January 5, 2013

LIFE NEWS

Hobby Lobby CEO Pens Tragic Letter About Loss of Religious Freedom

by Steven Ertelt

January 4, 2013

The CEO of Hobby Lobby has penned a tragic letter about the loss of religious freedom and liberty in America. The Christian crafts company has been forced by the Obama administration to pay for drugs for its employees in their health care plan that may cause abortions.

Doing so violates the religious freedom of the founders and owners of Hobby Lobby, but the firm has, so far, been unsuccessful in getting courts to give it an exemption while its lawsuit against the HHS mandate continues.

Tens of thousands of Americans have committed to support the Christian crafts store Hobby Lobby on Saturday, January 5 after courts have refused to issued an ruling stopping the Obama HHS mandate.

The letter from Hobby Lobby CEO David Green that LifeNews received follows:

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn’t much bigger than most people’s living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God‘s word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation’s largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

 We’re Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I’ve always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God’s laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that’s what we’ve tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week’s biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God’s grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We’ve not only added jobs in a weak economy, we’ve raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government health care mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.

Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it’s the same for everybody. But that’s not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won’t exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby – and my family – are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don’t like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that’s a choice no American – and no American business – should have to make.

Sincerely,

David Green
CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

HOT AIR

Beltway Republicans planning to intervene more in GOP primaries

by Allahpundit
January 4, 2013

I remember when the NRSC took such intense heat for endorsing Charlie Crist in the primary over Rubio that then-chair John Cornyn vowed to stay out of primaries in the future. Three years and several Sharron Angles/Christine O’Donnells/Todd Akins later, the tune has changed among the broader Republican establishment. Question for readers: Is this worthy of automatic opposition on “damn these establishment RINOs” grounds or is it more of a wait-and-see thing? My sense from the comments here after Akin blew up over his rape remarks was that even a lot of grassroots conservatives wished he’d been torpedoed in the primary by a more electable candidate. Maybe that buys moderates a tiny bit of leeway among the base to push more “electable” candidates. At least until they go and back another Crist.

High-profile Senate Republicans are going to try to pre-empt bloody primaries with aggressive, early recruitment and support — effectively trying to clear fields…

Further, top Senate Republicans have made clear to outside groups that they’d like the third parties to not exist simply as entities that air attack ads against Democrats in general elections but to play a more hands-on role in GOP primaries…

Translation into non-Senate speak: The big-money establishment Republican super PACs like American Crossroads need to serve as a counterbalance in primaries to conservative outfits such as Club for Growth and former Sen. Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund…

“To be effective, you have to go well before the primary and identify well-qualified candidates using a number of criteria,” said one source familiar with Crossroads’s thinking. “It’s not who’s more or less conservative, but putting together a more discriminating evaluation of candidates.”…

“When a center-right Republican is in a primary and is being targeted by some group as a RINO, we’re going to make sure we have their back,” said LaTourette. “Not just with speeches and press releases but with money.”

Better recruitment would sound wonderful if not for the fact that the establishment’s talent evaluators decided that this soulless careerist was a worthier candidate than Marco Rubio, a guy who’s already being touted as a potential Republican presidential nominee in 2016. Is there any situation where American Crossroads would endorse a more impressive, more conservative longshot over an ostensibly more “electable” centrist (especially a centrist incumbent)? My agita here isn’t over Steve LaTourette’s RINO Super PAC wading into a primary to try to torpedo a conservative, it’s the fear that it’ll wade in to torpedo impressive conservatives like Mike Lee or Ron Johnson or Pat Toomey or Ted Cruz or any of the other credible right-wing candidates who’ve been elected since 2010. Whom do you trust, among either the establishment or the grassroots, to consistently reliably discern “worthy” candidates from unworthy ones?

Read more: http://goo.gl/RBdDe

BREITBART

Cruz Joins Senate, Moves to Repeal Obamacare

by Ben Shapiro

January 4, 2013

Tea Party favorite and newly-elected Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) took his oath of office today – and immediately moved to take on President Obama’s chief legislative accomplishment, Obamacare. Cruz is the first Hispanic to serve as a Texas Senator.

His first bill, Cruz said, would move to strike “every syllable of every word” of Obamacare. With the retirement of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and the increasing battle between Tea Party conservatives and Republican Party establishment types, Cruz is set to become a leader early in his tenure – and grassroots conservatives are already rallying to his cause.

Cruz, 42, is slated to appear on Fox News Sunday. He is a Harvard Law graduate, the first Hispanic to clerk for a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (William Rehnquist), and a former Department of Justice lawyer. His rise has been so swift that he is already vice-chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Read more: http://goo.gl/e8ZXf

TOWNHALL
Tim Scott Responds to "Ridiculous" NAACP Smear
by Guy Benson
January 4, 2013

Fresh off of his induction into Congress' upper chamber, Sen. Tim Scott fired back at NAACP president Ben Jealous, who stated on CNN that Scott doesn't "believe in" civil rights.  From Greta Van Susteren's Fox News program last night.

If you click through to the YouTube page, the very first commenter calls Scott a "Nazi" and an "Uncle Tom."  Lovely.  This is the brand of invective that conservatives of color regularly endure from the self-appointed titans of tolerance.  The Senator comes across as reasonable, cheerful and passionate throughout his conversation with Greta.  He shrugs off Jealous' slander with grace and composure, a feat I'm not sure I could accomplish.  (I might be slightly more inclined to borrow John Boehner's turn of phrase, given the implications of what Jealous said).  He slaps aside the accusation as "ridiculous" and "baseless," but uses most of his airtime to promote conservative values.  Rather than exploiting the segment as an opportunity to vent some (justifiable) indignation, he stays upbeat and positive:

It appears the people of South Carolina have themselves a very fine junior United States Senator.

Read more: http://goo.gl/4Sa1k

December 18, 2012

NEWSMAX
Club for Growth, Heritage Action Blast Boehner Concessions
by Newsmax Wires
December 17, 2012

The conservative groups Club for Growth and Heritage Action expressed outrage with the concessions made in the budget proposal House Speaker John Boehner presented to President Barack Obama Friday.

The plan reportedly would allow the top tax rate to increase to 39.6 percent from 35 percent currently. The proposal includes $1 trillion of tax increases, up from $800 billion in Boehner’s prior proposal. There’s also a possibility for a one-year extension of the debt limit in exchange for spending cuts.

“The proposal, as reported, represents a clear path toward surrender on conservative principles,” Dan Holler, Heritage Action’s communications director, said in a statement, The Hill reports.

“Rather than fighting for real reforms that would actually solve the problem, GOP negotiators seem intent on negotiating with themselves in hopes of striking a grand bargain that will ultimately fail, as so many others have before,” said.

Chris Chocola, president of Club for Growth, didn’t mince any words either. “First Speaker Boehner offered to raise tax rates after promising not to, and now he’s offering to raise the debt ceiling,” Chocola said in a statement. “Raising tax rates is anti-growth, and raising the debt ceiling is pro-government growth – and this is the Republican position?”

Some analysts think that the concessions Boehner offered the president will enable an agreement to be reached to avoid the fiscal cliff of automatic spending increases and tax hikes set for Jan. 1.

"The political burden is now shifted back to the president, who must be willing to take on his party in order to get a deal Boehner can ultimately pass,” Sean West of Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm, told Reuters. “We do not think the president will overreach: Obama will work with Boehner to get to a deal."

Read more: http://goo.gl/xzPFM

TOWNHALL
Get Ready For the Costs and Chaos of Obamacare
by Byron York
December 17, 2012

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was widely mocked when she said of Obamacare, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” At the time, March 2010, Pelosi's words accurately described the Democrats' just-get-it-done approach to passing a national health care bill. But now it turns out Pelosi was wrong. In fact, we have to implement Obamacare so that you can find out what is in it.

Amid the other momentous events coming in 2013 -- bitter fights over federal spending, debt, entitlements and immigration -- the biggest story of the year, and of 2014 as well, will be the arrival of Obamacare in the lives of every American.

For millions of people, Obamacare will mean, alone or in some combination: higher insurance bills, unwanted changes in status at work, higher taxes, loss of employer-based health insurance and a bewildering bureaucracy that will make today's already complex insurance maze seem downright simple.

Whether Obamacare's benefits will outweigh the chaos it produces could decide the future of the program.

Start with higher insurance bills. “The big unwritten story is that for people who already have insurance through the individual market, or small companies that are buying products in the state-regulated small group market -- those current policies are going to see premium increases on the order of 25 percent to 30 percent come Jan. 1, 2014,” says James Capretta, a health care expert and close student of Obamacare at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. “They are going to have a rate shock like you wouldn't believe.”

The reason is that those people are generally younger and healthier and are able to get lower rates. Under Obamacare, they will be combined with older and less healthy people who cost more to insure. Capretta says about 30 million people will see a steep increase -- a population big enough to make a lot of political noise.

Then there is the change in work status. Under Obamacare, companies don't have to insure, or pay fines for not insuring, employees who work less than 30 hours a week. So it's no surprise that many companies are going to make sure their part-time workers, and some current full-time workers, stay below the 30-hour limit. That will mean less work and less pay for those employees.

Then there are the unexpected costs. This week, the Department of Health and Human Services revealed it will charge employer and individual plans a $63 “fee” for every person they cover. The Obama administration says the fee will be temporary, but it could touch about 190 million Americans at least for the next few years.

Read more: http://goo.gl/zbNE1

THE DAILY CALLER
NAACP Voices 'Major Concerns' about Tim Scott's Appointment 
by Vince Coglianese
December 17, 2012

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People isn’t too excited about the appointment of Rep. Tim Scott to South Carolina’s soon-to-be-vacated U.S. Senate seat.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley announced her appointment of the black Republican during a noon press conference in Columbia, South Carolina. Scott will replace Sen. Jim DeMint, who is leaving to take the top position at the conservative Heritage Foundation. (RELATED VIDEO: DeMint going from 4th-poorest senator to Heritage millionaire)

That appointment will make Scott the only black U.S. senator, at least until 2014, when he runs for re-election. The last black senator was Illinois Democrat Roland Burris, who left office in November of 2010.


Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, told The Daily Caller Monday afternoon that the group welcomed diversity in the Senate, but expects the new senator to work against the NAACP’s agenda.

“It is important that we have more integration in the U.S. Senate,” said Shelton in a phone interview. “It’s good to see that diversity.”

“Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC.

“Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said.

Shelton explained that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities.


Scott, Shelton said, would likely work against that agenda, favoring instead the “small government” posture of Ronald Reagan and that president’s Secretary of Education, William Bennett.

“Small government usually means, as it’s being described these days, the elimination of the role of government and support for initiatives and programs that are crucial for the African-American community,” Shelton said.

“When the discussions about small government were utilized by Ronald Reagan, he appointed Bill Bennett as the Secretary of Education. Bill Bennett had actually voted during his time in the House of Representatives to eliminate the Department of Education,” he continued, though Bennett never held elective office. “That’s not within the African-American community’s best interest.”

Smaller government also means less federal assistance for housing and signals an abandoning of civil rights regulations as enforced by the Justice Department, Shelton said, highlighting the Department’s crackdown on what he called “anti-immigration” laws across the country.

Scott “has demonstrated a record of opposition to civil rights protection and advancing those real issues of concern of the NAACP’s noted African-American community,” Shelton added.

Read more: http://goo.gl/wK0UQ