Shredding Kathleen Sebelius – HUMAN EVENTS

If a private health insurer had engaged in the kind of criminal obstruction that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been tied to in her home state of Kansas, it would be a federal case. Instead, it’s a non-story in the Washington press. Nothing to see here. Move along.

        On Monday, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. World Magazine, a Christian news publication, reported on new bombshell court filings showing that Kansas health officials “shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces.” World Magazine reported: “The health department failed to disclose that fact for six years, until it was forced to do so in the current felony case over whether it manufactured client records.”

        The records are at the heart of the fraud case against Planned Parenthood. Kansas health bureaucrats now shrug that the destruction of these key documents — which they sheepishly admitted had “certain idiosyncrasies” — was “routine.” Who oversaw the agency accused of destroying the evidence six years ago? Sebelius.

        As governor of Kansas, Sebelius fought transparency motions in the proceedings tooth and nail for years. Prosecutors allege a long-running heinous cover-up to manufacture false records of patients who had late-term abortions — and to whitewash Planned Parenthood’s systemic failures to report child rape.

        Former GOP state Attorney General Phill Kline’s investigation turned up massive discrepancies in reported child rape statistics compared to Planned Parenthood and the late late-term abortionist George Tiller‘s bogus claims. Planned Parenthood of Overland Park and Tiller together performed abortions on 166 girls aged 14 and under and only reported one each to authorities. So, 164 cases of underage rape or statutory rape went unreported and were not investigated by authorities.

        Where is Joe Biden to decry actual rape atrocities and Nancy Pelosi to decry dire hazards to women’s health when we need them?

        A Kansas district judge found probable cause of criminality in the abortion providers’ records; another district judge found probable cause to believe Planned Parenthood committed 107 criminal acts. Sebelius’ response? A bloody ideological soul mate of Tiller’s, she launched a vengeful witch-hunt against Kline. The state ethics board accused him of lying. The left-wing state Supreme Court Sebelius appointed stymied Kline’s subpoenas and appeals.

        Kline was cleared of all ethics violations. In fact, for 20 full months, the state’s disciplinary board for lawyers suppressed an internal investigative report concluding there was zero probable cause to justify the ethics complaints.

        Where there’s obstructionist smoke, there’s corruption fire. Under Sebelius’ watch as governor, an inspector general also reported that her appointed health policy board had “applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators,” according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

        Entirely fitting, of course. The war on whistleblowers and inspectors general has been a hallmark of the current White House. And the radically pro-abortion rights Sebelius has ruled ruthlessly from her Beltway perch: policing citizen critics of Obamacare through a taxpayer-funded Internet snitch brigade; threatening private companies and insurers who have increased rates to cope with ObamaCare coverage mandates; lashing out at newspapers who dare report on the costly consequences of the federal law.

        As she bullies private companies to meet discriminatory and arbitrary disclosure demands, Sebelius has yet to be held accountable for overseeing state government agencies that conspired to hide the deadly truth about the Big Government/Big Abortion alliance from taxpayers. Like her boss in Washington, Sebelius’ political playbook has a single page: Destroy the messenger.

What else is new.


Cain: Cut 10% of All Federal Agencies’ Budgets – HUMAN EVENTS

At a Tea Party rally in Alabama, which holds its primary on March 13, 2012, businessman Herman Cain retooled parts of his standard and often inspiring stump speech.

Cain said that if he were elected President, he would sign an executive order that would mandate all federal agencies cut 10 percent of their budgets across the board and would order newly appointed cabinet heads to look for another 10 percent to cut.

Cain said that when he took over Godfather’s pizza, it took 1.2 Canadian dollars to get one United States dollar. Now, Cain said, it takes $1.20 to get one Canadian dollar.

“Our money is losing value,” Cain said. “And the only way to reverse that is by bringing down the national debt, by passing balanced annual budgets.”

Can also said that under his “9-9-9” plan, which would overhaul the tax code with a nine percent tax on corporate and personal income in addition to a nine percent national sales tax, “everybody gets treated the same” except for those “at or below the poverty level.”

Americans at or below the poverty level, under Cain’s plan, would be subject to a “9-0-9” plan where they are exempt from paying any federal income tax.

Cain also said that “stupid people are running America” and ruining it and that though he may not have all the answers, he has all of the right questions, which would make him a great leader. This was most likely in response to criticisms Cain has received in recent weeks about what many have considered his lack of polish in answering questions on issues dealing with foreign policy and social issues such as abortion.

In addition, while Cain has been criticized for campaigning in places such as Alabama, Texas and Tennessee, which do not hold early nominating contests, Cain’s campaign has argued that they are planting the seeds in these later states to take advantage of the momentum they may gain coming out of the earlier ones. To do that, of course, Cain needs to have respectable showings in Iowa and New Hampshire and most likely win South Carolina.

Cain also implicitly linked the way in which experts doubt his viability and the long term prospects of America to his struggle with stage four colon cancer — a struggle he beat.

Cain said that people “gotta believe” they can take this country back just like he believed that he could beat cancer.

“The sleeping giant called ‘we the people’ has awakened, and it’s not going back to sleep,” Cain said.


Boehner: No More Defense Cuts

WASHINGTON (AP) — Top congressional Republicans, Democrats and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are united in a single message to the special bipartisan committee looking for ways to cut the deficit: Leave military spending alone.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday that the Pentagon budget was cut more than enough in the debt accord this past summer by President Barack Obama and Republicans.

That deal calls for cuts of $350 billion in projected spending over 10 years. The Pentagon is planning on reductions of about $450 billion.

“I would argue that they’ve taken more than their fair share of the hits,” Boehner said.

His comments echo the argument made by others lawmakers as well as Panetta, who in recent speeches and congressional testimony insisted that the Pentagon be spared further cuts.

Rising deficits and deep debt have forced the federal government to slash spending, even at the Pentagon.

The Department of Defense’s budget has nearly doubled to $700 billion in the 10 years since the Sept. 11 attacks. Those numbers do not include the trillion-plus spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 12-member supercommittee has a mandate to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in overall spending cuts over 10 years. If it fails to do so by Nov. 23 or if Congress rejects its plan, then automatic, across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion kick in, with half coming from defense.

Panetta has called that the “doomsday mechanism” and lawmakers have warned of the dire consequences of such reductions that would mean about $1 trillion over 10 years.

In a speech Thursday, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said simply insisting on no more cuts is insufficient. He said lawmakers not only need to offer alternatives to the supercommittee, including raising revenue, but also be open to other options.

Otherwise, “defense is going to be crucified,” he said.

Speaking to the American Enterprise Institute, Smith said, “If we don’t step up and confront the problem with either revenue or spending outside the defense budget, give the supercommittee somewhere to go, give people who want to control the deficit, including our bond raters, somewhere to go, inevitably defense is going to be crushed.”



Liberals often fail to understand the fault lines that run through the Republican Party. But when those fault lines mirror their own, you would think they’d get it. Even as President Obama rakes in $35,000 per couple at lavish fundraisers after relying on Goldman Sachs to be his largest single donor in 2008, the left sits in a park in Manhattan decrying Wall Street excesses. The Dodd-Frank bill, sold as a measure to crack down on Wall Street, is killing community and small banks throughout the nation, hastening the day when Wall Street will be the only source of corporate or personal lending. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, voters have clearly opted for a candidate who came from the private sector rather than one who lived his life in politics, as the continuing collapse of Rick Perry and the ongoing ascendancy of Mitt Romney and Herman Cain attest. But which private sector? Wall street and big business, or small business? Between Romney and Cain, a new chasm is emerging. As Cain put it: “Mitt generated jobs on Wall Street. I did it on Main Street.” The same discontent that is brewing over in Lower Manhattan among the extreme left is also raging on the right as small businessmen rally to Cain, emphatically making it clear that the needs of big business are not only not their needs, but often are a direct contradiction. In a sense, the fault lines the Romney/Cain contest is exposing are very similar to those that first made their appearance when Arizona’s Barry Goldwater defeated New York’s Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican nomination for president in 1964. The split in the GOP has only grown wider. The evangelical, small-business, economic-freedom, anti-tax and anti-regulation Tea Party vote is lining up behind Cain. The economic-growth conservatives, corporate executives, free-market economists and GOP establishment are backing Romney. The emerging contest will not be so much the right versus the center as it will be big versus small, the establishment versus insurgents, libertarian Republicans against social conservatives and, yes, Wall Street versus Main Street. We are going to be treated to a presidential campaign in which both parties’ candidates will have to cope with increasing animosity toward the greed and self-serving refusal to be accountable that have characterized Wall Street and the financial industry. But it is particularly intriguing to compare the impetus for the Cain candidacy with that of the Occupy Wall Street group. Both decry the tendency toward bigness and each disapproves of massive corporate bailouts that choose winners and losers. Both are opposed to crony capitalism and do not want the federal government to be a servant of the financial industry. And both find themselves in opposition to the mainstream of their political parties. The world is indeed round, with apologies to Thomas Friedman. The far left and the far right unite in their opposition to big business and to the centrist establishments of both parties that maintain cozy and symbiotic relationships with Wall Street. Can Obama continue to run on Wall Street money while backed by Occupy Wall Street foot soldiers? It seems unlikely. Can Cain tap into the resentment against Wall Street that rises from the demonstrators in Lower Manhattan? Perhaps he can. The real criticism of Obama is not that he is a socialist — advocating government ownership and control of business. It is that he is a corporatist — advocating government control while keeping ownership in private hands. He wants a few big companies and a handful of major banks, the big labor unions and the federal government to work together to divide the pie and deal the cards. He wants to establish here a corporatism reminiscent of de Gaulle’s France and modern-day Germany. Soon the left will realize what the right is already coming to know — that the mainstream of each party is hopelessly in bed with Wall Street.

Very interesting.

School Competition Rescues Kids – HUMAN EVENTS

For years, American education from kindergarten through high school has been a virtual government monopoly.
Conventional wisdom is that government must run the schools. But government monopolies don’t do anything well. They fail because they have no real competition. Yet competition is what gives us better phones, movies, cars — everything that’s good.
If governments produced cars, we’d have terrible cars. Actually, governments once did produce cars. The Soviet bloc puts its best engineers to work and came up with the Yugo, the Volga and the Trabant. The Trabant was the best — the pride of the Eastern Bloc. It was produced by actual German engineers — known for their brilliance. Yet even the Trabant was a terrible car. Drivers had to put the oil and gas in separately and then shake the car to mix them. Trabants broke down and spewed pollution. When government runs things, consumers suffer.
Our school system is like the Trabant. Economist Milton Friedman understood this before the rest of us did. In 1955, he proposed school vouchers. His plan didn’t call for separating school and state — unfortunately — but instead sought a second-best fix: Give a voucher to the family, and let it choose which school — government-run or private — their child will attend. Schools would compete for that voucher money. Today, it would be worth $13,000 per child. (That’s what America spends per student today.) Competition would then improve all schools.
Friedman’s idea was ignored for decades, but now there are voucher experiments in many states.
Do vouchers work? You bet they do. Just ask the low-income kids in Washington, D.C., who have participated in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. The U.S. Department of Education found that the voucher kids read better than their government-school counterparts.
So what did the politicians do? Expand the program? No. Two years ago, President Obama killed it. Why?
“The president has concerns about … talking large amounts of funding out of the system,” then-press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
Voucher families protested. One voucher student, Ronald Holassie, said, “President Barack Obama, you say that getting an education is a key to success, but why do you sit there and let my education and others be taken away?”
The program was reauthorized only after John Boehner became speaker of the House and insisted on it.
Holassie says the difference between a government school and his private school was dramatic.
“In the public school system when I was in there, (there were) lots of fights. There were shootings, stabbings, and it was really unsafe — drugs.”
The Opportunity Scholarship didn’t offer the full $20,000 that the district squanders on its public schools. It was worth just $7,000, but that was enough to get Ronald into a Catholic school.
“I was actually challenged academically,” he said. “I remember when I was in the public school system, my teacher left in the middle of the year. I remember doing crossword puzzles and stuff like that. We weren’t actually learning.”
He says most of his government-school teachers acted like they didn’t care. His mother, who’s from Trinidad, was going to send him there because the schools are better than American schools.
“She wasn’t going to continue to just let this system fail me.”
But he got the voucher and a good education, and now he’s in college.
Despite the data showing that voucher kids are ahead in reading, the biggest teachers union, the NEA claims: “The D.C. voucher program has been a failure. It’s yielded no evidence of positive impact on student achievement.”
Holassie asks: “How is it a failure when the public school system is failing students? I don’t understand that.”
I don’t understand it either. Vouchers aren’t a perfect solution, but they are better than leaving every student a prisoner of a government monopoly. District government schools have only a 49 percent graduation rate. Ninety-one percent of the voucher students graduate.
Why would the union call that a failure? Because vouchers allow parents to make choices, and many parents would chose non-union, non-government-run schools. The school establishment can’t abide this. Too much money and power are at stake.


Quinnipiac: Cain Jumps to Lead in Ohio Race

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has taken the lead in Ohio in what a Quinnipiac University polling official describes as a “meteoric” rise. The former head of Godfather’s Pizza now leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 28 percent to 23 percent among GOP voters, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.

Support for Texas Gov. Rick Perry has plunged from 20 percent to 4 percent, the poll found. In third place is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, at 8 percent; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 7; Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota at 4 each; former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman at 2; and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at 1.

Herman Cain, Ohio, Republican, Romney“Herman Cain’s rise has been meteoric. He has increased his share of the vote among Ohio Republicans four times since Quinnipiac University’s Sept. 28 survey, in which he registered 7 percent,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Gov. Mitt Romney hasn’t moved, and Rick Perry has fallen off a cliff, down to 4 percent from 20 percent.”

In a three-candidate matchup, Cain leads with 40 percent, followed by Romney at 33 percent, and Perry, at 10 percent.


O’Reilly: Obama’s ‘Stubborn Ideology’ Keeps Nation Divided

President Barack Obama’s re-election hinges on the economy, and if the unemployment rate does not improve next year, Obama will lose, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive video interview.

“The economy is everything,” said O’Reilly, author of the new novel, “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed American Forever.” “But if we’re looking at 9-percent unemployment this time next year, he’s done.”

Story continues below.

O’Reilly, whose “O’Reilly Factor” news show has had the highest ratings of any cable news show for 10 consecutive years, said he disagrees with Obama’s decision Friday to repatriate all U.S. troops in Iraq by December and would have kept 10,000 soldiers there to secure the region. But the author of nine consecutive political books said the uncooperative attitude of the Iraqi government left the president little room for negotiation.

“You have to protect your people,” O’Reilly told Newsmax. “I don’t think President Obama had any choice but to take them out of there.”

Obama has promised hope and change, but has fallen short, he said.

“I think he’s just going to go and hope the American people buy in to his hope strategy for the second time, and I don’t think they will,” he said.

Editor’s Note: Get Bill O’Reilly’s New Novel, “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever” — Go Here Now!

O’Reilly, who has gone on record saying he’d be surprised if Mitt Romney didn’t win the GOP presidential nomination, told Newsmax he thinks the former Massachusetts governor is tops in the GOP presidential field even though he does not appeal to the “Republican establishment.”

“A lot of conservatives don’t like Mitt Romney,” he said.

In order to change that — and improve his chances in 2012 — Romney should pick Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as his running mate.

“I think he’s got to go to the Hispanic community, so Marco Rubio would probably be the guy that I would be talking to,” he said. “You get an Hispanic American, and you get a conservative.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry also is a GOP contender even though businessman Herman Cain is winning the hearts of American everywhere, O’Reilly told Newsmax.

“Who doesn’t like Herman Cain as a guy?” he said. “He looks like a good guy. You’d like to go out and have a beer with him.”

Obama has allowed his liberalism to get in the way of his efficiency, O’Reilly said.

“He tried to revive the economy by the big-government apparatus and spending trillions of dollars,” he said. “It didn’t work. What’s his solution? Well, let’s spend more money.”

He said Obama refuses to change course and try to target the private sector and instead wants to go for stimulus package No. 2 — the American Jobs Act.

“I think that stubborn ideology, something Abraham Lincoln did not have, has stood in his way not only of uniting a nation, but of making the nation better and stronger economically,” said O’Reilly.

He told Newsmax he wrote “Killing Lincoln” because he wanted to illustrate how a great leader can effect change when the country is on the wrong track.

“America’s power is on the descent, and in order to turn things around, we need a great leader,” he said. “It’s not a knock against Obama or Bush or Clinton or any of that, but I felt, as an American first and an historian second…I want to get back to the essence of American leadership, and who’s the best leader? In my opinion, it was Abraham Lincoln.”

Al lot of parallels can be drawn between the status of the United States today and during Lincoln’s presidency, O’Reilly told Newsmax.

“This is a really, really divided country now, and it was divided back then, obviously, during the Civil War,” he said.

Lincoln sacrificed himself — both figuratively and literally — to make the country a better place.

“He put his country above himself,” O’Reilly said. “He knew he was going to be killed. Lincoln was the most hated man in the country when he was president. He put all of his personal concerns aside.

“Lincoln wanted to heal the south,” he continued. “When he was murdered, that whole thing went awry. It set relations between the north and the south, and blacks and whites, back decades, decades. Whereas if Lincoln had survived, the country would have been unified much quicker, and everything would have been different.”

When asked about Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano’s remarks in a Newsmax.TV interview last year that Lincoln bore the least fidelity toward the Constitution out of all the U.S. presidents, O’Reilly defended Lincoln.

If Napolitano were president, he said, “we’d have two countries.”