Obama Just Gave Away Millions of American Jobs

Obama Just Got Punked by the Chinese: They Won’t Honor New Climate Change Deal

We are ceding our natural competitive advantages to China — in effect transferring millions of jobs outside the United States.

Stephen Moore /November 23, 2014

china & o_climate2014

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping. (Photo: Newscom)

    That sound you’re hearing from across the Pacific is the Chinese rulers and Beijing laughing at us.

President Obama and the “green” lobby actually think China is going to honor the new U.S.- China climate-change agreement that pushes both nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 15 years.

China agreed to a “target” of deriving 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable resources “around” 2030.In exchange, Obama agreed that American families and businesses will aim to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels.

This is not a planet-saving climate-change pact. Rather, this plan represents unilateral economic disarmament by the United States as Beijing continues its quest to replace America as the globe’s economic superpower.

Raising China’s energy prices by transitioning to highly inefficient forms of electricity production conflicts with Beijing’s strategic mission of economic pre-eminence, and adherence to the agreement is doubly unlikely to happen at a time when the Chinese economy has shown signs of slowing down.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are deadly serious about strangling U.S. energy security and production with new anti-carbon-dioxide mandates.

That’s what has the Chinese — and most of our other international competitors — dancing a little jig this week.

Thanks to the shale-oil and gas-drilling revolution, the United States is now once again the world’s top petroleum producer. America also has nearly 300 years’ worth of coal. The economy harmed the most by taxing and regulating these energy sources eventually out of existence is that of the United States.

Obama is vowing to advance policies estimated to put hundreds of thousands of blue-collar, mostly unionized American workers out of business. Coal regulations alone could render more than 150,000 coal miners, truck drivers and coal-power plant workers unemployed, Congratulations, Mr. President. What a victory.

The irony of all this is that the United States has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions more than any other industrial nation (from 2003 to 2011), thanks to cheap and abundant natural gas. Meanwhile, China’s emissions have skyrocketed.

China is building one coal-burning energy plant nearly every month. The Chinese are trying to figure out how to do fracking so they can get at their oil and gas resources — launching a five-year, $275 billion plan toward the efforts last year. They are importing huge amounts of coal from the United States. They just signed a pipeline deal presently valued at $300 billion with Russian President Vladimir Putin to transport billions of barrels of oil and gas to China.

Does any of this sound like the agenda of a nation that is ready to swear off fossil fuels?

It’s all a ruse, of course. Chinese President Xi Jinping tipped his true intentions with his solemn joint declaration with Obama that China hereby “targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early.” Intends to. Gee, that’s an ironclad promise you can take to the bank.

The greens at groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund are spinning this agreement as a victory for the U.S. economy. Their pitch is that America will now lead the world in renewable energy in the 21st century as we led the world in fossil-fuels development in the first half of the 20th century.

Do they really think we will power a soon-to-be $20 trillion industrial economy with windmills and solar power? Even if solar becomes price-competitive within the next 15 or 20 years, we still need our homegrown fossil fuels.

Europe — in particular, Germany — bought into the renewable energy-green jobs charade a decade ago. Now their economies are cratering because their energy costs have skyrocketed.

That’s the path Obama’s climate-change pact would take us down. It will cripple U.S. industries by force-feeding them expensive electric power. We will displace millions of highly paid U.S. workers in the oil, gas and coal industries. We will increase the cost of electric utilities as well as home-heating costs.

We are ceding our natural competitive advantages to China — in effect transferring millions of jobs outside the United States. That is why the Chinese and the rest of the world are laughing at us.

Stephen Moore, who formerly wrote on the economy and public policy for The Wall Street Journal, is chief economist at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

Ferguson Reignited

Ferguson Reignited

Well over a year ago, Bill O’Reilly clearly addressed the problem now engulfing the normally quite bedroom community of St. Louis adjacent to the University of Missouri, St. Louis campus. Escalated by the liberal media, race baiters, politicians, and others attacking the working American majority living peacefully with their neighbors, their plight has been witnessed to repeatedly. The blatant attack on America focused in Ferguson could once again reignite when those who want to replace justice for all with their unjust dictatorship or even anarchy protest the grand jury decision fully exonerating the police officer simply doing his job. Unfortunately, an eighteen year old thug, fully fitting the profile described by O’Reilly in July, 2013, was killed after resuming his attack on Officer Wilson. Yet, the voices of truth remain conspicuously silenced.

Be it from ISIS, the members of Congress voting against the Keystone pipeline, Obama’s executive orders bypassing Congress, drug dealers, judicial activists, and on and on, America is under attack.


President Obama and the race problem

July 23, 2013

By Bill O’Reilly

On Friday, the President delivered surprise remarks to the press about the Trayvon Martin case and race in general. His main point: a plea for understanding.


OBAMA: There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store, that includes me. I don’t want to exaggerate this but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.


O’REILLY: And that’s true. Many black Americans harbor at least some resentment for past injury. But what President Obama surely knows is that you cannot reach a fair criminal verdict or design effective public policy that solves present problems by dwelling on the sins of the past. “Talking Points” believes the President was correct in addressing the race issue and framing it with the Martin case. He’s the leader of America and the country is talking about this.

By the way, when you hear a pundit or politician saying we should have a quote, “conversation” about race, that means you are in for a sea of bloviating which will likely lead nowhere.

