by Nancy Pearcey
In their “Pledge to America,” Republicans are promising to repeal Obamacare, which has imposed taxpayer-funded abortion on the nation. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of the American people do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortion. A poll of likely voters put the number at 72%.
Liberal counter-attacks are resorting to the old slur that Republicans are anti-science. The current issue of Nature bemoans the “anti-science streak on the American right.”
Now is the time to turn the tables and make the case that it’s the pro-abortion stance that is actually anti-science.
In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.” Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human—biologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that “the life of a human organism begins at conception.”
How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science.
Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.
This is called personhood theory, and it implies a dangerously divided view of the human being. On one hand, the physical body, knowable by science, is trivialized as a form of raw material that can be tinkered with, manipulated, experimented on, or destroyed with no moral significance. Human life is reduced to a utilitarian calculus subject only to a cost-benefit analysis.
On the other hand, the concept of personhood has been disconnected from the biological fact of being human, which renders it ultimately arbitrary. Ethicists disagree even on the point when personhood begins: Is it when the fetus starts to exhibit neural activity, or feels pain, or achieves a certain level of consciousness?
Or even after the child is born? According to British bioethicist John Harris, “Nine months of development leaves the human embryo far short of the emergence of anything that can be called a person.”
James Watson of DNA fame recommended giving a newborn baby three days of genetic testing before deciding whether the child should be allowed to live. Singer considers personhood a “gray” area even at three years of age. (After all, how much cognitive functioning does a toddler have?)
Each ethicist draws the line at a different place, according to his or her own personal vision and private values.
Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values.
In First Things, law professor Stanley Fish sets the record straight: “It is pro-lifers who make the scientific question of when the beginning of life occurs the key one.” By contrast, “pro-choicers want to transform the question into a ‘metaphysical’ or ‘religious’ one”—using those terms to mean disconnected from any scientifically knowable reality.
Of course, people are much more than biological organisms. Yet biology gives an objective, empirically detectable marker of human status.
What this means is that pro-choicers have lost the argument on the scientific level—and so they are repudiating science. In the New York Times, Yale professor Paul Bloom informs us that abortion “is not really about life in any biological sense.”
Likewise Jennie Bristow, editor of Abortion Review, dismisses science as irrelevant: “With anti-abortionists pushing ‘scientific evidence’ on fetal viability, it is time to restate the moral case for a woman’s right to choose.” Her article is titled, “Abortion: Stop Hiding behind the Science.”
Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance to other life issues, such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and genetic engineering. According to personhood theory, just being part of the human race is not morally relevant. Individuals must earn the status of personhood by meeting an additional set of criteria—the ability to make decisions, exercise self-awareness, and so on, depending on the ethicist setting the criteria.
Those who do not make the grade are demoted to non-persons, even though they are still biologically human.
The concept of personhood is so malleable that anyone at any stage of life could be demoted to the status of non-person and denied the right to live. Especially if their healthcare is determined by Obamacare boards whose members are committed to a liberal ideology. Sarah Palin’s phrase “death panels” is not misapplied.
If pro-abortionists want to commit intellectual suicide and deny scientific facts, that‘s their problem. But there’s no reason a civilized society should fund their anti-scientific outlook—or accept its inhumane consequences.
This is the third in a series based on Mrs. Pearcey's just-published book, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning.
_____
Nancy Pearcey is a bestselling author, editor at large of The Pearcey Report, and fellow of the Discovery Institute. She has published a new book, Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning. To inquire about media interviews, please contact Katie Morgan of the Pinkston Group at 703-260-1915 (email: morgan@pinkstongroup.com).
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
'It's time to impeach Obama for high crimes against U.S.'
TAKING AMERICA BACK 2010
President blasted as a Christianity-hating tyrant 'working that anvil right now forging our chains'
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
MIAMI – An urgent plea to impeach a "Christianity-hating" President Obama for alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors" was issued today at the start of WND's "TTaking America Back Conference" in South Florida.
The call was announced by Floyd Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, who asserted in strong terms the commander in chief is deliberately trying to destroy the principles on which the U.S. was founded.
"The Obama presidency is a disease," said Brown. "Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it's Obama's hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now."
"Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray," Brown added. "He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he's doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he's taking us."
A political innovator, writer and speaker, Brown is now running an online campaign to impeach the president.
