Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Congress sends health law repeal to Obama's desk for first time

Published January 06, 2016

FoxNews.com



Facebook Twitterlivefyre Email

NOW PLAYING

House passes ObamaCare repeal

Congress sent an ObamaCare repeal bill to the president’s desk for the first time on Wednesday, marking an election-year victory of sorts for Republicans who have tried since 2010 to scrap the law.

The bill repealing most of President Obama's signature health care law was approved in a final 240-181 House vote Wednesday afternoon, after clearing the Senate late last year. The legislation also would strip federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

ADVERTISEMENT

The measure still faces certain doom at the White House, and Democrats derided the vote Wednesday as pointless. The president is sure to veto, and Republicans do not have the votes to override.

But the political theater marks the opening volley in a fresh ObamaCare fight under the Paul Ryan-led House, and one likely to energize the party’s election-year efforts.

“I fully anticipate the president will veto this, but I mean, how many times have we been saying we want to put bills on his desk that say who we are, what we believe versus what he believes, and that he will veto,” Speaker Ryan, R-Wis., told Fox News Tuesday night before the vote.

The new speaker’s next goal is to engineer and pass a bill – also for the first time – to replace the Affordable Care Act. Doing so could help Republicans respond to Democrats’ allegations that they have no viable alternative.

Ryan is tempering expectations for the GOP in this exercise.

In a recent meeting with reporters, the speaker indicated that the House was practically obligated to pass a health care reform replacement bill. He was confident the House could do so this year but underscored that he didn’t say the president would sign the legislation into law.

But this is still part of Ryan’s effort to contrast Republicans’ plans with the Obama agenda. Democrats have long hectored Republicans for failing to cough up a bill to replace the current health care law even as they try to repeal it. If they at least draft a bill, and even pass it, then the parties can argue over a concrete policy choice.

“We need to win the election, and the best way to win the election is give people a choice,” Ryan told Fox News, speaking generally about the two parties’ platforms.

Republicans have held more than 60 votes so far to repeal all or part of the health care law.

They only cleared this one past the Senate because they used a special set of budget rules known as “reconciliation.” This allowed the measure to pass with a simple majority – typically, Republicans would have needed to muster 60 votes to pass it.

The vote, meanwhile, provided fresh fodder for the Democratic presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton warned in Iowa earlier this week that the vote shows the high stakes at play in the 2016 race. She, too, accused Republicans of offering no alternative.

“They have no plan. The Republicans just want to undo what Democrats have fought for decades and what President Obama got accomplished,” she said.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report

The Nuclear Option— Executive Gun Control: Obama Creates ‘Crazy List,’ Disarms the Elderly

by CHARLES HURT6 Jan 2016906

When all the hectoring is finished, the professorial lecturing is done, all the political posturing is over, all that is left after executive gun control are tears. And crocodile tears at that.

Even for those of us long tired of the false hopes and outright lies from this White House, President Obama’s crude gunplay Tuesday was pretty shocking.

It was shocking for its hollowness. Shocking for its low-mindedness. Shocking for the complete disdain the man has for all the families of victims of gun violence that he trots out to carry his political water. And what for? To save a future life? Prevent a past death?

No. He even admitted on live national television that his raft of meaningless proposals will do nothing to prevent a single gun crime and nor would they have ever prevented one in the past.

“Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms, like background checks, might not have stopped the last massacre. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. So why bother? I reject that thinking.”

In other words, Mr. Obama is saying: “Let’s make up some meaningless new gun laws just ‘cuz.”

Or, as his former chief of staff might say, “Never let a tragedy go to waste. Not when you can hector, lecture and grandstand over it. Score some political points.”

No, all of this executive action is designed entirely to create one giant charade that Mr. Obama understands, cares and is offering capable solutions to a problem he wants to fix.

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.

“Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Thirty thousand. Suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children,” he waxed on, as if he really intended to do something about it.

“Many have had to learn to live with a disability or learn to live without the love of their life. A number of those people are here today. They can tell you some stories,” he continued. “In this room right here, there are a lot of stories. There’s a lot of heartache. There’s a lot of resilience, there’s a lot of strength, but there’s also a lot of pain. And this is just a small sample.”

In the end, he offered nothing. Nothing that isn’t already the law. More paperwork. More busy work.

And tears. Empty tears. Meaningless tears. Fake tears.

Now it is possible that these “executive actions” by the president have a deeper, more sinister intent. They are the camel’s nose under the tent, designed to wend through the courts and prop up rulings that support the notion that a future president could, indeed, pass tougher gun restrictions by fiat.

Since voters refuse to elect lawmakers who want to strip citizens of their guns, maybe Mr. Obama can get unelected judges to do it.

To be sure, Tuesday’s announcement was an open admission that, indeed, the president does intend to use medical records from Obamacare to create a national “crazy list” of people, especially the elderly, who cannot have guns to defend themselves.

And certainly, these cynical antics reveal the president’s deep and disturbing disconnect from America. In the past, he has specifically praised the gun bans in Britain and Australia. Yesterday, he held up Communist China as his latest role model.

Suppose we should just be grateful, then, that Mr. Obama doesn’t really care to actually do something to stop the gun violence.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com and on Twitter via @charleshurt.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2nd Amendmentgun controlPresident ObamaGun Rights,Executive Gun ControlTears2ns Amendment

Judge Napolitano: Why Obama's executive action on guns is unconstitutional

SECOND AMENDMENT

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published January 05, 2016

FoxNews.com

Is Obama's executive action on guns unconstitutional?

President Obama announced Tuesday that he is issuing an executive order on guns and background checks. Here’s a look at what the president is doing and if it is even legal under the Constitution of the United States.

Just what is an executive order?  A presidential executive order is a written instruction to persons in the executive branch of the federal government informing them of the manner in which the president wants federal laws or regulations enforced. Executive orders do not direct private persons, or persons in the legislative or judicial branches of government. Executive orders remain in effect until abandoned or rescinded by the president who issued them or by a successor president.

President Obama has very little room to issue executive orders on guns because the congressional legislation is so extensive, detailed, and clear. The principal thrust of the president’s orders addresses the requirement for background checks in occasional sales and the requirement that occasional sellers become federal licensees and the imposition of reporting upon physicians.

Congress has expressly removed occasional sales (sales not made by full-time dealers) from the obligation of obtaining federal licenses and from conducting background checks.

The president is without authority to negate the congressional will on this, and any attempt to do so will be invalidated by the courts. Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an “occasional” seller will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an “occasional seller” is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts.

The courts will ignore his interpretation, and impose their own.

As well, by requiring physicians to report conversations with their patients about guns to the Department of Homeland Security, (yes, even an innocent conversation in the examination room, “we gave Bobby a bee bee gun for Christmas, we plan to get him some instruction on how to use it”) the president will be encouraging our government to invade the patient/physician privilege.

But wait, there’s more. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty. Under the Constitution, fundamental liberities (like speech, press, worship, self-defense, travel, privacy) are accorded the highest protection from governmental intrusion.

One can only lose a fundamental right by intentionally giving it up, or via due process (a jury trial resulting in the conviction of criminal behavior). President Obama --  whose support for the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally limited to the military, police, and his own heavily-armed body guards --  is happy to begin taking America to a slippery slope down the dark hole of totalitarianism whereby a president can negate liberty.

Finally, we still have a Constitution in America. Under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them.

President Obama can no more write his own laws or impose his own interpretations upon them than the Congress or the courts can command the military.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel

KIM JUNG UN DROPS H-BOMB NUCLEAR

North Korea: We now have the 'H-bomb of justice'

www.cnbc.com

North Korea Wednesday tested a hydrogen nuclear bomb, state news agency KCNA reported, marking the politically-isolated country's first nuclear test in three years, a move that received condemnation from the U.S., Britain and Japan among others.

The report on the KCNA website came within hours of reports from various agencies that a large earthquake had been detected near a known North Korean nuclear test site.

According to KCNA, North Korea tested a miniaturized hydrogen nuclear bomb "in the most perfect manner," putting it in possession of hydrogen bomb capability, which it described as "the most powerful nuclear deterrent."

North Korea wanted what it called "the H-bomb of justice" as protection from the "ever-growing nuclear threat and blackmail by the U.S.-led hostile forces," according to the statement on KCNA.

It would use the weapons only if its sovereignty was encroached upon, the statement on KCNA said, but would not roll back its nuclear development until the U.S. had dropped its "vicious, hostile" policy toward the isolated Communist state.

"The U.S. is a gang of cruel robbers which has worked hard to bring even a nuclear disaster to the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korean], not content with having imposed the thrice-cursed and unheard-of political isolation, economic blockade and military pressure on it for the mere reason that it has differing ideology and social system," according to the statement.

"The present-day grim reality clearly proves once again the immutable truth that one's destiny should be defended by one's own efforts," the statement went on. "Nothing is more foolish than dropping a hunting gun before herds of ferocious wolves."

This is North Korea's first nuclear test since February 2013 and the fourth it has conducted in all.

DigitalGlobe | ScapeWare3d | Contributor An April 2015 photo of new nuclear test tunnel under construction at the Punggye-ri site. Japan reacts with anger

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe quickly condemned the test.

Abe said that Japan "absolutely cannot tolerate" a North Korean nuclear test, which he called a threat to Japan's security. Japan will make a firm response to North Korea's move, he added.

Shortly after, South Korean President Park Geun-hye said that North Korea would "pay the price" for its nuclear test, and that it would seek additional United Nations (U.N.) sanctions against its neighbor.

At the same time, according to South Korean news agency Yonhap, government officials noted that they needed to perform additional tests to ascertain that North Korea had actually tested a hyrdrogen nuclear device.

Intelligence sources told Yonhap that the device tested may not have been a H-bomb, while other Korean media cited defense sources as saying that North Korea may have added a small amount of hydrogen to the device tested..

Reuters reported that the Korean Meteorological Administration had detected no radiation from the apparent test.

Britain's Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond said that such a test would be a "grave breach" of U.N. resolutions; North Korea is already under U.N. sanctions for having conducted previous nuclear tests, the first as early as 2006.

China's state news agency, Xinhua, wrote that the test was at odds with the goal of de-nuclearization, adding that any action that disrupted the stability of Northeast Asia was "undesirable and unwise." Xinhua is often read as a reflection of the thoughts of China's leaders.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department condemned the apparent breach of U.N. sanctions.

Reuters reported that the U.N. Security Council would hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday at 11 a.m. ET (4 p.m. GMT) to discuss the test, at the request of the U.S. and Japan.

Earthquake shakes won

Word of the nuclear test emerged shortly after 9 a.m. SIN/HK, when the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said it had detected a magnitude 5.1 earthquake about 49 kilometers (30 miles) a known North Korean nuclear test site, according to its coordinates. The USGS said that earthquake, near the site called Punggye-ri, was about 10km below the earth's surface.

The Korean Meteorological Administration, meanwhile, said that it detected the epicentre of the quake at a depth of "0 kilometers." It put the magnitude at 4.2.

Follow CNBC International on Twitter andFacebook.

COMMENTS

KIM JUNG UN GOES H-BOMB NUCLEAR

North Korea: We now have the 'H-bomb of justice'

www.cnbc.com

North Korea Wednesday tested a hydrogen nuclear bomb, state news agency KCNA reported, marking the politically-isolated country's first nuclear test in three years, a move that received condemnation from the U.S., Britain and Japan among others.


The report on the KCNA website came within hours of reports from various agencies that a large earthquake had been detected near a known North Korean nuclear test site.

According to KCNA, North Korea tested a miniaturized hydrogen nuclear bomb "in the most perfect manner," putting it in possession of hydrogen bomb capability, which it described as "the most powerful nuclear deterrent."

North Korea wanted what it called "the H-bomb of justice" as protection from the "ever-growing nuclear threat and blackmail by the U.S.-led hostile forces," according to the statement on KCNA.

It would use the weapons only if its sovereignty was encroached upon, the statement on KCNA said, but would not roll back its nuclear development until the U.S. had dropped its "vicious, hostile" policy toward the isolated Communist state.

"The U.S. is a gang of cruel robbers which has worked hard to bring even a nuclear disaster to the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korean], not content with having imposed the thrice-cursed and unheard-of political isolation, economic blockade and military pressure on it for the mere reason that it has differing ideology and social system," according to the statement.

"The present-day grim reality clearly proves once again the immutable truth that one's destiny should be defended by one's own efforts," the statement went on. "Nothing is more foolish than dropping a hunting gun before herds of ferocious wolves."

This is North Korea's first nuclear test since February 2013 and the fourth it has conducted in all.

DigitalGlobe | ScapeWare3d | Contributor An April 2015 photo of new nuclear test tunnel under construction at the Punggye-ri site. Japan reacts with anger

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe quickly condemned the test.

Abe said that Japan "absolutely cannot tolerate" a North Korean nuclear test, which he called a threat to Japan's security. Japan will make a firm response to North Korea's move, he added.

Shortly after, South Korean President Park Geun-hye said that North Korea would "pay the price" for its nuclear test, and that it would seek additional United Nations (U.N.) sanctions against its neighbor.

At the same time, according to South Korean news agency Yonhap, government officials noted that they needed to perform additional tests to ascertain that North Korea had actually tested a hyrdrogen nuclear device.

Intelligence sources told Yonhap that the device tested may not have been a H-bomb, while other Korean media cited defense sources as saying that North Korea may have added a small amount of hydrogen to the device tested..

Reuters reported that the Korean Meteorological Administration had detected no radiation from the apparent test.

Britain's Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond said that such a test would be a "grave breach" of U.N. resolutions; North Korea is already under U.N. sanctions for having conducted previous nuclear tests, the first as early as 2006.

China's state news agency, Xinhua, wrote that the test was at odds with the goal of de-nuclearization, adding that any action that disrupted the stability of Northeast Asia was "undesirable and unwise." Xinhua is often read as a reflection of the thoughts of China's leaders.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department condemned the apparent breach of U.N. sanctions.

Reuters reported that the U.N. Security Council would hold an emergency meeting on Wednesday at 11 a.m. ET (4 p.m. GMT) to discuss the test, at the request of the U.S. and Japan.

Earthquake shakes won

Word of the nuclear test emerged shortly after 9 a.m. SIN/HK, when the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said it had detected a magnitude 5.1 earthquake about 49 kilometers (30 miles) a known North Korean nuclear test site, according to its coordinates. The USGS said that earthquake, near the site called Punggye-ri, was about 10km below the earth's surface.

The Korean Meteorological Administration, meanwhile, said that it detected the epicentre of the quake at a depth of "0 kilometers." It put the magnitude at 4.2.

Follow CNBC International on Twitter andFacebook.

COMMENTS

BREAKING NEW ATF NFA RULE CHANGE 6JAN16

THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND ILLEGAL. CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (NFA).

This was released to day relative to the 41P NFA Trusts ruling. See link below for details on the ruling.

Building an AK from parts requires no background checks or serial numbers. Bryan Schatz. http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/ak-47-semi-automatic-rifle-building-party

Link on how to make a gun simsmm

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This final rule defines the term "responsible person," as used in reference to a trust, partnership, association, company, or corporation; requires responsible persons of such trusts or legal entities to complete a specified form and to submit photographs and fingerprints when the trust or legal entity files an application to make an NFA firearm or is listed as the transferee on an application to transfer an NFA firearm; requires that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm, and the specified form for responsible persons, as applicable, be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the applicant/transferee or responsible person is located; and eliminates the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO. These provisions provide a public safety benefit as they ensure that responsible persons undergo background checks. In addition, this final rule adds a new section to ATF's regulations to address the possession and transfer of firearms registered to a decedent. The new section clarifies that the executor, administrator, personal representative, or other person authorized under State law to dispose of property in an estate may possess a firearm registered to a decedent during the term of probate without such possession being treated as a ''transfer" under the NF A. It also specifies that the transfer of the firearm to any beneficiary of the estate may be made on a tax-exempt basis.

--
This final rule was signed by the Attorney General on January 4, 2016. It is effective 180 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.

‘13 Hours’ Movie The Benghazi Attack

Cinematic Treatment

www.nytimes.com

The director Michael Bay, left, and Pablo Schreiber on the set of “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.”By MICHAEL CIEPLYJanuary 5, 2016

LOS ANGELES — Michael Bay, known for four “Transformers” films and an action-romance about the Pearl Harbor attack, made a promise to Mitchell Zuckoff on beginning a screen version of the story Mr. Zuckoff told in his book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi.”

“This is going to be my most real movie,” Mr. Zuckoff recalls Mr. Bay saying.

Next week will tell whether the harsh realities of a 2012 attack on a United States diplomatic compound in Libya are the stuff of transition for Mr. Bay, and cinematic catharsis for viewers whose understanding of the assault, in which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, has been blurred by partisan politics since the night it occurred.

The action-drama, called “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi,” will have its premiere next Tuesday in Texas at AT&T Stadium, where the Dallas Cowboys play their home games. The screening is a benefit for the Shadow Warriors Project, which supports private military security personnel, and other groups.

Three days later the film will be released by Paramount Pictures, hoping to capture a January audience that made past hits of the combat-themed films “Lone Survivor” and “American Sniper.”

To hear those involved with “13 Hours” tell it, success demands something more than ticket sales.

“This is what we experienced, we hope you listen to it,” said Mark Geist, who was wounded while helping, as a security consultant, to defend a Central Intelligence Agency annex that was attacked in tandem with the diplomatic compound.

One of five survivors who collaborated on both Mr. Zuckoff’s book and Mr. Bay’s film, Mr. Geist said he and his peers hoped the movie would help close rather than reopen debate about political motives in Washington’s lack of readiness for and response to a 13-hour attack that began on Sept. 11, 2012.

“The political side of it needs to focus on the truth, and not focus on the spin,” said Mr. Geist, who spoke by telephone last week, and is often called Oz, both in life and in the film.

“People need to listen to the people on the ground,” he added.

While Mr. Geist did not address specific failures in the official response to the attack, the film bluntly portrays several. The film’s operatives openly question inadequate security measures at the diplomatic compound in advance of the attack. C.I.A. staffers deride and disregard the operatives, and play down the dangers in Libya. Requested air support never arrives.

Still, Mr. Bay shared the conviction of the operatives, Mr. Zuckoff and Erwin Stoff, a producer of the film, that partisan politics should generally be avoided. Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state when the attack took place — and who has been harshly criticized by Republicans who have tried to tie the attack to what they contend was her mismanagement — is never mentioned. President Obama is only a fleeting voice in “13 Hours.” (Mr. Bay’s mother, whom he said is a close observer of national politics, urged him not to do the film at all.)

In hours of Congressional testimony, Mrs. Clinton has accepted general responsibility for security at the compound, but has said that specific decisions about its protection were made by her department’s security professionals.

In what might be one political sore spot, a printed crawl at the picture’s end points out that in the years after the attack, Libya became a stronghold for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

But for the most part, “13 Hours,” with its focus on “ground truth,” is an unabashed celebration of the armed operatives, who were defying orders when they moved to defend the diplomatic compound. One of the original group, Tyrone Woods, known as Rone, died. Along with Ambassador Stevens, the other Americans killed were Sean Smith, a State Department communications officer, and Glen Doherty, known as Bub, a security contractor who joined in defending the annex after flying from Tripoli.

To an unusual degree, the security operatives on the ground in Benghazi became a force in creating the “13 Hours” film, even before Mr. Bay agreed to direct it.

In an interview last week, Mr. Stoff described the process leading to the film. In May 2013, he said, Richard Abate, a book agent who works with him at the 3 Arts Entertainment management and production company, spoke with Kris Paronto, known as Tanto, another security operative in Libya. That led to conversations with five survivors, including Mr. Geist; John Tiegen, known as Tig; and two others who have not been publicly identified. (In the film, they are called Jack Silva, played by John Krasinski, and Boon, played by David Denman.)

The five quickly resolved to retell their experiences in a book. Mr. Abate asked Mr. Zuckoff, a client and longtime journalist, to write it. Mr. Zuckoff initially declined, partly because the proposed eight-month delivery schedule was tight, and partly from wariness of political crosscurrents around the Benghazi story.

“I didn’t want to wade into that,” Mr. Zuckoff said. But direct conversations with the operatives persuaded him otherwise.

“You realize, I can’t not tell their story,” he said.

Simultaneously, Mr. Stoff recruited Chuck Hogan (who wrote a novel that became Ben Affleck’s “The Town”) to write the film and organize a pitch. Four of the five operatives, Mr. Stoff said, joined the writer and producer in presenting the project to Hollywood studios.

“Everybody wanted to hear it,” Mr. Stoff said. “But only Paramount had the courage to want to make it.”

In July 2014, Paramount executives showed the script to Mr. Bay, who has worked with the studio on four “Transformers” films, and is preparing to direct a fifth. Mr. Stoff told them not to waste their time: Mr. Bay, he knew, had just turned down a competing Benghazi project. But Mr. Bay was intrigued, and agreed to direct.

“I just wanted to do it justice,” Mr. Bay said, speaking by telephone this week. Mr. Bay said that he saw the project as a way to honor the selfless behavior of combat participants, which he earlier witnessed among Navy SEALs when he worked with several of them on “The Rock” in the mid-1990s.

A line on the billboards for “13 Hours” captures Mr. Bay’s enduring fascination with heroics under pressure — something evident in his previous films, like “Bad Boys,” “The Rock,” “Armageddon,” “Pearl Harbor” and the “Transformers” series. “When everything went wrong, six men had the courage to do what was right,” it says.

The bleak outcome in Benghazi, Mr. Stoff noted, edged Mr. Bay onto what for him was new ground. “His movies always present the world as you wish it would be,” Mr. Stoff said. “This is tonally a very different kind of movie.”

Mr. Geist said he regarded “13 Hours” as an authentic portrayal of the attack and response.

Not every detail, he said, is clinically correct. One or another bit of rooftop action, he said, may have been altered.

But “it’s as authentic, I think, as you’re going to be able to get,” Mr. Geist said. All but one of the core operatives have seen it, he added.

“I didn’t hear a negative comment.”

COMMENTS

Zero Dark Thirty