Entitlement | Federalist Press | Defending Liberty

Whistle-blowing State Official Fired After Testimony in Zimmerman Trial

July 14, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

The special prosecutor appointed to the George Zimmerman case has sacked a whistle-blowing colleague who testified at the trial that the state attorney’s office failed to comply with the rules of discovery.

Ben Kruidbos, the state attorney’s office IT director, was reportedly fired in the wake of rendering testimony during a June 6 hearing that was potentially damaging to the prosecution regarding cell phone photos and text messages discovered on Trayvon Martin’s phone that were not furnished to defense attorneys.

The Orlando Sentinel reports Kruidbos received a scathing letter from State Attorney Angela Corey’s office Friday morning, calling him untrustworthy and adding he “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

However, the Associated Press reports that Kruidbos received the pink slip Thursday, which accused him of misconduct and “violating numerous state attorney’s office policies and procedures.” Specifically, the letter reportedly accused him of disclosing confidential information, sabotage of property or equipment, and misuse of equipment.

The cell phone photos reportedly depict, among other things, a clump of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants, as well as a hand menacingly holding a semiautomatic pistol.

Zimmerman’s attorneys were reportedly seeking sanctions against the state for not properly turning over the evidence from Martin’s phone. Judge Debra Nelson said she would revisit the matter at the trial’s end.

Published July 14, 2013 / FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

‘Crackers,’ a ‘Teenage Mammy’ — the Sorry Truth about Race and Zimmerman Trial

July 12, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

By Juan Williams. “White Hispanics,” “Creepy-Ass Crackers,” “Teenage Mammies,” and “Suspicious A–holes who always get away” — that is the vernacular of the George Zimmerman trial.

George Zimmerman faces life in jail as a jury considers second-degree murder charges against him for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But thanks to the media he is already sentenced to life in the American public’s mind as a racist.

NBC edited a tape of Zimmerman’s call to police as he was following Martin to make him appear to be focused on Martin’s race.

The New York Times has referred to him in unique racial terms as a “white Hispanic.” The terminology was necessary to have the story fit into a well-worn news narrative throughout American history from the Scottsboro Boys to Emmett Till to Rodney King – the black victim of white racism. Hispanic people can be as racist as black or white people in a country with a deep history of racism. But, apparently for the Times, Zimmerman’s whiteness was important. It fit their good versus evil tale of a white racist killing an innocent black man.

The media is clearly guilty of playing on the most primitive racial divisions in our society to fuel racial animosity and boost ratings.

In June, before the trial started, a CNN poll asked Americans if they believed the murder charges against Zimmerman were true or false. Without any courtroom testimony or evidence, but based on the racially charged media coverage, 62 percent of Americans said the charges were “probably true” or “definitely true.”

My bet is that poll would have different results today. The trial has failed to prove Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind” – as required for a second-degree murder conviction – or even with a racist mind. He certainly killed Martin. And the jury may decide he is guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter. But what we heard in the courtroom fits with an FBI report that found race was not a factor in Martin’s shooting death.

The strong public judgment of Zimmerman’s guilt in the poll reflected a racially weighted media telling of the story. Photos of a bloodied Zimmerman after the incident, Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense and the police decision not to charge Zimmerman all got a dismissive glance from the press and contributed to public assumptions about Zimmerman before the trial.

Liberal and conservative news TV and radio have played to the racial theme, too. The left, notably Rev. Al Sharpton, have made the case a crusade for racial justice. The right-wing media, especially talk radio, has responded by making Zimmerman a hero. In fact, Zimmerman’s lawyer, Mark O’Mara, created an online site that attracted more than $145,000 from people who somehow made Zimmerman into their champion, possibly their great white hero.

The national focus on race in this case hit a high point when Rachel Jeantel, a 19-year-old student, testified that she spoke with Martin just before he was killed. Jeantel, Martin’s friend, told the court that Martin complained that a “man was just watching him.” And Martin described this man, Jeantel said, as a “creepy, white, excuse my language, cracker — creepy-ass cracker.”

Jeantel’s testimony set off a stupid debate, requiring total ignorance of slavery and legal segregation, about the equivalence of blacks using “cracker” to describe whites, versus whites using the word “nigger” to describe blacks.

And Jeantel’s physical appearance, as a dark, heavyset young woman, speaking with a Southern dialect as she gave the lawyers a lot of attitude with her curt answers, contributed to the racial view of the case.

She became the “teenage mammy,” in the words of a sociology professor quoted in the New York Times, caricatured for “not being smart and using these racial slurs and not being the best witness.”

And now the media, especially some conservative talk radio outlets, are fixated on the possibility of race riots if Zimmerman is acquitted. Meanwhile, Twitter and other social media sites are full of threats from angry black people to kill Zimmerman if he is not held accountable by a jury for killing Martin.

Martin, the 17-year-old, is dead. But he has not escaped the racial slander attached to this case. Zimmerman’s backers note that Martin had smoked marijuana – as if that is unusual among American teenagers. They seem delighted to find online messages in which he took on a rapper, street-thug persona and posed as a tough guy.

These are all caricatures of two real people caught in a tragedy.

Zimmerman should have listened to the 911 emergency dispatch operator who told him to stop following Martin.

Why did he have a gun if he was simply part of a neighborhood watch program?

He had no basis to suspect Martin of any crime. So why does he describe Martin as “suspicious” to police?

Why does he apparently lump Martin with people he describes as “these a–holes, they always get away.”

Why didn’t Martin just walk away from Zimmerman?

But Martin is dead. He can’t speak for himself and get beyond the box of racial stereotypes the media built for him.

Zimmerman is alive. He has chosen not to speak at his trial, and although the prosecution played an interview he did with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, it is still no match for skipping an ideal chance to tell his story when everyone is listening in the courtroom and on television.

Now, no matter what the verdict, he is going to carry his box of racial stereotypes around until his death. His identity will always be as a want-to-be cop who trailed a black kid who was not doing anything wrong, got in a fight with him, pulled out a gun and killed him.

Ultimately, it is the job of the media to give straight, objective coverage of any story.

Whatever the final verdict on Zimmerman, the media is clearly guilty of playing on the most primitive racial divisions in our society to fuel racial animosity and boost ratings.

There are no winners here.

Published July 11, 2013 / FoxNews.com Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America–and What We Can Do About It” and “Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate.”

GOP House Can Undo Obama Damage With Purse Strings

July 10, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

With the 2012 elections in the books, the result is that there has been no change in the makeup of America’s government. The Democrats won major advances in 2008, but were rebuked in the 2010 elections with the loss of the House of Representatives.

Now, the status quo prevails, and the government is growing larger and intruding evermore into the lives of Americans and burdening their businesses to the point of closing their doors.

As we look forward to the next 3.5 years of Obama governance, our state of the nation is extremely precarious, as real unemployment rates skyrocket, especially for young minorities, and as we head for the brink of a deadly fiscal and social cliff.

During Obama’s first term Republicans in the House were loathe to exercise the power the Constitution affords the House of Representatives. Now, following disclosures of monumental abuses by the IRS and NSA, House Republicans are finally threatening to cut budgets.

Indeed, the time to step up and enforce the Constitution is long past due, and we call upon House Speaker John Boehner to abandon his tepid leadership practices of the past and begin doing what the American people and Constitution sent him to do–govern.

In fact, not one penny gets spent in this nation without the GOP controlled House consenting to it. This fact gives Boehner and the GOP all power. They don’t have to compromise.

They are the kid with the ball, who is able to take it home and end the game any time the other kids fail to play by the rules. The Democrats stopped playing by the rules of the Constitution generations ago, and their hell-bent march to the left has rendered them enemies of the Constitution.

Obamacare, deficits, spying on citizens, targeting conservative groups, military cuts . . . these are all titillating fantasies of the left, but need not become our reality if the GOP will just exercise its Constitutional mandates and cut the budgets to offending agencies tasked with implementing unconstitutional policies.

Regarding the budget in general, the GOP must simply send a balanced budget with spending appropriated for Constitutionally mandated items to the Senate with instructions: “Pass this budget and send it to the president for signing, because it is the only budget you will get from us.” If they do that, then go to the golf course; GAME OVER.

Will the Democrats in the Senate and White House whine and scream? Yes. Will it do them any good? No. Why? Because without the consent of the House, the government cannot spend any money. Not one thin dime. Not a penny. Not a peso.

Can the Dems do an end run around the House and appropriate money for their programs? No. Will offending government agencies shut down? Perhaps. Is that bad? No.

Will this plan work? YES! It is time for the GOP to show the American people that they are doing the job they were elected to do–govern within a balanced budget and provide the basic services mandated by the Constitution.

PUBLIUS

Temp Agency is America’s Second-largest Employer

July 9, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

While the Obama Administration insists that the June jobs report is good news for the economy, some of the indicators tell another story. As noted yesterday, part-time jobs surged to a record high last month and full-time employment dropped, a sign that some say could be blamed on ObamaCare.

Another startling data point, as reported by Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner, is that America’s second-largest employer is Kelly Services, a temp agency:

Behind Wal-Mart, the second-largest employer in America is Kelly Services, a temporary work provider.

Friday’s disappointing jobs report showed that part-time jobs are at anall-time high, with 28 million Americans now working part-time. The report also showed another disturbing fact: There are now a record number of Americans with temporary jobs.

Approximately 2.7 million, in fact. And the trend has been growing.

Why is this so concerning? Marina Fang of ThinkProgress, a Leftist blog owned by the Center for American Progress, notes that “[t]here is a negative correlation between an increase in temp jobs and overall economic growth.” Pointing to a study by EMSI, Fang explained, “[C]ities that have recovered fastest from the recession are those with the lowest growth in temp jobs.”

“For example, Washington D.C. has added 117,238 jobs since 2009, and only 2 percent of those jobs were in the temporary help sector. Similarly, San Francisco added 125,134 jobs with only 4 percent constituting temp jobs. Austin, Houston, Seattle, and Boston also experienced fairly sizable increases in jobs but coupled with low proportions of temp jobs,” she added. “By comparison, in Philadelphia, where 41 percent of jobs are temporary, the economy has added only 19,752 jobs overall since 2009.”

The Associated Press has also chimed in, surmising that the growth in temporary jobs could be a “permanent fixture” in the United States.

Many employers have been reluctant to hire because of ObamaCare. In fact, many have either suspended hiring or have scaled back their operations because of the law. A Gallup poll released just last month found that 41% of businesses have frozen hiring and another 19% have eliminated jobs specifically due to the uncertainty over ObamaCare.

The poll also showed that 55% of small business owners believe that ObamaCare will cause their health insurance costs to rise, while 52% believe that they can expect lower quality care because of the law.

This is the Obama economy, folks.

By Jason Pye

Zimmerman: The Subtext

July 8, 2013 By Editor 1 Comment

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

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

Facts of the case:

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

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

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

This is a classic textbook case of self-defense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIUS

Gay Activists Demand Capital One Drops Alec Baldwin

July 6, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

A coalition of leading gay and straight activists are calling for Capital One to part ways with spokesman Alec Baldwin following his homophobic Twitter rant directed at a reporter.

“We urge all Americans to ask themselves, ‘What’s in your wallet?’ We hope they will reject Alec Baldwin’s homophobia by cutting up those Capital One cards in their wallets,” Jimmy LaSalvia, gay conservative strategist and GOProud co-founder, told Breitbart.com.

Baldwin has apologized for the tweets directed at reporter George Stark who wrote a story claiming the actor’s wife, Hilaria Thomas, was tweeting during the funeral of Soprano’s star James Gandolfini.

“My ill-advised attack…had absolutely nothing to do with issues of anyone’s sexual orientation,” Baldwin said in a statement sent to the gay rights group GLAAD on Friday. “As someone who fights against homophobia, I apologize.”

But an apology from the actor is not enough according to John Hawkins, who works with LaSalvia at RightWingNews.com.

“It’s still a free country and Alec Baldwin can do as much gay bashing as he likes on Twitter, but it’s hard to understand why Capital One would choose to publicly condone his homophobia by keeping Baldwin on as its spokesman,” Hawkins told Breitbart.com. “If Capital One is not going to do the right then, then Capital One doesn’t deserve our business.”

The company, so far, has refused to comment or respond to multiple calls and emails from FOX411 to several press representatives.

Baldwin’s controversial tweets read, “[I’d] put my foot up your f**king ass, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much,” and “I’m gonna find you George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna f**k you…up.”

The 55-year-old actor sent out the messages from his @ABFoundation Twitter account, according to screen grabs published online. Baldwin disabled the account following the rant but it has since been restored – minus the offensive tweets – and it seems business, for Baldwin is back to normal.

“Liberals and conservatives may not agree on much, but we should certainly be able to agree that Alec Baldwin’s comments were way over-the-line and completely inappropriate,” Hawkins told Brietbart.com.

Some have pointed out that while Baldwin’s homophobic slurs were similar to TV chef Paula Deen’s racial slurs (she admitted to using the N-word 30 years ago), the fallout is not. The 66-year-old chef was dropped by all of her major business partners, including Target, Walmart, the Food Network and Sears, while so far Baldwin seems to be getting off scot free.

“Companies know the media won’t beat them up for keeping Baldwin on board, despite his violent threat and homophobic comments,” explained Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture at Media Research Center. “Why? Because he’s liberal and the same rules don’t apply.”

Gainor predicted Baldwin likely won’t see any repercussions.

A non-scientific poll taken by Sodahead.com asked users if they believed Baldwin should lose his endorsement deals following the tweets. More than 80 percent of respondents said yes.
Baldwin’s rep did not immediately return FOX411’s request for additional comment.

Published July 06, 2013 / FoxNews.com

Facebook Talk: Meritocracy vs. Socialism

July 5, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carols responded: “Amen to states rights”

Amy responded (unedited) :

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

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

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

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

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

Dependence Day – The Return of King George

July 4, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

In the name of laborer parity and elevating the ethnically or socially disadvantaged, the socialists and communists of the past century have robbed the people of the world of their birthright, established by the labor and sacrifice of their 18^th and19^th Century Forbearers. In the name of pretended “fairness” leftist forces have lowered the wealth and opportunities of everyone rather than elevate the status of the less fortunate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIUS

Obama Delays ObamaCare Until After Elections

July 3, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published July 03, 2013 / FoxNews.com

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

July 2, 2013 By Editor Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published July 01, 2013 / FoxNews.com

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

« Previous Page

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses