Make text bigger  Make text smaller  Toggle background color  Bookmark/Share

SCOTUS Overturns Arizona Voter Registration Law

An Illegal Immigrant Crosses the US-Mexico Border

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against Arizona’s voter registration law, which passed in 2004 with strong 56% support, including over 40% support from Hispanic residents.  This law required proof of U.S. citizenship when registering for a variety of public services and functions.

The Supreme Court didn’t actually strike down the Arizona law on its own merits – in other words, they didn’t rule that its requirements were unacceptable from a Constitutional standpoint.  They affirmed an appeals court judgment that Arizona could not override the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly known as the “Motor Voter Law.”  As the Associated Press explains, this law sets insanely weak requirements for voter registration, and stipulates that only the federal government can modify them for individual states:

The federal “motor voter” law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver’s license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law — the one at issue before the court — requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

While the court was clear in stating that states cannot add additional identification requirements to the federal forms on their own, it was also clear that the same actions can be taken by state governments if they get the approval of the federal government and the federal courts.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, [Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court.  Other states have already done so, Scalia said.

And there’s no way people who ignored America’s immigration laws to cross the border illegally would lie about it, right?  Their good word should be enough to get them on the voting rolls.  Opponents of Arizona’s enhanced registration security claim it has blocked over 31,000 “potentially legal” voters, and they’re pretty sure most of them weren’t illegal aliens, because they said so, that’s why.

This is delirious lunacy.  The all-seeing surveillance state can grill American citizens like cheese sandwiches when they try to do anything from opening a business to applying for tax exempt status, but we have to pretend it’s 1950 for the rest of eternity when it comes to voter registration.  There’s only one interface between the Leviathan State and its citizens where the former requires no documentation from the latter, and it’s voting.  Anyone who wants to see what real ”voter suppression” looks like should talk to the Tea Party groups persecuted by the IRS.  That didn’t involve setting a firm standard that everyone was required to meet; it was the uneven application of government power against certain groups of Americans based on their political ideology.  But I don’t see any of the groups that freak out over voter ID rushing to denounce the IRS with equal vigor.

Having said that, today’s Supreme Court decision is about the uneasy border between state and federal power, not voter identification as such.  The majority ruled that the state of Arizona could not modify the registration forms provided by the federal government under the Motor Voter law; the two dissenters, Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, argued the reverse, quite passionately.  From Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion:

I think that both the plain text and the history of the Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment authorize States to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.

To avoid substantial constitutional problems created by interpreting §1973gg–4(a)(1) to permit Congress to effectively countermand this authority, I would construe the law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the State free to request whatever additional information it determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish.

Under this interpretation, Arizona did “accept and use” the federal form. Accordingly, there is no conflict between Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F) (WestCum. Supp. 2012) and §1973gg–4(a)(1) and, thus, no pre-emption.

In rejecting Justice Thomas’ argument, the Court validated one of the major criticisms of the Motor Voter Law, which would probably be of some interest to the electorate of 1993, if we had some way to communicate the decision to them.  But we can only move forward, and those who portray today’s decision as a massive blow against voter identification aren’t reading the majority opinion very carefully, since Justice Scalia very clearly spelled out a strategy for the people of Arizona to restore their preferred security measures.

 

Editor’s Note: We have reprinted here in full “SCOTUS Overturns Arizona Voter Registration Law” by John Hayward from Human Events. We encourage you to visit the original.

Posted
June 18th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged




No Comments

HHS Allows Agencies to Trade and Share Personal Health Info

A new 253-page Obamacare rule issued late Friday requires state, federal and local agencies as well as health insurers to swap the protected personal health information of anybody seeking to join the new health care program that will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.

Personal health information, or PHI, is highly protected under federal law, but the latest ruling from the Department of Health and Human Services allows agencies to trade the information to verify that Obamacare applicants are getting the minimum amount of health insurance coverage they need from the health “exchanges.”

The ruling, explained on pages 72-73 of the book-thick guidance, does not mention any requirement that applicants first OK the release of their PHI. HHS already allows some exchange of PHI without an individual’s pre-approval, especially when for a “government program providing public benefits.” Officials said the swapping of information is simply meant to help figure the best insurance coverge of Obamacare users.

The new ruling surprised some congressional critics. “This sounds as if HHS will have access to protected health info to me,” said one top Hill aide worried about how well the administration will protect that information.

