Getting Prepared for the 2016 Election
Open Letter to Senator McConnell
and Speaker Boehner:
President Barack Obama proudly announced that his policies would be on the ballot in the November 4 midterm elections. He got his answer loud and clear: the American people said, “No thanks.”
The voters gave Republicans a big majority equal only to the stunning congressional victory 68 years ago in 1946. That Congress, known as the 80th Congress, which elected 57 new Republican House Members and 13 new Republican Senators, should serve as a model to the Members elected in 2014 for what a courageous conservative Republican Congress can accomplish.
Elected on the slogan “Had Enough,” the 80th Congress reflected the views of the American people who had had enough of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and were especially irritated by his imposition of price control. The voters rose up and called for an end to the big-spending, big-government, pro-socialist years of FDR’s four-term regime.
Since we’ve also had enough of Barack Obama, it’s instructive for the current generation to learn how decisively the 1946 Republican winners responded to the challenge thrust upon them. Under the leadership of Senator Robert A. Taft, that Congress made the greatest legislative record of any Congress in the 20th century.
The 80th Congress reduced taxes, balanced the budget, and even reduced the national debt. Congress used congressional investigations to expose Communists in government, such as Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White.
We’re looking for the Boehner-McConnell Congress to do likewise about reducing taxes and spending. We are also looking for the new Congress to use aggressive televised congressional investigations to educate the public about Obama’s unconstitutional and illegal acts, especially his executive amnesty for illegal aliens.
The 80th Congress passed much good legislation over President Harry Truman’s veto, most notably the Taft-Hartley Law. That Congress was staunchly anti-Communist at home and abroad; it launched the Greek-Turkish Military Aid Plan which, under General James Van Fleet, crushed the Communist guerrillas in Greece.
The 80th Congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution limiting the President to two terms, thereby rebuking FDR’s unprecedented four terms. That is a gift that keeps on giving because it meant we didn’t have to worry about Bill Clinton or Barack Obama running for a third term.
Republicans were given a resounding mandate in 1946 to scale back the federal government, which had bulked up to fight World War II. Defying the voters, President Harry Truman greeted the incoming Republican Congress with the arrogant statement in his annual budget message of January 10, 1947: “There is no justification now for tax reduction.”
Republicans passed a bill to cut taxes across the board, while reducing expenditures to keep the budget balanced, but Truman vetoed it. Undeterred, they passed a second tax-cut bill, which Truman also vetoed. On the third try, Congress passed the tax cut over Truman’s veto.
That 1948 Revenue Act provided tax relief for all Americans by raising the personal exemption (which removed 7,400,000 low-income Americans from the tax rolls), lowering the tax rates, and instituting the joint income tax return for married couples. That pro-family innovation helped sustain the great American baby boom.
Running against the “me-too” Republican Tom Dewey in 1948, Truman managed to win a full four-year term as President, but his popularity soon collapsed. The conservative majority in Congress resumed passing bills over Truman’s vetoes, including the great McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, which reinforced strict limits on immigration and required the exclusion of Communists and other dangerous people.
The positive leadership exercised by the 80th Congress encouraged the start of a new grassroots movement. Average Americans formed study groups in private homes to read the hearings and reports of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.
Conservative newsletters, such as Human Events, informed the grassroots about current issues. Dr. Fred Schwarz presented his unique anti-Communism schools. Dean Clarence Manion gave us a conservative message every week on radio.
Even the American Bar Association issued a report on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives, daring to criticize a long list of pro-Communist Supreme Court decisions handed down by the Earl Warren Court. Millions of reprints were distributed by Senator Styles Bridges and later by Senator Everett Dirksen.
Three courageous publishers produced books that were widely read: Henry Regnery, Caxton of Idaho, and Devin Garrity of Devin-Adair who published the popular books by John T. Flynn such as The Roosevelt Myth and warnings about school curriculum by Professor Merrill Root. During the 1940s, new organizations were founded that helped to build grassroots political effectiveness: the American Enterprise Association, America’s Future, the Foundation for Economic Education, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).
So three cheers for the new Republican Congress and our hope is that it is ready for the fight. America is depending on you.
Grubergate Should Spark Hearings
“Grubergate” is the name for the embarrassing revelations about Obamacare by its chief architect, MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber. Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) predicted that the House Oversight Committee will hold hearings on this issue, so the public can learn the facts underlying this legislative failure.
Professor Gruber is not the only one who should be called to testify on Capitol Hill to tell the truth behind Obamacare. Obama himself was reportedly personally involved in key meetings about what would be necessary to exploit what Professor Gruber called “the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
When Obamacare was railroaded through Congress without a single Republican vote in 2010, Democrats enjoyed an overwhelming majority. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described Professor Gruber “as one of the most respected economists in the world.”
