Monday, July 20th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy
If the last few weeks have shown us anything about the President’s grasp on the issues taking place around the globe, it’s that he’s weak when he should be strong.
With new information from the Pentagon last week, Obama came out with a new plan to defeat the terror group ISIS. This “new strategy” comes a month after Obama approved the deployment of 450 more troops to Iraq sent to help train Iraqi soldiers to eventually take over the majority of the fighting. However, U.S efforts to train and attract Sunni volunteers and additional enlistments to the Iraqi forces have fallen significantly under the mark. Less than 100 new troops have been trained, falling way below the yearly 5,400 goal.
Despite the success that the air strikes have had and additional efforts the U.S have made against ISIS, the evil terrorist group has still been expanding and posing a threat to many countries and innocent individuals. Recently, there have been terrorist attacks in France, Canada, and the United Arabs (to name a few) as an increase from the initial problem in the Middle East. Regardless of what the Obama Administration is saying, ISIS is a growing threat that needs to be stopped immediately.
In the new plan, the President stated this battle is one that will be won “through ideology, not guns”. Obama also said that it will be a “generational struggle”: one that will take a long and slow process. His focus will be on “partnering with Muslim communities” and working to continue to train forces in Iraq and limit U.S involvement to a simple partnership.
But the facts is, no one wants a long-term fight with ISIS, or any country or group for that matter. The U.S is already involved whether we like it or not so we need to complete this task as quickly and effectively as possible. ISIS poses an immediate threat to our national security, which we continue to be reminded of as domestic attacks increase. But ISIS also threatens other countries, not only in the Middle East, but the entire world.
By stating that the United States “lacks a complete strategy”, President Obama fails to convince anyone that he knows what to do to defeat ISIS once and for all. He also sends a single of weakness to ISIS and likeminded international terrorist threats. As Commander in Chief, the President needs to take charge and push for a more effective plan. Obama also said that if the United States takes on ISIS alone, it will take much longer than necessary to make progress in the battle. However, if the United States doesn’t lead by example, the President can forget about getting support from other countries.
This problem with the President’s approach to foreign policy is also clearly seen in his negotiation of an Iran deal that gives Iran too much of a break and ultimately provides them with the resources necessary to continue to support terror groups and expand their military power.
After a long debate, the United States, alongside five other countries (China, Russia, the U.K, Germany, and France) struck a deal with Iran on Tuesday that supposedly limits Tehran’s nuclear program and in return, lifted financial and oil sanctions on Iran. However, the deal is proving to be more beneficial to Iran than the United States.
For one, the removal of sanctions will give Iran an influx of about $100 billion in sanctions relief. Note, just six days ago, Iran sent $1 billion to Syria (supporting the terror groups). Clearly, there is a pretty good chance that some (if not the majority of) the sanctions received from the deal will be sent to aid the terror group.
In addition to the great benefits that Iran will be enjoying from the nuclear deal, countries like Russia and China received “breaks” from the U.S to get them to stand by the United States in light of the long fight for the nuclear deal. China is now making a move to bid to buy out the last American owned memory chip producer; the very day that President Obama revealed the Iran deal, China’s Unigroup Ltd. stated that it planned to bid $23 billion for Micron Technology. If this move were to go on as planned by the Chinese, they would be one step closer to an overall control of the technological industry.
Regarding Russia, the meeting of Putin and Sec. of State John Kerry signified an acknowledgment of Russia’s importance by the U.S. By having to keep them in the deal talks, the United States has refrained from providing Ukraine with weapons that could be of use to defend themselves from increased Russian aggression. Thus, the deal has allowed Russia to maintain a sort of control over the U.S’ approach to their power hungry actions.
Both the approach to ISIS and the Iran deal show that the President is weak when it comes to dealing with global issues. This minimalistic approach is leading to other countries walking over the United States and essentially either getting their harmful agendas through or doing as they please in the global “playing field”. This is a dangerous precedent and we must change course. The future of our nation depends on it.
Wednesday, July 15th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Family Values
Read Ron DeSantis’ response to the Planned Parenthood scandal below.
