Action Alert: Stop Medicaid Expansion in Ohio

With the Ohio House going back into session, we have been informed that the House Finance & Appropriations Committee will be meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, April 9, 2013 to discuss Governor Kasich's Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

Besides using misleading information, Governor Kasich has stooped to new lows and has shown he is morally bankrupt in the manner and tactics he is using to expand Obamacare in Ohio.  

In tactics that bring reminders of the way President Obama & Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down America's throat - after having an Obamacare supporting political appointee of his attack the Tea Party movement in Ohio - Governor Kasich's, argument for expanding Medicaid has went from being for financial reasons, to pro-life reasons, religious reasons and he even pulled the progressive card of "fairness".

The only way we can stop this expansion of Medicaid in Ohio under Obamacare is for you to speak up and speak out.

Take Action Now

Senate President Faber & OH Rep. Matt Huffman have recently spoke on the perils of expanding Medicaid in Ohio under Obamacare -- sadly, the OH Representative from the Cleveland area who serves on the Finance Committee, Rep. Marlene Anielski, is leaning towards Medicaid expansion and refuses to even return constituent phone calls

Representative Marlene Anielski 
PH#: (614)644-6041
Email: Click Here

You can find contact info for House Finance Committee members by clicking here.

We are also taking the unprecedented action of asking you to call members of the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee (ORP SCC).  While some will claim the ORP SCC shouldn't get involved, this is a flawed argument as we are trying to sway members of the Ohio Republican Party.

Furthermore, some of the ORP SCC members ran as so-called "Tea Party" candidates in the last State Central Committee race. Claiming they would be the voice of the Tea Party in these backroom meetings, many have lost their voice and have quickly forgotten why they were elected and who they were elected to represent. And as we posted then - many of these so-called Tea Party candidates were not Tea Party at all!

Below are members of the ORP SCC for Senate Districts covering Cuyahoga County and surrounding counties.  The ones denoted with *** claimed to be Tea Party or sent out literature with Tea Party logos during their campaign for ORP SCC.

Please contact as many of the ORP SCC members listed below as you can, and ask that they come out publicly against Medicaid expansion in Ohio. 

Senate District 21 / (Cuyahoga County)

Sue Rodman 

PH #: (216)381-5861

Email: rodmanreal@aol.com

Senate District 23 / (Cuyahoga County)

Bob Bennett ***

PH #: (216)961-8400

Email: bennett@ohiogop.com

Diane Stover ***

PH #: (440)888-8170

Email: dianestover@aol.com

Senate District 24 / (Cuyahoga County)

Jeff Dean ***

PH #: (440)247-2888

Email: dean@en.com

Nancy Suhadolnik ***

PH #: (440)846-6666

Email: nancegop@roadrunner.com

Senate District 25 (Cuyahoga / Lake County)

Dan Carter ***

PH #: (216)392-4509

Email: carter@buckleyking.com

Brittany Williams

PH #: (440)781-9038

Email: bwilliams@cuyahogacountygop.com 

Surrounding Counties

Senate District 22 / (Medina)

Jim Woods ***

PH #: (330)241-5228

Email: jimwoods@mcfan.org

Sharon Ray ***

PH #: (330)461-3599

Email: sharonray2002@yahoo.com

Senate District 13 (Lorain / Huron County)

Bob Rousseau

PH #:(440)288-2739

Email: seau@roadrunner.com

Joyce Houck

PH #: (419)935-8549

Email: rhouck@willard-oh.com

Senate District 18 (Portage / Geauga & Lake)

Andy Manning ***

PH #: (330)678-1403

Email: ohioandy@aol.com

Amy Sabath

PH #: (440)796-8802

Email: aesabath@aol.com

Senate District 27 (Summit / Wayne Counties)

Roy Ray

PH #: (239)947-2981

Email: royleeray@hotmail.com

Lauren LaRose

PH #: N/A

Email: laurenkappa@hotmail.com

# # #

Russian Bomber's Make Practice Runs On U.S. Missile Defense in Asia

In what President Obama defines as a "reset in relations" -- Russia views as weakness, indecisiveness and a Benghazi-type incompetence....

From The Washington Free Beacon --

A Russian bomber recently carried out simulated cruise missile attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Asia, raising new questions about Moscow's goal in future U.S.-Russian defense talks.

According to U.S. officials, a Russian Tu-22M Backfire bomber on Feb. 26 simulated firing air-launched cruise missiles at an Aegis ship deployed near Japan as part of U.S. missile defenses.

