Possible deal struck on Rule 15 (delegate) changes, no word on Rule 12 @GOPconvention #TxGOP #RNC

The Hill is reporting that there may be a compromise that “allows” State GOPs to continue to chose their delegates to the National GOP convention. There is no mention about killing the proposed rule allowing the Rebublican National Committeetoo change the rules – with a 3/4 majority vote – once we all go home.

Unfortunately, the controversy is being cast as Mitt Romney vs Ron Paul, rather than Grassroots vs PTB (Powers That Be):

How to make mainstream Republicans sympathetic to Ron Paul followers @GOP2012 #RNC #tcpt #TxGOP

And guarantee a third party (or 4th and 5th) push.

Propose a GOP rules change that appears designed to squelch any National delegates that might not be loyal to the favored Candidate and add a new rule that would allow the Powers That Be – the Republican National Committee – to make even more rules changes between the National Conventions!

Here are the controversial new additions to the Rules of the Republican Party:

“The Republican National Committee may, by three fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rules 1-11 and 13-24. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014.”

New rule inserted as number 15(a):

15(a)(1) Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in a primary, caucus, or state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the National Convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.

15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.

15(e)(3) The Republican National Committee may grant a waiver to a state Republican Party from the provisions of 15(a) and (b) where compliance is impossible, and the Republican National Committee determines that granting such a waiver is in the best interests of the Republican Party.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/liberty-fairness-implode-as-rnc-rules-committee-wields-iron-fist/#ixzz24oIFLoFN

Texas’ delegation will push to get rid of these changes. From their reaction in a meeting this morning, Governor Sununu might not be able to make the transition from Temporary Chair to Permanent Chair of the Rules Committee and the Convention will most likely scrap the whole 2012 Rules and revert to the 2008 Rules.

Michelle Malkin has a great review, along with copies of several letters from delegates and links to even more, including a possible “deal”, here.

Storm Watching in Tampa, #RNC

Or how I’ve spent the first 3 days of the Republican National Convention:

My husband, Larry, is one of the Delegates to the RNC for Comal County’s Congressional District 21 from Texas and I get to be a guest. We flew down on Friday, hoping to get some rest before starting the Convention. Isaac came along after.

I added a bookmark for the Tampa, Florida weather to my taskbar and have been “praying unceasingly” that the Lord will moderate the laws of physics enough to keep Isaac from harming anyone. It’s my belief that the unbelievers and Dems who alternately pointed to Isaac as proof that their either is no God to answer our prayers or that He isn’t on our (the Republican Right, Believers’) side have had their mocking proven misplaced as Isaac has remained a Tropical Storm much longer than anyone thought possible and even veered far west of the Tampa Bay area in its journey. If I’m wrong, then we at least have proof of what one woman noted: the RNC and the Lord’s people are able, with His grace, to manage uncertainty and natural disasters!
We heard all about the snubbing of Texas’ delegation by the RNC which chose to put us 25 miles out of town at a resort in Wesley Chapel, Florida. And then learned what a great place this is to stay — and how safe the inland location turned out to be when Tropical Storm Isaac reared his ugly head and threatened to raise the head waters of Tampa Bay! Take that, RNC PTB! (Powers That Be)

There was an opportunity to let the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas know I’m not happy with him. (Larry wanted a picture with the man and I said I’d take the picture but didn’t want in it. Then as I focused, I said, “Say ‘There wasn’t a quorum!” Both men acted as though they couldn’t hear me.)

I’ve received my white hat and red,white and blue RPT scarf and Larry has his hat, a red, white and blue tie and Delegate’s “swag bag” that contained a medal for the delegate and a stuffed giraffe from Busch Gardens. Although we had sunshine at the pool on Saturday, I doubt we’ll get much chance in the next week to use the sunblock, beach towel or sunglasses that were also included, thanks to Mr. Isaac.

Larry and I were invited by fellow CD 21 delegate, Lisa Roper, to several events held by the new Conservative Women’s group, Palladian View.

We attended a reception on Saturday night and Sunday, I went to two events with Lisa and a couple of other Texas Palladian View supporters, Toni Anne Dashiell and Kim Chambers. Take a look at this great new group that hosted a panel of Conservative women speaking about dealing with liberal media bias, “Lashing Back at the BackLash” and then had a full house at the “BlogBash,” a party for the stars of the New Media.The former was live-streamed on Fox News and will soon be available online at the website.

I’ve been posting pictures of the great Conservative leaders I’ve met on my Facebook and Twitter (@bnuckols) timelines: Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley,Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn,Wisconsin Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch (Pronounced “clayfish” – her in-laws couldn’t spell either), along with Texas’ own Senator John Cornyn, Congressman Louis Gohmert, and Republican Nominee for Senate, Ted Cruz.

Blogging, Facebook, and Twitter from the Republican National Convention

We’re north of Tampa, with the Texas delegation to the #RNC. My husband is the delegate, and I’m a guest. The locals tell us we have no worries out here from Isaac, even if it becomes a hurricane.
Because I’ll be leaving the laptop in the room, most of my posts will be to Facebook, but will try to check in with news on this page every so often.
Follow Beverly Nuckols on Facebook (it’s open, you don’t have to sign up or “Friend”) and @bnuckols on Twitter.

5th Circuit Upholds Texas Law on Funding for Women’s Health Program

Guess what? States are allowed to decide what they want to spend tax money on!

