Skip to content

Planned Parenthood president: Say ‘yes’ to life…if you make it out of the womb

-This article was originally published at

Ah, irony. From Cecile Richards’ commencement speech to Barnard College, an all-women school:

These women didn’t wait to be asked. They just jumped headfirst.

To borrow some wisdom from Lena Dunham, “Don’t wait around for someone else to tell your story. Do it yourself by whatever means necessary.”

If you hold out for an invitation, chances are good you’ll miss the party. And by the party, I mean life.

Growing up, Mom always told me, “The answer to life is yes.”

This is the only life you have so make the most of it. Take every opportunity and risk you can. You’ll only regret the things you didn’t do because you were afraid to try.

That’s right. The head of Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider, thinks that “the answer to life is yes.”

Read more

Discussing the “War on Women” on the Alice Stewart Show

Here is my appearance on The Alice Stewart Show where I discussed the so-called Republican “War on Women”

Campaign Finance Reform Is an Assault on Free Speech

Ted Cruz
-The article was originally published at National Review.

What is the right amount of speech to give to citizens in politics? Both major parties are debating this question as the 2014 midterm elections approach.

According to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who told a Senate panel Wednesday that campaign money is not the same as speech, the answer seems to be “a limited amount.” Stevens, who has been critical of his former colleagues on the Court for overturning a number of campaign finance reform measures, was joined by Democrats who went after the Koch brothers for their involvement in the political system.

Enter Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who in about five-and-a-half minutes shattered the entire argument for what Washington considers “campaign finance reform.” His comments turned campaign-finance pieties on their head and made clear why free speech needs to be paramount in the United States.

Read more

Obama Changes “Settled Law” to Suit His Political Agenda


-The article was originally published at The Washington Examiner and was co-authored with Kavon W. Nikrad.

During the lead-up to the partial government shutdown, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid frequently referred to the Affordable Care Act as “settled law.”

Their implicit argument was that, as the ACA was passed by Congress, survived a Supreme Court challenge and was seemingly affirmed by voters in a national election, Republicans should just accept it as “the law of the land.”

But in an op-ed published by PJMedia, we noted that the same politicians who make the “settled law” claim ignore how Congress and the president have changed the ACA at least 20 times, sometimes legislatively, often dictatorially and perhaps even illegally.

Read more

The Takeaway From Today’s Jobs Report

Unemployment (1)

-The article was originally published at The American Spectator.

Today’s jobs report has some good signals for the economy, and some cautionary notes.

The media’s takeaway, of course, is that the unemployment rate dropped to 7 percent and 203,000 jobs were added.

This is the third of four months that have seen at least 200,000 jobs added, though the month prior to that – July 2013 – only saw 89,000 jobs added.

CNBC notes the participation rate, which has been around a 35-year low for some time, ticked up in November – which means more people are looking for work. However, the report cites the positive change in the employment-to-population ratio as an improvement that partly reflected the return to work of furloughed federal government employees.

Read more

This Year’s Deficit is a Failure of Leadership, Not a Success

Obama (1)

-The article was originally published at The American Spectator.

Since the 2013 federal deficit was calculated to be a five-year low of $680 billion, many media voices have incorrectly proclaimed victory over deficit concerns, at least in the short run. One of those voices is Eduardo Porter at The New York Times.

Porter’s inaccurate claims are numerous. This post will focus on two. First, how Porter’s argument that austerity measures have been implemented in the United States ignores reality. Second, how his claim that “austerity shrinks the economy in the short term, often more than it shrinks the burden of public debt” ignores the long-term benefits of budget cuts.

First, there has been no austerity in America. The federal budget has gone up by almost $800 billion from fiscal year 2007 (the year before the recession started) through fiscal year 2013. It has gone down since 2009, but only by approximately $30 billion. A $30 billion cut—largely because of lower spending on unemployment benefits and war, as the economy has improved and the U.S. has transitioned out of Iraq and Afghanistan—is hardly “austerity.”

Read more

Where’s the Leadership on Social Security?

Social Security (1)

-This article was originally published at American Thinker.

In 2010, the Social Security Trustees Report said Social Security would be able to fulfill all current obligations until 2036.  In 2011, that estimate was bumped to 2035, and this year it was changed to 2033.  Clearly, the program must be reformed, yet many Washington politicians think like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who said in January 2011 that “Social Security is a program that works and is fully funded for the next 40 years” and that “the arithmetic on Social Security works.”

Any politician who thinks Social Security “works” for the American people is either dishonest or not paying attention to the facts.  This was starkly outlined recently by Charles Blahous, a trustee for Medicare and Social Security.  In a paper published through George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, Blahous explained the bleak situation Social Security finds itself in. From the paper:
Read more

Obama’s Sequestration Narrative Collapsing on Itself

Shutdown Protest

-The article was originally published at The American Spectator.

Earlier this week, Tea Party Patriots described how President Obama blinked first on the GOP/Democratic showdown over sequestration’s “cuts” to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Democrats had hoped the President would insist the “cuts” hurt as much possible to force a replacement deal that included tax increases, as well as to bolster their argument that reductions in future expectations of spending (known in D.C. as “spending cuts,” though they are far from being so) are harmful to the American people.

As is widely known by now, the President kowtowed to the GOP’s insistence that the FAA be given flexibility with the sequester in order to prevent inconveniences to travelers, especially Members of Congress.

Read more

Obamacare’s House of Cards Tumbling Down

Obamacare (3)

-The article was originally published at The American Spectator.

It’s begun. First Obamacare began to fall apart legislatively, with the elimination of one of its many taxes. Then one component was found to be unaffordable, and was subsequently eliminated from the law. Most recently, the Senate gave its support towards repeal of the medical device tax.

Now, one of the nation’s most prominent Democrats — a man who helped shepherd Obamacare through the Senate — is blasting HHS for making the law into “a train wreck,” and a union that used to support Obamacare is formally calling for its repeal or “complete reform.”

The union’s reasoning is pretty sound — essentially, Obamacare destroys the ability of small businesses to compete with larger companies:
Read more

Mangling the Facts on Obamacare’s Impact

Obamacare 500-px

-This article was originally published at National Review Online.

Since the arrival of Obamacare, before and after its rough passage into law, thousands of pundits and ordinary citizens have debated what impact its regulations and mandates will have on employers, and thus on employees. On Thursday, March 21, the Huffington Post published an article arguing that only a tiny minority of companies will need to cut employee hours in order to avoid certain costs of Obamacare. “All those companies threatening to cut workers’ hours as a result of Obamacare are actually an exception to the rule, according to a recent survey from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve,” HuffPo wrote, adding:

Nearly 90 percent of employers don’t plan to shift full-time workers to part-time status as a result of President Obama’s health care reform law, the study found. . . . In the wake of the law, some health care experts worried that companies would shift some of their employees to part-time status — or 30 hours per week or less — in order to avoid covering them. Though the survey notes that businesses may change their mind once they realize the full effects of Obamacare, it seems companies cutting (or threatening to cut) workers’ hours are more outliers than the norm.

The article was prominently displayed throughout Friday and received more than 700 Facebook shares, more than 80 Tweets, and almost 1,900 comments — but it misses important context and key facts.

Read more