Conservative groups like Americans for Tax Reform have raised questions about the release of PHI in the aftermath of the IRS scandal.

PHI includes an individual’s medical history, test and laboratory results, insurance information and other data.

The new rule said that appropriate privacy laws will be followed.

“The exchange would submit specific identifying information to HHS and HHS would verify applicant information with information from the federal and state agencies or programs that provide eligibility and enrollment information regarding minimum essential coverage. Such agencies or programs may include but are not limited to Veterans Health Administration, TRICARE, and Medicare,” said the new rule, which HHS is seeking public comment on.

“HHS will work with the appropriate federal and state agencies to complete the appropriate computer matching agreements, data use agreements, and information exchange agreements which will comply with all appropriate federal privacy and security laws and regulations. The information obtained from federal and state agencies will be used and re-disclosed by HHS as part of the eligibility determination and information verification process,” added the rule.

Explaining the PHI release ruling, HHS said Obamacare “is a government program providing public benefits, is expressly authorized to disclose PHI…that relates to eligibility for or enrollment in the health plan to HHS for verification of applicant eligibility for minimum essential coverage as part of the eligibility determination process for advance payments of the premium tax credit or cost-sharing reductions.”

 

Editor’s Note: We have reprinted the full text of “Obamacare will share personal health info with federal, state agencies” by Paul Bedard from the Washington Examiner. We encourage you to visit the original.

Posted
June 17th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged






No Comments

Calvin Coolidge: Speech to the Meeting of the Business Organization

This is the seventh regular meeting of the Business Organization of the Government. The first of these meetings was held three years ago. This marks the close of three years of action under the Budget system. At the first meeting was commenced an intensive campaign in behalf of the people who pay the taxes in our country. The foes of that campaign were extravagance and inefficiency in the public service. For three years we have waged this intensive campaign. It has been a united effort, and united effort never fails of accomplishment. The people of this Nation are beginning to win. In that short space of time we have accomplished the unbelievable. Uncoordinated procedures of official action have been coordinated. Departmental interests have been made subservient to the common interests of the Government as a whole. The business of Government has been established on an efficient basis. You have done this, and for doing it you are entitled to the thanks of the American people. This has been and is their fight.

We are often told that we are a rich country, and we are. We are often reminded that we are in the best financial condition of any of the great powers, and we are. But we must remember that we also have a broader scale of existence and a higher standard of living. We have a freer Government and a more flexible organization of society. Where more is given, more is required. A tropical state of savagery almost maintains itself. American civilization is the product of a constant and mighty effort. One of the greatest perils to an extensive republic is the disregard of individual rights. In our own country such rights do not appear to be in immediate danger from direct attack, but they are always in jeopardy through indirect action.

One of the rights which the freeman has always guarded with most jealous care is that of enjoying the rewards of his own industry. Realizing that the power to tax is the power to destroy and that the power to take a certain amount of property or of income is only another way of saying that for a certain proportion of his time a citizen must work for the Government, the authority to impose a tax on the people has been most carefully guarded. Our own Constitution requires that revenue bills should originate in the House, because that body is supposed to be more representative of the people. These precautions have been taken because of the full realization that any oppression laid upon the people by excessive taxation, any disregard of their right to hold and enjoy the property which they have rightfully acquired, would be fatal to freedom. A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny. It condemns the citizen to servitude. One of the first signs of the breaking down of free government is a disregard by the taxing power of the right of the people to their own property. It makes little difference whether such a condition is brought about through the will of a dictator, through the power of a military force, or through the pressure of an organized minority. The result is the same. Unless the people can enjoy that reasonable security in the possession of their property, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, against unreasonable taxation, freedom is at an end. The common man is restrained and hampered in his ability to secure food and clothing and shelter. His wages are decreased, his hours of labor are lengthened. Against the recurring tendency in this direction there must be interposed the constant effort of an informed electorate and of patriotic public servants. The importance of a constant reiteration of these principles can not be overestimated. They can not be denied. They must not be ignored.

There is a most urgent necessity for those who are charged with the responsibility of government administration to realize that the people of our country can not maintain their own high standards, they can not compete against the lower standards of the rest of the world, unless we are free from excessive taxes.

