Tuesday, February 11, 2014

What can stop O's executive orders

What can stop O's executive orders
The people must act when Congress does not
By Alan Keyes

"... only the executive has frequent opportunity to carry on an unconstitutional initiative until it produces a concrete result that can be challenged only after the fact. An individual might, for example, be unconstitutionally arrested, tortured, and killed under the auspices of executive authority long before either of the other branches even hear about the action, much less have any chance to intervene. The first safeguard against such abuse is the character of the one vested with executive power. But if that person has the disposition to move beyond the law until met with hard resistance (to probe with bayonets, as Lenin put it), great and perhaps fatal harm could be done before such resistance sufficed to stop him.

"There will be a special danger in this regard if the executive in question has enough support in the Congress to make him confident that his abuses will not be challenged, or that challenges will never have sufficient support to remove him from office. Can we say with any confidence that we are not in this situation of special peril to liberty?"
(From my blog post "Design for Despotism")

Last week, I published a blog post about the report that Michele Bachmann and her colleagues may go to court over Obama's unconstitutional abuse of executive orders. In response, one of my Facebook friends asked me why we haven't seen this kind of abuse from previous occupants of the Oval Office. Obama's arrogant flaunting of his dictatorial abuses is something new. But the possibility of such abuse is inherent in the nature of Executive power.

That's one reason for the U.S. Constitution's much vaunted "system of checks and balances." But that system only operates effectively through the energetic initiative or effective resistance of the different branches of government. The Executive has the advantage when it comes to energetic initiatives, or "active resolutions" as Alexander Hamilton put it. The judiciary makes decisions, but has no enforcement power. The legislature formulates and adopts laws, but the Constitution leaves actual implementation/enforcement of the laws to the Executive – i.e., the president of the United States.

If the Executive fails to carry out laws made by Congress (like DOMA for instance), or takes actions not authorized by law (as Obama has with immigration and Obamacare), the legislature has two ways of compelling him to act, or to cease from unlawful action:
  1. the power of the purse – cutting off money to the Executive branch; and

  2. The impeachment/removal power – removing the vice president and the president, so that the succession provided for by law brings someone to office who will enforce the laws and respect the Constitution.
Absent active congressional discipline, Executive power always inclines toward dictatorship. Vaulting ambition aside, the pressure of events may feed this tendency even when nothing else does. We've had activist presidents before – Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, to name a few. But only in the last generation or so has Congress consistently failed to use its constitutional power to curtail and rebuke unconstitutional Executive actions.

The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to be vigilant against this inherently dangerous government power. That's one reason why I focus so much on the failure of the GOP. When they had control of the U.S. Congress and the White House prior to 2006, the GOP leaders didn't use their position to implement policies that curtailed the excessive power of the U.S. government. They also did nothing to return control of their own resources to the people at large, in their private capacities.

Even more culpably, since control of the U.S. House was restored to them by grassroots voters in 2010, the GOP's quisling leaders have collaborated with Obama's radical socialist schemes, giving him mainly ineffectual, lip-service opposition. Thanks to this GOP collaboration, Obama has behaved in a more and more openly dictatorial fashion. Like other would-be dictators, at first he abuses power cautiously. When he is not called to account, his impunity leads others to fear him. Their fear encourages him to escalate his abuses. As those greater abuses also go unanswered, fear commences to predominate, until at last, few if any are left courageous enough to stand against him.

Was Obama's move against Dinesh D'Souza a kind of Rubicon, across which we must expect new and higher benchmarks of tyranny? However that may be, thanks to the quisling temperament of the GOP leadership, only a determined push from the grassroots will re-energize Congress' constitutional power to thwart dictatorship. America needs a Congress willing and able to call Obama to account by way of the Constitution's impeachment/removal provisions. Without that impetus, the political class will fall-in behind his bid to free the U.S. government's power from all semblance of prior constraint (too many of them quite eagerly).

The political change needed to get this result must either overthrow the quisling leadership of the GOP, or else forge the basis for a national grassroots voter mobilization poised to replace the now shiftless Republican Party. If things just go on as they are, liberty will fail for lack of a party of liberty willing to battle against the elitist faction's budding tyrants.

I saw an article the other day entitled "Is it time for impeachment?" I hope as people consider the answer, they realize that it's not just a matter of time. It's also a matter of timing. Like the question of war, the question of impeachment is not about the moment of action so much as its strategic imperative. By openly vaunting his determination to act in defiance of constitutional constraint, Obama may actually have decided that strategic question already.

For once your enemy commences to invade, the question of war is really about whether and how you will resist him. If you intend to resist, then from the moment his intention is clear, everything you do has to be geared toward doing so successfully. Under the Constitution of the United States, the chief line of resistance against tyranny lies in the Congress of the United States. As of now, that line remains unformed.

To remedy this deficiency requires an appeal to the people. The upcoming general election offers the chance to make such an appeal, in order to elect a Congress capable of driving back the elitists bent on liberty's demise. If people demand an impeachment/removal Congress; if they back up that demand with their votes, 2015 will bring on a Congress differently composed. Reformed by the presence of majorities pledged to impeach/remove Obama and his collaborators, Congress will have what it takes to defeat Obama's offensive maneuvers against America's constitutional liberty.

To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com.
© Alan Keyes


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Tesla’s Coast-To-Coast Supercharger Route Now In Place

Tesla’s Coast-To-Coast Supercharger Route Now In Place
Tesla told us a couple weeks ago the coast-to-coast Supercharger network would be coming soon, and as of yesterday it is essentially in place, and the first cross-country Model S trip on this route has already been made.
With 71 SuperChargers throughout the United States, CEO Elon Musk tweeted the status for the still-expanding network – which will be more-easily traveled with the 85-kilowatt-hour Model S than the 60.
“Tesla Supercharger network now energized from New York to LA, both coast + Texas! Approx 80% of US population covered,” Musk tweeted.
Superchargers as of today (1/28/14).
Superchargers as of today (1/28/14).
He also tweeted January 26 the he will be traveling the route with family.
“Will be doing the LA-NY family road trip over Spring Break,” Musk tweeted. “Made everyone watch National Lampoon’s Vacation as prep.”
Beating him to a cross-county run were two drivers who made the trek from New York to LA and received a re-tweet by Musk for the accomplishment.
John and Jill; the first drivers to travel Tesla's cross-country route form New York to Los Angeles.
John and Jill; the first drivers to travel Tesla’s cross-country route form New York to Los Angeles.
“Congratulations to John and Jill,” Musk tweeted, “first to drive across US using only free ‪@TeslaMotors Superchargers!”
The trip was also documented in a Tesla forum post presently 19-pages long, and counting.
Although the cross-country route is in place, owners of the 60-kilowatt-hour Model S could find certain legs of the journey not do-able whereas drivers in the 85-kwh Model S will find the trip potentially feasible.
Superchargers "coming soon."
Superchargers “coming soon.”
SuperChargers are Google Map enabled at Tesla’s site and a quick check of the route between, for example, Pennsylvania and Ohio locations reveals a span of nearly 200 miles. Between Kingman, Ariz. and Barstow, Calif., Superchargers are 209 miles apart.
A 60-kwh Model S is EPA rated at 208 miles range and owners would be well advised to carefully plan any traveling.
In other cases where distances are pushing the range limit, even traveling excessively above the speed limit or not carefully pre-conditioning the battery in cold – both of which sap battery range – could see cars not making some legs of the journey.
Superchargers projected (presumably by) end of 2014.
Superchargers projected (presumably by) end of 2014.
If one goes to Tesla’s Web site and looks to “coming soon” Superchargers (pictured above), the potential to make it gets better, but is not completely assured. Some 60-kwh Model S drivers will still want to check each leg when the “coming soon” stage is reached.
But plans are to keep proliferating the Superchargers to a far greater degree, so eventually, any outstanding concerns will be addressed – for the Model S, and “200-mile” range “Gen 3″ sedan due to follow.
Superchargers projected for 2015.
Superchargers projected for 2015.

MILLER: Obama’s surgeon general nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy is a radical gun grabber

MILLER: Obama’s surgeon general nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy is a radical gun grabber

President Obama is using every executive power in his arsenal to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
His latest maneuver is to nominate a rabidly anti-gun doctor to be the next U.S. surgeon general. Dr. Vivek Murthy is facing Senate approval in upcoming weeks.

Dr. Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that advocates for Obamacare and gun control laws.
The group calls gun violence “a public health crisis.” It pushes for Congress to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines and calls for spending tax dollars for more gun-control research.
The organization also lobbies for doctors to be allowed to ask patients, including minors, whether they have legal guns in the home. If the patient admits to having guns, Dr. Murthy wants doctors to “counsel them appropriately about safety measures.”
Gun rights advocates and many families view this policy as a violation of privacy.
At a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander asked Dr. Murthy about public comments on firearms, such as a tweet from before the 2012 president election that said, “Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.”
Mr. Alexander, the ranking Republican on the committee, told Dr. Murthy that “Americans have a First Amendment right to advocate the Second Amendment — or any other amendment. And the Second Amendment is not a special interest group, it’s part of our Constitution.”
The Tennessee senator added that, “If your goal is to make guns the bully pulpit of your advocacy in the surgeon general’s office, that would concern me.”
Dr. Murthy sidestepped the questions about his gun-control agenda from committee members throughout the hearing.
However, Mr. Murthy’s Twitter timeline is chock full of his anti-firearm screed.
“NRA press conference disappointing but predictable - blame everything in the world except guns for the Newtown tragedy. #wakeup,” he wrote in Dec. 2012.
That same month, he tweeted that, his group had “launched doctor-nurse campaign demanding gun safety legislation from Congress.”
His spin on Mr. Obama’s failed effort to pass gun control in the Senate last April was to say: “Signs of progress-we got 20 votes in the senate in favor of gun violence legislation that we wouldn’t have had 1 year ago. Have faith.”
Mr. Obama’s pick for the next “nation’s doctor” is purely political.
Story Continues →
View Entire Story
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

I Didn't Join to Be Sacrificed': U.S. Troops Fed Up with Risky Afghanistan Strategy

I Didn't Join to Be Sacrificed': U.S. Troops Fed Up with Risky Afghanistan Strategy

U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are now forced to fight a two-fronted war. Before each deployment, these soldiers understand fully that day after day they will do battle against relentless terrorists with shifting loyalties and unspeakable hatred. But what none of them could have foreseen was the killing field that would open from their rear: the Continental United States.

Our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), compounded by the failed COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategy—also known as “winning hearts and minds”—has made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.

Our best and brightest come home in body bags as politicians and lawyers dine over white linen tablecloths; writing, modifying, and re-modifying these lethal rules. Rules that favor the enemy rather than the American soldier. Rules so absurd they’re difficult to believe until you hear the same stories over and again from those returning from battle.

In a delicate discussion with an Army Ranger who recently left the military, we heard the following: “I had to get out. I have a family who needs me. I didn’t join to be sacrificed. I joined to fight.”
This decision came shortly after he lost a close friend to the ROE. He explained how the Taliban had attempted an ambush on his friend’s squad but quickly realized they were in a battle they couldn’t win and began retreating. While chasing them, the U.S. soldiers were ordered not to engage due to the slight chance the Taliban had laid down their arms as they ran through some type of shack. While arguing with leadership at the JOC (Joint Operations Center), his friend was shot and killed.

A Navy SEAL who left his job only a few years shy of full retirement said the following: “I got out because I couldn’t take it anymore. We tried to explain how much reckless danger we were being exposed to and they told us we were being illogical.”

This type of response has created a growing crisis of confidence between our warfighters and senior military leadership. His argument wasn’t illogical at all.

A gut-wrenching pattern began forming in early 2009, a pattern completely ignored by Congress, the White House, and apparently the DoD.

In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan (October 2001 – December 2008) we lost 630 U.S. soldiers. In early 2009, this administration authorized the implementation of the COIN strategy. Over the next five years, the U.S. death toll skyrocket to 2,292.

Seventy-three percent of all U.S. deaths in Afghanistan have taken place since 2009.

In the first seven plus years of war in Afghanistan, 2,638 U.S. soldiers were wounded in action. In the next forty-five months (2009 – 2012) an additional 15,036 suffered the same fate.

Liars figure, but figures don’t lie.

While concern over being killed due to these policies weighs heavily on the minds of those we’ve spoken with, the deepest pit in the stomach comes from fear of prosecution should they violate these absurd and ever-changing ROE. The last thing a warfighter should ever be forced to experience is unnecessary fear.

Fear creates hesitation. Hesitation creates flag-draped caskets. Flag-draped caskets create fatherless children, widowed wives, and childless parents. Our heroes deserve the right to fight with swift hands, clear minds, and confident hearts.

However, today’s warfighters have the grave misfortune of serving leaders who elevate the virtues of inaction over action. The message? If you dare use your training or your gut instinct, if you have the fortitude to fight for your life or the desire to kill the enemy, there is a good chance you will be punished.

The physiological capacities of a true patriot cannot tolerate the vile stench of injustice, especially when perpetrated against those who defend us. Its wretched aroma permeates the core and demands a response.

We’re counting on you, the American patriot, for that response. We must defend our defenders. Please, spread the news and demand change.

