Oct 062001
 
http://www.wnd.com/media
  • 'Everyone's Scared of Their Shadow'

    In 2014, Dave Brat unseated the sitting House Majority Leader of his own party. Now, he's taking the fight for fiscal responsibility and immigration enforcement to the remaining GOP leaders while wondering how committed they are to those goals. Brat shocked the political establishment in June 2014, when he handily defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary. He vowed to rein in the size of government and stop the granting of legal status to those who entered the U.S. illegally. Just a few months into his term, Brat says advancing meaningful change is a major challenge, even within his own conference. On fiscal matters, Brat says last week proves the GOP struggles with consistency, as the House approved a Republican budget blueprint that vows to balance the budget within ten years but then agreed to significant new spending through a bill to provide doctors certainty of Medicare payments for the long term. "It's probably not as great an emphasis on fiscal discipline as you would want to see. The evidence of that is the day after the budget was done, we came out with a vote on the "Doc Fix". I'm all in favor of the "Doc Fix," but we did $140 billion unpaid for and that's a problem," said Brat. Brat has very good things to say about the GOP budget and the process by which it was created. He praised House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., as "awesome" for leading an open, transparent process. Nonetheless, Brat voted against the blueprint in committee but later supported it on the House floor. He says it was a matter of simple arithmetic after defense experts recommended additional spending. Late in the process, an additional $20 billion was inserted, but Brat was ultimately OK with the changes because spending offsets were found elsewhere in the budget. The episode highlights a cardinal principle in Brat's approach to Washington: making every effort to avoid adding another dime to the financial burden facing future generations. "Every dollar of deficit goes straight on the back of the kids and it's for real. Somebody's got to pay that bet back. The current generation is consuming and the later generation is going to have to pay the bill," said Brat. And while Brat is a strong supporter of the "Doc Fix," he says last week's bill failed his simple test. "The bad news is we got it with only two days to look at it. It dropped out of heaven on our plate. The good news is it makes a couple small moves on the entitlement reform side," said Brat, noting Republicans also made concessions such as more spending on the State Children's Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). "It's a mixed bag, but the decider is it's not paid for," he said. Brat says the Republican majorities have another chance to prove their commitment to fiscal responsibility on Obamacare. "The other major indicator will be coming up in the reconciliation process. There, we get a chance to get rid of Obamacare with only a majority of votes in the Senate, 51 where ordinarily you need 60," said Brat. The 2010 health care law cleared the Senate through reconciliation, leaving opponents confident it can be scrapped the same way. Along with his vow to reduce the size and scope of government, Brat's campaign to defeat Cantor focused heavily on his commitment to oppose Democratic or Republican efforts to provide illegal immigrants with legal status, work permits and even a "pathway to citizenship." Due to Cantor's resignation, Brat took office shortly after election day. He voted against the December "cromnibus" bill that funded President Obama's unilateral immigration action through February. He opposed the funding again in February and March, but the clean Homeland Security funding bill was approved anyway, largely with Democratic votes. Brat says Republican leaders assured members that separating homeland security from the rest of federal spending would allow the GOP majorities to fight "tooth and nail" against what they consider to be Obama''s unconstitutional actions. He says it's a path that never materialized. "I asked the press all along that process, 'Do you see a fight out there? Have you seen a fight yet? Let me know when you see a fight.' There was no fight," said Brat. "Everyone's scared of their shadow on this issue in terms of 2016 presidential politics. That is leading the day instead of principle. We did. We voted to fund an unconstitutional action by the president," he said. Republicans who voted to approve the clean bill said the party could not afford to withhold funding from homeland security efforts and said the Obama immigration action may still be nixed by the federal courts. Brat says Congress made that far more unlikely. "Now the courts can look at that la and say, 'Not only did President Obama do it but a Republican Congress validated it. So it's not a good day for the country," said Brat, who says the lack of fight by Republicans already has the Obama administration examining ways to eliminate corporate tax loopholes and raise the debt ceiling without any input from Congress. Amnesty opponents are split on whether Obama's win on funding is the beginning or the end of the battle. Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., believes the fight has only begun and be reversed in court or through upcoming appropriations work. However, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., thinks the fight is over and Obama won. Brat says Huelskamp is probably right. "I think it's over unless the courts save us but that's all wrong. We represent the people. We're the body closest to the people. We run every two years. We shouldn't be punting major issues like we do to the courts or to the executive branch because we don't want to take the hard votes," said Brat. In a town where political rancor seems more fierce than ever, Brat says the biggest surprise for him has been the graciousness extended to him by members on both sides of the aisle, but he says that atmosphere is nowhere enough to trump entrenched interests and force positive change. "When it comes down to policy, everybody takes ownership for their own piece of work," said Brat. "At the end of the year, if someone said you have to give up everything you did that year for the good of the country, would you be willing to do that. Up in D.C., boy, people want to hang on to their handiwork. So it's very hard to get big changes through," said Brat. Despite the odds, Brat says he is pressing ahead with his efforts to save future generations from financial misery. "We've got to fix the entitlement problem and there's no way to do that without being bipartisan and getting about 100 people behind closed doors and saying, 'For the sake of this country, we have to do this.'" said Brat, who notes reforms will help seniors as much as younger Americans. "These senior programs are done by 2032 in law. So the Democrats, when they run the negative ads, they fail to point out there won't be any programs at all. They're all insolvent by 2032 unless we fix them. That's clearly the number one issue for the country to face," said Brat. There are scores of freshmen members in the House this year, but only one of them defeated his own party's majority leader. Does Brat feel a special responsibility given his historic accomplishment or does he just focus on the things he promised to do if elected? The answer is yes to both. "The special place I have is linked to those principles. I ran on them and the whole country became aware of them. So it puts me under tremendous pressure because if I don't run on those principles and vote on the principles, people know I'm lying," said Brat. But as he faces the many legislative battles to come, Brat says the scrutiny is actually liberating. "It's kind of a good place to be. I'm kind of boxed in by my people in the seventh district who know exactly what I said I would do. Up in D.C., there's a lot of people who don't want to operate on those principles of fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, adherence to free markets. It's a hot spot. I ran for it. I'm proud to represent the people, so I'm happy with what I'm doing," said Brat.

  • Obama Hampers Boko Haram Fight to Advance Gay Rights

    Allegations are mounting that the Obama administration withheld weapons and intelligence support from Nigeria's fight against Boko Haram in an effort to boost the candidacy of the Muslim candidate for president, who is a client of the political firm founded by key Obama strategist David Axelrod, and to push a gay rights agenda on the African nation. As a result, the current Nigerian government has been slow to make progress against Boko Haram, but is making greater strides now after turning to the Russians for weapons. Nigerians will go to the polls on Saturday to decide a very competitive race between incumbent Christian President Dr. Ebele Goodluck Jonathan and retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, who ruled as dictator there from 1983 until 1985, when he was removed through a coup. Buhari has previously vowed to institute Sharia Law in the Muslim-dominated parts of the country if elected. With the guidance of Axelrod's firm, Buhani has tamped down talk of Sharia nearing election day and even added a Penecostal Christian as his running mate. Boko Haram is a radical Islamist terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. In recent years, Boko Haram has slaughtered entire villages, burned countless churches and targeted Christians and moderate Muslims for death. It received global attention last year for abducting nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls. The Obama-Axelrod connection to the Nigerian elections and it's impact on U.S. policy toward Boko Haram is found in a detailed piece by James Simpson for Accuracy in Media. In speaking with us, Simpson said the Nigerians are thoroughly convinced Obama's actions are rooted in politics. "Nigerians overwhelmingly, at least the ones that I talk to and the articles I've been able to access, believe that the U.S. deliberately withheld military aid to the Nigerian president because David Axelrod's group, AKPD, is consulting his Muslim opponent in the upcoming elections," said Simpson. According to Simpson, the Nigerians are most upset over their requests being denied for Cobra attack helicopters. Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney has also studied this issue closely. "It seems the Obama administration has withheld intelligence. It seems it has withheld training. It's found various pretexts, but (the fact it has also withheld) some of the arms that could be very, very decisively used against this odious terrorist organization...really raises a host of questions that I don't think have been satisfactorily answered by this administration," said Gaffney. Gaffney says it isn't hard to see a pattern developing in how this administration approaches foreign elections. "This may sound like deja vu all over again," said Gaffney, who likens U.S. involvement in Nigeria's presidential elections to what we just witnessed in Israel's parliamentary elections. "He has, as he had in Israel, a political operative engaged in helping effect, in a way that is clearly meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign government and a friendly, sovereign foreign government at that. It redounds to the benefit, in this case it would appear to the financial benefit of his friend and adviser, David Axelrod. That has translated into efforts to support the candidacy of General Buhari," said Gaffney. Like President Jonathan, Gen. Buhari is also vowing to exterminate Boko Haram. So how could Obama administration policy impact the campaign? "(Jonathan) wasn't that popular to begin with, but he appears to be weak and ineffectual in the battle against Boko Haram because he's been unable to obtain the arms that he need to conduct a proper war. That's their argument," said Simpson. While Gaffney believes Obama's denial of meaningful assistance to Nigeria reflects either a desire to see Buhari get elected or simply to help Axelrod's client win, there are more official reasons given for the lack of support. "One is that the administration has found fault with the human rights record of the Nigerian military," said Gaffney. There is a standing U.S. policy, known as the Leahy Amendment, that forbids the sale of weapons to nations guilty of human rights violations. However, Simpson says it is applied very selectively. "The United States has provided arms to many other countries, who have committed human rights violations. In this case, they made a special exception, so to speak, for Nigeria. It really looks very much like the Nigerians are correct in their assessment," said Simpson. Simpson reports that Secretary of State John Kerry added fuel to the fire by suggesting the U.S. may re-evaluate the selling of arms and sharing of intelligence after the elections. "The whole thing is a joke. We provided military aid to Uganda and they have a bad human rights record as well. We've provided military aid to Al Qaeda-liked groups in Libya who are now joining ISIS. The whole thing is ludicrous," said Simpson. Despite very little U.S. assistance, Nigeria is starting to make significant strides against Boko Haram. Forty towns have recently been liberated, at least 500 Boko Haram members have been killed and many of the terrorists are retreating to the jungle in the border regions near Niger, Chad and Cameroon. The Nigerians say it's because they finally got help - from Moscow. "They are having an impact but they claim it's because finally they had to turn around and get their arms from Russia. They got Russian Hind attack helicopters and some other heavy duty military equipment, troop carriers and [armored personnel carriers] and things like that. So they've been able to take the fight to the enemy," said Simpson. Another major issue at work here is the Obama administration's push for a gay rights agenda throughout the world and Nigeria recently moved decisively in the opposite direction. Fifteen months ago, Nigeria enacted laws that criminalize homosexual behavior and strictly forbids gay marriage. Simpson says a public display of affection between homosexuals could draw imprisonment of 10 years or more. That is not sitting well with the Obama administration. "The gay rights agenda is detested throughout much of Africa. Seventy percent of African nations have laws outlawing homosexuality. This particularly harsh law was passed in December 2013 and the United States and other western nations spoke out against it," said Simpson. The diplomatic friction over the Obama administration's gay rights agenda may well be a key factor in America's refusal to provide more help against Boko Haram and in Obama's desire to see a new president in Nigeria. "Obama, in sort of veiled threats, said that he would withhold aid if they didn't repeal that law. The Nigerians basically told them to get lost. 'We're going to do what we want. You don't have any right to impose your morality on us,'' said Simpson, who says the Jonathan campaign alleges that Buhari has secretly promised the Obama administration that he will work to repeal the law if elected. Gaffney believes concerns about laws addressing sexual orientation may be warranted but says he has no "dog in that particular fight." He also believes regional and U.S. security interests suggest the administration ought to be pursuing a far different course. "We do have a profoundly important stake in the larger question of whether Nigeria continues to slide into chaos, into the orbit of these jihadists. Oil, the strategic resources and position and population of that country are put into serious jeopardy as a result of these calculations," said Gaffney.

  • Obama Playing Politics in Nigeria?

    Allegations are mounting that the Obama administration withheld weapons and intelligence support from Nigeria's fight against Boko Haram in an effort to boost the candidacy of the Muslim candidate for president, who is a client of the political firm founded by key Obama strategist David Axelrod. Nigerians will go to the polls on Saturday to decide a very competitive race between incumbent Christian President Dr. Ebele Goodluck Jonathan and retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, who ruled as dictator there from 1983 until 1985, when he was removed through a coup. Buhari has previously vowed vowed to institute Sharia Law in the Muslim-dominated parts of the country if elected. With the guidance of Axelrod's firm, Buhani has tamped down talk of Sharia nearing election day and even added a Penecostal Christian as his running mate. Boko Haram is a radical Islamist terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. In recent years, Boko Haram has slaughtered entire villages, burned countless churches and targeted Christians and moderate Muslims for death. It received global attention last year for abducting nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls. The Obama-Axelrod connection to the Nigerian elections and it's impact on U.S. policy toward Boko Haram is laid out in a detailed piece by James Simpson for Accuracy in Media. Mr. Simpson was unavailable for comment, but the Center for Security Policy has been closely investigating this story as well. "It seems the Obama administration has withheld intelligence. It seems it has withheld training. It's found various pretexts, but (the fact it has also withheld) some of the arms that could be very, very decisively used against this odious terrorist organization...really raises a host of questions that I don't think have been satisfactorily answered by this administration," said Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney. Gaffney says it isn't hard to see a pattern developing in how this administration approaches foreign elections. "This may sound like deja vu all over again," said Gaffney, who likens U.S. involvement in Nigeria's presidential elections to what we just witnessed in Israel's parliamentary elections. "He has, as he had in Israel, a political operative engaged in helping effect, in a way that is clearly meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign government and a friendly, sovereign foreign government at that. It redounds to the benefit, in this case it would appear to the financial benefit of his friend and adviser, David Axelrod. That has translated into efforts to support the candidacy of General Buhari," said Gaffney. Like President Jonathan, Gen. Buhari is also vowing to exterminate Boko Haram. So how could Obama administration policy impact the campaign? "Clearly, Goodluck Jonathan's re-election has been made more difficult by the appearance that he's not doing enough to defeat Boko Haram," said Gaffney. While Gaffney believes Obama's denial of meaningful assistance to Nigeria reflects either a desire to see Buhari get elected or simply to help Axelrod's client win, there are more official reasons given for the lack of support. "One is that the administration has found fault with the human rights record of the Nigerian military," said Gaffney, who says the other public concern rests with the Obama cultural agenda. "There are laws on the books of Nigeria, adopted by a sovereign nation through its normal processes, that they consider to be untoward, unacceptable, homophobic, whatever you want to call it, towards people who are lesbians, gays, transgenders, bisexuals and so on," said Gaffney. Gaffney believes some concerns about laws addressing sexual orientation may be warranted but says he has no "dog in that particular fight" and believes regional and U.S. security interests suggest the administration ought to be pursuing a far different course. "We do have a profoundly important stake in the larger question of whether Nigeria continues to slide into chaos, into the orbit of these jihadists. Oil, the strategic resources and position and population of that country are put into serious jeopardy as a result of these calculations," said Gaffney.

  • Screening of Muslim Immigrants 'A Farce'

    Muslim immigration from dangerous nations is dramatically higher in recent years and government assurances that immigrants are being properly screened is "a farce" according to accomplished author and columnist Paul Sperry. "It's a huge surge under Obama. In the last three years, he's averaged 100,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations a year. That is very alarming. It's more than we're importing both from Central America and Mexico combined. This is a big shift in immigration flows," said Sperry, who is the author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. "It's really insane what we're doing. No one's really talking about it, but this mass immigration from Muslim countries poses a serious national security threat," said Sperry. The stated reason for the influx in recent years is the rise in refugees from war torn nations like Syria and Iraq. The amount of people accepted from Syria in particular baffles Sperry, who says there is a long standing policy of keeping Syrians at bay. "Syria has always been on our terrorist list. We have had very strict restrictions on Syrian immigration. Since Syria's become a failed state, Obama's increased the number of refugees. By the time he leaves office, we will be importing over 10,000 Syrians into this country. This is a concern because Iraq and Syria are now controlled by the Islamic State," said Sperry. The government insists the case of each refugee is carefully scrutinized before they are allowed into the U.S.. Sperry says that claim is laughable. "At the top levels of the administration, DHS and so forth, they claim that these refugees are being vetted. But it's a complete farce. We know that from testimony from the FBI officials who are in charge of that type of vetting process for terrorists coming in under visas and these refugee programs," said Sperry. What has the FBI testimony shown? "They admit, under oath, that they have no idea who these people are and they can't find out what type of backgrounds they have, criminal, terrorism or otherwise, because there is no vetting opportunities. You can't vet somebody if you don't have documentation, police records, etc.," said Sperry. "Of course Iraq and Syria are now failed states and the police. There are no police records, so we are not vetting these folks," he said. Sperry says it's a huge gamble to let people from hostile nations enter the U.S. without any meaningful background check. "We have no idea of they're going to come into this country to escape terrorism or to carry out terrorism. We have no idea and they admit as much. For all we know they could be joining a sleeper cell here," said Sperry, who says Obama has also greatly increased the number of Saudis in the U.S. on student visas. According to Sperry, the U.S. should be feverishly dialing back its acceptance of Muslims from questionable nations. He says western Europe is a glaring example of what happens when more scrutiny is not paid to who enters the country. Sperry cites recent terror attacks and plots in Paris, Copenhagen and Brussels as proof that liberal immigration standards and refusal to demand assimilation is a breeding ground for disaster. "They opened the floodgates for North African Muslims. Now they regret it, of course, but it's too late. Europe regrets doing what we're doing now. We're the ones who are rolling out the welcome mat for Muslims from these hostile nations," said Sperry. While Sperry is quick to clarify that the U.S. contains none of the no-go zones for police that are found in some major European cities, he says political figures in the U.S. are naive to think that Muslims are not effecting major change in communities across the country, including some just a stone's throw from the nation's capital. "That's just nonsense on stilts. These politicians need to get out and go out into some of the communities just in their backyard. Alexandria, Virginia, for example, Bailey's Crossroad. They actually call that area Northern Virginia-stan," he said. Two major Midwestern cities are also cause for major concern to Sperry. "Then you have Dearbornistan, Michigan, and Minneapolis. We've brought in so many Somalian refugees that they've turned Minneapolis into a terror hot spot. They are very belligerent, very aggressive about asserting their culture onto the West. The Minneapolis mayor is now wearing a hijab when she meets with Muslim leaders," said Sperry. Asserting the culture leads to a litany of other problems. Sperry says law enforcement has a tough time arresting Muslims in some areas for spousal abuse because it is allowed by the Koran if the wife is disobedient to her husband. He also says honor killings are on the rise, where fathers or brothers are permitted to murder Muslim girls for wearing western clothing or dating a non-Muslim. Female genital mutilation is also a growing problem. Sperry says it's time to stop pretending we are not at war and take concrete measures to keep out people from suspect nations. He believes there is an obvious place to start. "They have a list of Muslim countries who are most hostile to the U.S. and the West. They rank them. We can start with those countries for a moratorium, putting some curbs on immigration from these countries," said Sperry. If the lack of solid background information were not enough, Sperry says the FBI is hopelessly overwhelmed in trying to vet immigrants already in the country so opening the doors to hundreds of thousands more makes us even more vulnerable. "Our FBI doesn't even have the resources to get a handle on all of the ISIS/jihadist threat in the Muslim community. Now we're going to lay on top of that all of these new immigrants who are even potentially more radical on top of that threat matrix. I mean that's just ridiculous," said Sperry. But is it fair to let no one from those countries when surely a sizable percentage have no interest in attacking the U.S.? Sperry says there's no other choice. "We just don't have the information. The FBI admits they don't have the information on the ground that they need, unless the FBI is going to go into these failed states, which isn't going to happen. . They do not have the police records, the police reports that they can make objective decisions on these folks coming in," said Sperry. "It's a pure sympathy play to let all these folks in on blind trust. We just cannot do that," he said.

  • Five Years of Broken Obamacare Promises

    Five years after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, the White House claims the law is working even better than imagined but one of its leading critics says every major promise is now proven untrue and costs will keep going higher and higher unless we change course. On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, into law. It happened after a fierce debate on the House floor just a few days earlier and a controversial move by Senate Democratic leaders to pass changes by a simple majority since they did not have the votes to do it through regular order. The law took full effect in 2014, following a disastrous roll-out of the federal health care exchange website in October 2013. But for those who warned against the law before it's passage, the contents of the law are far more troubling than the major technical problems that bogged down the exchange. "People have learned on a very personal level how they were lied to in the passage of this law. They've lost their doctor. They've lost their health plan. Their costs are going up. Many people have lost jobs and certainly hours as a result of it. Small businesses have felt a huge impact. It's been a tremendous drain on the economy, and very few if any of those original promises were met," said Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner. Turner is a longtime veteran Washington health care policy debates. She was at the forefront of the effort to stop the Clinton administration's attempt to overhaul the health care system in 1993 and is still fighting to roll back Obamacare. She was in the House chamber in March 2010 during the final, intense moments of the debate. "The promises of utopia from Democrats was astonishing to me. 'Finally we're going to get to universal coverage. We're going to provide coverage to everybody and we're going to reduce the deficit. Everybody's going to save. Families are going to save $2,500 on their health insurance costs.' On and on and on it went," said Turner. Last week in Cleveland, President Obama referenced the five years since Obamacare was enacted and said the past half-decade proved the law's critics very wrong. 1cEvery prediction they 19ve made about it turned out to be wrong, 1d Obama said, accusing critics of employing an "evidence be damned" approach to evaluating the law. 1cIt 19s working better than even I expected," he said. Turner says the facts tell a very different story. "We are seeing an even greater shortage of physicians. Many of them are selling their practices or even closing their practices because they can't comply with this avalanche of rules and regulations," said Turner. "We're seeing young people having an ever more difficult time getting that first job to get their foot on the ladder, because the employer mandate has had such a huge dampening effect on job creation in this country," she said. And then there are the costs. "We're seeing families paying ever higher pricesfor health insurance that has many more benefits than they want and often less access to physicians and hospitals that they want. They have not saved $2,500 a year. It has not met its target, even its reduced target, in access to health insurance," said Turner. "So I don't know where he's getting his numbers but it is not based upon the actual facts of what's happening as a result of this law," she said. Contrary to promises that the law would lower health care premiums, Turner the average person enrolling on the federal exchange in 2013 witnessed a 40 percent spike in rates. As a result, she says focus groups of Americans of all political stripes demonstrate great anger and frustration over the hit to their wallets. "Half of them voted for President Obama, half of them voted for Romney in the last election to make sure we have a good mix of swing voters. You can't tell the difference between them when they start talking about this law and how they have been personally harmed by it. The first thing you hear is how expensive their health care is now," said Turner. Turner says the financial toll will only get more burdensome if we continue on the present course. "It's a prescription for health care inflation. You've not increased the supply of doctors and hospitals and in fact hospitals are merging and consolidating. We're learning today that many more rural hospitals are likely to close. You're pumping all this additional taxpayer money into the health sector, it's an absolute prescription for inflation," said Turner. According to Turner, the Obama administration has already made 49 unilateral changes to the law to prevent it from imploding in its infancy. She says a full repeal in Congress will not succeed as long as Obama is president. She says the best near-term hope for major change lies in the Supreme Court's consideration of King v. Burwell. That's the case contending the text of the Affordable Care Act provides for subsidies only through state exchanges and not the federal exchange. Since three-quarters of the states refused to set up exchanges, Turner says a ruling to forbid subsidies through the federal exchange would have a major impact. "Obamacare would basically be invalidated in 37 states if the plaintiffs win in this case. That would provide an opportunity for the Congress to begin to reset the dial, to provide coverage for the people who would otherwise lose it," said Turner. She says the best approach in that scenario is to empower states to take the lead on health coverage. "(People) would have options or health insurance that their states approve but doesn't have to comply with all of the rules and mandates of Obamacare. It gets away from the employer mandate, moves away from the individual mandate. Millions of people would be protected from Obamacare's onerous rules and requirements," said Turner. Turner says a win at the Supreme Court will provide a critical opportunity for congressional Republicans to chart a better course while showing concern for people in need of quality, affordable health care. "Members of Congress on both sides, governors, attorneys general, all of them have stepped forward and said, 'Yes, we want to take care of those five to six million people, but we want to do it in a way that gives people more freedom, more choice and really unleashes the opportunity for people to purchase the kind of coverage and insurance they want, without these extraordinarily expensive rules and mandates that Obamacare requires,'" said Turner.

 Posted by at 2:47 am

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>