With us economy is imperative. It is a full test of our national character. Bound up in it is the true cause, not of the property interests, not of any privilege, but of all the people. It is preeminently the source of popular rights. It is always the people who toil that pay. It seems to me, therefore, worthy of our highest endeavor. It is this which gives the real importance to this meeting.

I would not be misunderstood. I am not advocating parsimony, I want to be liberal. Public service is entitled to a suitable reward. But there is a distinct limit to the amount of public service we can profitably employ. We require national defense, but it must be limited. We need public improvements, but they must be gradual. We have to make some capital investments, but they must be certain to give fair returns. Every dollar expended must be made in the light of all our national resources, and all our national needs. It is here that the Budget system gets its strength as a method of fiscal administration.

What progress we have made in ordering the national finances is easily shown. A comparison of our receipts and expenditures for the last four years illustrates conclusively what has been accomplished during the three years of the Budget system.

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, the last pre Budget year, our expenditures were $5,538,000,000 and our receipts $5,624,000,000. For the succeeding three years, which include the year which ends today, our expenditures were $3,795,000,000, $3,697,000,000 and $3,497,000,000 respectively. Here we show a progressive and consistent reduction in expenditures. On the other side of the ledger our receipts for 1922 were $4,109,000,000; 1923, $4,007, 000,000; and 1924, $3,995,000,000. An analysis of these figures shows that in the face of a progressive reduction in receipts we have still achieved a substantial surplus at the end of each of the fiscal years: $314,000,000 for 1922, $310,000,000 for 1923, and in excess of $500,000,000 for 1924. The amounts which I have stated as being the expenditures, receipts and surplus for the fiscal year 1924, which ends today, are only approximate. We will not have the actual figures until the books are finally balanced. The surplus accumulated at the end of each of the last three fiscal years has been applied to the reduction of the public debt in addition to the reductions required by law under the sinking fund and other acts. Without the aid of this recurring surplus the public debt would be $1,100,000,000 more than it now stands, and the interest charges would be some $45,000,000 greater next year than we shall now have to pay.

Along with this reduction in expenditures has gone a progressive reduction of the public debt with its attendant relief from the burden of interest. On June 30, 1921, the public debt was $23,976,000,000. In 1922 it had been reduced more than $1,000,000,000 to $22,964,000,000. In 1923 it had been reduced more than $600,000,000 to $22, 349,000,000. In 1924 it has been reduced again by more than $1,000,000,000, and stands at an estimated amount of $21,254,000,000, which is a reduction in three years of $2, 722,000,000, and means a saving of interest of more than $120,000,000 each year.

This shows that the intensive campaign which was commenced three years ago has been waged unrelentingly. In this campaign we have had the active cooperation and support of the Congress. The three budgets presented by the Chief Executive to the Congress have carried drastic, progressive reductions in their estimates for funds. Congress has adhered to Budget procedure in passing upon these estimates. The appropriations granted have been in harmony with the financial program of the Chief Executive.

When we met six months ago I stated to you that this fight for economy had but one purpose; that its benefits would accrue to the whole people through reduction in taxes. Taxes have now been reduced. Under the new tax law, tax receipts, as now estimated, will be approximately $6,000,000 per day less for 1925 than they were in 1921. While our immediate need is for tax reform, as distinguished from tax reduction, we must continue this campaign for economy so as to make possible further tax reduction. We owe this to the people of our Nation, to the people who must pay with their toil. The relief which has recently been afforded must be only the beginning. So in all your efforts, in all your sacrifices, you must bear in mind that you are making them for the people of our country. There could be no nobler cause or one showing higher patriotism. Bear in mind always that we are here as the servants of the people and that only as we serve them well and faithfully shall we succeed.

This insistent demand for economy and reduction in expenditures necessarily requires increasing efficiency of administration. I realize that it is making an ever increasing call upon the administrative ability of responsible officials. But this is a call for real service. It demands a most searching inquiry into the field of your activities so as to remove entirely from them all elements which are not essential and so as to curtail all those which may be reduced without prejudice to the welfare of the Nation. If there is any question as to the authority of heads of departments or establishments to discontinue or reduce any phase of existing work, it is my desire that they report the matter to me. The duty and the opportunity today of the Government’s administrators is not to enter upon new fields of enterprise. On the other hand, it is their duty and opportunity to carry on approved and necessary activities with the smallest possible expenditure. In the past twenty years the Government’s activities have developed and multiplied in a most extraordinary way. Certainly the initiation of new activities should be discouraged unless essential to the well being of the Nation. We, the administrators of the Government’s great business interests, should have at this time only one thought and policy; to perform efficiently the functions devolving upon us under the law. And we should accomplish this with the smallest possible demand upon the Treasury. We have made real progress in this direction. Our responsibility to the taxpayers demands further progress.