Billy & Karen Vaughn are Gold Star parents of Special Operations Chief (SEAL) Aaron Vaughn, KIA 6 Aug 2011. Billy is the author of Betrayed: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17. Read more or schedule the Vaughns for a speaking event at http://www.forourson.us.

ussian Influentials Cite Cuban Missile Crisis, Call for Emergency Measures to Stop Fascist Coup in Ukraine

ussian Influentials Cite Cuban Missile Crisis, Call for Emergency Measures to Stop Fascist Coup in Ukraine and Threat to Russia's Strategic Interests
February 11, 2014 • 10:50PM
A memorandum titled "Save Ukraine!" will appear in tomorrow's (Wednesday's) edition of the Russian weekly Zavtra. Written by experts for the Izborsk Club, an influential intellectual group accorded prominence by President Vladimir Putin in recent months, the statement defines a "fascist and Nazi creeping coup" in Ukraine as a strategic threat to the Russian Federation. While holding the United States and the EU responsible for the regime-change project in Ukraine, the memorandum calls for summoning the USA to crisis-avoidance consultations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Ukraine's sovereignty or, if Budapest Memorandum signers Ukraine or Britain refuse such a conference, undertaking emergency Russian-American diplomacy based on the precedent of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis—when the world went to the brink of nuclear war.
Several of the evaluations and ideas in the memorandum coincide with last week's interviews and articles by Presidential advisor Academician Sergei Glazyev and retired Gen. Leonid Ivashov, who are Izborsk Club participants and were among the co-authors of the club's early 2013 military strategic white paper (see "U.S. Moves toward Nuclear First Strike Capability," EIR, March 15, 2013).
The "Save Ukraine!" memorandum states that the situation in that country "is approaching a boundary limit, beyond which lies the danger of Ukraine's going fascist." This development leads, it continues, toward "transformation of Ukraine from a non-aligned, neutral and non-nuclear state into a new 'hot spot'
for Europe and the entire world, and into a hotbed of instability and chaos on Russia's borders."
Detailing the recent concessions by Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych and the actions of the EU and the USA, including those revealed in the leaked phone conversation between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt, the memorandum says that these events are
"creating the conditions for an illegitimate seizure of power by a coalition of political forces that do not represent the interests of the majority of the people of Ukraine." Charging that "the U.S. leadership group on top of Operation Ukraine is comprised of high-ranking intelligence and diplomatic operatives," the statement suggests that "Washington is most worried of all that Moscow, which has enormous reserves among the Ukrainian population, will suddenly wake up and become more active, wrecking the almost completed plan of establishing a totally anti-Russian government, up to and including the broad use of the fascistized followers of [Nazi collaborator Stepan] Bandera."
The report outlines possible political scenarios for regime-change in Ukraine, either by the abrupt ouster of Yanukovych or through a "coalition government" process that would also end in his ouster. A new leader, possibly former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, released from prison, would "take over the leadership of Ukraine, on the radical nationalist platform of [Oleh] Tyahnybok and other rightwing fascist groups. An ideological turn of events of that sort ... would be a way of forming an anti-Russian state on the Russian Federation's border, as well as disrupting any comprehensive integration processes in the former Soviet area."
"Strategic Interests of the Russian Federation"
Under the subhead, "Consequences of the coup for Russia's strategic interests," the memorandum outlines what "a new political and ideological regime in Ukraine, ... based on an extreme nationalist ideology, as the only available mechanism for suppressing social tensions," can be expected to do: "decisions which directly affect the strategic interests of the Russian Federation." The list includes military expansion by the United States and NATO that is unacceptable for Russia:
"— Rejection of the presence of the Russian Armed Forces in Crimea, including at Sevastopol as the base of the Russian Federation's Black Sea Fleet. The time frame will be set at six to ten months, which is insufficient for an orderly relocation of the military facilities to Russian territory in the vicinity of Novorossiysk.
"— Purges of pro-Russian forces in eastern and southern Ukraine, leading to a flood of refugees into the Russian Federation.
"— Annihilation of manufacturing capacities in Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, and other Ukrainian cities, which do contract work for the Russian military-industrial complex.
"— Stepped-up forcible Ukrainianization of the population on the left bank of the Dnieper [where there are large Russian ethnic and/or Russian-speaking populations].
"— Expanded partnership of Ukraine with NATO and the appearance of U.S. and NATO bases in Ukraine, including Crimea.
"— Establishment in eastern Ukraine of bases for training terrorists, who will begin to operate both in the Caucasus and in the Volga Basin, and possibly also Siberia.
"— Extension of "Euromaidan" techniques into major Russian cities, especially in ethnically defined constituent territories of the Russian Federation.
"— Expulsion of the Russian Orthodox Church from Ukraine, accompanied by forcible seizure of churches and monasteries, resulting in a further decline of the authority of both the ROC and the executive branch of government within Russian society.
"— Launching of prosecutions against Gazprom, Rosneft, and their executives, with the new Ukrainian government also suing Russia in Western-sponsored international courts under various pretexts."
"Catastrophic for the Future of Russia"
In the final section, "What is Russia to do?", the authors state: "We consider the situation taking shape in Ukraine to be catastrophic for the future of Russia and the entire post-Soviet area." Among the measures they propose that Russian political leaders take, "within the framework of international law," are the following:
"— an official ideological evaluation of the creeping coup as fascist and Nazi, infringing the rights of all peoples and ethnic groups living in Ukraine;
"— an appeal to the Russian and Ukrainian peoples to resist with all their might the fascist plague that is seizing power in Kiev, and to bring broad layers of the public into the political process;
"— direct social and economic assistance to all the regions of southern and eastern Ukraine, through launching bilateral programs and keeping low gas prices for Ukrainian customers, while withholding additional direct loans to the government of Ukraine;
"— calling on all Russian citizens to contact their relatives and friends in Ukraine, to mobilize them to join an overt political process against the Maidan, which is leading to a future fratricidal war; <...>
"— launch of a broad campaign on national TV channels to support the Ukrainian public and expose the fascist content of the coup that is under way, as well as the adverse economic consequences for Ukraine, especially its eastern and southern regions;
"— an open declaration to the world community on the unacceptability for Russia of the creation of a fascist, anti-Semitic state close to our borders, as well as making such statements at the UN and other international organizations;
"— an appeal by the Government of the Russian Federation, under the currently valid Budapest Memorandum on the Sovereignty of Ukraine, dated Dec. 5, 1994 (Article 6), to the governments of Ukraine, the USA, and Great Britain, with a decisive protest against U.S. interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine and a demand to convene a conference of the parties to the Budapest Memorandum in connection with the situation involving political aggression and measures of "economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty";
"— in the event of refusal of one of the parties to take part in such a conference, the said memorandum should be declared temporarily invalid, with Russia entering into direct talks with Washington, citing the situation with the Caribbean Crisis [Cuban Missile Crisis] of 1962 as a precedent for the current events in
Ukraine, and proposing to the USA to hold negotiations on developing joint monitoring of the political process and elections in Ukraine, as well as joint mediation of a settlement of the developing political crisis;
"— a proposal to the People's Republic of China and other BRICS countries to develop economic assistance plans for Ukraine and joint work in the entire post-Soviet area, in order to rein in any attempts at unilateral U.S. hegemony."
In conclusion, they write: "Only such actions by the Russian state and sane forces in the Russian and international community, together with the executive bodies of our two countries, can stabilize the social and economic situation in Ukraine and prevent social and political catastrophe in that country."

Now FIFTH Bankers In Two Weeks Found Dead, Ruled ‘Suicide’ by Nail Gun

Now FIFTH Bankers In Two Weeks Found Dead, Ruled ‘Suicide’ by Nail Gun

Last week we reported on the bizarre deaths of four major international bankers within less than a week. Now a fifth has joined them, and police are once again ruling it a suicide. Richard Talley, 57, the founder and CEO of American Title Services in Centennial, Colorado, has reportedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the head – multiple times – with a nail gun.
That’s right, Talley was said by coroners to have shot himself in the head with a nail gun, even after the first nails had entered his brain.
Why suicide? Talley’s company was, in fact, under investigation by state insurance regulators, but the means of suicide seem highly suspect.
Talley was found by a family member, dead in his garage. Talley had formed a number of companies, some of which have closed down, including American Escrow, Clear Title, Clear Creek Financial Holdings, Swift Basin, Sumar, American Real Estate Services, and the American Alliance of Real Estate Professionals.
Talley joins four other top officials from JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and the Federal Reserve have all turned up dead over the course of the past two weeks.
Are these suicides? Is this simply the result of pressures commonplace in their line of work? Or is there something else going on?
(Article by M.B. David; image via PBSpot)

How John Boehner decided to give up on the debt limit fight

How John Boehner decided to give up on the debt limit fight

This week’s debt-limit drama ended as it began: with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), standing alone before his colleagues, seeking consensus but receiving only silence and stares in return.
Video: Why debt ceiling deniers say there's no limit
The scene happened Tuesday morning at the Capitol Hill Club, where House Republicans had gathered for a private breakfast.
After listening to a handful of colleagues flatly discuss fundraising strategy for 30 minutes, Boehner stood up, walked past dozens of sleepy, coffee-sipping Republicans and tersely woke up the room with an update.
“Listen – we’re going to move forward,” Boehner said. Instead of bringing up the leadership’s plan, which would link a restoration of recently cut military benefits to a debt-ceiling extension, he would push a “clean” bill, averting default more than two weeks before the Treasury Department’s debt-limit deadline.
“We’re going to get this done,” Boehner continued, according to several people present for his remarks. No strings attached, he added. He said he was going stop reaching for votes on the plan, an effort that had stalled on Monday. And he wasn’t going to even think of floating another proposal. He was going to do what he thought was best for the GOP, in spite of the widespread angst.
For the past week, Boehner said, he had gone through all of the possible options with the conference, had mulled a variety of scenarios, all with the hope of getting 200-plus Republicans united. But nothing ever gained traction, even the military pension fix, which he thought could win Democratic votes.
Ahead of the midterm elections, Boehner argued that now is not the time to get drawn into weeks of dramatic headlines and fiscal battles with President Obama. “We’re not going to make ourselves the story,” he said. He spoke about the need for the party to not get mired in damaging endeavors.
Boehner’s delivery was crisp; his decision was final.
The room of Republicans sat up, stunned that Boehner was abruptly shifting away from the leadership’s plan, which had been championed 12 hours earlier at a Monday night meeting in the Capitol basement. But there were no outcries or boos. A few members whispered to each other that Boehner was right, that due to conservative opposition to any hike, he was cornered.
But they didn’t speak up or clap. Boehner just stood there for a moment after he finished, eyed the room, and walked toward his seat. On his way there, Boehner shook his head, then turned to the nearly mute crowd and wondered aloud why he wasn’t getting applause. “I’m getting this monkey off your back and you’re not going to even clap?” Boehner asked, scowling playfully at some tea-party favorites.
In a second, attendees snapped back and dozens of them applauded, but there were no cheers. “There was, how do I say it, a polite golf clap,” one House GOP veteran said. “But that, thank God, was the end.”
Boehner’s allies said there was never a grand plan to end the talks on Tuesday morning with a brief speech; that was how events evolved, following the mixed reception for Boehner’s latest gambit on Monday, where a long line of Republicans complained when the floor was opened for comment.
One member on Monday night, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), went so far as to knock Boehner as a tool of the insurance companies, due to his decision to not bring up a debt-limit plan that would address the federal health-care law’s risk corridors. Harris was booed for the swipe and backed off. Boehner, in response, said Harris's preferred option was given ample consideration, then pulled after conservatives balked.
“I think he wants to get the issue taken care of,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said. “John Boehner is the adult in the room.” (Cole voted no on the debt limit increase.)
As House Republicans filed out into the cold winter air following Tuesday’s breakfast, Boehner walked next door for a press conference. “Happy, happy, happy,” he muttered as he entered, shrouded by Capitol Police.
“You all know that our members are not crazy about voting to increase the debt ceiling,” Boehner told reporters, his voice weary. “When you don’t have 218 votes, you have nothing. We’ve seen that before, we see it again.”
Ten minutes later, as he departed, Boehner started to sing a ditty. “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-a,” he said. “Plenty of sunshine coming my way.”
Members of the press and a handful of aides watching the speaker leave were bemused by his dark, singsong humor. Boehner winked and hustled out, having endured an awkward morning, but with a crisis avoided.

The most powerful man in the U.S. military

The most powerful man in the U.S. military

Andrew MarshallAndrew Marshall
He is not a 4-star general, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Secretary of Defense.
The Daily Caller calls him “likely the most influential person in American national security affairs whom you have never heard about.”
The most powerful — but largely unknown — man in the U.S. military is a 92-year-old man named Andrew Marshall, who was first appointed as director of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Office of Net Assessment (ONA) when the ONA first came into being in 1973 during the Nixon Administration.
More than 40 years later, Marshall, now 92 years old, is still and has never stopped being the ONA director, having been reappointed by successive U.S. presidents, Republican and Democrat.