From the ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court on Texas’ Law prohibiting our Family Planning tax funds from going to any “affiliate” of an abortion provider or anyone who “promotes” abortion: ”

Women Speak for Themselves Press Release @WomenSpeak2012 #prolife #tcot

By e-mail from Women Speak for Themselves, this morning:

Women Defy “We Are Women” Rally Claims; Say Let Women Speak For Themselves

Washington DC, August 18—As some women gather at the Nation’s Capitol today for the “We Are Women” rally, members of the advocacy group, Women Speak For Themselves (WSFT; womenspeakforthemselves.com) are making their own voices heard. WSFT began with an open letter to the White House, Congress and Secretary Sebelius in February 2012, demanding respect both for religious freedom and for an understanding of woman’s freedom and equality that goes beyond “free contraception.” It now has over 31 thousand signatories from every state.

“It defies reason that a few groups could speak for all women on issues of life, family, sex and religion,” said WSFT founder, Helen Alvaré.

“The 31,000 plus women who have signed onto our open letter will no longer sit silently by while a few political figures and their allies insist that religious freedom has to bow to the theory, the ideology really, that the centerpiece of women’s freedom is sexual expression without commitment,” continued Alvaré.

Catherine, a woman in her twenties living in New York City and a signatory, wrote to WSFT: “Out of respect for themselves and others, many women choose to live a life of sexual integrity…Many of my girlfriends and I have found this approach to our sexuality to be freeing, empowering, and constitutive of a deep sense of happiness.”

“I’m a pro-choice woman who respects the rights of other women to hold different views,” wrote another WSFT member Carol, from Vermont. “More specifically I expect the government, in compliance with the Constitution, to protect every person from being coerced into acting in a manner contrary to his or her conscience. The HHS mandates are a fundamental violation of our rights to free speech and religion.”

Hundreds more women wrote to WSFT to express their strong opposition to the message of the Saturday rally.

“Our women come from diverse political, ideological and religious backgrounds,” Alvaré explained. “But they are united in their opposition to a ‘one size fits all’ version of what women really want, particularly a version contradicted by decades of data and women’s experience in the new sex, dating and marriage markets formed by the idea that contraception, with abortion as the backup, is the sum and substance of women’s equality.“

Jennifer from Indiana, for example, a signatory to the WSFT letter says:
”Women and reproduction are not things that need to be fixed, medicated, sterilized. To equate women’s rights and health to these things is to do an incredible disservice to the rights and health issues that women do face today.”

“An honest ‘We Are Women’ rally would acknowledge the diverse views held by women. It would acknowledge the science about the decline in women’s well-being associated with the world view this rally represents.” Alvaré says. “No one speaks for all women on these issues. Let women speak for themselves.”

What Chick-Fil-a’s Dan Cathy Actually Said @FRCdc @BaptistPress #tcot

“Hate speech,” right? Only if you advocate for divorce and serial monogamy — or practice media abuse.

I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t look up Mr. Cathy’s actual remarks until I read a quote in a story about the shooting of a guard at the Washington, DC Headquarters of the Family Research Council.

I went searching for the original interview and found it, here:

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

A person has to try very hard to find hate in that comment or the others recorded in the piece about a radio interview that Mr. Cathy gave to the Biblical Recorder’s  K. Allan Blume, and later published in the Baptist Press. In my opinion, your world view – or your agenda – must be pretty narrow to turn Mr. Cathy’s comments about the family and marriage into “anti” anything!

Here’s the part of the story that supposedly was “anti-gay:”

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.

It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.

“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

As a “first wife,” I’m probably biased, but I like that he thanks the Lord for his marriage! And I don’t see any mention of gays, at all!

Action: Women Speak 4 OURSELVES @WomenSpeak2012 #tcot #pro-life

Based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of our United States is designed to secure our rights to life, liberty and property for every human being, not just the ones who can speak out. Those of us who can speak, should join in the effort to protect the rights of all, including the unborn children of tomorrow, male and female, and everyone who objects to government-sponsored efforts to end their lives. The recent Obama mandate that infringes on the First Amendment protection of the right of free exercise of religion and their on-going efforts to force Texas to fund Planned Parenthood with State taxes is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

I received an email tonight from the group, “Women Speak for Themselves” asking for comments on next Saturday’s Washington, DC rally sponsored by pro-abortion, anti-family and anti-First Amendment rights groups:

This Saturday, on the National Capitol lawn, Think Progress (a George Soros funded group) is hosting a “We Are Women” rally. Soros’ group, along with some of their co-sponsors, the usual—the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, and the National Women’s Political Caucus—along with some more peculiar groups—Rock The Slut Vote, The National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Reformed Whores entertainers, among others—have a specific goal in mind.

“Our mission,” their website reads, “is to bring national attention to the ongoing war on women’s rights…”

Not surprisingly, the language on their website gives the appearance that they’re claiming to speak for all women on matters of healthcare, family, and freedom…which makes this just the type of event at which we need to make our voices heard! And so, here’s where YOU come in.

Prior to the rally, we’ll be releasing a statement to the press, informing them that there are women with alternative views on these matters, should the press wish to include us in the discussion. We’d like to add YOUR voices to that statement.

Send us a brief statement (2-3 sentences), articulating why as a woman you stand for and believe freedom includes protection for life, family, and/or religion. Be sure to include your full name, city and state, and your occupation, if you’d like—along with permission for us to include your information and quote in our press release.

If you’re not sure where to start, feel free to use our two sets of talking points for ideas (though your statement need not be solely focused on the HHS mandate), and try to stay focused on why you’re FOR our view of women’s freedom, as opposed to AGAINST the view of women’s freedom being put forth by Soros and cohorts.

Thanks for your help with this….I look forward to your statements!

My best to you,
Helen

http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/
https://www.facebook.com/WomenSpeakForThemselves
https://twitter.com/womenspeak2012

P.S. I’m told some pro-lifers will be gathering at the North Capitol Lawn on Saturday, to hold a counter protest. The rally starts at 11am, I believe, so feel free to head on over, with signs and pro-life gear, if you’d like to be a joyful example of the alternative.

 

I wish I could attend the counter protest, but I’m committed to a meeting for the Christian Medical and Dental Association that day. If you can attend, please do. Either way, send a message to http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/ or @womenspeak2012!

Rush Rules, Again! @MittRomney #taxes #tcot

From Rush’s transcript, August 2,  2012,

RUSH:  Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney is no tax cheat.  But even if he was, so what?  The Treasury secretary of the United States is an admitted tax cheat, and the Democrats didn’t give a damn about that.  Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm Little Timmy Geithner, the tax cheat.  Joe Biden is a plagiarist.  Anybody care about that?  Barack Obama fudged laws in a shady deal to buy his house with the help of a conflicted felon.  His good pal Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon.  Romney is none of this.  Not even close to it.  We have an admitted tax cheat that is the Treasury secretary of the United States, Timothy Geithner.  Democrats don’t care about it.

Governor Rick Perry tells Obama Admin, “No!” #TxSen @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry has made it official: Texas won’t expand our Medicaid to cover all adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty level. The ACA Medicaid expansion does not allow any requirements other than income. No need to work, no asset limits, no medical need or other hardship.

Here’s the Press Release from the Governor:

July 9, 2012

Gov. Rick Perry, in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, today confirmed that Texas has no intention of implementing a state insurance exchange or expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare. Any state exchange must be approved by the Obama Administration and operate under specific federally mandated rules, many of which have yet to be established. Expanding Medicaid would mandate the admission of millions of additional Texans into the already unsustainable Medicaid program, at a potential cost of billions to Texas taxpayers.

“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare,” Gov. Perry said. “I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.

“I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a “state” exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better “patient protection” or in more “affordable care.” They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.”

Gov. Perry has frequently called for the allocation of Medicaid funding in block grants so each state can tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of its unique challenges. As a common sense alternative, Gov. Perry has conveyed a vision to transform Medicaid into a system that reinforces individual responsibility, eliminates fragmentation and duplication, controls costs and focuses on quality health outcomes. This would include establishing reasonable benefits, personal accountability, and limits on services in Medicaid. It would also allow co-pays or cost sharing that apply to all Medicaid eligible groups – not just optional Medicaid populations – and tailor benefits to needs of the individual rather than a blanket entitlement.

Gov. Perry has consistently rejected federal funding when strings are attached that impose long-term financial burdens on Texans, or cede state control of state issues to the federal government. In 2009, Texas rejected Washington funding for the state’s Unemployment Insurance program because it would have required the state to vastly expand the number of workers entitled to draw unemployment benefits, leading to higher UI taxes later.

In 2010, Gov. Perry declined “Race to the Top” dollars, which would have provided some up-front federal education funding if Texas disposed of state standards and adopted national standards and testing.

To view the governor’s letter to Secretary Sebelius, please visithttp://governor.state.tx.us/files/press-office/O-SebeliusKathleen201207090024.pdf.

Déjà vu, or Repeat as necessary

“We ended up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.”

Here’s an older post that I wrote June 1, 2010 and again, last summer? It still applies, more than ever!

We Republicans are the Tea Party. If you look at the Tea Party, you will see the Conservative foundation, the remnant that have opposed “centrists” and “moderates” for years. We are the ones who have known all along what the Dems relearn each election cycle, but some of our own never seem to: Americans are conservative, to the right of center. When all the couch potatoes woke up last year, we were the ones who were here to welcome them and give them somewhere to start.

Some of us sat out the 2006 and even 2008 elections to “teach them a lesson;” that they need to legislate like Republicans if they want us to support them. Where Republicans turned out to vote, we held offices. Where the Republican voters were no-shows, we lost ground and offices. In a few cases, Republicans crossed over in the name of Chaos and strong conservatives were narrowly defeated in the Primaries, leaving us with a choice between a RINO, a Democrat or an under vote. We ended up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.

Well, that was successful, wasn’t it? Can’t you just imagine all the true conservative candidates in the Presidential primary of 2008, each wishing the Chaos voters had turned out for them?

The Dems won a majority and then a super majority in the Federal House, Senate and the White House, allowing them to ram-rod their agenda to spread the wealth around, undermine families and threaten the weak and sick at all stages of life. Corrupt and corrupting Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and John Conyers wield Committee Chairmanships when they should be indicted. The media ignored – and continues to ignore – our plainly stated opposition, underreporting our numbers and drowning out our voices as they proclaim that we lost because the Left better represented the voters and the Country was ready for Change! And now, the media and the liberals are crowing about the power of the tea partiers, and asking everyone who will give them a few seconds what we’ll “do” with “them.”

Unfortunately, the “moderate” Republicans and some of our conservatives didn’t learn the lesson we wanted to teach them. Instead, they decided they need to spend more time and money wooing the swing voters and undecideds. The Big Tent is looking more like a Circus. (See CPAC and “gay conservatives.”)

Many who have appropriated the title of “conservatives” – those who have never been active (or even voted) in the Republican Party before and those who spend their “meet-up” time with the Libertarian Party – are using any and all opportunities to infect the Party with their discontent. If they can destroy us for their own political gain and “Revolution,” they will be happy.

If your goal is to throw the bums out for the sake of defeating the old established leadership, if you think it’s your turn at power, even if you’ve never been involved, much less been a leader, then perhaps your motives aren’t as pure as they should be. Please reconsider what your real goal is and how – whether – your actions will achieve your purpose.

Pray for Attorney General Greg Abbott #TxSen @gregabbott_tx

Today is the day he argues Texas Voter ID at Federal court in DC, more information, here.

A Fourth of July Comment on ObamaCare (revised)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The discussion about reversing the trend from collecting taxes that are spent on individuals, rather than on common use, is considered by some as revolutionary as the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence. Along with everyone else, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this in light of last week’s  Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. As with any law or tax, the conversation about “ObamaCare” must begin with the basics of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

A decade after the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution of the US to “secure” the inalienable rights of the people from infringement by the government and to prevent the growth of interference by government except where necessary to prevent or punish the infringement of inalienable rights. The Constitution included a way to make changes that the People find necessary through the Amendment process. We can’t allow anyone, whether the United Nations, the World Health Organization, or “progressives” to fundamentally alter our Constitution by law, legal ruling, or bureaucratic regulations without going through the proper, Constitutional, amendment process.

The inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness carry through to all aspects of life, whether it’s working for day to day expenses, saving for the future, or making choices of foods to eat and entertainment. Rights create a non-delegable duty of personal responsibility, which means that each of us must pursue happiness for ourselves without infringing on anyone else’s rights. We cannot kill, enslave or limit others’ pursuit of happiness by forcing them to do our will or give us their property. This is true even when we face consequences that aren’t the result of our choices: accidents, natural catastrophes, bad luck or bad genes. If it makes you happy, you can freely give what you want to charity or service for the benefit of others, but even this is limited by the fact that your rights are inalienable: i.e., you can’t give away or sell your right to life or liberty.

One way that people exercise personal responsibility is to purchase insurance. Traditionally, insurance covered unexpected or catastrophic costs. There is no Constitutional justification – and certainly no economic justification – for the Federal government to turn health insurance into tax funded pre-paid “health care coverage” to pay for everything from first dollar.

When the People agree that a given purpose will secure what the Constitution calls our “Safety and Happiness,” we have allowed our governments to tax us for “public goods,” like roads, education, and defense. Social Security and Medicare are different, in that individuals were taxed and told that the money would be used for their own and their family’s future needs, rather than for common use.

After the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 precipitated a near-Constitutional crisis, these funds were spent over the years by subsequent Congresses. They were also used to justify more taxes and spending for other people and purposes; what we now call “redistribution of wealth”. Bit by bit, good-hearted Americans have allowed the scope of both State and Federal entitlements to grow until more than half of our population receives tax funds paid by other people for food, housing, healthcare and even free cellular phones. And then came the Affordable Care Act or “ObamaCare,” which will “tax” or penalize every American if they don’t purchase government approved health insurance.

Obviously, our Nation shouldn’t break the contract with all of the people whose payroll taxes were collected over the years for Social Security and Medicare. However, the Accountable Care Act is the latest step toward the unconstitutional federalization of an industry in a way that wasn’t envisioned by the Founders of our Nation for ANY industry. What better time to evaluate Constitutional taxes and spending than  Independence Day ?

The hassle factor in “health care” costs

Most docs know the history of medical finance and the creep of health care payments with tax dollars. We know that the costs of chronic, much less catastrophic, health care are high. Nevertheless, most doctors look at history and know that changes in government health policies will likely mean that we will be burdened with regulations and that any talk about “savings,” means a cut in pay for what we do, on top of increased regulations.

At least as often as I hear complaints about payment for our services, docs express urgent concern that aren’t able to care for our patients due to limitations on services, requirements for prior authorizations with limited, sometime under qualified, personnel approving necessary treatments, limitations on numbers of prescriptions per month, and the inability to find sub-specialists when patients need them. And that it is only going to get harder. In my opinion, the “hassle factors” introduced by bean-counters and government bureaucrats are responsible at least as much for the increase in costs as increased definitions of health and improved technology.

A well-known cliché’ about of the cost of regulations is the ridiculous bill for an aspirin in the hospital. My own experience with regulations is another example. In 2003, when HIPAA came into force, requiring compliance, the vendor for my billing software wouldn’t support my old Linux software. They demanded that I buy the new Windows program, requiring all new computers, with the resulting cost of installation, training and the inevitable lag (and error) in billing. At least for some of us, there comes a point when the hassles aren’t worth borrowing the money to keep the office open.

Extrapolate these cascades of costs across the entire system and add in the regulations we know about, much less the ones we don’t know about – yet. Who can calculate the true cost of the Federalization of medical care?

New England Journal of Medicine: “The Health Care Jobs Fallacy”

Attempts to justify increasing intrusion of the Federal government into health insurance and health cost distract from the purpose of the practice of medicine, which is to treat patients.

Remember when doctors talked about “medical care” of individuals, not “health care” for populations?Remember when medicine was an “art,” not an “industry?” People aren’t machines with interchangeable parts and neither medicine nor “health care” are amenable to assembly line production, except in very rare instances.

The bottom line is that employment in the health care sector should be neither a policy goal nor a metric of success. The key policy goals should be to achieve better health outcomes and increase overall economic productivity, so that we can all live healthier and wealthier lives. Our ability to ensure access to expensive but beneficial treatment is hampered whenever health care policy is evaluated on the basis of jobs. Treating the health care system like a (wildly inefficient) jobs program conflicts directly with the goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to care at an affordable price.

via The Health Care Jobs Fallacy — NEJM.

Border security legislation passes Senate committee | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog

Will the Bill authorize the force that is necessary, in contrast to this regulation from the Department of Homeland Security? I hope so, and hope it’s passed and signed into law.

“Every step closer the Jaime Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act takes toward becoming law is good news for our nation’s continued border security and a fitting tribute to the exemplary agent in whose memory it is named,” Cuellar said in a statement. “I look forward to seeing this bill continue to move forward.”

The legislation, which cleared the House with a vote of 391-t0-2 on May 30, authorizes American and Mexican coordination against crime and drug cartels that permeate the border. It would require local and federal law enforcement to coordinate with officials in Mexico and Canada on border security efforts, and looks to provide $10 million over five years to implement equipment and training for those tasks.

A Brownsville native, Zapata was killed by the Los Zetas cartel members in a highway ambush in February 2011, while on assignment as an adviser to Mexican authorities. Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, conferred with the slain agent’s family before creating the bill.

via Border security legislation passes Senate committee | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog.

Penumbra of a tax

It’s not tax enough to invoke the Anti-injunction Act of 1987, but it will be collected by the IRS so it’s a legal, Constitutional, tax?

Maybe it’s just a shadow of a tax?

The Roberts decision on the mandate to purchase health insurance, is more confusing to me than most legal decisions. I keep looking for a way to untangle what appears to be circular contradiction, rather than logic. Here’s the best summary I’ve found that seems to say that the money the IRS collects is a tax, not a penalty for breaking the law:

Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

Many of us have complained that laws and regulations have become too complicated, that no one can keep up or even avoid inadvertently breaking laws here and there. But this law is even worse because it forces action and taxes or penalizes the failure to act according to the Government’s determination of what is for our own good, rather than punishing an action or inaction that infringes on the rights of another.

To repeat hundreds of others, including the Justices who wrote the dissenting report, what are the limits of the Government once it can charge me for not doing some act?

All I can say is, vote to overturn the ObamaTax.

Praise for a centrist (#TxSen @DavidHDewhurst on @teDCruz)

In a two page letter in a November, 2008 mailer from The National Law Journal, Ted Cruz (then a new partner in a global law firm)  wrote a letter endorsing John McCain for President.

Many of us supported Senator McCain in 2008.  Like Cruz, we may have commended McCain for his military service, for voting on principle, and for his efforts to fight the war on terror. Some of us may have cast our vote for Sarah Palin or against Obama.

However, Mr. Cruz specifically praises John McCain for his “moderation,” for being a  “centrist,” and for his avoidance of “divisive” issues: abortion, marriage, tort reform, free trade, and union “bosses.”

National Law Journal: Why I Choose McCain (By Ted Cruz)

Obama, to his credit, speaks often of bipartisanship. But there are virtually no issues of consequence where he has dared to part with the far left of his party. Trial lawyers, union organizers, protectionists, and advocates for gay rights and abortion rights make up some of the core constituencies of the modern Democratic party. And, predictably, Obama has pledged to oppose tort reform; to abolish secret elections for union organization (which would render workers vulnerable to being strong-armed into voting for union bosses); to oppose free trade with allies like Colombia and to “renegotiate” NAFTA; to oppose a federal Marriage Amendment; and to sign legislation repealing restrictions on “partial-birth” abortion, parental notification, and government funding of abortion.

McCain’s record, in contrast, reflects far greater moderation. Rather than advocate on these divisive issues, McCain has focused his passion on fighting and winning the global war on terror.

I’ll admit that the only reference I can give is a link posted in a “hit piece” on the David Dewhurst for Texas Senator campaign website. Nevertheless, the letter is reproduced in full and says what it says. He doesn’t pull punches when it comes to Islamic terrorism or the importance of naming Supreme Court justices. Why does he focus his praise, his whole endorsement, on what many of us on the right would consider Mr. McCain’s weaknesses?

Ted Cruz RUSE #8: TEDCRUZ THE DECEPTIVE POLITICAL WEATHER VANE

@DavidHDewhurst knows Obama Administration is his real opponent #TxSen

In stark contrast, Ted Cruz, who has never served a day in the military or elected office, used his announcement to make false charges against Lt. Governor Dewhurst.

“This makes clear that sanctuary cities exist only because of state and local decision-making; it highlights that we have sanctuary cities in Texas only because Lt. Gov. Dewhurst killed the bill that would have ended sanctuary cities. Had the Texas Legislature passed that bill—had Lt. Governor Dewhurst not run from the fight and prevented its passage—then today’s decision would have upheld that Texas law as well.”

While the Supreme Court’s ruling does not prove anything about Sanctuary Cities. And, in fact, the Sanctuary Cities Bill passed in the Senate in the Special Session on June 15, giving the House 2 weeks to address it.

This press release was not the time to attack a fellow Republican. He doesn’t seem to understand that on August 1, we’ll all be Republicans working to vote out Obama.

But then, that’s been the Cruz’ campaign’s problem all along and why I switched from Cruz to Dewhurst.

Petition: “Fire Eric Holder” via @DavidHDewhurst 4 #TxSen

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst first called for the resignation of Eric Holder last Fall because one of Texas’ sons was killed  with guns in the hands of criminals, due to “Fast and Furious.”

Now, he has this excellent video and a petition up on Dewhurst for Texas demanding that President Obama not only answer Congress’ subpoenas for information on F&F, but that Eric Holder be fired.

Liberty depends on keeping promises

Liberty depends on each of us keeping our word, following the rule of law, and honoring contracts. When men and women will not honor their promises or keep their word, the law must enforce contracts. At least nominally, this is a basic tenent of libertarians and conservatives.

A very few men and women who are supporters of Ron Paul believe that they know better than the millions who voted in their State Republican Primary and they are suing in Federal Court for the “right” to nullify the votes of people who voted in the Republican Party Primaries. This lawsuit is about members of a voluntary association, the Republican Party, who don’t want to follow the rules in existence when they campaigned to be delegates by voting in the first ballot for the person chosen at their State Primaries.

“In a revolt against Romney, at least 40 more national convention delegates asked to join 123 previous plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee, and their attorney said hundreds more may soon follow suit.
“The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican National Convention, including the first.
“The delegates claim the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign loyalty affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, though he is not yet the official nominee.

The Republican Party has rules. ‘The people who went to the Primaries to vote thought they were voting for their candidate to be placed on the Republican ballot in November. Expecting people who join our Party to follow those rules is not “intimidation” or “disenfranchisement.” The people who are now suing to change the rules volunteered to join a political party when there were other parties available and no party affiliation is mandatory.

These people actually believe that they know better than the voters in their State’s Republican Primary. Since they are so much wiser than the voters, they want to become their own elite power to trump what they believe is another elite. The honest and honorable thing is to follow the votes in the Primaries. It’s ridiculous to believe that they would sign pledges or contracts and decide to break these contracts, yet be honorable or trustworthy enough to override the election results in their States.

The Constitution (Article 1, amended by the 12th Amendment) is clear about the national election of the President and the Vice President. However, Party delegates are not covered in the Constitution, nor are the Parties themselves. At the least, the contract put in place by State Party rules should be followed.  At the most, this is definitely a case of State’s rights that is not covered by the Constitution.

In Texas, our State law imposes some rules and the rest come from our delegates to the RPT convention. Before the candidates stood for nomination at our Congressional District meetings last week, the rules for and requirements of delegates and alternates were read. Anyone who didn’t want to follow our RPT rules shouldn’t have run.

This lawsuit probably won’t extend to Iowa, since the Ron Paul delegates are happy with the outcome in that State. Last January, I represented Governor Rick Perry at one precinct caucus in Des Moines and heard the chair of that caucus explain how the National Delegates would be chosen. Nevertheless, after the Caucus voted overwhelmingly for Santorum, the precinct participants then voted to send the two men who spoke for Romney and Paul to their County Conventions. In effect,whether they knew it or not, they actually voted for Paul and Romney, since those delegates later voted to send Paulers to the State Convention. Of the 28 Iowa delegates going to the National Convention, 23 are aligned with Paul. That’s the rules in Iowa and it’s the responsibility of the voters to know.

Irregularities at the State Conventions are completely separate from the requirement to agree to follow the will of the Primary voters. The news reports from Louisiana seem to be one place that a lawsuit to correct high handedness at the State Convention would be appropriate.  If the plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit Court lawsuit can prove their other allegations of ballot stuffing and intimidation at Conventions, then perhaps they have a case there. But two wrongs don’t make a right and they don’t have the right to unilaterally invalidate a contract that they knowingly signed.

Comal County Republican Stars at Republican Party of Texas Convention #RPTCon

Comal County Republicans leading our State and Party, again!

We have two Delegates and two Alternate Delegates going to the National Republican Convention to represent Congressional District 21.

Out of three Delegates and three Alternate Delegates elected by CD 21, Larry Nuckols has Delegate Place 1, Lisa Allmon Roper has Delegate Place 3 and Sonja Harris will go as Alt. Delegate 3. Our Mary Lou Erben was selected by the National Delegate Committee as one of the Alternate Delegates At Large, representing the CD 35 part of Comal County.

In addition, Patti Johnson was elected to the College of Electors to go to Austin in the Electoral College for our Congressional District’s Presidential candidate, as chosen in November.

For our County to be recognized by the election of so many of our stars in a meeting of the entire CD21 delegation to the RPT (seven Counties!) and by the National Delegate Committee for CD 35,, shows the strength of our Comal County Republican Party. It is the fruit of the labor of all of you who spend hours and days fighting the Conservative fight!

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst: A Record of Results

Why do I support David Dewhurst for Texas Senator?

From the Preamble to the 2010 Platform of the Republcan Party of Texas: The embodiment of the conservative dream in America is Texas.”

The result of conservative government in Texas is clear. Our State’s direction with the leadership of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and Governor Rick Perry is a Conservative example for the Nation. Their policies and achievements demonstrate the results of action based on the belief that true liberty is Pro-life, Pro-Family, Pro-business, holds the line on taxes, spending, torts, and Washington, DC interference and regulation.

Texas leads the Nation in the creation of jobs. Our unemployment rate went down to 6.9% in May, in spite of legal US immigrants that average close to a thousand a day. Lt. Governor Dewhurst has balanced our budget in Texas, even when it meant cutting $10 million in 2003 and $15 million in 2011. In fact, the 82nd Legislature  cut Texas’ dollar amount spending below the previous biennial amount for the first time since WWII. Adjusted for inflation and population, Texas spends less than when Dewhurst took office.

And there is no contest when it comes to legislative victories on social issues. Texas’ Defense Of Marriage Act was passed not once but twice under Lt. Governor Dewhurst; the second time amended our State Constitution. Thanks to his leadership, Texas passed our own Prenatal Protection Act and the “Woman’s Right to Know” informed consent law in 2003. This year, we not only added sonograms to the informed consent law, we also managed to move all of our State health care funding away from abortion providers and any of their corporate affiliates. Yes, that’s right, Texas de-funded Planned Parenthood.

The 2011 Texas 82nd Legislature was also incredibly effective on protecting our State’s borders and Sovereignty;  banning drivers’ licenses for illegals, getting Voter ID, allocating $400Million for border security, and changing the law to allow Texas authorities to turn illegal aliens over for timely deportation after they’ve served their jail time. And yet, Lt. Governor Dewhurst’s opponents ignore these victories, claiming that the Lieutenant Governor “killed” two Bills in 2011: the Transportation Security Agency Anti-Groping Bill and the Sanctuary Cities Bill. However, both the TSA and Sanctuary Cities Bills were passed by the Senate at different times. The problem was coordination with the House, where the Speaker refused to allow timely consideration of the Bill and opposition by some strong conservatives, including Steve Hotze and Norm Adams.  In the Special Session, the TSA bill was passed by the Senate, along with the biennial budget and a landmark omnibus medical finance bill.

In fact, even the “failed” passage of the TSA Bill in the Senate during the 82nd Legislature’s Regular Session was an example of the power of Dewhurst. He is said to have “twisted arms,” along with Governor Perry, to get the vote to the floor, even going so far as to try to “suspend the rules” to bring it up out of order. The Democrat Senators block-voted to prevent the 2/3 vote necessary while every single Republican voted for it. It is likely that had the Lt. Governor not pushed for the suspension of the rules on the TSA Bill, the budget would have passed in the Regular Session if it hadn’t come down to the midnight filibuster by the Dems.

Finally, I support Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst because he’s proven that he believes that  “The government has no money, it’s the people’s money.”

Conservatives respect experience and history

Contrary to what many seem to believe, the Founding Fathers didn’t spring full grown from the Liberty Bell on July 4, 1776. They had served in their various Colonial legislatures for years before the Declaration and held other offices, both elected and appointed. George Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses for 15 years before his two terms with the Continental Congress. Jefferson served 7 years alongside Washington in the Burgesses, two terms as Virginia’s Governor, two terms on the Continental Congress, body and then became the “establishment”  Secretary of State, Vice President, and President for two terms in the nascent United States.

However, the anti-establishment cry to “throw them all out” –  that men and women who have served the public for years should be replaced with untried political neophytes for no other reason than that they have served for years and are now considered “establishment”  – has become an emotional, knee-jerk reaction that has nothing to do with any other quality or qualification of the candidates.

For example, my email is full of pleas to help Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who faces a recall election this week, alternating with demands to defeat Lt. Governor David Dewhurst of Texas in his race for US Senator. The complaint against Dewhurst is that he is “establishment” and a “professional politician.”  There are no similar complaints against Governor Walker who has been in political office of one sort or another most of his adult life. In contrast, Dewhurst served in the Air Force, worked for the CIA, and built a very successful business before running for office in his 50’s.  In addition, he’s no more “establishment” than Governor Walker, having led the Texas Senate to passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, Voter ID, de-funding Planned Parenthood, Jessica’s Law, defending our State and Nation’s border and cutting relative and actual dollars from the State budget.

When all the newly political activists got tired of yelling at their TV’s and jumped up off their couches and recliners to join our Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party over the last 4 years, who welcomed them and gave them somewhere to start? It was the more seasoned of us in the Republican Party, since, at least until recently, virtually every Conservative was a Republican.  If you look at the Tea Party, you will see the Conservative foundation, the remnant that have opposed “centrists”  and “moderates” for years. We are the ones who have known all along what the Dems re-learn each election cycle, but some of our own never seem to: Americans are conservative, to the right of center.

In politics, as in the rest of life, “new” is not always “improved.” New candidates are not better than the incumbent just because they’re new any more than the old guys earn their promotions by merely sticking around.  By the same token, long time Conservative leaders may or may not be more able to judge policy and candidates than newer or younger members of our group. But a record of experience and training is – or should be –  considered an advantage, not a “dissed”-advantage.

Or, as my husband says, “Age and cunning trump youth and enthusiasm.” Every time.

Ted Cruz, Pit of Vipers, and the Council on Foreign Relations member in his family. (Updated)

Clarification, June 15, 2015  Please note: This article is about the disingenuous nature of several rants by the then-candidate in which he called the CFR “a pit of vipers” and “a pernicious nest of snakes,” without mentioning that his wife was a 5-year member of the Council until June, 2011 as part of her job for the Bush administration. The point is not the CFR or Mrs. Cruz’ job, but rather Mr. Cruz’ theatric performance, which would have been more honest if accompanied by more information.

I was researching a rumor that I read that Ted Cruz’ wife was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations until June, 2011 and that she was a Vice President at Goldman Sachs. I was curious how such a young woman could become a member of the CFR, an organization that I assumed only admitted (old) heads of State and incredibly powerful business interests.

I found this CFR Task Force report, “Building a North American Community,” which lists Heidi Cruz as a member of the Task Force which “applauds the announced ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,’ but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.” The news release also notes that Mrs. Cruz worked for Condyleeza Rice in the Bush White House National Security Council and had been a banker at Merrill Lynch and J. P. Morgan.

Just wow! Mrs. Cruz is much more accomplished than I’d imagined.

Further searching yielded this bit of video from Ben Smith’s October 27, 2011 blog at Politico. (There’s a break in the middle, indicating editing and the source is not “conservative,” but that’s Ted saying what he’s saying. The title is also Politico’s.)

Smith comments,

Ted Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general and tea party favorite for the Republican nomination for Senate, has been focusing some of his harshest campaign trail rhetoric on that longtime villain of those suspicious of U.S. internationalism: The Council on Foreign Relations.

The New York-based group, Cruz said at a speech to a Republican women’s group in Sugarland, Tex., last week, is “a pit of vipers.”

When asked about the Council at another event in Tyler, Tex., on Oct. 15 — Texas, home of Ron Paul and Alex Jones, is the sort of place this comes up a lot — Cruz called the organization “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty,” according to video provided by someone who opposes his candidacy.

Well, Cruz should know: The candidate’s wife, Heidi S. Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations until this June. She was a member until June on a 5-year “term membership” program, an official at the organization confirmed.

The video and Cruz’ comments are commented on in several news and blog sites on the ‘Net, so I don’t know how I missed it and Cruz’ play-acting for his East Texas audience.

Texas Tribune Poll and Informed Texas Voters

Texas Tribune is hyping their poll as proof that there will likely be a run off in both the Republican and Democrat primary races for US Senator. But the big news should be how well informed and politically involved Texas voters appear to be.

It’s not just the disapproval of Obama (58% total and 46% “Disapprove strongly”) or the probable vote for Mitt Romney in the graphic above. Take a look at some of the information gathering questions.

Out of 800 registered Texas voters, 48% are “extremely interested in politics and public affairs. 32% vote in every election and another 35% vote in almost every election.

73% were able to identify the majority party in the US House of Representatives. (I wish they’d cross-checked that with the same question about the Senate.) 69% correctly stated that it takes a 2/3 vote to over turn a presidential veto. And 66% correctly identified Greg Abbott as our Texas Attorney General.

Yes, we’re probably in for a couple of run off elections, and yes,it will get even uglier. But the voters are better informed than I was afraid.

Voter Recommendations for All of Texas

Texas Alliance for Life has its Pro-life Voter Guide up and running. Enter your address program will produce a printable list of State and Federal Candidates that you can print and take with you to the polls or email to your friends. The site doesn’t capture your name or other identifying information, so you won’t end up on some list, somewhere. No annoying phone calls, etc.

(Yes, I’m a Board member of TAL. And yes, the organization is pro-life and pro-family. But have you noticed that the most fiscally and Constitutional Conservative politicians are also pro-life and pro-family?)

Here’s what happens when I put in my address:

The following pro-life candidates will appear on your 2012 Primary Election ballot and are endorsed by Texas Alliance for Life.* (Click on the candidates’ names below for more information at their campaign websites.)

It is your legal right to print and take this page into the booth when you vote.

United States Senator — David Dewhurst (R)
United States Representative, District 21 — Lamar Smith (R)
Railroad Commissioner — Warren Chisum (R)
Railroad Commissioner, Unexpired Term — Barry Smitherman (R)
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 2 — Don Willett (R)
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 4 — David Medina (R)
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6 — Nathan Hecht (R)
Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals — Sharon Keller (R)
Member, State Board of Education, District 5 — Ken Mercer (R)
State Senator, District 25 — Donna Campbell (R)
State Representative, District 73 — Doug Miller (R)
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 2 — Jeff Rose (R)
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 3 — Scott Field (R)
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 5 — David Puryear (R)
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 6 — Bob Pemberton (R)
County Republican Chairman — Larry Nuckols (R)
For your reference, here is your county and district information:
County: Comal
U.S. Representative District: 21
State Senate District: 25
State Representative District: 73
State Board of Education District: 5

Judge keeps Planned Parenthood out of Women’s Health Program

What happened: Texas passed a law last summer, SB 7, that specifically said that if the State is forced to give money to “entities that affiliate with abortion-promoting entities,” the State would shut down the Women;s Health Program. The Obama Administration tried to force the State to violate this law. Then, a Federal Judge  ruled that the law couldn’t go into effect,

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to require the state to keep Planned Parenthood in the program until he makes a decision on the merits of the case.

But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of the injunction, which was granted by Judge Jerry E. Smith.

via Judge keeps Planned Parenthood out of Women’s Health Program – San Antonio Express-News.

If the injunction had stood, there would be no Women’s Health Program in Texas. Planned Parenthood seems to think that if their corporation can’t have money, no one should. Luckily, Judge Smith understood the emergency.

Planned Parenthood wasn’t hard to replace. WingRight reported on the thousands of other doctors and clinics that participate in the WHP and how to find one in your area, here.

Update, 8 AM May 2:

The attacks are on against Judge Smith.

More at the usual suspects like the Texas Tribune.

Funny, the TT doesn’t take this opportunity to link to its own interactive map showing other providers or to link to Obama’s $61 million dollar grant  to Texas public health clinics.

Health Care spending continues to fall

National Review’s James C. Capretta comments on the attempts by some in the Obama Administration would like to take the credit for the decrease in health care spending in 2009-2010.

The decrease in spending follows the previous curve,according to the data.

In addition, we docs haven’t had a real increase in Medicare pay in years. We waited for Medicare to – and find out how much they would – pay us 3 or 4 times in 2010, thanks to the planned, threatened and repeatedly deferred “Sustainable Growth Rate” doc pay cuts.. Then, there was the planned moratorium at the end of the Federal Fiscal year.

As the Dems ramped up their plans for “reform,” the cuts and deferred payment were reinforced by threats of more if organized medicine didn’t play ball. I reported on the threats at LifeEthics.org in October, 2009.

Obama Administration Overturns Congress, $192M to Palestinian Authority

The US House and Senate specifically denied these funds. I’m assuming that Obama signed the Bill into law. But, what’s law got to do with it?

HotAir.com reported on an article detailing instructions from the White House to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on how to report to Congress about the funds.

. . . In signing the waiver, Obama instructed Clinton to inform Congress of the move, on the grounds that “waiving such prohibition is important to the national security interests of the United States.”

The Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 contained a provision that said none of the funds “may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.”

In November, the US Congress released $40 million but the State Department had expressed concern about being able to provide the necessary funding to address the dire economic and humanitarian hardship facing Palestinians.

More explanation from the UPI:

 Obama cited his authority under section 7040(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 section 7040(a) of the Act, to provide appropriated funds to the Palestinian Authority.

. . . House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., had questioned the Obama administration’s request for $147 million for the Palestinian Authority at a time when P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas has demanded preconditions for returning to the negotiations while also pushing a unilateral statehouse plan at the United Nations. She also expressed concern that $26.4 million had been requested for projects in Hamas-run Gaza.

“The administration also says we need to help ‘rebuild the Palestinian economy’ — this at a time when our economy is facing serious challenges and Americans are suffering,” Ros-Lehtinen said.