Saturday, March 30, 2013

Gun groups promise fight as U.N. inches toward override of Second Amendment

March 30, 2013

Say hello to the world's newest 100 million felons! 

By Tom Howell Jr.

The Washington Times - American gun rights advocates said Thursday that they remain determined to block a far-reaching U.S. agreement on international arms sales, warning that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the U.S. gun market, even as the accord ran into an unexpected last-minute snag in negotiations in New York.

Objections from North Korea, Syria and Iran prevented negotiators from clinching a deal by acclamation on the proposed U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, although diplomats and private advocacy groups say they still anticipate an overwhelming positive vote when the world body's General Assembly votes on the agreement next week.

But American gun rights activists insist the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable because it includes “small arms and light weapons” alongside battle tanks and combat aircraft in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. They do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

“Our main concern is that civilian firearms are included in the scope of this treaty,” said Thomas Mason, executive secretary for the Americas at the World Forum on Shooting Activities, which counts the National Rifle Association as a member and opposes the U.N. treaty.

Mr. Mason said the treaty has the potential to disrupt the market for imported firearms that accounts for a chunk of U.S. gun sales. He said language that calls for national control lists could be “bootstrapped” into a kind of gun registry, a concept that pro-gun advocates have decried during the debate over gun legislation in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings in December.

The Senate objects

Critics of the treaty were heartened by the Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification. In its budget debate last weekend, the Senate approved a nonbinding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment.

“The Senate has already gone on record in stating that an Arms Trade Treaty has no hope, especially if it does not specifically protect the individual right to bear arms and American sovereignty,” Sen. Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican who backed Mr. Inhofe’s motion, said in a statement this week. “It would be pointless for the president to sign such a treaty and expect the Senate to go along. We won’t ratify it.

“Treaty supporters say a deal is needed to bring order to massive cross-border arms flows, in part to deny firepower to governments that commit human rights violations, face international sanctions or are allied with terrorist groups. In addition to heavy military hardware such as battle tanks and attack helicopters, the accord also will govern international trade in small arms and light weapons ranging from assault rifles to handguns.

Some activists say the draft treaty produced by U.N. negotiators did not go far enough.”We need a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, not just some of them,” Anna Macdonald, head of arms control for the international human rights group Oxfam, told The Associated Press. “We need a treaty that will make a difference to the lives of the people living in Congo, Mali, Syria and elsewhere who suffer each day from the impacts of armed violence.”

Pressure to sign on

Despite the Senate vote, numerous groups have pressured Mr. Obama to support the treaty. Amnesty International staged a rally in front of the White House to highlight the number of innocent people around the world who have been killed by trafficked weapons.

Darryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the NRA and other gun rights advocacy groups have distorted the meaning of the treaty. He said it is about the global trade of dangerous weapons, not individual rights within the United States.

“It does not affect, in any way whatsoever, the ability of an individual American to go down to Kmart and purchase a hunting rifle,” he said. “This is not about what one person in Colorado might sell to a person in Wyoming.”

The American Bar Association also released a white paper that concluded the treaty would not affect Second Amendment rights.

But negotiations leading up to the first-of-its-kind agreement in New York have been rocky at best, even before the objections from Iran and North Korea scuttled hopes for a quick conclusion Thursday.

Efforts to affirm the treaty got off to an inauspicious start, when the session was delayed for about an hour to sort out crowding in the room.

Ambassador Peter Woolcott of Australia later suspended the meeting amid objections, including a complaint from the Iranian ambassador that the treaty was “susceptible to politicization and discrimination” and did not allow nations to adequately defend against aggression.

Although the treaty needed the support of all 193 member nations, Mexico later suggested that the conference adopt it despite the objections of Iran, Syria and North Korea — all of which are under some degree of U.N. sanction. Russia prevented that, saying such a maneuver would be “a manipulation of consensus.”

The treaty now will go before the General Assembly, where it is expected to win overwhelming approval. This article is based in part on wire service reports.

NBC News on Dr. Ben Carson: 'Blinded by the White'

March 30, 2013


by John Nolte

(Breitbart) - On Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel program Tuesday night, while discussing same-sex marriage, Dr. Ben Carson made the point that if we change the definition of marriage for homosexuals, what's to stop NAMBLA or those into bestiality from demanding the same.
The media, which is always ready to destroy any black man who dares think for himself, uniformly pounced today. In response to the manufactured uproar, the soft-spoken Carson (who was a hero to the left until he came out as a conservative), did the interview rounds on cable Friday, including Andrea Mitchell's show on MSNBC and Wolf Blitzer's on CNN.

In both appearances, Carson apologized for what he said and made clear that he wasn't comparing gay couples to pedophiles or those erotically charged by animals. His point was that God defined what marriage is, not man, and if man changes that definition, it can lead to anything.

Carson also said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage.

NBC News obviously wants to destroy the threat of any independent-thinking black man as quickly as possible. So it should come as no surprise that, by the time Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart filled in for MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Carson's apology was treated as far from sufficient. In short, Capehart and his guests, Toure' and Krystal Ball, treated the apology as a lie.

This is all par for the course at NBC News.

Sadly, so is the chryron pictured above -- "Blinded by the White" -- which was used as the clip of Dr. Carson played during the segment.

NBC News is notorious for using this kind of race-baiting to further its left-wing agenda, including fraud:

During last year's GOP primary, Ed Schultz edited video of Texas Governor Rick Perry to make him look racist.

In April of last year, the "Today Show" was caught editing audio of a 9-1-1 call to make George Zimmerman look racist.

In August of 2009, Contessa Brewer sliced and diced a photograph so it wouldn't look like a black man attended a Tea Party carrying a firearm.

So it was only a matter of time before they went after Carson in this way for his apostasy.

Texas adds 80,600 jobs in February, its biggest monthly gain ever

March 30, 2013


By SHERYL JEAN 
Staff Writer

(Dallasnews.com) - Texas employment surged in February as employers added the most new jobs ever in a month.