"Barack Obama is a very dangerous man," said Brown. "Over the last two years, we have been watching the slow progression of what I call a bloodless coup."
Read all about the grounds for impeachment.
"For the international socialist movement of which Barack Obama is a card-carrying member," he added, "the U.S. must be brought to its knees, and I guarantee you that Barack Hussein Obama is doing everything he can to bring the country to its knees. He wants to bring it to its knees."
Brown warned that a counterculture has risen up, dividing America.
"They don't have the same respect for you as an individual and personal property, and these traditional ideas in the Constitution. That's why they're at war with the Constitution. Everything our forefathers fought and died for to them is just trash to be thrown out on Monday morning."
Brown responded to a common question about what specifically the president has done that rises to the level of impeachment by recalling President Gerald Ford in the 1970s, who indicated an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history.
The U.S. Constitution states a president can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Brown said the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means "bad behavior."
He went through a list of what he considered bad behavior, saying Obama has "nationalized the banks. He nationalized GM and Chrysler. He's attacked the 2nd Amendment. He's taken over health care. He wants cap and trade legislation, so he literally taxes the air that you breathe. We breathe out CO2. He appointed czars to control your life without congressional oversight. He apologizes for us abroad. I find it personally offensive that he would apologize for this great land."
Brown said the president has committed actual crimes, including offering jobs in exchange for political favors; firing Inspector General Gerald Walpin who was investigating Obama friend Kevin Johnson for allegedly misusing funds; and is now actively trying to bankrupt America, adding more to the national deficit in nine months than in the first 200 years of U.S. history.
He noted the Congressional Budget Office has warned that unless Obama can control his appetite for deficit spending, accumulated debt could spark a U.S. fiscal crisis similar to recent ones in Greece and Ireland.
Brown then turned to matters of faith, and blasted Obama's contention that he's a Christian.
"Obama hates Christianity," Brown declared. "He is a Muslim. Others will say he's just a godless atheist. The bottom line is that this man hates Christianity."
He said at Georgetown University, Obama forced the school to cover the name of Jesus on the podium, and he paraphrased the president's comments suggesting the U.S. was no longer a Christian nation, but could now be considered a Muslim nation.
"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers," Obama stated.
"He said it!" exclaimed Brown. "Have you read about it in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal? There is a conspiracy of silence in the mainstream media to cover up this man's hatred of Christianity."
He quoted American leaders of the past, including President Andrew Jackson, who called the Bible "the rock upon which our republic rests," and Patrick Henry, who said, "It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains."
"Obama is that tyrant and he's working that anvil right now of forging our chains," said Brown.
Brown admitted that there would have to be a change in the leadership of Congress in the upcoming November elections to make impeachment a reality, but said the issue was pressing.
"Do we wait until he's totally ripped our country apart?" Brown asked.
He closed by invoking President Ronald Reagan, who was noted for saying, "If not us, then who? If not now, when?"
The "Taking America Back Conference" is a three-day event taking place at the Doral Resort in Miami, and includes dozens of speakers including U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., former presidential candidates Alan Keyes and Tom Tancredo, and authors Jerome Corsi, Aaron Klein and David Kupelian.
Other speakers include scientist and Bible teacher Chuck Missler; talk-show host Rusty Humphries,Michael Farris of Home School Legal Defense Association; Robert Knight and Jerry Newcombe of Coral Ridge Ministries; William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition and son of notorious atheist Madeline Murray O'Hair; RC Sproul, Jr., author of "Biblical Economics"; "Saturday Night Live" alum Victoria Jackson, author-columnist Erik Rush and author Judith Reisman.
Related offers:
Read all about the grounds for impeachment.
There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!
Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth-certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!
Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"
Get your yard signs and rally signs that ask the same question – and make sure it's in time for the next tea-party rally
Get your permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers for your car, truck or file cabinet – and join the campaign for constitutional integrity.
Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.
Previous stories:
Read all about the grounds for impeachment.
Retired general: Congress should give Obama ultimatum
Ex-congressman: President a 'threat,' must be impeached
Elections chief: Constitution 'important'
Microsoft Xbox: 'Impeach Obama' off limits
Impeachment suggested to remove 'threats' to America
Call for Obama's resignation cites 'deceit, fraud, dishonesty'
THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue
Obama's nuke agreements meant to disarm U.S.?