Wikipedia calls the ONA “an internal think tank” for the Department of Defense. The original main task of the office was to provide strategic evaluations on nuclear war issues. Today, according to the DOD’s Defense Directive 5111.11of Dec. 23, 2009:
“the term ‘net assessment’ is defined as the comparative analysis of military, technological, political, economic, and other factors governing the relative military capability of nations. Its purpose is to identify problems and opportunities that deserve the attention of senior defense officials. [...] This shall include, as required, net assessments of:
(1) Current and projected U.S. and foreign military capabilities by theater, region, function, or mission.
(2) Specific current and projected U.S. and foreign capabilities, operational tactics, doctrine, and weapons systems.”
The ONA has a small staff of just 13 military officials and outside contractors. Most of its reports are classified (and released from the office one copy at a time), but the office has a big influence. The Director of the ONA reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, as well as communicates “directly with the Heads of the DoD Components, as necessary, to carry out assigned responsibilities and functions.”


Born on Sept. 13, 1921, Andrew Marshall was raised in Detroit, Michigan. He earned a graduate degree in economics from the University of Chicago, after which he joined the RAND Corporation  – the original think tank — in 1949.
During the 1950s and ’60s Marshall was a member of “a cadre of strategic thinkers” that coalesced at the RAND Corporation, a group that included Daniel Ellsberg, Herman Kahn, and James Schlesinger, who later became the U.S. Secretary of Defense and oversaw the creation of the Office of Net Assessment.
Marshall established a talent for original thinking early – a report he wrote at RAND laid the groundwork for the U.S. Navy’s plan to bottle the Soviet navy in the Arctic Sea. At RAND, he also helped develop the discipline of “net assessment,” the analysis of possible future threats.
In 1973, then President Richard Nixon appointed Marshall to be the Director of the new Office of Net Assessment. As such, Marshall’s job isn’t to analyze what has happened, but to predict threats to the United States over the next two to three decades.
In 1992, Marshall was consulted for the draft of Defense Planning Guidance, created by then-Defense Department staffers I. Lewis LibbyPaul Wolfowitz, and Zalmay Khalilzad.
Marshall is noted for fostering talent in younger associates, who then proceed to influential positions in and out of the federal government. A slew of his Marshall’s former staffers have gone on to industry, academia and military think tanks. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Defense Secretary and former President of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz, and former Secretary of the Air Force James Roche, have been cited as Marshall “star protégés.” Among Marshall’s closest friends are former Defense Secretary William J. Perry and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff William Owens.
In an interview in 2012, the People’s Liberation Army’s General Chen Zhou, the main author of four of China’s defense white papers, named Marshall as one of the most important and influential figures in changing Chinese defense thinking in the 1990s and 2000s: “Our great hero was Andy Marshall in the Pentagon. We translated every word he wrote.”
Foreign Policy named Marshall one of its 2012 Top 100 Global Thinkers, “for thinking way, way outside the Pentagon box.” The Washington Post calls Marshall the DOD’s Yoda.
Marshall and his office have been credited with significant insights that have been both prescient and important to America’s national security posture:
  • Henry Rowen, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council under President Reagan, said Marshall “early on figured out that the Soviet Union economy was in really bad shape, before anybody did, before the intelligence community. I’m speaking now of the 1970s, and at that time it was thought that it was doing quite well.”
  • Paul Bracken, professor at Yale University’s School of Management, credits Marshall for providing the larger strategic framework for precision-strike weapons.
  • Bracken also credits Marshall for seeing, before anyone else, that Asia was a rising region of influence and potential concern. 
  • James Carafano, a security expert at the Heritage Foundation, identifies another area of Marshall’s considerable influence — what military historians call the Revolution in Military Affairs. “There were some areas where [the Office of Net Assessment] was intensely influential,” Carafano said. “One is the whole military transformation movement of the post Cold War era … You can’t really talk about the thinking about, or emphasis of, transformation post-Cold War without really thinking about Marshall’s office.”
  • In a rare interview in February 2003 given to Wired magazine, Marshall seemed to foreshadow the future use of predator drones, which the American military now commonly and successfully employs to strike terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and beyond.
Sources: WikpediaWashington PostThe Daily Caller.
H/t CODA’s John Molloy
Contributed by Consortium of Defense Analysts.

Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Muslim Brotherhood Expert: Obama’s Brother Malik Obama a ‘War Criminal and Terrorist’

Muslim Brotherhood Expert: Obama’s Brother Malik Obama a ‘War Criminal and Terrorist’

Last September, a highly respected Muslim Brotherhood expert named Abdel Reheem Ali made some very explosive claims in an article that appeared on the El-Mogaz website. The reason we haven't referred to this article sooner is that Ali's claims seemed exaggerated and there was no sourcing. So we moved on…
WTC Attack: Early planning meetings took place in Sudan.
WTC Attack: Early planning meetings took place in Sudan.
…until now.
Based on our most recent discoveries (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) about President Barack Obama's brother Malik Obama – particularly about evidence linking Malik's Islamic Da'wa Organization (IDO) to officially designated terror organizations, as well as a Sudanese bank linked to Osama bin Laden – the claims made by Ali deserve an honest analysis. Malik's expressed desire to eliminate Israel, as well as his confirmed ties to terrorist groups and individuals demand it. However, as a caveat, we must stress that there are still some aspects that are unconfirmed and may still be exaggerated. Nonetheless, here is the relevant excerpt from the El-Mogaz article, which we will analyze and deconstruct below said excerpt (translated):
Dr Abdul Rahim Ali, probably the most prominent expert on the Muslim Brotherhood, its secret relationships and movements stated that, "Malik Obama has much to do with the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood and attended all meetings of the organization that declared war in 1996. He is a war criminal and terrorist." He added, "Had this been revealed prior to the election, during Barack Obama's campaign, Malik's brother would not have been elected. It was he (Malik) who brought in Khairat Al-Shater, Ayman Ali and Youssef Nada to meet with Obama during the election and pledged the support of Muslims in America. Obama employed the Secretary of State for the escalation of the Muslim Brotherhood in any way shape or form, and there is a report prepared by one of the intelligence units confirmed that Mohammed Mursi was the President of the Republic before the results were even announced."