Tomorrow we commence a new fiscal year. We will have a smaller revenue by reason of the lessening of the burden of the taxpayer under the new tax law. On the other hand, we will have an increase in our fixed charges The World War adjusted compensation act alone adds approximately $132,000,000 to our fixed charges for 1925. A real battle faces us, but we are organized for the fight. The best estimate today indicates a surplus of approximately $25,000,000 for the next fiscal year. This estimate is predicated on an expenditure program which, exclusive of the redemption of the public debt, amounts to $3,083,000,000 I desire that this expenditure program be reduced by $83, 000,000. I do not contemplate total expenditures for the next fiscal year which will exceed $3,000,000,000, exclusive of the redemption of the public debt. This will give us a surplus at the end of 1925 of $108,000,000. This, or a greater surplus, should be our aim. The people have faith in us. We must preserve this faith. Our efforts and our accomplishments are also serving as inspiration to the other nations of the world. We are setting the example for reduction in the cost of government and for return to ordinary peacetime conditions. There can be no faltering. Our duty is plain. As we have progressed in these last three years, so we must continue.

You, with your intimate knowledge of the details of your work, know where further practical economies can be effected. I desire, however, that you give especial attention to the matter of personnel. This is by far the most costly item in our expenditures. We must reduce the Government payroll. I am satisfied that it will lead to greater efficiency. And in this same connection I desire careful scrutiny of travel orders. Our travel expense item is too great. An order for travel should be given only when absolutely necessary. You can effect economy in this item. A further fertile field for economy is the item of printing and binding. I am sometimes startled at the number of Government publications which come to my attention. It can not be that all are necessary.

In this effort for economy and efficiency in the Federal service the coordinating agencies created by Executive order have played a most important part. The necessity and value of coordination have been clearly demonstrated. It has brought the departments and establishments into intimate contact. Contradictory plans, conflicting procedures, have been supplanted by common plans and harmonious procedures. It is essential that this work go on. I realize the heavy demands upon the members of the several coordinating boards. They have also their departmental work to perform. This calls again for a real sacrifice, but for a sacrifice in the interest of the taxpayers.

You are now preparing your preliminary estimates for the fiscal year 1926. For that fiscal year it will be my purpose to transmit to Congress estimates of appropriations which, excluding the interest on and reduction in the public debt, and the Postal Service, will not exceed a total of $1,800,000,000. This tentative limitation is in furtherance of my program for a progressive reduction in the cost of government.

I regret that there are still some officials who apparently feel that the estimates transmitted to the Bureau of the Budget are the estimates which they are authorized to advocate before the committees of the Congress. Let me say here that under the budget and accounting act the only lawful estimates are those which the Chief Executive transmits to the Congress. It is these estimates that call for your loyal support. Unless such support be given, you are not fulfilling your obligations to your office. I trust that neither the Chief Executive nor the Appropriations Committees of Congress again will have occasion to call your attention to the provisions of the budget and accounting act. This law must be observed not only in its letter but in its spirit. I herewith serve notice again as Chief Executive that I propose to protect the integrity of my budget.
We must have no carelessness in our dealings with public property or the expenditure of public money. Such a condition is characteristic either of an undeveloped people, or of a decadent civilization. America is neither. It stands out strong and vigorous and mature. We must have an administration which is marked, not by the inexperience of youth, or the futility of age, but by the character and ability of maturity. We have had the self control to put into effect the Budget system, to live under it and in accordance with it. It is an accomplishment in the art of self government of the very highest importance. It means that the American Government is not a spendthrift, and that it is not lacking in the force or disposition to organize and administer its finances in a scientific way. To maintain this condition puts us constantly on trial. It requires us to demonstrate whether we are weaklings, or whether we have strength of character. It is not too much to say that it is a measure of the power and integrity of the civilization which we represent. I have a firm faith in your ability to maintain this position, and in the will of the American people to support you in that determination. In that faith in you and them, I propose to persevere. I am for economy. After that I am for more economy. At this time and under present conditions that is my conception of serving all the people.