President blasted as a Christianity-hating tyrant 'working that anvil right now forging our chains'
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
MIAMI – An urgent plea to impeach a "Christianity-hating" President Obama for alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors" was issued today at the start of WND's "TTaking America Back Conference" in South Florida.
The call was announced by Floyd Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, who asserted in strong terms the commander in chief is deliberately trying to destroy the principles on which the U.S. was founded.
"The Obama presidency is a disease," said Brown. "Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it's Obama's hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now."
"Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray," Brown added. "He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he's doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he's taking us."
A political innovator, writer and speaker, Brown is now running an online campaign to impeach the president.
"Barack Obama is a very dangerous man," said Brown. "Over the last two years, we have been watching the slow progression of what I call a bloodless coup."
Read all about the grounds for impeachment.
"For the international socialist movement of which Barack Obama is a card-carrying member," he added, "the U.S. must be brought to its knees, and I guarantee you that Barack Hussein Obama is doing everything he can to bring the country to its knees. He wants to bring it to its knees."
Brown warned that a counterculture has risen up, dividing America.
"They don't have the same respect for you as an individual and personal property, and these traditional ideas in the Constitution. That's why they're at war with the Constitution. Everything our forefathers fought and died for to them is just trash to be thrown out on Monday morning."
Brown responded to a common question about what specifically the president has done that rises to the level of impeachment by recalling President Gerald Ford in the 1970s, who indicated an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history.
The U.S. Constitution states a president can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Brown said the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means "bad behavior."
He went through a list of what he considered bad behavior, saying Obama has "nationalized the banks. He nationalized GM and Chrysler. He's attacked the 2nd Amendment. He's taken over health care. He wants cap and trade legislation, so he literally taxes the air that you breathe. We breathe out CO2. He appointed czars to control your life without congressional oversight. He apologizes for us abroad. I find it personally offensive that he would apologize for this great land."
Brown said the president has committed actual crimes, including offering jobs in exchange for political favors; firing Inspector General Gerald Walpin who was investigating Obama friend Kevin Johnson for allegedly misusing funds; and is now actively trying to bankrupt America, adding more to the national deficit in nine months than in the first 200 years of U.S. history.
He noted the Congressional Budget Office has warned that unless Obama can control his appetite for deficit spending, accumulated debt could spark a U.S. fiscal crisis similar to recent ones in Greece and Ireland.
Brown then turned to matters of faith, and blasted Obama's contention that he's a Christian.
"Obama hates Christianity," Brown declared. "He is a Muslim. Others will say he's just a godless atheist. The bottom line is that this man hates Christianity."
He said at Georgetown University, Obama forced the school to cover the name of Jesus on the podium, and he paraphrased the president's comments suggesting the U.S. was no longer a Christian nation, but could now be considered a Muslim nation.
"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers," Obama stated.
"He said it!" exclaimed Brown. "Have you read about it in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal? There is a conspiracy of silence in the mainstream media to cover up this man's hatred of Christianity."
He quoted American leaders of the past, including President Andrew Jackson, who called the Bible "the rock upon which our republic rests," and Patrick Henry, who said, "It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains."
"Obama is that tyrant and he's working that anvil right now of forging our chains," said Brown.
Brown admitted that there would have to be a change in the leadership of Congress in the upcoming November elections to make impeachment a reality, but said the issue was pressing.
"Do we wait until he's totally ripped our country apart?" Brown asked.
He closed by invoking President Ronald Reagan, who was noted for saying, "If not us, then who? If not now, when?"
The "Taking America Back Conference" is a three-day event taking place at the Doral Resort in Miami, and includes dozens of speakers including U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., former presidential candidates Alan Keyes and Tom Tancredo, and authors Jerome Corsi, Aaron Klein and David Kupelian.
Other speakers include scientist and Bible teacher Chuck Missler; talk-show host Rusty Humphries,Michael Farris of Home School Legal Defense Association; Robert Knight and Jerry Newcombe of Coral Ridge Ministries; William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition and son of notorious atheist Madeline Murray O'Hair; RC Sproul, Jr., author of "Biblical Economics"; "Saturday Night Live" alum Victoria Jackson, author-columnist Erik Rush and author Judith Reisman.
Related offers:
Read all about the grounds for impeachment.
There's a new strategy to get answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!
Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth-certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!
Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"
Get your yard signs and rally signs that ask the same question – and make sure it's in time for the next tea-party rally
Get your permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers for your car, truck or file cabinet – and join the campaign for constitutional integrity.
Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.
Previous stories:
Read all about the grounds for impeachment.
Retired general: Congress should give Obama ultimatum
Ex-congressman: President a 'threat,' must be impeached
Elections chief: Constitution 'important'
Microsoft Xbox: 'Impeach Obama' off limits
Impeachment suggested to remove 'threats' to America
Call for Obama's resignation cites 'deceit, fraud, dishonesty'
THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue
Obama's nuke agreements meant to disarm U.S.?
The Case for Impeachment:
- (Special Report)
Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America
By Steven Baldwin
The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America - (Special Report)
By Steven Baldwin
Product Description
The Founding Fathers enshrined the impeachment clause into the United States Constitution because they feared that a president intent on subverting the very principles the American experiment was built on would someday rise to power.
Despite all the checks and balances and obstacles they put in place, the Founders knew a determined cabal could still gain control of all three branches of government and wield this consolidation of power to dismantle our cherished Constitutional principles, and eradicate the freedoms that generations of Americans sacrificed their lives to preserve.
MAKE NO MISTAKE: THAT DAY IS NOW UPON US.
"The Case For Impeachment" is an insightful summary of how President Barack Hussein Obama�s purposeful actions have jeopardized America�s ability to defend herself, and undermined our free enterprise system, corrupted our democratic institutions, and transferred massive amounts of power and wealth from American citizens to extremist special interest groups whose loyalty lies not with our Constitution, but with a global socialist movement. This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless the people exercise their precious remaining liberties and stand and demand that their elected representatives impeach this president before further mortal damage is inflicted upon America.
If the silent majority can summon the indignation, willpower and energy to make their voices heard, there is still a chance our country may survive.
Order a copy of this special report for yourself and one for your representative in Congress! It's time to prepare for the inevitable impeachment process next year.
Product Details
# ISBN: 978-193507122-8
# Page Count: 52
NOTE:
Purchasing "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America" from WND's online store also qualifies you to receive a FREE 3-month trial subscription to our immensely popular monthly print magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.
Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America
By Steven Baldwin
The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America - (Special Report)
By Steven Baldwin
Product Description
The Founding Fathers enshrined the impeachment clause into the United States Constitution because they feared that a president intent on subverting the very principles the American experiment was built on would someday rise to power.
Despite all the checks and balances and obstacles they put in place, the Founders knew a determined cabal could still gain control of all three branches of government and wield this consolidation of power to dismantle our cherished Constitutional principles, and eradicate the freedoms that generations of Americans sacrificed their lives to preserve.
MAKE NO MISTAKE: THAT DAY IS NOW UPON US.
"The Case For Impeachment" is an insightful summary of how President Barack Hussein Obama�s purposeful actions have jeopardized America�s ability to defend herself, and undermined our free enterprise system, corrupted our democratic institutions, and transferred massive amounts of power and wealth from American citizens to extremist special interest groups whose loyalty lies not with our Constitution, but with a global socialist movement. This is the beginning of the end for the United States unless the people exercise their precious remaining liberties and stand and demand that their elected representatives impeach this president before further mortal damage is inflicted upon America.
If the silent majority can summon the indignation, willpower and energy to make their voices heard, there is still a chance our country may survive.
Order a copy of this special report for yourself and one for your representative in Congress! It's time to prepare for the inevitable impeachment process next year.
Product Details
# ISBN: 978-193507122-8
# Page Count: 52
NOTE:
Purchasing "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America" from WND's online store also qualifies you to receive a FREE 3-month trial subscription to our immensely popular monthly print magazine, Whistleblower. Watch for the FREE offer during checkout.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
That'll Be Another $30 Billion. Thanks, Taxpayers!
by Jillian Bandes
Congress just passed the small business bill, which critics argue could create a permanent class of bailouts for banks and the businesses they serve. "Small" banks -- defined as banks that have less than $30 billion in assets -- can qualify for discounted lending rates (funded by taxpayers), depending on how aggressively they lend to other small businesses. The banks get even lower rates if those small businesses are minority or women owned, or in rural areas. In other words: there is a massive incentive to lend to unqualified borrowers. Stephen Spruiell comments at NRO:
The case against such measures isn’t based on racism or sexism. It’s based on the idea that banks should make lending decisions based on credit risk, period. We are far beyond the point where discrimination was a big enough problem to justify such measures.
