Book Report: The Great Destroyer

Title: The Great Destroyer

Author: David Limbaugh

Author's web page: http://davidlimbaugh.com/

Publisher: Regnery

Date: 2012

ISBN: 1596987774

Length: over 500 pages with over 100 pages of endnotes

This review was written from a library copy of the book. The quote I would have selected, by way of recommendation for The Great Destroyer as a new book, was the introductory promise that this book can become "your one-stop shop" for facts, figures, and quotes if you get into a debate about Presidential Election 2012.

If you'd been keeping up with election news, most of the stories were familiar. You could skip enough to scan the whole book, and remember what you were likely to want to look up in it, in a week or less. You could decide, after scanning it, that a library copy was enough. Now, of course, the book is an historical artefact for your collection.

Limbaugh doesn't pretend to be impartial. President Obama was the "great destroyer." Limbaugh, a Republican (of course), picked the deadliest quotes, including Joe Biden's faint praise for China's abortion-pushing policy. He also offers a stunning array of statistics about how Obama's bailouts, stimuli, and proposed Obamacare disaster have affected our national economy.

The Great Destroyer contains about four times as many facts as The Amateur, and although it's less insightful, it's more comprehensive than Never Allow a Crisis to Go to Waste. If you could read only one campaign book, this was the basic book that would make up for inattention to the headline news.

Book Review: The Obama Diaries

Reclaimed from Blogjob...

Title: The Obama Diaries

Author: Laura Ingraham

Date: 2010

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

ISBN: 978-1-439-19751-6

Length: 350 pages plus 19-page index

Quote: “These diaries were my way of pulling back the curtain on Barack Obama’s Theater of the Politically Absurd…informed by actual events and, on many occasions, by the main characters’ own words.”

In other words, they’re satire, in a form that’s traditional in the United States but a little too close to the target for some other cultural traditions. In this book Ingraham intersperses her own commentary on the first two years of the Obama Administration with mock quotations from the diaries of the President and Mrs. Obama and several people who worked with them. No attempt is made to give them individual writing styles, but the mock quotations are set in display fonts. Sections purporting to reflect the thoughts of Rahm Emanuel contain lots of those characters from the top row of the keyboard that are most often used, these days, to slip vulgar words through family-filter software.

Nobody has ever accused Rahm Emanuel of being nice, so I’ll accept the claim that his private thoughts are full of boringly repeated obscenities. I don’t know the other people satirized in this book, so I’ll waive all right to comment on the book’s claim to show us what they’re really like; Ingraham has probably met them. In commenting on this book I’ll have to stick to (1) its success in presenting facts, (2) its assumptions about readers’ memory of facts that may be omitted, and (3) its comedy value.

The Obama Diaries succeeds in presenting the facts most of us remember from the regular news media. This book is a recap containing little fresh journalistic work, although it does cite more sources than any one individual is likely to have read/viewed alone. (There’s a long list of acknowledgments in between the text and the index.)

Most of the facts in this book deserve to be in a book. However, when a writer whose own hair is obviously brightened for the cameras tries to suggest that an older person’s hair concerns show vanity, who exactly is being satirized?

And is it really a fact that no twenty-something has ever lived through experiences that anyone wanted to read about? Considering that Dreams of My Father is not so much about Barack Obama himself (only a few quick, blurry bits of his résumé are thrown in at the end) as about growing up in one of the most far-flung families on Earth, with four ethnic identities, four step-parents, and a half-sibling on every continent, I don’t agree that the President’s first book shows a huge amount of vanity. The President and Mrs. Obama don’t seem to suffer from any deficiency of self-esteem, but why should they?

Facts that are discussed in the book include the Obamas’ unpatriotic sound bites, their non-churchgoing, their daughters’ enrolment in the Sidwell Friends School, the bank bailout, the tax rebate, the health care bill, the President’s nicotine addiction, the question of whether the President’s parents were “really” married, the global extended family, Mrs. Obama’s problems with her vegetable garden, the naming of the First Dog, the unpopularity of Obama-care, the President’s failure to attend the funeral of the President of Poland, the inconvenience a presidential motorcade always presents to the neighborhood (is this really the first time Ingraham’s noticed?), comments reported on the President’s dealings with other heads of state, the First Lady’s breaches of formal diplomatic etiquette, the question of whether the Obamas talk too much about their family life, and the President’s reactions to critics when the media has reported any. And more. (Interestingly, the question of where the President was born had not been made an issue in 2010.)

The Obama Diaries occasionally falls below its own standards by overlooking information readers are likely to have.  The question of why Obama seemed to pick on Sarah Palin, rather than on older Republicans or Tea Partiers, arises in this book. One reason: Palin really was more outspoken, more rural, and more real than some Republicans like. Another reason: Palin’s anti-Green arguments embarrassed some Republicans, e.g. Michael Savage, whose idea of “being conservative” did embrace conservation of the environment. But there’s also another reason: Palin was, like the Obamas and Ingraham and me, born in the early 1960s. Most active politicians were still “elders” to the Obamas; Palin is actually a bit younger. In that sense, she was fair game.

Then there’s “the most offensive example of the Obamas’ self-indulgent vacationing…when the White House announced that the First Family would head home to Chicago , on May 27, 2010, for the long Memorial Day weekend. This meant the president would skip the tradi­tional wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington …As this incident unfolded the President was coming under intense criticism for his handling of a catastrophic oil spill…” Where did Ingraham go during the Gulf War? I wrote home (from Pittsburgh): “The President has advised all non-essential personnel to leave Washington, after sending our relatives to war. Taking his own advice, he has gone to Kennebunkport.” If the presidential vacation during a time of criticism was tacky, it was not unprecedented.

Then there’s a quote from Ingraham’s fan mail, “an e-mail I re­cently received from a listener, Kevin,” to the effect that “we [haberdashers?] may totally disagree with your [President Obama’s] agenda, but we could at least respect you a tiny bit if you wore a tie.” Fashions change. I for one am glad to see fashion evolving away from useless, uncomfortable decorations. People our age don’t need to burn the neckties and high-heeled shoes Grandma thought people needed to wear to remind themselves that an occasion was special; we can simply recognize them as fashions from fifty or a hundred years ago that, if worn by us, remind everyone that an occasion is silly, like a Halloween party. But surely, if Kevin is old enough to miss neckties, he’s old enough to remember that proper letters to the President were written or typed on good stationery, addressed privately to The President, The White House, Washington, headed with “Sir,” and closed with “Yours faithfully, Kevin Smith,” or whatever his name is—not e-mailed to third parties, and not signed with a given name only. Without the etiquette that went with them, why would anyone want neckties?

The Obama Diaries scores high on comedy appeal. What the First Family’s “dog and veggie show” needed was good clean jokes about it. Ingraham provides those. Mostly she does it in a gentle, I’m-a-mother-too sort of way; no really nasty stuff about the First Daughters’ adolescence, and only one short, family-filtered riff about the President’s parents. If Ingraham doesn’t seem able to find words like, “Go, girl! Give us something to aim for!” at least the catty jokes say that for her.

More often, there are satirical images of “Rahm [Emanuel uttering a vulgar word] every five minutes to keep [Senator Harry] Reid awake,” Desiree Glapion Rogers pouting that “I am the real First Lady! Only far more alluring,” and foreign politicians not being “motivated by their personal opinions of Barack Obama any more than…by their feelings about blue­grass music.”  And then there’s that Kevin character. If you’re using a daily dose of laughter for pain control, buy this book.

I enjoyed this book thoroughly, and recommend it to readers from all political parties. My reservation about this book is the same reservation I had about Ingraham’s first book, The Hillary Trap.

While The Obama Diaries is at least about the public policies of an individual, The Hillary Trap was to an even greater degree about the ideas that had failed to serve Ingraham’s and my slightly older fore-sisters, the left-wing feminists. Because it used Hillary Rodham Clinton as an example of a woman for whom ten specific left-wing ideas hadn’t worked, The Hillary Trap sold well to one political coalition during one year, was written off as Clinton-bashing by everyone else, and was forgotten next year…and the book deserves more careful reading than that.

The Obama Diaries is more topical, but here too, there’s a fine line between skewering people’s mistakes and skewering people. Plenty of political satirists specialize in skewering people. Ingraham has a more substantial talent for analyzing ideas. My feeling is that publishers encouraged her to use a few jokes that should have been donated to Ann Coulter. Maybe that was what it took to reach the bestseller lists, but I think Ingraham had well and truly “arrived,” even in 2010, and could have afforded to take the high road.

The bad ideas of the administration remain to be bashed. I’ve been in the bashing business since 2011, and I’ll be the first to say that Ingraham does the job better than I do. There is some good solid idea-bashing in The Obama Diaries, enough to make the book more relevant today than much that was written about the news in 2010. There is more satirical comedy about individuals, and although those jokes are still funny, their personal focus has given The Obama Diaries a shorter shelf life than Ingraham’s talent really deserves.

Posted on September 7, 2015 Categories A Fair Trade Book, Book, Humor Tags Obama administration

Tim Kaine Clings to Obamacare

From U.S. Senator and Bitter Clinger Tim Kaine (D-VA):

"

I’m deeply troubled by the news that health care insurers are proposing raising premiums on Virginians who receive their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act individual market. What’s worse is that I know we could have taken action to avoid such drastic increases. Over the last year, the Trump Administration and members of Congress from his party have weakened the Affordable Care Act. When they eliminated the individual mandate, reduced the enrollment period, continually called for its repeal, and cut off cost saving reduction payments, they helped to worsen significant instability in prices, and Virginians are bearing the brunt of this concerted effort.

It’s very important that we not only act in ways to preserve the Affordable Care Act, which brought our nation’s uninsured rate to historic lows, but also make it better. We need to pass the bipartisan legislation we’ve put forward to stabilize the health care market and make sure Virginians have affordable options for health insurance. And then I hope Congress will take up my Medicare-X bill to provide low-cost, high-quality care in every zip code, boosting competition. This bill would build on the Medicare framework to establish a public insurance plan offered on the individual and small business health exchanges, allowing Americans to choose among the existing private insurance plans or a public one. It would be particularly beneficial in rural Virginia, where often there are limited options and the prices are too high.

Read more about my Medicare-X bill here >>

What we need to do is work together to give people more options that are affordable. It’s time to strengthen – not weaken – our health care system for all.

Sincerely,

"

[nice signature graphic] Senator Tim Kaine

Official editorial comment: Could Nick Freitas ask for better publicity than this? The more people refuse to participate in insurance gambling rackets, the better the chance that poor people will have access to decent medical care again by the time I'm old enough to need it...the way poor people did have access to decent medical care, before the insurance mafia took over, back when I was able to pay for medical tests on a busboy's wages.

Morgan Griffith on the Transition Between Administrations

From U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith, R-VA-9:

"
Monday, January 16, 2017 –
The Congressional Review Act: A Valuable Tool
As presidents near the end of their terms, they often race to accomplish as much of their agenda as possible. Famous examples include John Adams’ “midnight” appointment of John Marshall as chief justice and John Tyler’s annexation of Texas into the Union.
President Obama is no different. He is determined to implement as many of his ideas via executive action as possible, no matter how bad they are for the economy, jobs, or wages.
To stop this mischief, Congress possesses a little-used but valuable tool: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA will allow us to overturn many of President Obama’s final actions.
President Clinton signed the CRA into law in 1996. According to a Congressional Research Service analysis of the law’s provisions, Congress has sixty legislative days after an agency submits a final rule to overturn it. Both chambers of Congress must pass a joint resolution of disapproval in that period. Unlike most legislation, a CRA resolution cannot be filibustered in the Senate. The resolution then goes to the president’s desk for his signature or veto.
Once a CRA resolution is signed, not only is the targeted rule gone, but agencies are forbidden from reintroducing the rule or a substantially similar one in the future.
During its twenty years on the books, the CRA has been used rarely. After all, a president is unlikely to sign a resolution disapproving a rule issued by his own administration. In fact, it has only been used successfully once, when Congress passed and President Bush signed a resolution overturning a rule from the final days of the Clinton Administration.
Fortunately, the same circumstances that permitted the successful use of the CRA in 2001 exist today. President Obama will be replaced by a president who opposes many of the policies he ratified by executive action. Several of President Obama’s actions are ripe for overturning under the CRA.

I am ready to use the CRA to reverse President Obama's recent administrative actions that hurt the well-being of the Ninth District. I am a cosponsor of H.J.Res.11, which overturns the Interior Department's Stream Protection Rule. This rule will kill thousands of coal jobs if allowed to take effect,

The Department of Labor's overtime rule should also be subject to CRA disapproval. This rule endangers small businesses and will force many companies to cut employee hours to balance their books. As a policy that achieves an ideological goal without regard for its damage to the economy, the overtime rule is a perfect example of what the CRA was meant to block.

Based on the legislative calendar, many last-minutes Obama Administration rules will be eligible for CRA disapproval until this May. To paraphrase the old adage, the new Congress should vote on CRA resolutions early and often. By doing so, it can prevent great damage to the economy and reclaim authority from the executive branch.
General James Mattis
Last week, Congress voted to waive a law requiring military officers to be retired for seven years before they can serve as Defense Secretary. Congress’ action clears the path for President-elect Trump’s nominee to lead the Pentagon, General James Mattis.
The principles behind the original law are sound. Civilian control of the military is essential in our Republic. The law ensures that the Armed Forces will not be misused by a leader fresh from service with a devoted following among his former soldiers, sailors, or airmen.
Still, Congress reserves the right to make exceptions based on the man and the moment. Congress recognized this in 1950 when it exempted George Marshall, who led the Army through World War II as a general and devised the Marshall Plan as secretary of state. I believe General Mattis also merits an exemption and will make an excellent civilian leader of our Armed Forces.
Presidential Inauguration
At noon on January 20^th, Donald Trump will take the oath of office as the 45^th president of the United States. The inauguration of a new president is an important ritual celebrating the peaceful transfer of power from one individual, and often one party, to another.
Because of the inauguration’s symbolism for our republican form of government, I believe it is my duty to attend. I witnessed President Obama’s second inauguration in 2013, and I look forward to seeing President-elect Trump sworn in on Friday. Later, my daughter and I will attend the Congressional Inaugural ball.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov. Also on my website is the latest material from my office, including information on votes recently taken on the floor of the House of Representatives.
"

Tim Kaine Wants to Preserve Obamacare

From U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), in a newsletter:

"

Since passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, 20 million Americans – including 422,000 Virginians receiving insurance from Healthcare.gov– have gained access to health insurance and the uninsured rate is the lowest in history.

The Affordable Care Act works, and a repeal of the law without a replacement would be malpractice to the health of millions of Americans, but also malpractice to the American economy. That’s why I spoke on the Senate floor this week to urge my colleagues to abandon talk of repealing this landmark program. I heard firsthand about the impact of the Affordable Care Act from patients and providers at a community health center in Alexandria this week. Learn more about my visit here.

Also, I’m excited to announce that the Senate passed the 21st Century CURES Act this week, a bipartisan bill that includes critically important funding for breakthrough biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, including the Cancer Moonshot Initiative. The bill also includes $1 billion in funding to combat the opioid abuse crisis, which was recently declared a public health emergency in Virginia, as well as policies to improve access to mental health care. Read more about this bill here.

"

Morgan Griffith on Bailouts for the Insurance Industry

Yesterday the following press release was posted at http://morgangriffith.house.gov/news/ :

"

Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) introduced a bill to prevent the Obama Administration from potentially bailing out insurance companies by limiting the use of the Justice Department’s Judgement Fund (H.R.6339 – To limit the use of the Judgement Fund to settle any lawsuit arising under section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and for other purposes.)

Background: The Risk Corridor program was designed as protection for insurance companies who lost money in the Obamacare exchanges.  Fees were paid into the program by the participating insurance companies.  Then, the program was intended to reimburse insurance companies who lost money through participation in the exchanges.  The fees were intended to compensate for any and all losses.  However, for the first year of the program, 2014, when the insurance companies made their claims, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), estimated the funds available would only provide insurers with 12.6% of the requested funds.  This resulted in a shortfall of over 2 billion dollars, and insurance companies are suing for the full amount.  Congress required these payments be budget neutral, meaning CMS could only pay out what it took in from the fees, but there is speculation the Judgement Fund will be used to pay the insurance companies the 2 billion requested, without the consent of Congress.  Although the court cases are not yet finished, one judge rejected the insurance company’s claim that the federal government owes the plaintiffs the full amount lost under the program.

Congressman Griffith said: “I asked Acting Administrator of CMS, Andy Slavitt, if the federal government was obligated to pay insurance companies who lost money from Obamacare the full amount they lost, through the Risk Corridor Program.  After stumbling, Slavitt said, ‘Yes.  It’s an obligation of the federal government.’  I was concerned with his response, since the fund is over 2 billion dollars short.  Furthermore, he implied they are working with the Justice Department, and could possibly use the Judgement Fund.”

“Using the Judgement Fund to settle the lawsuits and pay out the insurance companies would be ignoring congressional intent.  The bill I introduced today makes it clear  ‘no amounts may be paid from the fund… for any compromise settlement in connection with any proceeding brought against the Government under section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’”

“Like many aspects of Obamacare, the Risk Corridor program failed.  This bill prevents the Obama Administration from handing out massive payments, and relieves the American taxpayers from having to bail out these health insurance companies with the Judgement Fund.”

"

Morgan Griffith on Midnight Regulations (e.g. Earmarks?)

Post-election, correspondents are sharing concerns about many bad things an outbound administration might try to do. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA-9) addresses any and all of those things:

"
Monday, November 14, 2016 –
Midnight Regulations
In the popular fairytale of Cinderella, the Princess has a golden carriage and a fancy ball gown, only until the clock strikes midnight. After midnight, it turns back to a pumpkin and she becomes the house maiden once again.

Similarly, after presidential elections conclude, the outgoing President has a limited number of days remaining with control of agencies that can produce new regulations. Historically, as the President’s clock ticks closer to midnight, a flurry of new regulations are hastily released, before he and his administration turn back to regular citizens.

These regulations are often overly broad, expensive, and can be used to override the will of the voters. The outgoing administration can force through an agenda that they were unable to generate the support to pass in a law.

In our great nation, legislation is meant to be debated and voted on by the legislators, who are held accountable to the people they represent. Passing legislation is not achieved through a ‘pen and a phone’ or the wave of a wand.

The week of November 14, the House of Representatives will vote on the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016 (H.R. 5982). This bipartisan bill, from the Judiciary Committee, amends the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and “creates a rapid-response method for Congress to overturn an outgoing presidential administration’s attempts to impose major regulations without the transparency and scrutiny expected in normal regulatory implementation.”

The CRA “…is an oversight tool Congress can use to overturn certain agency actions. The CRA requires agencies to report the issuance of ‘rules’ to Congress and provides Congress with special procedures under which to consider legislation to overturn rules, in the form of a joint resolution of disapproval. ... If a CRA joint resolution of disapproval is approved by both houses and signed by the President, or if Congress overrides a presidential veto, the rule at issue cannot go into effect or continue in effect.”

Additionally, “When a CRA joint disapproval resolution meets certain criteria; it cannot be filibustered in the Senate.”

The Midnight Rules Relief Act amends the CRA to allow “a joint resolution of disapproval (that) may contain one or more such rules if the report … for each such rule was submitted during the final year of a President’s term…. Such rules shall have no force or effect.”

In other words, if a President passes onerous last minute rules at the end of a term, unlike normal regulations, the next Congress and new President get a chance to roll back the regulations, no matter how many, all at once.

The term “midnight regulation” was first used during the final months of President Carter’s single term, according to the Mercatus Center. President Carter added 24,531 pages of regulations between Election Day and Inauguration Day. Mercatus Center reports that President Clinton published more than 26,542 pages, representing a 51% increase over the average number of pages published during the same quarter for the previous three years of Clinton’s term.

The practice is carried out by outgoing Presidents of both parties. The Bush Administration also increased the release of new regulations. In fact, the Mercatus Center found an average of a 17% increase in the volume of rules during this midnight regulation time span, stretching back to 1948, with a significant increase in years in which the Presidency switched parties.

During the eight years of President Obama’s leadership, thousands of pages of federal regulations have been forced onto the American people. From the overreaching Clean Power Plan to the Waters of the USA (WOTUS) rule to the Department of Labor’s new overtime rules that may cripple small businesses, the agencies have frequently expanded the influence of the federal government into Americans’ lives. This bill would discourage this President and future Presidents from trying to cram down new regulations when their days of power dwindle down to a precious few.

With a new President Trump, and a fresh administration, we have a better chance to roll back harmful regulations. But first, we should pass the Midnight Rules Relief Act in the House and implore the Senate to follow suit, to prevent President Obama from releasing a heap of new rules in the waning hours of his Presidency, and restore the power of legislating to the legislative branch.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov. Also on my website is the latest material from my office, including information on votes recently taken on the floor of the House of Representatives.                                          
"

Morgan Griffith on the Latest Problems with Obamacare

From U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA-9):

"
Big Insurance Bailout
During a recent Energy and Commerce hearing, I questioned Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), about CMS’ memo regarding Risk Corridors. The Risk Corridors in Obamacare were protections for insurance companies who lost money in the exchanges. Insurance companies who participated in the exchanges paid certain fees. The theory was those insurance companies who lost money would be reimbursed out of those fees. Projections by the Obama Administration indicated those fees should have been sufficient to pay for any and all losses.

Based on information from the CMS website, in 2014, $362,000,000 was paid in by insurers. However, insurance companies have requested $2,870,000,000 in payments. Therefore, CMS estimates insurers will be paid 12.6% of requested funds, with a shortfall of $2,508,000,000.

Now some big insurance companies are suing to be made whole.

But Congress has required these payments be budget neutral, meaning CMS could only pay out what it took in from the fees.

CMS’ memo was essentially an invitation to insurers to sue and settle with the federal government for 2015 Risk Corridor payments. But where is the money coming from?

In my questioning, I asked Acting Administrator Slavitt if CMS takes the position that insurance plans are entitled to be made whole on Risk Corridor payments even though there is no appropriation – congressional approved money – to do so. After stumbling, Slavitt said, “Yes. It’s an obligation of the federal government.”

Mmm? Congress dictates how much government can spend, and both Republicans and Democrats said CMS can only spend as much as was put in. Thus, it is clear the Administration is once again attempting to thwart congressional intent.

In this case, to bailout big insurance companies.

Further, I asked if CMS intended to use the Judgement Fund to make Risk Corridor payments to these insurance plans. According to and managed by the U.S. Treasury, the Judgment Fund is a “permanent, indefinite appropriation…available to pay compromise settlements entered into by the U.S. Department of Justice related to actual or imminent litigation…”

Slavitt would not confirm, but did say that CMS is working with Justice.

I, along with several of my colleagues from the Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell asking for specifics on how they plan to pay for settlements and relay some of our concerns. In the letter, we stated, “It appears that any such settlements would come from the permanent appropriations for judgments (‘Judgment Fund’)…Further, the Administration’s explicit offer to settle these lawsuits appears to be a direct circumvention of the clear Congressional intent to prohibit the expenditure of federal dollars on this program…”

If Justice uses the Judgment Fund – the same fund the Administration used to pay Iran ransom payments – to settle these lawsuits, they would be ignoring congressional intent.

The Risk Corridors program has failed.

The Administration may bailout big insurance.

What part of Obamacare unravels next?

80 Percent Not Helped
I have consistently acknowledged that Obamacare has helped some, but many have been saddled with higher out-of-pocket costs and less choice. Amongst the many negatively impacted, one woman I recently spoke with at the New River Valley Fair told me that Obamacare is killing her family. In order to afford any insurance after Obamacare, she had to agree to pay high co-pays and deductibles. These high co-pays and deductibles caused her and her husband to have to sell assets. If the medical conditions continue, she fears being forced to sell her home.

This is not the bright new future Obama promised when promoting his health care plan.

According to a Washington Post Opinion piece titled, If Trump Wins, Blame Obamacare, “Only 18 percent of Americans believe the Affordable Care Act has helped their families; 80 percent say it has hurt or had no effect.”

Not only was the launch of the website a disaster, but only 17 state-based exchanges were established and four of those have already failed. Additionally, many of the 23 original nonprofit co-ops have crumbled.

The promises of Obamacare – you can keep your doctor and your premiums will be lower – have proven false for many Americans.

And now more bad news. Insurance providers are dropping like flies due to substantial losses under Obamacare, resulting in slim pickings of insurance plans for many Americans, particularly rural Americans.

What part of Obamacare will unravel next?

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov. Also on my website is the latest material from my office, including information on votes recently taken on the floor of the House of Representatives.
"

Nationalization of Local Police?

From Patricia Evans. (I've been reposting these things at Freedomworks, but Freedomworks has shut down its whole social/blogging section, probably due to lack of traffic...)

One comment: The price of liberty is responsibility...see that bit that Rose Wilder Lane undoubtedly inserted into Little Town on the Prairie. "I will have to make myself be good...This is what it means to be free." If we don't act on our Judeo-Christian principles, there's nothing to stop us becoming a Muslim or Marxist or fascist nation, and we'd deserve it. I go on bothering to write, or eat or breathe, because I believe we as a nation can stop ourselves becoming a Muslim or Marxist or fascist nation. But it requires some voluntary ethical choices. I don't know how people in Baltimore have grown up relating to each other, or why...but if they want the right to regulate their own police, they'd jollywell better demonstrate that they've stopped prioritizing emergency calls with "Is the victim Black or White?" Because that sort of behavior invariably generates either a more or less consensual takeover by some outside "authority," or more of the kind of idiocy recently observed in poor little Korryn Gaines.



"
"The much-feared nationalization of local police departments is already being initiated by the Obama administration's Justice Department. And somehow nobody noticed. It's time to support local police, not render them impotent via federal restrictions against maintaining law and order. No less than the very existence of local government is at stake." - Robert Romano, senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

From Sue Long

Our hearts are heavy and our prayers are for the safety of our law enforcement officers; they are under attack.

“Police Brutality” was the communist rallying cry in the civil rioting in the 1970’s.

Now, police are being targeted again. Protesters, including “Black Lives Matter” devotees, wave the communist hammer and cycle flag, give the communist clenched fist salute and chant for killing the police.

Law enforcement under local control, keeping America free, is unique in history. But the power-hungry want federal control of law enforcement; it is needed to establish martial law and establish a dictatorship. A separate national police force is one means of doing this but not the only one.

Another way is to leave the local police forces intact but regulate and control them at the national level. Such as:

• Imposing federal controls after making local departments dependent on federal grants.
• Suing police departments on the false charge of Police Brutality or Police Prejudice. Local government agrees, then federal policy changes are imposed. This has happened in 30 police jurisdictions.
• Merging the smaller more rural law enforcement departments with the larger more urban departments, forming regional departments.

Additionally, we now have the United Nations’ plan calling on local police forces in America to comply with what it calls “international standards,” bringing together more than 100 national police chiefs at its first-ever UN “Chiefs of Police Summit.”

We must keep law enforcement under local control to keep America free.

UN Backs Secret Obama Takeover of Police

United Nations calls for federalization of U.S. law enforcement to be 'beefed up,' cover all of America

by Robert Romano | Updated 04 Aug 2016 http://www.lifezette.com/poliz ette/un-backs-secret-obama-tak eover-of-police/
Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

“The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has provided oversight and recommendations for improvement of police services in a number of cities with consent decrees. This is one of the most effective ways to reduce discrimination in law enforcement and it needs to be beefed up and increased to cover as many of the 18,000-plus local law enforcement jurisdictions.”

That was United Nations Rapporteur Maina Kai on July 27, a representative of the U.N. Human Rights Council, who on the tail-end of touring the U.S., endorsed a little-known and yet highly controversial practice by the Justice Department to effect a federal takeover of local police and corrections departments.

The Obama administration has been pursuing the federal takeover of local police right under Congress' nose — and Republicans in Congress were apparently unaware it was happening.

The consent decrees are already being implemented in Newark, New Jersey; Miami, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Ferguson, Missouri; Chicago, Illinois; and other municipalities.
Here's how it works: the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice files a lawsuit in federal court against a city, county, or state, alleging constitutional and civil rights violations by the police or at a corrections facility. It is done under 42 U.S.C. § 14141, a section of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, granting the attorney general the power to prosecute law enforcement misconduct. The municipality then simply agrees to the judicial finding — without contest — and the result is a wide-reaching federal court order that imposes onerous regulations on local police.

The federal court orders are designed to undo Rudy Giuliani-style policing tactics that were effective at reducing crime in big cities in the 1990s and 2000s.

In short, the much-feared nationalization of local police departments is already being initiated by the Obama administration's Justice Department. And somehow nobody noticed.
Federal requirements include how searches are conducted, what constitutes legitimate use of force, the mandatory use of on-body cameras by the police, and so forth. The agreements impose years-long compliance review regimes, implementation deadlines, and regular reviews by federal bureaucrats. This makes local police directly answerable to the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ.
One example includes a 77-page March 30 consent decree between the department and the City of Newark, New Jersey, that resulted from a 2011 investigation, a 2014 series of findings by the Civil Rights Division, and then finally a federal lawsuit alleging police misconduct in the U.S. District Court in the District of New Jersey.
The original complaint alleged that the Newark Police Department (NPD) "has engaged in a pattern or practice of constitutional violations in its stop and arrest practices, responses to individuals' exercise of their rights under the First Amendment, uses of force, and theft by officers. The investigation also revealed that the pattern or practice of constitutional violations stems in part from deficiencies in NPD's systems that are designed to prevent and detect misconduct, including its systems for reviewing force and investigating complaints regarding officer conduct."
The city of Newark, via the consent decree, agreed to the allegations and to implement a "comprehensive and agency-wide policies and procedures that are consistent with and incorporate all substantive requirements of this agreement," including rules on stops, searches, use of force, etc. The city has two years to implement, with the full agreement lasting five years. Meaning — even if the political parties change power in the city of Newark, the new mayor and city council would still be required to implement the court order.

U.S. Cities with Active DOJ Consent Decrees

City	State	Police Force
Chicago	IL	11944
Los Angeles	CA	10000
Miami	FL	1259
Ferguson	MO	54

Source: Americans for Limited Government

These consent decrees are in essence regulations. That, is, without the niceties of administrative procedures requirements, public comments, or even any congressional oversight.
Remarkably, congressional offices contacted by this author were generally unaware of the regulation of local policing via DOJ consent decrees with cities — even though the agreements have been implemented for years. Not a single hearing or word of protest has occurred on this topic.
The lack of oversight is pathetic enough — but to make matters even worse, this could actually be the first step in a new wide-ranging body of federal rules on local police.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development regulation "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" (AFFH) actually originated as a consent decree in 2009 against Westchester County, New York, requiring affordable housing units to be built in the county. Afterward, Republican Robert Astorino was elected county executive and yet was still required to implement the court order.
Westchester became the basis for AFFH, where every city and county in the country that accepts any part of $3 billion of annual community development block grants to 1,200 recipient cities and counties now has to comply with HUD's dictates on zoning along racial and income guidelines.

DOJ may very well end up doing the same thing with the local police — that is, if Congress does not wise up to what's really happening and defund implementation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. This is dangerous. What is most chilling is how far along the Obama Justice Department is in this process. The breadth of regulation here shatters any notion of local governance or federalism. The Obama administration has been pursuing the federal takeover of local police right under Congress' nose — and Republicans in Congress were apparently unaware it was happening.
No doubt the practice would continue under a Hillary Clinton administration too. Do you want a Clinton Justice Department running your local police force? That is how important the election in November suddenly becomes — with law and order already hanging in the balance and police being targeted by domestic terrorists in the slayings in Dallas and Baton Rouge.
As Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning noted in a statement calling attention to the U.N.'s interest in the DOJ program and urging Congress to act, "The fact that the U.N. Human Rights Council — which includes some of the worst abusers of human rights in the world that hate the U.S. — is cheering for this DOJ national takeover of the police should tell members everything they need to know. It's time to support local police, not render them impotent via federal restrictions against maintaining law and order. No less than the very existence of local government is at stake."

--

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"

Robert Hurt on Obamacare

Once again, the obligatory editorial comment: The way I believe the cost of medical care can be reduced is to remove the "premiums and deductibles" and other insurance-gambling garbage from the equation, altogether, and forever. Nevertheless, outbound U.S. Representative Robert Hurt (R-VA-5) offers his successor good clear guidance on this...Any chance youall in the Fifth District can keep him in Congress? We need more people who can admit the need to abolish Obamacare.

"
Washington policies have real and often painful effects on Fifth District Virginians, and the implementation of the President’s healthcare law is a prime example of such. This misguided law has forced many hardworking Americans to accept reduced working-hours and unsustainable increases in their insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Time and again we have seen examples of the shortcomings and flaws in this legislation; just last week we saw another culmination of these hardships as Aetna, the United States’ third largest health insurance company, pull out of Obamacare in 11 out of 15 states in which it operates due to unsustainable rate increases.
We have also seen this law result in cancelled policies, loss of access to current physicians and providers, and an online marketplace system that has proven to be vulnerable to data breaches. Developing the federal online marketplace cost the American taxpayer over $840 million because of poor planning and management. The implementation of the law has not only cost taxpayers billions of dollars, but it is not achieving one of the key promises the President made about the law - that it would reduce the cost of health care. As higher premiums, deductibles, and drug prices continue to drive health spending upward, he has clearly failed to deliver on that promise.
Perhaps most concerning of all is that the Administration has taken action in implementing a law that lacks constitutional or legal authority. The House Oversight Committee has uncovered information which shows senior officials within the administration expressed concern over the lack of legal authority to fund the Affordable Care Act program, but ultimately their concerns were pushed aside to further the President's political agenda. This revelation demonstrates that the administration knowingly ignored the Constitution to try to make the Affordable Care Act work. The House has sued the administration for improperly spending taxpayer dollars without legal authority, and in May of this year, a federal judge ruled that these payments are indeed unconstitutional. We will continue to fight tirelessly in the House to ensure this harmful law is repealed and fully replaced with a more responsible healthcare plan.
Unquestionably, there is no issue I hear about more from concerned Fifth District Virginians than the negative impact of the President’s healthcare law on their families and businesses. As I travel throughout our district, I consistently hear about the law’s devastating effects on our families, our workforce, and our struggling economy. President Obama sold his signature healthcare law to the American people on the basis of false promises, saying his signature law would lower premiums, but they are higher and will continue to rise, causing major healthcare providers to drop out of the healthcare exchange because the expenses are too high. The president told us we could keep our current health plans if we liked them and could continue seeing the doctors we know and trust, but that too proved incorrect. We have to implement real healthcare reform that actually reduces the cost of care, premiums, and deductibles and does not separate patients from their doctors. I remain committed to reforms that are patient-centered and market-oriented to deliver the healthcare system the American people deserve.
If you need any additional information or if we may be of assistance to you, please visit my website at hurt.house.gov or call my Washington office: (202) 225-4711, Charlottesville office: (434) 973-9631, Danville office: (434) 791-2596, or Farmville office: (434) 395-0120.
"

Morgan Griffith on Operation Fast and Furious

From U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA-9):

"
Though it didn’t receive widespread coverage in the press, there have been recent developments related to Fast and Furious that I want to be sure was brought to your attention.

As you may recall, the Fast and Furious program was run through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ostensibly in an attempt to track the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartel leaders to help lead to their arrest. However, an estimated 1,400 of the 2,000 guns involved in the operation were lost* and few high-level cartel leaders were arrested, thus leading me and others to believe the operation may have been designed in part to politically move more Americans to favor gun control.

Bloomberg recently reported that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington rejected the President’s assertion of executive privilege, ruling that “The Obama Administration must hand over documents sought by a congressional committee that has been reviewing the failed U.S. Justice Department weapons-trafficking probe known as Operation Fast and Furious.”

Additionally, a .50-caliber rifle funneled through Fast and Furious was among the weapons found at the hideout of the drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman who had escaped from a Mexican prison last year. At the time of the writing of this column, we can find no information as to a criminal charge related to the .50-caliber rifle.

As you may recall, in June 2012, my colleagues and I in the House of Representatives voted to hold then- Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requesting documents related to the Fast and Furious operation. To many of us, it appeared that Holder intentionally had misled Congress.

These developments ought to make clear that the Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scandal is not actually over. Rest assured I am continuing to track this important matter.

This Administration has repeatedly advocated more gun control, turning tragedies where a gun is involved into political opportunities. While certainly our laws should be reviewed periodically, the acts of terrorists or deranged individuals should not be used to take away the gun rights of law-abiding citizens. I will continue to protect our Second Amendment rights and also will continue to work for better mental health options in order to hopefully prevent as many mass shootings as possible.
"

Robert Hurt on the Economy

From U.S. Representative Robert Hurt (R-VA-5):

"Earlier this month in his State of the Union Address, the President painted a rosy picture of our nation’s economic future, claiming that we have created jobs while cutting deficits. The President seems to believe that we have done enough to reduce our massive spending deficits, but I believe – and most Americans believe – that the future fiscal health of our nation remains one of the most serious problems facing our children and grandchildren.
Last week, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its budget projections for 2016. These projections paint a daunting picture that centers around the fact that, according to their findings, the budget deficit for the upcoming year will increase for the first time since 2009. The CBO’s estimation of a deficit of $544 billion is over $100 billion more than last year. This is another stark reminder of how important it is for us to get our fiscal house in order.
A significant portion of this deficit increase is due to growing mandatory spending programs – namely Medicare, Medicaid – and the ever-increasing taxes and subsidies created by the President’s healthcare law. The CBO estimates that spending increases for these programs will increase by $104 billion, and there is no indication they will slow down in the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, the CBO warned that these increasing deficits mean the federal debt held by the public will increase to nearly $14 trillion – that will be 76 percent of Gross Domestic Product. To put that in perspective, that is the highest it has been since the years immediately following World War II. There is no doubt we must get our fiscal house in order and stop spending money we simply do not have.
There was some good news in the CBO’s report. It forecasts an expanding workforce and job market, which are critical to growing our economy. This is an encouraging indicator, and the Congress must continue to make this one of our top priorities, so that this becomes a reality, not just a prediction.
We also must continue to focus on policies that address the need for more jobs and more growth, including mitigating the harmful impacts of the President’s healthcare law. Our increasing deficits and irresponsible spending must be put to a stop before it is too late. We have taken some positive steps in recent years to cut spending and reform unsustainable government programs, but we must take further action to rein in the programs that represent trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for future generations because this burden will bankrupt our country if we do not act.
Though there are some troubling findings in this week’s CBO report, it should be seen as a renewed call to promote the policies we need to deliver a brighter future to our children and grandchildren. I am confident the combination of growth and responsible reforms will steer our country away from the dangerous path we are on and place our great nation on a path to opportunity, prosperity, and success for all.
If you need any additional information or if we may be of assistance to you, please visit my website at hurt.house.gov or call my Washington office: (202) 225-4711, Charlottesville office: (434) 973-9631, Danville office: (434) 791-2596, or Farmville office: (434) 395-0120.

I met with Englon Roberts of Danville.

I presented a commemorative pin and certificate to Vietnam veteran

Robert Nowak of Aroda.

Sincerely,
" [signature graphic: Robert Hurt]

Morgan Griffith's Agenda for 2016

This was in Congressman Griffith's E-Newsletter last week; it's been sitting at the bottom of a pile of e-mail since the Big Continuous Snow began. Its belated appearance here means I'm within sight of the end of the e-mails that have been piling up for nine or ten days.

"
A Year of Ideas and a Bold, Pro-Growth Agenda
For several days each year, Republicans and House Democrats gather for separate annual policy retreats. At the Republican retreat, which was last week, Republican members of the House and Senate joined together in an effort to sort out our bold, pro-growth agenda for this year.
Five areas in which we are planning to make a mark are national security, jobs and economic growth, restoring the Constitution, health care, and poverty and opportunity.
Meanwhile, I and others are continuing to push for more change towards a better internal procedure, including a more transparent rules process, greater input on legislative action from the House Republican Conference membership at large, and considering more bills of consequence.
One of the more specific processes we are working on is the appropriations process. There are 12 appropriations bills which authorize funding for certain government activities such as national defense, homeland security, education, etc. These bills require regular (usually annual) authorization. Under the Constitution, all appropriations bills must begin in the House. But like any other bill, the Senate must agree to it and it must be signed by the President in order to become law.
However, as reported by Roll Call, “Last year, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev and his caucus imposed a blockade on moving spending measures to force budget negotiation, a strategy that proved successful.” We in the House passed several appropriations bills, but because Senate Democrats hijacked the process, Congress as a whole wasn’t able to pass any.
Doing so would have allowed Congress and the President to work out differences of opinion within each of the government activities without the threat of shutting down the whole government. Health and Human Services (HHS) funding would have been approved separately from national defense, etc.
As the result of this broken process, Congress passed without my support a massive “omnibus” bill that will fund the government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2016.
I am cautiously optimistic that this year we can restore the appropriations process to what it once was.
But in the weeks that have passed since Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) became Speaker, progress has already been made on other objectives.
Legislation to form our agenda is now being crafted from the bottom up, meaning that Members of Congress will have a more equal say than in a top-down speakership.
Broader steps have been taken toward reforming this body, and I am proud to have served on working groups tasked with doing so. One of these working groups is to propose rules changes, and another was to reform the House Republican Steering Committee, which determines committee chairmanships and helps to set policy.
Additionally, under Speaker Ryan, we have been able to do what hadn’t been done previously (due in part to the Senate’s modern filibuster rules), sending to the President’s desk a bill repealing the Obamacare health care law. Congress also sent two Resolutions of Disapproval (H.J.Res 71 and H.J.Res 72) under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to block two final rules for new and existing power plants issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
President Obama vetoed this legislation, and is expected to soon veto legislation on his desk that would use the CRA to block the President’s Waters of the United States rule, which seeks to assert federal control over puddles, ditches, areas that are occasionally wet, etc.
While I regret his vetoes, I am glad we are sending him bills that not only make clear what we stand for and believe in, but also what he believes. We will continue to do things like this whether the President likes it or not.
A more detailed legislative agenda is still under development, as crafting such detailed policies in a short amount of time is difficult. However, this plan could be unveiled as early as March. I would encourage votes on these legislative proposals at the proper time so as to help further create a clear contrast between the policies of this Administration.
Realistically, we will need to elect a President who will work with us in order to see the most profound difference. But in the interim, to borrow from Speaker Ryan: “If we’re ever going to get our country back on track, we need to make this year about ideas, not about Obama’s distractions,” he said. “And that is exactly what we’re going to do.”

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov. Also on my website is the latest material from my office, including information on votes recently taken on the floor of the House of Representatives.
"

Robert Hurt's Agenda for 2016

From U.S. Representative Robert Hurt (R-VA-5):


"
Earlier this month, Republicans in the House of Representatives met to establish our priorities for the coming year. We realize that we have a tremendous opportunity to change the path our nation is on, and we will use this year to advance a pro-growth agenda that represents the American people’s priorities. This year we will focus on five major issues: national security, jobs and economic growth, opportunity, healthcare, and constitutional authority.
As our national security remains one of our top priorities, it goes without saying that we must recommit ourselves to exerting our constitutional power to ensure those who seek to perpetuate evil against our nation and our allies are eliminated before they further advance their hatred. In the coming weeks, the House will vote on a bill to prevent terrorist cells in Iran from obtaining financial assistance, but this is just one of many actions the House will take to protect our national security.
Since being elected to Congress, jobs and economic growth in Virginia’s Fifth District and our nation has consistently been one of my top priorities. Earlier this month, I introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at spurring the development of I-73, which has the potential to boost economic growth in a region of Virginia that has suffered the highest unemployment rates in Virginia. We must continue to relentlessly pursue policies that encourage job creation to leave our country a better place for our future generations. I understand this and the House understands this. We have been and will remain committed to this goal.
For the past six years, the President’s healthcare law has continued to wreak havoc on businesses, healthcare providers, doctors, and patients. A couple of weeks ago, the House and Senate sent a repeal of the President’s healthcare law to his desk. He vetoed it, but soon, the House will vote to override his veto. We are listening to the American people and showing a clear path for the next President to fully repeal this harmful legislation. House Republicans remain committed to repealing this damaging legislation and replacing it with market oriented solutions.
Finally, time and again we have seen President Obama push his agenda via executive action rather than engaging the Congress. His lack of engaging leadership has done immeasurable damage to our system of government and has compromised the constitutional bounds our Founders envisioned. We must reinstate the principles of our Constitution to ensure and enable the voice of the American people. Under the leadership of Speaker Ryan, I am confident that we will continue to fight for the American people’s priorities and present a robust and dynamic alternative to the President; one that is built on constitutional principles, not executive fiat.
I am looking forward to this new year and getting to work on the agenda we have outlined. Of course, House Republicans cannot accomplish these goals alone; we will do everything we can to work across the aisle and with the Senate and the President to make our agenda a reality. I believe we will make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous, and I am looking forward to the work we will do in this coming year.
If you need any additional information or if we may be of assistance to you, please visit my website at hurt.house.gov or call my Washington office: (202) 225-4711, Charlottesville office: (434) 973-9631, Danville office: (434) 791-2596, or Farmville office: (434) 395-0120.

I visited with Vicki McKinney, her father Carl Shaw, and her husband Lafayette McKinney (from left to right) of Danville.

I presented a commemorative pin and certificate to Vietnam veteran Henry Cook of Cumberland.

Sincerely,
"
[signature graphic: Robert Hurt]

Mark Warner on Obamazoning

U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) replied to a petition I signed several weeks ago. I'm sure everyone who signed the petition has seen this letter:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding the Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2015 (S.1909). I appreciate the benefit of your views on this important issue.

As you know, on July 30, 2015, this legislation was introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Should the Senate consider this legislation or similar proposals in the future, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://www.warner.senate.gov .

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator "

Morgan Griffith Exposes Inconsistencies in Safety and Security Policy

From U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA-9):

"
Defending the Second Amendment Rights of Law-Abiding Citizens

As you may know, last week President Obama released a set of executive actions relating to firearms. These include a number of rule changes, additional staffing and funding for certain initiatives, and recommendations to state and federal officials, among other things.

Many Ninth District residents contacted my office to relay their thoughts, and I share the concerns of those who expressed worry about efforts to needlessly limit the freedom of law-abiding American citizens.

I will always defend the rights of law-abiding citizens, and will protect the right to bear arms.

I am particularly concerned by his proposal to clarify who is considered to be “engaged in the business of firearms.” An attempt to expand that definition could lead to an unreasonably broad definition that infringes on an individual’s ability to transfer firearms to a friend or family member.

Should an uncle wish to give to his niece or nephew some of his guns, for example, that ought not make him a dealer, even if the transfer involves some cash. Sometimes families help each other out that way.

Additionally, I disagree with the impression left by the Administration that veterans and seniors who need some assistance managing their finances are necessarily unfit to possess a firearm.

Two examples.

First, consider an elderly person who is perfectly rational but tires of paying all their bills, and may be living with a younger relative. During my years practicing law, it was not that unusual for a senior in this situation to give to their relatives the right to handle all of their Social Security paperwork and matters. There now is seemingly an implication that a senior in this situation shouldn’t possess a firearm. That is just wrong! If their situation is worse than this, there are other legal remedies. Accordingly, I have cosponsored legislation to prevent the Social Security Administration from reporting the names of Social Security beneficiaries with a “representative payee” to the National Instant Background Check System.

Likewise, an American soldier severely wounded would most likely go through a period of time where they cannot handle their “finances.” This should not bar them from owning a gun or automatically put them in a position where they have to fight to get their rights back. I recognize that a veteran might have a mental health diagnosis which may ought to trigger a restriction. But such restriction ought not be done automatically without safeguards for the veteran’s rights.

Like everyone, I want a decrease in unlawful shootings and violent crimes, but none of the major shootings that have taken place in the recent past would have been prevented by new gun laws. This was affirmed by a Washington Post fact checker on December 10, 2015.

The Bill of Rights protects the “unalienable” rights that this country and its citizens hold dear, including the right to bear arms. I have an A+ rating with the National Rifle Association, and am proud of it. Rest assured that I will closely monitor the progress of the President’s proposals and the rulemaking process, especially given this Administration’s previous attempts to use back-door methods to hinder lawful gun ownership.

A Misplaced Missile, Politics, and Policy

The Wall Street Journal last week broke the news that an inactive U.S. Hellfire missile originally sent to Europe was wrongly shipped to Cuba in 2014, “a loss of sensitive military technology that ranks among the worst-known incidents of its kind.” Though the missile doesn’t contain explosives, it still contains sensitive weapons technology such as targeting and sensor information which countries like China or Russia could try to reverse engineer.

It is unclear at this point whether a number of mistakes led to the missile’s arrival in Cuba, or if criminals or spies were involved in its redirection. CNN notes that “…the U.S. has been trying for more than a year to get the Cuban government to return the missile. The delay could have been complicated by the attention paid to the historic thaw between the U.S. and Cuba last December, followed by the restoring of ties and opening of embassies in Washington and Havana this summer.”

It is outrageous to think that the Obama Administration proceeded with normalizing relations with Cuba while well aware of the Cuban government’s apparent refusal to return this missile. This appears to be yet another example of this Administration putting its politics over policy.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov. Also on my website is the latest material from my office, including information on votes recently taken on the floor of the House of Representatives.
"

Robert Hurt on Ending Obamacare

From U.S. Representative Robert Hurt, R-VA-5:

"
Dear Friend,
The policies put forth in Washington have real, and sometimes painful, effects on Fifth District Virginians, and the implementation of the President’s healthcare law is a prime example. This misguided legislation has resulted in cut working hours for employees, families unable to keep the plans they have always counted on, and unsustainable increases in insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.
Furthermore, in the years since the healthcare law was imposed, the effects of the added mandates and taxes have done nothing to help our access to quality and affordable care in America. Repealing this misguided law is a critical and long-overdue step in growing our economy, reducing the burden of overreaching federal regulations, and building a stronger America for our children and grandchildren.
On Wednesday, the House passed the Senate Amendment to the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation, which would repeal of a number of provisions written within the President’s healthcare law. The House has voted on numerous occasions to repeal this harmful law, but Wednesday’s vote was notable because it was the first such measure to reach the President’s desk.
Through the past few years, the House has repeatedly sought to repeal this misguided law and protect the American people from its harmful effects only to be stymied by the filibusters of Senate Democrats. The Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act is a major step forward in the process toward instilling the will of the American people upon the President and pressuring him to finally come to terms with the fact that this healthcare law is an abomination and must be replaced with a law that is truly affordable and beneficial to the American people.
Unquestionably, there is no issue I hear about more from concerned Fifth District Virginians than the impact of the President’s healthcare law on their families and businesses. Whether it be the reduced working hours, the unsustainable increases in insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, or the inability for hardworking Americans to keep the plans they like, this law is fundamentally flawed and must be replaced. Our vote on the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act was the first major vote of 2016, and with it, we are keeping faith with the American people as we prepare to continue the fight for their priorities.
I was disappointed that the President vetoed this legislation on Friday and made it clear that he is not listening to the will of the American people. While this law passed six years ago, that in no way indicates that it should remain the law of the land - the people reserve the right to disagree and voted for a new Congress to express that view. In the House, we are listening. We are responding to the urgent message from the American people and showing them that if they do not like the laws on the books, they have the power to change them.
In the House, we will hold a vote to override his veto, showing a clear path to send this repeal bill to the next President. We have to implement real healthcare reform that actually reduces the cost of care, premiums, and deductibles and does not separate patients from their doctors. I remain committed to reforms that are patient-centered and market-oriented to deliver the healthcare system the American people deserve.

If you need any additional information or if we may be of assistance to you, please visit my website at hurt.house.gov or call my Washington office: (202) 225-4711, Charlottesville office: (434) 973-9631, Danville office: (434) 791-2596, or Farmville office: (434) 395-0120.
"