The Texas Workforce Commission on Friday reported 80,600 new jobs across the state. That more than made up for a slow start in January, when an upwardly revised 13,800 jobs were added.

The job growth appears to be the highest monthly gain since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking such data in 1939.

Texas’ unemployment rate, however, inched up to 6.4 percent, though it was still well below the U.S. rate of 7.7 percent for February.

“The addition of over 80,000 jobs in a single month is remarkable,” said economist Ray Perryman of the Perryman Group in Waco. “While I don’t think that pace will continue, Texas is seeing ongoing expansion on several fronts.”

Texas’ employment gains last month also were the largest nationally. California was second with 41,200 jobs. Overall, employment increased in 42 states and decreased in eight states and Washington, D.C.

The widespread job growth dovetails with other improving U.S. economic data so far this year that’s lifting optimism among consumers, business owners and economists. Consumer sentiment, consumer spending, home prices, manufacturing activity, new-home sales and new durable-goods orders have all picked up.

Still, Cheryl Abbot, Dallas regional economist for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, was cautiously optimistic.

“It looks like we are building some strength, but it’s just one month,” Abbot said. Over the last 12 months, Texas has added 359,800 jobs, an increase of 3.3 percent, which is only slightly better than January’s 12-month rate of 3.2 percent, she said.

The Dallas area added 14,500 jobs in February, but that figure is not adjusted for seasonal variations as the state total is.

Economists were encouraged that Texas’ job growth was spread across many different industries, whereas last year’s gains were driven mainly by housing and energy.

Employment grew in all of the state’s 11 major industries in February, led by 25,400 jobs in professional and business services. Construction added 15,700 jobs — the eighth straight month of job gains in that category.

The strong construction numbers mean “reality holds that we’re really seeing a housing boom here in Texas,” said Jason Frederick, a senior economist for the bank BBVA Compass. “We need these workers to come in and build houses after a dearth of construction and rising demand for new homes. And it’s not just housing: The commercial real estate market also has improved, and that’s also pushing construction employment up.”

Ronny Congleton, who represents labor on the the Texas Workforce Commission, noted that strong job gains in construction help drive growth in other industries.

While the private sector continued to lead Texas’ job growth in February, government added 16,700 jobs after losing a revised 10,100 jobs in January. Most of that government growth was at the state and local level as the state rebounds from the last recession and tax revenue and collections are up, BBVA’s Frederick said.

Although Texas’ 6.4 percent jobless rate was up from 6.3 percent in January, it was down from 7.1 percent a year earlier. (The jobless rate and employment figures can diverge because they’re derived from two different government surveys.)

The slight rise in the state jobless rate doesn’t worry economist Perryman.

“The key issue is job creation,” he said. “The unemployment rate can fluctuate for a variety of reasons. Other than as a general indicator, it is not a reliable barometer of the health of the economy.”

All 27 Texas metro areas tracked by the Texas Workforce Commission reported lower unemployment rates in February, but that data is not seasonally adjusted.

The jobless rate for the Dallas area was 6.4 percent. The rate for the Fort Worth area was 6.2 percent.

Midland posted the lowest rate, 3.2 percent. The McAllen area had the highest rate, 11 percent.

Confederate flag at old NC Capitol coming down

March 30, 2013


By MICHAEL BIESECKERAssociated Press

A Confederate flag is seen on display at the old Capitol, which houses the governor’s office and still hosts numerous government events, Thursday, March 28, 2013, in Raleigh. State Historic Sites Director Keith Hardison says the flag raised last week inside the House chamber is part of a historical display replicating how the antebellum building appeared in 1863. Michael Biesecker — AP

RALEIGH, N.C. — A Confederate battle flag hung inside the old North Carolina State Capitol last week to mark the sesquicentennial of the Civil War is being taken down after civil rights leaders raised concerns.

The decision was announced Friday evening, hours after the Associated Press published a story about the flag, which officials said was part of an historical display intended to replicate how the antebellum building appeared in 1863. The flag had been planned to hang in the House chamber until April 2015, the 150th anniversary of the arrival of federal troops in Raleigh.

"This is a temporary exhibit in an historic site, but I've learned the governor's administration is going to use the old House chamber as working space," Cultural Resources Secretary Susan Kluttz said Friday night. "Given that information, this display will end this weekend rather than April of 2015."

Kim Genardo, the spokeswoman for Gov. Pat McCrory, said the exhibit that includes the Confederate battle flag will be relocated, possibly across the street to the N.C. Museum of History.

The decision was a quick about-face for the McCrory administration, which initially defended the display. Many people see the flag as a potent reminder of racial discrimination and bigotry.

State Historic Sites Director Keith Hardison had said Thursday the flag should be viewed in what he called the proper historical context.

"Our goal is not to create issues," said Hardison, a Civil War re-enactor and history buff. "Our goal is to help people understand issues of the past. ... If you refuse to put something that someone might object to or have a concern with in the exhibit, then you are basically censoring history."

North Carolina NAACP president Rev. William Barber was shocked Friday when he was shown a photo of the flag by the AP.

"He is right that it has a historical context," Barber said. "But what is that history? The history of racism. The history of lynchings. The history of death. The history of slavery. If you say that shouldn't be offensive, then either you don't know the history, or you are denying the history."

Sessions of the General Assembly moved to a newer building a half-century ago, but the old Capitol building is still routinely used as a venue for official state government events. McCrory's office is on the first floor, as are the offices of his chief of staff and communications staff.

The Republican governor was in the House chamber where the Confederate flag hangs as recently as Thursday, when he presided over the swearing-in ceremony of his new Highway Patrol commander.

The presentation of the Confederate battle flag at state government buildings has long been an issue of debate throughout the South. For more than a decade, the NAACP has urged its members to boycott South Carolina because of that state's display of the flag on the State House grounds.

Prior to taking his current job in North Carolina in 2006, Hardison worked as director at the Mississippi home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, which is operated as a museum and library owned by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The group has led the fight in the South for the proud display of the Confederate flag, which it contends is a symbol of heritage, not hate.

Hardison said the battle flag was displayed with other flags described in the diary of a North Carolina woman who visited the Capitol in 1863. A large U.S. flag displayed in the Senate chamber is reminiscent of a trophy of war captured from Union troops at the Battle of Plymouth.

"I thought, wouldn't it be wonderful to recreate this?" Hardison said. "I think we were all thinking along the same vein. ... The Capitol is both a working seat of government, in that the governor and his staff has his office there. But it is also a museum."

Hardison pointed out that the national flag used by the Confederate government, with its circle of white stars and red and white stripes, is still flown over the State Capitol dome each year on Confederate Memorial Day. The more familiar blood-red battle flag, featuring a blue "X" studded with white stars, was used by the rebel military.

David Goldfield, a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and author of the book "Still Fighting the Civil War," said the battle flag can hold starkly different meanings depending on a person's social perspective.

"The history of the Confederate battle flag, how it was designed and formulated, how it has been used through the years, clearly states that it is a flag of white supremacy," Goldfield said. "I know current Sons of Confederate Veterans would dispute that, saying 'Hey, I'm not a racist.' But the fact remains that the battle flag was used by a country that had as its foundation the protection and extension of human bondage."

The NAACP's Barber said the McCrory administration eventually made the right call, but questioned how the decision to hang the flag was made in the first place.

"A flag should represent a banner of unity, not division," Barber said. "A substantive symbol and sign of our best history, not our worse. We cannot deny history but neither can we attempt to revision it in a way that glorifies the shameful and attempts to make noble that which is ignoble."

PAUL: A duty to preserve the Second Amendment

March 30, 2013

The right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’

By Sen. Rand Paul
The Washington Times


When Congress reconvenes next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring gun control back to the Senate floor. If this occurs, I will oppose any legislation that undermines Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms or their ability to exercise this right without being subject to government surveillance.

Restricting Americans’ ability to purchase firearms readily and freely will do nothing to stop national tragedies such as those that happened in Newtown, Conn., and in Aurora, Colo. It will do much to give criminals and potential killers an unfair advantage by hampering law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves and their families.Potentially on the table are new laws that would outlaw firearms and magazines that hold more than just a handful of rounds, as well as require universal “background checks,” which amount to gun registration.We are also being told that the “assault weapons” ban originally introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein is not happening. We can only hope. But in Washington, D.C., bad ideas often have a strange way of coming up again.


These laws are designed to sound reasonable, but statistics have shown that gun control simply does not work.What constitutes reasonable? If limiting rounds and increasing surveillance were really the solution to curbing gun violence, why should we stop there? Because everyone knows that none of this actually curbs gun violence.

Gun control itself is unreasonable.Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country — and one of the worst gun-crime rates, with more than 500 homicides last year. Compare this to Virginia, where in the past six years, gun sales went up by 73 percent, while violent gun crime fell 24 percent. The types of firearms and clips the left is currently so intent on banning are used in fewer than 2 percent of gun crimes — and how many of those crimes involve registered weapons? Few to none.

For every national tragedy that happens, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Americans preventing similar killings from happening, thanks to the use of personal firearms. Last June, for example, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an armed intruder who broke into his home while he was baby-sitting his three younger siblings. The children were home alone on a Saturday afternoon when an unrecognized woman rang their doorbell. After the 14-year-old boy refused to open the door, he heard a loud bang, which indicated that someone was trying to break into the house. The boy hurried his younger siblings upstairs and collected a handgun from his parents’ room. When the boy rounded the top of the stairs, there was a man standing in the doorway with a gun pointed at him. The boy shot at the intruder and saved the lives of his three younger siblings.

There have been would-be mass murderers who have walked into schools, churches, shopping malls, movie theaters and other public places who didn’t get very far because, thankfully, an armed citizen was nearby. There have been countless home invasions, armed robberies and other assaults in which lives were saved, thanks to citizens possessing private firearms.These stories are heroic, but they don’t become big headlines. We should all be glad that they don’t become such headlines, thanks to the unsung heroes who prevent them from becoming potential national tragedies.

For these reasons, I will oppose any attempt by President Obama, Mr. Reid or anyone else in Washington who works against Americans’ right to bear arms. Sens. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz have decided to join in this effort.We do this not only because it is right — but because it is our duty as United States senators.

When I stood up for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments during a filibuster a few weeks ago to address drones and executive power, it was not because I was partial to those amendments, important as they are. When I came into office, I took an oath to uphold the Bill of Rights.


I took an oath to uphold the First Amendment. I took an oath to uphold the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment reads: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “might be” infringed. Nor does it say “could be” infringed. It read “shall not” be infringed. The current gun-control legislation being proposed unquestionably infringes.For these reasons, I will work diligently to stop any such gun-control legislation. Our Constitution, individual liberty and personal safety depend on it.


Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Homeland Security committees.


Big Sis: Immigrants will change Arizona from red to blue

March 30, 2013
By Cheryl K. Chumley


(The Washington Times) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the influx of immigrants into Arizona will put this conservative stronghold into the hands of the Democratic Party.

The former Arizona governor predicted her state would turn blue in coming elections — just like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado has gained in Democratic popularity, she said in a Christian Science Monitor report.

“Arizona will be behind them,” she said to reporters on Tuesday. “I think it will be more purple over time, but ultimately blue. … It’ll happen, I think. The fact that I could win three straight elections there, I think is indicative that Democrats can win and do win in Arizona.”

Ms. Napolitano attributed her prediction to the influx of immigrants into the state, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

With the exception of 1996, Arizona has voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election since 1976. Voters chose Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by a 9.1 percent margin in the last election. The state’s conservatives have largely held a 5-percentage point majority over the Democratic Party for years, various polling agencies show. U.S. Census statistics do indicate a large population shift, however, in recent times.

The state picked up an additional electoral vote — it now has 11 — after growing by about 25 percent in population over the past decade.


© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC.

Obama eyes taking millions of acres to save habitat from global warming

March 30, 2013

by Paul Bedard



A sweeping new Obama administration strategy to protect plants, fish and animals from the hazards of global warming would require the government to set aside millions of acres of land to preserve threatened habitat.

"More than millions of acres across the landscape will be required," said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe. "The lands will be protected by easement, by land acquisitions, by local, by land trusts, by state agencies, by federal agencies," he told reporters in releasing a 120-page National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, in the works for four years.

"We're doing it for wildlife preservation and we're thinking about climate," he added.

Under Obama, 4.5 million acres in 10 national wildlife refuges have already been set aside in part to ease the pressure of global warming on plants, fish and animals, said Ashe. A large purchase in Florida's Everglades, for example, is aimed in part at preserving grasses that can help prevent rising water from flooding the area and destroying animal habitat.

The new strategy, produced by several federal and state agencies and tribal groups, would expand that program to protect habitat under global warming pressure and used by everything from butterflies and robins to foxes and even coral. For example, more habitat for grizzly bears would be set aside so they can move north as their habitat warms.

The report provides goals and strategies but doesn't demand land purchases. It is meant to "inspire and enable natural resource managers, elected officials, and other decision makers to take action over the next five to 10 years to help our living resources adapt to climate change."

Among the potential horrific results of global warming highlighted in the report is the possibility that birch trees will become extinct, robbing two Indian tribes of the tree paperbark that "has been indispensable for canoes, sacred fires, and as a substrate to grow fungi for medicines."

Another: Warming temperatures on the Great Plains threaten the lesser prairie chicken. "Climate change models project that temperatures in the lesser prairie-chicken's range will climb by about five degrees and that precipitation will decrease by more than one inch per year by 2060. Such changes would likely harm the lesser prairie-chicken's chances of survival," said the report.


Source: The Washington Examiner

Obama Creates Panel to Manipulate State Election Laws

March 30, 2013

Neil Munro
White House Correspondent


(Daily Caller) - The White House announced Thursday the formation of a nine-seat Presidential Commission on Election Administration tasked with recommending changes to states’ election laws by the end of September.

“The Commission shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles,” said Obama’s executive order, issued March 28.

State elections are conducted by states, usually under state laws. However, the federal Congress has the constitutional authority to “any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

Obama’s panel does not have the legal ability to rewrite state election laws, but its recommendations could help Obama’s appointees at the Department of Justice ask friendly judges to impose changes on states.

Democratic activists have repeatedly called for changes to increase voter registration, to extend voting periods, to curb voter-identification rules and to help apparently non-political groups boost turnout by voters.

The executive order said the panel should consider changes to almost all portions of the state’s voting system.

The changes could include “the number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places … the training, recruitment, and number of poll workers … the efficient management of voter rolls and poll books … voting machine capacity and technology … voter education … processing provisional ballots in the polling place on Election Day … the administration of absentee ballot programs … [and] other issues related to the efficient administration of elections that the Co-Chairs agree are necessary and appropriate to the Commission’s work.”

The New New Federalism

March 30, 2013

BY: Andrew Evans

New policy group advocating for decentralizing power, greater state autonomy

(Washington Free Beacon) - Removing power from Washington, D.C., and fostering competition between the states would cut costs and help the country to determine which policies are the most successful, according to a new report.

The report by the Liberty Foundation of Oklahoma, a new grassroots organizing group, says the country should return to “competitive federalism,” in which the states are free to implement policies without federal influence.

With federal influence removed, the states would be free to compete for the best policies.

The group is now advocating for those ideas on a state-by-state basis, seeking to activate a network of center-right free-market organizations, said Michael Carnuccio, president of the Liberty Foundation.

“We’ve tried the centralization of power in the federal government for the last eighty years. It hasn’t worked,” the report says.

Thirty state-based think tanks from 29 states endorsed the report and 17 states have signed up with the Liberty Foundation to hear its proposals, said Matt Mayer, president of Opportunity Ohio and the report’s author.

While there have been clusters of activity in support of federalism over the years, there has been “nothing this comprehensive,” said Mayer.

The report says the federal government should stop spending on education, transportation, and Medicaid and use the savings to cut taxes. It says the states will be forced to raise taxes on their citizens to compensate, but the overall tax burden will not rise on individuals.

The states could tax less than the federal government currently does, the report argues, because they will not have to pay for the federal bureaucracy that funnels money to the states for these programs.

The federal bureaucracy accounts for 15 to 35 percent of the total costs of the programs, according to the report.

The states already administer these areas, the report notes.

By transferring responsibility for these three areas to the states, including the responsibility to fund them, taxpayers would get more value for their dollars because they would not pay for a federal bureaucracy.

Mike Franc, vice president for government studies at the Heritage Foundation, said federalism and state competition are worthy causes.

“One of the great selling points and strengths of the federalist system is that in certain policy areas you do create a virtuous competition among the states,” Franc said.

There are a number of examples of states competing against each other, he said, citing Pennsylvania’s allowing fracking and New York’s prohibiting it as well as Indiana advertising its favorable business policies in unfriendly Chicago.

The Illinois Policy Institute (IPI), one of the groups that endorsed the foundation’s report, pointed to its home state as an example of the value of true federalism.

The Medicaid system in Illinois is out of money, said Kristina Rasmussen, IPI executive vice president. The federal government is dangling more money before the state in order to expand the system despite the system’s financial woes, she said.

“You see the federal government coercing and forcing decisions that if they stayed out of it, then the state would come to the decision that this is an awful decision,” Rasmussen said.

She noted that Illinois is surrounded by states with good policies, and Illinois is facing a declining population unless it gets its house in order.

“Competitive federalism is a great influence on states to get their act together,” she said.

It could also force states to be wiser stewards of taxpayer money, said Bob Sanchez, policy director at the James Madison Institute in Florida, which also endorsed the report.

Competition “could foster a healthy form of competition between and among the various states as they try to deliver public services more efficiently, with due respect for the taxpayers’ dollars,” he said.

Franc said the project would likely face stiff resistance from the “enormous array of vested interests” in the current system.

“This is a real threat to all the people we love to hate,” he said. Seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in the country are in the Washington, D.C., area, and the three program areas targeted in the report are three of most lobbied areas of the government, Franc said.

Franc also noted another problem facing competitive federalism: federal debt.

Forty percent of the federal government’s expenditures are financed with debt, Franc said, while most states have a balanced-budget amendment. This discrepancy would force states to perform the same services with 60 percent of the money.

Franc praised the Liberty Foundation’s work: “They’re tackling exactly the right problem.”

The Departments of Transportation and Education and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not return requests for comment.



Friday, March 29, 2013

History Lesson: Racist Democrats and the Big Lie

March 29, 2013

by Michael Walsh

The way we were

In order to escape their truly wretched past (click on the link for my short book on the subject), modern Democrats have has adopted as an article of faith the bedtime story that, thanks to Tricky Dick Nixon’s “southern strategy,” the racists who had been the backbone of their party for the better part of a century suddenly switched to the GOP en masse some time around 1968, with the happy result that now all the racists are on the right. Presto — instant virtuousness and a clean slate!

It’s a lie, of course. But don’t take it from me, take it from my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson, who addressed this issue brilliantly last year:

Worse than the myth and the clich√© is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-√†-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century.

As Kevin goes on to point out:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.

And yet this myth persists — in fact, it’s just about the only response today’s Democrats have to their own sordid history: pinning it on the other guy. It makes them profoundly uncomfortable that among the 21 who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be found Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., the founder of the Hillbilly Dynasty; Robert “KKK” Byrd, the Conscience of the Senate; and Sleepin’ Sam Ervin of Watergate fame.

Just for laughs, let’s take a look at the electoral maps for 1968 (Nixon-Humphrey), 1972 (Nixon-McGovern), 1976 (Carter-Ford), and 1992 (Clinton-Bush) to see how the South voted.

First, 1968, as the Vietnam War approached its high-water mark and the antiwar movement was starting to roll:



1968: still semi-solid

Nixon picked up some of the states of the Old Confederacy, largely because of their pro-military tradition and support for the war. “Wallace,” for those of you born yesterday, was Democrat George Wallace, a rabid segregationist who founded the American Independent Party and ran for president on its ticket. He won 13 percent of the popular vote, and carried five states in the Deep South for a total of 46 electoral votes.

Four years later, Nixon faced the first modern Democratic Party presidential candidate, George McGovern, who ran on a “Come Home, America” platform, and on whose campaign many of today’s radicals cut their teeth. Two items of note in the linked video clip: Missouri Senator Tom Eagleton was McGovern’s first running mate, who got dumped by the Compassion Party after it came out that he had been hospitalized for clinical depression and had undergone shock therapy. The other is McGovern’s extensive quote from “This Land is Your Land,” a hit for Peter, Paul and Mary written by the communist fellow-traveler, Woody Guthrie.


1972: the Cod stands alone

Yes, the South voted for the Republican — but so did every other state except for Massachusetts, which was the first indication of just how far gone the Bay State already was.

Four years later, Nixon was in San Clemente in the aftermath of Watergate, and a Southern governor named Jimmy Carter, whose only claim to the White House was that he was not RMN, was running against the Accidental President, Jerry Ford:



1976: you can go home again

Yes, twelve years after the Solid South supposedly flipped to the GOP, here it was, back again, helping to elevate a native son past the Michigander. The two Reagan wipeouts of 1980 and 1984 began the alignment of the South with the GOP — but it was partly reversed by Bill Clinton in 1992:


1992: Back to Bubba

Kevin concludes:

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.

So the next time a Regressive tries to repeat the Thurmond myth, show him the maps — and make the Democrats own their history. They don’t like it very much, and who can blame them?


Source: PJMedia

Barack Obama called ‘a hypocrite and a coward’ over Falklands betrayal – BBC audience applauds

March 29, 2013
By Nile Gardiner


(Telegraph UK) - Harry Cole, news editor of the Guido Fawkes' blog, was interviewed earlier this week on BBC Three’s Free Speech show. Asked about the Falklands issue by host Rick Edwards, Harry blasted President Obama’s refusal to recognise the Falklands referendum, describing him as “a hypocrite and a coward.” After all, as Cole pointed out, it doesn’t look good when the leader of the free world can’t even bring himself to support the right to self-determination, the very principle upon which the United States itself is founded. For background, watch this train wreck of a press conference by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland following the referendum result, which showed that 99.8 percent of Falkand Islanders wish the Falklands to remain a British Overseas Territory.

What is most striking about Cole’s interview is the loud applause which comes from a large section of the audience of mostly young Brits. There was no booing or hissing of his forthright attack on Barack Obama, which you might expect from a BBC-assembled crowd – quite the opposite in fact. There appears to be a growing realisation among the wider British public that President Obama really doesn’t like Britain very much, and that his knife in the back over the Falklands, and his hectoring, lecturing tone on Europe, isn’t very helpful for British interests. As I’ve noted in previous pieces, Barack Obama is the most anti-British US president in modern times. When even a BBC audience turns against the insulting policies of the White House, the Obama administration should understand that it has a real problem on its hands when it comes to relations with America’s closest ally.

Despite Obama’s efforts, Texas Republicans feeling no pressure to enact new gun laws

March 29, 2013


President Barack Obama, flanked by family members of shooting victims, spoke from the White House Wednesday in a renewed effort from the bully pulpit to push Congress on gun control.

On the 100th day since the Newtown school shooting that killed 20 children and six teachers, Obama called on Congress to pass measures on universal background checks and penalties for those who buy guns for those who can’t legally purchase firearms themselves. He reasoned a majority of Americans favored the gun control policies, despite opposition from Republican lawmakers in Congress.

“There are some powerful voices on the other side that are interested in running out the clock or changing the subject or drowning out the majority of the American people to prevent any of these reforms from happening at all. They’re doing everything they can to make all our progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration, or their assumption is that people will just forget about it,” Obama said.

Obama urged Americans to speak with their representatives about their support for passing gun legislation, and to not forget the children of Sandy Hook.

“Less than 100 days ago that happened, and the entire country was shocked. And the entire country pledged we would do something about it and that this time would be different. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten,” Obama said, as lips quivered from the mothers standing behind him. ”I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

Following the speech, Rep. Steve Stockman of Friendswood tweeted that Obama’s call to action had fallen on deaf ears.






Sen. Ted Cruz called out the president for his continual use of the Sandy Hook shootings to push Congress to pass the legislation. “It is saddening to see the President today, once again, try to take advantage of this tragic murder to promote an agenda that will do nothing to stop violent crime, but will undermine the constitutional rights of all law-abiding Americans,” Cruz said in a statement.

The freshman senator reaffirmed his commitment to using “any procedural means necessary” to block gun legislation that would limit second amendment rights. Cruz has threatened that he along with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, would filibuster any gun control proposals that would further “restrict” the Second Amendment. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., most recently joined the group.

Despite the Republican unity, a few Texas Democrats spoke out in favor of Obama’s efforts. Dallas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson tweeted her support of the President following his speech.



Source: Houston Chronicle

Organizing for Millionaires



Column: The price of access to Obama is too damn high

BY: Matthew Continetti
March 29, 2013 4:59 am



(Washington Free Beacon) - My friend Jim emailed me Wednesday.

“Friend,” he wrote, “I want to make one thing absolutely clear: We’re up against a whole lot more than just opposition in Congress.”

Jim—that’s “Mr. Messina” to you—ran President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. Now he’s chairman of Organizing for Action, a nonprofit formed under section 501(c)4 of the tax code.

Organizing for Action is able to raise unlimited money, does not have to disclose where that money comes from, and engages in “issue advocacy” (“Tell Congressman Smith to grab guns”), but not “express advocacy” (“Vote against Congressman Smith because he likes freedom”).

“Organizing for Action is going to shift the balance of power in Washington back to real people,” Jim told me in his email. “People like you have shown over and over again that no amount of spending can stop millions of Americans calling for change.”

Jim’s right: The billion dollars President Obama and affiliated groups spent in 2012 did not stop millions of Americans calling for change.

But now Jim wants me to “donate $5 or more” to his new gig because “We have our first fundraising deadline this weekend.”

And I can’t do it. It’s not worth the investment. The price of access to Obama is too damn high.

Five dollars won’t even buy me lunch with Jim. A donation of $50,000 or more was the price of entry to Organizing for Action’s “Founders Summit” this month at the St. Regis hotel in Washington, D.C., where Messina mingled with guests and the president spoke at dinner. To join the “task force on policy,” I’d be expected to raise “at least $250,000 to finance advocacy work on specific issues.”

And I’d have to raise $500,000 to earn “the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House,” according to the New York Times. A spot on the board of directors of Organizing for Action requires a pledge to raise “$1 million for two consecutive years.”

Accumulating the capital to mingle with the likes of Jim Messina and President Obama is an arduous undertaking if you are not already a tech billionaire or Hollywood mogul or green energy venture capitalist or Vogue magazine editor or labor boss. (Organizing for Action says it won’t take money from lobbyists, corporations, or political action committees, but it’s happy to take money from unions.)

And it doesn’t stop with Organizing for Action. Obama and the progressive left have created a vast network of interlocking structures that mediate between financial interests and the executive branch. Shaping policy to benefit one’s company—or even to protect it from government interference—requires massive donations to all of them.

Take my friend Jim for example. In addition to Organizing for Action, he is setting up his own consultancy, which is, Bloomberg reports, “courting corporate clients.” He’s also been “giving paid speeches, domestically and internationally.”

Jim’s firm doesn’t have to disclose any of those clients. (Bloomberg says the Democratic National Committee is among them.) The influence brokers of the world will be sure to donate to Organizing for Action, hire Jim’s firm for consultation and media strategy, and book him for a lunch speech in Vegas.

The legal and ethical ground of Organizing for Action becomes muddier every day. Politico’s Ken Vogel wonders whether Jim Messina’s pro bono work for the group might count as an “in-kind contribution” to Organizing for Action, thus violating the group’s self-imposed pledge against corporate donations.

That pledge is more or less worthless anyway. Consider a CEO who contributes on an individual basis to Organizing for Action while his company joins Business Forward, the Democratic trade organization that, for a price, organizes meetings between its corporate members and White House officials, allowing said corporations to avoid lobbying rules.

Then he hires Messina’s firm. Then he works with the Common Purpose Project and Enroll America to avoid getting hit by the arc of history as it bends toward justice. Then he donates to Priorities USA Action, the Obama affiliated Super Political Action Committee that can raise unlimited funds, and the DNC, the party congressional committees, and individual candidates.

Whatever money is left will go to the constituent parts of the Democracy Initiative, the secret consortium of progressive groups advocating for loose voting requirements, filibuster reform, and suppressing the political speech of wealthy conservatives. Then the CEO will feel morally superior as he waits for the government to make it rain for his firm.

The more you examine this constellation of pressure groups, the more you suspect that its true purpose is to serve as a full-employment plan for Democratic hacks. These former campaign hands make a living from businesses scurrying to hedge against political and economic risk. Messina is just one among the tens of thousands of political professionals trying to dredge gold from the river of money flowing through Washington.

Which may account for Organizing for Action’s hyperactivity. Not a day goes by without this grassroots organization inserting itself into another policy dispute. First it was the debate over gun control. Then Organizing for Action said it would become involved in the immigration debate.

After that, the group banged the drum for legislation to reduce carbon emissions. And after that, Organizing for Action suddenly discovered a passionate interest in an obscure campaign finance battle in New York state that has nothing to do with the president’s agenda.

For such a young group to move in all of these directions at once is typically a sign of strategic indirection—especially when you consider that Organizing for Action’s influence in the gun debate so far has been nil.

From a fundraising perspective, though, casting a wide net makes sense. Involving itself in as many issues as possible creates donor possibilities for Organizing for Action. It enlarges the universe of factions that want to placate the progressive juggernaut before it strikes them down.

And of course, it opens doors to consulting contracts for my friend Jim.



NY Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Make Obama President For Life

March 29, 2013
by Jim Hoft
The Gateway Pundit

What fantasy world are these loons living in?
Don’t they see his blatant destruction of the American economy?
Don’t they see the national decline?
Are they completely unaware of the failures of socialism?

New York Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY) introduced a bill today to allow Barack Obama to run for a third term.

The Daily Caller reported:

New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced a bill in Congress on Friday to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which places term limits on the U.S. presidency.

The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office.

H.J. Res. 15 proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

British Lefties in Gaza Aid Convoy Kidnapped & Sexually Assaulted in Libya, Go Home...

March 29, 2013
by Jim Hoft

The Gateway Pundit - They were hoping to bring aid to the citizens of Hamas-istan. But they were sexually abused in Libya instead.
Then they went back home.

Being a useful idiot sometimes has its downside.

The Guardian reported:

Three women who were part of an aid convoy passing through Libya on the way to Gaza have been sexually assaulted in Benghazi, after a group of five British nationals were briefly kidnapped.

The three women, two of whom are sisters, were part of a large aid convoy travelling to the Gaza Strip. It is thought that they were part of a group of five people who were briefly kidnapped near Benghazi in the early hours of Tuesday and they were released some hours later. The group is currently safe in the Turkish consul in Benghazi and is expected to return to the UK.

Libyan security officials said the attacks happened in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Abdul Barghathi, commander of preventative security in the Libyan defence ministry, said the women had been sexually assaulted, but not raped. “There was no rape, just touching (sexual assault),” he said. “Because there is no British consulate here they were handed to the Turkish consulate.” The three women are not badly wounded and are being attended to by consular staff from the UK, he added.




"The 8%" UPDATE: Organized labor says closer to deal on immigration reform

March 29, 2013
By Rachelle Younglai

(Reuters) - U.S. labor unions said on Thursday they were closer to resolving problems with wages for future unskilled immigrant workers like janitors and housekeepers - an issue that has stalled progress on a U.S. Senate proposal to overhaul the immigration system.

"We have moved off poverty level wages and are moving forward and are working on a standard that will protect U.S. workers," said Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto, legislative representative for the biggest union the AFL-CIO.

Late last week, disputes over a new visa program for foreign workers between the AFL-CIO, the labor federation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce threatened to derail immigration reform talks between a group of four Republican and four Democratic Senators.

The AFL-CIO had accused Republicans and businesses of trying to undercut wages. And the Chamber, the biggest business lobby, said unions were jeopardizing the immigration reform effort.

Now the AFL-CIO is saying that the unions, the Chamber and lawmakers are coalescing around the idea of using a wage standard that already exists in current law rather than specific wage levels.

Both high-skilled and low-skilled visa programs specify that visas will only be issued if they do not drive down the wages of those doing the same job in the United States.

"I think there is an agreement that it should be a standard and we are finalizing what that standard should say," said DiBitetto. "We are working with them to find the language that the senators and labor and the Chamber can agree to," she said.

The Chamber also a took a more conciliatory tone on Thursday and said any temporary worker program would require that an immigrant worker "be paid the greater of actual wages being paid to comparable American workers or the prevailing wages as determined by the Department of Labor."

The bipartisan Senate group is aiming to introduce legislation in April that would give millions of illegal immigrants a way to earn citizenship as well create a process for dealing with the future flow of unskilled labor into the country.

The temporary worker program is one of the remaining issues left for senators to resolve and one that has contributed to the downfall of other immigration reform efforts in the past.

The unions and the business community have already reached an agreement on other contentious parts of the new worker program, including how many visas will be issued per year, according to the AFL-CIO.

Unlike existing visa programs, the new one would take into consideration the health of the economy and unemployment figures and expand and contract the flow of workers based on those factors, the labor group said.

Harassment: ATF raids home of man behind 'FPS Russia' gun videos

March 29, 2013
By: Dave Gibson

Kyle Myers  Credits: onlineathens.com  
On Tuesday, U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents raided the home of 26-year-old Kyle Myers in Royston, Ga., according to ATF spokesman Richard Coes.

Myers is the co-creator of the wildly popular "FPS Russia" videos seen on Youtube, in which various high-powered firearms are demonstrated.

The Athens Banner-Herald reported:


Federal agents, accompanied by Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents and deputies with the sheriff’s offices in Franklin and Hart counties, raided the Royston residence of Myers. Authorities also raided on Tuesday the 60-acre farm of Lamar Myers, Kyle’s father, in Lavonia.

No arrests were made, nor did Coes know if any explosives were seized. 'The idea at one of the locations was to take firearms, but they did not do that,' Coes said.

[...]

Myers was "known to use explosives and I don't know if it was done with malicious intent," Coes said, adding that Myers was blowing up cars, refrigerators and other items for entertainment purposes.


A total of 40 agents took part in the raids on the Myers' homes, and the ATF did not report finding anything illegal on either property.

In January, Meyers' business partner, 32-year-old Keith Ratliff was found shot to death at FPS Industries in Franklin County, just outside of Carnesville, Ga. He had been shot once in the head, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

FPS Industries builds firearms and develops weapons technology.

FPS Russia is the ninth-highest-rated channel on Youtube, with nearly a half-billion views, and more than 3 million subscribers.


Source: The Examiner

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Son of Westboro Baptist Church leader attacked on live TV by naked 500lb man who burst out of bathroom, sat on him and shouted: 'Who's your daddy now?'

March 28, 2013


 David Phelps was being interviewed when the man ran at him

He is understood to call himself Billy The Fridge


Kansas-based church has caused controversy by preaching gay-hate


By Leon Watson

PUBLISHED: 12:33 EST, 28 March 2013

UPDATED: 14:50 EST, 28 March 2013


The son of gay-hate church leader Fred Phelps has been attacked live on TV by an obese naked man who sat on him and shouted 'who's your daddy now?'

Westboro Baptist Church member David Phelps was being interviewed in a mobile studio when a 35-stone man, who was wearing no clothes, suddenly burst out of a loo to confront him.

Mr Phelps was angrily commenting on a forthcoming live crucifixion, which U.S.-based TV station Battlecam intends to broadcast on Easter Sunday.


Westboro Baptist Church member David Phelps (foreground) being interviewed in a mobile studio as a 35-stone man, who was wearing no clothes, suddenly burst out of a loo to confront him
The interview quickly descended into a farce when the naked man, who is understood to call himself Billy The Fridge, burst in on proceedings
The camera blurs as the 35-stone man, known as Billy The Fridge, burst in on proceedings and jumped on the church member
Flattened: The 35-stone man wearing no clothes sat on David Phelps during the interview
But the interview quickly descended into a farce when the naked man, who is understood to call himself Billy The Fridge, burst in on proceedings.

A video of the incident was posted on YouTube and has run up nearly 30,000 hits over the last 48 hours.

An eye-witness later claimed that he saw Phelps being pursued down the street outside the mobile studio by a naked fat man.

Rob Cutler, from Topeka, Kansas, where the church is based, said: 'I was amazed, first I see David run out of a motor home and the next thing I know he's been sat on by this giant naked man who is screaming "who's your daddy now Davey?"'

The Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church has previously caused controversy in the U.S. by preaching anti-gay messages.

Battlecam is meanwhile planning to stream live footage across the internet of a man being publically crucified in Beverly Hills on Easter Sunday.

The Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church has previously caused controversy in the U.S. by preaching anti-gay messages





Founder: Fred Phelps established the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka in 1955. A placard in the background demonstrates the group's attitudes
Robert Garrison, described as 'a 30-year-old sado-masochist from Florida', will be hammered onto a giant wooden cross behind a glass window in view of passersby at Battlecam TV's headquarters in Los Angeles.

The event is billed as 'honouring the sacrifices made by our Lord, Jesus Christ' - but it as been dismissed as inappropriate by some internet users in The States.

During the crucifixion a gospel choir will be sing Easter songs and chant Psalm 22 which starts with the immortal words 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'

Mr Garrison will be left impaled by 12in nails for several hours while users of Battlecam TV's social networking website are invited to comment.

When asked if he was worried whether the event would be criticised as being sacrilegious, Battlecam boss Alki David said: 'This is not disrespectful. We are bringing awareness of religion to online social networking.'

But one web user in The States commented: 'I just think there's better ways to honour him than to crucify someone.

'To me the best way to honour him is to help the kinds of people he did back when he was alive; like the poor, the sick and the starving for example.'

Mr Phelps was not available for comment.



source: UK Mail Online

When fear of gay discrimination claims destroy a life: My adoptive dad abused me for years but social workers ignored my complaints because he's gay

March 28, 2013

Andy Cannon, 23, was sexually abused by his gay adoptive parents
Wakefield social services failed to act despite his repeated complaints


Branded him an 'unruly child' and father David Cannon a 'very caring parent'


David and partner John Scarfe eventually jailed for child sex abuse in 2006


Report slams authority for 'folly and gross misjudgement'


By Steve Robson

PUBLISHED: 18:08 EST, 28 March 2013

UPDATED: 18:39 EST, 28 March 2013

Andy Cannon, 23, (pictured with girlfriend Redeana Hammill)
was sexually abused by his adoptive gay parents but
his complaints to social workers were ignored
A boy sexually abused by his adoptive father and his gay partner was labelled an ‘unruly child’ by social workers who ignored his complaints for years, a damning report has revealed.

They sent Andy Cannon, now 23, back to the couple’s home despite his protests of abuse, praising the gay man who adopted him as a ‘very caring parent’.

The report accuses Wakefield social services, in Yorkshire, of ‘folly and gross misjudgment’. Mr Cannon, who was wrongly diagnosed with mental disorders and prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, believes he would have been listened to sooner if his adoptive father wasn’t gay.

The case ended last year, after half a decade of legal wrangling, when a court ordered a £25,000 compensation payment to Mr Cannon.

Mr Cannon, who now has two children with girlfriend Redeana Hammill, was adopted by David Cannon in 1997.

He and his mother, Elaine Moss, repeatedly complained to social workers about the abuse. In 2004, he was returned to Cannon’s care nine days after running away and making a complaint about him.

Cannon, 54, and his 31-year-old partner John Scarfe were each jailed for 30 months in May 2006 for inciting sexual activity with a child.

Mr Cannon said: ‘I believe if my adoptive dad was in a heterosexual relationship then my complaints would have been listened to earlier.



‘It seems the council didn’t want to be seen as victimising gay people – they would rather look politically correct and let them get away with it to avoid any repercussions.
Jailed: David Cannon was convicted for 30 months for inciting sexual activity with a child
Guilty: David Cannon's partner John Scarfe was also jailed for abusing Andy Cannon
‘The council should have been there to prevent this from happening but they would rather just sweep it under the carpet.’ The report, conducted for Dewsbury County Court by a child welfare specialist, detailed how Cannon was allowed to adopt the boy, despite his mother accusing him of abuse at the time.

A social worker failed to report the allegations to a family court and instead called Cannon ‘a very caring parent who considered his children’s needs’.

Mr Cannon, who has waived his right to anonymity, said: ‘When I told social workers they didn’t believe me. When I got home from school, if my dad was wound up by something I would pay for it with a beating. Then later on he would sexually abuse me.

‘I never really had nightmares because I completely switched off from it all – although I get nightmares now. I let it happen and thought that one of two things would happen. Either I’d manage to get away or they’d kill me.’

Wakefield council has apologised to Mr Cannon. A spokesman said: ‘We are working with Andy to make sure that in making this apology we deal with all the concerns he has raised.’


Source: Daily Mail UK