A second mock attack was conducted Feb. 27 against a ground-based missile defense site in Japan that officials did not identify further.

The bomber targeting comes as Russia is building up forces in the Pacific by modernizing submarines and building a spy ship specifically for intelligence-gathering against U.S. missile defenses. 

Officials said it was not clear why the Russians conducted the practice strikes. However, the simulations may indicate Moscow has targeted its offensive ballistic missiles on Japan or U.S. military bases in the region. More...

House Starts Talks on Debt Ceiling & 2014 Budget

From Tea Party Patriots --

Next week, the House Committee on Ways & Means is having two important hearings. Below are some basic details to be aware of:

First, on Wednesday, the Subcommittee on Oversight will hold a hearing for Members of Congress who have submitted or cosponsored bills in the 112^th and 113^th Congress that address spending prioritization if the debt ceiling is breached. From the Committee’s website:

Congressman Charles W. Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced the Subcommittee will hold a hearing examining the government’s ability to prioritize its obligations and continue operations should the U.S. Treasury reach its statutory debt limit. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 10, 2013, in Room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 A.M.

Oral testimony at this hearing will be limited to Members of Congress who have introduced or co-sponsored legislation related to the government’s ability to continue operating when the debt limit has been reached during the 112^th or 113^th Congresses. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.

While it is unlikely the debt ceiling will be breached, this could be a very informative hearing to see which Members of Congress have various ideas to prioritize spending.

On Thursday, another hearing is scheduled – the annual Ways & Means hearing with the Secretary of the Treasury. With the President’s budget scheduled to arrive on April 10, the hearing is being held the next day:

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) today announced that the Committee on Ways and Means will hold a hearing on President Obama’s budget proposals for fiscal year 2014.  The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 11, 2013, in 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 A.M.

BACKGROUND:

On April 10, 2013, the President is expected to submit his fiscal year 2014 budget proposal to Congress.  The proposed budget will detail his tax proposals for the coming year as well as provide an overview of the budget for the Treasury Department and other activities of the Federal government.  The Treasury plays a key role in many areas of the Committee’s jurisdiction.

In announcing this hearing, Chairman Camp said, “The Ways and Means Committee is committed to comprehensive tax reform that eliminates tax loopholes, simplifies the code, and lowers rates.  Tax reform that accomplishes these goals can strengthen our economy, create more jobs and allow American workers to start seeing an increase in their paychecks again.  This hearing will provide both the Committee an opportunity to review the President’s tax proposals and Treasury Secretary Lew the opportunity to describe how the Administration intends to work with the Committee and Congress to pass and enact comprehensive tax reform.”

While the President’s budget is mostly a formality in general, and especially since it’s over two months late, the hearing should be very informative as to whether or not we’ll actually have normal order for the budget process in Fiscal Year 2014. (I think it’s highly unlikely, given the major differences between the House and Senate budget resolutions, but it’s always possible.)

The function of these hearings is mostly to give Members the ability to create soundbytes for constituents and the media.  However, occasionally, good things come out of these hearings – Senator Cruz’s recent hammering of Attorney General Eric Holder is one example of this. Hopefully, the two hearings will be more like the latter, and less like the former.

OH Senate President Kieth Faber & Rep. Matt Huffman question Governor John "I Love Obamacare" Kasich's Medicaid Expansion

As Governor Kasich continues criss-crossing the state trying to sell his shameful, untruthful and morally bankrupt argument for expanding an unsustainable Medicaid expansion in Ohio under Obamacare, Ohio Senate President Kieth Faber and OH Rep Matt Huffman speak out on the perils of this fiscally irresponsible and financially unsustainable proposal.

While Faber & Huffman should be applauded for speaking out, the OH Representative from the Cleveland area who serves on the Finance Committee, Rep. Marlene Anielski (614)644-6041 (click here to email), is leaning towards Medicaid expansion and refuses to even return constituent phone calls.

From Lima Ohio.com --

LIMA — On the same day that two powerful state legislators — Senate President Keith Faber and state Rep. Matt Huffman — laid out a case why the state needs to move cautiously before accepting federal funds for Medicaid, Ohio Gov. John Kasich was in Ohio’s Appalachian foothills extolling his proposal to expand the coverage.

Such is the battle that continues to play out among fellow Republicans over Medicaid, a tug-of-war that is soon to come to a head. It pits lawmakers who are trying to rein in government spending against the leader of their party who is on a crusade to help the poor with money provided under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The battle is becoming so intense that a core of Republicans spent part of last week’s “spring break” in Columbus trying to figure out a deal that would convince the governor to alter his push.

“Our colleagues in the General Assembly could design a better system to take care of the people we all care about,” Faber said Wednesday during a meeting at The Lima News.

Kasich, meanwhile, was in Jackson County arguing a much simpler case.

The governor told a Republican gathering that by accepting Obama’s expansion of the Medicaid program, $13 billion in taxpayer money would come back to Ohio from Washington over seven years.

“This is money that residents have already paid in federal taxes,” Kasich said.

Faber bristles at such talk. He said the plan Obama has put forth feels like an ultimatum more than anything, and said long-term funding of the program is troublesome at best.

“They essentially loaded the revolver and pointed it at the states, and said do this or else,” Faber said. “Nobody really believes this is free money from heaven. You’re essentially borrowing it from China and giving our kids the bill. And then the question is, how sustainable is it? Is it going to stay? You can’t back out of it.”

Without flexibility, the Celina Republican said, “It’s fraught with peril, no matter which way you go.”

Huffman said the problem is that government thinks in “small bites” of time instead of 10 to 20 years in the future. He compared the proposed Medicaid expansion to the funding problems of Social Security, noting it “appeared to be OK and financially affordable at the time, but here we’re looking back now 45 years later, and the whole thing is a disaster.”

Huffman doesn’t want to make another two-year decision that ultimately will be a bad decision over time.

“It’s gotta stop. At some point, the system is going to collapse,” the Lima state representative said.

Local effects

The Medicaid expansion would help individuals who earn up to 138 percent of federal poverty, roughly $15,000 annual income for an individual and $32,000 for a family of four. Many of these individuals who aren’t insured are likely working low-wage jobs without benefits. They may have to limit working because of a mental health condition that isn’t severe enough to qualify for disability.

For local businesses and organizations, the expansion would assist in a variety of ways.

For the Mental Health and Recovery Services Board of Allen, Auglaize and Hardin counties, the expansion would help many of their clients by opening up their annual funds to programming beyond health care assistance.

“We’re very concerned for the overall health of our community. We are currently using resources to pay for some of these services. This [Medicaid expansion] would help us to restore some of our programming,” said Phil Atkins, associate director of the Mental Health and Recovery Services Board. “Many of our clients need services that even expanded Medicaid won’t pay for. … It won’t pay for things like housing. It won’t pay for things like getting people ready for jobs.”

Without the expansion, the board has to be more selective in what they can do for community members. Sometimes that even means rationing health treatments for clients.

At Baton Rouge Health Services Community in Lima, the Medicaid expansion would help about 10 percent of its workforce who work part time without benefits.

“Given that we’ve already endured quite a bit of Medicaid cuts on the reimbursement side, I think having some sort of a relief from the health insurance coverage would really help skilled nursing facilities,” said Georgiana Saffle, president at Baton Rouge.

Leaders from both local hospitals, Lima Memorial Health System and St. Rita’s Medical Center, expressed support for the Medicaid expansion in newspaper columns they wrote for The Lima News in February.

“We are already caring for people regardless of their ability to pay as part of our mission to improve the health of our communities,” wrote Bob Baxter, CEO of St. Rita’s Health Partners. “Expanded Medicaid Eligibility would allow our charity funds to go further and more equitably spread the cost of care.”

Alternative ideas

While Faber and Huffman agreed health care coverage is needed in certain situations, such as those who suffer from mental health problems or those who don’t have benefits through their low-wage jobs, not everyone should necessarily be included within the 138 percent of poverty threshold.

They said the program may not have the best incentives for people.

“The system has to have incentives for people to improve their lives, and not simply service what they want at the moment,” Huffman said. “And when you do that, it’s painful to people. When you say you can’t get this, unless you’re job training, unless you’re getting your education, unless you’re drug-free.”

Huffman also discussed the possibility of larger medical organizations using other monies to care for the poor. Some GOP members, such as Barbara Sears, of Toledo, have also discussed using more state funds than federal funds.

Kasich says state funding is off the table.

“Some in the legislature think we can spend state of Ohio money and reject the federal money. … I won’t tolerate it,” Kasich told the Columbus Dispatch. “We’re not going to make you pay twice. … That’s not acceptable.”

The Kasich administration has been negotiating with the White House since November to use federal funds to pay for some people to buy private insurance.

During the governor’s State of the State address in Lima in February, Kasich told legislators, “Our economy is stronger, our credit is up, we’re doing the right things. … The Lord would not want us to ignore those who are now vulnerable. These are people who played by the rules. They’re hurting.”

The next part of the process is coming soon.

Mike Dittoe, a spokesman for House Speaker William G. Batchelder, told the Dispatch that the Republican caucus has not achieved a consensus on what to do about Medicaid, but expects a bill from the House in two weeks that would show “which direction we’re pointed.”

National Debt over $16 Trillion; Feds Spend $423,500 Studying Condom Skills

Continuing to hear how the Sequester cuts will be so devastating to our country, the negative impact it will create for the poor and less fortunate among us, and how these Sequester cuts are putting thousands of federal workers out of work, we have previously posted on how the IRS spent over $60,000 on Star Trek & Gilligan's Island training videos, over $1.2 Million for studies on Snail Sex & Duck Penises, and $250 Million for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Now, with the National Debt over $16 Trillion, and with youth unemployment rate at 16.2% and the overall unemployment rate at 11.6%, we bring you a $423,500 study with Stimulus funds creating 0 jobs on the condom skills of young heterosexual men....

From The Weekly Standard --

The details of a stimulus grant awarded to Indiana University to study condom use have now been released on a government website. The study, titled "Barriers to Correct Condom Use," is now completed, according to the website, and the university received $423,500 of stimulus funds to perform the study.

The stimulus project yielded a total of 0.00 jobs created, according to the federal government. "No jobs created/retained," the form says under "Description of Jobs Created."
              
"Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks," a synopsis of study reads. "Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs, yet studies show that problems with condom use are common. This project is one of the first to examine under controlled conditions the role of cognitive and affective factors and condom skills in explaining condom use problems in young, heterosexual adult men."

It just begs to be asked does a study on condom skills now need to be conducted for middle-aged and elderly heterosexual men?  And since we are all about "fairness & inclusion" will a study need to be done about the condom skills of young and old gay & transgendered him/her's?

How about making a condom to protect us from the government transmitted disease of stupid spending!

NOTE: Due to the Sequester and lack of funds, the Cleveland Air Show & White House tours are still cancelled.

Common Core Standards and Debate

Common Core Debate

(and  it's about time)

Understanding National Common Core Standards and the PARCC Assessment

There are three information forums scheduled in Ohio this month in various locations. Greater Cleveland is one of them. Cleveland Tea Party Patriots, concerned parents, and teachers will have an opportunity to attend and participate in this long overdue discussion. (h/t Marianne G, Mansfield Tea Party)

Cleveland (West side)

WHEN: Saturday - April 13th – 4pm-6pm

Hosted by Concerned Parents & Teachers of Northern Ohio

WHERE: Christ the King Church

             30635 Lorain Rd 

             North Olmsted, OH 44070

Don’t miss this opportunity to hear and discuss the implications of Ohio’s adoption of Common Core Standards with the nation’s leading voices on CCS. We’ll address the issues surrounding parental and local control, quality of instruction, legalities of federal intrusion and the unfunded cost concerns.

• Emmett McGroarty - American Principles Project - Executive Director, Preserve Innocence Project 
• Joy Pullmann - The Heartland Institute - Research Fellow, Education; Managing Editor, School Reform News  
• Jamie Gass - Pioneer Institute For Public Policy - Director, Center for School Reform 
• Heather Crossin - Hoosiers Against Common Core co-founder, education policy activist 

The purpose of this FREE event is to provide the information you need to understand the national Common Core Standards and the new PARCC assessments.

An audience Q&A will follow the panel discussion. Please join us!

Reserve your seat at http://oacc-lorain.eventbrite.com

Be prepared. For advance homework assignment(s) by Michelle Malkin, go here. 

Gov. John Kasich, Medicaid expansion, and 'mean politics'

Yesterday, Gov. John Kasich addressed the City Club Forum to promote his 2-year budget plan. From The Plain Dealer:

Two months after introducing his policy-packed budget plan and launching an all-out sales pitch to pass it, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is no closer to getting what he wants.

So given the bully pulpit Wednesday at a City Club of Cleveland forum, Kasich tried a little bit of everything to freshen up his sales pitch and persuade his fellow -- typically loyal -- Republicans to back at least some of his proposals.

. . .

But between Kasich’s pleas were several acknowledgements that parts of his two-year budget appear doomed, despite GOP majorities in the House and Senate. Republican lawmakers have balked at Medicaid expansion and proposals to raise taxes on oil and gas drillers while extending the state sales tax to include products and services never before subject to it.

. . .

Kasich’s tone of compromise changed, though, whenever the subject shifted to Medicaid expansion. Conservatives have blasted move as the embrace of a flawed system and of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Tea Party activists have threatened primaries against Republican lawmakers who vote for the expansion.

“This nasty, mean politics must come to an end,” Kasich said Wednesday. “When it comes particularly to poor people, there is no partisanship. I don’t care if they’re addicted. I don’t care if they’re disabled. I’m not leaving them behind.”

. . .

“Isn’t it great that when politicians get the office they seek they want ‘nasty, mean politics’ to stop?” Seth Morgan, a conservative activist and former state legislator who has criticized Medicaid expansion, wrote in an email after the event.

“Expanding a broken system is not compassion,” Morgan added. “It’s simply making a bigger broken system.”

Indeed. Last month, The Heritage Foundation posted “Why the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Is Bad for Taxpayers and Patients.” It’s not about health. It’s not about care. And it’s not affordable. 

Obama Urges Lenders to Finance Bad Home Loans - Again!

Even though President Obama still tries to blame George Bush for his inheriting a failed economy, mainly due to the housing market crash that was caused by Democrat meddling, manipulating and forcing housing lenders to make poor loans in the name of fairness -- President Obama now wants to do the same thing.

And as the American public was forced to pay for this first "40 Acre's & a Mule"  failure, they will entice the second round of unsuitable buyers with tax-payer backed programs....

From The Washington Post --

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

And as in part of the cause for the first housing market bust, lenders will be forced into lending to unsuitable buyers through veiled government coercion and veiled threats of discrimination lawsuits....

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

As this forced government lending failed the first time, the American public will again be forced to bailout another "too big to fail" Obama-induced boondoggle. 

North Carolina Passes Background Check for Food Stamp Applicants

From The Washington Times --

The House Health and Human Services Committee in North Carolina voted Tuesday to require mandatory background checks for people seeking welfare and food stamp benefits.

All county Department of Social Services offices will now require background checks for people applying for benefits or for renewing their applications. DSS offices can choose whether they want to conduct formal background checks or simply ask the participant if he or she is in trouble with the law, The Blaze reports.

“We absolutely have to make sure our aid goes to law-abiding citizens first,” said state Rep. Dean Arp, R-Union who co-sponsored the bill. “This is a reasonable provision to ensure that.”

The DSS office will also be required to tell law enforcement agencies if an applicant is a fugitive or is sought for an outstanding warrant. 

President Obama Ignores Congress with Executive Order on Gun Control

From Tea Party Patriots -- 

Just before Easter weekend, President Obama signed an Executive Order to move forward his gun control agenda, giving federal agents greater access to information on gun owners and their weapons. From The Hill:

The executive steps will give federal law enforcement officials access to more data about guns and their owners, help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and lay the groundwork for future legislative efforts.

Despite minimal publicity given to the Executive Order itself – it was signed late on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend – the order authorizes a million dollar ad campaign for gun safety. New York Mayor Bloomberg has expressed support for the campaign, which could mirror his own gun control ads.

The order adds to a recent announcement of a new $20 million Department of Justice program that offers grants to states that provide more mental health and criminal history information to federal databases.

As part of President Obama’s comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence, the Administration is committed to enhancing and strengthening the national criminal record system in support of stronger firearm background checks.

The order also directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – whose area of expertise has more to do with small pox than small arms – to study “causes of gun violence.” The Institute of Medicine has been awarded the contract despite the fact Congress has blocked funding allowing the CDC to conduct gun control research since 1996.

Between redirecting funds to areas specifically banned by Congress, using other funds for government-sponsored commercials, and encouraging states – with money – to share more information about their citizens, it’s not surprising President Obama did this when no one was looking.

President Obama to Return 5% of his Salary -- Big Whoop!

As a show of solidarity with federal workers being forced to take furlough's over the Democrats inability to curb their out of control spending habits and the implementation of the Sequester cuts, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and his Deputy Ashton Carter declared they would be returning part of their salary.

President Obama, not wanting to miss this "I'm a great guy" publicity freebie like he does free throws on the basketball court - immediately jumped on the bandwagon and offered to return part of his salary....

From The New York Times --

President Obama plans to return 5 percent of his salary to the Treasury in solidarity with federal workers who are going to be furloughed as part of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester, an administration official said Wednesday.

The voluntary move would be retroactive to March 1, the official said, and apply through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends in September. The White House came up with the 5 percent figure to approximate the level of spending cuts to nondefense federal agencies that took effect that day.

“The president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury,” the official said. (More...)

With a base salary of $400,000 - returning 5% would be a mere $20,000.  In 2011, President Obama & Michelle Obama claimed a combined $790,000 in gross adjusted income, $1.7 Million in 2010 and $5.5 million in 2009.

This offer of returning a pittance of $20,000, should not only be an affront to the furloughed federal workers but also to all the unemployed, under employed and low-paid working men & women that President Obama claims to be out there fighting for while he frolics in a $24,500 a week vacation home.

In reality, we see the indifference and the "Let them eat cake" attitude of President Obama & Michelle Obama towards the American public with their continued vacationing on our dime, our paying for gun-carrying government babysitter's so his children can take lavish Spring Break vacations at Paradise Island, and President Obama's #2 - Joe Biden also taking his 3rd tax payer funded vacation this year.

In further thumbing their privileged nose's at the soon to be furloughed federal workers that will be forced to eat cereal with water because they are too poor to buy milk, and in placing them behind the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama's will host a star-studded concert at the White House to celebrate Memphis Soul music.

But not too worry! These soon to be furloughed workers can take solace that President Obama has his best people hard at work on big picture type economic studies that will create jobs for them.  

Maya Angelou; "I Like To Have Gun's Around"

In a recent interview with Time Magazine, Acclaimed Author & Poet Maya Angelou, talked about her support of people being allowed to own guns and how she even uses one to protect her home.

Angelou was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Barack Obama in 2011.

From The Washington Times --

In an interview with Time Magazine, famous poet and Obama supporter Maya Angelou recalled a time in her life when she fired a gun to scare off an intruder.

“I do like to have guns around,” she told Time’s Belinda Luscombe when asked if she shared her mother’s fondness for firearms. “I don’t like to carry them. But I like — if somebody is going to come into my house and I have not put out the welcome mat, I want to stop them.”

“Have you ever fired a weapon?” the interviewer asked.

“Of course!” Ms. Angelou affirmed. “I was in my house in North Carolina. It was fall. I heard someone walking on the leaves. And somebody actually turned the knob. So I said, “Stand four feet back because I’m going to shoot now!” Boom! Boom! The police came by and said, ‘Ms. Angelou, the shots came from inside the house.’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t know how that happened.’”

Is there an "Obama Doctrine"?

From The Washington Times --

Years from now, historians may well write that the decline or upswing in the American empire of liberty occurred during the Obama presidency. They will either write that the Obama administration’s self-fulfilling prophecy and rhetoric of decline was overcome by the overwhelming greatness of the United States or that the ultimate downfall was caused by the conditions created by this White House.

Today, the country’s expert and pundit classes are obsessed, first and foremost, with the absurd autopilot of sequestration designed to protect us from adult decision-making. As a distant second, media make some mention of the pressing national security issue of the day: The use of drones in fighting what was formerly known as the “war on terrorism.” Both issues describe this presidency writ large, highlighting the desire to avoid clear and direct decisions, mixed with an overreliance on a peculiar and unmanned technology. It is a White House on programmed reflex.

A question that I have been asked on more occasions than I care to remember is whether President Obama, in fact, has a national security doctrine. Three schools of thought exist on this matter.

The first view is, at first glance, quite glib: There is a doctrine, and it can be labeled ABB — Anything But Bush. However, before we completely dismiss this attitude, one should keep in mind that the Obama camp rejected unilateralism, pre-emption, democracy promotion, prevention and, generally, the global war on terrorism. These were the pillars of American grand strategy under President Bush and the administration has struggled mightily (often to the detriment to the country) to wrest itself from the Bush legacy. The second school of thought denies the existence of an Obama Doctrine altogether. His supporters have argued that he did not need one, so he could remain light and lethal, unconstrained by the prisons of declarations and pronouncements. The president’s detractors, meanwhile, state that mass confusion and anxiety over national security issues is evidence of absence.

The third school, and the one that seems to make the most sense, posits that an Obama Doctrine does exist, albeit in a form that is too messy and murky to detail fully. Rather, the Obama Doctrine represents a cobbled-together robot that issues platitudes and seeks penance. Like Presidents Carter and Clinton before him, Mr. Obama has exhibited a disdain or disinterest in this singularly important aspect of the presidency. The two campaigns that elected him president were ones where the media allowed national security and foreign policy to be pushed to the back burner, rearing their heads only sporadically.

There was a moment when this could have changed. Mr. Obama, comfortable with his electoral victory, could have proved the critics wrong and set the stage for real leadership in national security. This moment, of course, was the State of the Union address.

Instead, what did the American people receive? A laundry list, tacked on pro forma, made up of vague posturing: We heard that we “need” to end the war in Afghanistan by telegraphing our withdrawal worldwide. Mr. Obama blisteringly called on the totalitarians of Pyongyang to meet their international obligations. There was the continued declaration that Iran will face a serious coalition of negotiation. And finally, the strong desire to disarm our nuclear arsenal. The Anything But Bush School received a shot in the arm by the president’s inability to mention the global war on terrorism, the 60,000 Syrian dead or the aggressive moves made by China in the Pacific. If there was a grand strategy, it was the embrace of a sort of neo-isolationism. Yet this was countered by resurrecting the Bush team’s desire for more free-trade agreements, and Mr. Obama’s support of a trans-Pacific partnership.

What are we left with at the start of the president’s second term? We are where we started, with a disjointed doctrine, vague strategy and ambiguity held at high altar. Mr. Obama effectively has patched together four prior presidential doctrines to form his own. He channels Nixon to achieve his burden-sharing, colloquially known these days as “leading from behind.” He invokes Mr. Carter’s multilateralism for the sake of same, and as a counter to charges of American exceptionalism. Mr. Clinton’s vision is summoned for its risk-averse nature, its faith in globalization and its worship of technocracy over ideals.

Ironically, though, the only success that the president has had in national security and foreign policy is where he had been unable to shake the spirit of George W. Bush. The Bush years have granted the U.S. government now the breathing room to engage in greater counterterrorism operations and a chance to establish a permanent presence in the Arab world and Central Asia. But this “Bush Lite” strategy has been embraced only out of a sense of inertia and the harsh encroachment of reality.

The areas where one lets Obama be Obama demonstrate the most dangerous results for strategy. The goals seem to be tactical: more treaties, adherence to more international organizations, an emphasis on soft power and greater diplomatic “restraint.” We have seen a souring of relations with nations such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Poland and Israel, a blind eye to Russian, Chinese and Iranian aggression, obsequiousness before the United Nations, and a glossing over of the grossest human rights violations in places such as North Korea, Sudan, China and Syria. Simultaneously, Mr. Obama’s reversal of grand strategy regarding the use of nuclear forces has been nothing short of breathtaking, signaling a reluctance to use the very weapons that have kept enemies at bay.

The key to the Obama Doctrine is the need to “rebalance American commitments,” code for managing our decline. His doctrine is more about process than strategy. When he does speak on national security, the president likes to say that he would intervene if America’s vital or national interests were at stake. However, in more four years, he has never once fully articulated what he believes those to be.

If the United States is to continue to claim its exceptional place in the annals of humankind, it has no choice but to be the only sword and shield for these. A president who fails his duty here has failed not only Americans, but all mankind. The president could still turn this ship around and embrace both the pragmatic and idealist destiny of his country. It will be his choice how history reads his presidency and this crossroads in our American epic.

Lamont Colucci is senior fellow in national security affairs at the Washington, D.C.-based American Foreign Policy Council and the author of “The National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency: How they Shape our Present and Future” (Praeger Publishing, 2012).

Interest Payments: America's Silent Killer

From Tea Party Patriots --

When discussing and debating federal spending, liberals focus on defense spending and some subsidies. Conservatives focus on everything else.

However, a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report discusses something many politicians and pundits miss – the fiscal threat of interest payments:

Following a recent hearing, we were asked by a Member of Congress: “How would higher-than-expected interest rates affect federal budget deficits over the next decade? In particular, what would be the effects of these scenarios:

1. Interest rates rise to their average levels over the 1991-2000 period;
2. Interest rates rise to their average levels over the 1981-1990 period; and
3. Interest rates follow a path that is consistent with the average of the 10 highest projections shown in the October 2012 and February 2013 releases of Blue Chip Economic Indicators.”

CBO projected Scenario 1 would have interest rates of 4.9% and Scenario 2 rates of 8.8%, as compared to the current 4% projection in CBO’s baseline analysis, from 2018 to 2023. In other words, interest rates would be much, much higher. Treasury note rates would also be higher:

Similarly, rates on 10-year Treasury notes would average 6.7 percent between 2018 and 2023 under scenario 1 and 10.6 percent under scenario 2, compared with 5.2 percent in the baseline projections.

What were the results? Devastating:

In other words, if interest rates go up even a little, the entirety of sequestration will be wiped out. And while entitlement spending will be the largest driver of our debt in coming years, interest payments on the debt will be even larger. The Treasury Department projects that interest will be almost as much a burden on the budget as budget as Social Security, and by the time today’s newborns are in their mid-twenties, interest will be the biggest item in the federal budget.

The only real answer to this problem is cutting spending. CBO notes a number of caveats to its estimates, including the impacts of inflation, an improving economy, and interest rates on the cost of interest payments. But only cutting spending, and substantively so, will prevent rates and payments from becoming unsustainable.

One other thing: CBO only examines publicly held debt, which is less than three-quarters of the total debt of the United States. So their estimates above are very likely to underestimate the total burden of interest payments on the federal budget.

Speaker Boehner and President Obama say we don’t have a spending problem now. They also have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell us.

Happy Easter

Senator Rand Paul; A Duty to Preserve the 2nd Amendment

From The Washington Times --

When Congress reconvenes next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring gun control back to the Senate floor. If this occurs, I will oppose any legislation that undermines Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms or their ability to exercise this right without being subject to government surveillance.

Restricting Americans’ ability to purchase firearms readily and freely will do nothing to stop national tragedies such as those that happened in Newtown, Conn., and in Aurora, Colo. It will do much to give criminals and potential killers an unfair advantage by hampering law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves and their families. Potentially on the table are new laws that would outlaw firearms and magazines that hold more than just a handful of rounds, as well as require universal “background checks,” which amount to gun registration. We are also being told that the “assault weapons” ban originally introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein is not happening. We can only hope. But in Washington, D.C., bad ideas often have a strange way of coming up again.

These laws are designed to sound reasonable, but statistics have shown that gun control simply does not work. What constitutes reasonable? If limiting rounds and increasing surveillance were really the solution to curbing gun violence, why should we stop there? Because everyone knows that none of this actually curbs gun violence.

Gun control itself is unreasonable.Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country — and one of the worst gun-crime rates, with more than 500 homicides last year. Compare this to Virginia, where in the past six years, gun sales went up by 73 percent, while violent gun crime fell 24 percent. The types of firearms and clips the left is currently so intent on banning are used in fewer than 2 percent of gun crimes — and how many of those crimes involve registered weapons? Few to none.

For every national tragedy that happens, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Americans preventing similar killings from happening, thanks to the use of personal firearms. Last June, for example, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an armed intruder who broke into his home while he was baby-sitting his three younger siblings. The children were home alone on a Saturday afternoon when an unrecognized woman rang their doorbell. After the 14-year-old boy refused to open the door, he heard a loud bang, which indicated that someone was trying to break into the house. The boy hurried his younger siblings upstairs and collected a handgun from his parents’ room. When the boy rounded the top of the stairs, there was a man standing in the doorway with a gun pointed at him. The boy shot at the intruder and saved the lives of his three younger siblings.

There have been would-be mass murderers who have walked into schools, churches, shopping malls, movie theaters and other public places who didn’t get very far because, thankfully, an armed citizen was nearby. There have been countless home invasions, armed robberies and other assaults in which lives were saved, thanks to citizens possessing private firearms.These stories are heroic, but they don’t become big headlines. We should all be glad that they don’t become such headlines, thanks to the unsung heroes who prevent them from becoming potential national tragedies.

For these reasons, I will oppose any attempt by President Obama, Mr. Reid or anyone else in Washington who works against Americans’ right to bear arms. Sens. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz have decided to join in this effort.We do this not only because it is right — but because it is our duty as United States senators.

When I stood up for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments during a filibuster a few weeks ago to address drones and executive power, it was not because I was partial to those amendments, important as they are. When I came into office, I took an oath to uphold the Bill of Rights. 

I took an oath to uphold the First Amendment. I took an oath to uphold the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment reads: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “might be” infringed. Nor does it say “could be” infringed. It read “shall not” be infringed. The current gun-control legislation being proposed unquestionably infringes. For these reasons, I will work diligently to stop any such gun-control legislation. Our Constitution, individual liberty and personal safety depend on it.

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Homeland Security committees.