The two most explosive claims, which we will analyze, are:
  1. Malik Obama was present in meetings with top Sudanese officials responsible for plotting Jihad, as far back as 1996.
  2. Malik Obama brokered a meeting between Egypt's first Muslim Brotherhood candidate for President – Khairat Al-Shater – and Barack Obama.
Before getting to our analysis of these two charges, there are two independent reports of action and inaction respectively, by the Obama administration that would serve to relieve future political pressure on Malik for his terror ties.
  1. Last year, the Washington Times reported that the Obama administration is seeking to 'mend ties' with the Sudanese government, despite there being no regime change. Presumably, this would lead to Sudan being taken off the State Sponsor of Terror list.
  2. We recently learned that Malik Obama may be linked – through a 2010 conference in Yemen – to Turkey's IHH, the group responsible for the 2010 Gaza Flotilla. The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported last month that despite 87 U.S. Senators signing a letter addressed to President Obama, to designate the IHH a terrorist organization, Barack Obama still has not done so, nearly four years later.
Now, on to Ali's two most explosive claims…
How far back do Malik Obama's ties to Sudan go?
The key to proving or disproving claim number one is determining when Malik Obama joined the IDO. As of yet, this has not been determined. We do know that Malik is a prominent figure within the IDO now, which is an arm of the Sudanese government, still listed as a U.S. State Department-designated State Sponsor of Terrorism and has been since shortly after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. Malik's boss, Suar al-Dahab, sits on the IDO's Board and none other than Sudan President Omar Al-Bashir oversees the IDO. Conversely, the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch (GMBDW) plays it so safe, it practically runs interference for Malik. GMBDW implies that the IDO adopted Malik to capitalize on the Obama name and that there is no real evidence connecting him to the Sudanese branch; this is nonsense we have refuted with multiple sources.
Following GMBDW's rationale, Malik didn't join the IDO until after his brother burst on the national scene, which would have been no earlier than 2004 and probably years later. Based on Ali's claims, Malik was with the IDO long before then. Further backing up Ali is a report posted by the Al-Masry Network, which includes the posting of two 'Top Secret' documents from Egyptian Security forces; we wrote about that here.
Here is what Al-Masry says about when Malik began his tenure with IDO (translated):
According to sources confirmed by News Network Egyptian "U.A.M." national security investigations include the Organization of the Islamic Dawa (IDO), a non-profit organization founded by the Sudanese government… and headed by Malik Obama since 1981 to support the regulation of the International Muslim Brotherhood and its assembly, which is overseen by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. He (Malik) personally collects donations from Muslims in all countries of the continent of Africa to support organizations and Islamic groups around the world, led by the Muslim Brotherhood and the international organization.

While the claim that Malik's tenure with the IDO began in 1981 cannot be independently verified at this point, much of those other claims can be. In particular, the claim that Malik is a prominent figure with Sudan's IDO and that Al-Bashir oversees it are confirmed via photos posted to Malik's own website:
President Omar Al-Bashir presides over 2010 IDO Conference.
President Omar Al-Bashir presides over 2010 IDO Conference.

Malik Obama speaks at 2010 IDO Conference.
Malik Obama speaks at 2010 IDO Conference.
So, is GMBDW's claim that Malik is a token IDO member who was adopted based on his relationship to the U.S. President accurate or is Ali correct? Does the truth lie somewhere in the middle? We still don't have the answer to that but one thing is indisputable. Malik Obama works for an organization whose founders and leaders are linked to both attacks on the World Trade Center.
It is worth noting that Sudan had a strong connection to the first WTC attack in 1993, an attack for which Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the 'Blind Sheikh') is serving a life sentence in the U.S.
Al-Turabi: Sudanese leader linked to both WTC Attack masterminds.
Al-Turabi: Sudanese leader linked to both WTC Attack masterminds.
If there is one figure in Sudan who is directly tied to the masterminds of both WTC attacks, it is a man named Hassan al-Turabi; he was extremely close to the 'Blind Sheikh' and Osama bin Laden. Al-Turabi is credited with founding the organization that Malik Obama has helped lead for years – the IDO. Malik's membership with the group warrants a question: Has he ever met with al-Turabi?
We encourage you to read this previous report of ours that details Turabi's complicity in acts of terror against the U.S.
Hassan al-Turabi with Osama bin Laden.
Hassan al-Turabi with Osama bin Laden.
GMBDW seems to lack significant journalistic and intellectual curiosity on an issue of national security.
Brokering Talks between Muslim Brotherhood and the White House
The second explosive charge made by Abdel Reheem Ali is that Malik Obama brokered a meeting between President Barack Obama and Khairat al-Shater and that during that meeting, al-Shater pledged to get Muslims in America to support Obama's election for President (we presume Ali is referring to Obama's 2012 re-election):
It was he (Malik) who brought in Khairat Al-Shater, Ayman Ali and Youssef Nada to meet with Obama during the election and promised to support Muslims in America.

At minimum, this very much appears to be an exaggerated claim as there is no evidence that Barack Obama and al-Shater met.
However, there was a Muslim Brotherhood delegation that visited the White House about six months prior to Obama's 2012 re-election. That delegation's visit to the U.S. coincided with the announcement that al-Shater would be running for president of Egypt.
The delegation included Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, a Muslim Brotherhood member and Member of Parliament at the time; Sondos Asem, a senior editor with Ikhwanweb, the Muslim Brotherhood's official publication; Hussein El-Kazzaz, a Brotherhood economic adviser, and Khaled Al-Qazzaz. All four members participated in a panel discussion at Georgetown University during their visit to the U.S. The discussion was moderated by John Esposito, a renowned Muslim Brotherhood apologist.
During the group's visit to the U.S., Sondos – whose mother (Manal Abu Hassan) is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood along with Saleha Abedin, the mother of close Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin – reacted to the news that al-Shater would be running for President, via CNN:
As Asem settled into her hotel room in New York and prepared to meet with a prominent news organization's editorial board, she got word that her boss had decided to run for the presidency of Egypt.

"Wow! I can't believe it," she exclaimed.

So, during her trip to the U.S., Asem's "boss" (Khairat al-Shater) announced he would be running for president, an interesting coincidence.
As for representatives from the Obama administration the delegation met with, they included two mid-level members – Samantha Power and Steve Simon. At the time, Power – wife of former Obama Czar Cass Sunstein – was Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs at the National Security Council. Simon was the National Security Council Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
In the White House press briefing at the time, Press Secretary Jay Carney attempted to dismiss Power and Simon being in the meeting by pointing to the fact that Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns had met with members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Interestingly, it was McCain, Graham, and Burns who appeared to be in damage control mode during their visit to Egypt shortly after Mursi was removed from power (see below).
Khairat al-Shater (L) with his son Saad (R). Claims attributed to Saad about his father, bolstered by Brotherhood expert.
Khairat al-Shater (L) with his son Saad (R). Claims attributed to Saad about his father, bolstered by Brotherhood expert.
If al-Shater collaborated with the Obama campaign through emissaries like Dardary and Asem to help Obama get re-elected, al-Shater would be considered an extremely important and dangerous figure to the administration; potentially, even more so than Mursi. This comports with charges allegedly levied by Saad al-Shater, via reports of an interview he granted to Anatolia Press:
Saad also said that his father's safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mohammed Mursi.

Not long afterward, Saad was arrested in Egypt.
At the time, even Fox News / AP reported:
It was not immediately clear why police detained el-Shater's 23-year-old son. Officials only said Wednesday that police had arrested Saad el-Shater and that he had threatened to release documents allegedly showing ties between his father and U.S. President Barack Obama. Officials did not elaborate.