I will now turn this meeting over to General Lord, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. He is human. He hates to say no. But he is a brave man, and he does his duty without fear or favor. This Nation is his debtor. He will tell you more in detail of the things which have been accomplished and of the work which lies before you under the financial program which I have outlined to you. But let me leave this final word with you. So far as it is within my power I will not permit increases in expenditures that threaten to prevent further tax reduction or that contemplate such an unthinkable thing as increase in taxes. If with increasing business our revenues increase, such increase should not be absorbed in new ways of spending. They should be applied to the lowering of taxes. In that direction lies the public welfare.

 

Editor’s Note: We have reprinted the full text of Calvin Coolidge’s speech to the meeting of the Business Organization of the Government, given June 30, 1924, from the Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation. We encourage you to visit the original.

Posted
June 16th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged





No Comments

Flag Day!

 

Flag Day commemorates the adoption of the Stars & Stripes as America’s flag and national emblem in 1777 by the Second Continental Congress.

Flying the flag isn’t just an expression of personal patriotism–you may even influence the political opinions of your neighbors:

A single exposure to a small American flag during deliberation about voting intentions prior to a general election led to significant and robust changes in participants’ voting intentions, voting behavior, and political attitudes, all in the politically conservative direction.

 So reports a Study: U.S. Flag ‘Primes’ Voters Towards Republican Viewpoint featured by Fox News last year. The good news is that the patriotic effects can last as long as eight months.

So fly Old Glory high! 

 

Posted
June 14th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged

No Comments

The Left’s Phony Defense of Freedom

There are many idealistic progressives who’ve remained opposed to the National Security Agency’s data mining programs regardless of who is in the White House. (We can’t surrender our freedom for safety, you know!) It’s only a shame that these same people have such little reverence for constitutional liberties in other areas of public life.

Really, it’s worse than that. Consider the central case of the left these days: “Unfettered” freedom is a tragedy — decadent, unfair and un-American. So if, as liberals like to argue, it’s a moral imperative for Americans to scale back personal liberty to build a cleaner, fairer and healthier world, shouldn’t we be willing to do the same to protect the nation from terrorists? Why one and not the other? If Washington can shield you from the vagaries of economic life, why can’t it do the same with terrorists?

Soon after news of the NSA’s data mining and PRISM programs hit the news, we learned that there are Democrats with an uncanny ability to be malleable, apathetic and partisan in the face of an intrusive state. In January 2006, when George W. Bush was president, Pew Research Center asked Democrats how they felt about the NSA’s surveillance programs. Thirty-seven percent labeled the spying “acceptable,” and 61 percent said they were unacceptable. The reverse is true today, as 64 percent of Democrats believe that Barack Obama’s surveillance programs are acceptable and 34 percent say they’re not.

We could see this as an instance of mass hypocrisy if we assumed that the response is driven by a concern for the snooping itself rather than the administration in charge of the snooping. But it’s likelier that folks on the left tend to be idealistic about presidents and less concerned about inquisitive NSA agents. (No, Republicans aren’t innocent by any stretch. But it’s fair to say that they’ve become more ideologically consistent in their skepticism of state power. This position is now popularly defined as fanaticism.)

Even those Democrats who claim to have a special reverence for privacy regularly support policy that undermines it. If this affection for privacy were unwavering, would they be demanding that we expand government-run background checks on firearms? Would they advocate legislation that forces Americans to ask the Internal Revenue Service for permission to assemble and partake in the political process? Government should be transparent, but shouldn’t citizens be free to support politicians without registering with government? And really, how could someone who claims to value privacy support a law such as the individual mandate, which coerces every American citizen to report the status of his health insurance to the IRS?

And why is privacy a more critical liberty than economic freedom — or any other freedoms regularly pooh-poohed by progressives? Overregulating trade and markets can be more consequential to the freedom of an average person than any data mining program. Just ask a small-business owner.

Let’s face it. Most of the concern about these NSA programs is likely driven by an antipathy toward the war on terror rather than a concern about the corroding of constitutional protections. And though I agree with progressives that we’ve lost too many liberties in this effort, it’s a shame they don’t believe we’re deserving of similar liberty elsewhere in our lives.