This is the same mess that got us into the housing debacle. When it all goes bust, you can thank Republican Senators George Voinovich of Ohio and George LeMieux of Florida, who crossed party lines and enabled the bill's passage. Surprise, surprise: Voinovich is retiring, and LeMieux is a caretaker.
Congress just passed the small business bill, which critics argue could create a permanent class of bailouts for banks and the businesses they serve. "Small" banks -- defined as banks that have less than $30 billion in assets -- can qualify for discounted lending rates (funded by taxpayers), depending on how aggressively they lend to other small businesses. The banks get even lower rates if those small businesses are minority or women owned, or in rural areas. In other words: there is a massive incentive to lend to unqualified borrowers. Stephen Spruiell comments at NRO:
The case against such measures isn’t based on racism or sexism. It’s based on the idea that banks should make lending decisions based on credit risk, period. We are far beyond the point where discrimination was a big enough problem to justify such measures.
This is the same mess that got us into the housing debacle. When it all goes bust, you can thank Republican Senators George Voinovich of Ohio and George LeMieux of Florida, who crossed party lines and enabled the bill's passage. Surprise, surprise: Voinovich is retiring, and LeMieux is a caretaker.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Suit to Overturn Obamacare Hears First Arguments
By: David A. Patten
All eyes will be focused on a Pensacola, Florida courtroom Tuesday as Justice Department lawyers will try to convince a federal district court judge to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states charging that President Obama's healthcare reforms are unconstitutional.
The multi-state lawsuit has been led by Florida's Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican.
The Obama administration has claimed that the states have no legal standing to bring their legal action.
The central issue in the hearing: Whether the states are legally empowered to challenge the fines in the individual mandate that gives Obamacare its bite.
In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Attorney General McCollum says the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority.
"We are arguing that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to tell you, if you are just sitting in front of your TV set, or doing nothing in the way of real economic activity, that you have to buy a health insurance policy or pay a penalty," McCollum tells Newsmax.
"That's just not in the Constitution," he adds. "The Founding Fathers didn't enumerate any powers that appear to us to give them the right to say this."
The stakes could hardly be higher.
If the administration prevails, it would deal a major blow to conservatives' hopes of using the courts to block the administration's signature piece of legislation.
If the judge rejects the administration's motion, it would mark the second time in as many months that anti-Obamacare forces have won a major court battle on the unpopular bill that most Democrats would prefer voters forget.
The federal government is expected to argue that the "individual mandate" -- essentially a demand that every citizen buy private health insurance or suffer a fine levied by the IRS -- is actually a tax. Only taxpayers can argue the legality of a tax, they contend, and even then only after the assessments take effect in 2015.
The administration also will cite its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, along with its responsibility to provide for the public's general welfare.
Those are the same arguments the federal government made in a Virginia hearing on the other state-level lawsuit filed against healthcare reform, which was filed by Virginia GOP Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
After hearing from both sides in that case, federal Judge Harry E. Hudson in August rejected the federal government's request to have the case dismissed.
Virginia's case, however, was bolstered by a law the Old Dominion adopted making it illegal to require its citizens to purchase health insurance.
"Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America," wrote Judge Hudson in his 32-page opinion.
Hudson also said the federal government's authority to regulate commerce had never been extended so far before.
McCollum says the penalty the federal government seeks to impose is not a tax.
"Even if it's a tax, we think there's no provision in the Constitution allowing this kind of tax," McCollum tells Newsmax. "When President Obama advocated this legislation, he said there was no tax involved in it. So the government's being a little disingenuous, but they're going to make that kind of an argument in this hearing."
McCollum estimates the expansion of Medicaid in the president's healthcare reforms will cost Florida $1 billion a year. He says he feels "pretty confident" that the judge will allow the case to move forward.
Two taxpayers as well as the nation's leading small-business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have joined his lawsuit. If any one of them is found to have standing, McCollum says, the entire lawsuit would move forward.
McCollum says the healthcare reform legislation could be especially vulnerable once the case reaches the trial phase, because Democrats did not place a severability clause in the bill. That's a common boilerplate provision included in many Congressional bills stipulating that if one provision of a new law is ruled illegal, the remaining parts of the legislation remains in force.
"It certainly is a fact that they have no severability clause," McCollum says. "If at any time we win on any portion of this, then the whole law goes down. I think that the courts are going to look at this as more of a whole. They're going to say, 'How is this all going to interplay?'"
According to The Associated Press, some legal experts believe the 20 states will find it difficult to convince the judge they have been harmed by a law that won't take effect for years. But the NFIB says several of its members have already suffered, because their insurance companies altered policies, and even discontinued them, in anticipation of the new law taking effect.
"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire healthcare law," said NFIB Executive Director Karen Harned. "But we think the entire healthcare law is bad."
Tuesday's hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and each side will have 45 minutes to present its case before U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson.
Vinson is not expected to announce his ruling tomorrow. Both sides in the dispute have indicated the case will eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court — perhaps before the 2012 presidential election.
All eyes will be focused on a Pensacola, Florida courtroom Tuesday as Justice Department lawyers will try to convince a federal district court judge to throw out a lawsuit by 20 states charging that President Obama's healthcare reforms are unconstitutional.
The multi-state lawsuit has been led by Florida's Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican.
The Obama administration has claimed that the states have no legal standing to bring their legal action.
The central issue in the hearing: Whether the states are legally empowered to challenge the fines in the individual mandate that gives Obamacare its bite.
In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Attorney General McCollum says the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority.
"We are arguing that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to tell you, if you are just sitting in front of your TV set, or doing nothing in the way of real economic activity, that you have to buy a health insurance policy or pay a penalty," McCollum tells Newsmax.
"That's just not in the Constitution," he adds. "The Founding Fathers didn't enumerate any powers that appear to us to give them the right to say this."
The stakes could hardly be higher.
If the administration prevails, it would deal a major blow to conservatives' hopes of using the courts to block the administration's signature piece of legislation.
If the judge rejects the administration's motion, it would mark the second time in as many months that anti-Obamacare forces have won a major court battle on the unpopular bill that most Democrats would prefer voters forget.
The federal government is expected to argue that the "individual mandate" -- essentially a demand that every citizen buy private health insurance or suffer a fine levied by the IRS -- is actually a tax. Only taxpayers can argue the legality of a tax, they contend, and even then only after the assessments take effect in 2015.
The administration also will cite its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, along with its responsibility to provide for the public's general welfare.
Those are the same arguments the federal government made in a Virginia hearing on the other state-level lawsuit filed against healthcare reform, which was filed by Virginia GOP Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
After hearing from both sides in that case, federal Judge Harry E. Hudson in August rejected the federal government's request to have the case dismissed.
Virginia's case, however, was bolstered by a law the Old Dominion adopted making it illegal to require its citizens to purchase health insurance.
"Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America," wrote Judge Hudson in his 32-page opinion.
Hudson also said the federal government's authority to regulate commerce had never been extended so far before.
McCollum says the penalty the federal government seeks to impose is not a tax.
"Even if it's a tax, we think there's no provision in the Constitution allowing this kind of tax," McCollum tells Newsmax. "When President Obama advocated this legislation, he said there was no tax involved in it. So the government's being a little disingenuous, but they're going to make that kind of an argument in this hearing."
McCollum estimates the expansion of Medicaid in the president's healthcare reforms will cost Florida $1 billion a year. He says he feels "pretty confident" that the judge will allow the case to move forward.
Two taxpayers as well as the nation's leading small-business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), have joined his lawsuit. If any one of them is found to have standing, McCollum says, the entire lawsuit would move forward.
McCollum says the healthcare reform legislation could be especially vulnerable once the case reaches the trial phase, because Democrats did not place a severability clause in the bill. That's a common boilerplate provision included in many Congressional bills stipulating that if one provision of a new law is ruled illegal, the remaining parts of the legislation remains in force.
"It certainly is a fact that they have no severability clause," McCollum says. "If at any time we win on any portion of this, then the whole law goes down. I think that the courts are going to look at this as more of a whole. They're going to say, 'How is this all going to interplay?'"
According to The Associated Press, some legal experts believe the 20 states will find it difficult to convince the judge they have been harmed by a law that won't take effect for years. But the NFIB says several of its members have already suffered, because their insurance companies altered policies, and even discontinued them, in anticipation of the new law taking effect.
"We would agree with the government that the individual mandate is the key to the entire healthcare law," said NFIB Executive Director Karen Harned. "But we think the entire healthcare law is bad."
Tuesday's hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and each side will have 45 minutes to present its case before U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson.
Vinson is not expected to announce his ruling tomorrow. Both sides in the dispute have indicated the case will eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court — perhaps before the 2012 presidential election.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Size of Government and the Choice This Fall
In polls, Americans overwhelmingly prefer small government and low taxes to the alternative. Yet they've been given big government, one program at a time.
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS AND PAUL RYAN
As we move into this election season, Americans are being asked to choose between candidates and political parties. But the true decision we will be making—now and in the years to come—is this: Do we still want our traditional American free enterprise system, or do we prefer a European-style social democracy? This is a choice between free markets and managed capitalism; between limited government and an ever-expanding state; between rewarding entrepreneurs and equalizing economic rewards.
We must decide. Or must we?
In response to what each of us has written in the preceding months, we have heard again and again that the choice we pose is too stark. New York Times columnist David Brooks (no relation) finds our approach too Manichaean, and the Schumpeter columnist in The Economist objected that, "You can have a big state with a well-functioning free market."
Data support the proposition that Americans like generous government programs and don't want to lose them. So while 70% of Americans told pollsters at the Pew Research Center in 2009 they agreed that "people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time," large majorities favor keeping our social insurance programs intact. This leads conventional thinkers to claim that a welfare state is what we truly want, regardless of whether or not we mouth platitudes about "freedom" and "entrepreneurship."
But these claims miss the point. What we must choose is our aspiration, not whether we want to zero out the state. Nobody wants to privatize the Army or take away Grandma's Social Security check. Even Friedrich Hayek in his famous book, "The Road to Serfdom," reminded us that the state has legitimate—and critical—functions, from rectifying market failures to securing some minimum standard of living.
However, finding the right level of government for Americans is simply impossible unless we decide which ideal we prefer: a free enterprise society with a solid but limited safety net, or a cradle-to-grave, redistributive welfare state. Most Americans believe in assisting those temporarily down on their luck and those who cannot help themselves, as well as a public-private system of pensions for a secure retirement. But a clear majority believes that income redistribution and government care should be the exception and not the rule.
This is made abundantly clear in surveys such as the one conducted by the Ayers-McHenry polling firm in 2009, which asked a large group of Americans, "Overall, would you prefer larger government with more services and higher taxes, or smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes?" To this question, 21% favored the former, while 69% preferred the latter.
Unfortunately, many political leaders from both parties in recent years have purposively obscured the fundamental choice we must make by focusing on individual spending issues and programs while ignoring the big picture of America's free enterprise culture. In this way, redistribution and statism always win out over limited government and private markets.
Why not lift the safety net a few rungs higher up the income ladder? Go ahead, slap a little tariff on some Chinese goods in the name of protecting a favored industry. More generous pensions for teachers? Hey, it's only a few million tax dollars—and think of the kids, after all.
Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose—one that creates a crushing burden of debt and teaches our children and grandchildren that government is the solution to all our problems. Seventy percent of us want stronger free enterprise, but the other 30% keep moving us closer toward an unacceptably statist America—one acceptable government program at a time.
This process has led to a visceral type of dissatisfaction with the current direction of our country. The president's job approval has fallen almost linearly since he took office (standing today at 45%, according to Gallup; 41%, according to Rasmussen) despite the fact that his policies are precisely what he promised when he handily won the 2008 election. Rasmussen finds that only 29% believe we are headed in the right direction as a nation and two-thirds say they are angry about current policies of the federal government. Majorities believe that "big government" poses the greatest threat to our country, according to Gallup.
Millions of Americans instinctively look to our leaders for a defense of our culture of free enterprise. Instead, we get more and more publicly funded gewgaws and shiny government novelties to distract us. For example, the administration stills touts the success of programs such as "Cash for Clunkers" in handing out borrowed money to citizens while propping up a favored industry. Yet Rasmussen found 54% of Americans opposed the program (only 35% favored it). Plenty of people may have availed themselves of that notorious boondoggle, but a large majority understand we were basically just asking our children (who will have to pay the $3 billion back) to buy us new cars—and that's not right.
More and more Americans are catching on to the scam. Every day, more see that the road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jack-booted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America's enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.