Let's not forget that Senators John McCain (RINO-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) went to Egypt as emissaries for the Obama administration in an attempt to secure the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders who had been imprisoned there. Al-Shater and Mursi were two such leaders.Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns met secretly with al-Shater for 90 minutes despite the efforts of former Clinton Foundation employee, Mursi adviser, and al-Shater Chief of Staff – Gehad el-Haddad – to deny then diminish the importance of the meeting; he said it lasted only ten minutes.
El-Haddad and his father, Essam el-Haddad, are both currently in prison as well. The 'Top Secret' documents we wrote about last month also name Essam el-Haddad as being a participant in a very secret meeting with REPRESENTATIVES FROM SUDAN'S IDO.
The elder el-Haddad met secretly with IDO officials and the younger el-Haddad worked for the Clintons for five years:
Essam el-Haddad (far left), Mursi (center), Gehad el-Haddad (far right) in happier times.
Essam el-Haddad (far left), Mursi (center), Gehad el-Haddad (far right) in happier times.
As for Ali's claims that the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton at the time) was selected to help the Muslim Brotherhood rise in power, coupled with the charge that Mursi was essentially selected to become Egypt's president before the election…
Last December, it was learned that in comments attributed to Mursi's wife – Naglaa Mahmoud – her and her husband had been 'recruited' by the Clintons in the 1980′s and that the two couples are close friends.
One of the other three Muslim Brotherhood representatives Abdel Reheem Ali reports joined al-Shater in helping Barack Obama get re-elected is Ayman Ali. This figure is extremely prominent and notorious. As we have reported, Ayman Ali worked for a group known as Taibah, which was identified by the U.S. and the U.N. in 2004 as a terrorist entity.
Essam el-Haddad worked as a close adviser to Mohammed Mursi. According to El-Fagr, Ayman Ali did as well.
Regardless of whether you think Abdel Reheem Ali exaggerated or got some things wrong, one thing is clear.
He's definitely on to something.
Abdel Reheem Ali: Something to his explosive claims?
Abdel Reheem Ali: Something to his explosive claims?
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

The American Health Care Reform Act

The American Health Care Reform Act


63 Days, 22 Hours, 56 Minutes, 52 Seconds
Full List Of Cosponsors 
*Original Cosponsors
*Rep. Roe (TN-01)
*Rep. Scalise (LA-01)  
*Rep. Price (GA-06)
*Rep. Fleming (LA-04)
*Rep. Gosar (AZ-04)
*Rep. Blackburn (TN-07)
*Rep. Ellmers (NC-02)
*Rep. Rokita (IN-04)
Rep. Aderholt (AL-04)
Rep. Amodei (NV-02)
Rep. Bachmann (MN-06)
Rep. Barletta (PA-11)
Rep. Barton (TX-06)
Rep. Benishek(MI-02)
Rep. Bentivolio (MI-11)
Rep. Bilirakis (FL-12)
Rep. Black (TN-06)
Rep. Boustany (LA-03)
Rep. Bridenstine (OK-01)
Rep. Brooks (AL-05)
Rep. Bucshon (IN-08)
Rep. Byrne(AL-01)
Rep. Capito (WV-2)
Rep. Chabot (OH-01)
Rep. Cole (OK-04)
Rep. Collins (NY-27)

   Rep. Cook (CA-08)
Rep. Conaway (TX-11) 
Rep. Cotton (AR-04)
Rep. Culberson (TX-07)
Rep. Cramer (ND at large)
Rep. Davis (IL-13)
Rep. DesJarlais (TN-04)
Rep. Duffy (Wi-07)
Rep. Duncan (SC-03)
Rep. Fincher (TN-08)
Rep. Fleischmann (TN-03)
Rep. Flores (TX-17)
Rep. Forbes (VA-04)
Rep. Fortenberry (NE-01)
Rep. Foxx (NC-05)
Rep. Franks (AZ-08)
Rep. Gardner (CO-04)
Rep. Gibbs (OH-07)
Rep. Gingrey (GA-11)
Rep. Goodlatte (VA-06)
Rep. Gowdy (SC-04)
Rep. Graves (GA-14)
Rep. Griffin (AR-02)
Rep. Guthrie (KY-02)
Rep. Hall (TX-04)

   Rep. Harris (MD-01)
Rep. Harper (MS-03)
Rep. Hartzler (MO-04)
Rep. Hensarling (TX-05)
Rep. Holding (NC-13)
Rep. Hudson (NC-08)
Rep. Huelskamp (KS-01)
Rep. Huizenga (MI-02)
Rep. Hunter (CA-50)
Rep. Jenkins (KS-02)
Rep. Johnson (OH-06)
Rep. Johnson (TX-03)
Rep. Jordan (OH-04)
Rep. Kelly (PA-03)
Rep. Kingston (GA-01)
Rep. LaMalfa (CA-01)
Rep. Lamborn (CO-05)
Rep. Long (MO-07)
Rep. Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
Rep. Lummis (WY at large)
Rep. Marino (PA-10)
Rep. Meadows (NC-11)
Rep. McCaul (TX-10)
Rep. McClintock (CA-04)
Rep. McHenry (NC-10)

   Rep. McKinley (WV-01)
Rep. Marchant (TX-24)
Rep. Messer (IN-06)
Rep. Miller (FL-01)
Rep. Mullin (OK-02)
Rep. Mulvaney (SC-05)
Rep. Noem (SD at large)
Rep. Nunnelee (MS-01)
Rep. Olson (TX-22)
Rep. Palazzo (MS-04)
Rep. Pearce (NM-02)
Rep. Perry (PA-04)
Rep. Pittenger (NC-09)
Rep. Pompeo (KS-04)
Rep. Radel (FL-19)
Rep. Renacci (OH-16)
Rep. Ribble (WI-08)
Rep. Roby (AL-02)
Rep. Rogers (AL-03)
Rep. Roskam (IL-06)
Rep. Ross (FL-15)
Rep. Rothfus (PA-12)
Rep. Salmon (AZ-05)
Rep. Schweikert (AZ-06)
Rep. Scott (GA-08)
Rep. Sessions (TX-32)

   Rep. Simpson (ID-02)
Rep. Smith (TX-21)
Rep. Southerland (FL-02)
Rep. Stewart (UT-02)
Rep. Stivers (OH-15)
Rep. Stockman (TX-36)
Rep. Stutzman (IN-03)
Rep. Thompson (PA-05)
Rep. Thornberry (TX-13)
Rep. Wagner (MO-02)
Rep. Walberg (MI-07)
Rep. Weber (TX-14)
Rep. Wenstrup (OH-02)
Rep. Westmoreland (GA-03)
Rep. Williams (TX-25)
Rep. Wilson (SC-02)
Rep. Wittman (VA-01)
Rep. Woodall (GA-07)
Rep. Womack (AR-03)
Rep. Yoder (KS-03)
Rep. Yoho (FL-03)

The centuries-old oath taken by health care professionals reads, “Do no harm.”  It is time for Washington lawmakers to take a similar approach when working to fix the problems that exist in our broken health care system.  Simply repealing the President's health care law is not enough—it must be replaced.