The sad truth is that from the President on down, our leadership has no clue, no clue at all about how to solve problems within the black community. And many are frightened to even broach the issue. That’s because race hustlers and the grievance industry have intimidated the so- called “conversation,” turning any valid criticism of African-American culture into charges of racial bias.

So many in power simply walk away leaving millions of law abiding African-Americans to pretty much fend for themselves in violent neighborhoods. You want racism? That’s racism.

Thus, it is time for some straight talk, and I hope the President is listening tonight because we need him to lead on this issue.

Trayvon Martin was killed because circumstances got out of control. He was scrutinized by a neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman, because of the way he looked. Not necessarily his skin color, there is no evidence of that but because he was a stranger to Zimmerman and was dressed in clothing sometimes used by street criminals.

It was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance. But the culture that we have in this country does lead to criminal profiling because young black American men are so often involved in crime, the statistics overwhelming.

But here is the headline: young black men commit homicides at a rate 10 times greater than whites and Hispanics combined. When presented with damning evidence like that, and like the mini-holocaust in Chicago where hundreds of African-Americans are murdered each year the civil rights industry looks the other way or makes excuses. They blame guns, poor education, lack of jobs, rarely do they define the problem accurately. So here it is. The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family.

Right now about 73 percent of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty. And the lack of involved fathers leads to young boys growing up resentful and unsupervised. When was the last time you saw a public service ad telling young black girls to avoid becoming pregnant? Has President Obama done such an ad? How about Jackson or Sharpton? Has the Congressional Black Caucus demanded an ad like that? How about the PC pundits who work for NBC News?

White people don’t force black people to have babies out of wedlock. That’s a personal decision; a decision that has devastated millions of children and led to disaster both socially and economically. So raised without much structure, young black men often reject education and gravitate towards the street culture, drugs, hustling, gangs. Nobody forces them to do that; again, it is a personal decision.

But the entertainment industry encourages the irresponsibility by marketing a gangster culture, hip hop, movies, trashy TV shows to impressionable children. In fact, President Obama has welcomed some of the worst offenders in that cesspool to the White House when he should be condemning what these weasels are doing. These so-called entertainers get rich while the kids who emulate their lyrics and attitude destroy themselves.

And then there is the drug situation. Go to Detroit and ask anyone living on the south side of the eight-mile road what destroyed their city? They will tell you narcotics. They know addiction leads to crime and debasement. But what do the race hustlers and limousine liberals yell about? The number of black men in prison for selling drugs. Oh, it’s so unfair. It’s a nonviolent crime and blacks are targeted. That is one of the biggest lies in the history of this country.

The thugs who sell hard drugs, no matter what color they are, deserve to be put away for long periods of time. They sell poison, they sell a product that enslaves and kills. They are scum.

When was the last time you heard the Congressional Black Caucus say that? How about Jackson and Sharpton? How about President Obama?

The solution to the epidemic of violent crime in poor black neighborhoods is to actively discourage pregnancies out of marriage, to impose strict discipline in the public schools, including mandatory student uniforms, and to create a zero tolerance policy for gun and drug crimes imposing harsh mandatory prison time on the offenders.

And finally, challenging the entertainment industry to stop peddling garbage. Hey listen up you greed heads, if a kid can’t speak proper English, uses the “f” word in every sentence, it’s disgraceful, it’s disrespectful — it’s disrespectful in his or her manner. That child will never, never be able to compete in the marketplace of America… never. And it has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents. You’re the ones hurting these vulnerable children.

You want a conversation, you got it. You want a better situation for blacks, give them a chance to revive their neighborhoods and culture. Work with the good people to stop the bad people. Pumping money into the chaos does little. You can’t legislate good parenting or responsible entertainment. But you can fight against the madness, with discipline, a firm message and little tolerance for excuse-making.

It is now time for the African-American leadership, including President Obama to stop the nonsense. Walk away from the world of victimization and grievance and lead the way out of this mess.

And that’s “The Memo.”

– You can catch Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and any time on foxnews.com/oreilly. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com.

Transcript Date:

Mon, 07/22/2013

Obama’s Unilateral Amnesty Will Be Unprecedented and Unconstitutional

Obama’s Unilateral Amnesty Really Will Be Unprecedented – and Unconstitutional

Hans von Spakovsky / John G. Malcolm

November 19, 2014

According to the Associated Press, as well as House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than 5 million illegal immigrants is no different than unilateral actions that were taken by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

However, this claim plays a bit fast and loose with history and fails to explain the significant difference between Obama going against the will of Congress, which considered and rejected the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act on several occasions, including when both houses of Congress were controlled by the president’s party, and Reagan and Bush, who made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent.