As this reality dawns, and the implications become clear to millions of Americans, we believe we can see the brightest future in decades. But we must choose it.
----
Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future" (Basic Books, 2010).
Mr. Ryan is a Republican congressman from Wisconsin and the author of "A Roadmap for America's Future" (www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov).
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS AND PAUL RYAN
As we move into this election season, Americans are being asked to choose between candidates and political parties. But the true decision we will be making—now and in the years to come—is this: Do we still want our traditional American free enterprise system, or do we prefer a European-style social democracy? This is a choice between free markets and managed capitalism; between limited government and an ever-expanding state; between rewarding entrepreneurs and equalizing economic rewards.
We must decide. Or must we?
In response to what each of us has written in the preceding months, we have heard again and again that the choice we pose is too stark. New York Times columnist David Brooks (no relation) finds our approach too Manichaean, and the Schumpeter columnist in The Economist objected that, "You can have a big state with a well-functioning free market."
Data support the proposition that Americans like generous government programs and don't want to lose them. So while 70% of Americans told pollsters at the Pew Research Center in 2009 they agreed that "people are better off in a free market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time," large majorities favor keeping our social insurance programs intact. This leads conventional thinkers to claim that a welfare state is what we truly want, regardless of whether or not we mouth platitudes about "freedom" and "entrepreneurship."
But these claims miss the point. What we must choose is our aspiration, not whether we want to zero out the state. Nobody wants to privatize the Army or take away Grandma's Social Security check. Even Friedrich Hayek in his famous book, "The Road to Serfdom," reminded us that the state has legitimate—and critical—functions, from rectifying market failures to securing some minimum standard of living.
However, finding the right level of government for Americans is simply impossible unless we decide which ideal we prefer: a free enterprise society with a solid but limited safety net, or a cradle-to-grave, redistributive welfare state. Most Americans believe in assisting those temporarily down on their luck and those who cannot help themselves, as well as a public-private system of pensions for a secure retirement. But a clear majority believes that income redistribution and government care should be the exception and not the rule.
This is made abundantly clear in surveys such as the one conducted by the Ayers-McHenry polling firm in 2009, which asked a large group of Americans, "Overall, would you prefer larger government with more services and higher taxes, or smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes?" To this question, 21% favored the former, while 69% preferred the latter.
Unfortunately, many political leaders from both parties in recent years have purposively obscured the fundamental choice we must make by focusing on individual spending issues and programs while ignoring the big picture of America's free enterprise culture. In this way, redistribution and statism always win out over limited government and private markets.
Why not lift the safety net a few rungs higher up the income ladder? Go ahead, slap a little tariff on some Chinese goods in the name of protecting a favored industry. More generous pensions for teachers? Hey, it's only a few million tax dollars—and think of the kids, after all.
Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose—one that creates a crushing burden of debt and teaches our children and grandchildren that government is the solution to all our problems. Seventy percent of us want stronger free enterprise, but the other 30% keep moving us closer toward an unacceptably statist America—one acceptable government program at a time.
This process has led to a visceral type of dissatisfaction with the current direction of our country. The president's job approval has fallen almost linearly since he took office (standing today at 45%, according to Gallup; 41%, according to Rasmussen) despite the fact that his policies are precisely what he promised when he handily won the 2008 election. Rasmussen finds that only 29% believe we are headed in the right direction as a nation and two-thirds say they are angry about current policies of the federal government. Majorities believe that "big government" poses the greatest threat to our country, according to Gallup.
Millions of Americans instinctively look to our leaders for a defense of our culture of free enterprise. Instead, we get more and more publicly funded gewgaws and shiny government novelties to distract us. For example, the administration stills touts the success of programs such as "Cash for Clunkers" in handing out borrowed money to citizens while propping up a favored industry. Yet Rasmussen found 54% of Americans opposed the program (only 35% favored it). Plenty of people may have availed themselves of that notorious boondoggle, but a large majority understand we were basically just asking our children (who will have to pay the $3 billion back) to buy us new cars—and that's not right.
More and more Americans are catching on to the scam. Every day, more see that the road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jack-booted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America's enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.
As this reality dawns, and the implications become clear to millions of Americans, we believe we can see the brightest future in decades. But we must choose it.
----
Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future" (Basic Books, 2010).
Mr. Ryan is a Republican congressman from Wisconsin and the author of "A Roadmap for America's Future" (www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)