Judicial Watch:
A new government study says Muslim terrorists are widely misunderstood and don’t wish to impose Islam around world as is commonly believed in the west, they simply murder innocent people to defend against foreign attacks by enemies of Islam.
At least that’s what the experts at a public university in Arizona have determined. They offer details and make rather comical recommendations to counter terrorism in a taxpayer-funded study released this week. The highly-regarded academics operate a special center dedicated to studying the role of communication in combating terrorism, promoting national security and successfully engaging in public diplomacy worldwide.
To fulfill this mission, the center gets big bucks from the U.S. government. In fact, earlier this year it got a rather generous $6.1 million grant from the Department of Defense (DOD) for a neurophysiological study involving narrative comprehension and persuasion. The center’s biggest project, however, is a six-year, $4.5 million study on Islamist extremists’ use of narrative to influence contested populations in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, North Africa and Europe.
That brings us back to this week’s rather sympathetic report (How Islamist Extremists Quote the Qur’an) portraying Muslim terrorists as misunderstood by westerners. It spans 14 pages, but here is the gist of it; based on how they quote religious texts (Quran), Islamic extremists are not “an aggressive offensive foe seeking domination and conquest of unbelievers, as is commonly assumed. Instead they deal with themes of victimization, dishonor and retribution.”
The report continues: “The verses frequently utilized by extremists” address subjects such as “enduring hardships and the importance of fighting against the unjust unbelievers who oppress men, women and children.” This shows close integration with the rhetorical vision of Islamist extremism, according to the brilliant academics that compiled this on the government’s dime.
Now that we better understand these violent terrorists, researches recommend that the west abandon claims that Islamist extremists seek world domination, focus on counteracting or addressing claims of victimization, emphasize alternative means of deliverance and work to undermine the “champion” image sought by extremists. After all, “studies” have shown that al Qaeda-linked militants are 38 times more likely to kill a Muslim than a member of another group, according to these researchers, who say this is hardly the activity of a “competent champion.”
It is important to be realistic about Islamists’ arguments when trying to counter their influence attempts, says a professor to co-authored this study. “If we try to portray them as evil conquerors when their audience sees them as protectors and champions, it damages our credibility and makes our communication less effective,” he said. The report’s lead author confirmed that “what extremists are really saying to Muslims is ‘our communities are under siege and God will defend us if we have faith and courage’.”
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
This just in: Bain attack still not working
Hot Air:
Two analyses from the flawed WaPo/ABC poll, as well as spending in swing states, deliver grim news to Team Obama this morning. Their main line of attack in which they hope to paint Mitt Romney as an uber-rich vampire capitalist clearly isn’t moving the needle among voters — and that’s true despite an overwhelming spending advantage Barack Obama has enjoyed in the early going. Unless they can come up with a better argument, Romney’s fundraising will shortly put them in a very big hole.
First, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza notes that the spending strength of Team O has a serious downside, considering the results:
What’s clear from a broad analysis of ad spending in the swing states is that conservative super PACs are supplementing Romney in a way that is keeping him very much in the game. (A new Gallup/USA Today poll of 12 swing states shows Obama at 47 percent to Romney’s 45 percent.)
And now, with word of Romney’s massive June fundraising — $106 million collected — it seems likely that Romney will not only be able to equal Obama on air but, with an assist from the Republican super PACs, over take him between now and November 6.
And that’s a very scary proposition if you are on the Democratic side of the aisle.
That probably won’t take place until after Labor Day, but that’s precisely when it matters. Romney has held back on massive ad campaigns — not entirely, but not to the extent that Obama has — while he gathers his fiscal strength. This far out, it’s questionable whether an advertising blitz will even reach voters effectively, as they tend to tune out the television while going on vacations and engaging in other summer activities.
In this case, we can see how effective a massive summer campaign is, too, since Obama has conducted one. National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar looks at the WaPo/ABC poll and declares it nothing more than a wash, a way to mark time:
Two things have become clear in the presidential race over the past month. One, it’s evident that President Obama’s campaign team believes, with good justification, that attacking Romney’s record at Bain Capital to portray him as a wealthy, out-of-touch millionaire is their most effective line of attack. Second, it’s becoming clear that the attacks are doing more to buy the Obama campaign time than seriously change the trajectory of the race.
For all the attention paid to the effectiveness of President Obama’s Bain-themed attacks, it’s remarkable how Obama has been stuck right around 47 percent for a very long time. As the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza documented, the president’s team has handily outspent Romney and his allied super PACs, pouring in $91 million into eight swing states in an early spending barrage intended to make Romney seem an unacceptable challenger. But for all that effort, the numbers haven’t moved much at all: The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out today shows the race deadlocked at 47 percent. Yesterday’s USA Today/Gallup swing state poll showed Obama statistically tied with Romney, the exact same result the survey showed one month ago.
In other words, Team Obama spent a lot of money — an overwhelming amount — and it changed nothing about his standing in the race. Meanwhile, Romney saved his money and will have a big funding advantage in the post-Labor Day environment, while Obama struggles to raise funds. While Kraushaar thinks that Bain attacks are the most promising of Obama’s strategies, clearly they haven’t done anything even when Obama has had the stage to himself, after two full months of deploying this strategy. Even the WaPo/ABC poll shows that half of voters don’t care, and only 24% in a sample with 33% being Democrats think it constitutes a reason to vote against Romney.
If that’s the best option for Obama, he’s in deep trouble. Kraushaar thinks so, too:
They’ve gotten their first impressions from the early Obama television ads, but Romney will have his chance to tout his positives with the August convention and upcoming debates. There’s a reason why the Obama campaign is trying to disqualify Romney early on. Because if they don’t score an early knockout, it becomes harder to win over the late deciders as the election approaches.
If class warfare is all they have, they’re going to fail, and fail badly.
Two analyses from the flawed WaPo/ABC poll, as well as spending in swing states, deliver grim news to Team Obama this morning. Their main line of attack in which they hope to paint Mitt Romney as an uber-rich vampire capitalist clearly isn’t moving the needle among voters — and that’s true despite an overwhelming spending advantage Barack Obama has enjoyed in the early going. Unless they can come up with a better argument, Romney’s fundraising will shortly put them in a very big hole.
First, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza notes that the spending strength of Team O has a serious downside, considering the results:
What’s clear from a broad analysis of ad spending in the swing states is that conservative super PACs are supplementing Romney in a way that is keeping him very much in the game. (A new Gallup/USA Today poll of 12 swing states shows Obama at 47 percent to Romney’s 45 percent.)
And now, with word of Romney’s massive June fundraising — $106 million collected — it seems likely that Romney will not only be able to equal Obama on air but, with an assist from the Republican super PACs, over take him between now and November 6.
And that’s a very scary proposition if you are on the Democratic side of the aisle.
That probably won’t take place until after Labor Day, but that’s precisely when it matters. Romney has held back on massive ad campaigns — not entirely, but not to the extent that Obama has — while he gathers his fiscal strength. This far out, it’s questionable whether an advertising blitz will even reach voters effectively, as they tend to tune out the television while going on vacations and engaging in other summer activities.
In this case, we can see how effective a massive summer campaign is, too, since Obama has conducted one. National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar looks at the WaPo/ABC poll and declares it nothing more than a wash, a way to mark time:
Two things have become clear in the presidential race over the past month. One, it’s evident that President Obama’s campaign team believes, with good justification, that attacking Romney’s record at Bain Capital to portray him as a wealthy, out-of-touch millionaire is their most effective line of attack. Second, it’s becoming clear that the attacks are doing more to buy the Obama campaign time than seriously change the trajectory of the race.
For all the attention paid to the effectiveness of President Obama’s Bain-themed attacks, it’s remarkable how Obama has been stuck right around 47 percent for a very long time. As the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza documented, the president’s team has handily outspent Romney and his allied super PACs, pouring in $91 million into eight swing states in an early spending barrage intended to make Romney seem an unacceptable challenger. But for all that effort, the numbers haven’t moved much at all: The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out today shows the race deadlocked at 47 percent. Yesterday’s USA Today/Gallup swing state poll showed Obama statistically tied with Romney, the exact same result the survey showed one month ago.
In other words, Team Obama spent a lot of money — an overwhelming amount — and it changed nothing about his standing in the race. Meanwhile, Romney saved his money and will have a big funding advantage in the post-Labor Day environment, while Obama struggles to raise funds. While Kraushaar thinks that Bain attacks are the most promising of Obama’s strategies, clearly they haven’t done anything even when Obama has had the stage to himself, after two full months of deploying this strategy. Even the WaPo/ABC poll shows that half of voters don’t care, and only 24% in a sample with 33% being Democrats think it constitutes a reason to vote against Romney.
If that’s the best option for Obama, he’s in deep trouble. Kraushaar thinks so, too:
They’ve gotten their first impressions from the early Obama television ads, but Romney will have his chance to tout his positives with the August convention and upcoming debates. There’s a reason why the Obama campaign is trying to disqualify Romney early on. Because if they don’t score an early knockout, it becomes harder to win over the late deciders as the election approaches.
If class warfare is all they have, they’re going to fail, and fail badly.
Polls Prove Romney Outsmarted the Media … Again
Breitbart.com:
For weeks, all we've heard in reference to the media/Obama-led attacks against Romney's so-called outsourcing and offshore accounts is the following: "Romney needs to respond… Romney doesn’t have a response… It's time for Romney to respond." Across the media spectrum, we've heard this from Obama's Media Palace Guards on Twitter, in op-eds disguised as straight news, and from television's talking heads. The media has quite purposefully turned this call for Romney to respond into an incessant drumbeat. But…
It's a trap.
You see, the outsourcing charge is a bald-faced lie and the offshore-account charge is nothing more than a smear. It was the Washington Post that started the outsourcing lie and it was an Occupy-supporter in Vanity Fair who started the offshore-account smear.
A lie is a lie is a lie.
And a lie can't gain much traction because, other than the false charge, there's nothing else for the corrupt media to talk about. But one way to extend a false narrative is to pressure the victim of the lie to respond. A response automatically gives the narrative another few days of life, but as a result only does more damage to the victim. Therefore… a trap.
By not responding, the Romney campaign played a nerve-wracking (for his supporters) game of chicken but ultimately made the wise decision not to feed this narrative fire -- to not be the ones who gave the lies artificial life through the pointless act of trying to prove a negative.
And today, polls show Romney made the exact right decision:
Two things have become clear in the presidential race over the past month. One, it's evident that President Obama's campaign team believes, with good justification, that attacking Romney's record at Bain Capital to portray him as a wealthy, out-of-touch millionaire is their most effective line of attack. Second, it's becoming clear that the attacks are doing more to buy the Obama campaign time than seriously change the trajectory of the race.
For all the attention paid to the effectiveness of President Obama's Bain-themed attacks, it's remarkable how Obama has been stuck right around 47 percent for a very long time. As the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza documented, the president's team has handily outspent Romney and his allied super PACs, pouring in $91 million into eight swing states in an early spending barrage intended to make Romney seem an unacceptable challenger. But for all that effort, the numbers haven't moved much at all: The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out today shows the race deadlocked at 47 percent. Yesterday's USA Today/Gallup swing state poll showed Obama statistically tied with Romney, the exact same result the survey showed one month ago.
Meanwhile, in the coming months, Romney should have a spending advantage, having significantly outraised Obama over the last two months. Along with the RNC, the campaign has $160 million cash-on-hand, a total that will likely be greater than the Obama team's money. (The Obama campaign tellingly didn't release their cash-on-hand figures.) That will allow Romney to match or surpass Obama on the airwaves, having survived a period when he was outgunned.
One of the pieces of bait the media used to try and get Romney to respond was to bring up the damage the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did to John Kerry in '04. The myth is that Kerry ignored the criticism of his war record for too long and that this cost him the election.
But that is a myth. The difference between the Swift Boat Vets questioning Kerry's biography about his time in Vietnam and the media/Obama led outsource/offshore attacks is that the Vets were telling the truth and Obama and the media are lying. There's absolutely no upside for Romney to breathe life into a false narrative from a defensive crouch. None.
According to that new Washington Post poll, both men are tied at 47/47. But had a gullible Romney blinked and been fooled into letting himself get wrapped 'round the axle of these false charges, not only would the media have blown both stories up into something much bigger and longer-lasting (which is why they were begging Romney to respond), but today's poll numbers would likely look entirely different. Obama and the media had set up a no-win situation.
But what they didn’t count on was Romney refusing to play.
If you look at the state of the race today, we have 119 days to the election, Romney and the Republicans raised $106 million last month, $35 million more than Obama and the Democrats.
Obama has already spent a ton of money and begun to punch himself out with his best attacks.
Romney, however, hasn't even gotten started and has 16 weeks to expose before the voting public this president's failed record. And to do so only after people are paying attention.
The media is brilliant at creating a false reality that has nothing to do with what's happening out there in the world. If you watch CNN and MSNBC, you would think the roof was caving in on Romney over outsourcing and his personal wealth, but that's what the media wants us to believe in order to control the narrative and to get Romney to dance to their tune.
Thank heaven, Romney isn't falling for it.
Right now it's Obama who's acting erratic and panicked and like a loser, not Romney.
I like our chances and I love the discipline I'm seeing from Team Romney.
Darpa Gets a New Boss, and Solyndra Is in Her Past
wired.com — Until last year, Arati Prabhakar worked for the venture capitalists who backed Solyndra, the green-tech firm that imploded in a scandal described by Mitt Romney as an example of the White House’s ‘crony capitalism.’ Now Prabhakar has a new job, this one in the Obama administration: running the Pentagon’s most important research agency. 15 hr 42 min ago
DNA Said to Link Obama- Endorsed Occupy Wall St. Protest and 2004 Killing
DNA recovered from a chain at the site of an Occupy Wall Street protest in March has been matched with DNA linked to the unsolved killing of a Juilliard student in 2004, law enforcement officials familiar with the case said on Tuesday.
The student, Sarah Fox, 21, disappeared while on a jog in Inwood Hill Park in May 2004, and her naked body was found in the park almost a week later surrounded by yellow tulip petals. The DNA on the chain from the New York protest, the officials said, was matched with DNA found on her portable compact disc player, which was found in the park several days after her body was discovered.
Investigators were seeking to determine the significance of the DNA match. One law enforcement official said it was unclear who might have touched both the CD player and the chain and why, noting that it was possible that the person who did so might not have been the killer.
“Whether it’s a friend or the bad guy, we have to find out,” the official said.
The chain was used in March to prop open an emergency exit door at a subway station as part of an Occupy Wall Street action to allow passengers to ride free.
The police later released surveillance video of people in dark hoods and masks wrapping a long silver chain around the emergency exit door.
Officials said they had fed the DNA from the chain into a database, hoping to find the perpetrators. A computer indicated that some DNA matched that on Ms. Fox’s CD player.
Ms. Fox’s sister, Samantha Washlick, 33, said she had been given few details about the development in the death of her sister, who the police said was strangled. No one was ever charged.
“In regard to this new evidence, we’re confident that the prosecutor’s office will investigate all new evidence fully and inform us when sufficient evidence leads to an arrest,” Ms. Washlick said.
The development was reported on Tuesday by an NBC news affiliate in New York.
An Occupy Wall Street spokesman, Ed Needham, said, “We have no information about any alleged connection or those making such allegations.”
The investigation of Ms. Fox’s killing by the police and the Manhattan district attorney’s office had focused on Dimitry Sheinman, an artist and construction worker. Seven months after her body was found, the district attorney at the time, Robert M. Morgenthau, said that Mr. Sheinman was the “No. 1 suspect,” but that there was not enough evidence to charge him.
The new DNA findings raise questions about whether they have focused on the wrong person. Through his lawyer, Mr. Sheinman has denied any role in the killing.
Michael Schwirtz contributed reporting.
The student, Sarah Fox, 21, disappeared while on a jog in Inwood Hill Park in May 2004, and her naked body was found in the park almost a week later surrounded by yellow tulip petals. The DNA on the chain from the New York protest, the officials said, was matched with DNA found on her portable compact disc player, which was found in the park several days after her body was discovered.
Investigators were seeking to determine the significance of the DNA match. One law enforcement official said it was unclear who might have touched both the CD player and the chain and why, noting that it was possible that the person who did so might not have been the killer.
“Whether it’s a friend or the bad guy, we have to find out,” the official said.
The chain was used in March to prop open an emergency exit door at a subway station as part of an Occupy Wall Street action to allow passengers to ride free.
The police later released surveillance video of people in dark hoods and masks wrapping a long silver chain around the emergency exit door.
Officials said they had fed the DNA from the chain into a database, hoping to find the perpetrators. A computer indicated that some DNA matched that on Ms. Fox’s CD player.
Ms. Fox’s sister, Samantha Washlick, 33, said she had been given few details about the development in the death of her sister, who the police said was strangled. No one was ever charged.
“In regard to this new evidence, we’re confident that the prosecutor’s office will investigate all new evidence fully and inform us when sufficient evidence leads to an arrest,” Ms. Washlick said.
The development was reported on Tuesday by an NBC news affiliate in New York.
An Occupy Wall Street spokesman, Ed Needham, said, “We have no information about any alleged connection or those making such allegations.”
The investigation of Ms. Fox’s killing by the police and the Manhattan district attorney’s office had focused on Dimitry Sheinman, an artist and construction worker. Seven months after her body was found, the district attorney at the time, Robert M. Morgenthau, said that Mr. Sheinman was the “No. 1 suspect,” but that there was not enough evidence to charge him.
The new DNA findings raise questions about whether they have focused on the wrong person. Through his lawyer, Mr. Sheinman has denied any role in the killing.
Michael Schwirtz contributed reporting.
Homeland Security gains more power through new Obama executive order
The executive order, signed on Friday, once again expands the powers of the Department of Homeland Security — this time to include the handling of communications during a national security event or natural disaster. The order also allows for DHS to re-establish communications “through the use of commercial, government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate.”
The secretary of homeland security, in coordination with the secretary of defense, would also “serve as the federal lead for the prioritized restoration of communications infrastructure and coordinate the prioritization and restoration of communications, including resolution of any conflicts in or among priorities.”
In addition to further empowering DHS’ role in the federal government, the order also establishes several new committees and outlines the roles of various major executive branch agencies and offices, including the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, DHS, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, General Services Administration and the Federal Communications Commission.
The federal government already has its own emergency communications network — the National Communications System (NCS). First established by executive order during the Reagan administration, the NCS allows members of the federal government to communicate during emergencies by piggy backing off of private networks such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and various regional carriers. In 2003, the executive order that established NCS was extended to include cell phones.
The recent executive order also came days before public safety agencies across the country were to begin interoperability testing of equipment for the new national public safety LTE network (a high-speed mobile network), which will allow public safety officials to communicate over a national modern broadband network in the event of a crisis. The network will allow public safety officials to send and receive high-quality mobile data, such as video.
A knock-down, drag-out battle ensued for several years over the reallocation of prized spectrum for the development of the network as part of a result of the 9/11 Commission. A majority of the funding for the $7 billion network was established by Congress in February, with the network rollout estimated to begin next year.
DHS did not return The Daily Caller’s request for comment by the time of publication.
Another California city opts for bankruptcy
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (AP) -- As recently as last month, no city in California had opted for bankruptcy since 2008, and no U.S. city of more than 200,000 people had ever chosen bankruptcy.
The past two weeks have changed all that, in a big way, as the fiscal struggles faced by so many American cities became too much for some to bear.
San Bernardino became the third California city in that small span to choose Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection with a City Council vote on Tuesday night.
The Southern California city of about 210,000 people will also become the second largest in the nation ever to file for bankruptcy. Stockton, the Northern California city of nearly 300,000, became the biggest when it filed for Chapter 9 on June 28. The much smaller city of Mammoth Lakes voted for bankruptcy July 3.
San Bernardino's City Council directed the city attorney to make the move during a meeting where administrators explained the dire fiscal circumstances and urged them to choose the bankruptcy option.
"We have an immediate cash flow issue," Interim City Manager Andrea Miller told Mayor Patrick Morris and the seven-member City Council, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Miller said the city is facing a budget shortfall of $45.8 million. It has already stopped paying some vendors, and may not be able to make payroll over the next three months.
Four council members voted for the authorization, two opposed it, and one abstained.
"This is probably the hardest decision this councilwoman will ever have to make in this chair," Councilwoman Wendy McCammack said, according to the San Bernardino Sun.
The councilman who abstained from voting, John Valdivia, said he did not trust the information presented at the meeting, and having only served since March believed he should not be held responsible for the money mess.
"The taxpayers of this city have been duped, hoodwinked and misguided for the past several years," Valdivia said, according to the Sun.
It was not immediately clear when the city planned to file.
Sixty miles east of Los Angeles, San Bernardino is in a region that soared economically during the housing boom, and suffered accordingly after the crash.
It joins a number of other cities and counties across the nation that have plunged into financial crisis as the recession made it tough to cover rising costs involving payroll, pensions, bondholders and vendors.
Before Stockton, a California city had not filed for bankruptcy since Vallejo in 2008.
Since Congress added Chapter 9 to the bankruptcy code in 1937 to allow municipalities to seek protection, about 640 government entities have filed.
© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The past two weeks have changed all that, in a big way, as the fiscal struggles faced by so many American cities became too much for some to bear.
San Bernardino became the third California city in that small span to choose Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection with a City Council vote on Tuesday night.
The Southern California city of about 210,000 people will also become the second largest in the nation ever to file for bankruptcy. Stockton, the Northern California city of nearly 300,000, became the biggest when it filed for Chapter 9 on June 28. The much smaller city of Mammoth Lakes voted for bankruptcy July 3.
San Bernardino's City Council directed the city attorney to make the move during a meeting where administrators explained the dire fiscal circumstances and urged them to choose the bankruptcy option.
"We have an immediate cash flow issue," Interim City Manager Andrea Miller told Mayor Patrick Morris and the seven-member City Council, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Miller said the city is facing a budget shortfall of $45.8 million. It has already stopped paying some vendors, and may not be able to make payroll over the next three months.
Four council members voted for the authorization, two opposed it, and one abstained.
"This is probably the hardest decision this councilwoman will ever have to make in this chair," Councilwoman Wendy McCammack said, according to the San Bernardino Sun.
The councilman who abstained from voting, John Valdivia, said he did not trust the information presented at the meeting, and having only served since March believed he should not be held responsible for the money mess.
"The taxpayers of this city have been duped, hoodwinked and misguided for the past several years," Valdivia said, according to the Sun.
It was not immediately clear when the city planned to file.
Sixty miles east of Los Angeles, San Bernardino is in a region that soared economically during the housing boom, and suffered accordingly after the crash.
It joins a number of other cities and counties across the nation that have plunged into financial crisis as the recession made it tough to cover rising costs involving payroll, pensions, bondholders and vendors.
Before Stockton, a California city had not filed for bankruptcy since Vallejo in 2008.
Since Congress added Chapter 9 to the bankruptcy code in 1937 to allow municipalities to seek protection, about 640 government entities have filed.
© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Whistle-blower charges Planned Parenthood with repeated Medicaid fraud
EWTN:
Des Moines, Iowa:
A former Planned Parenthood clinic manager has alleged that her previous place of employment committed multiple counts of Medicaid fraud at the federal and state level.
“People may hold different views about abortion, but everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should play by the same rules as everyone else,” said attorney Michael Norton of the Alliance Defending Freedom.
In a lawsuit filed by Sue Thayer, a former clinic manager in Iowa, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has been accused of nearly half a million false claims involving Medicaid as well as failure to meet acceptable standards of medical practice.
“Americans deserve to know if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are misusing it,” Norton said of the case, which was filed in March of 2011 but made public on July 6.
The lawsuit charges that from from 2002 to 2009, Planned Parenthood knowingly over-collected on Medicaid reimbursements and received re-payment on products and services not covered under state law.
In one such instance, the suit explained, Planned Parenthood created a program that would automatically mail one-year's supply of birth control to clients regardless of whether or not the client requested the pills or had been examined by a qualified medical professional.
Planned Parenthood then collected reimbursement in the sum of $26.32 for the supply of birth control that cost the clinic only $2.98.
Norton said he believes that Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to receive any public funds, “especially if it is defrauding Medicaid and the American taxpayer.”
Should Thayer win the case, Planned Parenthood could be ordered to pay up to $5.5 billion in False Claims Act damages and penalties to both the United States and Iowa.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund, represented Abby Johnson in a similar case when she left her position as the director of Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic.
Thayer's case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Des Moines, Iowa:
A former Planned Parenthood clinic manager has alleged that her previous place of employment committed multiple counts of Medicaid fraud at the federal and state level.
“People may hold different views about abortion, but everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should play by the same rules as everyone else,” said attorney Michael Norton of the Alliance Defending Freedom.
In a lawsuit filed by Sue Thayer, a former clinic manager in Iowa, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has been accused of nearly half a million false claims involving Medicaid as well as failure to meet acceptable standards of medical practice.
“Americans deserve to know if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are misusing it,” Norton said of the case, which was filed in March of 2011 but made public on July 6.
The lawsuit charges that from from 2002 to 2009, Planned Parenthood knowingly over-collected on Medicaid reimbursements and received re-payment on products and services not covered under state law.
In one such instance, the suit explained, Planned Parenthood created a program that would automatically mail one-year's supply of birth control to clients regardless of whether or not the client requested the pills or had been examined by a qualified medical professional.
Planned Parenthood then collected reimbursement in the sum of $26.32 for the supply of birth control that cost the clinic only $2.98.
Norton said he believes that Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to receive any public funds, “especially if it is defrauding Medicaid and the American taxpayer.”
Should Thayer win the case, Planned Parenthood could be ordered to pay up to $5.5 billion in False Claims Act damages and penalties to both the United States and Iowa.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund, represented Abby Johnson in a similar case when she left her position as the director of Bryan, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic.
Thayer's case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Labor Dept. Estimates $7.1 Billion in Overpayments to Unemployed
ABC News:
While many Americans are feeling the pain of expired unemployment benefits, some have gotten a good chunk more than they were legally eligible for.
Preliminary estimates released by the U.S. Department of Labor find that, in 2009, states made more than $7.1 billion in overpayments in unemployment insurance, up from $4.2 billion the year before. The total amount of unemployment benefits paid in 2009 was $76.8 billion, compared to $41.6 billion in 2008.
Fraud accounted for $1.55 billion in estimated overpayments last year, while errors by state agencies were blamed for $2.27 billion, according to the Labor Department. The department's final report will be released next month.
Some of the overpayments likely can be traced back to the overwhelming workloads facing state employment agencies during the recession, said George Wentworth, a policy analyst for the National Employment Law Project.
"You've got a system that's been under siege like the unemployment insurance system has been for the last two years," Wentworth said. "You've got a lot of new staff coming into the system, there's been a lot of federal extensions [to unemployment insurance benefits] that have had to be programmed in and so on. There's just been a lot of change that states have had to handle. ... I just think the volume and the new staff have made the systems more susceptible to error."
Getty Images
Preliminary estimates released by the U.S.... View Full Caption
The newly-unemployed, meanwhile, have found themselves frustrated when trying to reach out to state officials for help in properly filling out their claims.
"In 2009, it was a fairly regularly event to see different states' call centers basically reaching maximum capacity where people would not be able to get through for hours or days at a time," Wentworth said.
The Unemployment Claims 'Tsunami'
Heidi Myhre, of Hudson County, N.J., questions whether she could have avoided an overpayment dispute with the state if she had gotten help filling out her unemployment claim early on. When filing for unemployment insurance in 2007, she called the state several times for guidance, she said, and got nowhere.
Among Myhre's questions: Where on her claim form she should disclose that she receives more than $100 a week in dividends from a family-owned elder care business?
Myhre ultimately decided not to list the payment as earnings because, at the time, she wasn't working for the business. She would go on to receive six months' worth of benefits totaling just under $14,000.
Earlier this year, the state demanded that Myhre to return all the money and also pay a $3,500 fine for fraud after state officials determined that the payments from her family business should have, in fact, been considered earnings. With the help of a lawyer, Myhre successfully appealed the state's decision and reduced what she owed to $6,300.
She remains bitter about the experience.
"It was the most poorly managed debacle I've ever seen in my whole life," she said.
Myhre's lawyer, Jef Henninger, said that in the last six months, he's seen a big uptick in calls from people who have made mistakes on their unemployment claims and now face payback demands from the state. Henninger expects the situation to grow worse before it gets better.
"With so many more people applying for unemployment, statistics tell you you're going to get more incidents like this," he said.
PAGE TWO>>
While many Americans are feeling the pain of expired unemployment benefits, some have gotten a good chunk more than they were legally eligible for.
Preliminary estimates released by the U.S. Department of Labor find that, in 2009, states made more than $7.1 billion in overpayments in unemployment insurance, up from $4.2 billion the year before. The total amount of unemployment benefits paid in 2009 was $76.8 billion, compared to $41.6 billion in 2008.
Fraud accounted for $1.55 billion in estimated overpayments last year, while errors by state agencies were blamed for $2.27 billion, according to the Labor Department. The department's final report will be released next month.
Some of the overpayments likely can be traced back to the overwhelming workloads facing state employment agencies during the recession, said George Wentworth, a policy analyst for the National Employment Law Project.
"You've got a system that's been under siege like the unemployment insurance system has been for the last two years," Wentworth said. "You've got a lot of new staff coming into the system, there's been a lot of federal extensions [to unemployment insurance benefits] that have had to be programmed in and so on. There's just been a lot of change that states have had to handle. ... I just think the volume and the new staff have made the systems more susceptible to error."
Getty Images
Preliminary estimates released by the U.S.... View Full Caption
The newly-unemployed, meanwhile, have found themselves frustrated when trying to reach out to state officials for help in properly filling out their claims.
"In 2009, it was a fairly regularly event to see different states' call centers basically reaching maximum capacity where people would not be able to get through for hours or days at a time," Wentworth said.
The Unemployment Claims 'Tsunami'
Heidi Myhre, of Hudson County, N.J., questions whether she could have avoided an overpayment dispute with the state if she had gotten help filling out her unemployment claim early on. When filing for unemployment insurance in 2007, she called the state several times for guidance, she said, and got nowhere.
Among Myhre's questions: Where on her claim form she should disclose that she receives more than $100 a week in dividends from a family-owned elder care business?
Myhre ultimately decided not to list the payment as earnings because, at the time, she wasn't working for the business. She would go on to receive six months' worth of benefits totaling just under $14,000.
Earlier this year, the state demanded that Myhre to return all the money and also pay a $3,500 fine for fraud after state officials determined that the payments from her family business should have, in fact, been considered earnings. With the help of a lawyer, Myhre successfully appealed the state's decision and reduced what she owed to $6,300.
She remains bitter about the experience.
"It was the most poorly managed debacle I've ever seen in my whole life," she said.
Myhre's lawyer, Jef Henninger, said that in the last six months, he's seen a big uptick in calls from people who have made mistakes on their unemployment claims and now face payback demands from the state. Henninger expects the situation to grow worse before it gets better.
"With so many more people applying for unemployment, statistics tell you you're going to get more incidents like this," he said.
PAGE TWO>>
Mandate waiver for some low-income people
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says low-income residents in states that decide to opt out of a big Medicaid expansion in the new health care law will not risk federal penalties as an unintended consequence.
The Supreme Court upheld most of President Barack Obama's health care law last week, including its requirement that virtually all Americans carry medical insurance. But the court gave states the option of saying no to a Medicaid expansion expected to provide coverage to more than 15 million people, mainly childless adults. Officials in some Republican-led states are already saying they'll opt out.
In a letter to governors Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said low-income residents in those states who would have been eligible for the coverage will not face the individual insurance mandate.
The Supreme Court upheld most of President Barack Obama's health care law last week, including its requirement that virtually all Americans carry medical insurance. But the court gave states the option of saying no to a Medicaid expansion expected to provide coverage to more than 15 million people, mainly childless adults. Officials in some Republican-led states are already saying they'll opt out.
In a letter to governors Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said low-income residents in those states who would have been eligible for the coverage will not face the individual insurance mandate.
Yuri Bezmenov (Russian KGB Defector) Explains How Communism Works
Occupy Wall Street: A failed, Communist Trojan Horse
CBO: The wealthly pay 70 percent of taxes
Washington Times:
Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.
CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.
The top 1 percent, who President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earns 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. But that share was down 4.4 percentage points from 2007, CBO said in a finding likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
The big losers over the last few years were the rest of the well-off, especially those in the top fifth, who saw their tax burdens go up.
“Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile,” CBO said. “Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose.”
The tax fight has risen to the top of this year’s presidential campaign, with Mr. Obama calling for the wealthy to pay more money both to lower the deficit and fund his new spending promises. He wants households making $250,000 or more a year to see their rates return to Clinton-era levels, though he has proposed a one-year extension of the rest of the Bush-era rates.
Republicans have countered that they want a one-year extension of all current rates in order to have breathing space to tackle a broader overhaul of the tax code.
CBO, the nonpartisan agency that serves as Congress’ official scorekeeper, said the current tax code is progressive chiefly because of the income-tax structure. On average, the lowest 40 percent of earners actually get money back through the income-tax code because of refundable tax credits.
Overall, the federal tax rates in 2008 and 2009 — at 18 percent and 17.4 percent — were the lowest in the last three decades, suggesting at least part of the reason the federal government has run record deficits in recent years.
In terms of actual earnings, the top 1 percent suffered the most in the recession, with their average earnings dropping from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. The lowest 20 percent saw their incomes drop from $23,900 to $23,500 during that time.
CBO included a wide range of measures of income including wages, employer-paid health insurance premiums and capital gains.
CBO said the top 1 percent earned an average of $1.9 million in pre-tax income in 2009, while the top 20 percent as a whole averaged $273,000. The fourth quintile averaged $98,400, the middle quintile averaged $67,600, the second quintile averaged $45,600 and the lowest quintile averaged $23,900 in income.
Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.
CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.
The top 1 percent, who President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earns 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. But that share was down 4.4 percentage points from 2007, CBO said in a finding likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
The big losers over the last few years were the rest of the well-off, especially those in the top fifth, who saw their tax burdens go up.
“Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile,” CBO said. “Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose.”
The tax fight has risen to the top of this year’s presidential campaign, with Mr. Obama calling for the wealthy to pay more money both to lower the deficit and fund his new spending promises. He wants households making $250,000 or more a year to see their rates return to Clinton-era levels, though he has proposed a one-year extension of the rest of the Bush-era rates.
Republicans have countered that they want a one-year extension of all current rates in order to have breathing space to tackle a broader overhaul of the tax code.
CBO, the nonpartisan agency that serves as Congress’ official scorekeeper, said the current tax code is progressive chiefly because of the income-tax structure. On average, the lowest 40 percent of earners actually get money back through the income-tax code because of refundable tax credits.
Overall, the federal tax rates in 2008 and 2009 — at 18 percent and 17.4 percent — were the lowest in the last three decades, suggesting at least part of the reason the federal government has run record deficits in recent years.
In terms of actual earnings, the top 1 percent suffered the most in the recession, with their average earnings dropping from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. The lowest 20 percent saw their incomes drop from $23,900 to $23,500 during that time.
CBO included a wide range of measures of income including wages, employer-paid health insurance premiums and capital gains.
CBO said the top 1 percent earned an average of $1.9 million in pre-tax income in 2009, while the top 20 percent as a whole averaged $273,000. The fourth quintile averaged $98,400, the middle quintile averaged $67,600, the second quintile averaged $45,600 and the lowest quintile averaged $23,900 in income.
The other foreclosure crisis: Losing a home for $400 in back taxes
CNN MONEY:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- People are losing their homes over unpaid tax bills that, in some cases, add up to just a few hundred dollars.
Outdated state laws that allow local governments to sell tax liens on delinquent properties to investors in order to more quickly collect on overdue property taxes is sparking a second "foreclosure crisis," a report from the National Consumer Law Center said Tuesday.
When homeowners don't pay property taxes or other municipal bills, like water or sewer fees, local governments have less money to maintain services like schools, police and fire departments and road maintenance. By selling tax liens, those governments can collect on what it is owed.
Investors, in return, effectively own a claim against the property until the homeowner pays the county or municipality back or until they default on the debt entirely. The investor can either collect interest on the taxes owed from the homeowner. Or, if the homeowner fails to pay up, the investor can take possession, or foreclose, on the home.
"It's a win-win for investors," said John Rao, a consumer credit and bankruptcy attorney and the author of the report. Either the investor gets their investment back with interest or they get the home -- typically, for a pretty sizable discount to what the home is worth.
The report cited a case of an 81-year-old Rhode Island woman who fell behind on a $474 sewer bill. A corporation bought the home in a tax sale for $836.39. The woman was evicted from the home she had lived in for more than 40 years and the corporation resold the place for $85,000, the report said.
Most investors, however, buy tax liens for the interest. That's because many states allow investors to charge rates of 18% or more on the outstanding debts. And, in some cases, as much as 20% to 50%, the report said.
"It is for this reason, that tax lien sales are often promoted on websites and late-night television advertisements as 'get-rich-quick' schemes," the report said.
Many states sell tax liens in auctions where investors bid on the interest rate that will be paid on the debt. In some auctions, there are so many investors competing against one another that the rates don't always hit those staggering double-digit rates. Investors may get more like 7% to 10% interest on the liens.
Sometimes, however, they can sell at or near the maximum, making it nearly impossible for the homeowner to afford the payments and the balance soon balloons.
The elderly are particularly vulnerable: As a result of high unemployment and declining home values, property tax delinquencies have increased to about $15 billion a year, according to the National Tax Lien Association.
And while many people are able to pay off their debts and reclaim their homes, a growing number of people are becoming vulnerable to tax lien foreclosures. Most at risk are the elderly, particularly those suffering from cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer's or dementia, said Rao.
"The process is incredibly confusing," said Rao. "The notices are in legalese that no one can understand. Some states do little to help. The concept of a 'right to redeem' is lost on many homeowners."
One elderly Montana woman, who lived alone and had no close family to help her, fell more than $5,000 behind on taxes, the report said. After she failed to respond to letters from the company that bought her home in a tax sale, she was evicted from her Missoula home. As a result, she lost about $150,000 in equity in the property, according to the report.
Fixing the 'other foreclosure crisis': The extent of the problem is difficult to determine. The cases occur at the local government level and no one agency or organization aggregates the data for the whole country, as they do for bank foreclosures, according to Rao.
To prevent outstanding debts from becoming insurmountable for homeowners to pay off, the National Consumer Law Center recommends that states lower the maximum interest rates allowed and limit other costs and fees. Rao also believes tax lien sales should be conducted in a two-step process with a court supervising the final property seizures.
State and local governments should also establish programs where property owners can pay off back taxes over time, instead of having to come up with a big lump sum, he said, and notices should be written in clear, easy-to-understand language. The procedure in Delaware, for example, begins with the filing of a "praecipe for monition" in the "office of the prothonotary."
Finally, the center is recommending that procedures be put in place where homeowners are adequately informed of their risks and status all through the process. Homes are lost because homeowners simply don't know what's going on until it's too late.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- People are losing their homes over unpaid tax bills that, in some cases, add up to just a few hundred dollars.
Outdated state laws that allow local governments to sell tax liens on delinquent properties to investors in order to more quickly collect on overdue property taxes is sparking a second "foreclosure crisis," a report from the National Consumer Law Center said Tuesday.
When homeowners don't pay property taxes or other municipal bills, like water or sewer fees, local governments have less money to maintain services like schools, police and fire departments and road maintenance. By selling tax liens, those governments can collect on what it is owed.
Investors, in return, effectively own a claim against the property until the homeowner pays the county or municipality back or until they default on the debt entirely. The investor can either collect interest on the taxes owed from the homeowner. Or, if the homeowner fails to pay up, the investor can take possession, or foreclose, on the home.
"It's a win-win for investors," said John Rao, a consumer credit and bankruptcy attorney and the author of the report. Either the investor gets their investment back with interest or they get the home -- typically, for a pretty sizable discount to what the home is worth.
The report cited a case of an 81-year-old Rhode Island woman who fell behind on a $474 sewer bill. A corporation bought the home in a tax sale for $836.39. The woman was evicted from the home she had lived in for more than 40 years and the corporation resold the place for $85,000, the report said.
Most investors, however, buy tax liens for the interest. That's because many states allow investors to charge rates of 18% or more on the outstanding debts. And, in some cases, as much as 20% to 50%, the report said.
"It is for this reason, that tax lien sales are often promoted on websites and late-night television advertisements as 'get-rich-quick' schemes," the report said.
Many states sell tax liens in auctions where investors bid on the interest rate that will be paid on the debt. In some auctions, there are so many investors competing against one another that the rates don't always hit those staggering double-digit rates. Investors may get more like 7% to 10% interest on the liens.
Sometimes, however, they can sell at or near the maximum, making it nearly impossible for the homeowner to afford the payments and the balance soon balloons.
The elderly are particularly vulnerable: As a result of high unemployment and declining home values, property tax delinquencies have increased to about $15 billion a year, according to the National Tax Lien Association.
And while many people are able to pay off their debts and reclaim their homes, a growing number of people are becoming vulnerable to tax lien foreclosures. Most at risk are the elderly, particularly those suffering from cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer's or dementia, said Rao.
"The process is incredibly confusing," said Rao. "The notices are in legalese that no one can understand. Some states do little to help. The concept of a 'right to redeem' is lost on many homeowners."
One elderly Montana woman, who lived alone and had no close family to help her, fell more than $5,000 behind on taxes, the report said. After she failed to respond to letters from the company that bought her home in a tax sale, she was evicted from her Missoula home. As a result, she lost about $150,000 in equity in the property, according to the report.
Fixing the 'other foreclosure crisis': The extent of the problem is difficult to determine. The cases occur at the local government level and no one agency or organization aggregates the data for the whole country, as they do for bank foreclosures, according to Rao.
To prevent outstanding debts from becoming insurmountable for homeowners to pay off, the National Consumer Law Center recommends that states lower the maximum interest rates allowed and limit other costs and fees. Rao also believes tax lien sales should be conducted in a two-step process with a court supervising the final property seizures.
State and local governments should also establish programs where property owners can pay off back taxes over time, instead of having to come up with a big lump sum, he said, and notices should be written in clear, easy-to-understand language. The procedure in Delaware, for example, begins with the filing of a "praecipe for monition" in the "office of the prothonotary."
Finally, the center is recommending that procedures be put in place where homeowners are adequately informed of their risks and status all through the process. Homes are lost because homeowners simply don't know what's going on until it's too late.
Kremlin internet bill 'signals growing repression of critics by Putin'
Russian censorship law will be 'like China's great firewall', say activists, as Wikipedia site shuts for day in protest
Gaurdian UK:
Two months after Vladimir Putin once again assumed the post of Russian president, the long-feared crackdown on his critics appears to have begun. The internet bill due to be considered by parliament on Wednesday is, say activists, the latest sign of growing repression of civil freedom in Russia.
The bill calls for the creation of a federal website "nolist". Internet providers and site owners would be forced to shut down any websites on this list. According to Wikipedia authors on Tuesday, the bill will "lead to the creation of a Russian analogue to China's great firewall".
The bill's backers in Putin's United Russia party argue that the amendments to the country's information legislation are aimed at child pornography and sites that promote drug use and teen suicide.
But critics, including the Russian-language Wikipedia, say the legislation could be used to boost government censorship over the internet.
In protest, the Russian-language Wikipedia site shut down for 24 hours on Tuesday. The Wikipedia logo was crossed out with a black rectangle, and the words "imagine a world without free knowledge" appeared underneath.
The Russian parliament's consideration of the controversial internet bill comes amid a host of other initiatives that activists say make up the biggest attempt since the Soviet era to silence government critics.
Before the start of the summer recess at the end of the week, MPs are to consider a bill that obliges non-governmental organisations receiving foreign funding to brand themselves "foreign agents".
Amendments to boost fines for defamation are also on the agenda. This year, fines for protesting have been heavily increased.
"This is the first time that we've seen a large-scope crackdown on people who dare challenge the government and express anti-Putin sentiments," said Masha Lipman, an analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Centre. "We have never had this before, but then we never had political rallies like this in post-Soviet Russia."
The laws are a response to the mass protests that have drawn tens of thousands of Russians on to the streets following Putin's declaration of returning to the presidency late last year, Lipman said. "There are two options – you either yield to the demands [of the protesters] or you crack down. Putin is not the type who yields to demands," Lipman said. "Putin's whole regime is based on control, on securing the ruling group from any challenge or contest."
She added: "The Kremlin showed some tolerance until the presidential election, but as soon as Putin had his election safely past him, the government began to crack down. Now there are more and more developments on a daily basis."
The internet bill prompted widespread outrage across the Russian network. On Tuesday, the blogging platform LiveJournal joined the protest against the bill.
The Russian justice ministry maintains a register of more than 1,000 websites that have been classed as "extremist" and ordered to be shut down.
The bill appears to realise the biggest fear of opposition activists – a platform that has so far remained relatively free has now become the target of Kremlin ire.
Anton Nossik, a Russian internet expert, wrote in his blog: "For the last 12 years I've lived in happy confidence that the Russian authorities would be smart enough not to censor the internet. But the situation, unfortunately, is changing."
With Russia's main state television channels under the control of the government, and its few free newspapers unable to be distributed across a vast country with poor infrastructure, the internet has become a growing source of free information. But that may now be changing.
According to thousands of emails leaked this year by the Russian arm of Anonymous, the Kremlin, until now, has limited its efforts to control the internet by paying commenters affiliated with the youth group Nashi to leave pro-government comments on certain websites.
Blogs and social networks have been a key aspect of the organisation of the street protests that have swept Moscow recently.
Alexey Navalny, a leading opposition figure, was relatively unknown until he began an anti-corruption blog. On his site on Tuesday he wrote: "The Kremlin swindlers have understood that paid commenters and an army of bots can't help them in any way with their 'ideological struggle for the internet'."
He backed Wikipedia's day-long shutdown, a move that echoes similar action, in January, by the English language Wikipedia concerning protest against the US Congress's consideration of the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Gaurdian UK:
Two months after Vladimir Putin once again assumed the post of Russian president, the long-feared crackdown on his critics appears to have begun. The internet bill due to be considered by parliament on Wednesday is, say activists, the latest sign of growing repression of civil freedom in Russia.
The bill calls for the creation of a federal website "nolist". Internet providers and site owners would be forced to shut down any websites on this list. According to Wikipedia authors on Tuesday, the bill will "lead to the creation of a Russian analogue to China's great firewall".
The bill's backers in Putin's United Russia party argue that the amendments to the country's information legislation are aimed at child pornography and sites that promote drug use and teen suicide.
But critics, including the Russian-language Wikipedia, say the legislation could be used to boost government censorship over the internet.
In protest, the Russian-language Wikipedia site shut down for 24 hours on Tuesday. The Wikipedia logo was crossed out with a black rectangle, and the words "imagine a world without free knowledge" appeared underneath.
The Russian parliament's consideration of the controversial internet bill comes amid a host of other initiatives that activists say make up the biggest attempt since the Soviet era to silence government critics.
Before the start of the summer recess at the end of the week, MPs are to consider a bill that obliges non-governmental organisations receiving foreign funding to brand themselves "foreign agents".
Amendments to boost fines for defamation are also on the agenda. This year, fines for protesting have been heavily increased.
"This is the first time that we've seen a large-scope crackdown on people who dare challenge the government and express anti-Putin sentiments," said Masha Lipman, an analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Centre. "We have never had this before, but then we never had political rallies like this in post-Soviet Russia."
The laws are a response to the mass protests that have drawn tens of thousands of Russians on to the streets following Putin's declaration of returning to the presidency late last year, Lipman said. "There are two options – you either yield to the demands [of the protesters] or you crack down. Putin is not the type who yields to demands," Lipman said. "Putin's whole regime is based on control, on securing the ruling group from any challenge or contest."
She added: "The Kremlin showed some tolerance until the presidential election, but as soon as Putin had his election safely past him, the government began to crack down. Now there are more and more developments on a daily basis."
The internet bill prompted widespread outrage across the Russian network. On Tuesday, the blogging platform LiveJournal joined the protest against the bill.
The Russian justice ministry maintains a register of more than 1,000 websites that have been classed as "extremist" and ordered to be shut down.
The bill appears to realise the biggest fear of opposition activists – a platform that has so far remained relatively free has now become the target of Kremlin ire.
Anton Nossik, a Russian internet expert, wrote in his blog: "For the last 12 years I've lived in happy confidence that the Russian authorities would be smart enough not to censor the internet. But the situation, unfortunately, is changing."
With Russia's main state television channels under the control of the government, and its few free newspapers unable to be distributed across a vast country with poor infrastructure, the internet has become a growing source of free information. But that may now be changing.
According to thousands of emails leaked this year by the Russian arm of Anonymous, the Kremlin, until now, has limited its efforts to control the internet by paying commenters affiliated with the youth group Nashi to leave pro-government comments on certain websites.
Blogs and social networks have been a key aspect of the organisation of the street protests that have swept Moscow recently.
Alexey Navalny, a leading opposition figure, was relatively unknown until he began an anti-corruption blog. On his site on Tuesday he wrote: "The Kremlin swindlers have understood that paid commenters and an army of bots can't help them in any way with their 'ideological struggle for the internet'."
He backed Wikipedia's day-long shutdown, a move that echoes similar action, in January, by the English language Wikipedia concerning protest against the US Congress's consideration of the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Hypocritic DNC Chair Invested in Swiss Banks, Foreign Drug Companies, Bank of India
Weekly Standard:
Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.
"Americans need to ask themselves, why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?" the DNC chair, a chief surrogate for President Obama's reelection team, said on Fox News Sunday two days ago. "Just something, a thought, that I'd like to leave folks with."
It's been a consistent theme of Obama's reelection strategy: Attack Romney for foreign investments he held, especially in Swiss bank accounts, "to try to promote his wealthy, out-of-touch businessman persona."
But disclosure forms reveal that in 2010, Wasserman Schultz invested between $1,001-$15,000 in a 401k retirement fund run by Davis Financial Fund. As the fund discloses, it is invested in the Julius Baer Group Ltd. and the State Bank of India GDR Ltd., as well as other financial, insurance, bank institutions.
"The Julius Baer Group is the leading Swiss private banking group, focusing exclusively on the demands of sophisticated private clients, family offices and external asset managers from around the world," its website explains. "Bank Julius Baer is the principal operating company of the Julius Baer Group, with origins dating back to 1890. The rich Swiss heritage becomes manifest in the values for which the Bank stands, e.g. trustworthiness, accountability, discretion and expertise. However, at the same time Julius Baer is a modern, forward-looking company at the leading edge of a genuine growth industry."
Similarly, according to disclosure forms from 2004, Wasserman Schultz had holdings in the Fidelity Advisor Overseas Fund. That fund is invested in HSBC bank (a British financial institution), Hengdeli Holdings (a Hong Kong watch company), Novo Nordisk (a Danish drug company), Volkswagen (a German auto company), Rakuten (a Japanese shipping business), Richemont Cie Financiere (a Swiss luxury goods company), and many others.
To be clear, there is nothing in Debbie Wasserman Schultz's disclosure forms to suggest that the DNC chair invested in anything illegal. But it is clear that some of her holdings had investments overseas, in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, the state bank of India, and many other overseas holdings.
The hypocrisy, though, is clear: The Democrats, as well as President Obama, hope to paint Romney as an out of touch man for holding money in overseas bank accounts, when in reality their own chairman, Wasserman Schultz, had overseas investments.
All this comes in addition to Wasserman Schultz's refusal to disclose her own tax returns, despite continuously calling on Romney to do so.
Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.
"Americans need to ask themselves, why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?" the DNC chair, a chief surrogate for President Obama's reelection team, said on Fox News Sunday two days ago. "Just something, a thought, that I'd like to leave folks with."
It's been a consistent theme of Obama's reelection strategy: Attack Romney for foreign investments he held, especially in Swiss bank accounts, "to try to promote his wealthy, out-of-touch businessman persona."
But disclosure forms reveal that in 2010, Wasserman Schultz invested between $1,001-$15,000 in a 401k retirement fund run by Davis Financial Fund. As the fund discloses, it is invested in the Julius Baer Group Ltd. and the State Bank of India GDR Ltd., as well as other financial, insurance, bank institutions.
"The Julius Baer Group is the leading Swiss private banking group, focusing exclusively on the demands of sophisticated private clients, family offices and external asset managers from around the world," its website explains. "Bank Julius Baer is the principal operating company of the Julius Baer Group, with origins dating back to 1890. The rich Swiss heritage becomes manifest in the values for which the Bank stands, e.g. trustworthiness, accountability, discretion and expertise. However, at the same time Julius Baer is a modern, forward-looking company at the leading edge of a genuine growth industry."
Similarly, according to disclosure forms from 2004, Wasserman Schultz had holdings in the Fidelity Advisor Overseas Fund. That fund is invested in HSBC bank (a British financial institution), Hengdeli Holdings (a Hong Kong watch company), Novo Nordisk (a Danish drug company), Volkswagen (a German auto company), Rakuten (a Japanese shipping business), Richemont Cie Financiere (a Swiss luxury goods company), and many others.
To be clear, there is nothing in Debbie Wasserman Schultz's disclosure forms to suggest that the DNC chair invested in anything illegal. But it is clear that some of her holdings had investments overseas, in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, the state bank of India, and many other overseas holdings.
The hypocrisy, though, is clear: The Democrats, as well as President Obama, hope to paint Romney as an out of touch man for holding money in overseas bank accounts, when in reality their own chairman, Wasserman Schultz, had overseas investments.
All this comes in addition to Wasserman Schultz's refusal to disclose her own tax returns, despite continuously calling on Romney to do so.
Texas Is America's Top State for Business 2012
CNBC:
Texas has done it again.
The Lone Star State makes a triumphant return as America’s Top State for Business—its third time at the top of our rankings.
"Listen, there is a reason that Caterpillar [CAT 80.27 -2.87 (-3.45%) ] moved their hydraulics manufacturing and their engine manufacturing to the state of Texas," said Gov. Rick Perry in November during the CNBC Republican presidential debate.
We can attest to that.
In our sixth annual study, Texas racked up an impressive 1,604 points out of a possible 2,500, with top-10 finishes in six of our 10 categories of competitiveness. Texas has never finished below second place since we began the study in 2007.
Each year, we score all 50 states on the criteria they use to sell themselves. This year’s analysis is the most comprehensive yet, using 51 metrics developed with the help of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness, as well as input from the states themselves.
READ: This year’s categories and possible point totals are>>
Texas has done it again.
The Lone Star State makes a triumphant return as America’s Top State for Business—its third time at the top of our rankings.
"Listen, there is a reason that Caterpillar [CAT 80.27 -2.87 (-3.45%) ] moved their hydraulics manufacturing and their engine manufacturing to the state of Texas," said Gov. Rick Perry in November during the CNBC Republican presidential debate.
We can attest to that.
In our sixth annual study, Texas racked up an impressive 1,604 points out of a possible 2,500, with top-10 finishes in six of our 10 categories of competitiveness. Texas has never finished below second place since we began the study in 2007.
Each year, we score all 50 states on the criteria they use to sell themselves. This year’s analysis is the most comprehensive yet, using 51 metrics developed with the help of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness, as well as input from the states themselves.
READ: This year’s categories and possible point totals are>>
Democrat ex-guv sentenced to probation
Former Missouri Gov. Wilson sentenced to probation
St. Louis Today:
ST. LOUIS • Former Missouri Gov. Roger Wilson was sentenced to probation in federal court here Monday for misusing money to make political donations.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Ann Medler's sentence was expected. Wilson faced probation to six months in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. His lawyer, Robert Haar, had asked for probation, citing his long public service record.
After a lengthy investigation, Wilson was indicted in April on a misdemeanor insurance charge for laundering a total $8,000 in campaign contributions from Missouri Employers Mutual Co., a state-created workers' compensation company based in Columbia, to the Missouri Democratic Party through a St. Louis law firm, Herzog Crebs. Former Herzog Crebs partner Ed Griesedieck III was also indicted.
Wilson was president and CEO of MEM at the time.
Medler sentenced Wilson to two years of probation and ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine and $5,000 in restitution. He will also complete 100 hours of community service.
Griesedieck received one year of probation. The other aspects of his sentence were the same.
In court Wilson read a short statement in which he thanked his family and friends. He apologized and said he looks forward to a future in community service.
"There are no excuses," he said. "I made a mistake."
He read a similar statement outside the courthouse. He also said that he had already paid the fine and half of the restitution. Griesedieck presumably has or will pay the rest.
DONATION SCHEME
State campaign finance records show that the contributions, $5,000 on Aug. 28, 2009, and $3,000 on Dec. 22, 2009, came from the Herzog Crebs law firm. The $5,000 was reimbursed via bogus legal bills paid by MEM, which Wilson reviewed and approved.
Former MEM chairman Doug Morgan, who orchestrated the scheme, asked Griesedieck to bill the $3,000 contribution in two parts to him, planning to get reimbursed from MEM.
But by August 2010, Morgan had not paid the bill, and asked Griesedieck to bill the insurer instead. MEM's in-house counsel reviewed the legal bill, and asked Wilson about it. He denied any knowledge of the contribution or the agreement to bill it to the insurer, his plea says.
He wrote a personal check for the money on Nov. 3, 2010, after talking to Griesedieck and Morgan in September and October, his plea says.
Griesedieck also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with the case and will be sentenced later today. He has agreed not to practice law for 18 months and his law license has been suspended pending a final disciplinary ruling from the Missouri Supreme Court.
Wilson served two terms as lieutenant governor and nearly 14 years in the state senate. He also formerly chaired the Missouri Tourism Commission and the Missouri Rural Economic Development Council.
Wilson was sworn in as Missouri's 52nd governor following the death of Gov. Mel Carnahan in 2000 in a plane crash.
After leaving office, Wilson worked for a money management firm and served as the Missouri Democratic Party's chairman from 2004 to 2007.
Griesedieck was a partner and member of Herzog Crebs' management committee, did corporate and real estate work and acted as general counsel for a number of corporations throughout the Midwest, according to the firm's website. He also is a former city attorney and prosecuting attorney for several St. Louis County communities and hosted the "Ask the Attorney" program on KMOX for 20 years.
He graduated from Notre Dame and St. Louis University Law School.
The indictments of Wilson and Griesedieck came during a series of scandals at MEM, including a critical state audit and the indictment of Morgan and another board member. Both later died while awaiting trial.
In April, after the indictments and guilty pleas, MEM issued a written statement indicating that “internal and external, independent investigations have confirmed there have been no other similar incidents at MEM.”
Copyright 2012 stltoday.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
St. Louis Today:
ST. LOUIS • Former Missouri Gov. Roger Wilson was sentenced to probation in federal court here Monday for misusing money to make political donations.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Ann Medler's sentence was expected. Wilson faced probation to six months in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. His lawyer, Robert Haar, had asked for probation, citing his long public service record.
After a lengthy investigation, Wilson was indicted in April on a misdemeanor insurance charge for laundering a total $8,000 in campaign contributions from Missouri Employers Mutual Co., a state-created workers' compensation company based in Columbia, to the Missouri Democratic Party through a St. Louis law firm, Herzog Crebs. Former Herzog Crebs partner Ed Griesedieck III was also indicted.
Wilson was president and CEO of MEM at the time.
Medler sentenced Wilson to two years of probation and ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine and $5,000 in restitution. He will also complete 100 hours of community service.
Griesedieck received one year of probation. The other aspects of his sentence were the same.
In court Wilson read a short statement in which he thanked his family and friends. He apologized and said he looks forward to a future in community service.
"There are no excuses," he said. "I made a mistake."
He read a similar statement outside the courthouse. He also said that he had already paid the fine and half of the restitution. Griesedieck presumably has or will pay the rest.
DONATION SCHEME
State campaign finance records show that the contributions, $5,000 on Aug. 28, 2009, and $3,000 on Dec. 22, 2009, came from the Herzog Crebs law firm. The $5,000 was reimbursed via bogus legal bills paid by MEM, which Wilson reviewed and approved.
Former MEM chairman Doug Morgan, who orchestrated the scheme, asked Griesedieck to bill the $3,000 contribution in two parts to him, planning to get reimbursed from MEM.
But by August 2010, Morgan had not paid the bill, and asked Griesedieck to bill the insurer instead. MEM's in-house counsel reviewed the legal bill, and asked Wilson about it. He denied any knowledge of the contribution or the agreement to bill it to the insurer, his plea says.
He wrote a personal check for the money on Nov. 3, 2010, after talking to Griesedieck and Morgan in September and October, his plea says.
Griesedieck also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with the case and will be sentenced later today. He has agreed not to practice law for 18 months and his law license has been suspended pending a final disciplinary ruling from the Missouri Supreme Court.
Wilson served two terms as lieutenant governor and nearly 14 years in the state senate. He also formerly chaired the Missouri Tourism Commission and the Missouri Rural Economic Development Council.
Wilson was sworn in as Missouri's 52nd governor following the death of Gov. Mel Carnahan in 2000 in a plane crash.
After leaving office, Wilson worked for a money management firm and served as the Missouri Democratic Party's chairman from 2004 to 2007.
Griesedieck was a partner and member of Herzog Crebs' management committee, did corporate and real estate work and acted as general counsel for a number of corporations throughout the Midwest, according to the firm's website. He also is a former city attorney and prosecuting attorney for several St. Louis County communities and hosted the "Ask the Attorney" program on KMOX for 20 years.
He graduated from Notre Dame and St. Louis University Law School.
The indictments of Wilson and Griesedieck came during a series of scandals at MEM, including a critical state audit and the indictment of Morgan and another board member. Both later died while awaiting trial.
In April, after the indictments and guilty pleas, MEM issued a written statement indicating that “internal and external, independent investigations have confirmed there have been no other similar incidents at MEM.”
Copyright 2012 stltoday.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Christie rejects Obama's stimulus cash
$tuff it, O .... ‘Can’t afford’ stimulus
New York Post:
'Don't send me any more money to hire public employees ... They're expensive!' — Gov. Chris Christie, yesterday, on Obama's stimulus plan.
WASHINGTON — No more public workers — please!
That was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s alarmed reaction to President Obama’s push to send states another dose of stimulus money to hire teachers, firefighters and police.
“Please don’t send me any more money to hire more public employees. Please don’t,” implored Christie yesterday in a speech at the Brookings Institute, a liberal Washington think tank.
“I’ve got plenty as it is, and I don’t need any more, and they’re expensive!” said the brash governor, who won a hard-fought showdown with teachers unions over benefits and pensions.
Temporary federal aid to hire permanent state and local workers, he argued, only leads to huge budget shortfalls or layoffs when the stimulus money runs out.
“I have the highest property taxes in America to begin with,” said Christie. “Where’s this money going to come from to pay these folks afterwards?”
Obama offered up the second stimulus as part of his re-election campaign. He promised that it would reboot the stalled recovery by growing the public sector, which he insists is doing worse than the private sector.
Christie’s address to a national audience easily could have been a stump speech in the presidential race, as he described how his “New Jersey approach” should be a blueprint to end gridlock in Washington.
It only fueled speculation that Christie is a top candidate to become Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s running mate.
Christie suggested that Jersey’s state Senate Democrats were blocking a tax-cut deal to complicate his potential speaking date at the Republican National Convention next month in Tampa, Fla.
“A speech I’ve not been invited to give,” he said coyly.
Christie surely looked more like a VP candidate in the button-down Washington setting than he did last week holding an ice-cream cone and shouting down a heckler on a Jersey Shore boardwalk.
“If the president and the Congress want to spend money on something that will create jobs, then spend money on infrastructure, which builds private-sector jobs,” he said yesterday.
Christie also said he would wait until next year — after the presidential election — to decide whether his state would adopt the ObamaCare expansion of Medicaid.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the Obama administration cannot withhold all Medicaid payments to states to force participation in the expansion, as the law originally prescribed.
“I’m really glad that a majority of the Supreme Court still supports the proposition . . . that extortion is still illegal in the country, even when it’s done by the president of the United States,” the governor said.
New York Post:
WASHINGTON — No more public workers — please!
That was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s alarmed reaction to President Obama’s push to send states another dose of stimulus money to hire teachers, firefighters and police.
“Please don’t send me any more money to hire more public employees. Please don’t,” implored Christie yesterday in a speech at the Brookings Institute, a liberal Washington think tank.
“I’ve got plenty as it is, and I don’t need any more, and they’re expensive!” said the brash governor, who won a hard-fought showdown with teachers unions over benefits and pensions.
Temporary federal aid to hire permanent state and local workers, he argued, only leads to huge budget shortfalls or layoffs when the stimulus money runs out.
“I have the highest property taxes in America to begin with,” said Christie. “Where’s this money going to come from to pay these folks afterwards?”
Obama offered up the second stimulus as part of his re-election campaign. He promised that it would reboot the stalled recovery by growing the public sector, which he insists is doing worse than the private sector.
Christie’s address to a national audience easily could have been a stump speech in the presidential race, as he described how his “New Jersey approach” should be a blueprint to end gridlock in Washington.
It only fueled speculation that Christie is a top candidate to become Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s running mate.
Christie suggested that Jersey’s state Senate Democrats were blocking a tax-cut deal to complicate his potential speaking date at the Republican National Convention next month in Tampa, Fla.
“A speech I’ve not been invited to give,” he said coyly.
Christie surely looked more like a VP candidate in the button-down Washington setting than he did last week holding an ice-cream cone and shouting down a heckler on a Jersey Shore boardwalk.
“If the president and the Congress want to spend money on something that will create jobs, then spend money on infrastructure, which builds private-sector jobs,” he said yesterday.
Christie also said he would wait until next year — after the presidential election — to decide whether his state would adopt the ObamaCare expansion of Medicaid.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the Obama administration cannot withhold all Medicaid payments to states to force participation in the expansion, as the law originally prescribed.
“I’m really glad that a majority of the Supreme Court still supports the proposition . . . that extortion is still illegal in the country, even when it’s done by the president of the United States,” the governor said.
Off the tax cliff he goes..
Wall Street Journal:
President Obama wants lower rates for GE and J.P. Morgan than for small business.
So the 2013 tax cliff is a big enough economic problem that President Obama now wants to postpone it for some taxpayers. But it isn't so big that he's willing to curb his desire to raise taxes on tens of thousands of job-creating businesses.
That's the essence of Mr. Obama's announcement Monday that he wants Congress to extend current tax rates for a year, but only for those making less than $200,000 a year. This is a political gambit designed to protect Democrats who are starting to feel queasy about opposing GOP plans to extend all of the Bush rates as the economy weakens again. The ploy could help Democrats if Republicans fall for it, but it won't reduce the economic damage to the country.
By Mr. Obama's economic logic, tax increases matter on middle-income earners but are irrelevant to everyone else. "By the way, these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are also the tax cuts that are least likely to promote growth," as he put it Monday.
The President dismissed all of this as merely affecting 3% of small business owners. But that includes tens of thousands of the most productive, fastest-growing small businesses—those most likely to hire workers amid a national jobless rate of 8.2%.
Congress's Joint Tax Committee—not a conservative outfit—estimates that in 2013 about 940,000 taxpayers will have enough business income to meet Mr. Obama's tax increase threshold. And of the roughly $1.3 trillion in net business income, about 53% will get hit with the higher tax rates.
This is because millions of businesses report their income as sole proprietors and subchapter S corporations that file under the individual tax code. So Mr. Obama wants these businesses to pay higher tax rates than the giant likes of General Electric or J.P. Morgan. Does that qualify as "tax fairness"?
As for the impact on growth, even Keynesian theory holds that raising taxes should be avoided in a weak economy. That's the argument that Mr. Obama used in late 2010 when he agreed with Republicans to extend the Bush rates through the end of 2012.
His assumption then was that the economy would be stronger now, but today we are in the third slow-growth patch in three years. Businesses are sitting on their wallets as they wait out the tax, regulatory and election uncertainty. Mr. Obama's tax gambit will only increase that uncertainty and further retard investment and job creation.
We also know from experience that high earners are most able to move their money to avoid high tax rates. If they don't have tax shelters at home, they can find opportunities abroad. Mr. Obama is running ads accusing Mitt Romney of sending jobs offshore, but the best way to send capital and jobs overseas is to raise U.S. tax rates to levels that aren't competitive with the rest of the world.
Mr. Obama tacitly admits this when he talks about corporate tax reform, but raising tax rates merely increases the incentive for Congress to create more tax shelters. Mr. Obama promised Monday that if Republicans accept his proposal now, they can all come together on tax reform next year. But he knows that if tax rates rise, the Beltway's revenue "scoring" conventions will make it that much harder to cut rates again as part of tax reform. In any event, he showed the value of his promises during his 2011 backroom budget charade with Speaker John Boehner.
The good news Monday is that Republicans in Congress and Mr. Romney seemed disinclined to take this class-war bait. Perhaps they realize that if they agree to raise some taxes but not others, they'll dispirit their own base and hurt the economy. They can also put Senate Democrats on the spot by forcing them to choose between extending rates for everyone and accepting Mr. Obama's tax increase. Republicans can win this debate by stressing growth over fairness and jobs over income redistribution.
A version of this article appeared July 10, 2012, on page A12 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Off the Tax Cliff He Goes.
Closure of Border Patrol stations triggers alarm
Fox News:
The Obama administration is moving to shut down nine Border Patrol stations across four states, triggering a backlash from local law enforcement, members of Congress and Border Patrol agents themselves.
Critics of the move warn the closures will undercut efforts to intercept drug and human traffickers in well-traveled corridors north of the U.S.-Mexico border. Though the affected stations are scattered throughout northern and central Texas, and three other states, the coverage areas still see plenty of illegal immigrant activity -- one soon-to-be-shuttered station in Amarillo, Texas, is right in the middle of the I-40 corridor; another in Riverside, Calif., is outside Los Angeles.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it's closing the stations in order to reassign agents to high-priority areas closer to the border.
"These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America's borders, and our objective of increasing and sustaining the certainty of arrest of those trying to enter our country illegally," CBP spokesman Bill Brooks said in a statement. "By redeploying and reallocating resources at or near the border, CBP will maximize the effectiveness of its enforcement mandate and align our investments with our mission."
But at least one Border Patrol supervisor in Texas has called on local officers to "voice your concerns" to elected officials, warning that the "deactivation" will remove agents from the Texas Panhandle, among other places. Several members of Congress have asked Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher to reconsider the plan. And local officials are getting worried about what will happen once the Border Patrol leaves town, since they rely on those federal officials to assist in making immigration arrests.
"It could impact us tremendously since we've only got two agents up here now for 26 counties," Potter County Sheriff Brian Thomas told FoxNews.com.
Potter County, in the Texas Panhandle, would be affected by the planned closure of the Amarillo station.
Thomas said that while his area is far from the border, it's still a major "corridor" for illegal immigrants -- and he said his office depends on Border Patrol to respond to their calls.
"I can't hold a carload of people out there on I-40 for eight hours while somebody comes from El Paso," he said. "I mean, that's just crazy."
Border Patrol's resident agent in charge in Amarillo expressed similar worries, in a recent memo to local law enforcement alerting them to the planned closure. The official, Robert Green, warned that the "entire complement" of two agents would be reassigned from Amarillo to somewhere closer to the border. He said "there is no active plan" right now for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to fill the void on assisting local officials with stops.
Empathizing with local officials, he wrote: "As a former deputy I found myself on the other end of the radio hoping to contact USBP to assist me with a vehicle full of undocumented foreign nationals on the side of the road."
And in an unusual plea, he urged the recipients of his memo to contact elected officials about the change. "I would encourage you, if you have found USBP assistance valuable in the past, to contact your political representatives and voice your concerns," Green wrote.
The letter was first posted online by the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Thomas confirmed to FoxNews.com that he received it. Bob Dane, communications director with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, also said he's confirmed the letter's authenticity with ICE.
CBP later acknowledged the memo, but said in its statement that Green was expressing his "personal opinion."
Lawmakers have started to get involved. Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, who represents Amarillo, joined two other Texas lawmakers whose districts would be affected in asking the Border Patrol chief to "reconsider the proposal."
A letter sent Tuesday to Fisher warned the plan would "leave our area vulnerable." They noted that the Amarillo and Lubbock stations alone, two of those affected, accounted for 638 apprehensions of illegal immigrants just this year.
FAIR also blasted the Obama administration for the plans.
"It's part of the systematic dismantling of both border and interior enforcement," Dane told FoxNews.com. "It complements the non-enforcement policy of this administration."
He warned that local officials in those areas will have a hard time summoning far-away Border Patrol agents to assist, and said the tone of Green's memo was a "not-so-subtle shout-out" that the agency feels "outmanned, outgunned ... by their own government."
The stations set for closure in about six months include six in Texas. They are in: Lubbock, Amarillo, Dallas, San Angelo, Abilene and San Antonio. The other three are in Billings, Mont.; Twin Falls, Idaho; and Riverside, Calif.
Brooks said that the closures do not mean agents will be out of contact.
"Though Border Patrol agents would no longer be located in these areas, the Border Patrol intends to maintain strong and meaningful law enforcement partnerships with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local law enforcement agencies in these areas through continuing to actively share intelligence and information" and other avenues, he said.
Detractors, though, say the changes are part of a pattern. The administration recently announced it would stop deporting young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have not committed a serious crime. And after the Supreme Court upheld one plank of Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law last month, federal officials said ICE would be selective in responding to calls about immigration status - prioritizing cases that meet certain criteria, like whether the suspect is wanted for a felony.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, who signed the Thornberry letter, also voiced concern about the latest announcement on station closings in a written statement.
"The Department of Homeland Security hasn't demonstrated that sending additional resources to the border will be a more efficient use of resources than maintaining a presence further north," Neugebauer said. "I'd like to see numbers that reassure me that this strategy change won't ultimately result in fewer arrests."
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
NAACP Requires Two Forms of ID From Media to See Eric Holder Say Voter ID Laws Are Racist
The Blaze:
Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP National Convention in Houston earlier today where he blasted the state of Texas for pursuing voter ID laws, saying they discriminate against minorities and even called requiring a valid ID to vote a “poll tax.”
Well, unless there wasn’t a single minority journalist in attendance at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Monday, the NAACP is guilty of racial discrimination, at least according to Holder’s blanket definition of the term.
Townhall’s Katie Pavlich reports the NAACP required all media in attendance to present a “government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials.” This is according to a press release reportedly circulated by the group prior to the conference.
Townhall has more details:
Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP [National] Convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to attend? That’s right, government issued photo identification (and a second form of identification too!), something both Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to voting. Holder’s DOJ is currently suing Texas for “discriminatory” voter ID laws. From the press release:
‘All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials at http://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.’
To make it even more ironic, NAACP CEO and President Benjamin Jealous addressed the conference on Monday and also railed against voter ID laws, comparing the issue to the civil rights battles of the 1960s. These are “Selma and Montgomery times,” he said, referring to historic Alabama civil rights confrontations.
“We must overwhelm the rising tide of voting suppression with the high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection,” said Jealous.
GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is expected to speak at the NAACP conference tomorrow.
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) called out Holder for his apparent hypocrisy today while speaking on the House Floor, saying: “Holder is inconsistent. He believes in security and photo IDs for people when he speaks but rejects valid security and IDs for people when they vote.” Watch all of his comments here:
You can watch Holder explain his stance on voter ID laws via NBC below, where he says there is “no proof” of “voter fraud”: HERE
And following Holder’s assertion that voter fraud is nonexistent, Townhall was clever enough to include the video of activist James O‘Keefe receiving Holder’s ballot in Washington, D.C., which can be seen here
Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP National Convention in Houston earlier today where he blasted the state of Texas for pursuing voter ID laws, saying they discriminate against minorities and even called requiring a valid ID to vote a “poll tax.”
Well, unless there wasn’t a single minority journalist in attendance at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Monday, the NAACP is guilty of racial discrimination, at least according to Holder’s blanket definition of the term.
Townhall’s Katie Pavlich reports the NAACP required all media in attendance to present a “government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials.” This is according to a press release reportedly circulated by the group prior to the conference.
Townhall has more details:
Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP [National] Convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. What did media need in order to attend? That’s right, government issued photo identification (and a second form of identification too!), something both Holder and the NAACP stand firmly against when it comes to voting. Holder’s DOJ is currently suing Texas for “discriminatory” voter ID laws. From the press release:
‘All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials at http://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 7:45 a.m. CDT for an 8:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.’
To make it even more ironic, NAACP CEO and President Benjamin Jealous addressed the conference on Monday and also railed against voter ID laws, comparing the issue to the civil rights battles of the 1960s. These are “Selma and Montgomery times,” he said, referring to historic Alabama civil rights confrontations.
“We must overwhelm the rising tide of voting suppression with the high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection,” said Jealous.
GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is expected to speak at the NAACP conference tomorrow.
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) called out Holder for his apparent hypocrisy today while speaking on the House Floor, saying: “Holder is inconsistent. He believes in security and photo IDs for people when he speaks but rejects valid security and IDs for people when they vote.” Watch all of his comments here:
You can watch Holder explain his stance on voter ID laws via NBC below, where he says there is “no proof” of “voter fraud”: HERE
And following Holder’s assertion that voter fraud is nonexistent, Townhall was clever enough to include the video of activist James O‘Keefe receiving Holder’s ballot in Washington, D.C., which can be seen here
Six-year-old rapper’s raunchy video for single Booty Pop is an online hit (but he’s too young to watch it)
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME!! Can you say "video evidence" of "corruption of a minor"?
UK Daily Mail:
YouTube has flagged it as inappropriate, restricting users under 18
Viewers have called it 'child abuse'
This six-year-old rapper can sing 'I can make your booty pop' but is too young to watch his film clip full of semi-naked women because YouTube has flagged it as inappropriate.
Albert Roundtree Jnr from South Florida has released a YouTube video for his first single Booty Pop, which features the little boy singing lines like ‘I can make your booty pop’ while two women’s bikini-clad bottoms shake around him.
Since it was uploaded on July 2, YouTube has flagged it as inappropriate, restricting users under 18.
Too young: Albert Roundtree Jnr, 6, wedged between bikini clad bottoms as he sings 'I can make your booty pop, booty pop, booty pop'
'Everyone making this video should be ashamed' a disgusted YouTube user said after seeing scenes like this in the film clip
The video has been a hit, with more than 224,000 views already but with over 3,000 dislikes many YouTube users expressed their disgust. Surely most six-year-olds are too young to know how to make a woman move her behind.
One YouTube user said: ‘Reported this video for child abuse - any other sane thinker should do the same’.
Another said: ‘Every adult involved in this video, especially the one shaking her cellulite next to this little boy's face, should be ashamed of themselves...It's repulsive. I would've gotten in trouble for saying booty pop when I was his age’.
There's been more than 224,000 views of the video clip but with over 3,000 dislikes, it's got people wondering - where are his parents?
Some questioned how the tables would have turned had this been a little girl performing like this.
'Many people say this is cute or funny...but now imagine a little 6 year old girl in same position with grown up man dancing around her,' one YouTube user said.
Repulsed by the content, Vibe Magazine has labelled it as child abuse but the creators, Froze-N-Time Productions, say it’s ‘the music video to end all music videos’.
The video clip features Albert in board shorts and sunglasses, playing in the pool and rapping lyrics like 'I'm the baddest boy in town, you the hottest girl around' while surrounded by several women frolicking in a swimming pool.
YouTube put age restrictions on content that’s sexually suggestive or contains partial nudity, and plenty of viewers were quick to disapprove of a young boy rapping about booty popping.
The creators Froze-N-Time Productions say it's 'the music video to end all music videos'. Vibe magazine calls it 'child abuse
UK Daily Mail:
YouTube has flagged it as inappropriate, restricting users under 18
Viewers have called it 'child abuse'
This six-year-old rapper can sing 'I can make your booty pop' but is too young to watch his film clip full of semi-naked women because YouTube has flagged it as inappropriate.
Albert Roundtree Jnr from South Florida has released a YouTube video for his first single Booty Pop, which features the little boy singing lines like ‘I can make your booty pop’ while two women’s bikini-clad bottoms shake around him.
Since it was uploaded on July 2, YouTube has flagged it as inappropriate, restricting users under 18.
The video has been a hit, with more than 224,000 views already but with over 3,000 dislikes many YouTube users expressed their disgust. Surely most six-year-olds are too young to know how to make a woman move her behind.
One YouTube user said: ‘Reported this video for child abuse - any other sane thinker should do the same’.
Another said: ‘Every adult involved in this video, especially the one shaking her cellulite next to this little boy's face, should be ashamed of themselves...It's repulsive. I would've gotten in trouble for saying booty pop when I was his age’.
Some questioned how the tables would have turned had this been a little girl performing like this.
'Many people say this is cute or funny...but now imagine a little 6 year old girl in same position with grown up man dancing around her,' one YouTube user said.
Repulsed by the content, Vibe Magazine has labelled it as child abuse but the creators, Froze-N-Time Productions, say it’s ‘the music video to end all music videos’.
The video clip features Albert in board shorts and sunglasses, playing in the pool and rapping lyrics like 'I'm the baddest boy in town, you the hottest girl around' while surrounded by several women frolicking in a swimming pool.
YouTube put age restrictions on content that’s sexually suggestive or contains partial nudity, and plenty of viewers were quick to disapprove of a young boy rapping about booty popping.
More Practical Jokes For Liberals
Here's a second round of jokes you can play on liberals. 1-16 was posted here.
Looking Spoon:17-26 posted here.
Looking Spoon:17-26 posted here.
Solvereign Nation UPDATE: Obama To Sign Anti-Second Amendment U.N. Gun
Investors.com:
Second Amendment: The United Nations is putting the finishing touches on an Arms Trade Treaty that transcends borders and may even trample our Constitutional right to bear arms. Every indication is that the president will sign it.
Like the New Start and Law of the Sea treaties before it, as well as the Kyoto Protocol and Agenda 21, the Arms Trade Treaty being finalized at the U.N. this month is one of those feel-good, can't-we-all-get-along pieces of parchment whose net effect is to accomplish little except to eat away at American sovereignty and freedom.
Just as the world's worst human rights violators sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America's enemies, was elected on Saturday to a top position on the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York. It began July 2 and extends through July 27.
This came right after the same U.N. found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to the murderous Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, currently slaughtering thousands of its own citizens as an impotent U.N. joins the U.S. administration in standing around and watching.
The mindset of the one-worlders preaches that guns cause crime and war and if we only get rid of those otherwise inanimate objects the evil that lurks in the hearts and minds of men will suddenly dissipate. Then we can buy the world a soft drink and sing "Kumbaya."
We are assured by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who enthusiastically backs the treaty, that it only deals with international trade and trafficking and does not affect our Second Amendment rights. How the treaty would have dealt with Operation Fast and Furious, the administration program that walked guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, she does not say.
We don't believe such assurances, given by an administration that has shown no respect for the U.S. Constitution and has a robust gun-control agenda of which Fast and Furious may have been a part. Its expansive view of its powers, recently ratified by a bizarre Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare, is supported by judges at all levels increasingly willing to incorporate international precedent and law in their decisions.
The treaty, which former Clinton adviser and political pundit Dick Morris believes President Obama will sign soon after it is completed, would seem to cover guns and weapons in the warm, live hands of private American citizens.
More on Page Two>>
Second Amendment: The United Nations is putting the finishing touches on an Arms Trade Treaty that transcends borders and may even trample our Constitutional right to bear arms. Every indication is that the president will sign it.
Like the New Start and Law of the Sea treaties before it, as well as the Kyoto Protocol and Agenda 21, the Arms Trade Treaty being finalized at the U.N. this month is one of those feel-good, can't-we-all-get-along pieces of parchment whose net effect is to accomplish little except to eat away at American sovereignty and freedom.
Just as the world's worst human rights violators sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America's enemies, was elected on Saturday to a top position on the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York. It began July 2 and extends through July 27.
This came right after the same U.N. found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to the murderous Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, currently slaughtering thousands of its own citizens as an impotent U.N. joins the U.S. administration in standing around and watching.
The mindset of the one-worlders preaches that guns cause crime and war and if we only get rid of those otherwise inanimate objects the evil that lurks in the hearts and minds of men will suddenly dissipate. Then we can buy the world a soft drink and sing "Kumbaya."
We are assured by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who enthusiastically backs the treaty, that it only deals with international trade and trafficking and does not affect our Second Amendment rights. How the treaty would have dealt with Operation Fast and Furious, the administration program that walked guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, she does not say.
We don't believe such assurances, given by an administration that has shown no respect for the U.S. Constitution and has a robust gun-control agenda of which Fast and Furious may have been a part. Its expansive view of its powers, recently ratified by a bizarre Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare, is supported by judges at all levels increasingly willing to incorporate international precedent and law in their decisions.
The treaty, which former Clinton adviser and political pundit Dick Morris believes President Obama will sign soon after it is completed, would seem to cover guns and weapons in the warm, live hands of private American citizens.
More on Page Two>>
Obama Proposal Increases Tax Rates for All Income Brackets by 2014
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama today proposed allowing the income tax rates enacted in the Bush tax cuts of the last decade to expire at the end of this year for people earning more than $250,000 and at the end of next year for everyone else.
Under current law, the lower tax rates will expire at the end of 2012. Under Obama's proposal, they will expire at the end of 2012 for those making more than $250,000 and at the end of 2013 for Americans making less than $250,000.
“At the same time, most people agree, we should not raise taxes on middle class families or small businesses, not when so many folks are just trying to get by, when so many folks are digging themselves out of the hole that was created by this great recession that we had and at a time when the recovery is still fragile,” Obama said at the White House on Monday.
“That’s why I’m calling on Congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 for another year,” he said.
This tax proposal differs from the one Obama called for six months ago in his 2013 budget. In that document, Obama said that the lower Bush tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 per year should be made permanent.
His proposal today does not make the current lower tax rates permanent--it gives those making under $250,000 only one more year at those rates before they would automatically snap up to the higher rates that prevailed before Bush cut them.
The tax increases Obama proposes for 2014 could impact hundreds of thousands of independent and small businesses.
According to a 2010 report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) Obama’s earlier proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year would have impacted 50 percent of all independent business income.
"50 percent of the approximately $1 trillion of aggregate net positive business income will be reported on returns that have a marginal rate of 36 or 39.6 percent,” the JCT said of Obama’s 2010 tax increase proposal.
In 2010, Obama sought to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year in 2011 while keeping rates the same for everyone else.
Currently, the top two income tax rates--the ones Obama plans to raise--are set at 33 and 35 percent. Obama's proposal would increase them to 36 and 39.6 percent in 2013. In 2014, the remaining brackets would also reset to higher levels.
The JCT said that as many as 750,000 independent and small businesses owners could have been affected by Obama’s tax increase policy in 2011.
“[I]n 2011 just under 750,000 taxpayers with net positive business income (3 percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income) will have marginal rates of 36 or 39.6 percent under the President’s proposal,” the JCT reported.
The new tax increases Obama called for on Monday are projected to be steep, especially as the economy continues to recover. As CNSNews.com reported in January, expiring tax rates similar to Obama’s proposal will cause federal revenues to “shoot up,” according to the Congressional Budget Office.
“In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” the CBO said in January, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”
In particular, CBO said that if current tax rates expired at the end of 2012--as they are currently scheduled to do--it would add $3.8 trillion to the federal treasury over 10 years. In other words, it would amount to a $3.8 trillion tax increase on all Americans.
“Those expirations--which are projected to boost revenues by a total of $3.8 trillion over the fiscal year 2013–2022 period--will affect various parameters of the individual income tax,” the CBO said in its January Budget and Economic Outlook.
Under current law, the lower tax rates will expire at the end of 2012. Under Obama's proposal, they will expire at the end of 2012 for those making more than $250,000 and at the end of 2013 for Americans making less than $250,000.
“At the same time, most people agree, we should not raise taxes on middle class families or small businesses, not when so many folks are just trying to get by, when so many folks are digging themselves out of the hole that was created by this great recession that we had and at a time when the recovery is still fragile,” Obama said at the White House on Monday.
“That’s why I’m calling on Congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 for another year,” he said.
This tax proposal differs from the one Obama called for six months ago in his 2013 budget. In that document, Obama said that the lower Bush tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 per year should be made permanent.
His proposal today does not make the current lower tax rates permanent--it gives those making under $250,000 only one more year at those rates before they would automatically snap up to the higher rates that prevailed before Bush cut them.
The tax increases Obama proposes for 2014 could impact hundreds of thousands of independent and small businesses.
According to a 2010 report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) Obama’s earlier proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year would have impacted 50 percent of all independent business income.
"50 percent of the approximately $1 trillion of aggregate net positive business income will be reported on returns that have a marginal rate of 36 or 39.6 percent,” the JCT said of Obama’s 2010 tax increase proposal.
In 2010, Obama sought to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year in 2011 while keeping rates the same for everyone else.
Currently, the top two income tax rates--the ones Obama plans to raise--are set at 33 and 35 percent. Obama's proposal would increase them to 36 and 39.6 percent in 2013. In 2014, the remaining brackets would also reset to higher levels.
The JCT said that as many as 750,000 independent and small businesses owners could have been affected by Obama’s tax increase policy in 2011.
“[I]n 2011 just under 750,000 taxpayers with net positive business income (3 percent of all taxpayers with net positive business income) will have marginal rates of 36 or 39.6 percent under the President’s proposal,” the JCT reported.
The new tax increases Obama called for on Monday are projected to be steep, especially as the economy continues to recover. As CNSNews.com reported in January, expiring tax rates similar to Obama’s proposal will cause federal revenues to “shoot up,” according to the Congressional Budget Office.
“In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” the CBO said in January, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”
In particular, CBO said that if current tax rates expired at the end of 2012--as they are currently scheduled to do--it would add $3.8 trillion to the federal treasury over 10 years. In other words, it would amount to a $3.8 trillion tax increase on all Americans.
“Those expirations--which are projected to boost revenues by a total of $3.8 trillion over the fiscal year 2013–2022 period--will affect various parameters of the individual income tax,” the CBO said in its January Budget and Economic Outlook.
Is President Obama Intentionally 'Destroying' America?
Townhall.com:
During my book "tour," radio hosts are forever asking me whether I believe that Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America. It's a fair question, especially given the title of my book and because so many people legitimately believe he is.
I have never been too receptive to conspiracy theories, and I'm not particularly enamored of ones circulating about Obama. But unlike many other such theories, this one is about a truly unprecedented assault on the American idea and on those first principles that have made America the unique experiment in constitutional governance that it has been.
Ordinary people -- not just a small fringe group of zealots -- are really afraid today. They see the country they adore being attacked at all levels; they see their freedoms under assault, their life savings genuinely in jeopardy, an endlessly anemic economy, a longer period of sustained unemployment than we've experienced in a half-century and a national financial crisis, born of world-historic national debt, that this president will not help avert.
These are extremely troubled times. The government is on course to gobble up our health care system; businesses are afraid to hire because of the uncertainties caused by new taxes and regulations that will be unleashed with Obamacare -- along with the largest tax increase in the nation's history, which is already awaiting us in January. Small businesses see an administration that not only is at war with the private sector but also appears to be on a mission to punish and obliterate our domestic energy sources and waste billions more in borrowed federal dollars on green energy projects doomed to fail.
Why? How can anyone explain this insanity? Does Obama truly harbor a grudge against America? What did he mean when he said he wanted to fundamentally change America? What did his wife mean when she said she'd never been proud of America in her adult life before he rose to power? What possesses Obama to deride and apologize for America? What drives him to instinctively distrust business and the private sector and to believe that federal planners ought to have enormously more discretion in how our income and wealth are distributed? What drives him to reject the American concept of equal opportunity and promote the notion of equality of outcomes? Why is he determined to energize labor unions and encourage a permanently adversarial climate between labor and management? Why is he so adamant about the United States deferring to international bodies in the conduct of its foreign affairs? Why is he hellbent on downscaling our nuclear and conventional forces and dismantling our military space program and our missile defenses?
Are people not wholly rational in wondering just what in the world is going on?
My personal belief is that Obama, like so many leftist radicals, has a strong distaste for pre-Obama America and that he believes that the United States has been an imperialistic international bully, that we've consumed too much of the world's resources, that we've been an environmental felon and that our capitalistic system unfairly and inequitably distributes income and wealth -- and I think he means to effect wholesale change to rectify those sins.
Do I believe that he wants to "destroy" America, as such? No. In his mind, as warped and foreign as I think it is, he doubtlessly believes he is helping to create a better America -- a utopia of sorts. That is, he is intentionally trying to fundamentally transform America into something that he believes would be better but that most Americans -- and infinitely more if they understood the full scope of what he is up to -- would consider horrific, an America that we would barely recognize as the one bequeathed to us by our ancestors.
On the financial front alone, Obama is single-handedly preventing entitlement and discretionary spending reform, without which -- as I've said dozens of times -- America will face financial catastrophe. There is less than zero question that he is doing that on purpose, regardless of whether you think he is otherwise intentionally damaging America. There is no question that he is acting as though he has a vendetta against the oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power industries. There is also little question that he is intentionally dividing Americans on the basis of race, economic class, gender, sexual orientation and, sometimes, religion.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the damage Obama is doing to the republic, and we haven't even touched on his unconstitutional and lawless usurpations of authority. The question isn't whether he is intentionally destroying America. The question is whether he is intentionally pursuing a set of policies that are definitely damaging America, irrespective of his motives.
The answer is -- irrefutably, emphatically -- "yes."
During my book "tour," radio hosts are forever asking me whether I believe that Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America. It's a fair question, especially given the title of my book and because so many people legitimately believe he is.
I have never been too receptive to conspiracy theories, and I'm not particularly enamored of ones circulating about Obama. But unlike many other such theories, this one is about a truly unprecedented assault on the American idea and on those first principles that have made America the unique experiment in constitutional governance that it has been.
Ordinary people -- not just a small fringe group of zealots -- are really afraid today. They see the country they adore being attacked at all levels; they see their freedoms under assault, their life savings genuinely in jeopardy, an endlessly anemic economy, a longer period of sustained unemployment than we've experienced in a half-century and a national financial crisis, born of world-historic national debt, that this president will not help avert.
These are extremely troubled times. The government is on course to gobble up our health care system; businesses are afraid to hire because of the uncertainties caused by new taxes and regulations that will be unleashed with Obamacare -- along with the largest tax increase in the nation's history, which is already awaiting us in January. Small businesses see an administration that not only is at war with the private sector but also appears to be on a mission to punish and obliterate our domestic energy sources and waste billions more in borrowed federal dollars on green energy projects doomed to fail.
Why? How can anyone explain this insanity? Does Obama truly harbor a grudge against America? What did he mean when he said he wanted to fundamentally change America? What did his wife mean when she said she'd never been proud of America in her adult life before he rose to power? What possesses Obama to deride and apologize for America? What drives him to instinctively distrust business and the private sector and to believe that federal planners ought to have enormously more discretion in how our income and wealth are distributed? What drives him to reject the American concept of equal opportunity and promote the notion of equality of outcomes? Why is he determined to energize labor unions and encourage a permanently adversarial climate between labor and management? Why is he so adamant about the United States deferring to international bodies in the conduct of its foreign affairs? Why is he hellbent on downscaling our nuclear and conventional forces and dismantling our military space program and our missile defenses?
Are people not wholly rational in wondering just what in the world is going on?
My personal belief is that Obama, like so many leftist radicals, has a strong distaste for pre-Obama America and that he believes that the United States has been an imperialistic international bully, that we've consumed too much of the world's resources, that we've been an environmental felon and that our capitalistic system unfairly and inequitably distributes income and wealth -- and I think he means to effect wholesale change to rectify those sins.
Do I believe that he wants to "destroy" America, as such? No. In his mind, as warped and foreign as I think it is, he doubtlessly believes he is helping to create a better America -- a utopia of sorts. That is, he is intentionally trying to fundamentally transform America into something that he believes would be better but that most Americans -- and infinitely more if they understood the full scope of what he is up to -- would consider horrific, an America that we would barely recognize as the one bequeathed to us by our ancestors.
On the financial front alone, Obama is single-handedly preventing entitlement and discretionary spending reform, without which -- as I've said dozens of times -- America will face financial catastrophe. There is less than zero question that he is doing that on purpose, regardless of whether you think he is otherwise intentionally damaging America. There is no question that he is acting as though he has a vendetta against the oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power industries. There is also little question that he is intentionally dividing Americans on the basis of race, economic class, gender, sexual orientation and, sometimes, religion.
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the damage Obama is doing to the republic, and we haven't even touched on his unconstitutional and lawless usurpations of authority. The question isn't whether he is intentionally destroying America. The question is whether he is intentionally pursuing a set of policies that are definitely damaging America, irrespective of his motives.
The answer is -- irrefutably, emphatically -- "yes."
NSA chief defends agency against domestic spying charges
Washington Times:
The head of the National Security Agency on Monday denied reports that NSA’s new data center in Utah would collect and store data about Americans, including their e-mails and web-browsing habits.
The $2 billion data center in Bluffdale, Utah, will house massive supercomputers capable of storing and analyzing vast quantities of data when it comes online next year, but U.S. ArmyGen. Keith B. Alexander reiterated NSA’s insistence it does not unlawfully conduct surveillance of Americans.
“We don’t store data on U.S. citizens,” Gen. Alexander told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute. “That’s baloney. … That’s ludicrous.”
However, “I’m not going to come out and say what we are doing” at NSA, he added. “That would be ludicrous, too.”
Gen. Alexander, who also heads U.S. Cyber Command, said Congress‘ failure to pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation is exposing the country to cyberattacks by hackers and making it vulnerable to cyberwar from nation-states.
On the need to pass a comprehensive cybersecurity bill, he trod carefully, seemingly anxious to avoid offending any of the lawmakers involved in the imbroglio about the legislation, which has lingered through five years and two administrations.
“This time of year is politically very difficult to move things forward legislatively,” the general said, referring to the upcoming election and the partisan stalemate it has helped induce in Congress.
Nonetheless, passing a cybersecurity bill, currently stalled in the Senate, “is absolutely important,” he added.
“It’s important that we as a nation look at this and say, what do we need … to protect this country from a cyberattack.”
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC.
The head of the National Security Agency on Monday denied reports that NSA’s new data center in Utah would collect and store data about Americans, including their e-mails and web-browsing habits.
The $2 billion data center in Bluffdale, Utah, will house massive supercomputers capable of storing and analyzing vast quantities of data when it comes online next year, but U.S. ArmyGen. Keith B. Alexander reiterated NSA’s insistence it does not unlawfully conduct surveillance of Americans.
“We don’t store data on U.S. citizens,” Gen. Alexander told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute. “That’s baloney. … That’s ludicrous.”
However, “I’m not going to come out and say what we are doing” at NSA, he added. “That would be ludicrous, too.”
Gen. Alexander, who also heads U.S. Cyber Command, said Congress‘ failure to pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation is exposing the country to cyberattacks by hackers and making it vulnerable to cyberwar from nation-states.
On the need to pass a comprehensive cybersecurity bill, he trod carefully, seemingly anxious to avoid offending any of the lawmakers involved in the imbroglio about the legislation, which has lingered through five years and two administrations.
“This time of year is politically very difficult to move things forward legislatively,” the general said, referring to the upcoming election and the partisan stalemate it has helped induce in Congress.
Nonetheless, passing a cybersecurity bill, currently stalled in the Senate, “is absolutely important,” he added.
“It’s important that we as a nation look at this and say, what do we need … to protect this country from a cyberattack.”
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC.
The 8 Most Shameful Moments of Barack Obama's Presidency
Townhall.com:
8) "The private sector is doing fine:" Know what hasn't been "doing fine" for a single day since Barack Obama came into office? The private sector. So when Barack Obama bizarrely proclaimed that "the private sector is doing fine" earlier this year, Obama was further out of touch than E.T. was when he wanted to phone home.
7) Obama bows to Saudi king: If Barack Obama had spent his formative years in the United States instead of overseas, he'd know that real Americans don't bow. Moreover, no American, especially the President, should be bowing down to a dictatorial king like the one we had to overthrow in the Revolutionary War. Besides the Saudi king, Obama also continued to humiliate himself and his country by bowing to Japanese Emperor Akihito and the Chinese PM. We're lucky that the SEALs killed Osama Bin Laden as opposed to capturing him or we might have seen pictures of Obama bowing to him on MSNBC by now.
6) Son looked like Trayvon: At a time when George Zimmerman was publicly being threatened with death and white people were being beaten "For Trayvon," there was an opportunity for the President to show leadership and encourage people to calm down. Instead, after making some perfunctory remarks towards that end, Obama added fuel to the fire by noting, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." This was a follow-up to Obama's similarly foolish decision to insert himself into another local situation that didn't concern him. After his friend Henry Gates smashed his own door in and made such an ass of himself that he was arrested when the police arrived, Obama noted that he didn't know the facts, but he did know that the "police acted stupidly." He then followed that up by suggesting racism was probably to blame. Fortunately, he managed to patch over that bit of idiocy with a "beer summit" as opposed to the Trayvon Martin case where he increased the chances that someone would get killed because he was thoughtlessly shooting off his mouth.
Go to Page Two>>
8) "The private sector is doing fine:" Know what hasn't been "doing fine" for a single day since Barack Obama came into office? The private sector. So when Barack Obama bizarrely proclaimed that "the private sector is doing fine" earlier this year, Obama was further out of touch than E.T. was when he wanted to phone home.
7) Obama bows to Saudi king: If Barack Obama had spent his formative years in the United States instead of overseas, he'd know that real Americans don't bow. Moreover, no American, especially the President, should be bowing down to a dictatorial king like the one we had to overthrow in the Revolutionary War. Besides the Saudi king, Obama also continued to humiliate himself and his country by bowing to Japanese Emperor Akihito and the Chinese PM. We're lucky that the SEALs killed Osama Bin Laden as opposed to capturing him or we might have seen pictures of Obama bowing to him on MSNBC by now.
6) Son looked like Trayvon: At a time when George Zimmerman was publicly being threatened with death and white people were being beaten "For Trayvon," there was an opportunity for the President to show leadership and encourage people to calm down. Instead, after making some perfunctory remarks towards that end, Obama added fuel to the fire by noting, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." This was a follow-up to Obama's similarly foolish decision to insert himself into another local situation that didn't concern him. After his friend Henry Gates smashed his own door in and made such an ass of himself that he was arrested when the police arrived, Obama noted that he didn't know the facts, but he did know that the "police acted stupidly." He then followed that up by suggesting racism was probably to blame. Fortunately, he managed to patch over that bit of idiocy with a "beer summit" as opposed to the Trayvon Martin case where he increased the chances that someone would get killed because he was thoughtlessly shooting off his mouth.
Go to Page Two>>
GOP governors considerably more diverse than their Democratic counterparts
National Examiner:
Contrary to the oft-repeated media narrative that the Republican Party is not inclusive, there are actually more female Republican governors than female Democratic governors, and considerably more minority Republican governors than minority Democratic governors.
There are currently 29 Republican governors, 20 Democratic governors, and one Independent governor. Four Republican governors (14%) are women, compared to just two Democratic governors (10%). Four Republican governors (14%) are minorities, compared to just one Democratic governor (5%).
Seventeen of the 20 sitting Democratic governors are white men, for 85% of the total. Meanwhile, fully 21% of Republican governors are either female, a racial/ethnic minority, or (in the cases of New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley) both.
There has never been a minority woman Democratic governor.
State-by-state data can be found below:
Alabama – R white male
Alaska – R white male
Arizona – R white female
Arkansas – D white male
California – D white male
Colorado – D white male
Connecticut – D white male
Delaware – D white male
Florida – R white male
Georgia – R white male
Hawaii – D white male
Idaho – R white male
Illinois – D white male
Indiana – R white male
Iowa – R white male
Kansas – R white male
Kentucky – D white male
Louisiana – R Asian-American male
Maine – R white male
Maryland – D white male
Massachusetts – D black male
Michigan – R white male
Minnesota – D white male
Mississippi – R white male
Missouri – D white male
Montana – D white male
Nebraska – R white male
Nevada – R Hispanic male
New Hampshire – D white male
New Jersey – R white male
New Mexico – R Hispanic female
New York – D white male
North Carolina – D white female
North Dakota – R white male
Ohio – R white male
Oklahoma – R white female
Oregon – D white male
Pennsylvania – R white male
Rhode Island – I white male
South Carolina – R Asian-American female
South Dakota – R white male
Tennessee – R white male
Texas – R white male
Utah – R white male
Vermont – D white male
Virginia – R white male
Washington – D white female
West Virginia – D white male
Wisconsin – R white male
Wyoming – R white male
Total Republican governors – 29
Total Democratic governors – 20
Total Independent governors – 1
Total female Republican governors – 4 (14% of Republican governors)
Total male Republican governors – 25
Total female Democratic governors – 2 (10% of total Democratic governors)
Total male Democratic governors – 18
Total minority Republican governors – 4 (14% of total Republican governors)
Total white Republican governors – 25
Total minority Democratic governors – 1 (5% of total Democratic governors)
Total white Democratic governors – 19
Total white male Republican governors – 23
Total Republican governors who are not white men – 6 (21% of total Republican governors)
Total white male Democratic governors – 17
Total Democratic governors who are not white men – 3 (15% of total Democratic governors)
Odd White House Press Briefing Exchange—in Russian!
TWS:
White House press secretary Jay Carney had an odd exchange with a reporter at today's press briefing—in Russian! Via the official White House transcript:
Q (Speaks in Russian.)
MR. CARNEY: (Speaks in Russian.)
Q (Speaks in Russian.)
Here's video:
And here's the full context of the exchange, via the White House transcript:
Q One final question. Do you believe there is any international mechanism for producing a result in Syria without Russia and China?
MR. CARNEY: We’ve made very clear that Russia and China and the United States have disagreements about Syria, and that we strongly disagree with the vetoes that those countries put forth on measures before the United Nations Security Council.
We continue to have discussions with the Russians and the Chinese in a very blunt and clear fashion about why we think we need to come together around the proposition that a transition needs to take place -- and there’s agreement on that -- and that that transition cannot include Assad. And we are continuing to have conversations with the Russians about this.
And our fundamental point is, Russia’s -- it is in nobody’s interest to stand by Bashar al-Assad. That’s our point to those in his inner circle, to those in the military and governmental leadership. We have seen a great number of defections, including a recent high-level military defection, somebody from Assad’s inner circle.
And it is our message internationally that it doesn’t make sense, as a matter of self-interest for any nation to stand by an international pariah. And it doesn’t make sense for the future relations of any country with the Syrian people to stand by Assad.
I think Jim, I owe you one.
Q (Speaks in Russian.)
MR. CARNEY: (Speaks in Russian.)
Q (Speaks in Russian.)
With the federal debt approaching $16 trillion, does the President’s call for continued tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans, as he repeatedly said today, and thus preventing huge revenue increases that would help reduce the debt -- does that represent an acknowledgement by him that the economy is still doing poorly and that his previous steps to boost it have not worked?
White House press secretary Jay Carney had an odd exchange with a reporter at today's press briefing—in Russian! Via the official White House transcript:
Q (Speaks in Russian.)
MR. CARNEY: (Speaks in Russian.)
Q (Speaks in Russian.)
Here's video:
And here's the full context of the exchange, via the White House transcript:
Q One final question. Do you believe there is any international mechanism for producing a result in Syria without Russia and China?
MR. CARNEY: We’ve made very clear that Russia and China and the United States have disagreements about Syria, and that we strongly disagree with the vetoes that those countries put forth on measures before the United Nations Security Council.
We continue to have discussions with the Russians and the Chinese in a very blunt and clear fashion about why we think we need to come together around the proposition that a transition needs to take place -- and there’s agreement on that -- and that that transition cannot include Assad. And we are continuing to have conversations with the Russians about this.
And our fundamental point is, Russia’s -- it is in nobody’s interest to stand by Bashar al-Assad. That’s our point to those in his inner circle, to those in the military and governmental leadership. We have seen a great number of defections, including a recent high-level military defection, somebody from Assad’s inner circle.
And it is our message internationally that it doesn’t make sense, as a matter of self-interest for any nation to stand by an international pariah. And it doesn’t make sense for the future relations of any country with the Syrian people to stand by Assad.
I think Jim, I owe you one.
Q (Speaks in Russian.)
MR. CARNEY: (Speaks in Russian.)
Q (Speaks in Russian.)
With the federal debt approaching $16 trillion, does the President’s call for continued tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans, as he repeatedly said today, and thus preventing huge revenue increases that would help reduce the debt -- does that represent an acknowledgement by him that the economy is still doing poorly and that his previous steps to boost it have not worked?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)