Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Three Myths About Debt Ceiling


January 22, 2013

In order for clarity to emerge on the debt ceiling debate, three false claims must be addressed, say David Rivkin, Jr., and Lee Casey, both former members of the Reagan and Bush senior administrations.

Myth one: If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling limit, it will trigger a default.
  • Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states that Congress cannot question the validity of public debt.
  • Originally intended to guarantee debts incurred by the federal government after the Civil War, the Supreme Court affirmed Section 4's modern meaning in 1935.
  • Even if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the government must pay its creditors.
  • With more than $200 billion in tax revenue per month, the government can easily cover its bills and should be able to stave off any negative consequences for our credit rating.
Myth two: The debt ceiling must be raised to cover spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
  • Medicare and Social Security are not considered obligated debts under the 14th Amendment.
  • Indeed, the wording of Section 4 was purposefully crafted to include the word "debts" but not "obligations."
  • The distinction between the two was recognized by the Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) which ruled that Congress had the ability to modify Social Security benefits.
  • Thus, Congress has no legal or constitutional responsibility to cover the bill for entitlements.
Myth three: The president has the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling with powers granted to him by Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.
  • Congress, not the president, is vested with the authority to raise taxes, borrow money and direct expenses.
  • Since the debt ceiling is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is the president's authority to raise it, only Congress could permit the president to raise the debt ceiling on his own.
With these three facts in mind, Congress failing to raise the debt ceiling would trigger major spending cuts so the government could cover its bills. Dispelling these myths is important if the American public is to get behind the necessary reductions in spending that President Obama opposes.
 
Source: David Rivkin, Jr., and Lee Casey, "The Myth of Government Default," Wall Street Journal, January 14,

Thursday, January 10, 2013

How Obama May Executive Order Away Our Guns


January 10, 2013

Obama can executive order guns away.

The basis of this comes down to the way treaty law has been interpreted recently by the courts. This was attempted successfully to a point by the Clinton administration, which everyone seems to have forgotten, when it came to the Kyoto Protocol treaty on environmentalism.

See, Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol treaty. But, Bill Clinton was shrewd. Knowing the treaty would not pass in the Senate for ratification, he signed an executive order to enforce the provisions of Kyoto until such time it was ratified by the Senate. I believe a challenge to this in the courts was thrown out, saying it was perfectly acceptable to do until the treaty got ratified.

Then, it was never submitted for ratification. It took prodding from a state convention amendment for a Senator to push for a vote on Kyoto. As predicted, it did not just get rejected, it went down in flames much to the global warming crowd’s chagrin.

The problem is, in March, this same scenario can be played out.

The United Nations treaty on gun trafficking is coming up for a vote in March. Hillary Clinton did not sign onto this treaty, but John Kerry will. This starts the clock ticking on ratification, and allows for the above scenario. With the stroke of the executive order pen, Barack Obama can commit the government to following the provisions of the UN treaty until such time it is ratified or rejected by the Senate. Then, Harry Reid never submits the treaty. Unlike Kyoto, not enough Republicans are in the Senate to force the vote. Oh, there also happens to be no time limit between a treaty signature and when it must be voted upon.

In the end, Barack Obama gets what he wants, a gun ban. Until the treaty is rejected, it’s legal. Courts have been ruling, wrongly in my opinion, treaties can supersede the Constitution.

This is how Barack Obama can use an executive order to take away guns.

By the way, that Senator who was able to force the vote on Kyoto? Chuck Hagel.


Read here

Thursday, January 03, 2013

After 40 Years, Abortion Activists Losing

From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists — understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

 
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 1/3/13 12:28 PM

The mainstream media will get around to covering abortion this month as the nation marks 40 years of legalized abortion for any reason throughout pregnancy via Roe v Wade. Time magazine has released its issue, which comes to a shocking conclusion.

The cover article makes the case that the pro-abortion side is losing the abortion debate, saying, “40 Years Ago, Abortion Rights Activists Won an Epic Victory With Roe v. Wade. They’re been losing ever since.”
The article makes the pro-abortion case that, while abortion is still legal, it is increasingly difficult to access thanks to the closing of so many abortion clinics and pro-life laws that help women by giving them additional information and alternatives.

The magazine also contains an article from Emily Buchanan of the pro-life women’s group Susan B. Anthony List that rebuts what has become the modern talking point for Planned Parenthood and other abortion defenders — that abortion is about protecting women’s health, some excerpts of which appear below:
From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists — understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”
So the pro-life movement hasn’t changed the meaning of feminism, as has been suggested. It was the neo-feminists of the 1960s and ’70s who asked women to prize abortion as the pathway to equality.
Pro-life feminism has captivated a new generation of young women who reject the illusion that to be pro-woman is to be pro-choice. Gallup polling showed that among 18-to-29-year-olds, there was a 5% increase in those labeling themselves “pro-life” between 2007–08 and 2009–10.
The past few years have seen the emergence of young leaders like Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America, who is responsible for organizing more than 675 pro-life groups on college campuses across the nation, and Lila Rose of Live Action, whose undercover video work has forced the abortion industry to confront and amend practices it cannot defend, as well as dozens of other future leaders who have assisted our organization as staff members and interns.



Not only does this young generation of pro-life women shun the notion that abortion somehow liberates women; it views abortion as the civil- and human-rights cause of our day. Abortion is an injustice that permeates our society. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, we realize that a third of our peers are not here to share our progress and our hopes. It is our loss as well as theirs.
Our fight transcends elections and legislative battles because our fight is in our hearts. This is why, 40 years after Roe, our movement is still growing. We won’t give up; we can’t give up. Our fight is for life.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/03/shocking-time-magazine-cover-after-40-years-abortion-activists-losing/