Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

WATCH LIVE: Scott Walker Reveals Obamacare Alternative

Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) is scheduled to make a speech from Minneapolis on Tuesday morning in which he lays out his plan to repeal and replace President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. “If you’ve had it with Obamacare and you want someone who is going to do something about it, I am your candidate,” the Republican presidential candidate said in prepared remarks released ahead of the speech.
According to Politico, Walker aims to replace Obamacare with a plan “that would return authority to the states and provide sliding-scale tax credits directly to consumers who don’t get coverage at work to help them buy insurance.” In addition he would “give states greater say over Medicaid, which he would break into separate plans for different groups, such as poor families, people with disabilities and low-income seniors.”
Watch live stream video below, via NBC News:

Obama: Earning Contempt, at Home and Abroad

president getting off air force one - Google Search
From Thucydides’s Athens to 21st-century America, appeasement is not a winner. 

The common bond among the various elements of the failed Obama foreign policy — from reset with Putin to concessions to the Iranians — is a misreading of human nature. The so-called Enlightened mind claims that the more rationally and deferentially one treats someone pathological, the more likely it is that he will respond and reform — or at least behave. The medieval mind, within us all, claims the opposite is more likely to be true. 


Read Gerhard Weinberg’s A World at Arms or Richard Overy’s 1939, for an account of the negotiations preceding World War II, and you will find that an underappreciated theme emerges: the autocratic accentuation of the human tendency to interpret concession and empathy not as magnanimity to be reciprocated, but rather as weakness to be exploited or as a confession of culpability worthy of contempt.

The more Britain’s Chamberlain and France’s Daladier in 1938 genuinely sought to reassure Hitler of their benign intentions, the more the Nazi hierarchy saw them as little more than “worms” — squirming to appease the stronger spirit. Both were seen as unsure of who they were and what they stood for, ready to forfeit the memory of the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of their own on the false altar of a supposedly mean and unfair Versailles Treaty. 



Hitler perversely admired Stalin after the latter liquidated a million German prisoners, and hated FDR, whose armies treated German POWs with relative humanity. In matters big and small, from Sophocles’ Antigone to Shakespeare’s King Lear, we see the noble and dutiful treated worse by their beneficiaries than the duplicitous and traitorous. Awareness of this pernicious trait is not cynical encouragement to adopt such pathologies and accept our dog-eat-dog world. Rather, in the postmodern, high-tech 21st century, we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking we have evolved to a higher level than what Thucydides saw at Melos or Corcyra — a conceit that is dangerous for the powerful and often fatal for the weaker.



Calling in the God squad [AL SHARPTON] to save the Iran deal

President Barack Obama, left, is greeted by Rev. Al Sharpton, right, before speaking at the National Action Network's Keepers of Dream Awards Gala in New York, Wednesday, April 6, 2011. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
The White House campaign to save the Iran nuclear deal is getting a boost from the God squad.

Faith-based groups, many of them increasingly nervous about the well-funded push by opponents of the deal, are intensifying their lobbying of lawmakers ahead of an important congressional vote on the agreement

Over the weekend, the Rev. Al Sharpton called on black churches to mobilize in support of the nuclear deal. On Monday, a group of 340 rabbis from multiple strands of Judaism released a letter, urging lawmakers to vote for the agreement. And plans are in the works for a coordinated rollout of endorsements by a number of religious groups next week, an organizer said.

The campaign is led largely by Catholic and Quaker groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and it reflects many of the organizations’ traditional anti-war stances. It also comes as themes of anti-Semitism and Islamism have risen in the debate.

Some of the undecided lawmakers being targeted, among them prominent Democrats, have Jewish constituents and donors who fear the agreement will empower Iran, whose Islamist leaders are avowedly anti-Israel and have even questioned the Holocaust. (Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson recently suggested in much-criticized remarks that President Barack Obama was anti-Semitic for pursuing negotiations with Iran.)

The campaign against the deal is being led by groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Republican Jewish Coalition, and as much as $40 million or more is believed will be spent by the opposition on ads and other efforts, including sponsoring town halls to confront wobbly lawmakers.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, is feeling pressure from every side but particularly from his Jewish constituents. He has attended two town halls in the past week, the first hosted by AIPAC and other groups which local news reports described as tense. During the second gathering, hosted by Jeffries himself, a woman in the crowd compared a former State Department official who spoke in favor of the deal to supporters of Adolf Hitler.



[COMMENTARY] Contentions The Right’s ‘Hope and Change’ Moment

hope and change - Google Search
For years, many self-professed conservatives mocked and derided Barack Obama’s two successful presidential campaigns as substanceless self-affirmations that exposed the vapidity of many in the voting public. It should be clear now that a few of those conservatives really only wanted an Obama of their own. 
The genius of Obama’s image-makers was to craft a candidate with malleable policy positions just vague enough to allow the voter to project onto him their individual hopes and aspirations. Obama was whatever you wanted him to be whenever you wanted him to be it. Donald Trump is the right’s Obama, insofar as his policy preferences are ill-defined, pliable, and reflective of whatever the audience immediately before him wants them to be. Not everyone eats this act up, but those who do have access to booming microphones that create the impression they represent more than a modest plurality of the Republican primary electorate. Nevertheless, that even this small number of self-identified conservatives has become swept up in the right’s “hope and change” moment is dispiriting.
Those conservatives that continue to support Trump’s presidential bid are now doing so in spite of an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that indicates he was an orthodox liberal until only recently. Those voters who consider themselves down-the-line conservatives and cannot stomach a moment’s heresy from the 2016 field’s more accomplished Republican candidates seem perfectly comfortable embracing a figure who was once to the left of Hillary Clinton on virtually every weighty policy matter. That Trump remains impervious to this criticism suggests that his fluid policy preferences are of no interest to the 20 or 30 percent of the Republican primary voters that back him. What’s more, those who contend that Trump stands boldly athwart political correctness cannot support this contention: He has embraced PC rhetoric and emulated liberal scolds on issues related to racegender, and identity as well as any of The New Republic’s scribes. All that matters is his enormous personality and the cult around it.
A recent dispatch from a New Hampshire campaign stop via Bloomberg’s Melinda Henneberger sheds light on this tendency. “[V]ery little of what the conservatives in the hall were going wild over could be characterized as conservative,” she noted while nevertheless adding that the rapt audience remained enthralled by the candidate’s whistle-stop ramblings. Henneberger, a keen observer of politics, seemed vexed by the fact that “many heads nod” when Trump floats proposals that were, until yesterday, traditionally liberal policy positions.
When Trump vowed to compel American automotive manufacturers to dismantle manufacturing operations in Mexico and return them to the United States, his argument was that he could make this policy manifest by sheer force of will. “This is too easy, too easy!” Trump averred. “This is a couple of phone calls.” In their hearts, Trump voters know that there are economic forces at work that would render this misguided project a bit harder than simply making a phone call, but they want to believe that the avatar of their rebellion can move mountains. They want to comfort themselves with the notion that ill-defined wreckers within the Republican firmament are working against them. They want to think that displays of resolve are sufficient to create positive “change,” however they as individuals define it. Indeed, victory for the Trump backer cannot be defined as the pursuit of traditionally conservative solutions to vexing policy problems. Conservatism is of secondary interest to the Trump supporter. All that matters now is sticking it to a variety of perceived enemies; liberals, establishment Republicans, globalization, economic integration, foreign workers, et cetera. Trump is an outlet that facilitates venting.
Deep down, the Trump backer cares little for about what comes out of the candidate’s mouth; his support is derived not from what he says but what he represents. The Republican media consultant and political professional Rick Wilson recently performed a compelling dissection of Trump’s stylistic approach to campaigning. He noted accurately that the reality television star’s methods are virtually indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s circa 2008.
“You hated Barack Obama’s cult-like followers, with their mindless stares of adoration, their impervious barrier between emotion and reason, and their instant fury when confronted with the facts about his record, his history, or his philosophy,” he wrote to Trump supporters. “You hated Obama’s shallow, facile rhetoric, with its hollow promises and loose, lowest-common-denominator word-vomit disconnected from any real policy.”
“But you love it from Trump,” Wilson added.
Wilson’s admonition was dismissed by those who needed to hear it most. As a member of the enemy class of Republican campaign consultants – a group partly responsible for electing more Republicans to state and federal office in the Obama era than at any point since the 1920s, mind you – he can be safely ignored until the revolution is complete, and its nemeses are purged for their deviationism. The salience of his observations is, however, confirmed by the hollow and emotional objections it yielded from Trump supporters.
Those on the right who have convinced themselves that there is some value in this void vessel into which they pour their discontent are sacrificing one of the most compelling arguments in opposition to Barack Obama’s administration: its self-evident incompetence. Trump’s backers have earned their anxieties — they are the product of the years of mismanagement over which this president has presided. Trump’s success, however, reveals that a significant number of conservatives do not merely seek remedy for their years of suffering; they want revenge. The right’s “hope and change” moment does differ from the one that Democrats are only just beginning to awaken from in one critical aspect: for those backing Trump, his appeal is as much aspirational as it is about score settling. And after almost seven years of “hope and change” there are a lot of scores to settle before we can “make America great again.”

Monday, August 17, 2015

With High-Profile Help, Obama Plots Life After Presidency

With High-Profile Help, Obama Plots Life After Presidency - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The dinner in the private upstairs dining room of the White House went so late that Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn billionaire, finally suggested around midnight that President Obama might like to go to bed.
“Feel free to kick us out,” Mr. Hoffman recalled telling the president.
But Mr. Obama was just getting started. “I’ll kick you out when it’s time,” he replied. He then lingered with his wife, Michelle, and their 13 guests — among them the novelist Toni Morrison, the hedge fund manager Marc Lasry and the Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr — well past 2 a.m.
Mr. Obama “seemed incredibly relaxed,” said another guest, the writer Malcolm Gladwell. He recalled how the group, which also included the actress Eva Longoria and Vinod Khosla, a founder of Sun Microsystems, tossed out ideas about what Mr. Obama should do after he leaves the White House.
“Where we’ll end up, I don’t know yet,” said Marty Nesbitt, the president’s longtime Chicago friend who is leading an extensive planning effort for Mr. Obama’s library and an anticipated global foundation.
Publicly, Mr. Obama betrays little urgency about his future. Privately, he is preparing for his postpresidency with the same fierce discipline and fund-raising ambition that characterized the 2008 campaign that got him to the White House.
The long-running dinner this past February is part of a methodical effort taking place inside and outside the White House as the president, first lady and a cadre of top aides map out a postpresidential infrastructure and endowment they estimate could cost as much as $1 billion. The president’s aides did not ask any of the guests for library contributions after the dinner, but a number of those at the table could be donors in the future.
The $1 billion — double what George W. Bush raised for his library and its various programs — would be used for what one adviser called a “digital-first” presidential library loaded with modern technologies, and to establish a foundation with a worldwide reach.
Supporters have urged Mr. Obama to avoid the mistake made by Bill Clinton, whose associates raised just enough money to build his library in Little Rock, Ark., forcing Mr. Clinton to pursue high-dollar donors for years to come. Including construction costs, Mr. Obama’s associates set a goal of raising at least $800 million — enough money, they say, to avoid never-ending fund-raising. One top adviser said that $800 million was a floor rather than a ceiling.
So far, Mr. Obama has raised just over $5.4 million from 12 donors, with gifts ranging from $100,000 to $1 million. Michael J. Sacks, a Chicago businessman, gave $666,666. Fred Eychaner, the founder of a Chicago television empire, donated $1 million. Mark T. Gallogly, a private equityexecutive, and James H. Simons, a technology entrepreneur, each contributed $340,000 to a foundation set up to oversee development of the library.
The real push for donations, foundation officials said, will come after Mr. Obama leaves the White House.
Via; New York Times
Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO THE 2006 SECURE BORDER FENCE ACT?

Remember the promise of a fence on our southern border? Yes, it was the plan but the $1.2 billion dollar plan was never executed as proposed. You can thank our Liar in Chief and a popular Republican for that…
WE RECENTLY POSTED THIS VIDEO OF AN IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL SAYING BUILDING A BORDER FENCE “ISN’T POSSIBLE” EVEN THOUGH $1.2 BILLION WAS GIVEN IN 2006 FOR A FENCE:


In his speech in El Paso on immigration reform on May 10, 2011, Obama declared that the fence along the border with Mexico is “now basically complete.” Like much of what comes out of the Obama administration, that was a lie. What was supposed to be built was a double layered fence with barbed-wire on top, and room for a security vehicle to patrol between the layers. Except for 36 of the seven-hundred mile fence, what was built looks like the picture above or the one below.
But that doesn’t stop your liar in chief. He claims.
“We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement,” Obama said. “All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.”
Maybe he’s right–the goal posts were moved, but to make the job easier.
The Secure Fence Act was introduced on Sept. 13, 2006 by Rep Peter King (R-NY) and passed Congress on a bi-partisan basis. In the House of Representatives, the Fence Act passed 283 -138 on September 14, 2006. On September 29, 2006, the Fence Act passed in the Senate 80 -19. The Secure Fence Act of 2006’s goal was to help secure America’s borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorized more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology such as cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border. So far less than 40 miles of a real fence have been built – most of it during the Bush Administration.
Of the almost 700 miles of fencing, DHS reports there are currently 36.3 miles of double-layered fencing, as the bill required, the kind with enough gap that you can drive a vehicle between the layers. But the majority of the fencing erected has been made from vehicle barriers with single-layer pedestrian fencing, the kind of barriers that are designed to stop vehicles rather than people. The design specifications vary, depending on geography and climate characteristics, but according to the Customs and Border Patrol website, those include ‘post on rail’ steel set in concrete; steel picket-style fence set in concrete; vehicle bollards similar to those found around federal buildings; ‘Normandy; vehicle fence consisting of steel beams; and concrete jersey walls with steel mesh.
Via: 100% Fed Up

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Watch What This Group of Marines Does When Obama Enters the Room

Former President George W. Bush and Barack Obama could not be more different when it comes to how they treat our troops, and consequently, how they are viewed by military members. This video clip depicts that fact perfectly. VIDEO LINK
Watch as Bush enters a room full of Marines who offer him uproarious applause and shouts of support. Then, listen to the crickets chirp as Obama enters another room of Marines. Only a few high-ranking military officials could be seen making an effort to clap.
George Bush didn’t just offer our troops his whole-hearted support as Commander in Chief, either. He has made it his life’s mission after leaving office to give thanks to those who put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms, and frequently makes trips to visit the wounded warriors who nearly sacrificed it all.
Share this video if you’re ready for a Commander in Chief who inspires the respect of our military, not who undermines them at every turn.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Hotel for President Obama's Ethiopia Visit Cost $412K

President Obama visited Kenya and Ethiopia during his recent trip to Africa, and the hotel bill for the president and his entourage totaled approximately $412,390.86 for the Ethiopia stay alone. A contract with the Hilton in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa was posted online recently:
 

The president arrived in Addis Ababa on Sunday, July 26 and departed on July 28. The government also spent $7,540 for cell phones for the president's Ethiopia visit. The White House did not respond to a request for an explanation.

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Obama Weekly Address: Continuing Work to Improve Community Policing Saturday August 15, 2015


MP4MP3
WASHINGTON, DC — In this week's address, the President spoke about the work the Administration is doing to enhance trust between communities and law enforcement in the year since the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson.  In May, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing released their final report setting out concrete proposals to build trust and enhance public safety.  And across America local leaders are working to put these ideas into action in their communities.  The President noted that while progress is being made, these issues go beyond policing, which is why the Administration is committed to achieving broader reforms to the criminal justice system and to making new investments in our children and their future. 

Ghosts of Obama: Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy Problem

Image: Flickr/marcn
In a major speech a few days ago, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton laid out the likely parameters of her foreign policy argument for 2016. Decrying what she calls the “cowboy diplomacy” and “reckless warmongering” of Republicans, she advocates “progress” and “fresh thinking” against the GOP’s supposedly “out-of-date” and “partisan ideas,” where “ideology trumps evidence” on international as well as domestic issues.
Clinton’s most fervent supporters claim with great confidence that foreign policy will strongly favor Hillary against any conceivable Republican in November 2016. But they may be whistling past the graveyard. The reason can be summed up in two words: retrospective voting.
Retrospective voting refers to the fact that in presidential elections, American voters cast a judgment on the domestic and international policy record of the past four years, whether or not the incumbent president is on the ballot. Depending upon the popularity of an outgoing president, this can either help or hurt the nominee from the same party. So, for example, retrospective voting helped George H.W. Bush following Ronald Reagan in 1988; hurt John McCain following George W. Bush in 2008; and was more or less a wash for Al Gore following Bill Clinton in 2000. Of course, retrospective voting is hardly the only factor determining presidential elections. But it is powerful, and very real.
Barack Obama, to put it mildly, is no Ronald Reagan. In fact the current president’s popularity is not even comparable to Bill Clinton’s. And on foreign policy in particular, Obama’s approval ratings have been on average 38 percent or 39 percent for the past two years—which is where they stand today. To put this into perspective, that’s about the same foreign policy approval rating George W. Bush had at this point in his presidency. Of course, both Hillary Clinton and Obama would love to change the subject back again to George W. Bush next year. The only problem is we’ve had this other president, Obama, for several years now, and voters will probably want to reflect on how he’s done. For Hillary, this is a negative.
Ideology trumps evidence
Why do so many Americans disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy these days? Perhaps they increasingly see, to use a phrase of Hillary’s, that he has followed a foreign and national security policy where “ideology trumps evidence.”

As John Kerry Celebrates Embassy Opening, Cuban Dissidents Are Barred From Attending

U.S. marines raise the American flag at the U.S. embassy in Havana, Cuba while Secretary of State John Kerry watches. (Photo: Stringer/Reuters/Newscom)

The American flag was raised next to the U.S. embassy in Havana for the first time in 54 years Friday, but Cuban dissidents who have influenced U.S.-Cuban relations for decades were barred from the event.
Secretary of State John Kerry justified the exclusion by telling Telemundo the symbolic opening was a “government-to-government moment, with very limited space.”
The State Department conceded the ceremony was not limited to government officials, extending invitations to select private individuals.
Notably, James Williams, president of the prominent anti-embargo lobbying group Engage Cuba, and Zane Kerby, president and CEO of the trade association American Society of Travel Agents, were both invited to the flag-raising ceremony.
“It truly shows the administration’s priorities when there’s space at the flag-raising ceremony for business interests and anti-embargo lobbyists, yet there’s no space for Cuban dissidents. Who in fact are we really supporting with this new policy?” said Ana Quintana, an analyst specializing in Latin America policy at The Heritage Foundation.
Kerry said he would meet with dissidents during a reception at the chief of mission’s residence following the embassy ceremony, after it was demanded he explain how normalized relations will improve human rights standards.
“I look forward to meeting whoever I meet and listening to them and having, you know, whatever views come at me,” Kerry said.
John Suarez, the international secretary at the Cuban Democratic Directorate, said under President Barack Obama’s diplomatic policies with Cuba, human rights have “deteriorated.”
Since Obama announced the U.S.’s plan to normalize relations with Havana in December, Suarez said violence against activists has escalated, nearly 4,000 politically motivated arrests have occurred as a result of dissident demonstrations, and “Cubans continue to be killed for trying to leave the island.”
“The current U.S. policy on Cuba will strengthen and legitimize the dictatorship and is undercutting Cuban democracies,” he said.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is the son of Cuban exiles, called the State Department’s decision to exclude dissidents in the ceremony a “slap in the face” and said it marked the event as “little more than a propaganda rally for the Castro regime.”
Kerry highlighted opponents’ concerns during the ceremony, calling for a “genuine democracy” in Cuba that includes free elections, freedom of religion and speech, and human rights improvements.
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona joined Kerry’s delegation in Havana, splitting from the majority in his party to laud the embassy opening.
“The United States will be able to do much more to protect and serve U.S. citizens in Cuba and encourage a better future for the Cuban people with an American flag flying over our embassy in Havana,” he said in a statement.

Friday, August 14, 2015

Jeb Bush blames Clinton for Iraq turmoil

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush speaks at the Reagan Presidential Library.
In a 40-minute speech on Tuesday night at the Reagan Presidential Library in California - hallowed ground for conservatives - Mr Bush outlined an argument made by many of the current Republican candidates. By executing a "premature withdrawal" of all US forces in Iraq in 2011, he said, the Obama administration and then-Secretary of State Clinton committed a "fatal error", destabilising the nation and setting the stage for the rise of Islamic State militants.
"So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers," Mr Bush said of Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton. "It was a case of blind haste to get out and to call the tragic consequences somebody else's problem. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous."
Rushing into a dangerous war, of course, is the critique often laid at the feet of Mr Bush's brother, President George W Bush, the man who oversaw the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
When your last name is Bush - and not, say, Walker or Rubio - talking about Iraq is always fraught with peril. In May he was ridiculed for struggling to say whether he'd have approved the Iraq invasion "knowing what we know now".
At first, he said he would, then he said he wouldn't engage in "hypotheticals" and finally he announced he wouldn't have authorised the invasion.
Mr Bush never mentioned his brother by name on Tuesday, although he made a few veiled references to his sibling's often tumultuous foreign policy experience.
"No leader or policymaker involved will claim to have gotten everything right in the region, Iraq especially," he said.
He went on to argue that the US military should become more involved in the Middle East - although the extent of such involvement was left unclear. He called for a no-fly and "safe" zones over Syria, the removal of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, increasing support for Iraqi Kurds and greater co-ordination between US and Iraqi troops.
BBC's campaignspotting coverage.
After Mr Bush's speech, Clinton campaign advisor Jake Sullivan called the former governor's argument "a pretty bold attempt to rewrite history and reassign responsibility". The 2008 Iraq withdrawal agreement, he noted, was reached while President Bush was in office.
He also contended that the rise of IS is the result of Bush administration missteps, such as disbanding the Iraqi army in 2003 and alienating Sunni factions.
Mr Bush's speech is the latest escalation of a war of words between his campaign and that of his potential Democratic rival. Two weeks ago, Mrs Clinton appeared to catch the Bush camp off-guard with a pointed attack on his record as Florida governor during a speech in front of black activists and entrepreneurs at the Urban League conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Mr Bush didn't directly respond to the attack in his speech later that day - and was criticised by some on the right for being too timid in the face of a Democratic assault. His campaign appears to be taking steps to change that perception.
Earlier this week, Mr Bush and Mrs Clinton engaged in a round of accusations and counter attacks over education policy via Twitter.
Mr Bush said US student debt has increased 100% over the last seven years of the Obama administration. Mrs Clinton countered by citing a grade of "F" Mr Bush received in 2006 as governor for "college affordability" from the Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Both sides likely welcome the opportunity to take shots across the partisan divide, since they could help primary voters who have been reluctant so far to rally behind the supposed front-runners to better envision the candidates as their party's standard-bearers.
The form of best defence, as they say, is attack.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THREATENS STATES ATTEMPTING TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

The Obama administration is threatening states attempting to defund Planned Parenthood–those trying to stop the flow of their Medicaid funds to the abortion provider–with potential violation of federal law and, ultimately, the cutting off of Medicaid funds to those states.

Following the release of investigative videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s practice of harvesting the body parts of aborted babies for potential sale to biomedical companies, Alabama, Louisiana, and New Hampshire have canceled their Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood, as CNSNews.com reports.
Other states are in the process of considering similar action.
In Wisconsin, for example, state Rep. André Jacque (R) is attempting to address all the layers of government funding of Planned Parenthood that are under control of his state in several pieces of legislation. While Gov. Scott Walker and the state legislature have redirected about $1 million annually from Planned Parenthood to a Women’s Health Block Grant, the abortion giant’s affiliate in Wisconsin still receives between $15 and $16 million in taxpayer money annually, mainly through Medicaid and Title X “family planning” funding.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has stepped in, however, reports The Wall Street Journalto warn these states that they may be in violation of federal law because, by blocking Planned Parenthood’s reception of Medicaid funds, it says women could lose access to essential preventive care, such as cancer prevention screenings.
In an HHS guidance document from 2011, the Obama administration said states are not allowed to exclude providers from Medicaid solely on the basis of the types of services they offer.
According to the WSJ report, should the states continue to block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, they can request a hearing to settle the matter; however, should the conflict continue, CMS could cut Medicaid funds to the state.
Spokesmen for both Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said their states are not in violation of federal law since their Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood give either party the right to cancel it at will with a notice period: 30 days for Louisiana and 15 days for Alabama.
The HHS guidance, however, also says that states can exclude providers from Medicaid funding if their engagement in certain criminal acts is proven, a provision that many believe is the case with the videos of Planned Parenthood’s top medical personnel discussing the sale of aborted baby organs and body parts.
“This really hasn’t been tried before,” said Casey Mattox, senior legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. “Planned Parenthood has contracts with states that can be terminated for cause. In other situations the contracts were not terminated for cause.”
The Obama administration threatened to cut off Medicaid funding several years ago from Texas, when former Gov. Rick Perry redirected federal Title X funds to family planning centers in his state that are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. When Perry prohibited funding for low-income women’s health centers to go to Planned Parenthood clinics, the Obama administration argued the action was a violation of federal law and threatened to cut off Medicaid funding. Undaunted, Perry decided to fund the low-income women’s health program completely with his state’s own money.
In the wake of the release of the investigative videos by the Center for Medical Progress, White House press secretary Josh Earnest deferred to Planned Parenthood, stating the organization says it follows the highest ethical guidelines on medical research.
President Obama is a known champion of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. In April of 2013, he was the first sitting president to deliver an address to Planned Parenthood, which was founded by eugenicist and racist Margaret Sanger. He promised to stand with the organization against what he described as efforts to “turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950’s than the 21st Century.”
After praising the organization for its 100-year existence, Obama told Planned Parenthood, “God bless you.”
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards has enjoyed a close relationship with the White House from the start of Obama’s presidency. According to a report atCNSNews.com, an online record of visitors shows that Richards has visited the White House 39 times since Obama took office, beginning January 20, 2009–the day he was inaugurated.
Since then, Richards has met with Obama alone at least three times and First Lady Michelle Obama at least twice. Additionally, she met with the President and his wife together another four times. She also attended the President’s second inaugural on January 20, 2013.
Richards met with David Plouffe, former senior adviser to the president, four times and current senior adviser Valerie Jarrett five times. She has also met with many members of the Obama administration, including former White House Chief of Staff William Daley, Office of Management and Budget director Shaun Donovan, and current Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.

Senior Democratic Whip Announces Opposition To Iran Nuclear Deal

FeaturedImage_2015-08-13_Flickr_Alcee_Hastings_5037674103_015024ac70_b
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D – Fla.) is the latest senior Democratic member of Congress to announce his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran, the Palm Beach Post reportedtoday.
Hastings, a liberal Democrat who usually supports Obama, joins another Palm Beach County delegation member who’s normally a pro-Obama vote — Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton — in opposing the agreement. …
Both Hastings and Deutch say the deal allows Iran to remain a “threshold nuclear state.”
Their opposition stands in contrast to Obama’s efforts in a speech last week to cast the deal’s critics as partisan Republicans who are making “common cause” with Iranian hardliners.
Hastings, a Senior Democratic Whip in the House, made his announcement in an op-edpublished in the paper [non-paywalled version here]. Hastings observed that the deal “allows Iran to remain a nuclear a nuclear threshold state,” and that the billions of dollars Iran will gain in sanctions relief will allow it to increase its funding of terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Hastings also questioned whether sanctions could really “snap back” in the event of Iran violating the deal, given the increased commerce between Iran and the rest of the world that the deal will spur.
We must maintain a strong sanctions regime — to do otherwise is to give up our leverage. Sanctions are what brought Iran to the table, and they depend on large-scale international cooperation and compliance.
Companies from around the world have started lining up to invest in Iran. Should sanctions need to be re-imposed, it is not clear whether investment contracts implemented in the meantime would be voided. Indeed, many nations may no longer feel bound to U.S. sanctions once U.N. and EU-based sanctions are eased.
The provisions of the agreement that allow sanctions to “snap back” are of particular concern. This process could take well over two months and is limited to “significant” violations of the deal (the [deal] fails to define what qualifies as significant). Iran could undermine the agreement in ways that would be nearly impossible to stop.
Hastings also announced his intention to introduce legislation authorizing the “sitting president or his successors” to use military force in case Iran is about to develop nuclear weapons.
House Democrats Juan Vargas (D – Calif.), Grace Meng (D – N.Y.), Albio Sires (D – N.J.), and Kathleen Rice (D – N.Y.) were the first group to announce their opposition to the deal. Later, three high-ranking Jewish Democrats in the House—Representatives Steve Israel (D – N.Y.), Nita Lowey (D – N.Y.), and Ted Deutch (D – Fla.)—joined them in opposition. Representatives Eliot Engel (D – N.Y) and Brad Sherman (D – Calif.) also announced their opposition to the deal last Friday. Engel is the Ranking Member of theHouse Foreign Affairs Committee, of which Sherman, Sires, Meng, and Deutch are members.

Popular Posts