Obama Set to Unilaterally Reshape the Nation’s Immigration System

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act, which provided a general amnesty to almost 3 million illegal immigrants. According to the Associated Press, Reagan acted unilaterally when his Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner “announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by [IRCA] would get protection from deportation.” In fact, in 1987, then-Attorney General Ed Meese issued a memorandum allowing the INS to defer deportation where “compelling or humanitarian factors existed” for children of illegal immigrants who had been granted amnesty and, in essence, given green cards and put on a path towards being “naturalized” as citizens. In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

As the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website itself explains, the children of individuals who become citizens through naturalization have a relatively easy process for also becoming naturalized citizens to avoid breaking up families. And as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, the INS was, as a practical matter, going to “look the other way under certain circumstances with regard to minor children both of whose parents received amnesty.” This was well within the authority delegated to the executive branch and a “legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

The Bush administration relaxed these technical requirements under a “Family Fairness” policy to defer deportation of the spouses and children of illegal immigrants who were allowed to stay in this country and seek naturalization through the IRCA amnesty. Shortly thereafter, Bush worked with Congress to pass the Immigration Act of 1990, which made these protections permanent. Significantly, the Bush policy and the 1990 act affected only a small number of immigrants–about 140,000 people–in comparison to Obama’s past (his 2012 implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program) and anticipated unilateral actions that will affect millions of immigrants.

Some supporters of Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration have also pointed to other actions by past presidents that allowed immigrants such as Afghans and Nicaraguans to stay in the U.S. But those limited actions were based on very special circumstances such as the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Communist-driven civil war in Nicaragua or the Chinese massacre of students in Tiananmen Square that led Bush to grant deferred departure to threatened Chinese nationals.

Moreover, our immigration laws contain exceptions permitting temporary protected status when an illegal alien’s home country is beset with civil strife or recovering from a natural disaster. America’s generous asylum policies also give safe haven to aliens who if returned to their home countries would face persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The special circumstances that prompted Reagan and Bush to act compassionately, but also within the legal boundaries set by Congress, simply do not exist here. They are a far cry from granting what is in effect a general amnesty complete with benefits that legal immigrants must wait years to obtain.

In short, while Reagan and Bush worked closely with Congress to implement the comprehensive legislation that Congress had passed (in the case of Reagan) or would pass shortly thereafter (in the case of Bush), Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unconstitutionally revising existing law and, without congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress time and time again, thereby setting himself up as a kingmaker (or king) on immigration policy.

By doing so, the president is establishing a dangerous precedent that violates fundamental principles of separation of powers that serve as a bulwark to protect our liberties and that established a government of laws and not of men.

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.

John G. Malcolm oversees the Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

Immigration and the Order of Law

Immigration and the Order of Law

Not since Clinton’s perjury and the Senate’s failure to administer justice for all for the blatant perjury has there been such a flagrant disregard and trashing of the original intention of the Constitution as has been manifest by Obama and his administration. Moving far beyond reason in ignoring the foundational truths of science and history, violating the order of Law yields the brokenness and failure witnessed economically, politically, and socially in our Nation.

The liberal humanist money funding the propaganda of lies and deceptions misdirecting a public tolerant of injustice comes from those benefiting from all that made America great. Accumulating wealth and power, those enemies of truth and justice then reject the immutable Order upon which any enduring society and its government must be based. Human arrogance and pride arising from a false presumption of control ignore the reality of “the Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God”. Magnified by political action, those enemies, foreign and domestic, rob us of every intention expressed in the Preamble. Absent equal opportunity and justice for all, those “unalienable Rights, …. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are lost.

America is under attack from all who disobey the Order established by the “Creator” of immutable unchanging Law. “It is [our] duty to throw off such [attackers], and to provide new Guards for [our] future security.”


The 10-Point Immigration Plan Obama Should Follow

David Inserra /November 13, 2014

With news reports surfacing about President Obama’s 10-step plan to take executive action on immigration, it appears the president has decided to ignore the American people, Congress and current law in order to push through some sort of amnesty.

While the details are not yet clear, this administrative amnesty will likely shield as many as 5 million unlawful immigrants from deportation and grant them authorization to work in the United States legally.

INFOGRAPHIC: There’s a Better Way to Fix Our Immigration System

This action flies in the face of current law. Despite claims that many presidents have used this authority on many occasions in the past century, never before has a president used his “discretion” to ignore so much of U.S. immigration law in such a massive way.

Rather than using his discretion for hard cases and to better administer the immigration system, Obama is planning on using his discretion to effectively nullify U.S. laws.

Looks Like Obama Is Going Big on Immigration. Now What?

Obama’s executive action will not fix our immigration system but will only make it worse by encouraging more illegal immigration, as we have seen with past amnesties.

His action will consume scarce Department of Homeland Security resources, focusing the department’s time and efforts on providing unlawful immigrants with pseudo-legal status while more important reforms to the department are shelved.

Obama will also shred the rule of law, the bedrock of American and Western jurisprudence. The rule of law says that laws should apply to everyone and should be equally and fairly enforced, not tossed out on the whim of the president.

Instead of this arbitrary and harmful plan, The Heritage Foundation has a better 10-step plan for the executive branch–one that upholds the rule of law, faithfully enforces current law and is the right first step to fix the U.S. immigration system.


Infographic: Kelsey Harris/The Daily Signal

David Inserra specializes in cyber and homeland security policy, including protection of critical infrastructure, as research assistant in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies. Read his research.

Collectivism Versus the Ten Commandments – Ben Shapiro & Church and State – Cohorts or Combatants? – Ricki Pepin


Ben Shapiro

Collectivism often prevails politically despite its policy failures. We should not credit the good intentions of this evil ideology. It violates the Decalogue beginning to end. Friends of freedom need to fight back in moral terms, trusting God.

