• Home
  • Mission
  • Federalist Papers
  • Foundation
  • U.S. Constitution
  • Bill of Rights

Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

  • All Stories
  • Economy
  • Elections
  • Entitlement
  • Ethics
  • Foreign
  • Gender
  • Religion
  • Sci-Tech

Zimmerman: The Subtext

July 8, 2013 By Editor 1 Comment

ZimmermanWith the prosecutors floundering so dramatically in their case against George Zimmerman, who is on trial for the ‘murder’ of Trayvon Martin, one wonders why the case was even brought in the first place. Indeed, the decision by prosecutors was not a matter of law, but a matter of politics.

The ‘black community’ was boisterous in its outcries against the “white” George Zimmerman, who is plainly Hispanic . . . although that inconvenient fact doesn’t stop the misrepresentation, who shot the hoodie-wearing, pot smoking young black man in a middle-class gated community in Florida. As a matter of responding to that public outcry, a special prosecutor was appointed to take on the clear case of self-defense, and punish it as a hate crime.

Facts of the case:

Mr. Martin seemed clearly out of place in a neighborhood that had suffered its share of crimes in recent years, and Mr. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person, whose sense of public duty instructed him to keep a keen eye out for suspicious people.

Mr. Zimmerman telephoned police when he saw Mr. Martin walking through the neighborhood, looking suspicious. Mr. Martin confronted Mr. Zimmerman, and attacked him, ending up on top of him slugging him in the face and pounding his head into the concrete, telling him he was going to die. Mr. Zimmerman received a broken nose and split scalp at the hands of Mr. Martin.

Feeling he was in imminent danger of serious injury, Mr. Zimmerman took out his handgun and shot Mr. Martin, who was still on top of him giving him a beating, and who died at the scene.

This is a classic textbook case of self-defense.

The truth is that liberals in America refuse to accept any part of the truth that blacks commit most of the crime in this country. Like Trayvon Martin, many young thugs wearing hoodies and pants below butt cracks terrorize whites and others, at will, threatening and attacking anyone who challenges their criminal or suspicious behavior.

Remember, blacks only account for 12% of our population, and young black men account for only about 4% of the US population. According to a report released by the New Century Foundation, The Color of Crime:

  • Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
  • When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
  • Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
  • The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.
  • Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
  • Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
  • Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

These statistics evidence a very serious problem in our country–one that turning a blind eye won’t resolve–that many young black men are violent criminals. If this statement offends you–answer the question, who in America feels safe walking through a predominantly black neighborhood after dark?

In fact, the entitlement policies of the left have bred a generation of criminals, and our black brothers are drowning in a sea of apathy and neglect. (See our article Dems Hurting Minorities, June 8, 2013) The same policies that have created the problem are being escalated annually, and the problems of young black men have increased exponentially–nearly to the point where the majority of them have a better chance of going to prison than to college. The only thing that has prevented the escalation of crime rates in America is the abortion policies of the left, which are aimed directly at reducing the black population. (See our article Should GOP Rethink Abortion Policy?, Nov. 29, 2012)

George Zimmerman has given America a wake up call. He refused to turn a blind eye to the truth that skulking young blacks in hoodies and low-rider pants are suspicious in a middle-class neighborhood–a fact that every American knows, but the left has made a social crime to speak out loud. It is our hope that black “leaders” will redirect their feigned outrage to the real issues facing their constituents (the number of blacks that died at the hands of blacks in Chicago over the recent holiday should spark true outrage), and enlist the help of responsible politicians and citizens to begin the arduous process of rehabilitating an entire generation of lost black Americans.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Gender, Religion

Facebook Talk: Meritocracy vs. Socialism

July 5, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

woman-obama-phoneIt’s been an interesting day. Last night, just before bed I was cruising blogs and came across a reposted article about how much more difficult it is to work your way through college these days, if no other reason than that college is so much more expensive now than in the past. There was also an assertion that greedy baby boomers (especially the wealthy) don’t subsidize education as it was done in the past. Based on the comments already left by two other respondents (names changed) to the posting, I wrote:

@Amy . Who gets to decide what’s fair?

@Carol . I’m not retired. I probably will never retire. My choice. And, I agree with your comments about the Boomers. After 40 years of Democratic control of the House, voted in by the Boomers, I couldn’t wait for the Republicans to take over. What a joke they have turned out to be.

All of it goes to show why the Founding Fathers had no intention of having but a very few (enumerated) items controlled by the federal government. People make mistakes. Generations of people make generational mistakes and the governments of those people are nothing more than a reflection of those voters. That being said, like minded people should be able to gather together in one state or another and live the way they choose. Californians should not set the agenda for residents of Colorado. Floridians should not have an influence, let alone a vote, on how people should live in Washington State. If you don’t like the mindset of your neighbors, then move to a place that caters to people who think as you think. Therefore, the federal government should not be so big, so bloated and so powerful that they are able to socially engineer us into being, doing and having the exact same thing no matter where you live in the country. That plan has never worked anywhere in the history of the world! And, it’s been tried countless times.

So yeah, I get a little cranky when I hear about anyone whining about what somebody else got and how they didn’t get theirs. If you don’t like what you’re getting from those who control your taxes, your educational opportunities, your jobs, your health care, your environment, your fuel/energy prices and everything else in your life, then DUMP ALL FEDERAL PROGRAMS, SPENDING AND CONTROL beyond the very few things enumerated in the Constitution and start gathering as like minded people in one corner of the country or the other under a state, county and municipal system that reflects the mindset of you and those with whom you have chosen to associate. But don’t keep voting for the same idiots or their protégés who do nothing more than perpetuate the “status quo”.

By the way, if you are not willing to do any of the above until someone else does it for you or until someone else funds it or until someone else, through federal support, guarantees food, housing, health care, day care, transportation or a job with a guaranteed salary that you can’t get fired from for lack of performance, then you should probably move to some other country where those things are guaranteed. Clearly you lack the American Spirit of self reliance, hard work, courage, risk, reward, pioneering and problem solving.

A friend of mine has an answering machine message that says, ” If you’re part of the problem, hang up and don’t call back. If you’re part of the solution, leave a message.”  That seems like an appropriate sign off here.

Carols responded: “Amen to states rights”

Amy responded (unedited) :

“America definitely wasn’t founded on self reliance, courage, risk, and reward etc.. Lets not forget all of the slaves, natives, women and immigrants who were treated like shit (irish, jews, italians, japanese, chinese, etc) who actually did the leg work. America was built on their blood sweat and tears and our forefathers just reaped the benefit because they were aristocratic christian land owning white males… History is a hell of an indicator of present behavior in politicians. There are so many other factors at play in determining the haves and have nots in this country and most of isn’t because of meritocracy thats a myth and an illusion.  See the glass ceiling and the 20% rule etc etc”

My first thought was, “Boy oh boy is the country in big trouble”. However, my immediate quip was, “Where did you go to school?”, followed by:

“You, making a list of the atrocities, injustices and bigotries of the past and trying to pass that off as a fair representation of the history of this country is like me making a list of all of yesterdays driving infractions and concluding that ALL drivers broke the law yesterday. Though undoubtedly every driving law on the books was broken yesterday, the vast majority of drivers didn’t break any law. In fact, not even all those who did violate traffic law yesterday, break the law everyday. Drill down a little further and you will discover that not even all of those caught speeding (for example), would be found guilty of such in court, for the simple reason that some of the speeding took place under the extraordinary circumstances of an emergency. It’s called the greater good defense and considered a justifiable action.

Despite what you’re being taught in our schools these days, this is a great country with great opportunity for ANYONE who is willing to pay the price. Granted, it is becoming more and more difficult due to more and more taxation and regulation. But far more injurious to your future than that, is what you apparently believe about the past. Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t, or that it’s too late or that you’re not the right kind, color, gender or creed to make your dreams come true. Those who want you to believe such things are trying to convince you of something that will disadvantage you, usually for their own benefit. Don’t let them. Don’t believe for a minute that the prosperity of your future will be derived from the redistribution of someone else’s accumulation. Politicians who want you to give them the power to take from others so that they can give to you will eventually take it all for themselves and leave you with even less than you had before. Even a cursory review of history with the slightest degree intellectual integrity will evidence that.

One more thing; I’m tempted to encourage you look at the glass of history as half full instead of half empty. But that would be dishonest. The truth is that compared to today, the glass of history is 94% full. It is accurate to say that there were indeed injustices of all kinds back in the day. But by any “fair” observation, there was more good than bad, more good actors than bad actors in nearly every case. But remember also that there were different standards. It could be said that their glasses held a quart, our glasses hold a liter. If you pour 100% of their quart into our liter it will only fill our container up to 94% full. In other words, we have different standards today than did our ancestors. Even their best would fall short by todays expectations. The real question is, what is our capacity? How close are we coming to completely filling our glass of achievement given our greater opportunities and capacity? Don’t let anyone make the false comparison of historical vs. present day (using a different standard) and convince you that you got shorted and now somebody owes you. Self reliance and faith in God is what made this country great, not government/institutional reliance. Don’t trust anyone who tells you different.”

 

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Religion

Dependence Day – The Return of King George

July 4, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

With the level of the federal deficit approaching $17,000,000,000 (trillions), the interest on which costs Americans the first $1,300,000,000 (billion) they make every day, and the recent explosion of federal power over the citizens and the states as handed to U.S. socialists by the Supreme Court and the prolific pen of the Executive Order, the independence from government rule and tyranny sought by our Founders is all but neutralized. We and our children are indebted and imprisoned by design of a leftist attack on our country, and an Orwellian federal government spies on patriotic citizens and treats them like enemies while Islamic terrorists are welcomed into the White House.

A polarization has occurred in the nation—as the left has chipped away at personal liberty and individual sovereignty over the past several decades, those who cherish freedom have finally begun to become more vocal in their resistance. But is it too little, too late?

The left has made tremendous inroads in their quest to replace King George with its own elitist panels, commissions and czars, and within the past year its inches of ground winning have become feet.

. . . even an overtaxed economy like ours has rendered our own 99% the 1% of the world.

In the name of laborer parity and elevating the ethnically or socially disadvantaged, the socialists and communists of the past century have robbed the people of the world of their birthright, established by the labor and sacrifice of their 18th and19th Century Forbearers. In the name of pretended “fairness” leftist forces have lowered the wealth and opportunities of everyone rather than elevate the status of the less fortunate.

Look at any country where socialism and liberalism have penetrated the veil of liberty. Not one of them has improved the quality of life of their working people.

Where do we find the bottom half of earners in America? With all of the talk of the 1% and the 99% in this country, and the mindless chants of brain-dead occupiers in the streets, even an overtaxed economy like ours has rendered our own 99% the 1% of the world. Nearly all of our poor live in good housing, have clean water and food aplenty (many suffer from obesity), a computer of some kind, and cell phones and cable television. They live better than the wealthy of many of the earth’s nations.

Additionally, the tremendous generosity and military might of Americans has been the salvation of billions of people around the world, whose leftist economies have left them with nothing but squalor, want and exposure to dictators and war lords (usually leftists).

big_brother_watchingWe hear of the Tea Party these days, and the name is spoken with disdain by over half of the country, and almost all of the mainstream media. Does any of them actually recall where the term originated? Do they remember how an oppressive monarch imposed taxes that were hard to bear and intruded into the personal liberties of a hardworking people, and that those people finally decided that they would take no more and rose up in rebellion, starting with throwing British tea into the harbor?

No, sadly enough, most young adults these days are the products of a dumbing-down campaign launched by the left and its educational arm, the National Education Association. They have mush for brains and their education consists of nothing more than pop culture and global warming propaganda.

We have nearly come full circle. We have hundreds of millions dependent on government and its handouts, a White House dedicated to the overthrow of the Constitution, and a Supreme Court that has decreed that the people are to be taxed even for services they DO NOT purchase at the government’s command.

King George is back, liberty has been strangled to near enslavement, and this time it will take more than a few muskets to rid us of the burgeoning oppression. America has not seen such dark times since the Civil War. I say the Civil War, because in all other wars the enemy was external. If we fail to immediately change our course, we will be irretrievably carried back under the oppression of dictatorship. We invite all liberty loving Americans to join the revolution, and to regain our independence from oppressive, centralized government.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

Obama Delays ObamaCare Until After Elections

July 3, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

obama_irsPresident Obama’s decision to push back key provisions of his signature healthcare law amid growing concerns it isn’t ready for prime time could take a key issue away from Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

The announcement Tuesday night that the mandate for many small businesses to provide health insurance to employees will be delayed by one year was hailed by business leaders and seemed to acknowledge Republican claims the plan would hurt – or at least confuse – business. But it also likely undercuts Republican plans to make ObamaCare the centerpiece of their midterm elections strategy.

Democrats are defending 21 Senate seats to the Republicans’ 14. The GOP had already started to excoriate Senate Democrats who had voted for the health law in 2009. And the House has voted more than 35 times since taking control of the chamber in 2011 to repeal or at least defund all or parts of ObamaCare, most recently in May.

“The president’s health care law is already raising costs and costing jobs,” House Speaker John Boehner said. “This announcement means even the Obama administration knows the ‘train wreck’ will only get worse. … And it underscores the need to repeal the law and replace it with effective, patient-centered reforms.”

The announcement was made late Tuesday by the Treasury Department, at the beginning of the holiday week while Congress was on recess. It came amid reports that the administration is running into roadblocks as it prepares to implement ObamaCare.

The change in the employer mandate also is arguably the most significant concession the administration has made to date to critics of the plan.

“We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively,” Treasury Assistant Secretary Mark Mazur said in a blog post. “We have listened to your feedback and we are taking action.”

Randy Johnson, senior vice president of Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits at the Chamber of Commerce, told Fox News the administration’s decision shows it has “finally recognized the obvious.”

“Employers need more time and clarification of the rules of the road before implementing the employer mandate,” he said. “We will continue to work to alleviate this and other problems with ObamaCare.”

Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation, said: “We commend the administration’s wise move.”

He also said the change “will provide employers and businesses more time to update their health care coverage without threat of arbitrary punishment.”

But the delay could also undermine the law’s main goal of covering the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance. Already, Republican resistance in the states will deny access to a planned Medicaid expansion — at least for next year — to millions of low-income people.

Under the health law, companies with 50 or more workers must provide affordable coverage to their full-time employees or risk a series of escalating tax penalties if just one worker ends up getting government-subsidized insurance. Originally, that requirement was supposed to take effect Jan. 1. It will now be delayed to 2015.

Most medium-sized and large businesses already offer health insurance and the requirement was expected to have the biggest consequences for major chain hotels, restaurants and retail stores that employ many low-wage workers. Some had threatened to cut workers’ hours, and others said they were putting off hiring.

Business groups complained since the law passed that the provision was too complicated. For instance, the law created a new definition of full-time workers, those putting in 30 hours or more. It also included two separate requirements, one to provide coverage and another that coverage be deemed “affordable” under the law. Violations of either one exposed employers to fines. But such complaints until now seemed to be going unheeded.

There is no coverage mandate — or penalty — for smaller businesses. Also, for businesses of any size, there is no penalty if their workers are poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid.

The delay in the employer requirement does not affect the law’s requirement that individuals carry health insurance starting next year or face fines. That so-called individual mandate was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the individual requirement was constitutional, since the penalty would be collected by the Internal Revenue Service and amounted to a tax.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a critic of the law, seized on the delay as a “clear admission” that the law is “unaffordable, unworkable and unpopular,” but conceded delaying implementation could help Democrats.

“It’s also a cynical political ploy to delay the coming train wreck associated with ObamaCare until after the 2014 elections,” he said.

