In its race to the finish line, the House of Representatives passed the Conference Report to H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) on Wednesday. The legislation is the final step in fully funding the Department of Defense for the 2012 fiscal year, which runs from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012. The bill would authorize $554 billion for domestic programs and $115.5 billion for overseas operations for our armed services. This reduces spending from FY2011 levels by $19 billion and reduces spending from President Obama’s proposed FY2012 budget by $24.1 billion. If sequestration takes effect for FY2013, an additional $500 billion is expected to be cut between FY2013 and FY2022.
“This legislation will ensure our troops have the resources they need and will provide the much-deserved support they have earned, while at the same time eliminating some unnecessary or wasteful spending at the Department of Defense,” stated Westmoreland. “As our country continues to be mired in overwhelming debt, no federal agency – not even the DOD – should be exempt from spending cuts. In fact, to date, over half of all deficit reduction efforts have come out of the military.”
The legislation authorizes funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, requires the president to sanction entities who engage in financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran, and freezes nearly $700 million in aid to Pakistan. Although some activist organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have tried to claim that it gives the military the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil, the opposite is actually the case. The NDAA contains no provision to extend or create any new authority to detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from provisions related to military custody of terrorists.
“I understand the concerns and that is why there were numerous questions asked about this, so I want to reassure that you will be protected,” stated Westmoreland. “The U.S. Constitution guarantees U.S. citizens on U.S. soil will have due process and nothing within this legislation will take away that right. These people claiming your constitutional rights are violated by this legislation are using fear tactics to drum up support against legislation that is needed to make sure our men and women in uniform get paid for their service to our country.”
The Senate has yet to pass the conference report, but since it is an agreement between the two chambers it is expected they will do so before the end of the week. Once they approve it, it will be sent to the president for signature. Earlier, the president had threatened to veto the bill but has since lifted his threat.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
20 issues trump birth certificate circus
In the wake of the much-discussed release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle had this to say:
"Instead of wasting so much ink on this birther story, the press should be giving a lot more attention to the many real disasters of the Obama administration. The Libertarian Party recently released a list of '20 Obama problems, 20 Libertarian solutions.'
"Of course, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are only part of the problem equation. The Republicans deserve an equal share of the blame, for their unwillingness to cut military spending or entitlements, their addiction to government programs like farm subsidies, and their big-spending compromise bills of December 2010 and April 2011.
"I wonder if Obama and the Republicans might just be conspiring to keep this birther stuff alive, to distract everyone from all the real problems they're causing. The president might have been worried that the birther talk was about to die down.
"When you consider that we're involved in three foreign wars, our entitlement state is crumbling, we have record-level spending and deficits, unemployment is high, and inflation is growing, the president's birth certificate seems less significant somehow.
"We need to be more focused on the fact that massive debt is driving our government toward bankruptcy -- something Republican birther Donald Trump would know a lot about.
"Nearly two years ago, one of our junior staffers mocked this very issue:
Socialized healthcare is on the horizon. The DHS, NSA, TSA police state is expanding, the Drug War is still being pursued by an arrogant, ignorant government and Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan! Frankly we have got bigger problems to pursue than blogging endlessly about where the President was born.
"Hopefully Americans will worry less about long-form birth certificates, and more about thousand-page spending bills."
-----
"Instead of wasting so much ink on this birther story, the press should be giving a lot more attention to the many real disasters of the Obama administration. The Libertarian Party recently released a list of '20 Obama problems, 20 Libertarian solutions.'
"Of course, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are only part of the problem equation. The Republicans deserve an equal share of the blame, for their unwillingness to cut military spending or entitlements, their addiction to government programs like farm subsidies, and their big-spending compromise bills of December 2010 and April 2011.
"I wonder if Obama and the Republicans might just be conspiring to keep this birther stuff alive, to distract everyone from all the real problems they're causing. The president might have been worried that the birther talk was about to die down.
"When you consider that we're involved in three foreign wars, our entitlement state is crumbling, we have record-level spending and deficits, unemployment is high, and inflation is growing, the president's birth certificate seems less significant somehow.
"We need to be more focused on the fact that massive debt is driving our government toward bankruptcy -- something Republican birther Donald Trump would know a lot about.
"Nearly two years ago, one of our junior staffers mocked this very issue:
Socialized healthcare is on the horizon. The DHS, NSA, TSA police state is expanding, the Drug War is still being pursued by an arrogant, ignorant government and Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan! Frankly we have got bigger problems to pursue than blogging endlessly about where the President was born.
"Hopefully Americans will worry less about long-form birth certificates, and more about thousand-page spending bills."
-----
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Libertarians speak against Obama's War on Poker
Following the Obama administration Justice Department's April 15 shutdown of three online poker sites and indictment of their executives, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said, "The Obama administration has just trampled on the rights of millions of Americans."
Hinkle continued, "This is also a scary reminder of President Obama's vision of a government with the power to shut down websites it doesn't like, before a trial has even started.
"Even worse, shutting down this peaceful, honest commerce further weakens our economy.
"We Libertarians believe that adults have the right to gamble with their own money. Government has no business interfering. The Obama administration should drop these charges and restore the websites. Congress should repeal the laws that prohibit gambling, whatever the format."
Hinkle continued, "This is also a scary reminder of President Obama's vision of a government with the power to shut down websites it doesn't like, before a trial has even started.
"Even worse, shutting down this peaceful, honest commerce further weakens our economy.
"We Libertarians believe that adults have the right to gamble with their own money. Government has no business interfering. The Obama administration should drop these charges and restore the websites. Congress should repeal the laws that prohibit gambling, whatever the format."
Monday, April 18, 2011
Libertarians call spending compromise "travesty"
Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement today (April 15):
"Just in time for Tax Day, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have joined hands to clobber American taxpayers.
"According to the Associated Press, the 2011 spending compromise will 'cut federal outlays from non-war accounts by just $352 million through Sept. 30....When war funding is factored in the legislation would actually increase total federal outlays by $3.3 billion relative to current levels.'
"This is happening at a time when federal spending and deficits are at unprecedented high levels. Federal spending this year is expected to be about 5 percent higher than last year. This is a travesty.
"In 2000 under Bill Clinton, federal spending was $1.79 trillion. This year it's expected to be at least $3.63 trillion.
"Neither Democrats nor Republicans have made any serious proposals to change the course of the federal government. In particular, both President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's 2012 budget proposals are absurd. I fear that America will soon be overtaken by events. Inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, and probably other unforeseen problems will start to force everyone's hand. One way or another, people aren't going to get what they have been led to expect.
"Unless American voters stop supporting Republicans and Democrats very soon, and start supporting Libertarians and Libertarian policies, I believe our future, and the future of our children and grandchildren, will be bleak."
-----
"Just in time for Tax Day, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have joined hands to clobber American taxpayers.
"According to the Associated Press, the 2011 spending compromise will 'cut federal outlays from non-war accounts by just $352 million through Sept. 30....When war funding is factored in the legislation would actually increase total federal outlays by $3.3 billion relative to current levels.'
"This is happening at a time when federal spending and deficits are at unprecedented high levels. Federal spending this year is expected to be about 5 percent higher than last year. This is a travesty.
"In 2000 under Bill Clinton, federal spending was $1.79 trillion. This year it's expected to be at least $3.63 trillion.
"Neither Democrats nor Republicans have made any serious proposals to change the course of the federal government. In particular, both President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's 2012 budget proposals are absurd. I fear that America will soon be overtaken by events. Inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, and probably other unforeseen problems will start to force everyone's hand. One way or another, people aren't going to get what they have been led to expect.
"Unless American voters stop supporting Republicans and Democrats very soon, and start supporting Libertarians and Libertarian policies, I believe our future, and the future of our children and grandchildren, will be bleak."
-----
Friday, April 15, 2011
Westmoreland Supports Budget to Cut $6.2 Trillion, Reduce Deficits $4.4 Trillion Over Ten Years
The House of Representatives today passed a budget for the 2012 fiscal year, which will run from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012. The legislation will cut $6.2 trillion in spending from President Obama’s budget proposal over the next ten years and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion. It puts the nation on a path to actually paying off our more than $14 trillion in debt and drops federal spending to below 20 percent of the gross domestic product. Below is Congressman Westmoreland’s statement.
“I am proud to have joined a group of my colleagues in the House and passed Congressman Ryan’s plan for 2012 and beyond. This budget truly puts us on the ‘Path to Prosperity.’ Not only does it dramatically curb federal spending, but it also encourages economic development, works towards ensuring programs like Medicare will be available to future generations, and does not irresponsibly raise taxes on American families and small businesses.
“I know there have been some irresponsible public figures who have been using scare tactics and out-and-out lies to put fear and doubt in Americans about the impact of this budget, especially with regards to the changes to Medicare. So I would like to set a few things straight. First, this legislation does not create a voucher system for Medicare. What it does is allow individuals to pick a plan, just like federal employees and Members of Congress do now, and the government will pay for the plan rather than directly paying the doctor. We are not trying to end Medicare; we are trying to save it for the next generation. Without reform, Medicare spending will eclipse all other federal spending in the next decade and completely bankrupt our budget. This solution allows us to keep Medicare without dragging down our entire economy. Second, if you are age 55 or over, these changes will not affect you at all. Both your Medicare and your Social Security will remain exactly the same as it is now. So any comments made in the press about this budget ‘killing seniors’ or ‘ending Medicare’ are completely false.
“I also know that there are those out there who feel these cuts are ‘extreme.’ However, the mess we have gotten ourselves into over the last few years is also extreme. Our national debt tops more than $14 trillion, almost equivalent to our entire economy. If we continue down President Obama’s path of ‘spend now, pay later,’ we would see the national debt double over the next ten years. This mentality is simply no longer sustainable and we must make some very serious changes to the way we operate here in Washington if we want to pass on a better country to our children and grandchildren,” stated Westmoreland.
“I am proud to have joined a group of my colleagues in the House and passed Congressman Ryan’s plan for 2012 and beyond. This budget truly puts us on the ‘Path to Prosperity.’ Not only does it dramatically curb federal spending, but it also encourages economic development, works towards ensuring programs like Medicare will be available to future generations, and does not irresponsibly raise taxes on American families and small businesses.
“I know there have been some irresponsible public figures who have been using scare tactics and out-and-out lies to put fear and doubt in Americans about the impact of this budget, especially with regards to the changes to Medicare. So I would like to set a few things straight. First, this legislation does not create a voucher system for Medicare. What it does is allow individuals to pick a plan, just like federal employees and Members of Congress do now, and the government will pay for the plan rather than directly paying the doctor. We are not trying to end Medicare; we are trying to save it for the next generation. Without reform, Medicare spending will eclipse all other federal spending in the next decade and completely bankrupt our budget. This solution allows us to keep Medicare without dragging down our entire economy. Second, if you are age 55 or over, these changes will not affect you at all. Both your Medicare and your Social Security will remain exactly the same as it is now. So any comments made in the press about this budget ‘killing seniors’ or ‘ending Medicare’ are completely false.
“I also know that there are those out there who feel these cuts are ‘extreme.’ However, the mess we have gotten ourselves into over the last few years is also extreme. Our national debt tops more than $14 trillion, almost equivalent to our entire economy. If we continue down President Obama’s path of ‘spend now, pay later,’ we would see the national debt double over the next ten years. This mentality is simply no longer sustainable and we must make some very serious changes to the way we operate here in Washington if we want to pass on a better country to our children and grandchildren,” stated Westmoreland.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
FRC Condemns Obama Justice Department for Abandoning DOMA, Urges Congress to Intervene
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council condemned the decision today by President Obama that the U.S. Justice Department will abdicate its responsibility and no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) enacted overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, is currently under attack in the courts.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision:
"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?
"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.
"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.
For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read the Family Research Council's pamphlet on the Act here: http://www.frc.org/doma
Read the Family Research Council's amicus brief in the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act case here: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-us-department-of-health-and-human-services
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision:
"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?
"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.
"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.
For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read the Family Research Council's pamphlet on the Act here: http://www.frc.org/doma
Read the Family Research Council's amicus brief in the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act case here: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-us-department-of-health-and-human-services
Monday, February 7, 2011
Obama Makes Super False Tax Claim: 'I Didn't Raise Taxes Once'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, Americans for Tax Reform issued the following:
On Sunday, in a live, nationally televised interview just prior to the Super Bowl, President Obama made the following claim:
"I didn't raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years."
Let's break down the statement, starting with Obama's "I didn't raise taxes once" claim. This assertion is blatantly false, as President Obama has signed into law at least two dozen tax increases:
Feb. 4, 2009 – Obama signs federal tobacco tax hike: Just sixteen days into his presidency, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco – a hike of 62 cents per pack. Obama's signature on this tax hike was a violation of his central campaign promise – a "firm pledge" that no American making less than $250,000 would see "any form of tax increase." The median income of smokers is just over $36,000.
March 23, 2010 – Obama signs the healthcare bill into law: Obama's signature on the healthcare bill enacted two dozen new or higher taxes (at least seven of which violate his "firm pledge" on taxes), including but not limited to:
* Individual Mandate Excise Tax
* Employer Mandate Excise Tax
* Small business 1099-MISC Information Reporting
* Surtax on Investment Income
* Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
* Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
* Medicine Cabinet Tax
* HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
* Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka "Special Needs Kids Tax"
* Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
* "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
* Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
* Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage
* Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
* Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
* Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
* Tax on Health Insurers
* Biofuel "black liquor" tax hike
* Codification of the "economic substance doctrine"
Now let's turn to the second part of Obama's claim: "I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years."
* President Obama's entire claim of being a net tax-cutter rests merely upon the temporary tax relief he has signed into law. The tax increases Obama has signed into law have invariably been permanent. In fact, Obama signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts
* Over 90% of the dollar value of the tax cuts Obama signed into law are only temporary
* 100% of the tax increases Obama signed into law are, however, permanent
* Permanent changes to tax law signed by Obama amount to a net tax hike of $618.7 billion
On Sunday, in a live, nationally televised interview just prior to the Super Bowl, President Obama made the following claim:
"I didn't raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years."
Let's break down the statement, starting with Obama's "I didn't raise taxes once" claim. This assertion is blatantly false, as President Obama has signed into law at least two dozen tax increases:
Feb. 4, 2009 – Obama signs federal tobacco tax hike: Just sixteen days into his presidency, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco – a hike of 62 cents per pack. Obama's signature on this tax hike was a violation of his central campaign promise – a "firm pledge" that no American making less than $250,000 would see "any form of tax increase." The median income of smokers is just over $36,000.
March 23, 2010 – Obama signs the healthcare bill into law: Obama's signature on the healthcare bill enacted two dozen new or higher taxes (at least seven of which violate his "firm pledge" on taxes), including but not limited to:
* Individual Mandate Excise Tax
* Employer Mandate Excise Tax
* Small business 1099-MISC Information Reporting
* Surtax on Investment Income
* Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
* Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
* Medicine Cabinet Tax
* HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
* Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka "Special Needs Kids Tax"
* Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
* "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
* Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
* Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage
* Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
* Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
* Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
* Tax on Health Insurers
* Biofuel "black liquor" tax hike
* Codification of the "economic substance doctrine"
Now let's turn to the second part of Obama's claim: "I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for the last two years."
* President Obama's entire claim of being a net tax-cutter rests merely upon the temporary tax relief he has signed into law. The tax increases Obama has signed into law have invariably been permanent. In fact, Obama signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts
* Over 90% of the dollar value of the tax cuts Obama signed into law are only temporary
* 100% of the tax increases Obama signed into law are, however, permanent
* Permanent changes to tax law signed by Obama amount to a net tax hike of $618.7 billion
Friday, February 4, 2011
America should stop interfering in Egypt
Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today:
"Media reports tell us that the Obama administration is heavily involved in the current crisis in Egypt. It shouldn't be.
"Personally, my sympathies are with the Egyptian protesters. Our very own Declaration of Independence said that government exists to secure people's rights, and 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'
"However, it would be wrong for me to force all Americans to adopt my point of view and support my choice in this crisis. But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing, by interfering in the crisis and inevitably taking sides.
"The instances of U.S. foreign meddling over the last hundred years are too numerous to list here. But in almost every case, U.S. intervention has made American taxpayers poorer, and it has usually served to entrench corrupt authoritarian rulers. In the worst cases, like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, military intervention has caused the deaths of many Americans and far more foreigners.
"This includes all types of intervention: military intervention, foreign aid, and 'behind-the-scenes' intervention using diplomacy and espionage.
"Libertarians call for the U.S. government to stop interfering in the Egyptian crisis, and to end foreign aid to all nations, including Egypt.
"American interventionism also gives foreign governments an excuse to copy us. Instead of respecting their neighbors' sovereignty and independence, foreign governments often interfere with each other, and they often use examples of American intervention as a justification.
"Unfortunately, powerful politicians in Washington can't seem to resist the temptation to meddle in foreign countries' affairs. This tendency is made worse by self-serving bureaucracies like the CIA, which rely on foreign meddling to keep their workers employed.
"Our government should leave other nations alone. The future of Egypt is for the Egyptian people to decide, not Washington politicians."
The Libertarian Party platform plank on international affairs states:
"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."
"Media reports tell us that the Obama administration is heavily involved in the current crisis in Egypt. It shouldn't be.
"Personally, my sympathies are with the Egyptian protesters. Our very own Declaration of Independence said that government exists to secure people's rights, and 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.'
"However, it would be wrong for me to force all Americans to adopt my point of view and support my choice in this crisis. But that's exactly what the Obama administration is doing, by interfering in the crisis and inevitably taking sides.
"The instances of U.S. foreign meddling over the last hundred years are too numerous to list here. But in almost every case, U.S. intervention has made American taxpayers poorer, and it has usually served to entrench corrupt authoritarian rulers. In the worst cases, like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, military intervention has caused the deaths of many Americans and far more foreigners.
"This includes all types of intervention: military intervention, foreign aid, and 'behind-the-scenes' intervention using diplomacy and espionage.
"Libertarians call for the U.S. government to stop interfering in the Egyptian crisis, and to end foreign aid to all nations, including Egypt.
"American interventionism also gives foreign governments an excuse to copy us. Instead of respecting their neighbors' sovereignty and independence, foreign governments often interfere with each other, and they often use examples of American intervention as a justification.
"Unfortunately, powerful politicians in Washington can't seem to resist the temptation to meddle in foreign countries' affairs. This tendency is made worse by self-serving bureaucracies like the CIA, which rely on foreign meddling to keep their workers employed.
"Our government should leave other nations alone. The future of Egypt is for the Egyptian people to decide, not Washington politicians."
The Libertarian Party platform plank on international affairs states:
"American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Obama's State of the Union Talks New Jobs While Policies Destroy Them, says FACES of Coal
/PRNewswire -- An internal report obtained by the Associated Press reveals that soon-to-be proposed rules affecting surface and underground coal mining nationwide will cost thousands of jobs across the country. The job and production losses are outlined in an Office of Surface Mining (OSM) Reclamation and Enforcement document. The rules are supposed to replace Bush-era regulations, which the agency never implemented. The OSM has submitted the proposal to coal producing states for their feedback before it finalizes any new regulations. The proposal - part of a draft environmental impact statement - would affect coal mines from Appalachia to Alaska.
"This Administration says it's for job creation, yet its regulatory actions reflect just the opposite," said Bryan Brown, West Virginia Executive Director of FACES of Coal. "I, like most Americans, heard the President last night commit to reducing regulations that take people's jobs. In reality, these internal documents project how many jobs the OSM is going to destroy. This is outrageous. Coal states need their leaders in Washington, D.C. now more than ever to stand up for our jobs and communities by stopping this bureaucratic abuse."
The Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (FACES of Coal) is an alliance of more than 70,000 people from all walks of life who are joining forces to educate lawmakers and the general public about the importance of coal and coal mining to our local and national economies and to our nation's energy security. In addition to keeping tens of thousands of people employed in good-paying jobs, coal is the lifeblood of our domestic energy supply, generating nearly half the electricity consumed in the United States today.
"This Administration says it's for job creation, yet its regulatory actions reflect just the opposite," said Bryan Brown, West Virginia Executive Director of FACES of Coal. "I, like most Americans, heard the President last night commit to reducing regulations that take people's jobs. In reality, these internal documents project how many jobs the OSM is going to destroy. This is outrageous. Coal states need their leaders in Washington, D.C. now more than ever to stand up for our jobs and communities by stopping this bureaucratic abuse."
The Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (FACES of Coal) is an alliance of more than 70,000 people from all walks of life who are joining forces to educate lawmakers and the general public about the importance of coal and coal mining to our local and national economies and to our nation's energy security. In addition to keeping tens of thousands of people employed in good-paying jobs, coal is the lifeblood of our domestic energy supply, generating nearly half the electricity consumed in the United States today.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Judicial Watch Details Ambitious Investigative Agenda for 112th Congress
/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its list of investigative priorities for the new 112th Congress. The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
ACORN Corruption: Including, but not limited to, ACORN restructuring and rebranding; unethical activities by ACORN affiliates; incidents of voter registration fraud (Project Vote); and new Obama administration grants and funding for ACORN-linked groups.
Climategate: Including, but not limited to, the U.S. federal government's involvement in the international scheme to exaggerate the rise in world temperature readings, the Environmental Protection Agency's hyper-aggressive campaign to expand control over the economy through carbon restrictions and various controversies involving taxpayer-supported "green energy" programs.
Financial Solvency: Including, but not limited to, the impact nationally if individual States should begin to default on their debt.
Government Bailouts: Including, but not limited to, the government's legal and constitutional justification for authorizing the bailouts of private financial institutions; government deliberations regarding which institutions received grants from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the decision by the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under "conservatorship;" and the government takeover of the American automotive industry.
Illegal Immigration: Including, but not limited to, the President's attempts to enact stealth amnesty for illegal aliens without approval by Congress; deteriorating security on the nation's southern border with Mexico; and the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws.
National Security: Including, but not limited to, the Obama administration's mishandling of Guantanamo Bay and the decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in civilian courts on U.S. soil.
Obama Administration Czars: Including, but not limited to, the President's decision to bypass Senate confirmation and appoint "czars" to hold positions of power within the Obama administration as well as various corruption scandals involving individual "czars."
Obamacare: Including, but not limited to, the criteria used by the Obama administration to provide "waivers" to companies and unions exempting them from provisions of Obamacare; the Obama administration's decision to evaluate medical treatments based solely on cost; and the regulation and funding of Obamacare in general.
Pension Fraud: Including, but not limited to, the funding and management of public pension plans for municipal, state and unionized government workers.
Politicization at the Department of Justice: Including, but not limited to racially and politically motivated decision-making in federal civil and voting rights enforcement (such as the decision to largely abandon a voter intimidation lawsuit against the Black Panthers); Justice's decision to attack states that attempt to address illegal immigration through enhanced law enforcement measures; and the duties and responsibilities of lawyers inside Justice who previously represented terrorists.
White House Bribery: Including, but not limited to, an effort by the Obama administration to allegedly interfere with Senate elections in Pennsylvania and Colorado by offering federal appointments to candidates Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Andrew Romanoff in exchange for abandoning their campaigns.
"The American people spoke clearly on Election Day: No more backroom deals, no more influence peddling and no more corruption. This new Congress has an obligation to honor the intense desire by the American people to clean up corruption in Washington," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The federal government has grown by trillions of dollars, yet much of this historic new government activity (and control) has escaped effective congressional oversight. It is well past time for Congress to help pry loose information from the Obama administration, which is the most secretive in recent American history."
ACORN Corruption: Including, but not limited to, ACORN restructuring and rebranding; unethical activities by ACORN affiliates; incidents of voter registration fraud (Project Vote); and new Obama administration grants and funding for ACORN-linked groups.
Climategate: Including, but not limited to, the U.S. federal government's involvement in the international scheme to exaggerate the rise in world temperature readings, the Environmental Protection Agency's hyper-aggressive campaign to expand control over the economy through carbon restrictions and various controversies involving taxpayer-supported "green energy" programs.
Financial Solvency: Including, but not limited to, the impact nationally if individual States should begin to default on their debt.
Government Bailouts: Including, but not limited to, the government's legal and constitutional justification for authorizing the bailouts of private financial institutions; government deliberations regarding which institutions received grants from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the decision by the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under "conservatorship;" and the government takeover of the American automotive industry.
Illegal Immigration: Including, but not limited to, the President's attempts to enact stealth amnesty for illegal aliens without approval by Congress; deteriorating security on the nation's southern border with Mexico; and the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws.
National Security: Including, but not limited to, the Obama administration's mishandling of Guantanamo Bay and the decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in civilian courts on U.S. soil.
Obama Administration Czars: Including, but not limited to, the President's decision to bypass Senate confirmation and appoint "czars" to hold positions of power within the Obama administration as well as various corruption scandals involving individual "czars."
Obamacare: Including, but not limited to, the criteria used by the Obama administration to provide "waivers" to companies and unions exempting them from provisions of Obamacare; the Obama administration's decision to evaluate medical treatments based solely on cost; and the regulation and funding of Obamacare in general.
Pension Fraud: Including, but not limited to, the funding and management of public pension plans for municipal, state and unionized government workers.
Politicization at the Department of Justice: Including, but not limited to racially and politically motivated decision-making in federal civil and voting rights enforcement (such as the decision to largely abandon a voter intimidation lawsuit against the Black Panthers); Justice's decision to attack states that attempt to address illegal immigration through enhanced law enforcement measures; and the duties and responsibilities of lawyers inside Justice who previously represented terrorists.
White House Bribery: Including, but not limited to, an effort by the Obama administration to allegedly interfere with Senate elections in Pennsylvania and Colorado by offering federal appointments to candidates Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Andrew Romanoff in exchange for abandoning their campaigns.
"The American people spoke clearly on Election Day: No more backroom deals, no more influence peddling and no more corruption. This new Congress has an obligation to honor the intense desire by the American people to clean up corruption in Washington," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The federal government has grown by trillions of dollars, yet much of this historic new government activity (and control) has escaped effective congressional oversight. It is well past time for Congress to help pry loose information from the Obama administration, which is the most secretive in recent American history."
Monday, January 24, 2011
Protect Our Elections Asks DOJ to Prosecute Justice Thomas for Repeated False Statements Under Oath
/PRNewswire/ -- The following is being released by www.ProtectOurElections.org:
Today, www.ProtectOurElections.org asked the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for making false statements on his AO 10 Financial Disclosure forms every year since 2003 by falsely swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no non-investment income. (http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_DOJ_Letter.pdf) Justice Thomas signed these forms under oath after certifying that the information in them was true and accurate. The forms include a specific warning that false statements will subject the signer to "civil and criminal sanctions."
Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year according to the foundation's IRS Form 990s. She is now working for Liberty Central in a paid position according to its CEO Sarah Field. Last Friday, Common Cause wrote to the Administrative Office of the Courts about this matter which was reported by the Los Angeles Times on Saturday. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story)
"We are asking that the Department of Justice bring criminal charges against Justice Thomas for his knowing and willful false statements under oath, not just once, but at least seven times," said attorney and campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese. "Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be role models for legal conduct, behavior and ethics, yet Justice Thomas appears to believe that he is above the law. But just as Bill Clinton was charged for making a false statement while serving as President, no one is above the law, especially not one who knows the law and sits in judgment of others who have committed similar violations. If Justice Thomas is allowed to merely amend his forms and pay a civil fine, it will make a mockery of financial disclosure law, undermine respect for the law, and create the appearance that those in powerful positions can violate the law with impunity."
Today, www.ProtectOurElections.org asked the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for making false statements on his AO 10 Financial Disclosure forms every year since 2003 by falsely swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no non-investment income. (http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_DOJ_Letter.pdf) Justice Thomas signed these forms under oath after certifying that the information in them was true and accurate. The forms include a specific warning that false statements will subject the signer to "civil and criminal sanctions."
Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year according to the foundation's IRS Form 990s. She is now working for Liberty Central in a paid position according to its CEO Sarah Field. Last Friday, Common Cause wrote to the Administrative Office of the Courts about this matter which was reported by the Los Angeles Times on Saturday. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story)
"We are asking that the Department of Justice bring criminal charges against Justice Thomas for his knowing and willful false statements under oath, not just once, but at least seven times," said attorney and campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese. "Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be role models for legal conduct, behavior and ethics, yet Justice Thomas appears to believe that he is above the law. But just as Bill Clinton was charged for making a false statement while serving as President, no one is above the law, especially not one who knows the law and sits in judgment of others who have committed similar violations. If Justice Thomas is allowed to merely amend his forms and pay a civil fine, it will make a mockery of financial disclosure law, undermine respect for the law, and create the appearance that those in powerful positions can violate the law with impunity."
Thursday, January 20, 2011
New Survey Finds Four in Five Americans Support a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United
/PRNewswire-/ -- On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a new public opinion survey finds that seventy-nine percent of Americans sharply disapprove of the decision and support a constitutional amendment to reverse the Court's ruling. The study, conducted by Hart Research Associates on behalf of Free Speech for People, confirmed previous polls that found wide-ranging and strong disapproval for the decision but is the most comprehensive to date to measure public support for enacting a constitutional amendment. In the 111th Congress, Members, including Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD4) introduced amendment bills seeking to overturn the Citizens United decision.
"This study demonstrates that across a broad political spectrum, the American people oppose the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC," said John Bonifaz, co-founder and director of Free Speech for People. "They are ready for a constitutional amendment campaign that will restore our democracy and return corporations to their place as economic rather than political entities."
The survey also examined public opinion regarding corporations and the current regulatory system and found little confidence in both. Only 5% of voters feel that the current rules and regulations controlling the influence of large corporations on legislation and enforcement are working well. Additionally, only 14% have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in corporations, while 61% worry a great deal or quite a bit that corporations have too much influence and control over government rules and regulations. Underscoring this lack of trust is that better than four in five (82%) Americans feel corporations care mostly about profits, cut corners on services, overcharge on prices, and do not treat their customers well.
According to the survey, the public also has little faith in the current political system. Only 20% of voters claim to be satisfied with the current U.S. political system, while 57% are dissatisfied. What's more, just 14% of voters have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the political system, while 52% have little confidence.
The survey found support for a constitutional amendment "to make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people" crosses all party lines. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. "Each of the arguments in favor of passing a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision," Hart Research reports, "is more convincing than any of the arguments against it, and the least effective argument against passage is that it will take too long and is not a good use of Congress's time."
"In many different ways," Hart Research concludes, "the American public makes clear its disapproval of the ruling in the Citizens United case and signals its broad support for a Constitutional amendment to overturn this decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. There is a clear desire to readjust the level of influence that corporations have in the nation's political, legislative, and regulatory systems."
A full report of the survey findings can be found here.
http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/me10129b_public.pdf
"This study demonstrates that across a broad political spectrum, the American people oppose the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC," said John Bonifaz, co-founder and director of Free Speech for People. "They are ready for a constitutional amendment campaign that will restore our democracy and return corporations to their place as economic rather than political entities."
The survey also examined public opinion regarding corporations and the current regulatory system and found little confidence in both. Only 5% of voters feel that the current rules and regulations controlling the influence of large corporations on legislation and enforcement are working well. Additionally, only 14% have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in corporations, while 61% worry a great deal or quite a bit that corporations have too much influence and control over government rules and regulations. Underscoring this lack of trust is that better than four in five (82%) Americans feel corporations care mostly about profits, cut corners on services, overcharge on prices, and do not treat their customers well.
According to the survey, the public also has little faith in the current political system. Only 20% of voters claim to be satisfied with the current U.S. political system, while 57% are dissatisfied. What's more, just 14% of voters have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the political system, while 52% have little confidence.
