Entitlement | Federalist Press | Defending Liberty

Another Senior IRS Official Pleads the Fifth Before Congress

June 27, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch Video

Supreme Court Sides with Gay Marriage

June 26, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

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

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

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

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

Social conservatives were similarly disappointed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia said the court should not have decided the case.

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

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act

June 25, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technology Makes Possible the Surveillance State

June 23, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there’s Google Glass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By John R. Quain / FoxNews.com

White House, IRS Hid Media Requests in Red Tape

June 20, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Columbia U. Cons: Ivy League Social Work Program Run by Felons

June 19, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

In the hallowed halls of Columbia University, a nest of ex-cons — who have served time for murder, attempted murder, robbery and assault — hold court on their unique brand of social justice for admiring students enrolled in the school’s social work program, a FoxNews.com investigation has found.

The ex-cons work for or with the Criminal Justice Initiative (CJI), co-founded in 2009 by former Weather Underground operative and Columbia adjunct professor Kathy Boudin, who pleaded guilty to felony murder for her role in an infamous 1981 armed robbery that left two police officers and a security guard dead. And while that case was well-publicized, the group is hardly upfront about the “practical experience” of Boudin and others associated with the CJI.

A description on the program’s website says it is “situated inside” Columbia, and a part of the school’s “Social Intervention Group,” a research center within the Columbia University School of Social Work. It lists among its goals helping to forge a solution for “a central social crisis of our time, mass incarceration.” The program holds events and conducts research as part of “an interdisciplinary project built around a model of community collaboration” that “seeks to increase the number of skilled practitioners, policy-makers and researchers who can advance the fields of re-entry and incarceration across all disciplines.”

“It’s terrible that she has murderers working with her at a school.” – John Hanchar, brother-in-law of slain Nyack Police Officer Edward O’ Grady

But students and parents who shell out more than $43,000 in annual tuition and fees might be hard-pressed to uncover the fact that former inmates are running the CJI. Outside of a vague reference to Boudin and Cheryl Wilkins being “part of a community of people who have returned from prison,” there is no information about their criminal pasts. Boudin’s school directory bio, for example, makes no mention of her time in prison. Several other CJI faculty, program members and associates have similarly disturbing backgrounds.

Wilkins, co-director of the CJI, is listed in the Columbia School of Social Work adjunct faculty directory as a “research scientist” and “Associate Director for the Criminal Justice Initiative. She was convicted for her role in a 1996 gunpoint hijacking of a Federal Express truck in Harlem, in which she served as the getaway driver. Wilkins served a 12-year sentence for robbery and assault at Bayview Correctional Facility in Manhattan.

But Wilkins’ school biography page makes no mention of her time in jail. Wilkins is also listed as staff associate at Columbia Law School’s Center for Institutional and Social Change, though that bio also neglects any mention of her prison time. According to the bio, Wilkins works with teens who have incarcerated parents and is an adjunct lecturer at Columbia, where she often discusses topics concerning the “need of families and communities affected by mass incarceration.”

Denise Blackwell, a “research assistant” under the Social Intervention Group, the parent/umbrella group of the Criminal Justice Initiative, was paroled in 2003 after serving 10 years in prison on an attempted second-degree murder conviction for her role in a Brooklyn holdup in which three drug dealers were killed. According to reports of her 1991 arrest, Blackwell knew the three men and “orchestrated” the robbery.

“By prearrangement, she let the boys in to stick up the place,” a New York Police Department lieutenant was quoted as saying at the time. Blackwell’s son, Mack Moton, who was 15 at the time, was tried as an adult and convicted of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 32 years to life, and is being held in Sing Sing Correctional Facility, in Ossining, N.Y.

Mika’il DeVeaux was one of the keynote speakers for the CJI’s “Removing the Bars” Conference in 2012. But his bio in the conference program failed to mention the 24-year stint he served in Westchester County for second-degree murder and his subsequent parole in 2003, or that he’s co-director of a non-profit with Boudin called Citizens Against Recidivism. Instead, the bio simply says DeVeaux “has more than three decades of experience working with men incarcerated in New York State maximum security prisons and many who have been released following periods of confinement.”

Repeated requests for comment from Boudin placed through Columbia were not returned, but the school responded with a statement.

“There are approximately 1.6 million people in the nation’s prisons and jails and 7 million American children with a parent who is either incarcerated, on parole, or on probation,” read the statement. “The Criminal Justice Initiative focuses on how the social work profession can best address the educational and human needs of individuals, children, families and communities affected by incarceration.”

Requests for comment were also sent to officials at CJI, including Wilkins and Blackwell.

Critics can’t understand why convicted criminals with violent pasts should hold such prestigious positions at the vaunted school.

“I am perplexed by Columbia administrators’ plot to commission notorious villains as mentors to the rising generation of Americans,” Josiah Ryan, editor-in-chief for education advocacy blog Campus Reform, told FoxNews.com. “Columbia administrators should send a letter to parents informing them that many of the professors who will teach their children are unable to pass a basic criminal background check.”

Boudin was a member of radical leftist group the Weather Underground, which was responsible for numerous bombings in the 1960s and 1970s, including ones at the Pentagon, Capitol Building and New York’s police headquarters. The group was co-founded by William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, who themselves went on to long careers in academia in Chicago. The couple was appointed the legal guardians of Boudin’s son while she was in prison and has been linked to the early days of President Obama’s political career.

Ayers and his wife were even in attendance for CJI’s “Removing the Bars” conference in 2012.

“Hungout with Angela Davis, Bill and Bernadine Ayers, Kathy Boudin & others! Wow #removingbars #removingthebars We had a great kickoff event,” tweeted Ronin Davis, then head of the Criminal Justice Caucus, a CJI student-leadership group.

The group holds frequent on-campus events, where a common theme is a curious vision of prison reform that seems not to include punishment. Some of the panel discussions at these events include: “How do we DE-carcerate?” and “Society’s Perceptions of the Formerly Incarcerated.”

Last year, CJI held a workshop titled, “No One Wants to Work With Me: Working with Difficult Populations,” where one of the key points discussed was the “misconceptions and judgments of people labeled registered sex offenders.”

The program’s ties to the Weather Underground are deep. In addition to Boudin’s involvement and the visit from Ayers and Dohrn, other former high-level members of the Weather Underground were invited to speak at CJI events. They included Russell Neufeld, who went on to become an anti-death penalty attorney, and Laura Whitehorn, who spoke at an October 2011 called the “Troy Davis Teach-in.”

In 1981, a 38-year-old Boudin, along with several other members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army, attempted to rob a Brink’s armored truck in Nanuet, N.Y. The two police officers and the security guard were killed in a shootout during the attempted heist, and, although Boudin did not fire any weapons, her role as getaway driver earned her a sentence of 20 years to life. She was paroled in August 2003.

Boudin’s work in prison education dates back to her stint at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in New York. She took part in a 2001 research study on the subject that also included as participants former Black Panther and one-time FBI most-wanted fugitive Angela Davis and Donna Hylton, who served 25 years in prison for her part in the 1985 torture and murder of a Long Island real-estate broker whose decomposing body was found stuffed in a foot locker. That study, and her previous experience with the Weather Underground, appears to have laid the groundwork for her reinvention as an academic specializing in working for — and with — violent criminals.

John Hanchar, brother-in-law of Nyack Police Officer Edward O’ Grady, who was killed in the Brink’s robbery, told FoxNews.com it is distressing to see Boudin and other violent criminals treated like academic superstars.

“That’s the worst thing I could have heard,” Hanchar said. “My sister had three children and she raised them into good people and what [Boudin] did was take their father from them.

“It’s terrible that she has murderers working with her at a school,” he continued. “I could see if they had someone speak who committed robbery and served their time, but murderers? It’s not right.”

By Perry Chiaramonte / June 19, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Obama Family Trip to Africa Will Cost $100 Million

June 19, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published June 18, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Democrat Senator ‘abandons big government plantation’ to join GOP

June 18, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIUS

GOP Strikes Back at Voter ID Ruling

June 18, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Repu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 17, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

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

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

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

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

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

Published June 17, 2013 / Associated Press

Is Obama Targeting LDS Canneries?

June 14, 2013 By Editor 147 Comments

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) has a network of food canning and distribution centers around the nation, where volunteer church members donate time to can food grown on the church’s farms and orchards or purchased from other sources. The purpose of this network of canneries is to provide food to those who have been caught in disasters or just caught short by an ever-declining national economy. Millions of pounds of food are prepared for distribution annually in the LDS canneries.

Recently, we have heard rumblings that the federal government has been paying very close attention to the church’s cannery network and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration have been imposing increasingly burdensome regulations and requirements on the LDS canneries. Despite the cutting-edge technologies and state-of-the-art equipment at these ‘clean-room’ quality facilities, federal agencies have been hitting the LDS church with improvised fines for “violations” they find during surprise inspections. Reports of an FBI “raid” at one facility where agents demanded a list of the names of the cannery’s patrons was especially troublesome.

Indeed, a muffled discussion within the LDS canning network has confirmed all of these abuses, but the LDS Church has refused to report the abuses openly, wishing to avoid a ‘Tea Party’ type of confrontation with the federal government–although the Church has almost certainly been targeted by the Administration in the same manner as other independent-thinking groups.

Accounts confirm that in fact, the LDS Church is shutting down all of its canning facilities east of the Mississippi River, and some in the west as well. These units will cease canning operations by the end of this month, and will only make prepackaged items available to patrons thereafter.

Why is the federal government going after the LDS Church? There are a number of reasons that come to mind. Obama’s nemesis in the general election was a prominent member of the LDS Church. Members of the church tend to vote in a conservative block. The LDS Church teaches the worship of God and His Son Jesus Christ, independence, morality, education, and family and traditional values–all things that are abhorrent to the current administration, which has proven its willingness to abuse its authority to go after those with whom it disagrees (Romney supporters, patriotic groups, conservatives, Christians, etc.).

J.L. Thompson is an LDS/Christian writer, and holds a Juris Doctor degree. He is Editor-in-Chief of Scottsdale Multimedia, Inc., a leading ghostwriting firm. Volume One of his new novel series “The Coming Flood” has just been released, titled Enoch in the City of Adam. Visit J.L. Thompson on Facebook

Readers may be interested in these stories as well:

The Tree of Liberty is Dying—Is Civil War Coming?

Mormons and Progressivism: United Order vs. Socialism

The “Mormon Effect”

Mormons and Progressivism: United Order vs. Socialism

The Spirit of Antichrist Permeates Our Nation

This Easter Morning, Remember

What ‘NOAH’ Movie Gets Wrong, and Right

Christians: Marked For Extinction?

Harry Reid: Worst Human On Earth

British Court Dismisses Case Against LDS Church President

Advertisers

Let Scottsdale Multimedia write your book. The nation’s premier ghostwriters.>>

FBI Director Rattled Over IRS, Surveillance and Benghazi Scandals

June 13, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

The country’s top investigator seemed to be in the dark Thursday when pressed to provide details of the IRS investigation into the tax agency’s targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups.Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemed to rattle FBI Director Robert Mueller for not knowing the specifics surrounding the IRS probe.“You’ve had a month now to investigate,” Jordan said. “This has been the biggest story in the country and you can’t even tell me who the lead investigator is. You can’t tell me the actions the inspector general took which are not typically how investigations are done. You can’t tell me if that’s appropriate or not. This is not speculation. This is what happened.”

Mueller repeatedly declined to answer Jordan’s questions, saying he couldn’t because the investigation was ongoing or that he’d have to get back to the lawmakers with answers.

When Jordan asked again,” Can you tell me who the lead investigator is?” Mueller responded, “Off the top of my head, no.”

The day didn’t go much better for the outgoing FBI chief. He was grilled for hours by lawmakers on a number of different topics, including the federal government’s surveillance programs, the Benghazi scandal and the Boston Marathon bombings.

Mueller defended the government’s collection of millions of U.S. phone records, emails and other information as vital to the nation’s national security.

Early in the hearing, Mueller tried to make the case for the National Security Agency surveillance programs and said that law enforcement “must stay a step ahead of criminals and terrorists” while still heeding the civil liberties of Americans.

Mueller, who is stepping down from his post in September, said that if the metadata collection program had been in place before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, they would have identified one of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego and most likely derailed the plot.

But Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. said he was “not persuaded that the argument makes it OK to collect information on every call,” adding, that by Mueller’s interpretation, it would be “anything and everything goes” situation.

Mueller also testified that the government’s controversial surveillance programs that recently surfaced complied “in full with U.S. law and with basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution.”
The Justice Department revealed last month that it had secretly gathered emails of Fox News correspondent James Rosen and phone records of The Associated Press in an effort to crack down on leakers of classified information.

The department later acknowledged that Attorney General Eric Holder was on board with a search warrant for Rosen’s personal emails, obtained after federal officials accused him in an affidavit of being a likely criminal “co-conspirator” under a wartime law known as the Espionage Act.

Authorities also obtained phone records for Fox News lines, including those for a number that matched the number of Rosen’s parents.

In the past week, a 29-year-old contractor leaked National Security Agency documents on the agency’s collection of millions of U.S. phone records and the NSA’s collection of emails and other information that people transmit online to and from foreign citizens.

That has touched off a national debate over whether the Obama administration, in its efforts to thwart terrorism, has overstepped by using intrusive surveillance methods.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the committee’s chairman, said when it comes to national security leaks, it’s important to balance the need to protect secrecy with the need to let the news media do its job.

Goodlatte also said the committee planned to find out more about the status of what the congressman called the FBI’s “stalled investigation” into the attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

As for the Boston Marathon bombings, committee members want to know whether there was a breakdown in information-sharing between federal agencies, preventing the FBI from thwarting the explosions that killed three people and injured more than 260.

Published June 13, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Glenn Beck to Break WhistleBlower Revelation That Will ‘Take Down’ GOP, Dems, ‘Whole Power Structure’

June 13, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Glenn Beck announced last evening that within the next 24 hours he will be revealing a new whistle-blower whose testimony is so shocking that “It will take down the GOP, it will take down the Democrats, it will take down many members of Congress…pretty much the whole power structure.”

This country is going to be rocked in the next 24 hours with some things that have been going on in Washington. You are going to witness things in American history that have never been witnessed before. – Glenn Beck

Beck said, “This guy is so afraid for his life that he has said he will only tell his story on live television in front of Congress…
The one document from the source that our team has seen would take down pretty much the whole power structure, pretty much everything. It will take down the GOP, it will take down the Democrats, it will take down many members of Congress…
The American people, you haven’t even begun to be outraged.”

PUBLIUS

Girl at Center of Obamacare Transplant Fight is Prepped for Surgery

June 12, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

Sarah Murnaghan, the 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl dying of cystic fibrosis, is receiving her long-awaited lung transplant.

According to a Facebook post from Sarah’s mother, Janet, the family received word this morning of new lungs that had been made available, and Sarah is currently in surgery. The operation will take many hours.

A spokeswoman from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), where Sarah has been hospitalized, said they do not have any information to release.

In the Facebook post, Janet said the family is overwhelmed with emotions, and she thanked everyone for their unending support. She also asked her followers to pray for Sarah’s donor.

“Please pray for Sarah’s donor, her HERO, who has given her the gift of life,” Janet Murnaghan wrote. “Today their family has experienced a tremendous loss, may God grant them a peace that surpasses understanding.”

United States Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) released the following statement after being informed by the family of Sarah’s good news:

“I am deeply grateful to the organ donor and his or her family for the potentially life-saving gift to Sarah. Now that a suitable donor has been found, a prayer would help, too – a prayer Sarah’s body accepts the new organ the way doctors believe it can. The judge gave Sarah a chance to receive a new lung. Now the surgical team at CHOP is giving her a chance at life.”

Sarah has been in desperate need of a lung transplant for the past 18 months. She has been hospitalized at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for the past three months, where she has been on a ventilator.

Under the current guidelines for organ donation, children under the age of 12 must wait for pediatric lungs to become available. Adult lungs cannot be offered to children under 12, until they are offered to adults and adolescents first.

The Murnaghans have been in the midst of a legal battle over the established rules for organ donation after they filed a lawsuit last week to have the guidelines changed, arguing the rule keeping Sarah off the list was “discriminatory.”

A federal court judge granted a temporary order on June 5 that allowed Sarah to join an adult organ transplant list. It is not yet clear whether Sarah’s donor is an adult or a child.

Judge Michael Baylson made his ruling after hearing oral arguments on the case and had scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for June 14.

Baylson’s order told Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to direct the group that manages the organ transplant list to cease application of it in Sarah’s case.

Secretary Sebelius declined to intervene in the case early last week, despite urgent pleas from several members of Congress from Pennsylvania. Sebelius said that such decisions should be made by medical experts and noted that there were three other children at Children’s Hospital alone in the same condition.

Over the weekend, Sarah’s condition worsened, and she was intubated on Saturday after she experienced additional trouble breathing.

Published June 12, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Mormons and Progressivism: United Order vs. Socialism

June 10, 2013 By Editor 7 Comments

The best way to start a comparison of socialism and the United Order is with a definition of the terms. Webster defines socialism as:

Socialism defined

“A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory.” (Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. unabridged, 1951.)

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:

“Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, “a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. We can only say,” he concludes, “that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange.” (Ibid., p. 888.)

Socialism arose “out of the economic division in society.” During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against “the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system.”

Communism, starting point

The “Communist Manifesto” drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)

The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)

German Socialism

A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.

Fabian Society

In the 1880′s a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands “for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a ‘welfare state.’” Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats Fabians aim “at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party.” They appeal “to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system.” (Ibid.)

Forms and policies of socialism

The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.

They all advocate:

(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property “pass under some form of coordinated public control.”

(2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.

(3) “That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system. . . .” (Ibid.)

So much now for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.

The United Order

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order the Lord’s program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.

On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:

“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . .and all things therein are mine.

“And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

“But it must needs be done in mine own way. . . .” (D&C 104:14–16.)

Consecration and stewardship

On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.

To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a “covenant and a deed which” could not “be broken.” (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.

Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.)

This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.

The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.

Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities

The following are similarities: Both

(1) deal with production and distribution of goods;

(2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities;

(3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.

Differences

Now the differences:

(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.

Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, “You don’t need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn’t come into the United Order.” (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, “that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property” (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.

God-given agency preserved in United Order

Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

(4) The United Order is non-political.

Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.

(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.)

Socialism not United Order

No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

“At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)

United States has adopted much socialism

We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:

“We’re going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have nots.’” (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)

Socialism takes: United Order gives

That is the spirit of socialism: We’re going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We’re going to give.

We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.

As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote “industry, thrift and self-respect,” for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.

As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16–18 and 4 Nephi 2:-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.

What can we do?

Now what can we do about it?

As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: “Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?” Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, “No, by no means!” We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.

Constitution God-inspired

He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man’s untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man’s agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated “the laws and constitution” required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help,

Just and holy principles

“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . .” (D&C 101:77–78, 80.)

Sustain Constitutional law

Previously he had said:

“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.

“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man’s agency];

“And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.

“I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.

“Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

“Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:4–10.)

These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that “according to just and holy principles,” the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the “principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before” God; that, “as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free.

“When the wicked rule, the people mourn”

Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.” Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . .”

In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are “wise” enough to understand freedom—as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order—and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.

“. . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established,” said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:

“. . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees.” (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)

Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.

What to do about United Order

The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: “And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption.” (D&C 105:34.)

Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those “just and holy principles” of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or “the welfare state,” for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.

In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.

As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop’s storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put “all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop” (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . .” (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:

“. . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church.”

What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.

Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop’s storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop’s storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . .

“We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .

“Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.”

It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, “we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.” (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)

The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.

A Prayer:

And now in line with these remarks for three things I pray:

(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences.

(2) That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency.

(3) That through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Marion G. Romney, General Conference Address, April 1966

Former CIA Employee Admits Being Leak Source

June 9, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

The source of the bombshell leaks about the U.S. government gathering information on billions of phone calls and Internet activities was an American employed as a contract worker for the National Security Agency, The Guardian newspaper, which broke the story, said Sunday.

The British newspaper has identified the source as 29-year-old Edward Snowden, who worked for defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and was a former technical assistant for the CIA.

The Washington Post followed the Guardian announcement by saying Snowden was the source for its surveillance stories that followed.

Snowden told The Post from Hong Kong, where he has been staying, that he now intends to ask for asylum from “any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy.”

In a nearly 13-minute video that accompanied The Guardian story Sunday, Snowden says he has no intentions of hiding because he has done nothing wrong.

“When you’re in positions of privileged access … . You recognize some of these things are actual abuses,” Snowden said about his decision to be a whistleblower. “Over time, you feel compelled to talk about it.”

The Guardian broke the story late Wednesday that the federal government was collecting phone call records from Verizon customers.

The paper and The Post followed with a series of reports about the calls being taken from other telecommunications companies and that the NSA and FBI have a Internet scouring program, code-named PRISM, that records Internet activities, all part of a post-9-11 effort to thwart terrorism.

Booz Allen said Sunday that Snowden was employed at the firm for less than three months and was assigned to a team in Hawaii.

“News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm,” Booz Allen said in a release. “We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter.”

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the Oval Office would not comment on Snowden before Monday.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on Snowden’s disclosure, saying the issue has been referred to the Justice Department.

However, the agency said: “Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law.”

New York Republican Rep. Peter King, chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence and Terrorism and a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, said: “If Edward Snowden did in fact leak the NSA data as he claims, the United States government must prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and begin extradition proceedings at the earliest date. The United States must make it clear that no country should be granting this individual asylum. This is a matter of extraordinary consequence to American intelligence.”

Washington officials have acknowledged all branches of the federal government — Congress, the White House and federal courts — knew about the collection of data under the Patriot Act.

Still, the leaks have reopened the debate about privacy concerns versus heightened measure to protect against terrorist attacks. They also led the NSA to ask the Justice Department to conduct a criminal investigation.

Fox News confirmed the Obama administration took the first steps Saturday in a criminal investigation when officials filed a “crimes report.”

National Intelligence Director James Clapper has decried the leaks as reckless. And in the past days he has taken the rare step of declassifying some details about them to respond to media reports about counterterrorism techniques employed by the government.

“Disclosing information about the specific methods the government uses to collect communications can obviously give our enemies a ‘playbook’ of how to avoid detection,” Clapper said Saturday.

PRISM allows the federal government to tap directly into the servers of major U.S. Internet companies such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and AOL, scooping out emails, video chats, instant messages and more to track foreign nationals who are suspected of terrorism or espionage.

The chief executives of Facebook and Google have said their companies were not aware the data grab.

Officials say the government is not listening to any of the billions of phone calls, only logging the numbers.

President Obama, Clapper and others also have said the programs are subject to strict supervision of a secret court.

Obama said Friday that the programs have made a difference in tracking terrorists and are not tantamount to “Big Brother.”

The president acknowledged the U.S. government is collecting reams of phone records, including phone numbers and the duration of calls, but said this does not include listening to calls or gathering the names of callers.

“You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” he said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

However, the president said he welcomes a debate on that issue.

Snowden is quoted as saying that his “sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”

The Guardian reported that Snowden was working in an NSA office in Hawaii when he copied the last of the documents he planned to disclose and told supervisors that he needed to be away for a few weeks to receive treatment for epilepsy.

Snowden is quoted as saying he chose Hong Kong because it has a “spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent” and because he believed it was among the spots on the globes that could and would resist the dictates of the U.S. government.

Snowden is quoted as saying he hopes the publicity of the leaks will provide him some protection and that he sees asylum, perhaps in Iceland, as a possibility.

“I feel satisfied that this was all worth it. I have no regrets,” Snowden told the Guardian

Snowden was said to have worked on IT security for the CIA and by 2007 was stationed with diplomatic cover in Geneva, responsible for maintaining computer network security. That gave him clearance to a range of classified documents, according to the Guardian report.

“Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world,” he says. “I realized that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good.”

Published June 09, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Orwell: Big Brother is Watching

June 9, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

SAN FRANCISCO – With every phone call they make and every Web excursion they take, people are leaving a digital trail of revealing data that can be tracked by profit-seeking companies and terrorist-hunting government officials.The revelations that the National Security Agency is perusing millions of U.S. customer phone records at Verizon Communications and snooping on the digital communications stored by nine major Internet services illustrate how aggressively personal data is being collected and analyzed.Verizon is handing over so-called metadata, excerpts from millions of U.S. customer records, to the NSA under an order issued by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to a report in the British newspaper The Guardian. The report was confirmed Thursday by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

‘It’s incredibly invasive.’ – Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Former NSA employee William Binney told the Associated Press that he estimates the agency collects records on 3 billion phone calls each day.

The NSA and FBI appear to be casting an even wider net under a clandestine program code-named “PRISM” that came to light in a story posted late Thursday by The Washington Post. PRISM gives the U.S. government access to email, documents, audio, video, photographs and other data that people entrust to some of the world’s best known companies, according to The Washington Post. The newspaper said it reviewed a confidential roster of companies and services participating in PRISM. The companies included AOL Inc., Apple Inc., Facebook Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc., Skype, YouTube and Paltalk.

In statements, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo said they only provide the government with user data required under the law. (Google runs YouTube and Microsoft owns Skype.) AOL and Paltalk didn’t immediately respond to inquiries from The Associated Press.

The NSA isn’t getting customer names or the content of phone conversations under the Verizon court order, but that doesn’t mean the information can’t be tied to other data coming in through the PRISM program to look into people’s lives, according to experts.

Like pieces of a puzzle, the bits and bytes left behind from citizens’ electronic interactions can be cobbled together to draw conclusions about their habits, friendships and preferences using data-mining formulas and increasingly powerful computers.

It’s all part of a phenomenon known as a “Big Data,” a catchphrase increasingly used to describe the science of analyzing the vast amount of information collected through mobile devices, Web browsers and check-out stands. Analysts use powerful computers to detect trends and create digital dossiers about people.

The Obama administration and lawmakers privy to the NSA’s surveillance aren’t saying anything about the collection of the Verizon customers’ records beyond that it’s in the interest of national security. The sweeping court order covers the Verizon records of every mobile and landline phone call from April 25 through July 19, according to The Guardian.

It’s likely the Verizon phone records are being matched with an even broader set of data, said Forrester Research analyst Fatemeh Khatibloo.

“My sense is they are looking for network patterns,” she said. “They are looking for who is connected to whom and whether they can put any timelines together. They are also probably trying to identify locations where people are calling from.”

Under the court order, the Verizon records include the duration of every call and the locations of mobile calls, according to The Guardian.

The location information is particularly valuable for cloak-and-dagger operations like the one the NSA is running, said Cindy Cohn, a legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group that has been fighting the government’s collection of personal phone records since 2006. The foundation is currently suing over the government’s collection of U.S. citizens’ communications in a case that dates back to the administration of President George W. Bush.

“It’s incredibly invasive,” Cohn said. “This is a consequence of the fact that we have so many third parties that have accumulated significant information about our everyday lives.”

It’s such a rich vein of information that U.S. companies and other organizations now spend more than $2 billion each year to obtain third-party data about individuals, according to Forrester Research. The data helps businesses target potential customers. Much of this information is sold by so-called data brokers such as Acxiom Corp., a Little Rock, Ark. company that maintains extensive files about the online and offline activities of more than 500 million consumers worldwide.

The digital floodgates have opened during the past decade as the convenience and allure of the Internet -and sleek smartphones- have made it easier and more enjoyable for people to stay connected wherever they go.

“I don’t think there has been a sea change in analytical methods as much as there has been a change in the volume, velocity and variety of information and the computing power to process it all,” said Gartner analyst Douglas Laney.

In a sign of the NSA’s determination to vacuum up as much data as possible, the agency has built a data center in Bluffdale, Utah that is five times larger than the U.S. Capitol -all to sift through Big Data. The $2 billion center has fed perceptions that some factions of the U.S. government are determined to build a database of all phone calls, Internet searches and emails under the guise of national security. The Washington Post’s disclosure that both the NSA and FBI have the ability to burrow into computers of major Internet services will likely heighten fears that U.S. government’s Big Data is creating something akin to the ever-watchful Big Brother in George Orwell’s “1984” novel.

“The fact that the government can tell all the phone carriers and Internet service providers to hand over all this data sort of gives them carte blanche to build profiles of people they are targeting in a very different way than any company can,” Khatibloo said.

In most instances, Internet companies such as Google Inc., Facebook Inc. and Yahoo Inc. are taking what they learn from search requests, clicks on “like” buttons, Web surfing activity and location tracking on mobile devices to figure out what each of their users like and divine where they are. It’s all in aid of showing users ads about products likely to pique their interest at the right time. The companies defend this kind of data mining as a consumer benefit.

Google is trying to take things a step further. It is honing its data analysis and search formulas in an attempt to anticipate what an individual might be wondering about or wanting.

Other Internet companies also use Big Data to improve their services. Video subscription service Netflix takes what it learns from each viewer’s preferences to recommend movies and TV shows. Amazon.com Inc. does something similar when it highlights specific products to different shoppers visiting its site.

The federal government has the potential to know even more about people because it controls the world’s biggest data bank, said David Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor who recently stepped down as the Federal Trade Commission’s consumer protection director.

Before leaving the FTC last year, Vladeck opened an inquiry into the practices of Acxiom and other data brokers because he feared that information was being misinterpreted in ways that unfairly stereotyped people. For instance, someone might be classified as a potential health risk just because they bought products linked to an increased chance of heart attack. The FTC inquiry into data brokers is still open.

“We had real concerns about the reliability of the data and unfair treatment by algorithm,” Vladeck said.

Vladeck stressed he had no reason to believe that the NSA is misinterpreting the data it collects about private citizens. He finds some comfort in The Guardian report that said the Verizon order had been signed by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Ronald Vinson.

The NSA “differs from a commercial enterprise in the sense that there are checks in the judicial system and in Congress,” Vladeck said. “If you believe in the way our government is supposed to work, then you should have some faith that those checks are meaningful. If you are skeptical about government, then you probably don’t think that kind of oversight means anything.”

Published June 07, 2013 / Associated Press

Watch video of candidate Obama swearing he’ll never do this

Dems Hurting Minorities

June 8, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

As we demonstrated in our article of May 16, 2012, True Champions of American Blacks, the Democratic Party has a long history of doing everything in its power to curtail the advancement of America’s minorities. This destructive assault is well documented in this video>.

What began as a decades-long violent opposition to American blacks and other ethnic and religious minorities (Germans, Italians, Catholics, Mormons, etc.) was eventually transformed into an exploitation campaign wherein blacks and other minorities were converted to a voting coalition with the sudden and wholesale “adoption” of them by the Democratic Party. Indeed, the same party that had blocked voting and civil rights acts fought for by the Republicans in Congress and the White House, now pretended to be the friends and advocates of minorities, promising them social and economic elevation and fulfillment of the American dream—in exchange for their votes and their autonomy.

As a direct result of Democratic policies, American blacks were immediately forced into lifetime welfare status and herded into ghettos called government housing. For decades our black brothers and sisters have endured an assault on their spirit that few could survive, and we have seen the results in cyclical poverty, tens of millions of abortions, the breakdown of the black American family, the wholesale dependency on drugs and alcohol, etc.

We saw a government sign the other day that explained to park visitors that by giving the bears handouts, it would make them dependent on handouts and destroy their ability to provide for themselves and to thrive. This sign was printed by the same government that has made an entire race of Americans entirely dependent on its handouts, and has re-enslaved them in the process.

“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.” Bob Beckel, Liberal Commentator.

So what has the Democratic Party done for American blacks and Hispanics lately?

Since Barack Hussein Obama and his Democrats entirely took over the government just 4 years ago, the average American family has lost 40% of its wealth and assets (worse for minorities), with 11 million family homes sinking into the quicksand of foreclosure during Obama’s tenure in office, and the rate climbing fast in 2012, much more of the remaining wealth will be destroyed by the time the next president takes the oath of office.

Since taking office Obama has seen the addition of over 6 million Americans to the poverty rolls, with those on food stamps doubling to 47 million, and unemployment averaging 9%–15.5% if you figure in those who have dropped off the rolls after their 99 weeks of benefits expired and they just gave up.

Which Americans are bearing the brunt of Obama’s socialist takeover? American minorities, of course.

Under Obama we are now suffering the highest, longest-running unemployment rate since the Great Depression. The average unemployment rate under George Bush was 5.2%, and candidate Obama blasted him for that number. President Obama promised Americans that if they would support his $900 billion spending stimulus package, unemployment would sink to less than 5.6%. As with every leftist promise, it was a lie.

Here are some real world numbers of the past 3.5 years that the president can’t spin:

Women in poverty has skyrocketed to 17,000,000, up 800,000
7,500,000 women are in extreme poverty,
25% of Hispanic women are in poverty
2,500,000 women over 65 are in poverty
Most of the job losses under Obama have been women (780,000), who have now left the workforce
Official black unemployment rates are 14.4 (actually much higher)
Official black youth unemployment rates are 40%
Official Hispanic unemployment rates are 11 (actually much higher)

Every week the “New Jobs” reports come out, and with fanfare the administration announces a number like 80,000, which is actually a seasonally adjusted number, not reflective of the reality of the dismal job market, and most of which are mere temp jobs, not career positions with benefits. Those numbers are quietly downgraded every week, uncovered by the mainstream media.

What’s worse, is that population growth demands 200,000 new jobs, just to keep up with the expanding workforce. Obama’s tiresome whining that it is a republican economy, not his, is belied by George Bush’s low unemployment rates, not to mention Ronald Reagan’s million job a month growth at this point in his administration, in a much smaller population and following the horrific economic crash under President Carter and his Democrats.

American Blacks and Hispanics have been led down a dangerous path by the Pied Pipers of the left. Their only hope for a brighter future is to reject the new plantation bosses of the Democratic Party and to move to traditional American values and politics, which provide personal liberty and economic freedom for all.

PUBLIUS

NY Times Editorial: Administration Has ‘Lost All Credibility’

June 6, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

The New York Times editorial board, which twice endorsed President Obama and has championed many planks of his agenda, on Thursday turned on the president over the government’s mass collection of phone data — saying the administration has “lost all credibility.”

The grey lady’s editorial section lately has shown frustration with the administration’s civil liberties record. It has criticized the escalation of the lethal drone program, and it lashed out after the Justice Department acknowledged seizing reporters’ phone records last month.

The report that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone records from millions of Verizon subscribers appeared to be the last straw.

An editorial published late Thursday said the administration was using the “same platitude” it uses in every case of overreach — that “terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us.”

The editorial continued: “Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all credibility.”

The editorial board claimed Obama “is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”

The language was a far cry from the Times’ Oct. 23, 2008, endorsement of then-candidate Obama. At the time, the Times praised Obama’s “cool head and sound judgment,” and said he was “putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle voiced concern on Thursday about the records collection effort. It was first reported by The Guardian newspaper, which obtained a copy of a secret court order allowing the government to collect phone call information – though not monitor the calls themselves — directly from Verizon. Civil liberties-conscious lawmakers like Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., cried foul, as did the American Civil Liberties Union.

Lawmakers in the loop on the program tried to assuage concerns, however. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who lead the Senate intelligence committee, defended the program as necessary to keep the country safe.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest also said there is “extensive oversight” on such activity.

“The order reprinted overnight does not allow the government to listen in on anyone’s telephone calls. The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the name of any subscriber. It relates exclusively to call details, such as a telephone number or the length of a telephone call,” he said.

The Times editorial described this explanation as “lame” — “as though there would be the slightest difficulty in matching numbers to names.”

“Essentially, the administration is saying that without any individual suspicion of wrongdoing, the government is allowed to know who Americans are calling every time they make a phone call, for how long they talk and from where,” the Times editorial board wrote.

The Times editorial board has long opposed The Patriot Act, which was the legal basis for the records collection, and reiterated that opposition in light of the latest revelations.

But the law’s author, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Thursday that this application of the law was “never the intent.”

Published June 06, 2013 / FoxNews.com

IRS Victims to Testify Before Congress

June 4, 2013 By Editor 1 Comment

Conservative groups who claim they were targeted by the Internal Revenue Service are getting their say on Capitol Hill as hearings on the growing agency scandals continue Tuesday.The hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee will feature leaders of groups allegedly targeted by the IRS, including several Tea Party groups and an anti-gay marriage organization that has claimed its donor details were inappropriately released.

Several of the six groups scheduled to testify say their applications for tax-exempt status were delayed while agents asked intrusive questions that the IRS has since acknowledged were inappropriate.

At a hearing Monday, the watchdog who exposed the IRS’ targeting testified nobody in the Ohio office being blamed for the scandal would tell his investigators who directed the program, as the new IRS chief vowed to “get to the bottom” of that growing question.

Nearly a month after the scandal broke, the issue of who directed agents in Cincinnati to single out Tea Party and other groups is perhaps the most glaring unanswered question. Inspector General J. Russell George, at a House appropriations subcommittee hearing, revealed Monday that his audit of the agency tried — unsuccessfully — to get to the root of the targeting.

“We did pose that question and no one would acknowledge who, if anyone, provided that direction,” he said.

Danny Werfel, testifying for the first time in his new role as acting IRS commissioner, acknowledged: “We have to get to the bottom of it.” However, he also said he has not yet asked who ordered the program.

George later testified that the scandal itself is “unprecedented.” He cited past attempts by the Nixon administration to use the IRS for inappropriate purposes, but said this program was unprecedented.

The two officials testified as Republican lawmakers voiced skepticism that the program started and ended with a few low-level staffers in Cincinnati. Fueling the skepticism, partial transcripts released over the weekend of an interview with an IRS field agent in that division showed the agent claiming Washington guided the program.

Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said “we will not rest” until they find out who is responsible.

Though George has been repeatedly pressed by Democrats to say that higher-ups were not involved, he stressed Monday that the issue of political appointees’ involvement was “not the focus of our audit.” George said there’s no evidence of White House involvement, but added “I cannot say that” about the possibility of IRS appointee involvement.

The IRS is now under fire for a pair of controversies — the targeting program, but also a forthcoming inspector general report expected to show the agency spent roughly $50 million on conferences from 2010 to 2012.

Republican leaders of the appropriations subcommittee holding Monday’s hearing made clear that the two scandals will result in the agency’s budget being put under the microscope.

Rogers said the committee might even consider placing “conditions” on the agency’s budget allowing Congress to monitor its spending. He said he’s “absolutely appalled” by the conference spending.

Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., head of the subcommittee hosting the hearing, said Congress will “have to think very carefully about the amount of money that we provide to the IRS.”

He noted that the agency has requested $12.9 billion for 2014 — or $1 billion more than it got for 2013.

“We cannot in good conscience continue to provide hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars and have them use those funds to abuse the rights of American citizens,” he said.

Werfel acknowledged that the public trust “has been violated,” and said he is committed to restoring it.

Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano, though, cautioned against cutting funding to the IRS. The New York lawmaker said doing so is “asking for more trouble,” though he blasted the IRS program as inappropriate.

Meanwhile, the White House on Monday stood by claims that administration officials were not involved in the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party groups.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday the administration is “concerned” about both the conference spending and the targeting program. But he defended the administration following claims by an unnamed IRS employee that the targeting program was directed by Washington.

The inspector general, Carney said, “both in testimony and in his report, found no evidence that outsiders — those outside the IRS — influenced the behavior that took place there.”

He said: “That is the conclusion of the independent inspector general. And we certainly have seen no other evidence to contradict that.”

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., on Sunday called Carney a “paid liar” as he discussed the IRS situation. Carney, though, said Monday he’s “not going to get into a back-and-forth with” Issa.

Published June 04, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report

« Previous Page

Socialism defined

Communism, starting point

German Socialism

Fabian Society

Forms and policies of socialism

The United Order

Consecration and stewardship

Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities

Differences

God-given agency preserved in United Order

Socialism not United Order

United States has adopted much socialism

Socialism takes: United Order gives

Constitution God-inspired

Just and holy principles

Sustain Constitutional law

“When the wicked rule, the people mourn”

What to do about United Order

A Prayer:

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses