10-6-17

One of the nasty little secrets that our fearless members of Congress try to keep from the public is that they often exempt themselves from the provisions of the laws under which the rest of us must live. It’s not that hard to do as long as nobody blows the whistle. After all, when was the last time you read a proposed law in its entirety?

Of course, that’s assuming that the thing is even available for us to read. Proposed legislation should be available for public review on the web. Then again we recall then Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s brilliant statement that Congress would have to vote on Obamacare before they could learn what’s inside of it. It’s really difficult to think of a more stupid comment she could have made.

It turns out that members of Congress might have some exemptions from Obamacare that make the law a bit more palatable to our leaders. No surprises there. However, what could be a surprise are the results of an investigation into this matter lead by Senator Ron Johnson. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would be the folks who could answer these questions, and they have until October 18 to respond or they will be subpoenaed to appear before Johnson’s Senate Homeland Security Committee to testify.

 

“Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson is threatening to subpoena a federal agency for information on an Obama-era policy that allows members of Congress and their staff to get around a key ObamaCare requirement. 

“The policy lets Capitol Hill officials buy health care with a government subsidy on a small-business exchange. Republicans like Johnson have long described this as an ObamaCare exemption, but have struggled to extract details about how it came to be.

“Johnson, R-Wis., escalated his push for answers in a letter Wednesday to Office of Personnel Management Acting Director Kathleen McGettigan.

“‘The American people have a right to know how and why OPM exempted Members of Congress from the full impact of ObamaCare,’ Johnson wrote.”

This is one of those nasty issues that has the potential to make a number of people look bad, not the least of which Mr. Obama and the OPM under his leadership.

One part of the problem is that it rightly annoys citizens to no end to see members of Congress and their staffs acting as an elite segment of America, above the laws and regulations with which the rest of us must contend. And this has the potential to negatively impact a politician’s next campaign, a dreadful thought if there ever was one.

“Johnson said he had received an ‘insufficient’ response to an August letter, warning: ‘If OPM does not produce the entirety of the information and materials requested in my August 16 letter by October 18, 2017, the Committee may be forced to consider the use of compulsory process.’

“‘Compulsory process’ is congressional code for subpoenas. Johnson also is seeking transcribed interviews with five officials. 

“Johnson specifically wants to know about the process used to avoid a provision calling on congressional lawmakers and their staff to buy ObamaCare plans.”

The OPM is in a difficult position, and that’s a good thing. Transparency is typically something to be desired from our government. It’s acts as a restraint against abuses of power, such as Senator Johnson might have just discovered.

It’s easy to think of a number of other entities where some transparency would be helpful and extremely revealing, such as the Federal Reserve. However, one must begin somewhere, and that somewhere involves abuse of Obamacare requirements by members of Congress. That sounds like a great place to start.

Source: Fox News

---

In American prisons, like in many countries around the world and most especially in Europe, where extremely Liberal policies dominate the culture inside the facilities, prisoners are treated like paying guests in a hotel. They are given access to phones, weightlifting equipment, cable television, DVD collections, libraries, skill-building, internet, concerts, and stand-up shows.

When Americans find out what goes on inside these prisons, they are invariably upset with the posh conditions, considering that the people who commit some of the most brutal and terrible crimes in this country are basically rewarded with an extended hotel stay, complete with three square meals a day and clothing. Oftentimes, they are also treated to special foods that help them to be reminded of home.

Some that commit crimes and released into the populace end up recommitting the same or similar crimes, just to be put back “in the joint” because the thought of living on their own and having to provide for themselves is almost too much to bear. In Bill Clinton’s neck of the woods, the Little Rock, Arkansas state prison is going so far as to consider providing a Muslim terrorist prison with a special Islamic-based diet called Halal. This after having committed murder against a US soldier!

Townhall:

In 2009 Curtis Bledsoe, now known as Abdulhakim Muhammad, fatally shot one U.S. soldier and injured another outside of a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. In his explanation for why he murdered Pvt. William Long, he cited his religion, saying he’s “loved jihad every since I became Muslim.”

He’s been locked up since 2012 and now he’s making dietary demands on the prison, taking the Department of Correction to court for not providing him halal food every day.

A federal judge began hearing testimony Monday that the prison is violating his religious freedom by refusing him this special diet that adheres to his Muslim faith.

Halal food, or permitted food, according to Muhammad, means meat from herbivorous animals that are killed in accordance with a specific ritual. Haram, or prohibited food, includes meat from carnivorous animals, pork, meat from animals not slaughtered according to ritual, and food that contains certain ingredients such as animal byproducts, diglycerides, monoglycerides, pepsin, gelatin, and alcohol. Kosher meats are an acceptable alternative, he said.

“Mr. Muhammad sincerely believes as a practicing Muslim he must consume a halal diet,” said his attorney Jess Askew.

As Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch asked, “If he had murdered Long out of adherence to Nazi principles, would the Arkansas Department of Correction be obliged to accommodate his adherence to Nazism in prison?”

As you may recall, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona was one of those outspoken and plain-speaking law enforcement agents who didn’t believe in coddling prisoners. In fact, he leaned toward harsher punishments than what the prison system had set up and insisted that they do have most every modern luxury removed from their cells because he felt that the American taxpayer had no obligation to pay for these things for men and women who opted out of their citizenship.

We all know that Sheriff Arpaio came out of a recent scuffle in the courts by virtue of a pardon from President Donald Trump and how the activist judge, despite the pardon, attempted but failed to carry out the harsh sentence on the sheriff. This is how we reward on the Left. Commit a crime, win a prize. Carry out the law, be prosecuted. How backwards can we be?

Source: Townhall

http://americanconservativeherald.com/muslim-man-demand-1/