H.L. Mencken wasn’t exactly right when he wrote, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Let’s concede that not all alarms are imaginary. Sometimes we are faced with genuine choice between more freedom and more safety. And as it stands, progressives almost always take the path of more safety. Why should it be different this time?

 

Editor’s Note: We have reprinted the full text of David Harsanyi’s “The Left’s Phony Defense of Freedom” from Human Events. We encourage you to visit the original.

Posted
June 14th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged



No Comments

Was the Gibson Guitar Raid Politically Motivated?

NASHVILLE — Henry Juszkiewicz and Christian Martin run competing guitar-manufacturing companies, but their politics have nothing in common.

Juszkiewicz, CEO of the Tennessee-based Gibson Guitar, is a Republican who donates heavily to party candidates, including Mike Huckabee.

Martin, CEO of the Pennsylvania-based Martin Guitar, donates heavily to Democrats, including Barack Obama.

Despite their partisan differences, Juskiewicz and Martin have something in common — both of their companies import the same type of exotic wood to manufacture guitars.

The federal government considers this activity questionable and raided one of the two companies.

Take a guess as to which one.

A chorus for you if you answered Gibson.

Federal agents, under the auspices of the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior, raided Gibson’s offices in Nashville and Memphis in 2011. They said Gibson broke the law by violating the 100-year-old Lacey Act, which regulates the importation of exotic wood from Africa and India.

U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican who represents Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, including parts of Nashville, is demanding that President Obama explain why the feds targeted Gibson in the first place.

She has yet to receive an answer, said her spokesman, Mike Reynard.

“In light of the IRS coming out and saying they were targeting conservative groups, this obviously raises a lot of questions as to why Gibson was targeted when other guitar makers using the same wood weren’t,” Reynard said.

After suffering a raid that generated plenty of negative media coverage, Gibson settled with the government. Gibson officials agreed to pay a $300,000 fine and contribute $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Juszkiewicz settled in order to avoid a lengthy trial that would have cost the company millions of dollars, according to a statement on Gibson’s web site

Several attempts to reach Gibson officials, including visits to its two Nashville locations and e-mails sent to Juszkiewicz and three of his primary assistants, were unsuccessful.

According to Juszkiewicz’s earlier statement, however, federal agents carried weapons and wore SWAT gear during the raid. They forced company employees out of the building, shut down production for the day and seized company assets.

Such extremes were completely unnecessary, Juszkiewicz said in a statement released after the settlement.

“The government used violent and hostile means with the full force of the U.S. Government and several armed law enforcement agencies costing the taxpayer millions of dollars and putting a job-creating U.S. manufacturer at risk and at a competitive disadvantage,” Juszkiewicz said.

According to the FEC’s web site, Juszkiewicz has donated almost $11,000 to various Republican candidates such as Blackburn and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander.

Martin, meanwhile, has donated almost $40,000 to several Democrats since 2001, mostly in Pennsylvania, not to mention John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid and the Democratic National Committee.

Politics not a factor, feds say

Tennessee Watchdog contacted Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle, who requested we submit all questions in writing, via e-mail, which we did earlier this week. Hornbuckle did not respond to any of the questions, nor to a follow-up e-mail sent the following day.

Chris Tollefson, a spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services under the Department of the Interior, told Tennessee Watchdog that politics were not a factor in the raid.

“There is absolutely no evidence that politics was involved,” Tollefson said.

“Career agents carried out the raid in accordance with standard procedures that we and other federal law enforcement agents have, and we carried out this investigation after receiving referrals from Customs and Border Protection in both 2009 and 2011. We did not have any information regarding Martin or any other musical instrument manufacturer at the time.”

Given that Tollefson phrased his last remark in the past tense, Tennessee Watchdog asked if his agency has learned any new information about Martin Guitar.

“I don’t have any information. I am not comfortable talking about Martin, specifically. In general, there are ways to import this wood in compliance with the law. In the case of Gibson, that was not happening.”

Tollefson denies that federal agents carried out the raid in a SWAT-like manner, as Juszkiewicz described.

Tollefson said he and other federal agents consider the matter closed after the settlement.

He later e-mailed Tennessee Watchdog the following:

“To clarify, as a matter of policy we cannot confirm or deny whether we have (or have had in the past) open investigations involving Martin Guitar or any other entity or individual, until and unless charges are brought.”

In an e-mail, Martin Guitar spokesman Joe DePlasco would only say that his company imports the exotic wood legally. He would not answer any other questions.