Published July 03, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Gender, Religion

GOP Using Obama’s ‘War on Coal’ to Tarnish Dems Ahead of Elections

July 2, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

coal_warFoes of President Obama’s alleged “war on coal” climate plan are hoping to use the combustible issue to tarnish Democrats in the next round of elections.

The political backlash started almost immediately after the president announced last week he’s ordering the EPA to draft new rules to limit emissions at coal-fired power plants.

In Virginia, it didn’t take long for Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli to label the plan the “Obama-Biden-McAuliffe war on coal,” in his race for governor against former Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe.

The Cuccinelli campaign launched a coal-themed online ad blitz last week, as both candidates charge into the November 2013 election.

Other politicos already are looking down the calendar to 2014 and beyond.

On the national level, the risk for Democrats is inherent in the fact that the road to the White House in 2016 goes through several swing states that are also top 10 coal-producing states — namely, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Republicans, and groups representing the coal industry, could make life difficult for any candidate who gets too close to regulations deemed harmful to the coal industry.

Obama tried to get on offense over the weekend, saying in his radio address that voters should demand Congress get behind a climate plan.

“Remind everyone who represents you … that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote,” Obama said.

The White House put out a detailed infographic on rising temperatures and the cost of natural disasters, which his plan supposedly would curb.

And Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz reportedly said Sunday that the government is not waging a “war on coal.”

According to Reuters, Moniz said Obama “expects fossil fuels, and coal specifically, to remain a significant contributor for some time.” He said the administration wants to encourage higher efficiency plants.

But those in the industry say the administration is moving too fast, and should give time to develop clean-coal technology that’s already in existence.

Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, told FoxNews.com his group was not launching any paid advertising on the issue at this point, but is in “constant contact” with governors and lawmakers in the states most affected by coal generation and use.

Popovich did not describe the plan as a “war on coal,” saying his group is “trying to find solutions here.”

“We hope that is not the case. It certainly would not make any sense given a lingering recession for most Americans,” he said.

He said the NMA wants to carve out a “separate and distinct standard” for clean-coal technologies, and will weigh-in during the EPA’s regulatory comment period.

According to Politico, the EPA has already sent a draft regulation on emissions for future power plants to the White House. The other draft rule, the more sweeping measure for existing plants, is still in process.

Democrats in coal country were visibly hesitant to get behind Obama’s plan. Some were outright hostile.

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, in an interview last week with Fox News, called the president’s plan a “war on America.”

“It’s just ridiculous. … I should not have to be sitting here as a U.S. senator, fighting my own president and fighting my own government,” he told Fox News. “I will continue to reach out, but I need a partner here. I don’t need an adversary.”

Manchin’s colleague, Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, was more reserved, saying the president needs to provide more information about how miners would be affected.

But any Democrat who remained silent on the issue was faced with the threat of Republican taunting.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee last week accused Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes — who on Monday announced she would challenge Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell for his Senate seat — of embracing Obama’s “radical agenda.”

“Over the past two days, Grimes’ silence makes clear that Kentuckians simply can’t count on her to stand up against her own party to protect them,” the NRSC said in a statement.

Democrats have two major political risks to weigh in considering whether to get behind the new climate agenda. First is the thousands of jobs at stake in the coal industry. According to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), EPA regulations have played a role in the closure of nearly 290 coal plants so far this year. Second is electricity rates.

In Ohio, Republican Sen. Rob Portman framed the issue in those terms, calling the Obama plan an “effort to raise electricity prices in Ohio.”

“President Obama’s EPA overreach has already cost jobs in Ohio. At least eight coal-fired power plants in Ohio are set to close due in large part to regulatory mandates put in place by the EPA,” he said in a statement, noting more than 80 percent of electricity in the state comes from coal generation and claiming the new rules could raise those costs.

“Coal’s part of the reason that we enjoy the level of economic prosperity we do in the nation today,” Kevin Crutchfield, CEO of coal company Alpha Natural Resources, told Fox News.

Published July 01, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign

Edward Snowden Seeking Asylum in Russia

July 1, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

edward.snowdenFollowing a week of hide-and-seek in the international “transit zone” of the Moscow airport, NSA leaker Edward Snowden is reported to be seeking political asylum in Russia.

The Russian government had been distancing itself from Snowden over the past week, as has the government of Ecuador, locations where Snowden had reportedly been trying to relocate.

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange has claimed to be assisting Snowden find a more permanent “home” to ride out the spying charges filed against him by the US Department of Justice.

Whether Snowden is a hero whistle-blower or a traitor is much in the eye of the beholder at this point, with only a small portion of the leaked information having come to light. Indeed, candidate Barack Obama praised government whistle-blowers:

Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out . . . [I] will strengthen whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Barack Obama

Of course, it is Barack Obama whose government has been fingered by the former NSA spy as being the most abusive wielder of power through intrusive spying on citizens and foreign governments in the history of the US.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Religion, Sci-Tech

IRS Official Waived Fifth

June 28, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

House panel finds IRS official waived Fifth Amendment right, can be forced to testify in targeting probe

Lerner_IRS_FifthA House Republican-led committee approved a resolution Friday declaring that high-ranking IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by delivering a statement before the committee in May.

Lerner used to oversee the IRS division that targeted groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. At a May 22 hearing, she invoked her right not to answer lawmakers’ questions after declaring in an opening statement that she had done nothing wrong.

Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted along party lines Friday morning, with 22 Republicans saying she waived the Fifth and 17 Democrats arguing she did not. Lerner remains under subpoena, and the committee believes it could bring the long-time IRS official back and compel her to testify.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the committee, said at the opening of Friday’s meeting that “I believe Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privileges.”

“She did so when she delivered an opening statement,” Issa said.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., reiterated Issa’s argument, delivering a fiery speech about Lerner’s attempt to protect herself under the Fifth.

Gowdy said Lerner made nine separate assertions, with the advice of counsel, and then authenticated a document.

“That’s not how the Fifth Amendment works,” Gowdy said. “You’re not allowed to just say your side of the story … She could have sat there and said nothing.”

Democrats, meanwhile, like Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., challenged Gowdy’s argument, calling attempts to block Lerner’s invoking of the Fifth Amendment “an egregious abuse of power that tramples the Constitution and serves no valid legislative purpose.”

Connolly said that “the majority has brought us to a point where we risk allowing this committee to be transformed into a Star Chamber proceeding that establishes future Legislative Branch precedent where any chairman — whether a Democrat or a Republican — is free to compel an American invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination to physically appear before the Committee for no other reason than to be pilloried, delayed, embarrassed, and burdened into unknowingly, unintentionally, and ironically, forfeiting the very sacred constitutional right that is intended to protect every American against forced self-incrimination by the government.”

“You may make a small-term political gain,” Connolly warned Republicans, but “at a long-term political cost.”

The committee is scheduled to vote Friday on whether Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions by making an opening statement.

Legal scholars have differed in their views on the committee’s case against Lerner, who the IRS has placed on administrative leave.

Lerner’s lawyer, William Taylor, said he disagreed with the committee’s claim.

“There was nothing voluntary about her statement,” he said in a statement. “She had informed (the) committee that she would invoke and requested to be excused and (the) committee ordered her to appear and invoke her rights in public.

“It went so far as to serve a subpoena on her to assure that she would be compelled to attend, unlike other witnesses who appeared voluntarily.  In any event, protesting your innocence and invoking the right not to answer questions, which is what she did, is not a waiver.”

Published June 28, 2013 / FoxNews.com / Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Cristina Corbin and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Religion

Another Senior IRS Official Pleads the Fifth Before Congress

June 27, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

irs_pleads_5thFor the second time in as many months, a senior IRS manager on Wednesday invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, fueling perceptions of an agency in  crisis.

Greg Roseman, a Deputy IRS Director, spearheaded the awarding of the IRS’s  largest contract in history to a company owned by a close friend of his, an action that is prohibited under government contracting regulations.

The company is Strong Castle, Inc., owned by Braulio Castillo. Castillo won several contracts totaling almost $500 million for IRS IT services in part on the basis of his friendship  with Roseman and by qualifying for two minority programs that allow disadvantaged applicants a better chance of winning lucrative government contracts.