Conservatives recognize that patient-centered reforms rooted in free markets are the best way to lower costs and solve problems in our health care system.  That is why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) is proud to bring forward a pragmatic, practical, and portable free-market alternative to the current health care system.  Simply put, our bill is a better way forward. Specifically, H.R. 3121, the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act:
  • Fully repeals President Obama's health care law, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs. 
  • Spurs competition to lower health care costs by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together and get the same buying power as large corporations.
  • Reforms medical malpractice laws in a commonsense way that limits trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages while maintaining strong protections for patients.
  • Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs, just like companies, leveling the playing field and providing all Americans with a standard deduction for health insurance.
  • Expands access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.
  • Safeguards individuals with pre-existing conditions from being discriminated against purchasing health insurance by bolstering state-based high risk pools and extending HIPAA guaranteed availability protections.
  • Protects the unborn by ensuring no federal funding of abortions.

Repeal and Replace Obamacare: It's Time for Reform 

Obamacare is a train-wreck full of broken promises that is increasing health care costs and interfering with the doctor patient relationship. Obamacare must be stopped. We recently sat down with Americans from across the country to ask their opinions of Obamacare and how it is affecting them in the workplace.

There is a better way to the one-size-fits-all approach of Obamacare. That is why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) isproud to bring forward a pragmatic, practical, and portable free-market alternative to the current health care system without the unworkable taxes and mandates forced on American families through the President’s health care law.

 What They Are Saying About the American Health Care Reform Act

 “I would urge all Congressmen to co-sponsor and vote for this pro-taxpayer bill.  This legislation is perfectly consistent with The Taxpayer Protection Pledge, and is a quantum leap forward for both health and tax policy.”

– Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
 "On balance, the RSC plan builds on what has made American health care unique and a step ahead of all the rest. It would reinvigorate competition based on value—that is, competition focused not only on reducing costs but also on increasing quality and benefit—and would encourage innovation. Those are the characteristics that, in the past, have led others around the world to look to America for the highest quality care."

– Nina Owcharenko, Director, Center for Health Policy Studies: The Heritage Foundation 
 “Such a shift toward portability in coverage would better align tax policy with today’s dynamic workforce and help to expand insurance options by providing financial flexibility directly to individuals and families...I hope the tax and fiscal provisions of the American Health Care Reform Act are quickly adopted into law.  NTU applauds you for your dedication to repealing Obamacare and implementing those important reforms.”

– Brandon Arnold, Vice President of Government Affairs, National Taxpayers Union
 “On behalf of Americans for Prosperity’s two million activists across this country, I applaud you for introducing the American Health Care Reform Act…Americans for Prosperity is encouraged by efforts to repeal ObamaCare and finally move towards a free-market health care system.”

Christine Hanson, Federal Affairs Manager, Americans for Prosperity
 "With Obamacare failing on virtually all fronts this is a truly well thought out legislative solution in an effort to fix what's broke, preserve what's right and enhance quality, access and affordability for millions of Americans, particularly the elderly. 60 Plus enthusiastically endorses your proposals."

- Jim Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association 
 "A constant trope of the left, repeated yet again by President Obama, is that the right doesn't have alternatives to Obamacare -- that they just care about cost, that they want to take healthcare away, that they don't care about helping people or providing real solutions to the problems that beset out health care system even before the Affordable Care Act passed. And if you ask if people who don't yet support repealing the ACA why not, even if they don't like it, it is because they see no other options. It is critical that opponents of this law -- which will do so much to harm medical care and the choices and innovation we used to take for granted -- put forth a range of reform bills that expand choice and personal control, reduce costs, ensure access, and maintain and enhance the quality of medical care in this country."

- Heather Higgins, President and CEO, Independent Women's Voice
 “Chairman Scalise and Dr. Roe have developed, with their RSC colleagues, a package of key health reform initiatives that move us toward a system that would put doctors and patients, not remote bureaucracies, in charge of medical decisions.  Giving people more choices of portable health coverage would stimulate innovation in both insurance and medical care.  This competition would drive down costs and make coverage accessible to millions more Americans.  This is the right vision for health reform”

 - Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute (for identification purposes only)

Outside Support

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Americans for Tax Reform
Americans for Prosperity
National Taxpayers Union
60 Plus Association
Hispanic Leadership Fund
Independent Women's Voice
Doctor Patient Medical Association
Faith and Freedom Coalition


Susan B. Anthony List 
Republican Governors Association
Louisiana State Medical Society 
Alliance of Health Care
Sharing Ministries
Christian Coalition of America
Association of Mature
American Citizens

The Conservative Coalition

Generation America
Indiana State Medical Association

Christian Medical Association 
Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste
Concerned Women for America
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Patten and Associates
American Association
of Neurological Surgeons

Congress of Neurological Surgeons
In the News
National Review: Repealing It Is Not Enough

Christian Post: What Are the Republican Alternatives to Obamacare?

Washington Examiner: GOP rank-and-file quietly builds an Obamacare alternative

Newsmax: Obama's Wrong: GOP Is Pitching Alternative Healthcare Plans

Daily Caller: Conservative Republicans: Support for Obamacare alternative building momentum

Forbes: Obamacare Will Wreck U.S. Taxpayers, So Here's Another Plan 

FreedomWorks: Republican Study Committee Offers Obamacare Alternative 

The Foundry: RSC Health Care Reform: Another Step in the Right Direction 

Daily Caller:  REVEALED: The GOP’s NEW plan to repeal, replace Obamacare

The Hill:  Conservatives in House unveil ObamaCare replacement bill
AP:  House Conservatives Back 'Obamacare' Alternative

Free Beacon: Republicans Put Forward Obamacare Replacement 

National Review:  The Republican Replacement 

Bloomberg: A Serious Republican Health Care Plan 

Washington Times: House Republicans file, promote an alternative to Obamacare 

NewsMax: Rep. Scalise: GOP Option to Remove 'Perverse Incentives' 

Fox News: House conservatives submit bill to replace 'ObamaCare,' amid 'defund' fight

Slate: A Republican Explains Why Delaying Obamacare for a Year Would Give Everyone Clarity

The Advocate: GOP unveils 'Obamacare' alternative 

National Journal: Republican Alternative to Obamacare Relies on Repeal 

The Mercury: Rep. Joe Pitts: A Better Way than Obamacare.