Other targets?

Blackburn does not consider the matter closed.

“It is clear that this administration made a choice to use excessive regulatory methods to intimidate conservative groups and individuals who disagree with their political ideology,” she said in a statement. “Not only is this wrong, but it is illegal. No one should have to live in fear of their government.”

Blackburn’s concerns don’t end with just Gibson, Reynard said.

“She has heard from a number of people in her district who feel like they were inappropriately targeted. These are people who have received letters from the IRS.”

Reynard would not say whether these people also donated to Blackburn’s campaign, were involved in tea party groups or were possibly targeted for other reasons.

 

Editor’s Note: We have reprinted the full text of “Striking the Wrong Chord” by Chris Butler from the American Spectator. We encourage you to visit the original.

Posted
June 11th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged




No Comments

Politics First, Foreign Policy Last (Americans don’t even figure)

There are three big losers from President Obama’s cynical appointment of Susan Rice as his new national security adviser: Secretary of State John Kerry, Congress and the American people.

As for the nomination of left-wing activist Samantha Power to replace Rice as UN ambassador, the losers are our foreign policy, our allies and the lefties bellowing for the closure of Gitmo. (It ain’t shutting down soon; this nomination’s a consolation prize to O’s base.)

These personnel choices are brilliant hardball politics — but, once again, the Obama White House has elevated politics above serious strategy.

Media pundits promptly opined that Rice’s appointment will alienate Republicans. But our president’s written off Republicans as dead meat. Bringing Rice into the Executive Branch’s innermost circle rewards her for being a good soldier in taking the fall on Benghazi, and it makes it virtually impossible for Congress to subpoena her for a grilling, thanks to our government’s separation of powers. Sharp move, Mr. President.

Pity poor John Kerry, though: He really, really wanted to be a noteworthy secretary of state. Already held at arms-length, now he’ll be relegated to visiting countries that never make the headlines and handing out retirement awards (plus working on the Middle East “peace process,” the ultimate diplomatic booby prize).

Rice has the weakest credentials of any national security adviser in the history of the office, but she has the president’s ear as his old pal. And she’ll work in the White House: Proximity to POTUS is trumps in DC. Kerry’s desk in Foggy Bottom might as well be a hundred miles from the Oval Office.

However incompetent, Rice may become the most influential national security adviser since Henry Kissinger eclipsed the entire State Department. Which means that Obama’s foreign policy, already disastrous, is now going to get worse.

As for the earnest Ms. Power, she has zero qualifications to serve as our UN ambassador. She’s a left–wing militant who has yet to show the least interest in defending America, rather than merely using our might as her tool. Her cause is human rights abroad, and that’s her only cause. And while respect for human rights should be a major factor in our foreign policy, it can’t be the only factor.

Both Power and Rice consistently advocate using our military to protect the human rights of often-hostile foreign populations. Of course there are, indeed, times when measured intervention is strategically wise and morally imperative — but our military’s fundamental purpose is national defense, not mercy missions to those who spit in our faces.

(By the way, I know of no instance when Power has vigorously defended Jews or Christians murdered or driven from their homes by the Arabs she wants to “save”; guess human rights aren’t universal, after all.)

As leftists cheer both choices, one can’t help recalling the cries of “Chicken hawk!” directed at the neocons in the Bush years. Much was made of the neocons’ enthusiasm for sending in our troops, although none of the movement’s leaders had served in our military. Now we have leftist kill-for-peace activists who never served in uniform. That’s different, of course.

On a purely practical level, Power is a terrible choice to be our UN rep. It’s a job for a veteran, polished ambassador who understands the arcane ways of diplomacy and the UN’s exasperating rules and procedures — which the Russian and Chinese ambassadors employed to humiliate Rice. It’s not a job for a zealot on a hobby horse.

Obama knows that, of course. But the Power nomination’s a win for him, even if she’s not confirmed. He just covered his left flank on the cheap. It’s not about Power, just about power.

 

Editor’s Note: We have reprinted the full text of  ”Obama’s Cynical Picks” by Ralph Peters from the New York Post. We encourage you to visit the original.

Posted
June 7th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged








No Comments

Sebelius Picks Unions Over Dying Girl

Kathleen Sebelius

Kathleen Sebelius’ claim she can’t waive a rule to save a 10-year-old’s life is rich, given she was last seen doling out ObamaCare waivers like candy to union groups. Welcome to the world of politicized health care.