Castillo qualified for one minority set-aside program by setting up his business in a disadvantaged area of northeast Washington D.C. The Small Business Administration program requires applicants to hire from within the economically disadvantaged community, but a House Oversight Committee report found that Castillo manipulated that requirement by hiring students from Catholic University. The school’s campus lies within the designated boundary, but its students are, on balance, far from disadvantaged.

He won entrance into another minority set-aside program run by the Veterans Administration that gives disabled vets certain advantages in federal contracting. His disability? An ankle twisted during football at the US Military Academy Prep School 27 years ago.

That prompted  a sarcastic reaction at Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing from a double amputee, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war vet. “I’m so glad that you would be willing to play football in prep school again to protect this great country. Shame on you, Mr. Castillo, shame on you,” she said.

As evidence of their close friendship, the committee published text messages between  Roseman and Castillo. The two men apparently found kinship in using homophobic slurs. One exchange reads, “Paging Dr. Faggot.”  The response reads, “Queerbait. How come u haven’t called back? Ain’t got all day. Lol.”

Roseman is still employed by the IRS. That fact prompted a testy exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and Beth Tucker, the IRS’s Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support.

“Can you issue a statement by five o’clock today as to how someone who used this language in their official capacity as a government employee is still employed and drawing a paycheck?” Gowdy asked. “We are having discussions with our general counsel,” Tucker responded.

On Friday, there will be more IRS focus on the Hill. The committee will vote whether it believes Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when she invoked that right, then abruptly proclaimed her innocence. It was a maneuver that some on the panel say amounted to waiving the right.

By Doug McKelway / Published June 26, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Watch Video

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Religion

Supreme Court Sides with Gay Marriage

June 26, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

gay_domaIn a big day for gay-rights advocates, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a federal provision denying benefits to legally married gay couples and issued a separate ruling that paves the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California.

Cheers erupted on the steps of the high court, as the rulings were handed down. The latter decision did not speak to the constitutionality of gay marriage bans in California, or in the country as a whole. The court avoided a broad ruling, and rather, determined that the defenders of California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage did not have the standing to appeal lower court rulings against the ban.

As a result, California is likely to allow same-sex marriages to resume in a matter of weeks.

The more sweeping decision came in relation to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the court said was unconstitutional and effectively gutted by ruling against a provision that denied benefits to legally married gay couples.

The 5-4 ruling — a major victory for gay-rights advocates — means those same-sex couples would be eligible for federal benefits.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

“DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life and that they in most cases would be honored to accept were DOMA not in force,” he wrote.

Kennedy wrote that the law “places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage.”

The ruling prompted tension among the divided court. Multiple dissenting opinions were filed. Justice Antonin Scalia, reading from his dissent, said the components of the majority’s ruling are “wrong.”

“The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society,” he said.

Social conservatives were similarly disappointed.

“They are rejecting the truth. It’s a sad day,” said Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. “Christians have to live in the world in which we live. We will adapt and adjust to the realities of the law change. At the same time we will continue to preach, declare, and live the truth that our God does not get involved in swing votes and cultural change when there is a biblical principle at stake.”

But David Boies, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, hailed both rulings as a step toward “true equality.” He said that while the California case was not ruled on the merits, the DOMA ruling demonstrates that when the issue of gay marriage returns to the high court, “marriage equality will be the law throughout this land.”

The provision in question defined marriage as between a man and woman and in doing so prevented married gay couples from receiving a range of tax, health and retirement benefits that are generally available to married people.

Same-sex marriage has been adopted by 12 states and the District of Columbia. Another 18,000 couples were married in California during a brief period when same-sex unions were legal there.

“Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways,” Kennedy said.

“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal,” he said.

He was joined by the court’s four liberal justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Scalia said the court should not have decided the case.

Published June 26, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Gender, Religion

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act

June 25, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Supreme-CourtIn a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday voided a provision of the Voting Rights Act that determines which state and local governments have to seek federal permission to change their voting laws.

The 1960s-era provision largely singled out states and districts in the South — those with a history of discrimination — for special screening by the federal government over changes to their laws. But the court ruled 5-4 that the formula determining which states are affected is unconstitutional, and said Congress could try to draft a new provision.

The justices said that the law Congress most recently renewed in 2006 relies on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society.

“In 2006, the Act was reauthorized for an additional 25 years, but the coverage formula was not changed. Coverage still turned on whether a jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or1970s, and had low voter registration or turnout at that time,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

He clarified that the provision requiring advance approval of voting law changes — known as Section 5 — was not being struck down. Rather, the court found that the provision pertaining to the formula, known as Section 4, was unconstitutional. The decision, though, challenges the overall practice of federal screening unless and until Congress addresses the formula.

The decision means that a host of state and local laws that have not received Justice Department approval or have not yet been submitted will be able to take effect. Prominent among those are voter identification laws in Alabama and Mississippi.

Going forward, the outcome alters the calculus of passing election-related legislation in the affected states and local jurisdictions. The threat of an objection from Washington has hung over election-related proposals for nearly a half century. At least until Congress acts, that deterrent now is gone.

Roberts argued that these states and the conditions in them have “changed dramatically” over the years.

“The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased (Section 5’s) restrictions or narrowed the scope of (Section 4’s) coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger,” he wrote.

The decision comes five months after President Obama, the nation’s first black chief executive, started his second term in the White House, re-elected by a diverse coalition of voters.

The high court is in the midst of a broad re-examination of the ongoing necessity of laws and programs aimed at giving racial minorities access to major areas of American life from which they once were systematically excluded. The justices issued a modest ruling Monday that preserved affirmative action in higher education and will take on cases dealing with anti-discrimination sections of a federal housing law and another affirmative action case from Michigan next term.

The court warned of problems with the voting rights law in a similar case heard in 2009. The justices averted a major constitutional ruling at that time, but Congress did nothing to address the issues the court raised. The law’s opponents, sensing its vulnerability, filed several new lawsuits.

The latest decision came in a challenge to the advance approval, or preclearance, requirement, which was brought by Shelby County, Ala., a Birmingham suburb.

The lawsuit acknowledged that the measure’s strong medicine was appropriate and necessary to counteract decades of state-sponsored discrimination in voting, despite the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the vote for black Americans.

But it asked whether there was any end in sight for a provision that intrudes on states’ rights to conduct elections, an issue the court’s conservative justices also explored at the argument in February. It was considered an emergency response when first enacted in 1965.

The county noted that the 25-year extension approved in 2006 would keep some places under Washington’s oversight until 2031 and seemed not to account for changes that include the elimination of racial disparity in voter registration and turnout or the existence of allegations of race-based discrimination in voting in areas of the country that are not subject to the provision.

The Obama administration and civil rights groups said there is a continuing need for it and pointed to the Justice Department’s efforts to block voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas last year, as well as a redistricting plan in Texas that a federal court found discriminated against the state’s large and growing Hispanic population.

Advance approval was put into the law to give federal officials a potent tool to defeat persistent efforts to keep blacks from voting.

The provision was a huge success because it shifted the legal burden and required governments that were covered to demonstrate that their proposed changes would not discriminate. Congress periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent extension was overwhelmingly approved by a Republican-led Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.

The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaska Natives and Hispanics.

Towns in New Hampshire that had been covered by the law were freed from the advance approval requirement in March. Supporters of the provision pointed to the ability to bail out of the prior approval provision to argue that the law was flexible enough to accommodate change and that the court should leave the Voting Rights Act intact.

On Monday, the Justice Department announced an agreement that would allow Hanover County, Va., to bail out.

Published June 25, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

Google Claims First Amendment Right To Release NSA Data Demands

June 24, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

NSA-GoogleFor the past two weeks, Google has been petitioning the government to allow it to publish the exact number of data requests it receives from the NSA. There’s not been a lot of progress made on that front, but now Google is pulling out the big guns in attempt to force transparency.

In a recent filing, obtained by The Washington Post, before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Google argues the gag order that prevents it from publishing the number of data requests it receives is unconstitutional. In particular, Google says that such gag orders violate its First Amendment rights:

“Google seeks a declaratory judgment that Google has a right under the First Amendment to publish, and that no applicable law or regulation prohibits Google from publishing, two aggregate unclassified numbers: (1) the total number of FISA requests it receives, if any; and (2) the total number of users or accounts encompassed within such requests.”

Now, why is this so difficult? What’s wrong with publishing nothing but numbers? Well, it may seem kind of silly to you, but the government argues that even publishing the exact number of data requests it sends would put the nation in danger. Google isn’t asking to publish any specific requests nor it it asking to reveal inner workings of its relationship with the NSA. Google is only asking to publish some numbers, and that has thus far proven to be incredibly difficult.

In the last week, we’ve seen the government slightly budge on the issue. Facebook, Apple and Yahoo all published statements that listed a ballpark figure of data requests it receives from local, state and federal governments. Google was presumably allowed to publish the same figure, but it refrained because “lumping national security requests together with criminal requests … would be a backward step for our users.”

Google took that stance because it already publishes the amount of national security letters it receives from the government. Well, it can publish ballpark figures that say it received between 0 and 999 requests for user data in 2012. It’s not exactly helpful and lumping those figures in with criminal requests would make the numbers even more opaque.

The core argument here is that publishing these wide ranging numbers doesn’t do the public or Google any good. Sure, Google could say it receives anywhere between 9,000 to 12,000 data requests per year, but we wouldn’t know if those requests were from local law enforcement or the NSA. In turn, that unknown factor would only serve to increase consumer distrust for Google and drive them away to competitors.

What makes this all the more silly is that Google isn’t even asking to publish the exact number of data requests. As per the filing, here’s what Google would like to publish:

“Google’s publication would disclose numbers as part of the regular Transparency Report publication cycle for National Security Letters, which covers data over calendar year time periods. There would be two new categories to cover requests made under FISA: (a) total requests received and (b) total users/accounts at issue. Each of these entries will be reported at a range, rather than an actual number. That range would be the same as used by Google in its reporting of NSLs currently, in increments of one thousand, starting with zero. As with the NSL reporting, Google would have a Frequently Asked Questions section that would describe the statutory FISA authorities themselves.”

That doesn’t sound bad at all. The government already lets Google publish a ballpark figure for national security letters, so why not this? What’s the problem with making the federal government more transparent? Doing so would benefit not only the Obama administration’s declining reputation, but it would also immensely help Silicon Valley as well.

As was argued last week, tech companies have just as much to lose from the government keeping quiet as we do. Publishing opaque data request numbers may initially look good for the likes of Facebook and Apple, but Google is taking the higher ground here. It’s fighting to publish these numbers to advance the public debate over the NSA “in a thoughtful and democratic manner.” Lord knows the issue of NSA spying powers needs that right now.

By Zach Walton – Writer for WebProNews

Do you think Google should be allowed to publish data request numbers? Would it adversely impact national security?

google_cia_nsa

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Sci-Tech

Technology Makes Possible the Surveillance State

June 23, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

obama-big-brotherTechnology is making your every move — perhaps even those movements you make in the bathroom — ready for broadcast. The question is, are you ready for it?

Following the revelations about some of what the U.S. National Security Agency has been up to — secretly collecting millions of phone records and innumerable personal online searches and e-mails — government officials have been scrambling to reassure the public that the amount of information it is collecting is negligible, even trivial, and doesn’t impinge on personal freedom. However, the technology itself argues against the idea that what’s being collected about you is harmless.

Consider that phone numbers with time and location information can be easily combined with Web searches (for “anti-depressants,” say) and text message information to form a picture of where you are and what you’re doing. No one needs to listen to the content of a call if they know everything else about you, like the fact that you’ve messaged a therapist several times this week, belong to a gun club, and gave money to a Tea Party candidate.

Furthermore, the government’s Prism program looks positively mundane when you consider the other possible sources of information available through secret government surveillance. It is technically possible to monitor nearly every U.S. citizen — through automated scanning software programs — seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

Video cameras monitor you walking down the sidewalk. Toll tags and on-board connected car systems monitor you behind the wheel, even relaying rabbit starts, severe braking, and excessive speed. Security systems at work oversee cubicles, and employers monitor computer habits with hidden software that tracks keystrokes. At home, smart TVs with streaming services collect information about what you’re watching. Some sets and gaming consoles even include cameras that can tell who is in the room sitting on the couch.

big_brother_watchingWorse, our addiction to smartphones means we’re beaming our location, purchases, banking information, and personal relationships over networks that can be easily tapped — by government officials or by malware from hackers. Indeed, a computer program known as Flame that security experts say was created for espionage purposes has the demonstrated ability to secretly turn on a device’s microphone and record a conversation.

And then there’s Google Glass.

The much anticipated eyewear isn’t even available to the public yet, but when it is people won’t have to hold up a phone to take a picture, they’ll be able to record video in the blink of an eye. At a recent shareholder meeting, Google CEO Larry Page told attendees not to be terrified that people might use Glass in a public bathroom, just as we shouldn’t worry about people using smartphones in the bathroom.

I think there are some choice words folks would have for people who use Google Glass in the bathroom. (Try explaining to the friendly police officer that you were just reading FoxNews.com on the eyepiece, honest.)

The problem, of course, is the surreptitious nature of the technology and the secret monitoring it enables. It means that information — information you might think is innocuous — can be used against you without your knowledge. (Never mind embarrassing videos showing your lack of hygiene in the bathroom.) You may never know why you were rejected for a job or your kid didn’t get into a particular school.

Hypothetically speaking, you might be pulled over on the highway in the middle of the night by an officer who claims you were dallying in the passing lane. Unbeknownst to you, the real reason was that your plate was flagged by a license plate reader (LPR) camera, which was relying on an algorithm that detected that an individual who made phone calls to Eastern Europe and conducted Web searches for gun clubs is associated with that plate number.

The police officer lets you go on your way, but the next week, late at night, the same thing happens. And then the week after that, and, well, you get the picture.

So even if you never do anything wrong, never jaywalk or get a parking ticket, the information collected could be used against you, and you would be none the wiser. Catching terrorists is a laudable aim of such technological surveillance, and you might trust the Obama administration that such surveillance will never be misused. But what about the next administration?

Should people associated with the Tea Party get extra scrutiny from the IRS? Should people who are against gun control be monitored by state police? Should anti-war activists have their search history scrutinized by the NSA?

There are technological ways to limit the intrusion of such technology and prevent it from diminishing our privacy and freedoms, but it requires extra work. Programmers can limit the scope and fine tune communications monitoring software, and government officials could submit to more oversight by courts that are not secret.

But in a society where most of us are scrutinized on camera already — with the bathroom soon to come — it may be too late to put the digital genie back in the bottle.

By John R. Quain / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion, Sci-Tech

EPA Drops Study Linking Pollution to Fracking

June 21, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

epa-logoCHEYENNE, Wyo. –  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday it is dropping its longstanding plan to have independent scientists review its finding that hydraulic fracturing may be linked to groundwater pollution in central Wyoming.

The EPA is standing by its findings, but state officials will lead further investigation into the pollution in the Pavillion area. The area has been a focus of the debate over whether fracking can pollute groundwater ever since the EPA’s initial report came out in late 2011.

“We stand behind our work and the data, but EPA recognizes the state’s commitment to further investigation,” said agency spokesman Tom Reynolds in Washington, D.C. The EPA will let state officials carry on the investigation with the federal agency’s support, he said.

Wyoming officials have been skeptical about the theory that fracking played a role in the pollution at Pavillion, but Reynolds expressed confidence the state could lead the work from here. He described the shift as the best way to ensure Pavillion-area residents have a clean source of drinking water.

Even so, industry officials who have been doubtful about the EPA findings all along praised the change as confirmation of their view that the science wasn’t sound.

“EPA has to do a better job, because another fatally flawed water study could have a big impact on how the nation develops its massive energy resources,” Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a release.

Richard Garrett, energy and legislative advocate with the Wyoming Outdoor Council in Lander, said he believes Thursday’s announcement shows the EPA is finding it more difficult than originally expected to come to grips with the full environmental effect of fracking. He noted that the EPA is pushing back other work aimed at gauging the how energy production may pollute groundwater.

“It’s not surprising to me that they’re kind of taking a secondary role in rural Pavillion,” Garrett said. “It looks to me like it might be a resource issue. That goes to the federal budget I suppose, and EPA administration.”

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, boosts the productivity of oil and gas wells by pumping pressurized water mixed with sand and chemicals into well holes to crack open fissures in the ground.

Environmentalists have voiced concern about fracking causing groundwater pollution for years, but the practice has significantly boosted oil and gas production in regions such as the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and the Marcellus Shale underlying Eastern states.

The EPA’s 2011 report marked the first time the agency publicly linked fracking and groundwater contamination, causing a stir on both sides of the issue.

The federal agency began seeking nominations last year for experts to serve as peer reviewers for its draft report, and it has extended public comment periods on the report three times since it came out. Each extension delayed the peer-review plans.

EPA officials insisted Thursday that the agency is not giving up on its Pavillion research and reserves the right to pick up the investigation in the future and open it to peer review. The EPA also has been examining the relationship between fracking and groundwater in different areas of the country and is proceeding with that study.

The Northern Arapaho Tribe on the Wind River Indian Reservation surrounding the Pavillion area has been seeking to maintain a role in the Pavillion research since taking part in new sampling last year. A tribal official said, however, that the EPA hasn’t worked closely with the tribe lately.

“They have a legal duty to consult with the tribe and that didn’t happen as part of their dialogue with the governor,” Ronald Oldman, co-chairman of the tribe’s business council, said in a statement.

The new research led by Wyoming officials would be funded at least in part by a $1.5 million grant from Encana Corp.’s U.S. oil and gas subsidiary, which owns the Pavillion gas field. The state will issue a final report in late 2014, Gov. Matt Mead’s office said in a news release.

Mead said Wyoming will focus on making sure the few dozen affected residents of the rural, farming and ranching country a few miles outside Pavillion, population 230, have a clean source of drinking water. The state has been providing water cisterns to 20 people in the area.

“It is in everyone’s best interest — particularly the citizens who live outside of Pavillion — that Wyoming and the EPA reach an unbiased, scientifically supportable conclusion,” Mead said in a news release. “I commend EPA and Encana for working with me to chart a positive course for the investigation.”

The study will assess the need for any further action to protect drinking water sources, according to the release.

The Encana funding will pay to examine 14 domestic water wells in the Pavillion field for water quality and palatability concerns.

Local residents have complained for more than seven years that their water began to reek of chemicals since fracking occurred in their neighborhood. However, EPA efforts to find potential pathways from deeper areas where gas is extracted to shallower areas tapped by domestic water wells have been inconclusive, the news release said.

“We’re pleased that EPA has agreed to discontinue the investigation,” Encana spokesman Doug Hock said. “We applaud the fact that further efforts in Pavilion will focus on a few specific complaints about perceived changes in domestic water well quality.”

Published June 21, 2013 / Associated Press

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Foreign, Sci-Tech

Connecticut Gun Maker Moving to South Carolina

June 20, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

ptr-industries-rifleA Connecticut gun manufacturer is moving to South Carolina after Connecticut lawmakers passed stricter gun-control laws in the aftermath of the fatal Sandy Hook School shootings.

PTR Industries will make the formal announcement next week at a ribbon-cutting to be attended by South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, according to The Sun News of Myrtle Beach.

The company is going to Horry County, which includes Myrtle Beach, and has already approved a resolution setting out the terms of the company’s move.

County Council Chairman Mark Lazarus says he’s excited about the development.

Josh Fiorini, PTR’s chief executive officer, says the plant will employ 140 people, many of whom will relocate from Connecticut. The move will take place over three years.

The company said it had been contacted by 41 states and selected South Carolina from six finalists.

Published June 19, 2013 / Associated Press

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics

White House, IRS Hid Media Requests in Red Tape

June 20, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

obama_irsEven as the freshly minted Obama administration was pledging a “new era of open government” in 2009, officials were quietly adding new rules that had the potential to slow down public requests for documents.

Those rules, detailed in memos reviewed by FoxNews.com, could even trip up present-day efforts to dig into the IRS’ practice of targeting conservative groups. The rules detailed in the memos largely emanated from the Treasury Department and, specifically, the IRS.

“It would seem to repudiate this notion that this is going to be the most transparent government in history,” said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, the group that first obtained the memos.

“It would seem to repudiate this notion that this is going to be the most transparent government in history.” – Dan Epstein, director of Cause of Action

The memos follow reports about the administration’s use of private email accounts, and coincide with ongoing debate about government transparency — particularly with recent disclosures about widespread surveillance programs.

Epstein said the document request procedures are “troubling” since the media are “really concerned about the limits of government power.”

According to the documents, the Treasury Department in 2009 set up an additional review for requests involving “sensitive information,” which covered a broad range of items. The White House sometimes got involved, slowing down the process. The IRS also acknowledged having another review process for requests from “major media,” but not for requests from private individuals.

Members of the media often try to obtain documents not readily available by citing a law known as the Freedom of Information Act. The Treasury Department, though, in late 2009 erected speed bumps for some so-called FOIA requests.

The rules were detailed in a November 2010 memo and report sent from the Treasury inspector general to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The documents showed the Treasury Department set up an additional “formal level of review” for requests for “sensitive information.” This category would cover everything from emails to memos to calendars to travel logs for top department officials, legal advisers, senior advisers and others.

Once a request was deemed “sensitive,” it would then go before a “review committee,” made up of officials from several Treasury offices.

Further, the document said a special report would be prepared for IRS requests from “major media.” This covers requests from traditional news media as well as bloggers, and according to the report covered information that “was likely to attract news media or congressional interest, involved large dollar amounts, or involved unique or novel issues.”

This report would then be sent to a higher-up in the division who decided whether the material should be disclosed.

The report repeatedly said that, in most cases, political appointees were not involved in these decisions, and that the agencies have no procedures to allow that.

But Epstein said these rules could cause problems as Congress and the media dig deeper into the origin of the IRS practice of singling out conservative groups for additional scrutiny.

He pointed to another memo, dated April 15, 2009, from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig that urged “executive agencies” to consult with his office “on all document requests that may involve documents with White House equities.” Craig said this pertains to everything from FOIA requests to congressional requests to subpoenas.

This practice apparently dates back to 1993. The Treasury IG memo cited this, and described the White House involvement as “minimal and limited.” However, the report also said the White House involvement “was responsible in several cases for adding a significant processing delay,” which in Treasury’s case slowed them down.

“It actually is heavily ironic in the realm of transparency,” Epstein said.

He pointed to edicts and memos early on in the first term of the administration stressing transparency. Obama issued a January 2009 directive calling for an “unprecedented level of openness.”

Attorney General Eric Holder in March 2009 directed all Executive Branch departments to use a “presumption of openness” when dealing with FOIA requests.

To that end, the administration has instituted several other transparency initiatives. It has followed through on requiring Cabinet secretaries to hold Internet town hall discussions, set up a comprehensive website to track stimulus spending, and set up a national declassification center.

By Judson Berger / Published June 20, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

Obama Family Trip to Africa Will Cost $100 Million

June 19, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

obama_vacationPresident Obama’s trip this month to Africa, with the first family tagging along, is projected to cost taxpayers as much as $100 million, sparking criticism as the federal government scrimps along during sequester-related budget cuts.

Among the related costs will be fighter jets; hundreds of Secret Service agents; a Navy ship with a full trauma center; and military cargo planes to bring 56 vehicles including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet­proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. The details were reported by The Washington Post, based on a confidential planning document.

The trip to sub-Sahara Africa runs from June 26 to July 3.

The president and first lady have cancelled plans to go on a safari that would have included the additional expense of a sharp-shooting team, responsible for putting down a cheetah, lion or any other wild animal that became a threat.

Figuring out the exact cost of the overall trip is difficult because the information is classified for the purpose of national security.

However, a Government Accountability Office report shows President Clinton’s 1998 trip to six African nations cost at least $42.7 million – not including Secret Service expenses.

Obama’s trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100 million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years, a person familiar with the Obama journey but not authorized to speak for attribution told The Post.

The trip comes as agencies across the federal government try to find cost-saving measures to deal with the massive, across-the-board budget cuts known as sequester, which kicked in this year after Washington lawmakers failed to agree on a more measured approach. The Secret Service, for example, pushed to cancel public White House tours to save thousands in weekly overtime expenses.

“For the cost of this trip to Africa, you could have 1,350 weeks of White House tours,” Rep. George Holding, a North Carolina Republican, said last week. “It is no secret that we need to rein in government spending, and the Obama administration has regularly and repeatedly shown a lack of judgment for when and where to make cuts. … The American people have had enough of the frivolous and careless spending.”

The White House had defended the trip cost saying the Secret Service plan determines the security cost and that first family’s trip will result in long-term goodwill.

“The infrastructure that accompanies the president’s travels is beyond our control,” said Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. “When you travel to regions like Africa that don’t get a lot of presidential attention, you tend to have very long-standing and long-running impact from the visit.”

Published June 18, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign

Democrat Senator ‘abandons big government plantation’ to join GOP

June 18, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Elbert_GulloryLouisiana State Senator Elbert Gullory — formerly a lifelong Democrat — made a surprising and enthusiastic announcement. The African-American Senator is walking away from the Democrats to join the GOP. After making the announcement, Sen. Gullory released this video explaining his unique decision.

“I’m Elbert Lee Guillory, the senator for the 24th district right here in beautiful Louisiana.  Recently I made what many are referring to as a bold decision to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party.  I wanted to take a moment to explain why I chose to become a Republican and also to explain why I don’t think it was a bold decision at all.  It is the right decision.  Not only for me, but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.  You see, in recent history, the Democrat Party created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what’s best for black people.

Somehow it’s been forgotten the Republican Party, founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.  Fred ache Douglass called Republicans the party of freedom add progress. And the first Republican President was Lincoln, the uh a Thor of the emancipation proclamation.  It was Republicans who offered the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights and drew process of law.  The Democrats, on the other hand, with the party of Jim Crow, it was Democrats who defended the rights of slaves on us. It was the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower who champions the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was the Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.

At the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans.  But the left is only concerned with one thing:  Control, and they guess guise in control as charity. Programs such as welfare, these programs aren’t designed to lift black Americans out of poverty.  They were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.  The idea that blacks or anyone, for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life is despicable.

And even or important, this idea is a failure.  Our communities are just as poor as they have always been.  Our schools continue to fail children, our prisons are filled with young black men, who should be at home, being fathers.  Our self-initiative and our several relicense have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers.  Who control us by making us dependent on them.  Sometime I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that it has become a cliche.  The idea of freedom is complex and it’s all-encompassing.  It’s the idea that the economy must remain free of government persuasion.  It’s the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion.  It’s the idea that e-mails and phone records of Americans should remain free from government search and seizure.  It’s the idea that parents must be the decision-makers in regards to their children’s education, not shop government bureaucrat.  But most importantly, it is the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness, free from government dependence and free from government control, because to be truly free is to be reliant on no one, other than the author of our destiny.

These are the ideas at the core of Republican party and it is why I am a Republican.  So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the party of disappointment.”

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

GOP Strikes Back at Voter ID Ruling

June 18, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Repuvoter_idblican lawmakers are moving quickly to try and allow states to require proof of citizenship for a voter registration form after the Supreme Court rejected an Arizona law that did just that.

In a blow to Arizona’s efforts to toughen its voter ID standards, the high court on Monday ruled 7-2 that states could not unilaterally require would-be voters to prove citizenship in order to use a federal registration form. The court ruled that because the federal “Motor Voter” registration law — which created the form — doesn’t require that documentation, Arizona could not on its own demand it.

In response, Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and David Vitter, R-La., announced an amendment to the Senate immigration overhaul that would explicitly allow states to impose those requirements.

In a statement, Cruz said the Supreme Court ruling leaves a “hole in federal law” that must be addressed.

“This encourages voter fraud and we must ensure that our elections are fair and accurately reflect the will of our citizens,” he said.

The amendment would adjust the federal law so that states would be able to require proof of citizenship in order to complete any federal voter registration form.

On the House, side, Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., also plans to introduce a separate bill on Tuesday to change the law in a similar fashion. His bill would grant states the authority to ask for additional documents to prove citizenship.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is pushing an amendment of his own that would ensure immigrants given visas or legal status under the immigration overhaul cannot vote in federal elections until they become citizens. His amendment would also allow states to check citizenship before allowing them to register to vote.

The high court justices cited the existing federal law in their ruling against Arizona’s voter ID measure.

Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court’s majority.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004.

Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, and the high court agreed.

“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.

“The Supreme Court has affirmed that all U.S. citizens have the right to register to vote using the national postcard, regardless of the state in which they live,” she said.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling.

The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas said in his dissent.

The federal “motor voter” law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver’s license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law — the one at issue before the court — requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

While the court was clear in stating that states cannot add additional identification requirements to the federal forms on their own, it was also clear that the same actions can be taken by state governments if they get the approval of the federal government and the federal courts.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court.  Other states have already done so, Scalia said.

Published June 18, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

Supreme Court: Arizona Law Requiring Citizenship Proof for Voters is Illegal

June 17, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

supreme_courtWASHINGTON –  The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.

The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.

Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court’s majority.

The court was considering the legality of Arizona’s requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “motor voter” registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004.

Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

The case focuses on Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating such legislation.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling.

The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas said in his dissent.

Opponents of Arizona’s law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say they’ve counted more than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered before Proposition 200 but were blocked initially by the law in the 20 months after it passed in 2004. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were Latino.

But Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.

The federal “motor voter” law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, requires states to offer voter registration when a resident applies for a driver’s license or certain benefits. Another provision of that law — the one at issue before the court — requires states to allow would-be voters to fill out mail-in registration cards and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof. Under Proposition 200, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

Arizona can ask the federal government to include the extra documents as a state-specific requirement, Scalia said, and take any decision made by the government on that request back to court.

Published June 17, 2013 / Associated Press

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Entitlement, Ethics, Foreign, Gender, Religion

IRS Supervisor in DC Scrutinized Tea Party Cases

June 16, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

irs_troubleWASHINGTON –  An Internal Revenue Service supervisor in Washington says she was personally involved in scrutinizing some of the earliest applications from tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status, including some requests that languished for more than a year without action.

Holly Paz, who until recently was a top deputy in the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, told congressional investigators she reviewed 20 to 30 applications. Her assertion contradicts initial claims by the agency that a small group of agents working in an office in Cincinnati were solely responsible for mishandling the applications.

Paz, however, provided no evidence that senior IRS officials ordered agents to target conservative groups or that anyone in the Obama administration outside the IRS was involved.

Instead, Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn’t fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling “tea party” cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal.

Paz said dozens of tea party applications sat untouched for more than a year while field agents waited for guidance from Washington on how to handle them. At the time, she said, Washington officials thought the agents in Cincinnati were processing the cases.

Paz was among the first IRS employees to be interviewed as part of a joint investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.

Congressional investigators have interviewed at least six IRS employees as part of their inquiry. The Associated Press has reviewed transcripts from three interviews — with Paz and with two agents, Gary Muthert and Elizabeth Hofacre, from the Cincinnati office.

The IRS declined comment for this story.

A yearlong audit by the agency’s inspector general found that IRS agents had improperly targeted conservative political groups for additional and sometimes onerous scrutiny when those groups applied for tax-exempt status.

The audit found no evidence that Washington officials ordered or authorized the targeting. But the IRS watchdog blamed ineffective management by senior IRS officials for allowing it to continue for nearly two years during the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Since the revelations became public last month, much of the agency’s leadership has been replaced and the Justice Department has started a criminal investigation. Both Paz and her supervisor, Lois Lerner, who headed the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, have been replaced.

Agency officials told congressional aides that Lerner was placed on administrative leave. They did not disclose the status Paz, other than to say she was replaced June 7.

Lerner is the IRS official who first disclosed the targeting at a legal conference May 10. That day, she told The AP: “It’s the line people that did it without talking to managers. They’re IRS workers, they’re revenue agents.”

On May 22 — the day after Paz was interviewed by investigators — Lerner refused to answer questions from lawmakers at a congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.

Paz told congressional investigators that an IRS agent in Cincinnati flagged the first tea party case in February 2010. The agent forwarded the application to a manager because it appeared to be politically sensitive, Paz said. The manager informed Paz, who said she had the application assigned to a legal expert in Washington.

At the time, Paz headed a technical unit in Washington that provided guidance to agents who screened applications for tax-exempt status. The agents worked primarily in Cincinnati. One of their tasks was to determine the applicant groups’ level of political activity.

IRS regulations say tax-exempt social welfare organizations may engage in some political activity but their primary mission cannot be influencing the outcome of elections. It is up to the IRS to make that determination.

“It’s very fact-and-circumstance intensive. So it’s a difficult issue,” Paz told investigators.

“Oftentimes what we will do, and what we did here, is we’ll transfer it to (the technical unit), get someone who’s well-versed on that area of the law working the case so they can see what the issues are,” Paz said. “The goal with that is ultimately to develop some guidance or a tool that can be given to folks in (the Cincinnati office) to help them in working the cases themselves.”

By the fall of 2010, the legal expert in Washington, Carter Hull, was working on about 40 applications, Paz said. A little more than half had “tea party” in the name, she said.

IRS agents in Cincinnati were singling out groups for extra scrutiny if their applications included the words “tea party,” “patriots” or “9-12 project,” according to the inspector general’s report. Paz said she didn’t learn that agents were targeting groups based on those terms until June 2011, about the time Lerner first ordered agents to change the criteria.

Paz said an IRS supervisor in Cincinnati had commonly referred to the applications as “tea party” cases. But, Paz said, she thought that was simply shorthand for any application that included political activity.

“Since the first case that came up to Washington happened to have that name, it appeared to me that’s why they were calling it that as a shorthand,” Paz told congressional investigators.

Paz said she didn’t think the agents in Cincinnati were politically motivated.

“My impression, based on, you know, this instance and other instances in the office is that because they are so apolitical, they are not as sensitive as we would like them to be as to how things might appear,” Paz said.

“Many of these employees have been with the IRS for decades and were used to a world where how they talked about things internally was not something that would be public or that anyone would be interested in,” Paz added. “So I don’t think they thought much about how it would appear to others. They knew what they meant and that was sort of good enough for them.”

For several months in 2010, Hull worked closely with Hofacre, the agent in Cincinnati, to review the tea party cases, Paz said. In Hofacre’s interview, she complained that Hull micromanaged her work.

Hofacre left for a different IRS job in October 2010 and was replaced by an agent whose name was blacked out in the transcript. Paz said the new agent sat on the tea party applications for more than a year because he was waiting on guidance from Washington on how to proceed. Officials in Washington, however, thought the agents in Cincinnati were still processing the cases, she said.

As a result, many applications languished for more than a year, which, the inspector general said, hurt the groups’ ability to raise money.

“I knew they were waiting for guidance,” Paz said. “I did not know that they were not working the cases because what had been done previously was, they were working the cases in consultation with Washington. And I was under the impression that that was continuing.”

Hull was to be interviewed by congressional investigators on Friday. Efforts to reach Hull and Paz for comment were unsuccessful.

In all, agents singled out 298 applications for additional scrutiny because the groups appeared to be involved in political activity, the inspector general’s report said. But IRS agents in Cincinnati weren’t given adequate training on how to handle the cases until May 2012, the report said.

Before the training, only six applications had been approved. Afterward, an additional 102 applications were approved by December 2012, the report said.

Of those 102 applications, 29 involved tea party, patriots, or 9-12 organizations, the report said. Many applications are still awaiting action. None has been rejected, according to the IRS.

Published June 16, 2013 / Associated Press

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Religion

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Federalist Press Dispatch

Get breaking political news, investigations, and uncensored analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Please wait...

Thank you for subscribing to the Federalist Press Dispatch.

Byrna Non-lethal Self Protection

Byrna Non-lethal Self Protection

Byrna offers non-lethal self protection at an affordable price. Watch the short video, or click to learn more!

Click to talk with us about writing your book >>

Do you want to write a book? James Thompson is a ghostwriter who writes the books of people just like you.

Brit Axton Mysteries Series

Brit Axton Mysteries Series

Brit Axton Mysteries is a series of young adult adventure novels that lead young Brit Axton and her friends on whirlwind adventures to uncover hidden secrets and long lost treasures.

Get free info to help your life

Get free info to help your life

Simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more . . . because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

Understanding Cryptocurrency: Essentials for Building Wealth in Digital Currency

Understanding Cryptocurrency: Essentials for Building Wealth in Digital Currency

Understanding Cryptocurrency serves as a definitive guide for novice investors looking to understand the world of cryptocurrency and harness its potential for financial growth and prosperity.

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation is a comprehensive guide on navigating the real estate market, offering strategies and insights for successful investing, during high inflation and interest rates.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Follow us

  • parler
  • welcome-widgets-menus
  • facebook
  • envato

Economy

Federal Agents Raid Ilhan Omar’s Washington Home in Criminal Immigration Investigation

The $224 Happiest Place on Earth: Has Disney Forgotten the American Family?

“O Be Wise”: A Timely Warning Against America’s Costly Gambling Explosion

Elections

Federal Agents Raid Ilhan Omar’s Washington Home in Criminal Immigration Investigation

Does Pres. Trump Plan to Announce That Extraterrestrials Are Visiting Earth Before the Midterm Elections?

From “Buy Greenland” to Permanent U.S. Bases: What Trump Got America in the Arctic Deal

Foreign

The Left’s Favorite Question Is “Who Benefits?” Their Forgotten Question Is “At Whose Expense?”

The Battle for Lindsey Graham’s Senate Seat Begins

The Bloody Record of Socialism: Why America Must Reject the Siren Song of the Radical Left

Crime

Federal Agents Raid Ilhan Omar’s Washington Home in Criminal Immigration Investigation

The Economic Numbers Americans Should See: Income Rises, Poverty & Crime Fall and Job Growth Rebounds

Is Islamic Terror Winning? 25 Years After 9/11: America Must Remember What Happened

Science Tech

From “Buy Greenland” to Permanent U.S. Bases: What Trump Got America in the Arctic Deal

Deeper Dive Into White House UFO Tranche 6. The Files That Deserve Another Look.

The Pentagon Just Dropped UFO Tranche 6 — And a 74-Year-Old Recording May Be the File to Hear First

Reader Responses

  • Linda Livaudais on Trump’s UFO Disclosure Has Changed the Conversation — But Not Yet Answered the Biggest Question
  • T059736 on Trump and Musk Announce Plans to Shut Down USAID
  • C.Josef.D on ‘Pay to Play’ at Clinton Foundation Under Investigation
  • John D Cole on Biden Says ‘You ain’t black’ If You Don’t Vote for Him
  • Ed on U.S. Attorney Huber Moving to Indict Clintons and Others

Copyright © 2026 by Federalist Press · All rights reserved · Website design by RoadRunner CRM · Content Wiriting by GhostWriter · Log in