• 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

N. Korea Threats Raise Concern Kim Backing Regime Into Corner

March 29, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

KimUNWith the threats billowing out of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s regime at an unusually rapid clip, concern is mounting that the young leader could be backing himself into a corner — feeling compelled to do something or lose face.

Shortly after midnight local time, North Korean state television reported that Kim signed orders to put the nation’s rockets on combat-ready status. In a photo released on state-run media, a chart titled “U.S. mainland strike plan” could be seen and a map showed missiles arcing into Hawaii, Washington, Los Angeles and Austin, Texas.

The Pentagon is worried Kim may put himself in a position where he feels he has to act on his threats.

The North Koreans, while having made progress in their ballistic missile program, still have not mastered the technology of delivering a nuclear device by a long-range missile. But they are making progress, and that is what has the Pentagon concerned. Plus there is the concern that North Korea could strike at South Korea, a top U.S. ally.

“The North Koreans seem to be headed in a different direction here. So we will unequivocally defend and we are unequivocally committed to that alliance with South Korea, as well as our other allies in that region of the world.  And we will be prepared — we have to be prepared to deal with any eventuality there,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

Kim warned Friday he is preparing to “settle accounts with the U.S.” after the U.S. deployed B-2 stealth bombers to South Korea to participate in a training exercise Thursday.

The third-generation dictator’s comments in a meeting with senior generals are part of a rising tide of threats meant to highlight anger over the drills and recent U.N. sanctions over Pyongyang’s nuclear test.

State media says Kim signed a rocket preparation plan and ordered rockets on standby to strike the U.S. mainland, South Korea, Guam and Hawaii.

Later Friday at the main square in Pyongyang, tens of thousands of North Koreans turned out for a 90-minute mass rally in support of Kim’s call to arms.

Men and women, many of them in olive drab uniforms, stood in arrow-straight lines, fists raised as they chanted, “Death to the U.S. imperialists.” Placards in the plaza bore harsh words for South Korea as well, including, “Let’s rip the puppet traitors to death!”

The U.S. military says the two B-2 stealth bombers sent to South Korea were meant to demonstrate the Pentagon’s commitment to defend its ally against threats from North Korea.

The two B-2 Spirit bombers flew more than 6,500 miles from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to South Korea, dropping inert munitions before returning to the U.S., according to a statement released by U.S. Forces Korea.

“The United States is steadfast in its alliance commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea, to deterring aggression, and to ensuring peace and stability in the region,” the statement said.

The B-2 Spirit is capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons. The Pentagon said the mission was part of its ongoing Foal Eagle training exercise series, which began March 1 and ends April 30.

Hagel said Thursday afternoon that the move was part of normal exercises and not intended to provoke a reaction from North Korea.

The exercise, though, was announced a day after North Korea said it had shut down a key military hotline usually used to arrange passage for workers and goods through the Demilitarized Zone.

North Korea, which says it considers the U.S.-South Korean military drills preparations for invasion, has pumped out a string of threats in state media. In the most dramatic case, Pyongyang made the highly improbable vow to nuke the United States.

On Friday, state media released a photo of Kim and his senior generals huddled in front of a map showing routes for envisioned strikes against cities on both American coasts.

Experts believe the country is years away from developing nuclear-tipped missiles that could strike the United States. Many say they’ve also seen no evidence that Pyongyang has long-range missiles that can hit the U.S. mainland.

Still, there are fears of a localized conflict, such as a naval skirmish in disputed Yellow Sea waters. Such naval clashes have happened three times since 1999. There’s also the danger that such a clash could escalate. Seoul has vowed to hit back hard the next time it is attacked.

North Korea’s threats are also worrisome because of its arsenal of short- and mid-range missiles that can hit targets in South Korea and Japan. Seoul is only a short drive from the heavily armed border separating the Koreas.

“The North can fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict,” analysts Victor Cha and David Kang wrote recently for Foreign Policy magazine. They also note that North Korea has a history of testing new South Korean leaders; President Park Geun-hye took office late last month. “Since 1992, the North has welcomed these five new leaders by disturbing the peace,” they wrote.

Published March 29, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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

Obama Tries to ‘Shame’ Congress into Approving Gun Control Package

March 28, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

obama_gun_controlPresident Obama moved Thursday to put the muscle of the White House and his network of supporters behind a gun control package tracking toward the Senate floor, calling on voters to pressure Congress into backing it as the proposal runs into resistance on Capitol Hill.

The president, in a set of brief remarks from the White House Thursday surrounded by the mothers of shooting victims, raised concern that the shock from the Newtown elementary school shooting could soon fade.

“Less than 100 days ago that happened. … Shame on us if we’ve forgotten,” Obama said. “I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

Amid signals from Washington that the Senate bill could be losing momentum and high-dollar ad campaigns on both sides, the president was there to deliver a message to wavering lawmakers. “Don’t get squishy,” he said.

Obama, accusing opponents of drumming up “fear,” urged supporters to call members of Congress and pressure them into backing the package.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee, of Utah, ripped the president for the remarks, suggesting he was exploiting the Newtown tragedy.

“The proposals the president is calling for Congress to pass would primarily serve to reduce the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding citizens while having little or no effect on violent crime,” Lee said in a statement. “It is deeply unfortunate that he continues to use the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime.”

Lee said he and his conservative colleagues plan to ensure that any of the firearms proposals require a 60-vote threshold in order to proceed. This could be a high hurdle for the Senate to clear.

Already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dropped from the main package a proposal to renew and expand the expired assault weapons ban.

The base bill will instead cover universal background checks, strengthened punishments for illegal trafficking and more money for school security.

Items like school security enjoy broad support. But the move to include private sales — including gun show purchases — in the background check system remains controversial in some circles. Plus the assault weapons ban, which Republicans most adamantly oppose, is still expected to get a vote as an amendment to the main bill.

The National Rifle Association, during and after Obama’s remarks, tweeted a flurry of comments criticizing the latest Obama push. The group accused him of campaigning “against guns to please the fringe.”

Both sides of the gun debate are stepping up their effort to sway Congress. While the NRA has been vocal since the start of the process, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg just launched a $12 million ad buy in support of the legislation.

“It’s not done until it’s done,” Obama said Thursday. “There are some powerful voices on the other side that are interested in running out the clock, or changing the subject. … They’re doing everything they can to make all our progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration.”

Published March 28, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Economy, Elections, Ethics

UN Arms Treaty

March 28, 2013 By Editor 1 Comment

Clouds are reflected off the Secretariat Building of the UN headquarters during the 67th United Nations General Assembly, in New YorkUNITED NATIONS –  Supporters of a U.N. treaty designed to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade were optimistic that a final draft circulated a day before Thursday’s deadline will reach consensus.Negotiators reconvened last week in a final attempt to reach a deal on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers.

U.N. diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because negotiations have been private, said Wednesday the United States was virtually certain to go along with the latest text.

Hopes of reaching agreement on what would be a landmark treaty were dashed last July when the U.S. said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord — a move quickly backed by Russia and China. In December, the U.N. General Assembly decided to hold a final conference and set Thursday as the deadline for reaching agreement.

“We need a treaty,” China’s U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong told The Associated Press. “We hope for consensus.”

Questions remain on whether Iran, Egypt, India and several other countries that had serious concerns about the text would go along with the draft, which requires agreement of all 193 U.N. member states for adoption.

There has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

“It’s important for each and every country in the world that we have a regulation of the international arms trade,” Germany’s U.N. Ambassador Peter Wittig told the AP. “There are still some divergencies of views, but I trust we can overcome them.”

The draft treaty does not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

The final draft makes this human rights provision even stronger, adding that the export of conventional arms should be prohibited if they could be used in the commission of attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

The National Rifle Association has portrayed the draft treaty as a threat to gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and has lobbied to defeat the proposal at the U.N.

The NRA last week praised the Senate’s passage of an amendment to the Democratic budget proposal that would prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty.

The measure, introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., passed on a 53-46 vote.

“Thanks to the efforts of Senator Inhofe, we are one step closer to ensuring the U.N. will not trample on the freedoms our founding fathers guaranteed to us,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement released following the vote.

Ammunition has been a key issue, with some countries pressing for the same controls on ammunition sales as arms, but the U.S. and others opposed such tough restrictions. The draft calls for each country that ratifies the treaty to establish regulations for the export of ammunition “fired, launched or delivered” by the weapons covered by the convention.

The Control Arms coalition, which represents about 100 organizations worldwide campaigning for a strong treaty, and diplomats from countries that support them, said this wouldn’t cover hand grenades and mines.

India and other countries had insisted that the treaty have an opt-out for government arms transfers under defense cooperation agreements. The new text appears to keep that loophole, stating that implementation of the treaty “shall not prejudice obligations” under defense cooperation agreements by countries that ratify the treaty.

“Making this treaty was like making a sausage: Everyone has added an ingredient,” said Ted Bromund, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“Unfortunately, that has produced a document that leans much too far towards satisfying the concerns of the Arab Group and Mexico. The former view it as a rebellion prevention plan, while the latter wants a text that edges towards its view that the domestic firearms market in the U.S. should be subject to treaty regulation,” he said.

But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the independent Washington-based Arms Control Association, said, “The emerging treaty represents an important first step in dealing with the unregulated and illicit global trade in conventional weapons and ammunition, which fuels wars and human rights abuses worldwide.”

He said the text could have been stronger and more comprehensive, but it can still make an important difference.

“The new treaty says to every United Nations member that you cannot simply ‘export and forget,'” Kimball said.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime. The final draft would allow countries to determine whether the weapons transfer would contribute to or undermine peace and security.

Anna Macdonald, Oxfam’s head of arms control, said the scope of the weapons covered in the latest draft is still too narrow.

“We need a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, not just some of them,” she said. “We need a treaty that will make a difference to the lives of the people living in Congo, Mali, Syria and elsewhere who suffer each day from the impacts of armed violence.”

Published March 28, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

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

The Spirit of Antichrist Permeates Our Nation

March 27, 2013 By Editor 2 Comments

Satan_ObamaBecause of all the buzz in the press lately about religious freedoms coming under attack, there has been a great deal of discussion about the role of religion in our nation.

Barack Hussein Obama has declared that “America is no longer a Christian nation,” and in our article of May 28, 2012 Obama vs. Catholic Church, we outlined how one of his first acts as POTUS was to insist that the gold “IHS” monograms for the name of Christ be covered up with black painted plywood in Gaston Hall at the Catholic church’s Georgetown University, where he delivered a speech on economics.

We see on national television, in the movies, magazines and other media, on left-leaning news programs, newspapers and the blogs and social networks a hardening stance against Christianity in America. Even our political leaders who claim a Christian background not only embrace practices and policies that are clearly against the teachings of the Bible, but publically belittle and berate anyone who endorses them—or endorses Jesus Christ or His Father, the God of Israel.

The Democratic Party, and indeed, many if not most liberals and progressives in this country have adopted an anti-God, anti-Christian approach to public life, and in a growing number of cases, their personal lives.  See, e.g., our article of September 9, 2012 DNC Boos God . The support for the State of Israel has waned with the decline of Christianity in this country—leaving American Jewish families to wonder if they’ve been abandoned by the Democratic Party that they so willingly embraced.

Antichrist is a personage mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible on a few occasions; but also described is a “Spirit of Antichrist,” illustrated by John the Apostle in 1 John 4 thus:

 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The Apostle further elaborates the principle of the Spirit of Antichrist in 2 John 1, explaining:

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Indeed, we are deluged in a sea of deceivers. We live in that Orwellian world where good is bad and bad is good, where our universities churn out “spin doctors” by the millions, whose only purpose is to make wickedness appear to be goodness through tolerance and inclusion, and to make enslavement appear as liberty through taxation, regulation and the public dole. They belly up to news desks and slither on couches looking into television cameras and lie about everything with a sophistry that oozes effortlessly from their filthy lips, and assail anyone who dares speak a word of decency or honesty.

Yes, the Spirit of Antichrist has doubtless overtaken our nation’s media, government, education and many other institutions. Deceivers rule the country. It was foretold, and we must accept its eventuality and reality.

The only questions that remain are a) which team’s jersey do you wear? and b) is the person of Antichrist already among us, arising on the scene?

Publius

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

Mormon Refuses to ‘Stomp Jesus’ – Governor Calls for Investigation of University

March 27, 2013 By Editor 2 Comments

stomp_jesusFlorida Gov. Rick Scott is calling on the state university system chancellor to investigate a classroom lesson at Florida Atlantic University in which students were instructed to stomp on sheets of paper that had “Jesus” written on them.

“As we enter the week memorializing the events of Christ’s passion, this incident gave me great concern over the lessons we are teaching our students,” Scott wrote in the letter to Chancellor Frank Brogan. “The professor’s lesson was offensive, and even intolerant, to Christians and those of all faiths who deserve to be respected as Americans entitled to religious freedom.”

Scott said in his letter that he was “deeply disappointed” by the recent incident in an intercultural communications class taught by Deandre Poole, who also happens to be the vice chair of the Palm Beach Democratic party.

Ryan Rotela, a devout Mormon was in the classroom and refused to obey the instructor’s directions. When he complained, Rotela was banned from the classroom and charged with violating the student code of conduct.

After Rotela retained the legal services of the Liberty Institute, the university had a change of heart – profusely apologizing and promising to clear his record.

Scott said the incident raised questions about “the lessons being taught in our classrooms.” He said he wanted a report on the incident and how it was handled, as well as a statement of the university’s policies to ensure such “lessons” don’t occur again.

State University System spokeswoman Kim Wilmath said officials would work closely with FAU in preparing a response to the governor’s concerns.

“The State University System prides itself not only on its commitment to academic freedom, but at the same time, its awesome responsibility to the people it serves,” she said in a written statement. “We are gratified to know that FAU has apologized for any offense the exercise has caused and has pledged never to use this exercise again. Clearly, there were things the university could have done differently by its own acknowledgement.”

On Tuesday afternoon FAU released a video statement from Charles Brown, the school’s senior vice president of student affairs.

“On behalf of all us here at FAU, we are deeply sorry for any hurt this incident might have caused our students, people in the community and beyond,” Brown said. “As an institution of higher education, we embrace academic freedom. but with that comes a level of responsibility which we did not uphold.”

Brown said the lesson would no longer be used at FAU.

“It was insensitive and deeply hurtful and we are deeply sorry,” he said.

The governor didn’t seem satisfied with the apology, saying it was “in many ways inconsequential to the larger issue of a professor’s poor judgment.”

“Our public higher educational institutions are designed to shape the minds of Florida’s future leaders,” Scott wrote. “We should provide educational leadership that is respectful of religious freedom of all people.”

By Todd Starnes / With reporting from Associated Press

Related posts:

  1. University: ‘Jesus Stomp’ Student Will Not Be Punished
  2. Professor Makes Students “Stomp on Jesus”
  3. University Apologizes for “Stomping Jesus”
  4. University Takes Action to Punish Student
  5. State Investigation Launched After Students Dress in Burqas

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Religion

The Ghost of Jimmy Carter

March 27, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

obama-carterPresident Jimmy Carter promised Hope and Change to an America dragged through the mud by a media feeding frenzy during the Nixon Watergate era.

The left got the white house handed to them, along with the congress, and nothing could stop the wholesale implementation of liberal-progressive policies. Anyone who lived during the Carter administration knows that it was a horrific time in American history.

Carter began his presidency by apologizing for American success, and it wasn’t long before Arabs began slapping him around like the whimp he told them he was.

OPEC decided the US was powerless to oppose them, and they immediately began cutting oil supplies and raising prices. Carter’s response was classic Democrat, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of global free markets–impose price freezes on gasoline in the US. World oil markets naturally sought out the more lucrative markets and we well recall the gas lines stretching for blocks as Americans waited for hours to get their tanks filled, reminiscent of the Depression Era shortages and rationing schemes.
In grand Neville Chamberlain style Carter immediately tried diplomatic talks with the Soviet Union feeling that thrill going up his leg as the Soviets put their signatures on pieces of paper with him. Of course, while agreeing to limit expansion, the USSR invaded Afghanistan behind his back, bitch-slapping the president of the United States in front of the entire world.

Carter also withdrew US support of the Shah of Iran, historically a strong U.S. ally in the Middle East, one of few who recognized Israel as a sovereign state. Without our support the Shah was forced into exile, replaced by a fundamentalist government, hostile to the U.S. Iranian students stormed the US embassy and took 53 Americans hostages, and held them as political prisoners for 444 days. Carter had been paring back the US military and saw his duty as Commander in Chief as unbecoming a Progressive President, and when it was time to send in a military extraction team to get our hostages out, the equipment failed in one of the greatest military blunders in history. The hostages were kept in Iran and paraded before the world media up until President Elect Ronald Reagan sent Iran the message, “Let my people go,” and they were brushed up and sent back immediately.

Carter, the Apologizer in Chief, also gave up US control of the American-built Panama Canal, affording China and other nations greater access to our easier trade routes, further harming US trade superiority. Seeing no deterrence, the Soviets further expanded their influence in the Western Hemisphere by helping leftists overthrow governments in Central and South America.

Democratic economic strategies had our US economy spiraling in a tailspin, with the prime rate at 21 percent, killing business expansion and the housing market. Of course, unemployment skyrocketed under these circumstances.

DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

This writer has always said that American politics has been reduced to this: The Democrats take control of government based on promises of throwing a big party, and the next election the Republicans are called in to clean up the mess.

At what point will America wake up to the reality that the policies of the left don’t work? It’s time to install a conservative government, and to keep a conservative government in place . . . and replace the long-term growth, development and expansion of personal liberty that we enjoyed for the first 100 years. Call me old fashioned.

PUBLIUS

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

Gun Store Cancels Mark Kelly’s Rifle Purchase, Questions His ‘Intent’

March 26, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Mark_Kelly_Gun_ControlA Tucson gun store owner has decided to rescind the sale of a military-style rifle to Mark Kelly, the husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, after Kelly said he had intended the purchase to make a political point about how easy it is to obtain the kind of firearms he’s lobbying Congress to ban.

Kelly’s March 5 purchase of an AR-15-style rifle and a 45.-caliber handgun at Diamondback Police Supply sparked a frenzy of reaction from both sides of the debate after he posted to Facebook a photo of himself shopping.

A background check took only a matter of minutes to complete, Kelly said in the Facebook post, adding that it’s scary to think people can buy similar guns without background checks at gun shows or on the Internet.

But Kelly couldn’t immediately take possession of the rifle because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn’t used in a crime.

Store owner Doug MacKinlay said Monday in a Facebook post of his own that he “determined that was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store.”

“While I support and respect Mark Kelly’s 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons other then for his personal use,” MacKinlay said in the statement.

He added that the store will return Kelly’s money, donate the rifle to the Arizona Tactical Officers Association to be raffled as a fundraiser and make an additional contribution of $1,295 — the value of the rifle — to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program.

Kelly’s purchase of the guns sparked accusations of hypocrisy from gun-rights supporters, with many on Facebook focusing on his motivations and the rules for purchasing such guns. Kelly, a former astronaut, said he intended to eventually hand in the rifle to Tucson police but planned to keep the handgun.

Kelly and Giffords started a gun control advocacy group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, amid the wave of recent mass shootings. They have been touring the country in recent months in support of expanded background checks for gun purchases.

Kelly bought the guns at a Tucson shop the day before he appeared with his wife at the supermarket where she was wounded during a shooting rampage that left six dead and 12 others injured two years ago. Giffords resigned from Congress last year as she continues to recover from her injuries.

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

 

 

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics

US Pastor Imprisoned in Iran Abondoned by Obama

March 22, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Saeed Abedini is seen with his family.The American pastor imprisoned in Iran, in a vivid letter to his wife, described how he was beaten to the point where parts of his face were “swollen three times what they should have been” and was denied medical treatment because he was seen as an “unclean” Christian.

The letter was received by Saeed Abedini’s family this week, though it may have been written weeks ago. The new details come as his family, the attorneys representing them, and several Capitol Hill lawmakers urge the Obama administration to exert more pressure on Iran to release the pastor.In a sign of movement, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Thursday directly called for Abedini’s release during a meeting in Geneva, which an attorney for the family called the “first pro-active statement by … our administration” in the case.

The letter from Saeed Abedini to his wife Naghmeh described in detail how he’s been mistreated at Iran’s notorious Evin Prison. He described how he saw his face for the first time in the mirror of an elevator.

“I said hi to the person staring back at me because I did not recognize myself,” Abedini wrote. “My hair was shaven, under my eyes were swollen three times what they should have been, my face was swollen, and my beard had grown.”

The pastor explained how, despite his situation, he is trying to focus on “forgiveness.” He said he forgave the “interrogator who beat me” as well as the doctor who “did not give me the medication that I needed.”

Abedini wrote that a nurse would not provide him with treatment because she said “in our religion we are not suppose to touch you, you are unclean.” He wrote that he could not fall to sleep one night because of the pain, as he listened to the sound of “dirty sewer rats with their loud noises and screeches.”

Attorney Jordan Sekulow, though, told Fox News on Friday that he has since received a medical review. Sekulow said Abedini was promised he’d be moved to a hospital outside the prison, though cautioned that the family would have to see that happen to believe it.

Sekulow, meanwhile, drew attention to a statement delivered Thursday in Geneva by Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, the U.S. representative on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

She said: “Iranian officials continue to restrict these communities’ freedom to practice their religious beliefs free from harassment, threat, or intimidation. Christian pastor Saeed Abedini’s continuing harsh treatment at the hands of Iranian authorities exemplifies this trend.

“We repeat our call for the Government of Iran to release Mr. Abedini, and others who are unjustly imprisoned, and to cease immediately its persecution of all religious minority communities. The United States also repeats its call for the Government of Iran to provide without delay the urgent medical attention Mr. Abedini needs.”

Donahoe came under criticism for neglecting to specifically address the case at a recent meeting in Geneva on Iran’s human rights record. Donahoe instead broadly criticized “the Iranian government’s ceaseless campaign of abuse” against those who dissent. Administration officials had discussed Abedini’s case in public before, but only when questioned about it by reporters and others.

The State Department also declined to provide a witness to testify last week during a Capitol Hill hearing where Naghmeh Abedini spoke.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and other lawmakers expressed disappointment at the State Department’s absence. In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry earlier this week, Wolf and other lawmakers urged him “in the strongest possible terms, to make this case and the broader issue of religious freedom a priority as Secretary of State.”

The wife and her attorneys did meet with State Department officials following last Friday’s hearing in Washington.

Abedini has been held in Iran’s Evin Prison since September of last year and was sentenced to eight years in prison in January — accused of evangelizing and threatening national security.

Naghmeh Abedini met Saeed in 2002 and they married two years later. Both had converted from Islam to Christianity — Saeed became a U.S. citizen in 2010.

The Iranian government does not recognize his American citizenship, though it had enabled him to travel freely between both countries until this past summer, when he was pulled off a bus and placed under house arrest, according to his supporters.

Published March 22, 2013 / FoxNews.com

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

Our Children Forced into Islam?

March 21, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Islam is self-proclaimed to be “the religion of peace,” and in our uncompromising quest for political correctness we deny ourselves the merest observation that “they” may be different from “us” in any measurable respect. Indeed, as Muslims walk the streets of western countries they do so in relative equality, and to the extent they are polite and attempt to blend with the local populations, they are welcomed as fellow citizens of the world, and extended the hand of brotherhood.

Each of us is free (as of this writing) to see the world from his own view, and we would hope that true bigotry, religious or otherwise, would not be condoned in any civilized society. However, there is a growing elephant in the room, and at some point one of us is going to have to point it out and we will all have to discuss it.

The Federalist Press editors enjoy many connections with friends and associates in Europe, and for years have listened with growing concern as anecdotal stories of increasing troubles with Muslim immigrants have been shared. Political correctness has run completely amok in Europe, and leftist governments and their state controlled media are loathe to admit that Muslim immigrants have gotten the best of them.

Indeed, as Muslim populations swell in Western countries we find certain patterns emerging—patterns which we are beginning to see in the Western hemisphere as well.

As the emphasis on marriage and the traditional family in Western countries has diminished, and the practice of abortion has increased, native local populations have sputtered.

Few seem to understand that the Fertility Rate (FR) of most of Western Europe has fallen below 2.11—the point of sustainability. A rate of 1.8 is considered extremely difficult to recover from, and 1.3 is nearly impossible. At this rate a culture will simply fade to oblivion. As of 2008 these are the Fertility Rates of a few European nations: France-1.8; England-1.6; Greece-1.3; Germany-1.3; Italy-1.2; and Spain-1.1. The average FR in 31 European Union countries is 1.38.

So why is the population of Europe growing so rapidly? Muslim immigration, and Muslim Fertility Rates.

For example, France’s FR of 1.8 is offset by the Muslim FR of 8.1. In fact, the south of France now has more Islamic Mosques than Christian churches. Also, 30% of its children under the age of 21 are Muslims, and the number climbs to 45% in large cities. At these rates, France will be an Islamic Republic within a generation.

In the Netherlands 50% of all newborns are Muslim, and in 10 years the population will approach 50% Muslim. These numbers hold true in Belgium as well.

England, where Muslim men were just discovered to be running sex slavery rings of local white girls, has seen a 30-fold increase in its Muslim population since 1970, and now has over 1,000 mosques.

There is a pattern to Muslim immigration into western countries. First, we see a wholesale drain on social services. In some publicized cases we find Muslim men collecting over $15,000 monthly from state welfare systems, receiving per capita stipends for each of their many children and wives (yes, wives). The social welfare systems of most chic EU members are depleted as a result, adding to the already heavily strained budgets that must pay out large pensions and benefits to union members who retired at young ages.

Then, these “peaceful” Islamic adherents tend to become more demanding and violent as their percentage of population grows in these countries, and leaders and agitators begin to demand “religious rights” (extended privileges and Sharia Law) for Muslims, occupying the streets or rioting and burning in protest.

Are western alarmists the only ones who see an imminent takeover of the West?

“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The fifty-plus million Muslims there will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Muammar Gaddafi.

Perhaps Americans can afford complacency, many seem to believe. In fact, Canada, with its FR of 1.6, has had an increase in its population of over 2,000,000 in this past decade. How is that possible? Muslim immigration and FR.

What is America’s FR? It is down to a nearly unrecoverable 1.6. However, with the rapid Latino influx, our combined FR is 2.11—the bare minimum required to sustain a population, albeit a changing one. How about America’s Muslim population, you ask? In 1970 it was 100,000. Since then, it is difficult to tell, because the government doesn’t track them very closely (it’s not PC), but they tell us it is somewhere between a few million and 9,000,000.

Muslims are indeed beginning to become extremely vocal about demanding their “religious rights” in America. Demands for Sharia Law and examples of honor killings are springing up all around us. Liberal PC is enabling the behavior. We have witnessed that if Bill O’Reilly merely mentions on The View that it was Muslims who attacked Americans on 9/11 there is an orchestrated and exaggerated protest exodus of the hosts to enforce their PC speech limits—thus ensuring that no practical discussion occurs about safety or self-preservation.

With the rise of militant Islam in the West, it is time for a serious discussion on the direction we want our nations to take. If we do not make some tough, non-PC decisions soon, our granddaughters will be wearing burkas and will be stoned to death in the streets for whispering the name of Jesus. The current talk of gay marriage will be reduced to public beheadings for homosexuality. This is not speculation, but a mathematical certainty. If we continue at the current rate, Muslims will become the majority populations in all Western countries, and guess how they’ll vote. Violence that invariably attends Islam will be widespread, filling our streets, just as it does every day in countries with majority Muslim populations.

Of course, the liberal sophist will scoff publically at such an assertion; but one day in the streets of a majority Muslim population is all the proof needed to support it.

To those truly peace loving practitioners of Islam who live among us, and who refuse to follow their Eastern leaders into paths of Jihad, Dar-es-Salaam, Sharia, and cleansing violence, we encircle you in arms of brotherhood and welcome you as fellow-citizens. But we are at the point where we need to receive extremely clear declarations of peace and non-violence from any Muslim that seeks a place among us. To blindly pretend that a rogue elephant is not standing in the middle of the room is a foolish and dangerous path.

PUBLIUS

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Foreign, Religion

Socialism is Cool (Populist)

March 21, 2013 By Editor 1 Comment

There’s no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is a populist politician. In many ways he is the every man . . . proving to the masses that indeed, anyone can become the president of the United States of America.

It is a fanciful dream of every American, that each little citizen child can grow up to become the most powerful leader in the world. It is part of our heritage, that no matter how humble the beginnings, or how disadvantaged due to some quirk of life, in this country it is possible to overcome the hurdles and rise to the very top; and in fact, it is true.

In the case of Barack Obama, he was born a minority baby in Hawaii (although he claimed to be born in Kenya when promoting the first of multiple autobiographies) to mixed-race parents (raised by his grandparents), and was saddled with a Muslim name. Although most of his records have been sealed and whisked away to vaults where the vetting process has been declared DOA, he appears to have done well in school at times, and have finished well at ivy league institutions.

Barack Obama appears to have been a fairly common intercity youth, and describes himself as abusing alcohol, marijuana and cocaine, and leaves room to believe there were additional drugs and related activities in the mix.

Obama was a player as a young adult, and describes his out-of-marriage affairs with women of multiple races, although the fact has been recently reported that the identities of these women were mere creations, composites generated for purposes of the books about himself.

Politically, Barack Obama is a Chicago minority street fighter, fitting well into the Democratic machine — “Vote early, vote often!” He describes himself as a “community organizer,” which in retrospect appears to have included an armband of some sort and included duties like registering the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders to vote. His politics are those of the ’60s campus radical, as are those of his mentors and appointees. He has exchanged treasury dollars for support and votes in the tradition of his party and as promised, has siphoned trillions of them off to promote his social welfare utopian ideals — most of those dollars ending up in the hands of his cronies. Although this “tax, spend, elect” cycle is short-lived per force, concluding when the treasury is emptied, the tactic often plays well to the electorate, in the short term. That run is about over judging from the 60 percent increase in the national debt in just the first 4 years of Obama’s presidency.

The President has often been seen making the television show circuit, demonstrating to his base that he is indeed the man they were told he was just 4 years ago — before he demonstrated a deaf ear to the citizens of the nation, and turned his tenure into a non-stop vacation cruise around the world.

The President’s White House is reported to be a boy’s club, hostile to working women and focused on sports television programming and drinking beer with other cool guys. The proletariat eats this stuff up.

So is Barack Hussein Obama the coolest president we’ve had in the White House? He’s not the player that Kennedy and Clinton were, and he hasn’t put away as much booze as some of the record holders . . . but all in all, it appears safe to say that he is indeed the most common man that has graced the hallowed sanctum of the people’s house.

Publius

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

A Failure to Excommunicate

March 20, 2013 By Editor 22 Comments

Harry-Reid1Reprinted from May 16, 2012. It shouldn’t surprise many people that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as Mormons, are politically conservative. Indeed, LDS Church members believe that the Constitution of the United States is a divinely inspired document, and that adherence to its original meaning constitutes living according to God’s will. Church members adhere to a strict code of morality, which includes not just matters of sex outside of marriage, but extends to personal areas such as how they dress in public, what they view, and even what they ingest into their bodies.

Much whispering behind the scenes has been accumulating because GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney is not only a high profile Mormon, but a very dedicated member and leader of the church. While Romney endures off-mic rumor and innuendo for his membership in the LDS Church, the arguably second most powerful politician in the nation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, receives not an utterance about his lifelong membership in the same church.

What is the difference between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid? Politically speaking, the two couldn’t be further apart on almost every issue. On religious and moral issues, however, some might suggest they are kindred spirits—not most LDS Church members, but others might.

In fact, much of what Harry Reid espouses in his public life is repugnant to LDS-Christian doctrine. High taxes, exorbitant debt, burdensome governmental intrusion and regulation into the lives of citizens, socialistic schemes, anti-family policies, welfare dependence, the funding of anti-Christian arts, organizations and lifestyles are only the tip of a burgeoning and murky iceberg that is growing exponentially beneath the waters of American society under the leadership of Reid and his hard left associates.

harry_reidSo how does Harry Reid justify his political views and his divergence from the basic tenets of Mormonism? “I don’t believe in abortion,” is his explanation.

That’s it? He doesn’t support abortion in his political life?

I disagree that Harry Reid’s stated opposition to abortion is enough to save him (in a secular or religious way). Like congressmen who attach their pork barrel projects to bills they know will pass without their votes then quietly vote against them so they can claim fiscal responsibility while collecting campaign contributions for success at “bringing home the bacon,” Harry Reid is only fooling himself that he is a good LDS Church member.

There is a reason that most LDS Church members are conservative. It is a question of morality and personal liberty for them. Harry Reid has supported every anti-American, anti-family, anti-decency piece of legislation that has come down the pike. He is responsible for nearly every dollar of the $15.7 trillion debt—and in case he doesn’t understand it, debt robs liberty and creates poverty. Although he personally votes against direct abortion legislation, he supports candidates and elected officials whom he knows will support it—and that’s supporting it.

So what is the real difference between Mitt Romney and Harry Reid regarding their membership in the LDS Church? On the surface, anyway, the difference is that Romney reflects his religious values in his policies while Reid utterly tramples them in his.

For Harry Reid, and all of those who make a pretense of following Judeo-Christian principles while leading our nation, and indeed, the Western world down a path of fiscal and moral destruction, let me share a scripture that you might recognize, and find helpful in your future career.

“I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:15-16.

PUBLIUS

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

Global Warming, Climate Change, and Big Foot

March 19, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

In the 1970s we were told by the media, university professors, Hollywood stars, and NOAA that the earth was slipping into global cooling, the precursor to an imminent ice age. They assured us that it was our own fault – carbon emissions, etc.

When the data just didn’t add up they changed their minds, and stories, and against all logic and acceptable methods of scientific inquiry began to preach the gospel of Global Warming—a religious-like dogma of the left that required strict acceptance of the proposition, regardless of the lack of evidence.

The press, media, and politicos treated us to an incessant barrage of lectures and finger wagging for several years, insisting that global destruction was imminent, and that we had to immediately cut back on Western industrialization and go entirely green if we wanted to survive. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth became the bible of the left, and every social and political consideration came to be filtered through the lens it created. Gore even proffered a petition signed by thousands of “scientists” (most of whom turned out not to be scientists) bolstering his theory. International treaties intended to hand over American sovereignty to international bodies have been waved in our faces and entire economies have been destroyed by the adoption of “green jobs” policies.

Then came Climategate, where it was discovered that climate “scientists” and government employees were actively falsifying data to prove that human activity is causing earth’s weather to change substantially. Why the need to falsify data if it’s true? That has become the trillion dollar question.

We who are impartially considering the data have been disparaged and derided by those who have drunk from the chalice of Climate Change dogma. It is interesting that no one ever asks what our opinion is. In fact, there is a current petition in circulation signed by more than 31,000 real scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph Ds (we know that because they must certify their degrees on the petition), which certifies:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Here is an inconvenient truth for the left. During the early Dark Ages global temperatures were reported to be higher than normal. Then there were the memorable “little ice age” conditions that inundated Europe and North America between 1600 and 1900 with lots of snow and ice. During those centuries witnesses reported that the Thames River in London would freeze so solidly that folks roasted oxen on the ice for months during the winters, and that iceboats could sail down the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. In fact, the famous December 25, 1776 raid on the British in New Jersey was impeded by a Delaware River choked with ice. (Refer to the famous painting)

When is the last time anyone saw the Delaware choked with ice, or the Thames frozen over? It was over 100 years ago that average temperatures rose to the point that those rivers no longer froze in the winter. Is that due to carbon emissions? Anyone who tells you it is, is just falsifying data.

Publius

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

California Businesses Fuming Over Retroactive $120M Tax

March 19, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

California’s top-end taxpayers — already steamed over a recent hike in the nation’s highest state income tax — are now fuming over a new $120 million retroactive tax grab on small business owners.

california_taxIn December, the state’s tax authority determined that a tax break claimed over the past few years by 2,500 entrepreneurs and stockholders of California-based small businesses is no longer valid and sent out notices of payment.

“How would you feel if you made a decision, which was made four years ago, (and) you absolutely knew was legally correct and four years later a governing body came in and said, ‘no, it’s not correct, now you owe us a bunch more money. And we’re going to charge you interest on money you didn’t even know you owed’,” Brian Overstreet told Fox News from his office north of San Francisco.

Last year, Overstreet and his fellow investors sold Sagient Research Systems and immediately reported the sale to the California Franchise Tax Board, the state’s version of the IRS. “It was good for the shareholders, it was good for the employees and good for those of us who founded it,” Overstreet said about the sale of the data mining company. “We paid the tax based on the law at the time.”

But the FTB changed its interpretation of the law after a state appeals court ruled unconstitutional a qualifying provision of the break requiring companies to maintain 80 percent of their workforce in California. Instead of asking the legislature for guidance on what to do, the FTB suspended the break in its entirety and ordered anyone who’s claimed it in the last five years to pay up.

“What that translates into is tens of thousands, if not literally hundreds of thousands, of potential jobs,” Overstreet contends.

Overstreet said he’s learned more about the workings of state government in the last two months than he ever knew before and he’s become the point person for others like him who were surprised by the FTB’s decision. “It’s going to cause not only significant financial hardship but real personal stress on a lot of people who shouldn’t be worried about this,” he said. “They did what is right. They paid their taxes. They should be off working away at their next business — instead they’re having to spend their time fighting this stuff.”

Overstreet wouldn’t disclose the exact amount the FTB says he owes but said it was “well into the six figures,” and calls it a sucker punch from the state.

The taxpayers fighting the FTB won an early victory in their fight when the tax board announced a temporary delay in issuing actual bills, technically called Notices of Proposed Assessments. It’s believed the additional time is to allow the state’s political leaders time to figure out a solution.

“Once the revenue is identified, those folks up in Sacramento will figure out how to spend it already,” warns former state Sen. George Runner. “And that’s what makes this so difficult. Even though it has this great bipartisan support as being wrong.”

Earlier this month, lawmakers from both parties introduced legislation that would force the FTB to scrap the retroactive tax bills. “Californians planned and based their actions on the language of the law as it existed,” Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu said in a statement. “Going backward in time and changing the rules innocent taxpayers relied upon violates the very essence of the rule of law.”

Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gorell’s companion bill would prohibit the state from charging interest and penalties in similar situations in the future.

“We want to unwind this poor decision and bring relief to small business owners throughout the state, while also setting prohibitions against this kind of surprise tax increase again for the future.”

What’s not as clear is what Gov. Jerry Brown thinks of the issue. “Quite frankly, we haven’t heard from the governor on this and the governor could solve this,” Runner, a Republican, said. “Ultimately, the legislature can try to fix it, but ultimately the bill still has to end up on the governor’s desk.”

Brook Taylor, a spokesman with the governor’s business development office, told Fox News in an email that the tax credit “provided a real boost to entrepreneurs” and that the court’s ruling was unfortunate.  Taylor added that, “we are reviewing the situation to determine how best to help these business owners given the court’s decision.”

California’s high tax rates, strong environmental regulations and a Democratic lock on many public offices have led some to conclude the state is anti-business. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, among other state executives, has made repeated overtures to the state’s business leaders to relocate. Those criticisms have been regularly rebuffed by Brown and his staff.

During a recent dust-up over a radio ad promoting Texas, Brown reportedly said, “you go where the gold is” and that Perry is “not going to Lubbock, or whatever those places are that make up that state.”

What’s not addressed by the pending legislation is what to do about the future of the tax credit. It’s been around for 20 years to promote job-growth and investment — especially in the computer technology and bio-research industries. “California has always prided itself in the ability to be that incubator for high-tech, for entrepreneurial investment,” Runner said. “And this just goes to the core of that. Undermines our credibility, if you will, on that particular issue.”

Overstreet’s main focus has been on retroactive part of the FTB’s action but he also said if lawmakers allow for the tax break to go away entirely it will have consequences for the state. “As a going-forward problem if entrepreneurs are no longer allowed this kind of incentive, there’s no longer any reason for us to intentionally grow our companies here in California. We are going to take our business to where it is the cheapest and most effective place to hire people.”

By Lee Ross / Published March 19, 2013 / FoxNews.com

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

Cyprus’ Decision to Seize Bank Deposits

March 19, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

PARIS –  Lawmakers in Cyprus are still scrambling for a way to raise €5.8 billion ($7.5 billion) to help pay for an international bailout of the country’s banks and government.

cyprusA plan to seize up to 10 percent of people’s savings has been met with fury and it has raised concern, if not panic, in the rest of Europe about the security of bank deposits in times of financial turmoil.

On Tuesday, Cypriot lawmakers are scheduled to vote a revised plan that would not be so burdensome for people with less than €100,000 in the bank. Any plan must be approved by the other eurozone countries, which would then commit €10 billion in rescue loans to Cyprus.

Banks in Cyprus will remain shut until Thursday to give political leaders time to hash out a deal.

Here’s a look at the plan and the problems it may pose.

HEY, HOW CAN THEY DO THAT?

As a member of the euro currency, Cyprus can to raise or lower taxes whenever it wants. It isn’t the first time that a eurozone nation has raised taxes to cope with mounting debt and to prop up struggling banks. Residents of Greece, Portugal and Ireland — all bailout recipients — have seen their tax bills skyrocket in recent years as those countries tried to reduce their debts. But Cyprus is charting new ground here, and there could be legal — and political — challenges.

AND HOW EXACTLY WILL IT WORK?

Banks have already acted to seal off the amount of the levy — a 6.75 percent tax on deposits under €100,000 and 9.9 percent on those above — so depositors can’t access it. Banks will remain closed until Thursday to avoid a rush of withdrawals while lawmakers finalize the move. They will vote on Tuesday, but some are seeking modifications, mainly to lower the tax rate on deposits under €100,000. To do that, however, they have to raise the rate for the larger depositors, since the overall scheme has to raise a total of €5.8 billion.

HAS THIS EVER HAPPENED BEFORE?

So far in the euro crisis, depositors have been protected. But European countries have taxed bank deposits before. In the 1990s, Italy levied a tax on every bank account to stave off the collapse of its lire currency. The rate, however, was miniscule — 0.06 percent — compared to what Cyprus is enacting. Iceland — another island with an outsized financial sector, although worse weather — also relied on depositors to prop up its banks. When the crisis hit there in 2008, Iceland protected its domestic deposits but reneged on deposit insurance for overseas, Internet-based accounts held by British and Dutch. Those two governments stepped in to help their citizens to the tune of $5 billion. The U.K. and the Netherlands sued Iceland unsuccessfully in a European court to get their money back, but Iceland has nevertheless started to repay some of that money.

European officials are promising this Cyprus is a unique case, and they are right in one aspect: Cypriot banks are overwhelmingly funded by deposits, not bondholders. So it wouldn’t have been very fruitful to go after bondholders.

WHO IS AFFECTED?

All people with money in Cypriot banks — except those with money in Greek branches, which will be sold to Greek banks. EU and IMF creditors clearly wanted to protect struggling Greece, but perhaps also saw that Greece is the most likely place in the eurozone for a bank run. Protecting depositors there minimizes that possibility. Of the more than €68 billion on deposit in Cypriot banks, foreigners hold about 40 percent — and most of those are Russians. Cyprus could have only gone after non-EU depositors, but it may have been hard to distinguish between Cypriot and Russian savers, said Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. That is because many Russians have dual citizenship and many Russian businesses are registered on the island. Kirkegaard said Cypriots may paradoxically welcome this measure since the government just managed to widen its tax base to include a lot of Russians; the taxes levied in Greece, Portugal and Ireland were for residents alone to shoulder.

WHY DID CYPRUS NEED A BAILOUT?

Cyprus built its economy in recent years by becoming a financial center, much the way Ireland and Iceland before it did. Its banks offered Internet accounts to foreigners, were renowned for their service, provided substantial privacy to clients and had very low taxes. It worked so well that Cyprus’ banking industry ballooned to nearly eight times the country’s gross domestic product at the height of the boom. In December, it was still more than seven times Cyprus’ €17.5 billion GDP. Russians — looking for warmer climes, lower tax rates and shared culture in the form of Orthodox Christianity — are thought to hold the majority of those accounts, with about €20 billion in the island’s banks.

But Cyprus’ banks held a lot of Greek debt and suffered significant losses when they took a writedown of those bonds as part of the Greek bailout. Much of Cyprus’ bailout money will be used to recapitalize Cypriot banks to prevent them from collapsing. Like other eurozone countries, Cyprus has also seen its deficit and debt explode as growth has ground to a halt. And with the banking system so large, the government wouldn’t have been able to bail it out even in a healthy economy.

WHY DO RUSSIANS KEEP SO MUCH MONEY IN CYPRUS?

Russian businessmen have preferred to place their savings in offshore jurisdictions, partly to escape political uncertainty and corruption in Russia. Cyprus offers a 10 percent corporate tax rate and relatively stable political situation. Cyprus is also believed to be a top destination for money-laundering. It is much safer for a corrupt Russian official to keep proceeds from illegal activities abroad, hiding information about their fortunes and holdings away from the prying eyes of Russian banking regulators. Russian officials estimated that about $49 billion, which is equivalent to 2.5 percent of Russia’s gross domestic product, was wired to foreign accounts illegally last year.

WHAT HAS THE MARKET REACTION BEEN?

Stock markets and the euro dropped on Monday but not too much. Kirkegaard says that the decision to tap depositors indicates that the European Central Bank is confident that the risk of a bank run elsewhere in the eurozone is low — and by excluding Greek branches of Cypriot banks, they have reduced the possibility even further.

But Heather Conley, director of Europe program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says it’s hard to know the far-reaching implications of this one-off deal. The “exceptions” created to solve Europe’s debt crisis are adding up, she said. And some investors may look at this late-night, three-day-weekend deal and see what she saw: a dress rehearsal for a country dropping out of the euro.

___

Published March 19, 2013 / Associated Press / AP Writer Menelaos Hadjicostis contributed to this report from Nicosia, Cyprus.

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

UN Reopens Talks on NRA-opposed Arms Treaty

March 18, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Negotiators will reconvene this week to try to hammer out a landmark U.N. treaty designed to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade amid objections from a bipartisan group of legislators and the most powerful gun-rights lobbying group in the U.S.

Clouds are reflected off the Secretariat Building of the UN headquarters during the 67th United Nations General Assembly, in New YorkGovernmental representatives will meet in New York starting Monday to try to reach consensus on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and to regulate arms brokers.

The draft treaty under consideration does not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they would violate arms embargoes or if they would promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists, organized crime or for corrupt practices.

Many countries, including the United States, control arms exports, but there has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade. For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

Hopes of reaching agreement on what would be a landmark treaty were dashed last July when the United States said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord — then Russia and China also asked for a delay.

The National Rifle Association has portrayed the treaty as a threat to gun ownership rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The politically controversial issue of gun regulations has re-emerged since a gunman opened fire on Dec. 14 at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., killing 20 children and six educators.

Last July, the NRA’s CEO Wayne LaPierre told the U.N. that “the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms.” He added that “any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA’s greatest force of opposition.”

On Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty, which states the proposal “places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality” and represents a national security threat.

“As the greatest defender of liberty and freedom in the world – and we have been for the last 236 years – why would we ever sit down with bad actors and let them decide what our policy will be going forward? [It is a] bad, bad idea. It doesn’t make sense,” Kelly said at a press conference Thursday.

An identical companion resolution was introduced last week by Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, according to Kelly’s office.

Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement Friday that the United States looks forward to working with other countries to reach consensus on an Arms Trade Treaty “that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability” by helping to stem the illicit flow of weapons across borders.

He stressed that the U.S. will not support a treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the right of Americans under the Constitution to bear firearms, or a treaty that would impose new requirements on the U.S. domestic trade in firearms and U.S. exporters.

“The United States could only be party to an Arms Trade Treaty that addresses international transfers of conventional arms solely,” Kerry said.

Kerry said that while the international arms trade affects every country, more than 100 nations don’t have a system for controlling international arms transfers.

“We support a treaty that will bring all countries closer to existing international best practices, which we already observe, while preserving national decisions to transfer conventional arms responsibly,” he said.

Kerry said that means responsible nations should have control systems that reduce the risk that conventional arms transfers will be used “to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including those involving terrorism, and serious human rights violations.”

Amnesty International’s Deputy Executive Director Frank Jannuzi said President Barack Obama “must not be cowed or intimidated by the U.S. gun lobby and the NRA.”

Jannuzi added: “The unfettered trade of conventional arms has contributed to the deaths of more than 500,000, the displacement of millions, widespread rape and the recruitment and exploitation of children as soldiers. The global arms trade must be regulated, and the United States — the world’s largest exporter — should lead the way.”

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he is confident that the U.N.’s 193 member states will overcome their differences during the upcoming negotiations and muster the political will to reach agreement on a treaty. The U.N. chief reiterated his support for a treaty that regulates international transfers of both weapons and ammunition and sets common standards for exporting states.

Kerry’s statement made no mention of the key issue of ammunition.

Jannuzi said the draft treaty in July had a provision that would ban the export of ammunition in cases where a country decided that the export of weapons was prohibited.

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

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign

Colorado Sheriff Says New Gun Laws Won’t Be Enforced

March 17, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke won’t enforce new state gun measures expected to be signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, arguing the proposed firearms restrictions give a “false sense of security.”

colo_sheriffLawmakers in Colorado on Friday approved a landmark expansion of background checks on firearm purchases. Earlier in the week, Colorado lawmakers approved a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Both measures are awaiting the expected approval of the governor.

Cooke told GreeleyTribune.com that Democrats in the state legislature are uninformed and scrambling in response to the Aurora movie theater shooting and other recent tragedies.

“They’re feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable,” he told the news outlet.

The bill passed Friday expands cases when a $10 criminal background check would be required to legally transfer a gun. Republicans have opposed the bill, calling it an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners.

Cooke said the proposed firearms transfer requirement would not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, according to the GreeleyTribune.com report.

The sheriff told the news outlet that he and other county sheriffs “won’t bother enforcing” the laws because it won’t be possible to keep track of how gun owners are complying with the new requirements.

Cooke is joined in his opposition to the proposals by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, who told an angry packed crowd at a meeting on Thursday in Colorado Springs he would stand firm against the bills.

“I can’t tell you when those were sold, bought and purchased. As far as I’m concerned, they were all pre-July 1 if the governor does sign this bill,” he said.

Maketa said the proposed laws were hastily crafted and at least one would be unenforceable. A number of Colorado sheriffs are concerned the laws could lead to registration of gun owners, he said.

Maketa said his office keeps records of every concealed carry permit holder in the county as required by law, but he would never share it.

He said he would destroy the database if anyone tried to get their hands on it and would intervene if government agents started arresting county residents for exercising their constitutional rights.

The vice president praised passage of the bill on Friday.

“Congrats to Colorado House and Senate for passing universal background checks,” read a tweet sent by the office of Vice President Joe Biden from his official (at)VP account.

It was followed by another tweet referring to the theater shooting that read, “The families of Aurora deserved a vote and got one. Now U.S. Congress must act too.”

Congress is also considering a number of new firearm restrictions.

Colorado is the first state outside the East Coast to significantly ratchet back gun rights after the theater and school shootings. Colorado’s gun debate was being watched closely because it’s considered a swing state with both a gun-loving frontier past and an unfortunate history of mass shootings, including the 1999 Columbine High School attack.

Expanded checks have been a top priority for Hickenlooper, who called for the proposal during his State of the State address in January.

Both chambers previously approved the expanded checks in slightly different forms. However, both had to agree on an identical bill before passing it to the governor, so a second round of voting was required.

Democrats seemed relieved that Colorado’s protracted gun-control debate was nearing an end.

The GOP unsuccessfully tried some last-minute legislative maneuvers on Friday to sink the background-check measure before it was passed 19-14 by the Senate.

Democrats grew frustrated at GOP attempts to imagine scenarios that would trigger background-checks. From 4-H members learning gun safety but needing to borrow a shotgun, to neighbors on weeklong elk-hunting trips, Republicans argued the bill would ensnare harmless gun users.

Democrats insisted that existing exemptions in the bill would cover most scenarios the GOP imagined. The bill’s sponsor, Senate Democratic Leader Morgan Carroll, told Republicans that Democrats had enough votes to pass the measure but extended debate to make small changes requested by Republicans.

Published March 17, 2013  FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics

Senator Claims Benghazi Survivors ‘told to be quiet’ by Administration

March 16, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, in an extensive interview with Fox News, alleged that the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack have been “told to be quiet” and feel they can’t come forward to tell their stories — as he urged the House to subpoena the administration for details if necessary.

Libya_Consul_DamageThe South Carolina senator said he’s “had contact” with some of the survivors, calling their story “chilling.” He told Fox News that “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”
The White House is denying any attempt to exert pressure on the surviving victims.

“I’m sure that the White House is not preventing anyone from speaking,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, when asked about the survivors.

But Graham said he thinks the administration is “trying to cover it up,” citing the valuable information the survivors hold.

“The best evidence of what happened in Benghazi is not a bunch of politicians in Washington trying to cover their political ass,” Graham said. “This is the people who lived through the debacle, and I’m going to do all I can to get them before the Congress and American people.”

He continued: “We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and Congress, people who were there in real time to tell the story.”

Graham continued to voice concern about the inaccurate or incomplete accounts that came from the Obama administration in the days following the attack. He is among a handful of Republican lawmakers pressing for access to and more information about the survivors.

But he had pointed words for the House Republican leadership, as he urged them to issue subpoenas if the administration does not release the names of the survivors.

“To our leadership in the House, you’re gonna have to up your game on Benghazi,” he said.

For his part, Graham vowed to “make life difficult in the Senate” in order to get the information he wants, suggesting that would involve holding up nominations.

“(The public needs) to hear from people who were on the ground, their desperate situation. They need to understand from people who were there for months how bad it was getting and how frustrated they were that nobody would listen to them and provide aid when they were requested,” Graham said. “This is a story of an administration deaf and blind to the reality of what people were living with every day in Libya.”

He said they should be able to “tell their story without fear,” accusing the administration of “hiding from the American people and Congress the primary source of truth in Benghazi – people who lived through it.”

A congressional source tells Fox News that Hill staffers investigating the attack believe about 37 personnel were in Benghazi on behalf of the State Department and CIA on Sept. 11. With the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, about 33 people were evacuated. Of them, a State Department official confirmed there were three diplomatic security agents and one contractor who were injured in the assault — one seriously.

A diplomatic security source told Fox News the State Department diplomatic security agent who was in the most serious condition suffered a severe head injury during the second wave of the attack at the annex.
This agent was described as the likely State Department employee visited at Walter Reed Medical Center by Secretary of State John Kerry in January.

While not denying the details, the State Department official offered no comment on the nature of the injuries or whether the agent was visited by Kerry or Hillary Clinton before she left office.

Leading Republicans in the Senate and House have been calling on the State Department to identify the injured and make them available to congressional investigators. So far, they say their calls have gone unanswered.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said the administration has provided “zero” documents on the matter and has not provided names of those attacked.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has gathered about 60 signatures in support of a select committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack. Wolf has said the committee is the most thorough and efficient approach to resolving the lingering underlying questions rather than the competing and overlapping committee jurisdictions.

Wolf, along with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and leading Senate Republicans Graham, John McCain of Arizona, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire have pressed the State Department for answers.

Published March 15, 2013 / FoxNews.com  / Fox News’ Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign

What’s the Problem with a $16.6 Trillion Debt?

March 15, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

President Obama and his associates on the left follow the Keynesian theory of economics, the idea that when economies wane, government deficit spending will reignite the flame. To that end the Obama administration has spent trillions of dollars in 4 years, around 40 percent of which has been borrowed, and on which the country is now paying interest.

The national debt stood at $10 trillion when Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office just four short years ago. That nearly incomprehensible amount represented the unbridled deficit spending of generations of left-leaning presidents and congresses—Democratic and Republican.

Today the national debt stands at $16.6 trillion, more than a 60 percent increase in so short a time. If the congress complies with the President’s demands for increased spending, the national debt will exceed $18 trillion by next year.

What’s the problem, you ask?

When Americans turn off the alarm clock and hustle off to work, the first $1.2 billion they generate every day must be siphoned off of the economy just to pay the current interest on the national debt. That amount grows each day as additional money is borrowed to run the government, and as unpaid interest on the debt compounds.

The federal budget is up to $3.8 trillion a year, with multiple stimulus packages filled with crony payoffs and pork barrel spending wasting additional trillions, without any economic return to the American people. The economy is worsening, with real unemployment and underemployment over 15 percent.

Government leaders should have put the country on a fast-track to pay off the national debt 20 years ago . . . and 10 years ago . . . and 3 years ago. Those on the left boisterously proclaim that the only answer is to raise taxes. We challenge the left to demonstrate to the public when raising taxes has ever improved the economy. In fact, it has never happened. It is when taxes are slashed that money is freed up and businesses invest in new jobs, putting people to work and heating up the economy. President Kennedy proved this, as did Ronald Reagan.

Time after time Keynesian economics has failed. So why do our universities still tout it as the model for our own economy? Why are our government leaders drawing all available dollars, current and future, into the abyss of federal spending? How many jobs were created with the shovel ready projects promised by President Obama as he highjacked nearly $900 billion in the first stimulus package?

Debt creates poverty. Ever family knows this. Those who frequent the check cashing-payday loans establishments have learned the hard way that it is a recipe for financial disaster. So when will our government leaders learn the lesson? We recall well as Jimmy Carter addressed the nation and scratched his head in confusion as he explained that he had implemented all of the university approved, liberal orthodox policies, yet the country appeared to be languishing in a “malaise.” These are people that don’t seem to learn from past mistakes. Debt equals poverty. Perhaps this is why Americans are becoming poorer with every passing day.

Publius

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

“Fairness” in Taxes and Redistribution

March 15, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

As the propaganda press stirs up the occupying proletariat in our nation, and our streets become filled with couch potatoes demanding their fair share of that which has been earned by others, the insanity and impossibility of the scene serves as ample proof that too much weed indeed dulls the human brain’s ability to reason.

The 99 percent demand that they be supported by the 1 percent. They demand that taxation be applied “fairly.”

Indeed, 47 percent of the country pays no federal income taxes whatsoever, and the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the total burden. The top 1 percent pay 36% of all federal income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 58%.

In fact, this distribution scheme is unfair, but it is not those who now bear a significantly higher portion of the burden who should be made to shoulder even more of the load.

There is a story that I heard years ago about the fairness of the distribution of tax burdens that I think will be instructive. It’s precise origin is unknown as far as I know, but I would like to give proper credit if I could find the person who developed it.

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Publius

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

Senate Dems Poised to Advance Gun Ban, Seek Obama’s Help in NRA Battle

March 14, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON –  Senate Democrats are poised to pass a renewed and strengthened assault-weapons ban out of committee Thursday as part of a package of measures advancing to the floor, but are appealing to President Obama to help battle opposition from Republicans and gun-rights supporters.

Dianne_FeinsteinThe Senate Judiciary Committee, after advancing bills earlier in the week to enact near-universal background checks and combat gun trafficking, on Thursday morning will take up what is arguably the most controversial measure drafted since the Newtown, Conn., shooting.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s effort to revive an assault-weapons ban, as well as a ban on large-capacity magazines, has revived a tense debate over gun rights in Washington and across the country. The panel seemed likely to approve the measure Thursday on a party-line vote. But once it reaches the full Senate — probably in April — the measure faces heavy opposition by Republicans and some moderate Democrats, as well.

Feinstein acknowledged she’d need more backing if it is to stand a chance on the floor — even then, it’s hard to imagine a circumstance where the Republican-controlled House would allow the measure to proceed.

“I’d like to see everybody doing more,” bill sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Wednesday when asked if she’d like more assistance from Obama. “Yes, absolutely, we need help. We have the 800-pound gorilla out there” — a reference to the potent National Rifle Association.

Obama made an assault weapons ban part of the gun curbs he proposed in January, a month after a shooter with an assault rifle killed 20 first-graders and six educators at a school in Newtown, Conn. Feinstein and others have argued that such firearms are used in a disproportionate number of mass shootings and shouldn’t be available to civilians.

The prohibition has emerged as one of the most controversial of the gun restrictions being considered in Congress. Foes of barring the weapons say law-abiding citizens should not lose their Second Amendment right to own the weapons, which they say are popular for self-defense, hunting and collecting.

Feinstein’s bill would also ban large-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, which she and her allies say allow shooters to inflict more casualties before pausing to reload, which is when they might be stopped. Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, was said to have had 30-round magazines.

The measure’s passage by the Judiciary panel has been a foregone conclusion for some time. It will be far more vulnerable in the full Senate, where Democrats are expected to need 60 votes for passage through the 100-member chamber. That is where the NRA and other pro-gun groups are working hard for the ban’s defeat.

“We are focused on the next step of the legislative process,” Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, said Wednesday.

There are 53 Democrats plus two independents who generally side with them. Republicans seem ready to oppose the ban overwhelmingly, and Feinstein can’t count on a half-dozen Democrats from Republican-leaning states who face re-election next year.

The ban also stands little chance of approval in the GOP-controlled House.

Feinstein’s bill would ban semi-automatic weapons — guns that fire one round and automatically reload — that can take a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature like a pistol grip.

It specifically bans 157 named weapons. But in an effort to avoid antagonizing those who use them for sports, the measure allows 2,258 rifles and shotguns that are frequently used by hunters.

It also exempts any weapons that are lawfully owned whenever the bill is enacted.

Feinstein was a leader in passage of a 1994 ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Congress failed to renew it when it expired in 2004.

There are no definitive figures on assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines in the U.S., since there are no government registries of firearms and Congress has curbed federal research on guns since the late 1990s.

When the previous assault weapons ban took effect in 1994, there were an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons and at least 25 million large-capacity magazines that were privately owned in the U.S.

Proponents of banning the weapons cite studies showing that once the assault weapons ban took hold, the portion of gun crimes using those firearms dropped by up to 72 percent in six cities surveyed. They also argue that each assault weapon taken off the streets reduces the potential for mass shootings.

Opponents cite studies showing that assault weapons have been used in fewer than 1 in 10 crimes involving firearms and argue that eliminating those weapons would put only a minor dent in gun violence. High-capacity magazines are involved in up to a quarter of gun crimes.

The Judiciary Committee has already approved three other measures expanding the requirement for background checks for gun buyers; toughening federal laws against illegal gun traffickers and those who purchase weapons for people barred from owning them; and increasing aid for school safety.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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

« 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Follow us

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

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Economy

The “Authoritarian” Narrative vs. Reality: Why Trump’s Positions Are Historically Mainstream

Election Autopsy: What Yesterday’s Results Revealed

Why Is the United States Still Allowing Iran to Threaten the Strait of Hormuz?

Elections

Stephen Colbert’s Final Curtain: When Late Night Became Political Therapy Instead of Comedy

Where Are the Handcuffs?

Skid Row Vote-Buying Case Exposes How Dems Cheat America’s Election System

Foreign

BREAKING: President Trump Orders Devastating Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Facilities in Historic Preemptive Strike

Jamie Lee Curtis Wept Over Kanye’s Antisemitism—But Where Is Her Outrage Now?

Trump confirms ‘comprehensive’ trade deal with UK

Crime

When Political Rhetoric Becomes a Security Threat—Yet Another Assassination Attempt

Where Are the Handcuffs?

Skid Row Vote-Buying Case Exposes How Dems Cheat America’s Election System

Science Tech

Fed Appeals Court Judge Stayed Silent for Decades. Now Witnesses Beginning to Talk.

Trump’s ISIS Strike in Nigeria Sends a Message: America Can Still Hunt Terrorists Anywhere

Trump’s UFO Disclosure Has Changed the Conversation — But Not Yet Answered the Biggest Question

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