• 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

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

The True Champions of American Blacks

March 13, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Under the British system, a system where the king could do no wrong, and all subjects were essentially his private property, indentured servitude and slavery were common. It is how many young people escaped the class poverty of Europe, by indenturing themselves until the age of 18, or later, then receiving their freedom. Others were indentured to repay family debt. Many of these became successful free citizens under the system, while many never escaped the bonds of servitude. Europeans had developed quite a system of slave trading before the foundations of America, and under the British Empire slaves were tasked with working the vast agricultural holdings of the colonies, including those in the New World.

abraham_lincolnMost of the founders were very hostile to the system of servitude, and although they existed within it, they sought to extinguish it. When the founders declared our liberty from Great Britain, they did so with the intent of retaining the new nation’s faith and credit. Huge holdings were offered as guarantee of repayment of war loans, including vast agricultural empires, which included the slaves that worked them. The slavery question was hotly debated in the forming nation, and it is the one failing of the founders that they were unable to win the day against slavery—due mainly to the collateralization of debt issue—but could only “kick the can down the road,” as our current government does daily.

The intent of the founders was to phase out slavery, but agricultural interests in the southern states resisted all attempts. Finally, the Republican Party was formed and at the peril of national civil war, its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, ran on the platform that slavery must finally be abolished. Over a half million Americans lost their lives in the ensuing conflict, but the issue was officially, if not finally settled. In fact, hundreds of Republican whites and blacks were murdered in the South even after the Civil War, during “Reconstruction.”

Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to enforce voting and civil rights to the descendants of African slaves emancipated during the Civil War, but they were blocked by the Democrats and Southern state “Dixiecrats,” who blocked passage while they blocked black students from entering Southern universities. Who were these Democrats who filibustered and voted against civil rights and voting rights for blacks? John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Lyndon B. Johnson, George Wallace, and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, otherwise known as the Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan, to name a few.

It was when “progressives” adopted the charlatan policy that they “adopted” African Americans and other “minorities” as their charges. In the name of the oppressed, the disenfranchised and the downtrodden, most of whom were that way because of the old prejudices of the Southern Democrats or have become that way through the taxation and confiscatory policies of the expanded left leaning US government, “progressives” have created a fatherless and helpless nation of minorities in America. Once all left leaning politicians received the Memo that all things were possible in the name of the downtrodden, those very politicians who had so vehemently opposed voting and civil rights for American minorities suddenly became their “champions.”

The Republican voting and civil rights bills were immediately redubbed Democratic legislation, and were passed, with several new powers being given to the federal government in the deal.  The “Great Society” was born and American blacks instantly went from struggling to get into the middle class to dropping directly into the abyss.  American minorities are well on their way to becoming completely dependent on government handouts, and feel beholden to politicians who keep them on the public dole.

Does every American liberal or moderate set out with these leftist results as their goal? No. They are fooled by their leadership, who have their own secret agenda, as recently lamented by Bob Beckel, Liberal Commentator:

“We liberals made a terrible mistake, going back 30 years ago.  We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing.  We had things like public housing, and we had welfare payments, and all that bred dependence.”

African-Americans would do well to return their support to those who have their collective well-being and personal liberty at heart.

Publius

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

The $6 Trillion Lie

March 13, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

We observed a brief exchange in social media between a liberal and conservative, based on a quote posted by the liberal: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

The implication is the same always proffered by the left–that government wastes its revenues on defense spending at the expense of social programs, and should reduce spending on defense and increase spending on social programs.

The argument, on its surface, is one that causes the good-hearted to stop and reflect. Certainly, we all want to assist those in dire circumstances, and as a society we have made a social pact to protect those who have fallen from a secure position in life. We seek to lift up the weak, and to champion the oppressed.

But is it true that we spend more on defense than on social uplift?

As we look at the question, we must first ask ourselves, what is the role of government? For instance, is it the duty of the San Francisco city government to provide aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean? We all know it is not. But why is it not? Because different levels of government have different duties to their citizens. With all levels of government working together to provide for the needs of their citizens, so the theory goes, all needs are covered.

So, starting at the top, what is the duty of the federal government to its citizens? The constitution mandates that the federal government be delegated certain duties by the states and their citizens, duties, like national military defense, that cannot be provided by state or local governments very well. Those duties, and powers to fulfill them, are limited by the constitution. These limited powers enable it to provide for the common defense, free the flow of commerce, coin money, establish weights and measures, provide for immigration, bankruptcies, postal services, patents and copyrights, declare wars, establish a Navy and Army, and to establish duties, imposts and excises to pay for the national government’s activities. That’s it.

So if the federal government has no constitutional delegation to provide schools, hospitals or firefighters, how do we get those? We get them from state and local governments. In fact, at the state and local level we find almost all “social uplift” programs. Do states, counties and cities have to provide social uplift programs? No. Do they choose to? Yes.

So how much money do all levels of government spend each year to pay for all levels of government and the services they provide? Here is what we will be spending in the next year:

Federal Gross Spending $3.8 trillion
Intergovernmental $-0.7 trillion
State Direct Spending $1.6 trillion
Local Direct Spending $1.7 trillion
Total Spending $6.4 trillion

Armed with this information we can now make some simple comparisons. For instance–How much is the defense budget? It is $830 billion, or $0.83 trillion. As anyone can see, defense is only 14% of total spending. But how does defense spending stack up to educational spending? In this same time frame we will spend approximately the same amount on each (see our article of June 11, 2012, NEA Report Card: F).

So if America spends around 14% of its annual taxes on defense, and a like amount on education, where does the remaining 72% go? It goes to healthcare ($1.1 trillion), welfare ($0.8 trillion), public employee pensions ($1.1 trillion), etc.

Those on the left have created a myth of government spending that they share among themselves that says that most taxes go to defense spending (which actually pays for the employment of millions of Americans), and social programs get the leftover crumbs. In fact, it is not true at all–it is quite the opposite.

All of those $ trillions are up for grabs to an array of government employee unions, special interests, and administration cronies and contributors, and are funding all manner of social and anti-social programs and movements. This is why Mitt Romney, noting that the federal government borrows 40% of its budget every year (to be paid by a future generation), indicated in the first presidential debate that government spending must be pared back to essentials until the economy returns to full employment.

With all of those fingers in the $6.4 trillion pie (which does not include unfunded obligations), it may be a little difficult for statesmen to serve the American people without offending a few hogs at the trough.

PUBLIUS

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

Former Administration Insider Skewers Obama National Security Team

March 13, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

An administration riven with infighting. A commander-in-chief given to “dithering” on critical wartime decisions. A suspicious and devious White House staff erecting a “Berlin Wall” around a secluded and standoffish president, shielding him from those advisers — particularly at the Department of State — willing to convey unpleasant truths.

barack_obamaIt all sounds rather like the sensational literature that proliferated in the mid-to-late 1970s to chronicle the collapsed presidency of Richard Nixon — including the description of a White House “Berlin Wall,” originally applied, with great fanfare, to those much-maligned (and eventually imprisoned) Nixon aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman.

Instead, it is President Obama’s turn to watch as former aides and journalists rush into print — with a warp speed that eluded the insider memoirists of the 1970s — their detailed and dishy accounts of the first Obama term.

A forthcoming book by former foreign policy aide Vali Nasr paints the above portrait, describing a president whose decisions “from start to finish were guided by politics.”

Nasr was a rising academic star, one of the leading scholarly voices on Iran and the Mideast, when the late Richard Holbrooke tapped him, at the dawn of the Obama administration, to join Holbrooke at a newly created office of the State Department: SRAP, short for Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

‘The president had a truly disturbing habit of funneling major foreign-policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisors whose turf was strictly politics.’   – Vali Nasr, former foreign policy aide

The voluble, outsized Holbrooke, one of the most celebrated diplomats of his age, always on the short list to become secretary of state but never chosen for the job, was expected to bring his formidable talents — and ego — to bear on the problem of integrating more fully the often contradictory policies applied to the two nations so central to U.S. counterterrorism and national security.

But by the time he died from a ruptured aorta, in December 2010, Holbrooke had been systematically marginalized by the Obama White House, Vasr writes. Due out next month, Vasr’s book “The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat” (Doubleday) depicts Holbrooke and his boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, waging an often unsuccessful battle to pierce the “Berlin Wall” and present their views to the president. The book charges that White House aides used targeted leaks and other means to “undermine” Holbrooke — and worked hard to cut Clinton out of critical policymaking, too.

“Those in Obama’s inner circle, veterans of his election campaign, were suspicious of Clinton,” Nasr writes in an excerpt published on ForeignPolicy.com. “Even after Clinton proved she was a team player, they remained concerned about her popularity and feared that she could overshadow the president. … Had it not been for Clinton’s tenacity and the respect she commanded, the State Department would have had no influence on policymaking whatsoever.”

State Department spokesmen pushed back hard against Nasr’s charges. “We have an excellent working relationship with our White House and interagency colleagues,” Patrick Ventrell told reporters at the March 4 press briefing. “So we really stand behind the record of the progress we’ve made in Afghanistan.”

Ventrell’s boss, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, said at the March 8 briefing that she “would reject … completely” the notion that Holbrooke had been sidelined by the National Security Council. “If you know Richard Holbrooke at all,” she told reporters, “you know that he was a formidable force in that job, as he had been in all previous jobs.”

Perhaps most arresting, however, is Nasr’s portrayal of President Obama. The commander-in-chief is depicted here as “dithering” on key Afghan war decisions, tasking national security aides with the same questions, rephrased in minor ways, over and over. Nasr also casts Obama as quick to abandon foreign policy promises made on the campaign trail and too reliant on individuals unqualified to weigh in on foreign policy.

“The president had a truly disturbing habit,” Nasr writes, “of funneling major foreign-policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers whose turf was strictly politics. … His actions from start to finish were guided by politics. … It was no surprise that our AfPak policy took one step forward and two steps back.”

Donald Camp, a retired Foreign Service officer who served under three presidents, worked on AfPak policy as both the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia and as senior director for that region on the Obama National Security Council. Camp told Fox News that the excerpts from Nasr’s book appear to show that the author was perhaps unduly colored by the experiences of his boss, Holbrooke.

“President Obama is very much — was very much involved in those days in making Afghanistan and Pakistan policy,” Camp said in an interview this month. “And I believe that he sought out all views; and there were differing views in the interagency (process), and he made the final decision.”

Camp took specific issue with Nasr’s allegation that then-National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones improperly offered Pakistan a civilian nuclear deal, similar to the kind that the U.S. negotiated with India over several years, in exchange for Islamabad escalating its counter-terrorism efforts. Camp said he traveled with Jones to Islamabad, and that the general knew better than to imagine such a deal could pass muster with the U.S. Congress. “It was just not in the cards,” Camp told Fox News, “and James Jones would not have made that kind of proposal.”

Jones did not respond to requests for comment.

By James Rosen / Published March 12, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics, Foreign

Former Rep. Giffords’ Husband’s Purchase of Rifle Draws Online Criticism

March 13, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

PHOENIX –  The husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords generated nearly 4,000 comments on Facebook from people on both sides of the gun debate after he posted a photo of himself buying a military-style rifle — a purchase he made to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain the kind of firearms he’s lobbying Congress to ban.

Mark_KellyA background check took only a matter of minutes to complete, Mark 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.

It didn’t take long for gun-rights supporters to accuse Kelly of being a hypocrite for buying an AR-15-style rifle and a 45.-caliber handgun. Many of the Facebook comments focused on his motivations and the rules for purchasing such guns.

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.

The public event last week was the first time the survivors had come together since the January 2011 shooting.

Giffords resigned from Congress last year as she continues to recover from her injuries.

The AR-15 is among 157 military-style weapons that would be banned under a bill pending before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Kelly, a former astronaut, said he intends to eventually hand in the rifle to Tucson police.

Doug MacKinlay is the owner of Diamondback Police Supply, the shop where Kelly bought the guns. He said Kelly bought the rifle on March 5 but couldn’t immediately take possession of it 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, MacKinlay said.

MacKinlay said Kelly never revealed to the store’s staff why he was buying the guns and added that it would be wrong to refuse to sell a gun to someone because of their personal views.

“He is a U.S. citizen, an Arizona citizen and expressing his Second Amendment right to purchase and own a firearm,” MacKinlay said.

Todd Rathner, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association’s affiliate in Arizona and a national NRA board member, questioned the point that Kelly was trying to make in buying the guns, saying a model citizen such as Kelly should be able to buy a gun relatively quickly. He also noted that such a purchase could have been a good investment as the value of those types of weapon soars amid heightened demand from gun owners.

“If you believe him, it’s a cheap publicity stunt,” Rathner said. “If you don’t, then he was speculating on the value of the rifle because he knew the prices would be inflated.”

The advocacy group started by Giffords and Kelly had no immediate comment Tuesday on Kelly’s gun buys.

But the group released a statement from Kelly on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval Tuesday of a proposal to expand federal firearms background checks to nearly all gun purchases. Kelly said the 10-8 vote was a huge step in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people. Kelly’s statement didn’t address the controversy over his own gun buys.

Kelly, a former astronaut who plans to keep the handgun, told CNN on Monday that it was important for him to have firsthand information on the ease of buying guns such as the AR-15 and that he looks forward to buying a firearm at a gun show in the future. Kelly and Giffords have long been supporters of gun rights and owned handguns themselves.

Published March 13, 2013 / Associated Press

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics

House Republican Plan Aims to Balance Budget in 10 Years, Without Tax Hikes

March 12, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

House Republicans unveiled an ambitious cost-cutting plan Tuesday that would balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes, while repealing ObamaCare and overhauling entitlements — a document Democrats are sure to reject but could be used as a negotiating tool in talks with President Obama.

paul_ryanRep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, is sticking by controversial proposals, including one to give future Medicare retirees the option of using government payments for private health care plans.

The plan warns of a looming debt crisis, and endeavors to pay off the debt by 2050.

“It’s not too late,” the plan says. “This budget provides an exit ramp from the current mess.”

Democrats preemptively panned Ryan’s spending plan, with House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., saying it relies on “spurious budget trickery.”

“His past budgets have included lofty rhetoric about deficit savings, but very few actual details of how those savings are found,” Hoyer said in an op-ed in Politico.

Senate Democrats promise to offer a counterproposal on Wednesday with higher spending on domestic programs and additional tax hikes on top of the higher rates imposed on top-bracket earners in January. It will, in turn, arrive as a dead letter in the GOP-controlled House.

But this year’s dueling GOP and Democratic budget proposals are more about defining political differences than submitting a plan that can pass Congress unchanged.

The exercise comes even as President Obama was to travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to meet with Senate Democrats in an attempt to resuscitate his failed efforts for bipartisanship.

Ryan, who became a national GOP figure as the losing vice presidential nominee last year, has for now settled back into his wonkish role as Budget Committee chairman and chief tutor for dozens of relatively junior Republicans. His budget helps to undergird Republican claims that the government does not need to raise taxes in order to bring down the deficit.

The plan would achieve $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. It also aims to simplify the tax code, consolidating the seven income-tax brackets into two, with a top rate of 25 percent.

“We’re introducing a budget that balances in 10 years — without raising taxes,” Ryan said in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. “How do we do it? We stop spending money the government doesn’t have.” All told, Ryan’s plan would slash $4.6 trillion in spending over the coming decade.

“On the current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion,” Ryan said. “On the current path, spending will increase by 5 percent each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4 percent.”

The plan calls for a 10 percent reduction in the federal workforce by 2015, as well as changes to give states more flexibility on Medicaid, the health care program for low-income Americans. It would also repeal the federal health care overhaul, particularly targeting the expansion of Medicaid and government subsidies meant to help millions buy private insurance.

The House Budget Committee has scheduled a vote on the soon-to-be-released measure Wednesday, and the Senate Budget panel is slated to vote Thursday on rival legislation by new Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., who promises new tax revenues but few cuts from domestic programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“We are working toward fair and balanced, which is what the American public has said time and time again that they want,” Murray said. “We need to make sure that everybody participates in getting us to a budget that deals with our debt and our deficit responsibly.”

For his part, Ryan has resurrected a controversial Medicare proposal that replaces traditional Medicare for those currently under 55 with a government subsidy to buy health insurance on the open market. Critics of the plan say the subsidies won’t grow with inflation fast enough and would shove thousands of dollars in higher premiums onto seniors before very long.

The House GOP plan again proposes sharp cuts to Medicaid, tighter food stamp eligibility rules and more than $1 trillion in savings over a decade by repealing Obama’s signature overhaul of the U.S. health care system. It seeks to preserve the Pentagon budget, but only at the expense of proposing domestic agency budgets that may prove too low for GOP moderates and the pragmatists atop the Appropriations Committee responsible for guiding them into law.

Even as it proposes repealing ObamaCare, the Ryan plan banks more than $700 billion in the health care law’s cuts to Medicare providers over a decade — just as more than $600 billion in tax hikes on the wealthy enacted in January make it easier for Ryan’s budget to predict balance.

At the White House, Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about Obama’s failure to submit a budget on time.

“The president has always believed that deficit reduction is not a goal unto itself,” Carney said. “The proposals he’s put forward keep the No. 1 objective in mind, which is economic growth and job creation, not deficit reduction solely for the purpose of reducing the deficit.”

As the two sides battle over future-year budgets, top Senate Democrats and Republicans late Monday released a catchall government funding bill for the ongoing fiscal year that denies Obama new money for implementing signature first-term accomplishments like new regulations on Wall Street and his expansion of government health care subsidies, but provides modest additional funding for domestic priorities like health research and highway projects.

Monday’s measure was the product of bipartisan negotiations and is the legislative vehicle to fund the day-to-day operations of government through Sept. 30 — and prevent a government shutdown when current funding runs out March 27.

It sets a path for government after across-the-board spending cuts that took effect March 1. In most cases the minor changes in agency budgets amount to housekeeping within a trillion-dollar cap for the day-to-day operations of agencies in the current budget year.

Passage in the Senate this week seems routine and could presage an end to a mostly overlooked battle between House Republicans and Obama and his Senate Democratic allies over the annual spending bills required to fund federal agency operations.

Published March 12, 2013  FoxNews.com

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

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

Cincinnati Poll Worker Charged with Voting Half Dozen Times in November

March 12, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

She admitted voting twice in the presidential election last November, and now, Obama supporter Melowese Richardson has been indicted for allegedly voting at least six times. She also is charged with illegal voting in 2008 and 2011.

voter_fraudThe 58-year-old veteran Cincinnati poll worker, indicted Monday, faces eight counts of voter fraud. Two others, one of whom is a nun, have been charged separately.

Richardson had admitted on camera to a local TV station, “Yes, I voted twice,” claiming she was concerned that her vote would not count. She also said there “was no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud.”

“I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States,” she proclaimed in the interview.

Officials charged that she voted in her own name by absentee ballot and also in person at the polls, but Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Deters said she also is charged with voting in the name of five other people in various elections.

“This is not North Korea,” Deters said in a statement announcing the indictments. “Elections are a serious business and the foundation of our democracy. In the scheme of things, individual votes may not seem important, but this could not be further from the truth. Every vote is important and every voter and candidate needs to have faith in our system. The charges today should let people know that we take this seriously.”

Richardson made national headlines when the Hamilton County Board of Elections announced that it was investigating whether she voted up to half a dozen times, including on behalf of her granddaughter, India Richardson.

India told Fox News that her grandmother did indeed vote in her name, telling us that “it wasn’t a big deal.”

But voting twice or in another person’s name is illegal.

Prosecutors say the five other people for whom Richardson cast ballots are all relatives.

Sister Marguerite Kloos also faces one count of illegal voting, for allegedly submitting an absentee ballot in the name of a fellow nun, Sister Rose Marie Hewitt, who had died before absentee ballots were sent out. She is accused of opening Sister Hewitt’s ballot, forging her signature and mailing it to the Board of Elections as a vote.

The 54-year-old Kloos has resigned as the dean of the Division of Arts and Humanities at the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati, where she still serves as an associate professor of religious and pastoral studies.

Kloos was not indicted but faces what is known as an information, because her lawyer contacted prosecutors and she agreed to cooperate and plead guilty.

“As a valued member of the Mount community, our thoughts are with her during this difficult time,” the college said in a written statement. “We respect her privacy and will not comment further on this matter at this time.”

Russell Glassop, 75, also is charged with illegal voting.  He is accused of voting on behalf of his wife, who died before election day.

But it was Richardson’s case, and the possibility of repeated votes, that shocked many. She faces up to 12 years in prison if convicted. Efforts to contact her and her lawyer have been unsuccessful.

The Hamilton County Board of Elections recently held hearings on cases of possible double voting and voter fraud, part of a statewide review ordered by Secretary of State John Husted. He called on all 88 counties to review complaints of fraud, as well as voter disenfranchisement.

“Every voter must play by the rules, and if they don’t they will be held accountable,” Husted, a Republican, said in a written statement. “For voters to have confidence in our elections, we must prosecute every case of voter fraud in Ohio.”

Last month, Husted told Fox News that Richardson’s case was especially troubling, because “it appears she not only attempted to vote more than once, but was actually successful at it and having those additional votes counted.”

“Most attempts are caught by the system. But there are cases that do slip through, as this one does, and we need to make sure that we really send a strong message, that if you do this, you are going to be held accountable,” Husted said. “It might mean fines, it might mean jail time.”

Hamilton County prosecutors are investigating three additional cases of possible voter fraud.

By Eric Shawn / Published March 11, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections, Ethics

Lawmakers Eye New Taxes on Guns, Ammo in Latest Wave of Legislation

March 11, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

If you can’t ban ’em, tax ’em.

Lawmakers looking to more tightly regulate firearms in the wake of the Newtown school shooting and other massacres are moving at the state and federal levels to introduce new taxes on firearms and ammunition.

gun_banThe proposals range from the modest — a proposed 5 percent tax in New Jersey — to the steep — a proposed 50 percent ammo tax in Maryland. The bills follow efforts to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and expand background checks, measures that have had mixed success at the state level.

The taxes — much like so-called “sin taxes,” like those on cigarettes — serve a dual purpose. They can deter buyers, while using the extra revenue for favored programs. In this case, the sponsors want to direct the money toward mental health services, police training and victims’ treatment.

But firearms groups say a “sin tax” on firearms wrongly punishes law-abiding gun owners.

“If anything, gun owners ought to be getting a tax rebate for helping reduce crime,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

He said the purpose of the taxes is to “frustrate and limit the exercise of the Second Amendment.” While noting some of the revenue from these taxes and fees would go to victims’ services, Keane said those paying the tax are mostly not those responsible for gun crime.

“We’re obviously extremely opposed to try to tax the lawful exercise of the Second Amendment rights by law-abiding Americans,” he told FoxNews.com.

Firearms manufacturers already pay a federal tax, which goes toward wildlife conservation. A tax on sales would make firearms costlier.

At the federal level, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., proposed a bill that would impose a 10 percent tax on “any concealable” firearm. The revenue would be used to help fund a national gun buyback program. The bill is still in committee.

At the state level in California, Democratic state Rep. Roger Dickinson last month introduced a bill to impose a 5-cent tax on every bullet.

“A limited tax on ammunition is a small price to pay for better mental health care for children in our state,” he said in a recent statement. The revenue from the tax would go toward screening young people for mental illness.

Several other states have introduced similar measures. Massachusetts state Rep. David Linsky is pushing a 25 percent sales tax on ammunition and firearms. Maryland state Rep. Jon Cardin has introduced a bill imposing a 50 percent tax on ammo, and an annual $25 gun registration fee.

And according to the Las Vegas Review Journal, Assembly Majority Leader William Horne is pushing a draft bill that would include a $25 per gun sales tax, in addition to a 2-cent tax for every round of ammunition.

The tax proposals are just one element of a multi-front campaign by pro-gun control lawmakers to rein in firearms.

While some states — particularly Colorado — have moved full-steam ahead with new gun regulation, the movement on Capitol Hill has been more restrained. A Senate committee last week voted to enhance penalties on illegal gun buys, but other bills are still on hold.

President Obama, who got the ball rolling on gun legislation but has not said much publicly on the topic since, plans to speak to supporters and donors on Wednesday in Washington — where he is expected to touch on the gun control issue.

By Judson Berger / Published March 11, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Filed Under: All Stories, Elections

Leaked email adds fuel to claims White House playing politics over impact of cuts

March 6, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Reprinted from Foxnews.com, March 06, 2013.

A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama’s political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.

obama_closeupThe email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.

According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

The response noted that the administration had already told Congress that the APHIS would “eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry” without additional funds.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tim Griffin said the administration’s response to Brown’s email shows a bid to undermine efforts to replace the cuts, known as sequester, with less onerous ones.

“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the sequester cuts for political gain,” Griffin said in a statement.

Griffin told Fox News on Wednesday that the bosses effectively said “you can’t do anything that is inconsistent with the negative impact that we’ve told everybody these cuts are going to have.”

Under the 2011 deal reached by Obama and Congress, the cuts are supposed to be across the board, meaning government officials have limited flexibility in moving around money.

The administration in recent weeks has made doomsday predictions about the impact of the cuts. And the White House so far has appeared unwilling to accept a Republican offer to give the president more autonomy in making the cuts, covering $85 billion this fiscal year, to help reduce the impact on some of the most essential or hardest-hit programs or agencies.

Some political strategists say the president hopes the cuts hurt enough to compel Republican lawmakers seeking re-election next year to end them by agreeing to more tax increases.

On Sunday, Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economic adviser, suggested Republicans would indeed make this decision.

“Our hope is, as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts, they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during a House hearing Tuesday, was asked by South Dakota Republican Rep. Kristi Noem about the Brown e-mail.

Vilsack said he was unaware of the email but denied the administration has a policy of being inflexible and maximizing the cuts’ impact.

“I wouldn’t say that we’ve said no to flexibility,” Vilsack said. “But there are certain circumstances where we don’t have flexibility.”

“I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that has been put forward,” Noem said.

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.

Byrna Non-lethal Self Protection

Byrna Non-lethal Self Protection

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

Click to talk with us about writing your book >>

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

Brit Axton Mysteries Series

Brit Axton Mysteries Series

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

Get free info to help your life

Get free info to help your life

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

Understanding Cryptocurrency: Essentials for Building Wealth in Digital Currency

Understanding Cryptocurrency: Essentials for Building Wealth in Digital Currency

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

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation

Real Estate Wealth Strategies During High Inflation

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

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Follow us

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

Economy

Federal Investigation of Ilhan Omar Expands: Agents Seize Phone, Subpoena Relatives as Citizenship and Financial Questions Mount

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks from the Athens Acropolis

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

Elections

Federal Investigation of Ilhan Omar Expands: Agents Seize Phone, Subpoena Relatives as Citizenship and Financial Questions Mount

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Remarks from the Athens Acropolis

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

Foreign

Flashback: When Chuck Schumer Insisted Voter ID Was Common Sense

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

The Battle for Lindsey Graham’s Senate Seat Begins

Crime

Heroes Fought Back: The Oregon School Shooting That Proved One Man’s Life Mission

Federal Investigation of Ilhan Omar Expands: Agents Seize Phone, Subpoena Relatives as Citizenship and Financial Questions Mount

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

Science Tech

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

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

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

Reader Responses

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

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