Four years later, Obamacare is on life support, and Republicans have their largest majority in the House in more than 60 years. Even the commanding Republican majority elected to the House in 1946, which passed the Twenty-second Amendment to establish term limits for the president along with other landmark bills, was barely as large as the one elected earlier this month, thanks to continued public opposition to Obamacare.
The recently publicized admissions by Professor Gruber, who once admitted that “I helped write the federal bill” (Obamacare) while “I was a paid consultant to the Obama Administration to help develop the technical details of the bill,” concede that a “lack of transparency” was essential to getting the law passed in 2010. Gruber said Americans are “too stupid to understand,” and he even created a comic book to promote Obamacare to the American people.
Professor Gruber admitted that the “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass. . . .”
Because he’d “rather have this law than not,” Gruber admitted that Obamacare “was written in a tortured way to make sure the [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes.” He added, “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.”
Another revelation by Professor Gruber that is good fodder for Congressional hearings is his admission two years ago that the Obamacare subsidies were an incentive for states to set up health insurance exchanges. He said then, “I think what’s important to remember politically about this is, if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits,” also known as subsidies. He hoped “that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges, and that they’ll do it.” Nevertheless, 36 states declined to set up Obamacare exchanges, but the Obama Administration began providing the subsidies anyway in those states. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit challenging the legality of those subsidies. (King v. Burwell)
In a January 2012 video, Professor Gruber explained that Romneycare in Massachusetts, on which Obamacare was modeled, was based on a “dirty secret” that “the feds pay for our bill.” Gruber disclosed that “in Massachusetts, we had a very powerful senator you may know named Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy . . . and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out a way to sort of rip off the feds for about $400 million a year.”
The Governor of Massachusetts at the time was Mitt Romney. The result of his Romneycare has been a massive increase in waiting times to see a doctor. Delays in Boston have grown to a 66-day average wait to see a family physician and a 72-day average delay to see a dermatologist. Boston has more doctors per patient than almost any other metropolitan area in the nation, so its waiting times should be among the lowest in the nation. But in fact Romneycare has caused enormous delays and has failed to deliver the promised reductions in health insurance premiums.
Massachusetts has also failed to establish a successful health insurance exchange, which is called the Massachusetts Health Connector. Professor Gruber himself has been a board member on the Connector, which had to rebuild its website after a year of problems. Gruber finally admitted to failures of the Connector, declaring that “We didn’t do a great job last year” on this Massachusetts health insurance exchange. But he begged for a second chance to try again.
Instead, how about giving a second chance for Congress to vote on whether Obamacare is the right direction for our country? It makes sense to give a second chance to the people footing the bill, the American taxpayers, in order to escape this mess of Obamacare.
Obama Starts a War Against Women
Barack Obama has suddenly made himself the leader of a new war on women. In a Rhode Island pre-election campaign speech, he repudiated the principle of giving choices about careers to women.
His exact words were emphatic. “Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”
Who gave Obama the right to decide what career choice women will be allowed to make? What kind of a country do we live in? We assume he is speaking for himself and his Administration when he uses the imperial “we,” and the evidence is abundant that he meant exactly what he said.
That one statement confirms so much that is obnoxious about Obama. He is a committed, doctrinaire feminist, and he claims the right to use the iron hand of government to force us to conform to that warped ideology.
Obama is not the first to proclaim a denial of this career choice to women. The French woman recognized in women’s studies courses as the founder of the feminist movement, Simone de Beauvoir, wrote The Second Sex, a tedious tirade against the career of fulltime homemaker.
De Beauvoir famously said, “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children . . . precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. . . . We don’t believe that any woman should have this choice.” She insulted women who make that choice by calling them a “parasite.”
But many women do voluntarily make that choice because they want to be with their children during some or many of those precious years when they are growing up. That choice is why President Richard Nixon’s famous 1971 veto of the Comprehensive Child Development Bill (the Mondale-Brademas bill) was generally popular despite yelps from the feminists.
Nixon wrote in his veto message, “Good public policy requires that we enhance rather than diminish both parental authority and parental involvement with children — particularly in those decisive early years when social attitudes and a conscience are formed, and religious and moral principles are first inculcated.”
Devaluing the role of fulltime homemaker has become part of our culture, taught in women’s studies courses, and endlessly reiterated in the media. Politically correct dogma teaches that modern women should all be in the workforce because being only a homemaker is a wasted life, and that caring for one’s own babies is not worth the time of an educated woman.
That’s certainly the view of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her 1977 book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code she sneered at “dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household” and called on society to eliminate the gender roles of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker.
Many women voluntarily make the career choice to work fewer hours, choose pleasanter working conditions on the job, take more time off, and take less demanding college majors that lead to lower paying careers. Then there is the undeniable fact of hypergamy, which means that a woman typically chooses a husband who earns more than she does so she can opt out of the workforce for important child-care years.
Obama’s plan for mothers is, we’ll take away your choice to take care of your own children, you must remain on the job in the workforce, and the income tax you pay will enable big government to provide your kids with daycare. That’s what he meant when he said in his Rhode Island speech that he wants “to really make sure that women are full and equal participants in our economy.”
Back in the mid-1960s, nearly half of American women with children were stay-at-home moms. Under pressure and propaganda from the then-new feminist movement and the new unilateral divorce laws, women began in large numbers to join the workforce.
A new analysis of government data this year by the Pew Research Center shows that this trend has now sharply reversed. The percentage of stay-at-home moms increased to 29% in 2012 from 23% in 1999. That’s a nearly 30% increase in the numbers of stay-at-home moms over the past decade. Some 85% candidly admit they are staying home in order to care for their children. Liberals may be alarmed that increasing numbers of women realize that spending important years as a stay-at-home mom is a better choice.
More the New Congress Can Do
The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of closing our borders, building the fence that Congress approved years ago, and rejecting admission to our country of illegal aliens and persons with awful diseases.
Instead of issuing an order that stops people coming from Ebola-infected countries from deplaning in the United States, he is now asking Congress to appropriate $6 Billion to combat Ebola in West Africa! That’s so offensive that it’s hard to believe he said it, but if the New York Times reported it, he must have said it.
The Republican majority surely can refuse to appropriate any funds for Obama’s harebrained schemes such as assuming the burden of curing disease in Africa.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Obama’s executive amnesty will give work permits to illegal immigrants, thereby taking jobs from struggling Americans. The Senate’s expert on immigration issues, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), added, “Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.”
The Wall Street Journal also reported that Obama will especially benefit technology companies that use large numbers of foreign workers, even though 11 million Americans with STEM degrees don’t have jobs in those fields. Research by Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman indicates that, since 2000, all net gains in employment among the working-age have gone entirely to immigrant workers.
We cannot allow Obama to pack the Supreme Court, or continue to pack other federal courts, with any more left-wing supremacist judges. If the Republican Senate lets Obama get by with naming even one Supreme Court appointment, he will effectively rule our country for the next 30 years — and that’s not what the American people voted for.
We cannot allow Obama to violate the Constitution under the guise of what he calls “executive action.” The U.S. Constitution gives the President “the executive power,” but clearly states that “All legislative Powers” are “vested in Congress,” and one of those important powers is the power over immigration.
So, leaning on our new Republican members of Congress to prevent Obama from taking any more unconstitutional actions in Congress’s Lame Duck Session is an important part of the task before us. Obamacare should be on the table for revision since, in the 2012 elections, every victorious Republican campaigned against Obamacare, and of the 60 Senate Democrats who voted for Obamacare when it passed, 29 are no longer in office.
But that’s not all. We have to think ahead about who we want the Republican Party to nominate for President in 2016, and we should get started now. The wealthy RINOs who are trying to be kingmakers have already started their exclusive dinner parties to vet candidates.
You cannot be a player in choosing the next Republican nominee for President unless you know about the anti-democratic tactics which the powers-that-be might use, such as demanding a globalist big-spending President, or another loser like the candidates they foisted on us in the past. Your best source of information is the expanded 50th Anniversary edition of A Choice Not An Echo.
My new 50th Anniversary edition of A Choice Not An Echo brings the inside story of Republican National Conventions from 1964 up to date. Remember, the goal of the kingmakers is to make our country globalist and internationalist, and subject to treaties and dictates of the United Nations. In order to get both Republican and Democratic candidates in line, they continually emphasize that our foreign policy must be “bipartisan.”
President Bill Clinton’s national security advisor, Sandy Berger, was assigned to deliver this strategy for the 2000 election (regardless of which party was elected) at a lavish dinner for Bilderberg officials at the Library of Congress. He assured the international community that the incoming George W. Bush administration would continue Clinton’s foreign policies. Clinton posted Sandy Berger’s speech on the White House website and assured the international community that the incoming Bush Administration had been coopted into continuing Clinton’s foreign policy.
Three weeks later, Bush’s foreign policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, made clear that she was incorporating Bill Clinton’s foreign policy into George W. Bush’s policies. Rice announced on ABC-TV that Bush “will bring a new Bipartisan Center to American foreign policy.”
We don’t know who is giving orders to Barack Obama, but we can be sure he is serving the globalists.