Help us support DeSantis in his fight for Senate by donating here.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 15, 2015
DeSantis reacts to video of Planned Parenthood representative discussing the sale of fetal organs
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL – Congressman Ron DeSantis released the following statement in response to video released by the Center for Medical Progress that appears to show a senior executive in Planned Parenthood discussing how to save organs from aborted fetuses in order to sell them to third parties:
“This video is deeply disturbing and made me sick to my stomach. That anyone from Planned Parenthood could so casually talk of selling off organs from aborted babies is repulsive,” said Congressman DeSantis. “I join my colleagues in denouncing this loathsome practice and Planned Parenthood’s callous attitude regarding the disposal of fetal remains. The organization ought to be ashamed and I will continue to support efforts in Congress to prevent them from receiving taxpayer dollars.”
Wednesday, July 15th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Immigration
Cross posted from Conservative Review
By: CR Staff | July 15, 2015
Forget about sanctuary cities, the U.S. Senate is becoming a sanctuary for illegal aliens.
It’s not only President Obama who refuses to recognize the murder of Kate Steinle at the hands of illegal aliens – both in public and by privately consoling the family members. According to conservative aides, Republican leaders are opposing a vote on an amendment that would put an end to liberal cities thwarting federal immigration laws, “sanctuary cities.”
“Alexander and Cornyn really pressured conservatives to back off from getting a vote on sanctuary cities amendments,” an aide told Conservative Review. “Alexander didn’t want his education bill derailed but John Cornyn, despite his public comments otherwise, is terrified about the prospect of voting on eliminating sanctuary cities and offending his golden goose: Houston.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has introduced an amendment (no. 2146) to the pending reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, (S.1177) that would cut off all federal law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities and reallocate those funds to states and localities that comply with federal law. Sens. Sessions (R-AL) and Cruz (R-TX) have co-sponsored the amendment and Sen. Vitter (R-LA) has a similar proposal he recently introduced.
Read More at Conservative Review
Thursday, July 9th, 2015 and is filed under Blog
As Congress looks at the next three weeks, there are particular pieces of legislation they seek to address before the recess at the end of July. On that list is the proposal to update the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education law that saw it’s beginning during the Bush-era. While both Democrats and Republicans seem to be concerned with rewriting the law, supporters of No Child Left Behind fail to see that the provision as a whole is problematic and does not address the problems with the education system in the United States in an effective manner.
For more on this issue click here to read the Daily Signal’s analysis.
Thursday, July 9th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Economy
Recently, the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) was not reauthorized and expired for the time being. While the bank cannot make out new loans, it can still manage its existing loans and investments since it was funded by Congress through September.
Regardless of the fact that debate over the bank lead to the failure of reauthorization by Congress, supporters unfortunately have reasons to stay optimistic (reasons conservatives cannot put down the fighting gloves just yet).
Congress has less than three weeks before its recess at the end of July, and one, if not the most important item on the to do list is the passing of the Highway Bailout Bill that would fund the nation’s Highway Trust Fund for a couple of years in addition to pet projects and waste added on by Washington politicians. To give a little bit of background, the Highway Trust Fund is the method by which the federal government gives states funds to build and maintain roads, transportation, and infrastructure projects.
But before we get into the issues of the Ex-Im Bank, its important to recognize that the Highway Trust Fund is simply not the most efficient way of costing road maintenance and transportation improvements as a whole. States already control about 75% of the maintenance of highways and roads, and would most definitely do a better job at managing the costs than the federal government (they already do!). Efforts to push for more control by the states regarding road and transportation, such as Rep. Ron DeSantis’ introduction of the Transportation Empowerment Act are necessary to ensure that the federal government continues to receive money that the states could better manage.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has promised supporters of the bill the opportunity to vote on the measure within the month. A vote conducted a little ago showed that there are enough votes in the House to get it to pass. However, not as much is known about the Senate, and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), another supporter of the Im-Ex Bank, is waiting to see what the Senate does about the matter (and most likely follow suit).
The issue with the Ex-Im Bank is more than just reauthorizing it. Fundamentally, all it has been doing is taking a great deal of government money and sending it to companies that simply don’t need the aid. To give some background, the Ex-Im Bank has been around for about eighty-one years and exists for the purpose of financing US firms in their attempts to connect with markets overseas. The bank, while claimed to help American businesses, only really helps large companies; in 2012, more than 80% of the bank’s assistance went to Boeing.
Opposers of both legislations that promote a disgusting and inefficient use of government money need to continue to fight against it and realize that the next month is crucial to the survival or defeat of the bank that sends unnecessary amounts of money to large companies that don’t need it. Conservatives need to stress the problems with the Ex-Im Bank and fight against the bad GOP leadership in Washington and continue to nail the coffin on Ex-Im. In other words, we need not allow supporters of the Ex-Im Bank to continue to try and attach theses provisions to other legislation to try and get their agendas in by force.
Same goes for the Highway Trust Fund: conservatives need to continue to fight to give more power to the states regarding things that the states have much better control over (in this case roads and transportation).
The Ex-Im Bank and the Highway Trust Find alike need to go, and those who want to continue to give big government, businesses, and corporations a break need to be silenced.
Wednesday, July 1st, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Family Values
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment of the Constitution guaranteed same sex couples the right to marry. Regardless of this misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, as of now, same sex marriage is legal throughout the entire United States.
What does the Supreme Court’s decision mean for those who do not support or agree with same sex marriage? Before the Supreme Court came to its conclusion, Justice Alito has asked Solicitor General Verrilli regarding IRS regulations if schools and other religious institutions would lose their tax exemption status if the definition of marriage were to be changed. There has long been suspicion and fear that the advancement of the same sex marriage campaign would lead to the coercion of those who do not share the belief into participating in the celebration and affirmation of same sex marriages, regardless of religious beliefs and practices.
A brief example of this attack on religious liberty is the well known case of Aaron and Melissa Klein of Oregon, whom when refusing to provide their bakery services to a same sex couple that wanted a wedding cake were fined $135,000. This horrible violation of the Constitution came after the couple had to shut their bakery down as a result of the many protests and boycotts that occurred in reaction to their exercise of their right to refuse service.
In response to the SCOTUS decision, Senator Mike Lee continues to stay true to protecting the religious liberties of Americans and defending the actual rights granted in the Constitution. The Senator from Utah has introduced the First Amendment Defense Act (which has 57 House co-sponsors and 18 Senate co-sponsors) in order to protect the rights of individuals and institutions that support traditional marriage. In particular, the bill would prevent the federal government from denying contracts, tax exemptions, grants, certificates, license, or anything of the sort to a person, business, or institution solely because that person, business, or institution believes that marriage is and can only be between one man and one woman.
Regarding the importance of protecting the rights of all Sen., Lee states: “Our focus must now be on defending these crucial rights of conscience. That is exactly why Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) and I have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against anyone who believes that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.”
Mike Lee continues to show through his efforts to preserve a fundamental right that he is willing to lead and defend our values when few in Washington are willing. His example should be a motivator for all of those who value the rights granted to us in the Constitution and remind us that we need not be discouraged by the inability of the Supreme Court to make the correct decision. Instead we should mobilize and fight for our religious liberty like never before. It’s time to support real conservatives, like Mike Lee, who will spend their time in Washington fighting the status quo not becoming part of the problem. Our freedoms are at risk and we must do all we can to support efforts to protect them.
Thursday, June 25th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Obamacare
Cross posted from Conservative Review.
By: Daniel Horowitz | June 25th, 2015
With a Republican Party that fights just as hard for the liberal agenda as the Democrat Party, the remaining argument promoted in defense of voting for liberal Republicans is that they will appoint good judges to the Supreme Court. Today’s events should relegate that argument to the fate of the Confederate flag.
For the second time in two years, Chief Justice John Roberts redrafted Obamacare from the bench. We already know that Obama has supplanted the legislative powers of Congress; now Roberts is competing with him to consume the remaining vestiges of legislative power ceded by the people’s representatives.
In upholding the Obamacare subsidies in states with federal exchanges – in contravention to the plain text of the law – Roberts and the 5 other Justices have made it clear that political outcomes and ideology not only affect their constitutional jurisprudence but their obligation to read the plain meaning of congressional statutes.
After essentially conceding the argument that the plain language of the text only provides for subsidies for those states that set up state-based exchanges, Roberts wrote, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” Roberts concludes, “A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
Read More at Conservative Review
Tuesday, June 23rd, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections
Let’s just say that over the last two election cycles, especially in 2014 and 2015, the cat and mouse game between the GOP Establishment and the outside conservative groups has moved from a few forearm shivers thrown here and there to a full on brawl.
And it’s a good thing.
For too long the GOP leadership has attempted to co-opt conservatives and make them part of The System (who can forget Trent Lott’s infamous quote to this affect in the Washington Post? He said what Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and all the Establishment talking heads were thinking back in 2010.).
The problem is, the harder the GOP hits, the stronger we outside groups become as well as the Members of Congress we helped elect because the GOP Establishment is on the wrong side of history. We will see this play out in the Mark Meadows scenario. We just saw it today with Ted Cruz’s op-ed backing away from TPA because of the wrong-headed “leadership” of Mitch McConnell.
Ever since the Bush Administration, the conservative movement has taken on a battered spouse syndrome, afraid to challenge the GOP, either at the party level or in the halls of Congress. Dissenters were quietly strong armed or beaten back into submission with threats of drying up campaign donations.
This has given rise to the new generation of conservative groups like Heritage Action, the Senate Conservatives Fund, the Madison Project and a newly reinvigorated Club for Growth. Members like Mark Meadows and Ted Cruz can now openly disagree with GOP Leadership and their tactics because they know the vast majority of Republicans are conservatives who stand with them. They also know the outside groups have their backs and the threat of drying up campaign funds is a hollow one.
With the events of the past few days, it’s apparent the GOP Establishment is throwing off any more attempts at smoke and mirrors. They are all in with the corporations and big business and will do whatever it takes ram their bad legislation through.
It is time for conservatives to gear up. 2016 presents a fantastic opportunity for us, but it’s not going to be easy. It’s time to shed the old persona and put on the new.
We are the Republican Party and it’s time we took back what is ours.
Monday, June 22nd, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections
Over the weekend something not entirely unexpected happened.
Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) of Utah, stripped Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) of his subcommittee chairmanship.
The reason for this harsh move by Chaffetz (someone who ran and won as a conservative)?
Meadows had the audacity to vote against the rule on the Trade Promotion Authority vote in the House. For those of you unfamiliar with this vote, it is not dissimilar to the cloture vote in the Senate. When bills are voted on in the House of Representatives, the rule establishing regular order must be voted on first. The rule votes are generally uneventful. Regular order is established, often along partisan lines, and then the actual vote on a bill takes place on the House floor.
With the current make-up of the House of Representatives, for the rule to go down, it will take 40 votes. On June 11th, 34 GOP Congressman voted against what many are calling Obamatrade as Trade Promotion Authority is really only part of the equation when you consider it is tied to the Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In other words, they made the right vote, not because they are against free trade. Rather, they are for it, but they are not for giving the Obama Administration a blank check when it comes to trade and trade agreements.
Here is the rub. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Co., lackeys of their corporate interests, are in danger of getting rolled on many bills these days because, well, they just aren’t pushing conservative legislation. They have to, in their minds, “restore order” and part of that process is disciplining conservatives who are simply fulfilling their campaign promises. As we have written about in the past, this is the rub for the current GOP. The Establishment will say whatever it takes to gain a majority (see Boehner and McConnell’s campaign trail promises they had no intention of fulfilling) versus conservatives who run on campaign promises they intend to fulfill once they win. GOP party bosses are figuring out a majority is one thing, a majority filled with conservatives is another.
We took a calculated risk on Mark Meadows in the 2012 election cycle. Many others thought he was just Establishment-lite and was telling outside groups what they wanted to hear, not what he was actually going to do once he got to Washington, D.C.
They were wrong.
Out of the gates this year Mark voted against John Boehner for Speaker, against executive amnesty in the DHS funding bill and the Doc Fix amongst other major votes. Because of these votes and the ones he cast against the TPA and TAA, Mark is now a target of the GOP Establishment. They have stripped him of his subcommittee chair. We know they are going to try and squeeze him when it comes to PAC donations to his re-elect. It is quite possible they are already working on trying to recruit a primary challenger to Mark without their fingerprints on it.
It is now time for the conservative movement to strike back, not just in supporting Mark with our dollars, but also to finding other conservatives we can defend and ones we can help win for the first time in 2016.
To give directly to Mark, go here. Seriously. Go there right now and give.
The GOP leadership in Washington, D.C. has no intention of changing and they will fight to the end to maintain their status quo.
It is now contingent upon us to change the equation for them.
Friday, June 19th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Economy, Issues
At this point in his presidency, President Obama is trying to do anything he can in order to get his final agenda through.
The trade deal proposed by the President between twelve different countries was rejected by his own fellow Democrats. Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refused to support the president in passing key legislation that would be necessary to eventually get the trade deal underway. Clearly they are coming at it from a different angle than we are, kowtowing to the labor union oligarchs.
Let’s be very clear. We love free trade. These trade deals that the Obama Administration is pushing along with Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are not free trade vehicles.
Because of issues we’ve already laid out, the Trade Promotion Authority must be defeated as must the trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would unite countries in the East like Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and New Zealand, with countries in the West like Peru, Mexico, Canada, and of course, the United States.
The deal would include a total of twelve of the world’s largest economies, constituting an overall forty percent of the world’s economy. Tied to this, President Obama continues to advocate for fast track authority, which would in turn allow him to submit a trade deal to Congress with limited debate on the proposal and a bar Congress’ ability to amend the deal. Talk about undermining checks and balances in a democratic republic.
The President argues that the trade agreement would not only make it easier to import goods from other countries, but it would also make it easier to export goods domestically produced, thus creating American jobs and benefiting American businesses. Creating the world’s largest free trade agreement would, at least the President hopes, allow the United States to better control the way that things are regulated in the world economy.
Let’s be honest, what the President is really aiming to do is to have more control over China regarding trade, the way that labor is conducted, environmental concerns and more. This isn’t really about helping the American people: the President’s agenda focuses on controlling export giant China. It’s about control, not opportunity.
And frankly, who is he kidding anyway-control China?!
In order to try and compensate for the outsourcing of American jobs, the President proposes a Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, which would provide aid (relocation assistance, subsidized health care insurance, some unemployment benefits) to those who lose their jobs because of jobs being sent overseas. Note, however, that this program is nothing new: it was introduced by President Kennedy in 1962 when he agreed to a trade round and it was implemented to help the labor union’s protectionist monopolies.
Another aspect of the program that isn’t being mentioned is the cost: it would cost about $1.8 billion in order to fund the expansion through 2020, taking nearly $700 million from certain Medicare programs in 2025.
While the bill has received much opposition, it has also received some support from those in the GOP Establishment’s leadership. Speaker of the House John Boehner has advocated amongst fellow Republicans in favor of the deal and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is quietly looking for vehicles to attach the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank to.
At this stage, let’s just say that whatever those two are for, we are against.
On top of this, studies show that those who took TAA benefits as opposed to regular unemployment benefits are worse off. The study also showed that those who were younger were more likely to benefit from the program as opposed to older workers.
It’s important to see though the supposed measure that as being billed as the vehicle that will increase exports, create American jobs, and help the American economy, but at what cost? Any measure that would hurt the American people and continue to empower large corporations and a big government, is not a deal that should be considered or made at all.
The President’s so called efforts to help the American businesses and employees out is a wolf in sheep’s clothing to increase the scope of control of the government while hurting American businesses and jobs in the process.