This week, lawmakers pressed Sebelius, who heads the Health and Human Services Department, to step in to help a Pennsylvania girl suffering cystic fibrosis in urgent need of a lung transplant.

Because she’s only 10, Sarah Murnaghan can’t access lungs from adult donors, only those from children, of which there are none currently available.

A rule set in place by the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, which is under contract by HHS to manage donated organs and waiting lists, set the cutoff for access to adult organs at age 12.

Pennsylvania’s Sen. Pat Toomey and Rep. Patrick Meehan insist that Sebelius has “the ability and the authority to intervene to allow for Sarah and other children under the age of 12 to become eligible for adult organs.”

Despite the fact this is just a bureaucratic — and seemingly arbitrary — rule, and that Sarah’s doctors say she’s a good candidate for an adult transplant, Sebelius has refused to act. Instead she’s ordered a general review of the OPTN’s rule, which will take too long to be of any use to the girl. (Late Wednesday, Politico.com reported that a federal judge had ordered HHS to put Murnaghan on the list.)

Whether Sebelius should have intervened in Sarah’s care is, of course, the immediate issue. But very troubling is the fact that a government official is in this position at all, able to act as a one-person Death Panel about a girl’s health care.

In that sense, Sarah’s plight provides a window into what life will be like under ObamaCare.

By putting the government in charge of virtually all aspects of health care, ObamaCare will increasingly leave critical medical decisions in the hands of faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats and panels of so-called experts, who will have the power to issue rigid, arbitrary, one-size-fits-all rules about access to doctors, treatment and reimbursement.

Only the well-connected or politically favored will have a chance of getting the rules bent in their favor. That’s how union groups were able to get the bulk of the ObamaCare waivers HHS granted over the past two years, absolving them of the law’s restrictions on annual health plan dollar limits.

As Sarah and her family are learning, government involvement in health care comes at a steep price.

 

Editor’s Note: We have reprinted the full text of the editorial “Sebelius Waivers are for Union Pals, Not Dying Child” from Investors.com. We encourage you to visit the original. 

Posted
June 7th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged





No Comments

Gang of Eight Bill Does Not Uphold Promises to Secure Border, Enforce the Law, or Improve Legal Immigration

Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Grassley Pen Letter Voicing Concerns with S. 744

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today sent a letter to their Senate colleagues highlighting ongoing concerns with S. 744, the Senate immigration reform bill. They noted the numerous opportunities the Senate Judiciary Committee had to improve the bill during the markup process, yet failed to enact. They also specifically criticized the back-door deal that was struck by Gang of Eight members and Democrats on the Judiciary committee prior to the markup, which prevented any meaningful improvements to the legislation.

“Americans expect their government to end the lawlessness, not surrender to it. They deserve immigration reform with actual border security, enforcement of the laws on the books, and a legal immigration system that works,” the senators wrote. “We must welcome and celebrate legal immigrants, but S. 744 fails to deliver anything more than the same empty promises Washington has been making for 30 years.”

“The last thing this country needs right now is another 1,000-plus page bill that, like Obamacare, was negotiated behind closed doors with special interests. We want immigration reform to pass, but only if it actually fixes the broken system, rather than allowing the problems to grow and fester.”

In the letter, the senators highlight rejected amendments that would have drastically improved the bill as well as amendments that were accepted that make the bill even worse. They point to several areas of concern in the current bill that must be addressed on the Senate floor in order to pass effective legislation, including:

• Provides immediate legalization without securing the border

• Rewards criminal aliens, absconders, and deportees and undermines law enforcement

• Contains extremely dangerous national security loopholes

• Facilitates fraud in our immigration system

• Creates no real penalties for illegal immigrants and rewards them with entitlements

• Delays for years the implementation of E-Verify

• Does not fix our legal immigration system

• Advanced through a process predicated on a deal struck before markup

• Rewards those who have broken our laws by offering a special path to citizenship

 # # #

Contact: (202) 224-5922 / press@cruz.senate.gov

 

 

Editor’s Note: We have reprinted here in full this press release from Senator Cruz’s website. Please visit www.Cruz.Senate.gov to read the full text of the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Posted
June 7th, 2013

Filed
right groups

Tagged










No Comments

« Older Entries
Email: