U Michigan Department Chair: We Should ‘Hate Republicans’

U Michigan Department Chair: We Should ‘Hate Republicans’

A professor explains that studies show the GOP is bad.

Katherine Timpf

A University of Michigan department chairwoman has published an article titled, “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans,” which will probably make all of her conservative students feel really comfortable and totally certain that they’re being graded fairly.

“I hate Republicans,” communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece. “I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.’”

She writes that although the fact that her “tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased,” historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad!

Douglas said that in the 1970s she did work for a Republican, Rhode Island’s senate minority leader Fred Lippitt, but she hates them all now because Lippitt was a “brand of Republican” who no longer exists in that he was “fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation.”Republicans now, she writes, are focused on the “determined vilification” of others, and have “crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.”

(Apparently, the irony of this accusation given the content of her own article was lost on her.)

Douglas adds that Republicans are really good at being mean because studies have proven that they usually have psychological traits such as “dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity,” and that  “two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality.”

“These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance . . . which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you — whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats.”

“So now we hate them back,” she explains. “And with good reason.”

U of M’s anti-discrimination policy forbids “creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or abusive environment for that individual’s employment, education, living environment, or participation in a University activity.”

It seems as though, for a student who votes Republican, knowing you had a teacher who assumed you were an intolerant bigot and blatantly advocated for hating you would likely create an “intimidating” educational environment; however, the anti-discrimination policy only protects against discrimination against someone “because of that person’s race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight or veteran’s status.” (Basically anything except for political affiliation.)

Douglas declined an interview with National Review Online on Tuesday, saying she was “so sorry” but just too “buried with work and meetings today.” She assured that she really did enjoy working with Lippitt in the ’70s.

“[I] think it’s terrible we’ve come to this pass of such extreme mutual animus,” she wrote.

The university did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Americans do not trust Obama: The World is on Fire

WASHINGTON, DC – At a press briefing with Republican leaders today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took President Obama to task for his recent unilateral action on immigration, saying the president’s overreach has made “it harder for the American people and their elected representatives to trust his word on any issue.”  Following are Boehner’s remarks:

“The American people want both parties to focus on solutions to our still-struggling economy.  This week we’ll pass important legislation to help families with special needs and to prevent tax hikes on millions of families and small businesses.

“The president, on the other hand, has ignored the will of the American people and he’s refused to listen. … His decision to take unilateral action on immigration – action he himself said exceeded his authority – makes it harder for the American people and their elected representatives to trust his word on any issue.

“I said before Thanksgiving that Republicans would fight his unilateral actions.  We’re looking at a variety of options, both for right now and when Republicans control both Houses of the Congress next year.  And we’ll continue to discuss with our members a number of options, in terms of how we will deal with this, in consultation, again, with the members – but no decisions have been made at this point.”

– See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/video/boehner-president-s-unilateral-action-immigration-undermines-americans-trust#sthash.GC9E0IYe.dpuf

TED CRUZ: ‘The World Is On Fire’

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attacked what he described as “the Obama-Clinton foreign policy” in a wide-ranging speech on Tuesday.

“It’s almost as if the whole world is on fire right now,” Cruz said at a Washington event hosted by Concerned Veterans for America. “Leading from behind doesn’t work.”

As an alternative, Cruz presented his own three-part plan for “reasserting American leadership in the world.” The first step, Cruz said, was making sure the US government again becomes a voice for freedom.

“We should be a clarion voice for freedom. Never underestimate the power of the bully pulpit of America,” Cruz said, citing former President Ronald Reagan’s speech urging the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin Wall. “One of the most striking and inexplicable aspects of the last six years is the almost complete absence of American leadership speaking out for freedom.”

The second step of the Cruz foreign policy plan is presenting a clear vision for the deployment of US military force. Cruz accused Obama and Hillary Clinton — the president’s former secretary of state and likely Democratic front-runner in 2016 — of being focused on press releases, photo-ops, and “international norms” rather than national security.

“The second critical element is resolutely defending US national security. The singular failure of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has been a failure to focus on the vital national security interests of the United States,” Cruz said. “If and when we have to [use force], it should be with a clear, stated objective up front. We should go in with overwhelming force and then we should get the heck out. It is not the job of our military to produce democratic utopias across the world.”

 Throughout the speech, Cruz took Obama to task for having a lackluster approach to a whole host of issues including; nuclear negotiations with Iran, the showdown with Russia over Ukraine, the military operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), and backing democratic activists in despotic regimes.

For this third point, Cruz also critiqued Obama’s handling of his own administration. Cruz noted Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel just announced his resignation — the third such departure of Obama’s last six years in office.

“What a failure of leadership at a time when the world is on fire,” said Cruz. “It seems what the administration is looking for is a defense secretary who will follow the orders of a political White House.”

The administration’s failures, Cruz said, were starting to become comical.

“You literally cannot make this stuff up. If ‘Saturday Night Live’ were parodying a hapless, ineffective president, they couldn’t make up things up worse. Look, just a few months ago, Jimmy Carter criticized this president for being weak on foreign policy! Holy cow!” he exclaimed to laughs.

 

The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

TedCruz

The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

Congress has too much power already; it should not have the power to silence citizens.

 

June 1, 2014 6:35 p.m. ET
For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech. Alas, more and more, the modern Democratic Party has abandoned that commitment and has instead been trying to regulate the speech of the citizenry.
We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; the Obama IRS inquire of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers; the Federal Communications
Commission proposing to put government monitors in newsrooms; and Sen. Harry Reid regularly slandering private citizens on the Senate floor for their political speech.But just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.
You read that correctly. Forty-one Democrats have signed on to co-sponsor New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall’s proposed amendment to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech. The text of the amendment says that Congress could regulate “the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections.” The amendment places no limitations whatsoever on Congress’s new power.

Two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. First, “money is not speech.” And second, “corporations have no free speech rights.”

Neither contention bears even minimal scrutiny. Speech is more than just standing on a soap box yelling on a street corner. For centuries the Supreme Court has rightly concluded that free speech includes writing and distributing pamphlets, putting up billboards, displaying yard signs, launching a website, and running radio and television ads. Every one of those activities requires money. Distributing the Federalist Papers or Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” required money. If you can prohibit spending money, you can prohibit virtually any form of effective speech.

As for the idea that the Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens Unite d because corporations have no First Amendment rights, that too is demonstrably false. The New York Times  is a corporation. The television network NBC is a corporation. Book publisher Simon & Schuster is a corporation. Paramount Pictures is a corporation. Nobody would reasonably argue that Congress could restrict what they say—or what money they spend distributing their views, books or movies—merely because they are not individual persons.

Dem

Proponents of the amendment also say it would just “repeal Citizens United” or “regulate big money in politics.” That is nonsense. Nothing in the amendment is limited to corporations, or to nefarious billionaires. It gives Congress power to regulate—and ban—speech by everybody.

Indeed, the text of the amendment obliquely acknowledges that Americans’ free-speech rights would be eliminated: It says “[n]othing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” Thus, the New York Times is protected from congressional power; individual citizens, exercising political speech, are not.

If this amendment were adopted, the following would likely be deemed constitutional:

Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing voter guides letting citizens know politicians’ records on the Second Amendment.

Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.

Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money to urge their views of abortion.

Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.

Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their parishioners to vote.

Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the president.

Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore ) and radio programs—anything not deemed “the press”—that might influence upcoming elections.

One might argue, “surely bloggers would be protected.” But Senate Democrats expressly excluded bloggers from protection under their proposed media-shield law, because bloggers are not “covered journalists.

One might argue, “surely movies would be exempt.” But the Citizens United case—expressly maligned by President Obama during his 2010 State of the Union address—concerned the federal government trying to fine a filmmaker for distributing a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton.

One might argue, “surely books would be exempt.” But the Obama administration, in theCitizens United oral argument, explicitly argued that the federal government could ban books that contained political speech.

The contemplated amendment is simply wrong. No politician should be immune from criticism. Congress has too much power already—it should never have the power to silence citizens.

Thankfully, any constitutional amendment must first win two-thirds of the vote in both houses of Congress. Then three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve the proposed amendment. There’s no chance that Sen. Udall’s amendment will clear either hurdle. Still, it’s a reflection of today’s Democratic disrespect for free speech that an attempt would even be made. There was a time, not too long ago, when free speech was a bipartisan commitment.

John Stuart Mill had it right: If you disagree with political speech, the best cure is more speech, not less. The First Amendment has served America well for 223 years. When Democrats tried something similar in 1997, Sen. Ted Kennedy was right to say: “In the entire history of the Constitution, we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start.”

Cruz to CNN: Global warming not supported by data

ted copy

Cruz to CNN: Global warming not supported by data

Posted by

Beaumont, TX (CNN) – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the “data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing.”

“The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened,” said Cruz.

Cruz spoke to CNN in an exclusive interview following an event here to promote his new energy plan, which he says he will formally introduce in the Senate next week.

When pressed about the fact that the arctic is melting, and whether that helps prove climate change is real, Cruz dismissed it.

“Other parts are going up. It is not – you know, you always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called scientific theory that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they’ll say, well, it’s changing, so it proves our theory,” argued Cruz.

“I am always troubled by a theory that fits every perfect situation. You know, back in the ’70s – I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. And then that faded. And then we were told by Al Gore and others there was global warming and that was going to be a big problem. And then it morphed. It wasn’t global warming anymore, it became climate change. And the problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing,” said Cruz.

Secretary of State John Kerry recently made waves by declaring climate change is “perhaps – perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

Not surprisingly, Cruz disagreed.

“Well, you know, it is ironic that Secretary Kerry would say that, uh, given that he is, right now, in the process of negotiating with the nation of Iran in – in what Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has called an historically bad deal,” said Cruz.

“It is ironic that he sees a greater threat from your SUV in your driveway than he does from the nation of Iran, with their radical Islamic jihad and – and their stated desire to obliterate, to annihilate Israel. He sees a greater threat from your SUV than he does to Iranian nuclear weapons,” Cruz said of Kerry.

Cruz chose the Spindle Top Boomtown Museum here, where oil discovery sparked the Texas oil boom more than a century ago, to push his ideas to support what he calls a “great American energy renaissance.”

His proposal includes many traditional GOP ideas – more oil drilling and expanding energy exploration and repealing many EPA regulations he calls harmful.

Missing from his official plan are other forms of energy, what Republicans call “all of the above,” but he told CNN he does support alternative energy, as long as it comes from the private sector, not the federal government.

“We ought to be allowing the private sector to pursue every form of energy because the energy of the future, it’s not going to come from the government picking winners and losers,” Cruz told CNN.

“We ought to open up energy innovation across the board and – and remove the barriers to every form of energy.”

Obama should apologize

With the bungled launch of HealthCare.gov and the Affordable Care Act causing millions losing their healthcare coverage, Ted Cruz urged the president to use Tuesday’s State of the Union address to apologize to the American people.

“For the State of the Union, one of the things President Obama really ought to do is look in the TV camera and say to the over five million Americans all across this country who’ve had their health insurance canceled because of Obamacare, to look in the camera and say, “I’m sorry — I told you if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it,” the Texas senator said on Face the Nation on Sunday. “‘I told you if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, and that wasn’t true — I’m sorry.’”

But the president match his words with action, Cruz said. “The pattern we’ve seen over and over again with this president is he says he’s sorry and he expresses outrage but then he doesn’t fix the problem.”

Ted Cruz Kneels in Prayer Outside the White House

Photo: Ted Cruz Kneels in Prayer Outside the White House

Here’s a shot of Sen. Ted Cruz praying in front of The White House yesterday.

No, he’s not praying that Barack Obama will overturn Obamacare and no, he’s not praying that he will occupy the presidency one day. Instead, he’s alongside Rev. Rob Schenck (from Faith and Action) and Rev. Frazier White (a Democrat and Obama supporter) praying for Saeed Abedini, who has been in an Iranian prison for one year. He is being persecuted for his faith to Jesus Christ.

Who says Ted Cruz isn’t bipartisan?

I have not only interviewed Ted Cruz many times, but I have spent time with him and his family. He is true Bible-believing Christian who is not ashamed of the Gospel. Of course the liberals don’t want to hear that nonsense. They’ll now be busy trying to figure out how to distort this picture in Adobe Photoshop.

Below are the words of Rev. Rob Schenck, the man who organized the prayer.

“In the image you see me at the center with my prayer stole as we intercede in Jesus’ name for our brother in Christ and imprisoned pastor, Saeed Abedini, who has suffered in an Iranian prison for one year because of his faithful witness to Christ. Kneeling with me on my left (the significance of the placement should be noted) is the U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a tea party Republican from Texas. Sen. Cruz just made wall-to-wall headlines for his 20+ hour filibuster opposing Obamacare, the President’s signature legislative achievement.

On my right (again, note the orientation) is Rev. Frazier White, a Democrat community organizer from my neighborhood of Capitol Hill, and a huge supporter of President Obama. At the moment the photo was taken, though, the politically polar opposite positions of the Senator and the Pastor were irrelevant.

We were bowed before the Holy, the Supernal, the highest Lord in the universe, and the One and Only Eternal King. Everything else: party labels, policy positions, job descriptions, accents, zip codes, skin color, filibusters and organizing, were all utterly and completely dwarfed. In that moment of prayer–especially for a fellow Christian, a persecuted believer, whose circumstances are for most us unimaginable–our political and cultural squabbles seemed petty.

Pastor White, Sen. Cruz, Rev. Pat Mahoney, Jordan and Anna Sekulow, myself, and so many others, were there in front of the White House to do the really and truly important business of crying out to God for one of our own that was suffering for his faith.

It’s a no brainer…Conservatives must vote to defund Obamacare. Here’s why.

Conservatives and the Fight to Defund Obamacare

By 

train tax insertSome in Washington claim that defunding Obamacare would not prevent the implementation or enforcement of the law’s statutory requirements and new regulations. They seem to be unaware of the federal Antideficiency Act (ADA), which makes it illegal to spend money in excess of appropriations.

If a fight over such a defunding provision led to a shutdown of the government, not all elements of the law could be implemented. Moreover, supporters of Obamacare would be put in the unenviable position of trying to explain why they are willing to interrupt the normal functioning of the federal government in order to fund an unworkable law that Americans do not like and do not want to see implemented.

Movement to Defund

Senators Ted Cruz (R–TX) and Mike Lee (R–UT) have been in the news with their Defund Obamacare Act (S. 1292), which Representative Tom Graves (R–GA) has also introduced in the House as H.R. 2682. One of their proposals is to attach it to a must-pass continuing resolution (CR) before the federal government runs out of money on October 1. Under this bill, “no Federal funds shall be made available to carry out any provisions” of Obamacare. No “entitlement to benefits under any provision of” Obamacare will remain in effect, and all “unobligated balances” will be rescinded.

Nancy

No one disputes that Obamacare would stay on the books and that defunding would not change the existing law. But all federal funds already appropriated for the implementation and enforcement of Obamacare could not be used by any federal agency to take any action—whether it is issuing new regulations or filing an enforcement action against an individual or an employer for not complying with the new health insurance mandates. The termination of all “entitlement to benefits” would stop the automatic appropriation of new entitlement spending for things like the law’s Medicaid expansion. The rescission of “unobligated benefits” would return to the Treasury appropriated funds that have not yet been spent on items such as the payment of outside contractors—navigators—for enrolling participants in Obamacare, although it would probably not relieve the government of the contractual obligation to pay for services already rendered.

There is no question that such a defunding bill can stop entitlement spending. The Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortions and is part of yearly discretionary appropriations bills, has prevented federal funds in the Medicaid entitlement program from being used for abortion coverage for almost four decades.

Antideficiency Act

This type of appropriations and funding ban is given teeth by the ADA,[1] which prohibits federal employees from:

  • Making or authorizing any expenditure or obligation in excess of the amount available in an appropriation or fund unless authorized by law; or
  • Involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose unless otherwise allowed by law.

Section 1342 of the ADA prohibits federal employees from accepting voluntary services or employing personal services not authorized by law. That is one of the reasons that federal employees have to be furloughed whenever Congress fails to pass a continuing resolution—federal employees cannot volunteer their services even if they want to, and the government cannot accept outside assistance.

Obamacare poison

The ADA has both administrative and criminal penalties as well as a notice requirement. Section 1349 subjects federal employees to “administrative discipline” including “suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.” They can be fined or go to jail: Section 1350 imposes a fine of up to $5,000 and two years in jail. Under Section 1351, the head of any federal agency violating the ADA has to “report immediately to the President and Congress all relevant facts and a statement of actions taken” if anyone in the agency has violated the ADA through unauthorized spending. Pursuant to instructions issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), that report has to include the actions taken to correct the ADA violation.

Federal bureaucrats are well aware of the ADA, and its penalties deter violations.

If a Shutdown Occurs

The smartest thing the House of Representatives could do is pass a CR as soon as possible that funds the government with the exception of Obamacare. That would force the President and his supporters to explain why they would shut down the government to fund an unfair, unaffordable, and highly unpopular law that is so unworkable that the Administration has itself admitted it cannot manage to implement major portions on time such as the employer mandate to provide insurance.

Senator Richard Burr (R–NC) calls this approach “dumb.” Senator Tom Coburn (R–OK) is circulating a July 2013 research memorandum from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) that concludes that many aspects of Obamacare could continue to be funded despite the ADA if there is a government shutdown.[2] But the CRS memo assumes there is no defunding language passed (as is being proposed) and that the government simply shuts down because there is no CR.

There is an exception in Section 1342 of the ADA for “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,” which as the CRS correctly notes, has been “broadly” read by OMB and the Justice Department to give executive agencies a certain amount of discretion over how to spend their remaining funds during a government shutdown. But in 1990, Congress amended Section 1342 in response to a 1981 opinion issued by Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti to make it clear that “emergencies” do “not include ongoing, regular functions of government, the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.”

The CRS concludes, based solely on press reports, that if the government shuts down, the Administration would likely “rely on alternative sources of funding” to continue “substantial” implementation of Obamacare. But to do that during a shutdown, the Administration could only provide funds that are not dependent on annual discretionary appropriations or fit within the exceptions to the ADA outlined in the CRS memorandum.

The CRS says, for example, that “cost-sharing payments to health plans” from Treasury would likely not be excepted. The CRS also speculates that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) might be able to keep its employees involved in Obamacare on payroll, comparing it to the Social Security Administration keeping its employees on payroll during the shutdown fights of 1995–1996 because they were, “by necessary implication,” integral to making entitlement payments.

ted copy

But this analogy may not work with the Obamacare insurance exchanges, since they are not an entitlement and are not funded by mandatory spending. The entitlement comes through the insurance subsidies, and while IRS employees may be essential to administer the subsidies, HHS employees might not necessarily be essential to administer the exchanges.

The point is that even if a government shutdown occurs without a defunding bill, while the Administration may have some funding available from other sources to continue to implement parts of Obamacare that fall within exceptions to the ADA, it would not be able to legally implement all of the many different parts of the law, and it is doubtful it would have the funds to implement all of the law.

Making Collapse More Likely

In the absence of full repeal, Americans will be better off if any parts of Obamacare are stopped from going into effect. And the more parts of the law that are delayed because of a government shutdown, defunding, or the Obama Administration’s own incompetence, the more likely it is that this horrendously complicated law, which is built on many different interdependent factors, will fall apart like a house of cards.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow in Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.