I’ve been asked to talk with you today about why freedom succeeds and collectivism fails. The answer, of course, is that diffuse knowledge beats centralized knowledge.

If you combined all the individual knowledge in this room, we’d all know more together than Einstein did. That’s why no one person is qualified to run a country or run our lives.

But there’s a broader question, and it’s more difficult. With our long history of collectivism failing and freedom succeeding, why is it that collectivism actually seems to win a lot of the time? It wins because we don’t recognize it’s evil and say so.

You’re Seen as Bad

We assume that the people promoting collectivism are good guys. They believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they have all the best intentions. No, they don’t.

Their intention as collectivists is to shut you down, because they see you as a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes who hate the poor. Collectivism is justified because you’re all bad people.

Collectivists are emissaries of an evil ideology, and we have to call it by its name. We have to speak about these things in moral terms.

Look at the hundreds of millions of dead bodies strewn around the globe, thanks to the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and various other Communist countries.

Look at the crushing poverty that the collectivists have produced in places across the globe today, ranging from South America to Africa to Asia to Detroit.

Or look at the way collectivism violates the Ten Commandments. That is the very definition of evil to me. Let’s go through all ten and see how collectivism is a threat to each and every one.

First Commandment

Start with this: “I am the Lord thy God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of bondage.” This is fundamentally opposed to collectivism. If we’re all individuals created in the image of God, we’re special and precious. No one gets to invade our rights just because they think they are superior to us.

Our rights matter more to us than the government. Across three millennia for the Jewish people, and for more than two centuries here in America, the working theory has been that if you tell me I am supposed to respect government above God, I will resist you with force.

Millions of people have died for their God, and speaking for myself, I will go to jail or even pick up a gun before the government of the United States tells me I’m supposed to violate my religious precepts.

Second Commandment

“Thou shall have no other gods before me.” No others. Not government, not fairness, and not a certain someone about whom his wife said, “Our souls are broken in this nation and Barack can heal you.”

Being at the 2012 Democratic National Convention was one of the scariest experiences in my life. It was such a cult-like atmosphere.

They’d actually removed the iconography of the Democratic Party. The donkey was gone. It was all Barack Obama’s face or that supremely creepy Obama icon with the blue O. There was an idolatrous worship of the president, such as we’ve never seen in American politics.

We on the right, we like Ronald Reagan, sure. But when we go to bed at night we don’t light a little candle in our closet for him. We understand that Reagan was a human being who did some wonderful things and also some stuff that wasn’t so great.

Moses who





Collectivists can’t afford to think like that. They have to worship something, because that’s how human beings are made. If it’s not God, it’s going to be government or some other idol.

Third Commandment

“Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” This gets broken by collectivists on a routine basis. Collectivism always masquerades as godly, manipulating Scripture to pose as moderate.

Look, I’m an Orthodox Jew. Jesus is not even my guy. But if I have to hear President Obama one more time misquote the book of Matthew…. And when he’s not misquoting the Bible, he’s berating the Bible.

In 2006 he gave a speech pointing out all the alleged flaws in the Bible. “Which passages of scripture should guide our policy? Should we go with Leviticus which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination?” Obama likes the Bible the same way he likes the Constitution: roasted with barbecue sauce.

Fourth Commandment

“Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” This is the idea that your labor belongs to God, not to government. It’s the idea that you get to act out your religion in public life.

The Sabbath is a wonderful thing for all religious people because it’s an acknowledgment that all of this is not ours. This is God’s. So collectivists hate the Sabbath because they believe all of this is not ours or God’s — it’s theirs.

The Sabbath is also what keeps us a charitable people. The recognition that this is not ultimately our property is what keeps us giving charity. The minute you take away Sabbath and the notion that everything is God’s, then charity goes away. Charity and the Sabbath are there to make us good people. Collectivists are there to brand us as bad people, because that’s what justifies collectivism.

Fifth Commandment

“Honor thy father and thy mother.” The left is not big into this at all. The Communist Manifesto reads: “On what foundation is the bourgeois family based? On capital, on private gain.”

First of all, friends, remember that the word “bourgeois” here does not mean rich people. It means that vaunted middle class that the other part claims to care so much about. So much for that talking point.

Then, notice that the breakdown of the family is necessary for communitarianism, because the family is the core element that protects you against the vicissitudes of life. It means you don’t need government and you’d prefer government to leave you alone.

Whereas if you break down the family, you’re building up the government, and that’s what the collectivists want.

In addition, honoring your father and your mother means that you have to respect the wisdom of the past, which is another thing the collectivists don’t do. They want to remake the world every generation. They’ll tell you that youth are the people who know what they’re talking about.

Oh really? I’m 30, and I’m afraid the fact is a lot of young people are morons. Especially now that we’re on our parents’ insurance until we’re 26, and we’re still in mom and dad’s basement playing video games and smoking pot – here in Colorado, legally. And that makes youth the wisest among us? Right.

Sixth Commandment

“Thou shalt not murder.” This one is probably the worst of all if you violate it. But in order for collectivists to have their way, they have to be in utter and complete control of human life. Which, unfortunately, means that murder is nothing to collectivists.

Now I understand that it’s bad form to talk about things like abortion. Those pro-life demonstrations with horrific pictures of aborted babies make people feel bad. It’s the “you ruined my day” syndrome. In leftist areas like Los Angeles or Cambridge, where I grew up, you’re reflexively trained that this is gauche, this is rude.

No, this is reality. Abortion is evil because abortion is murder. But collectivists have to demean the value of human life so that everybody just becomes a scrambled egg in the omelet they’re cooking. That’s wrong.

People are deprived of a fundamental right when you personally, based on how you feel that day, get to define what is or is not a human life. That is exactly the same argument the slaveholders in the 1850s made. They would get to define what constitutes property and what constitutes human life.

But we do not get to decide what constitutes human life. None of us do. God did it, and it’s pretty clear.

Seventh Commandment

“Thou shall not commit adultery.” This one is routinely violated by the collectivists. They love the idea of there being no difference whatsoever between the sexes, so that everybody is merely a widget in their magical system.

Nothing has created more unhappiness in the Western world than this idea that men and women are created identical except for their genitalia. Yet anybody over three can tell you this is not the case.

It does not take a higher intellect to recognize the differences between men and women. But by pretending that those differences do not matter and that they are in fact dangerous, you’re undermining any possibility of a viable relationship between a man and a woman.

To the collectivist, adultery means nothing, because sex means nothing, because family means nothing, because in the end commitment means nothing.

When pursuing utopia, you see, everything is either just a tool or an obstacle. Those are the only things collectivists are interested in, and so for them, fidelity and family are obstacles.

Eighth Commandment

“Thou shall not steal.” This one I shouldn’t even have to explain. Collectivism is legalized thievery. It hardly even pretends otherwise. If you and I decided today that we’re going to vote amongst ourselves and then drive over to Bill Gates’ house and put a gun to his head and steal his wallet, because we’ve decided his money is actually ours, that would make us evil.

But if we decided to vote and then drive over to a convent, put a gun to a nun’s head, take her down to Rite Aid and force her to buy a pack of condoms, that would make us Sandra Fluke. Or the editors of the New York Times or the President of the United States or a four-member minority of the Supreme Court. It would be no less evil, though. Just because you think you have a right to something doesn’t mean you have a right to take it from your neighbor.

Ninth Commandment

“Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Lies mean nothing to collectivists. As Dennis Praeger says, to the left, truth is not a value. No, they have higher values; they’re pursuing something more important. Even when you catch them lying, they’ll pretend it doesn’t matter.

Truth is a belief that I owe something to the individual. I owe you the truth. Collectivism doesn’t believe anything is owed to the individual; all is owed to the state. So if the state decides to lie to you, then it’s justified — because after all, you’re bad, the state is good.

Tenth Commandment

Then finally this the last one: “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s [property].” This is the one that collectivism violates most of all, since collectivism is inherently based on jealousy. It’s the idea that your neighbor’s stuff is yours. Pure covetousness.

That’s why we keep hearing about income equality. They don’t care about the poor. They want the poor to stay that way so they can talk up the issue. But the real issue is economic growth, upward mobility. When you have that, income inequality becomes a stupid argument.

If everybody’s getting richer, why do you care what your neighbor has? I would rather live in a nice house next to Bill Gates and be income-unequal with him than be income-equal in Detroit.

Pushback Works

To wrap this all up in a bow: Collectivism does lose in the long run. But the reason it wins in the short run is that we so often refuse to speak in moral terms, where the collectivists always speak in moral terms. Allegedly we’re bad and they’re good; we’re violating rights and they’re standing up for rights. We have to push back in moral terms of our own.

Remember that slogan at DNC 2012, “Government is the only thing we all belong to”? They actually put this up on their big board—until the pushback forced the Obama campaign to disown it. That can happen.

I’m a new father, just six months. Our little daughter is the most beautiful baby that was ever made. Sometimes at night, rocking her to sleep, I find myself tearing up with the realization that there’s going to come a point where my baby is crying and I’m not going to be there.

God willing it’s many years down the road, but when that happens she’ll need to have the freedom and the power to solve the problem for herself. The evil of collectivism takes that power away from us.

Evil enervates us. It takes away our ability, our will. It saps us of our God-given capacity to solve problems on our own and to make the world a better place and to rock our children to sleep at night—because, after all, you know, that’s not our job, it takes a village.

Isaiah’s Defiance

Freedom is about the future. It’s about what we want to give our kids, and in order to do that, our job is to fight collectivist evil. Yes, freedom does succeed, freedom wins — but only if we fight.

Don’t be afraid, though. One great thing about the Ten Commandments, there are all these books that come with them, books of Scripture. We learn in one of those: “God is with us.”

That’s from the Prophet Isaiah, where he defies the enemies of the Lord: “Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan but it will not stand, for God is with us” (Isaiah 8:10, NIV).

He is and will always be, for so long as we forge forth to fight for the freedom that He granted us. God is with us indeed.

Ben Shapiro is a political commentator, radio host, author, and attorney. He became America’s youngest nationally syndicated columnist at 17, after entering UCLA at 16. His books include Bullies, Brainwashed, Porn Generation, Primetime Propaganda, Project President, and The People vs. Barack Obama. He delivered these remarks at the Western Conservative Summit on July 20, 2014.

Centennial Review ▪ November 2014 ▪


Ricki Pepin

We’ve all heard the protests: “Separation of church and State! You can’t post the 10 Commandments in a courthouse! You can’t have Jesus in a Christmas play in a public school! That would violate the First Amendment!” Really? Have any of the people making such proclamations read the First Amendment, or what any of the founders said in regard to the relationship between the church and the state? Time for a dose of truth by way of a brief history lesson.

Wake-up call: The words “separation of church and State” appear nowhere in any founding document. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Let’s think this through. Allow me to ask (and answer) a few questions:

    • To whom is this amendment addressed? (Answer – Congress)
    • Can a child violate this amendment by writing a paper about Jesus? (Answer – no. Why? Because they aren’t Congress.)
    • Can a teacher violate this amendment by reading or teaching from the Bible? (Answer – no. Why? Because they aren’t Congress.)
    • Can a school violate this amendment by putting on a Christmas play or Easter pageant? (Answer – no. Why? Because they aren’t Congress…are you beginning to see a trend here?)
    • Can local government officials violate this amendment by displaying the 10 Commandments, a cross, or a nativity scene at a courthouse or anywhere on government property? (Answer – no. Why? Because they aren’t Congress.)
    • Who is the only one who can violate the First Amendment? (Answer – Congress. Individuals cannot. Schools cannot. Local governments cannot.)
    • Lastly, what is the only way Congress can violate it? (Answer – By making a law to establish a particular denomination, or to make a law abridging any individual’s free exercise of their religious beliefs.)

John Adams said, “…it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” Does this sound like John Adams thought religion and government (which protects our freedom) would be at odds with each other? Hardly. Rather, his words re-state what the founders put in the Declaration of Independence about the relationship between church and state – that America’s government system would be based upon the laws of Nature and Nature’s God. This was a clear collaboration of religion and government as the founders understood these terms – the laws of Nature and Nature’s God – to be the 10 commandments and your God-given conscience. In other words, religion lays the foundation for government and law.

However, both John Adams’ statement and the brief exposition of the clear, simple meaning of the First Amendment, still brings up an often asked question – Whose religion? Should you teach exclusively Biblical tenets in school? Should all American law be based only on the Christian religion, or should we be more inclusive and also use the tenets of Buddhists, Muslims, Satanists, Humanists, et al?

The answer may astound many, but Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story clarified what religion was protected under the First Amendment in A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, 1840. He wrote:

The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent…the exclusive patronage of the national government [to any particular Christian denomination].

What a revelation! Time to push back and remove the muzzle from Christian expression in public. Time to educate and stand up for what our founders and founding documents really say about church and state. America is a Christian nation because it was founded under Christian principles such as kindness, loyalty, integrity, honesty. Other religious beliefs are tolerated in America, but only if their practices conform to the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

Christian citizens in every arena – public school students, teachers, government workers, pastors, etc. – do NOT relinquish their First Amendment rights to free exercise of their religion in any public setting. Let’s bring God back front and center to every area of our lives, including school and government! What would America look like if Church and State began to act more like cohorts, not combatants?

Something to think about.

Obama Diverted Funds From BioShield In Its Fight Against Ebola, Other Threats

BioShield: Obama Diverted Funds From Its Fight Against Ebola, Other Threats

Melissa Quinn /November 03, 2014





Hospitals are preparing for Ebola patients, whose treatment might have been advanced if the Obama administration had made full use of the Bush administration’s Project BioShield. (Photo: Kourtoglou/Newscom)

Seeking a more robust defense in the event of a bioterrorist attack on the United States, the Bush administration created a $6 billion fund to prepare the nation for such threats, including the deadly Ebola virus.

The Obama administration, however, has not used the range of tools and budget provided by the post-9/11 project, focusing instead on only three targets and diverting at least $1 billion to other priorities, a review by The Daily Signal found.

Nearly five years ago, in fact, the administration’s own biodefense science board warned that project funds “should not be diverted to support other initiatives, regardless of the merit of other purposes.”

Repeated diversions of funds “raise doubts about the intention of the U.S. government to consistently fund the enterprise,” the science board adds.

The government’s use of money from the program, Project BioShield, for other purposes also comes under question in a recent report prepared for Congress.

Oversight from lawmakers could help ensure the money is spent “in a manner consistent with congressional intent,” the report says.

Of $3.3 billion budgeted under Project BioShield over the past decade for medical countermeasures to Ebola and a dozen other “material threats” identified by the Department of Homeland Security, fully 90 percent — $3 billion — went to address only three: anthrax, smallpox and botulism.

Those Ebola Vaccines in Testing Now? You Can Thank Dick Cheney for That

    After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government put safeguards in place to protect the country from terrorists using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons.

This is the story of Project BioShield. Just one key initiative within the Department of Health and Human Services, the project had Ebola — among other sources of bioterrorism — in its sights for more than four years under President George W. Bush.

In September 2006, then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff called Ebola a “material threat against the United States population sufficient to affect national security.”

But the Obama administration decided to take Ebola off Project BioShield’s hit list even after President Barack Obama singled out the virus in his second official State of the Union address.

Products currently in development to combat Ebola are in early stages and thus cannot be funded through Project BioShield, an HHS spokeswoman told The Daily Signal.

No one could have predicted in 2010, perhaps, that more than 4,500 would die so far as a result of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa — or that four people would become infected in the U.S.

However, officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations clearly saw the potential threat in the deadly virus.

As vice president, Dick Cheney was the driving force behind Project BioShield.

Creation of Project BioShield

In the wake of 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney pushed for additional measures to protect the United States from bioterrorism.

    Addressing his concerns, Congress passed a measure creating Project BioShield, an initiative spearheaded by Cheney. It allocated $5.6 billion to buy, develop and store drugs for use in the event of a bioterrorist attack.

Ebola Preparedness: Yearning for Yesteryear

    The law creating Project BioShield allowed the government to purchase vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics already in the advanced development phase.

    It also gave the National Institutes of Health, specifically the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the authority to speed up and simplify the awarding of grants and contracts for developing medical countermeasures against bioterrorism.

Providing financial backing for research and development toward an Ebola vaccine doesn’t fall to one federal agency. Many agencies are in the fight against the virus, and those within HHS include the National Institutes of Health.

Both NIH and the Department of Defense have been instrumental in advancing Ebola treatments that now are in advanced stages and being used to care for infected Americans.

As part of Project BioShield, the fledgling Department of Homeland Security created during the Bush administration identified 13 material threats that were to be the focus of countermeasures. One of them was Ebola.

Pharmaceutical companies previously had little incentive to develop vaccines and therapeutics for viruses such as Ebola. Historically, Ebola specifically had killed far fewer people — roughly 1,500 since the disease’s discovery in 1976 — than it has in the current outbreak in West Africa.

Cheney’s Project BioShield, though, gave companies a financial incentive to get going and guaranteed them a customer: the U.S. government.

“While not ‘perfect’ protection, BioShield is the best program [of its type] America has,” Steven Bucci, a national security and foreign policy expert at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

Bucci, a top Defense Department official during the Bush administration, added:

    It provides a layer of defense that should improve every day it is deployed and as we learn more. If it is left fallow, that layer of defense will not improve, and we will become more vulnerable every day.

    From 2004 to 2013, funding for Project BioShield was about $560 million a year. When the original 10-year funding designation expired, Congress passed a measure — the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 — that authorized up to $2.8 billion for BioShield from 2014 to 2018.

In the year since the original 10-year appropriation expired, Obama has sought significantly less than the original authorized annual funding. He requested $250 million for fiscal 2014 and $415 million for fiscal 2015.

In the first 10 years, Congress opted to rescind or transfer approximately $2.3 billion that had been designated for countermeasures to agents of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism.

Congress rescinded $25 million from Project Bioshield, according to a June report from the Congressional Research Service. The lawmakers transferred $137 million for influenza preparedness and another $304 million for basic research on biodefense and emerging infectious diseases (including Ebola) at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH.

The report said the lawmakers also transferred $1.8 billion to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, the sub-agency of HHS that oversees Project BioShield contracts.

Over the years, Project BioShield provided roughly $3.3 billion to acquire medical countermeasures against material threats such as Ebola.

The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act, passed last year by Congress, re-upped funding for Project BioShield through 2018. It also gave authority to the HHS secretary to move up to half of that four-year funding, or $1.4 billion, to BARDA in a single year.

In the Congressional Research Service report examining related issues, science and technology policy specialist Frank Gottron questions the government’s use of BioShield funds for other purposes.

“Congressional oversight of such transfers could help ensure that HHS uses Project BioShield appropriations in a manner consistent with congressional intent,” Gottron writes.

‘A Little Like a War:’ He Treated Ebola in Africa, Now Helps Prepare at Home

    President George W. Bush credited Vice President Dick Cheney with advancing the nation’s readiness for biological threats such as Ebola.

Project BioShield and the Bush Administration

From its creation in 2004 until President Bush’s departure from office in January 2009, Project BioShield’s authority was the basis for research and development of several Ebola treatments.

A review of HHS annual reports turns up multiple grants awarded to companies specifically to research Ebola.

From 2004 to 2006, under BioShield authorities, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases awarded more than $1.8 million in grants to Apath LLC and Oncovir Inc. to develop antiviral drugs for Ebola infection and advance early treatment of the virus, respectively.

Asked about these two projects, HHS spokeswoman Elleen Kane told The Daily Signal that funding may have been discontinued, since subsequent reports did not mention them. Kane directed inquiries to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which did not respond.

Chertoff’s designation of Ebola as a national security threat eight years ago was the basis for a declaration from HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell three months ago authorizing use of in-vitro diagnostic tests to help detect the virus.

In its annual report for 2007-08, HHS stated it had invited proposals for development of an Ebola vaccine, a request made possible by Project BioShield.

Similarly, an experimental Ebola vaccine from Johnson & Johnson benefited from BioShield backing. In 2008, NIH awarded a grant worth about $30 million to a biopharmaceutical company called Crucell, which Johnson & Johnson later purchased.

     According to Crucell’s website, Project BioShield was part of the rationale for developing a vaccine.

NIH Director Warns of Consequences from Mandatory Quarantines in NY, NJ

Project BioShield and BARDA

    The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the agency within HHS that oversees Project BioShield, was created in 2006 under President Bush.

With its attachment to BARDA, the balance of BioShield’s 10 years of advanced appropriations became known as the Special Reserve Fund.

BARDA sought to “facilitate the research, development, and acquisition of medical countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents …,” the agency’s draft strategic plan states. It continues:

With NIH basic research and development programs, the newly established BARDA advanced development funding mechanisms, the acquisition support available through the Project BioShield Special Reserve Fund, DSNS assets [a reference to the Centers for Disease Control’s Division of Strategic National Stockpile], and appropriations for pandemic influenza countermeasures, HHS now has a comprehensive, end-to-end capability to facilitate the successful advanced development, procurement, and availability of medical countermeasures to increase public health preparedness for responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats and emerging infectious diseases, including pandemic influenza.

BARDA’s first strategic plan did not outline plans to combat Ebola.

In the agency’s 2011-16 strategic plan, however, BARDA Director Robin Robinson specifies Ebola as an emerging threat. Robinson, appointed in 2008, outlines a goal to develop capabilities to “address novel and emerging threats.”

The report says:

    The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act charges BARDA with the advanced development of medical countermeasures for emerging infectious disease threats, which come in many forms. New and lethal infectious diseases, such as MRSA, Dengue, Ebola, SARS, and Nipah virus, continue to emerge in nature.

    Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., was and continues to be a vocal proponent of BARDA and Project Bioshield. Of the role the authority plays in protecting America, Burr told The Daily Signal:

    This [Ebola] outbreak reminds us of the human toll the threats we face can take and why we must fully leverage all of the tools at our disposal to quickly advance the medical countermeasures we need to protect the American people. … Congress put in place critical tools, which we must fully implement and leverage if we are going to be prepared for the full range of threats we may face.

Here’s Why Budget Cuts Have Nothing to Do with Developing an Ebola Vaccine

     In 2010, President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius both spoke of the threat posed by the Ebola virus.

Project BioShield and the Obama Administration

In his 2010 State of the Union address, after a year in office, President Obama announced an initiative to “give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease — a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.”

Two months later, HHS’s National Biodefense Science Board evaluated a relevant interagency group and made recommendations. The interagency group, called the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise, oversees BioShield and other efforts to address the government’s need for measures to protect America from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats.

In its March 2010 report, the National Biodefense Science Board called for reauthorization of BioShield, specifying that it should be “adequately funded.” The science board said the “funds should not be diverted to support other initiatives, regardless of the merit of other purposes.”

The report goes on to list instances where BioShield money was diverted to other projects in 2009 and 2010, the first two years of the Obama administration. It says:

Setting aside the merits of other funding targets, repeated diversions of the Special Reserve Fund raise doubts about the intention of the U.S. government to consistently fund the [medical countermeasures] enterprise over multiple years. Transfers from the [fund] to other entities must be avoided if industry confidence in the U.S. government as a partner is to be fostered.

Congress did allocate more funding to Project BioShield — $2.8 billion through 2018 — but the Obama administration and lawmakers continue to divert money for other purposes, some unrelated to the mission. The Congressional Research Service addressed that concern in its June report on BioShield to Congress.

     Five months after the science board’s recommendations, in August 2010, then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius delivered a speech marking release of an HHS examination of the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise, the interagency group.

Heading to the Doctor or Emergency Room? Prepare to Be Pre-Screened for Ebola

  Sebelius announced a plan creating, among other things, a “strategic investment fund” for new countermeasure technologies.

    Joined by Anthony Fauci, director of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Robinson, the BARDA director, Sebelius specifically addressed the government’s increased focus on medical countermeasures.

She cited a potential Ebola outbreak as cause for due diligence in developing such measures:

Right now, there’s little incentive for private companies to produce medical countermeasures for rare conditions, like Ebola virus or exposure to non-medical radiation. And yet, in the event of an Ebola outbreak or nuclear explosion, these countermeasures would be critical.

The goal of the HHS plan, Sebelius said, was to “add more life-saving products to the pipeline, enabling critical programs like BioShield to work the way they are supposed to.”

According to HHS annual reports on Project BioShield, however, the Obama administration hasn’t used any of the initiative’s funds to back grants for development of an Ebola vaccine.

In fact, in its June report, the Congressional Research Service points to “countermeasure prioritization” as an issue for Congress to consider.

    “The Project BioShield contracts have not been used to acquire countermeasures against all of the material threats determined by DHS,” the report says, referring to the Department of Homeland Security.

States Have Legal Authority to Quarantine Citizens Exposed to Ebola

    Of the total $3.3 billion budgeted for medical countermeasures from 2004 to 2014, 90 percent, or $3 billion, went to address just three threats: anthrax, smallpox and botulinum (which can cause botulism).

    No countermeasures funding went to the remaining 11 chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats identified by the Department of Homeland Security, including Ebola.

“It does not matter if the threatening pathogen is a natural one like Ebola is today, or a weaponized one from some former Soviet scientist, we need to constantly upgrade our defenses,” Heritage’s Bucci said. “Failing to make that investment is just wrong.”

In September and October, though, the Obama administration did authorize funding under BARDA to develop two Ebola vaccines as the outbreak spread throughout West Africa and four people in the U.S. were diagnosed with the disease.

“The Ebola outbreak in West Africa underscores how medical and public health preparedness and response programs, especially BARDA’s medical countermeasure work, are a matter of national security,” Burr said. “It’s not enough to prioritize this work only in the matter of crisis.”

Melissa Quinn is a news reporter for The Daily Signal.