Hmmm… crimes of opportunity, or deliberately targeting Republicans (emphasis in original)?
“The evidence points to someone with access to my office, and other offices in the Capitol complex, as the perpetrator,” freshman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., surmised in a letter to the House’s Office of the Chief Administrative Officer.
Other offices hit—many of which handle information dealing with issues of national security, though nothing of a sensitive nature was reportedly taken—include those of Reps. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and Jon Runyan, R-N.J.; the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security; and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Those looking for some common link might note that Lewis serves on Appropriations; Gowdy sits on Oversight; and Runyan is a member of the Armed Services Committee. Also, staffers on the House Oversight Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census, and the National Archives, which Gowdy chairs, reported that $200 of their money went missing during business hours.
Earlier today, Speaker John Boehner spoke to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2012 Fiscal Summit. Here’s a few of the highlights of his plan from the Speaker’s website, along with commentary, of course (emphasis in original):
In remarks this afternoon to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s Annual Fiscal Summit, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will renew his commitment to the principle he set forth at the Economic Club of New York one year ago – noting that the debt limit exists to force Washington to deal with its fiscal problems, and that any increase in the nation’s debt limit must be accompanied by spending cuts and reforms larger than the amount of the debt limit hike.
All I can say is wow:
House Democrats received training this week on how to address the issue of race to defend government programs, according to training materials obtained by The Washington Examiner.
The prepared content of a Tuesday presentation to the House Democratic Caucus and staff indicates that Democrats will seek to portray apparently neutral free-market rhetoric as being charged with racial bias, conscious or unconscious.
That’s one way of standing up for states’ rights:
The House voted early Wednesday morning to stop the Obama administration’s lawsuits against state immigration laws.
The amendment, which strips funding so that the Justice Department cannot pursue the lawsuits, passed 238-173. Twelve Democrats voted for it, while six Republicans voted against it.
The amendment specifically applies to laws in Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Indiana. The Obama administration and immigrant-rights groups have sued to block laws in each of those states.
Republicans on the House Oversight Committee were to take the first formal step Thursday toward contempt proceedings against Attorney General Eric Holder over the Fast and Furious “gunwalking” operation, CBS News has learned.
The case for a citation declaring Holder in contempt will be laid out in a briefing paper and 48-page draft citation distributed to Democrats and Republicans on the committee. CBS News has obtained copies of both documents. In them, Republican members use strong language to accuse Holder of obstructing the committee’s investigation, which is now in its second year.
The documents allege that the Justice Department has issued, “false denials, given answers intended to misdirect investigators, sought to intimidate witnesses, unlawfully withheld subpoenaed documents, and waited to be confronted with indisputable evidence before acknowledging uncomfortable facts.”
The CIA counterterrorism chief who delivered the briefing regarding waterboarding to Nancy Pelosi has come forward:
In his new book, “Hard Measures,” [former CIA counterterrorism chief Jose] Rodriguez reveals that he led a CIA briefing of Pelosi, where the techniques being used in the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaida were described in detail. Her claim that she was not told about waterboarding at that briefing, he writes, “is untrue.”
They’re seriously considering bringing out the big guns (no pun intended):
House Republicans investigating the Fast and Furious scandal plan to pursue a contempt citation against Attorney General Eric Holder, senior congressional aides told CBS News.
The resolution will accuse Holder and his Justice Department of obstructing the congressional probe into the allegations that the government let thousands of weapons fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
The citation would attempt to force Holder to turn over tens of thousands of pages documents related to the probe, which has entered its second year.
Well, this should give the lefties who love to shove people into groups apoplexy:
Mia Love won the GOP nomination for the 4th Congressional District race Saturday at the Utah Republican Convention, scoring a major upset after wowing the crowd with a roof-raising speech at the South Towne Expo Center in Sandy.
The daughter of Haitian immigrants, Mrs. Love took 70.4 percent of the delegate vote, well in excess of the 60 percent required to avoid a primary runoff under Utah’s unique rules. She defeated former state legislator Carl Wimmer, who had been viewed as the heavy favorite. He mustered only 29.6 percent of the vote.
Back in August 2009, I wrote about former Marine Jesse Kelly, a Republican candidate who had impressed me when he held his own impromptu town hall after the Democrat Representative cancelled hers. He comported himself pretty well, I thought. The Democrat in question was Gabrielle Giffords, whose tragic shooting caught the nation’s attention.
Mr. Kelly has now taken a big step towards replacing the retiring Giffords in the House.
Jesse Kelly won the Republican primary for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District Tuesday and will now take on Democrat Ron Barber in a special election to decide who completes former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ term, the Arizona Daily Star reported.
Now you tell us, Barney?
I think we paid a terrible price for health care. I would not have pushed it as hard. As a matter of fact, after Scott Brown won, I suggested going back. I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care.
But we shouldn’t stop reading with that one quote.
“History will not be kind to a president who, when it came time to confront our generation’s defining challenge, chose to duck and run,” Ryan said. “The president refuses to take responsibility for the economy and refuses to offer a credible plan to address the most predictable economic crisis in our history.
Embarrassing for the President:
The House on Wednesday night unanimously rejected an alternative budget proposal based on President Obama’s 2013 budget plan, dispatching it in a 0-414 rout.
The vote came just hours after the White House cast the pending vote as a political “gimmick,” an apparent attempt to downplay what many expected to be an ugly-looking vote for the White House.
Not really surprising, except perhaps to his fans who follow him with cult-like devotion.
The Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul paid salaries to his daughter, his grandson, his daughter’s mother-in-law, his granddaughter, his grandson-in-law and “another relative,” said a report released Thursday by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). In addition, according to the report, campaign funds were used to pay his brother’s accounting firm more than $48,000.
Another step towards getting rid of the IPAB has been achieved:
The House on Thursday afternoon approved legislation that would repeal a government board tasked with finding Medicare savings, and institute medical tort reform across the country.
Members approved H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Healthcare (PATH) act, by a 223-181 vote in which only seven Democrats supported the bill and ten Republican opposed.
Yes, she actually said the biggest imposition on personal liberty in the history of this nation actually “helps to guarantee” the promises of the Declaration of Independence.
Speaking on the House floor, Pelosi called on her colleagues to remember “what our founders put forth in our founding documents, which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that is exactly what the Affordable Care Act helps to guarantee.”
House Republicans released an election-year budget on Tuesday that they said would cut $5.3 trillion in spending over the next decade compared to President Obama’s budget while slashing tax rates for households and businesses.
Well, that wasn’t hard to predict.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) vowed today that she will join with the Obama administration in standing up against the Catholic Church in defending a new regulation that will require Catholic individuals to buy, and Catholic institutions to provide, health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and artificial contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
There’s video at the link, but CNSNews gives us the heart of the discussion:
At her Wednesday press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi: “The administration has issued a regulation that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions. This would force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation, Catholic bishops are saying:–
Pelosi responded: “Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?”
CNSNews.com continued: “‘We cannot–we will not—comply with this law.’ Catholic bishops are saying they will not comply with this law. Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the administration?”
Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”
“Stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration,” Nancy? What planet are you living on? Bishops across the nation are saying that they oppose this, with one bishop going so far as to call HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “a bitter fallen-away Catholic (who) now requires…coverage for evil and grave sin.” And it’s no wonder, given what Sebelius is reported to have said last November:
“We are in a war,” Sebelius told a recent pro-choice meeting. Opponents of the administration, she said, are trying to “roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America.”
It may not have been a war in November, Secretary Sebelius, but you sure seem to have started one now.
(Cross-posted at PJ Tatler.)
Boehner, Democrats for Life Both Oppose Forcing Church Hospitals to Provide Birth Control or Abortions
Opposition to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ order that health-care providers affiliated with churches or religions–meaning mostly Catholic hospitals–provide birth control or abortion services that conflict with their religious beliefs has officially gone bipartisan.
First, as might be expected, House Speaker John Boehner, who is himself Catholic, spoke out about the order today:
“I think this mandate violates our Constitution,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said Thursday. “I think it violates the rights of these religious organizations. And I would hope that the administration would back up and take another look at this.”
He’s right, of course, this does violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, and you don’t need to be a legal scholar to see that. They’re being ordered by the federal government to do something that is in direct opposition to their religious beliefs, and that’s a restriction on their free exercise of their religion.
What’s interesting, however, is that a Democratic group is also speaking out against Sebelius’ order:
Also joining in disapproval was a group that includes Democratic lawmakers who helped engineer final passage of the health care law. The group, Democrats for Life of America, represents anti-abortion lawmakers who provided the margin of victory in Congress.
“Forcing religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs is very clearly wrong,” said Kristen Day, its executive director.
For whatever reason (feel free to use your imaginations here), DFLA hasn’t yet posted this opposition on their website, but an item from November on their front page is also of interest (bold in original):
The PPACA ncluded a provision to mandate that insurance plans include free contraception coverage. The law also proposed to continue to allow those employers who oppose those types of birth control that cause abortions of new embryos, to continue to provide insurance to their employees, but would be exempt form providing contraception coverage. This was part of the agreement reached between pro-life Democrats and the Obama administration.
“I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for contraception,” said former Pennsylvania Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. “We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage.”
Women’s groups scored a tremendous victory with a contraception mandate that requires all health insurance companies to provide free birth control. Some groups, such as Emily’s List and NARAL, are attempting to push the mandate even further by forcing those who oppose contraception for moral reasons to include free birth control in their plans as well. They are also using scare tactics to convince their supporters that they are in jeopardy of losing coverage for birth control.
“The campaign by Emily’s list to scare women into thinking that they will no longer have access to birth control is as dishonest as the Republican campaign to convince voters that the PPACA funds abortion,” said Day. “The PPACA does not fund abortion and not one woman will lose access to birth control under the new law. In fact, women will now receive free birth control under that law.”
Given that so far the President hasn’t himself spoken about this as far as I can find (if I’m wrong, please post in the comments and I’ll add an update), it seems that he’s not yet honoring the commitment that Congresswoman Dahlkemper spoke about. Whether or not he eventually does will depend largely on how loudly those in his own party push him on this issue.
(Cross-posted at PJ Tatler)