, Dismisses Evidence)
Rep. Issa’s letter says the decision to withhold certain documents raises two very serious issues:
Either you or your most senior advisers were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it … or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation.As most Blaze already readers know, the Justice Department’s failure to turn over said documents prompted Rep. Issa’s committee last week to vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.
To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the Department with respect to the congressional investigation. The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case.
Not surprisingly, based on past behavior that is, the White House blew off the congressman’s letter.
“The congressman’s analysis has as much merit as his absurd contention that Operation Fast and Furious was created in order to promote gun control,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz.
The House is scheduled to vote this Thursday, the same day the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), on recommendations that Holder be held in contempt of Congress for failing to produce requested “Fast and Furious” documents.
(Related: House Oversight Committee Finds Eric Holder in Contempt in Fast and Furious Investigation)
“Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democrats’ chief head counter, said he expected some Democrats to follow the National Rifle Association’s call for a ‘yes’ vote on contempt,” the Associated Press reports.
“The NRA has written to all members of Congress, saying the White House wanted to use the Operation Fast and Furious gun-tracking operation to advance a gun control agenda,” the report adds.
Rep. Hoyer didn’t specify the number of potential defectors.
Rep. Issa Letter to Obama Re: Executive Privilege (click this link to view / read the letter)
(H/T: NJ)
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The Merciful Obtain Mercy - By President Dieter F. Uchtdorf
The Merciful Obtain Mercy - general-conference
By President Dieter F. Uchtdorf
The Merciful Obtain Mercy
By President Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
When our hearts are filled with the love of God, we become “kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving.”
My dear brothers and sisters, not long ago I received a letter from a concerned mother who pleaded for a general conference talk on a topic that would specifically benefit her two children. A rift had grown between them, and they had stopped speaking to each other. The mother was heartbroken. In the letter she assured me that a general conference message on this topic would reconcile her children, and all would be well.
This good sister’s sincere and heartfelt plea was just one of several promptings I have received over these last months that I should say a few words today on a topic that is a growing concern—not only for a worried mother but for many in the Church and, indeed, the world.
I am impressed by the faith of this loving mother that a general conference talk could help heal the relationship between her children. I am sure that her confidence was not so much in the abilities of the speakers but in “the virtue of the word of God,” which has a “more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than … anything else.”1 Dear sister, I pray that the Spirit will touch your children’s hearts.
When Relationships Go Bad
Strained and broken relationships are as old as humankind itself. Ancient Cain was the first who allowed the cancer of bitterness and malice to canker his heart. He tilled the ground of his soul with envy and hatred and allowed these feelings to ripen until he did the unthinkable—murdering his own brother and becoming, in the process, the father of Satan’s lies.2
Since those first days the spirit of envy and hatred has led to some of the most tragic stories in history. It turned Saul against David, the sons of Jacob against their brother Joseph, Laman and Lemuel against Nephi, and Amalickiah against Moroni.
I imagine that every person on earth has been affected in some way by the destructive spirit of contention, resentment, and revenge. Perhaps there are even times when we recognize this spirit in ourselves. When we feel hurt, angry, or envious, it is quite easy to judge other people, often assigning dark motives to their actions in order to justify our own feelings of resentment.
The Doctrine
Of course, we know this is wrong. The doctrine is clear. We all depend on the Savior; none of us can be saved without Him. Christ’s Atonement is infinite and eternal. Forgiveness for our sins comes with conditions. We must repent, and we must be willing to forgive others. Jesus taught: “Forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not … [stands] condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin”3 and “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”4
Of course, these words seem perfectly reasonable—when applied to someone else. We can so clearly and easily see the harmful results that come when others judge and hold grudges. And we certainly don’t like it when people judge us.
But when it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and only appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.
The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans, said that those who pass judgment on others are “inexcusable.” The moment we judge someone else, he explained, we condemn ourselves, for none is without sin.5 Refusing to forgive is a grievous sin—one the Savior warned against. Jesus’s own disciples had “sought occasion against [each other] and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.”6
Our Savior has spoken so clearly on this subject that there is little room for private interpretation. “I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive,” but then He said, “… of you it is required to forgive all men.”7
May I add a footnote here? When the Lord requires that we forgive all men, that includes forgiving ourselves. Sometimes, of all the people in the world, the one who is the hardest to forgive—as well as perhaps the one who is most in need of our forgiveness—is the person looking back at us in the mirror.
The Bottom Line
This topic of judging others could actually be taught in a two-word sermon. When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following:
Stop it!
It’s that simple. We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love for God and His children. God is our Father. We are His children. We are all brothers and sisters. I don’t know exactly how to articulate this point of not judging others with sufficient eloquence, passion, and persuasion to make it stick. I can quote scripture, I can try to expound doctrine, and I will even quote a bumper sticker I recently saw. It was attached to the back of a car whose driver appeared to be a little rough around the edges, but the words on the sticker taught an insightful lesson. It read, “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.”
We must recognize that we are all imperfect—that we are beggars before God. Haven’t we all, at one time or another, meekly approached the mercy seat and pleaded for grace? Haven’t we wished with all the energy of our souls for mercy—to be forgiven for the mistakes we have made and the sins we have committed?
Because we all depend on the mercy of God, how can we deny to others any measure of the grace we so desperately desire for ourselves? My beloved brothers and sisters, should we not forgive as we wish to be forgiven?
The Love of God
Is this difficult to do?
Yes, of course.
Forgiving ourselves and others is not easy. In fact, for most of us it requires a major change in our attitude and way of thinking—even a change of heart. But there is good news. This “mighty change”8 of heart is exactly what the gospel of Jesus Christ is designed to bring into our lives.
How is it done? Through the love of God.
When our hearts are filled with the love of God, something good and pure happens to us. We “keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world.”9
The more we allow the love of God to govern our minds and emotions—the more we allow our love for our Heavenly Father to swell within our hearts—the easier it is to love others with the pure love of Christ. As we open our hearts to the glowing dawn of the love of God, the darkness and cold of animosity and envy will eventually fade.
As always, Christ is our exemplar. In His teachings as in His life, He showed us the way. He forgave the wicked, the vulgar, and those who sought to hurt and to do Him harm.
Jesus said it is easy to love those who love us; even the wicked can do that. But Jesus Christ taught a higher law. His words echo through the centuries and are meant for us today. They are meant for all who desire to be His disciples. They are meant for you and me: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”10
When our hearts are filled with the love of God, we become “kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving [each other], even as God for Christ’s sake [forgave us].”11
The pure love of Christ can remove the scales of resentment and wrath from our eyes, allowing us to see others the way our Heavenly Father sees us: as flawed and imperfect mortals who have potential and worth far beyond our capacity to imagine. Because God loves us so much, we too must love and forgive each other.
The Way of the Disciple
My dear brothers and sisters, consider the following questions as a self-test:
Do you harbor a grudge against someone else?
Do you gossip, even when what you say may be true?
Do you exclude, push away, or punish others because of something they have done?
Do you secretly envy another?
Do you wish to cause harm to someone?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may want to apply the two-word sermon from earlier: stop it!
In a world of accusations and unfriendliness, it is easy to gather and cast stones. But before we do so, let us remember the words of the One who is our Master and model: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.”12
Brothers and sisters, let us put down our stones.
Let us be kind.
Let us forgive.
Let us talk peacefully with each other.
Let the love of God fill our hearts.
“Let us do good unto all men.”13
The Savior promised: “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over. … For with the same measure that [you use] it shall be measured to you again.”14
Shouldn’t this promise be enough to always focus our efforts on acts of kindness, forgiveness, and charity instead of on any negative behavior?
Let us, as disciples of Jesus Christ, return good for evil.15 Let us not seek revenge or allow our wrath to overcome us.
“For it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
“Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink. …
“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”16
Remember: in the end, it is the merciful who obtain mercy.17
As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wherever we may be, let us be known as a people who “have love one to another.”18
Love One Another
Brothers and sisters, there is enough heartache and sorrow in this life without our adding to it through our own stubbornness, bitterness, and resentment.
We are not perfect.
The people around us are not perfect.19 People do things that annoy, disappoint, and anger. In this mortal life it will always be that way.
Nevertheless, we must let go of our grievances. Part of the purpose of mortality is to learn how to let go of such things. That is the Lord’s way.
Remember, heaven is filled with those who have this in common: They are forgiven. And they forgive.
Lay your burden at the Savior’s feet. Let go of judgment. Allow Christ’s Atonement to change and heal your heart. Love one another. Forgive one another.
The merciful will obtain mercy.
Of this I testify in the name of the One who loved so well and so completely that He gave His life for us, His friends—in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Show References
Monday, June 25, 2012
Paul Verhoeven’s New Film to Claim Jesus Born as Result of Rape | TheBlaze.com
Paul Verhoeven’s New Film to Claim Jesus Born as Result of Rape | TheBlaze.com
(Sadly there is Nothing New here, those who wish to be of the religion of Earth, Atheists, etc. who cannot comprehend the Spiritual Truths of and origins of Humankind, and who Jesus Christ truly is must by their nature to justify their lifestyles demean or downgrade who Jesus Christ really was. You see there are more witness's to the Divinity of Christ through out the world, not just recorded in Israel, and the European old Christianity stories. You see there is more information on the Christ visit here and see some of the history, legends, stories, http://hiddennorthamericanarchaeology.blogspot.com/ )
Last year, a Hollywood documentary wondered if Jesus Christ was a communist. This year, a totally separate film is slated to claim that the Son of Man was born after a Roman soldier raped his mother. The movie, which will be based on Paul Verhoeven’s controversial book, “Jesus of Nazareth,” is set to begin filming in the near future.
According to the blog Wizbang, Verhoeven’s 2008 book was filled with some controversial claims. Aside from dismissing Christ’s many Biblical miracles, it charged that Mary’s pregnancy was anything but immaculate and that it resulted from non-consensual sex with a Roman centurion. This, of course, would mean that Jesus wasn’t (and isn’t) the son of God, as stated in Christian tradition. The author also claims that Christ was never betrayed by Judas Iscariot.
“As for Verhoeven’s book, the adaptation will depict Jesus in a more human light, hence the reason the miracles and the resurrection are being stripped from the story,” IndieWire reported. “Instead, Jesus will be portrayed as an ethicist and a radical prophet, whose message became too politically strong for the Romans to idly accept and endure. While that version may not seem blasphemous to Verhoeven, it more than likely is for many.”
Here’s an official description of Verhoeven’s “Jesus of Nazareth” that has caused so much controversy:
(Sadly there is Nothing New here, those who wish to be of the religion of Earth, Atheists, etc. who cannot comprehend the Spiritual Truths of and origins of Humankind, and who Jesus Christ truly is must by their nature to justify their lifestyles demean or downgrade who Jesus Christ really was. You see there are more witness's to the Divinity of Christ through out the world, not just recorded in Israel, and the European old Christianity stories. You see there is more information on the Christ visit here and see some of the history, legends, stories, http://hiddennorthamericanarchaeology.blogspot.com/ )
New Film: Jesus Wasn’t Divine & He Was Born After His Mother Was Raped by a Roman Soldier
- Posted on June 25, 2012 at 7:55am by Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Last year, a Hollywood documentary wondered if Jesus Christ was a communist. This year, a totally separate film is slated to claim that the Son of Man was born after a Roman soldier raped his mother. The movie, which will be based on Paul Verhoeven’s controversial book, “Jesus of Nazareth,” is set to begin filming in the near future.According to the blog Wizbang, Verhoeven’s 2008 book was filled with some controversial claims. Aside from dismissing Christ’s many Biblical miracles, it charged that Mary’s pregnancy was anything but immaculate and that it resulted from non-consensual sex with a Roman centurion. This, of course, would mean that Jesus wasn’t (and isn’t) the son of God, as stated in Christian tradition. The author also claims that Christ was never betrayed by Judas Iscariot.
“As for Verhoeven’s book, the adaptation will depict Jesus in a more human light, hence the reason the miracles and the resurrection are being stripped from the story,” IndieWire reported. “Instead, Jesus will be portrayed as an ethicist and a radical prophet, whose message became too politically strong for the Romans to idly accept and endure. While that version may not seem blasphemous to Verhoeven, it more than likely is for many.”
Paul Verhoeven (AP)
Building on the work of the great Biblical scholars of the twentieth century—Rudolf Bultman, Raymond Brown, Jane Schabert and Robert Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminars, among others—filmmaker Paul Verhoeven disrobes the mythical Jesus to reveal a man who is, after all, startlingly familiar to us, a man who has much in common with other great political leaders throughout history, human beings who believed that change was coming in their lifetimes.
Gone is the Jesus of the miracles, gone the son of God, gone the weaver of arcane parables whose meanings are obscure. In their place Verhoeven gives us his vision of Jesus as a complete man, someone who was changed by events, the leader of a political movement, and, perhaps most importantly, someone who, in his speeches and sayings, introduced a new ethics in which enlightened behavior and the embrace of human contradictions transcend the mechanics of value and worth that had defined the material world before Jesus.
Coming to a deeper understanding of the historical Jesus has been a lifelong passion for Verhoeven, who for the last quarter-century has been among the very few nonacademics participating in the Jesus Seminars. Verhoeven assumed that one day he would make a film of the life of Jesus. Then he realized that it must be a book. Steeped in Biblical scholarship but free of the institutional biases, whether academic or religious, that so often dictate the terms of discussion of the historical Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth is a book that builds a bridge reaching all the way back to Jesus’s lifetime, all the way forward to the present, and from biblical scholars to lay readers whose interest might be personal or political.
Obviously, the film will offer no shortage of controversy once it gets underway. While Verhoeven‘s ideas run contrary to most Christians’ views, he has publicly proclaimed his “passion for Jesus” in past interviews and he has demonstrated a deep interest in trying to better understand the religious figure.
Watch the director discuss his take on Christ’s crucifixion, below:
“It’s not about miracles, it’s about a new set of ethics, an openness towards the world, which was anathema in a Roman-dominated world,” the author and director told Deadline’s Mike Fleming last year. “I believe he was crucified because they felt that politically, he was a dangerous person whose following was getting bigger and bigger.”
Verhoeven’s past films include “Showgirls” and “RoboCop.”
(H/T: Wizbang)Get More: Music News
Verhoeven’s past films include “Showgirls” and “RoboCop.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)