The survey found support for a constitutional amendment "to make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people" crosses all party lines. Large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (82%), and Republicans (68%) support passage of the amendment. "Each of the arguments in favor of passing a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision," Hart Research reports, "is more convincing than any of the arguments against it, and the least effective argument against passage is that it will take too long and is not a good use of Congress's time."
"In many different ways," Hart Research concludes, "the American public makes clear its disapproval of the ruling in the Citizens United case and signals its broad support for a Constitutional amendment to overturn this decision and make clear that corporations do not have the same rights as people. There is a clear desire to readjust the level of influence that corporations have in the nation's political, legislative, and regulatory systems."
A full report of the survey findings can be found here.
http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/me10129b_public.pdf
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.
William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.
"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes &Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed ."
Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:
"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."
The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:
"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.
William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.
Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).
After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.
Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.
"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.
"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes &Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed ."
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Libertarian chair "sort of" commends Obama's Cuba decision
Mark Hinkle, Chairman of the Libertarian Party, sort of commends President Obama for his decision to just barely ease travel restrictions and restrictions on sending private financial assistance to the people suffering under the socialist government of Cuba.
Hinkle said, "The president has shown less-than-tremendous courage here. I suppose it's a tiny positive step that our government will permit Americans to send $500 to a Cuban every three months. And churches will be allowed to arrange trips to Cuba, as long as they jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops first.
"However, it's such a small improvement in such an awful policy, that I'm not sure the president really deserves a compliment.
"It's absurd that the U.S. government prohibits travel and trade with Cuba. In addition to being an unjust violation of Americans' rights, it's bone-headed policy. If the goal was to topple the Castro regime, then the policy has been a spectacular failure. The embargo has probably strengthened, not weakened, the Castro dictatorship.
"Libertarians call for unrestricted access to travel to Cuba and complete freedom for Americans to engage in economic activity there.
"Unrestricted access to the world markets will help Cubans lift themselves out of their disastrous socialist economy. Libertarians know that free trade and free travel are a fast-track ticket to prosperity.
"Next time, Mr. President, try to do something a little more impressive."
The Libertarian Party platform says the following on free trade and migration:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
Hinkle said, "The president has shown less-than-tremendous courage here. I suppose it's a tiny positive step that our government will permit Americans to send $500 to a Cuban every three months. And churches will be allowed to arrange trips to Cuba, as long as they jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops first.
"However, it's such a small improvement in such an awful policy, that I'm not sure the president really deserves a compliment.
"It's absurd that the U.S. government prohibits travel and trade with Cuba. In addition to being an unjust violation of Americans' rights, it's bone-headed policy. If the goal was to topple the Castro regime, then the policy has been a spectacular failure. The embargo has probably strengthened, not weakened, the Castro dictatorship.
"Libertarians call for unrestricted access to travel to Cuba and complete freedom for Americans to engage in economic activity there.
"Unrestricted access to the world markets will help Cubans lift themselves out of their disastrous socialist economy. Libertarians know that free trade and free travel are a fast-track ticket to prosperity.
"Next time, Mr. President, try to do something a little more impressive."
The Libertarian Party platform says the following on free trade and migration:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
Friday, January 14, 2011
After Arizona Shootings, Background Checks Examined: Congress Refuses To Fund All Changes Made After Virginia Tech
/PRNewswire/ -- The following was released today by Mayors Against Illegal Guns:
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, had a history of drug arrests, drug abuse and mental health issues. He was nonetheless able to pass a federal background check and buy the Glock pistol and high-capacity magazines he used to kill six people and seriously injure 13 others. Why? Because the federal background check system has critical gaps and is chronically underfunded - even though Congress and President George W. Bush reformed the program after the Virginia Tech massacre.
The shootings in Arizona supply the latest example of the system's serious flaws. Under federal law, drug abusers and addicts are prohibited from buying guns. Loughner was arrested on drug charges in 2007 and rejected from enlistment from the U.S. Army in 2008 after admitting to habitual drug use. Less than a year later, he passed a background check and bought a shotgun. If the system had worked and records were available to demonstrate Loughner's drug offense and abuse, he would have failed that background check.
This is not the first time the failure to obtain and maintain relevant records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) allowed a dangerous person to slip through cracks in the law. On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before taking his own life. Cho was found to be a danger to himself by a special justice of the Montgomery County General District Court on December 14, 2005. Therefore, under federal law, Cho could not purchase any firearm. But the records of his mental health problem weren't in the NICS system because the general practice at the time was to only submit involuntary inpatient mental health orders, even though outpatient orders are also disqualifying under federal law.
In the wake of Virginia Tech, there was a national consensus to require better reporting of mental health records to the NICS system, and Congress responded. Less than two months after the shootings, the House unanimously passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. The Senate passed an amended bill, again unanimously, later that year. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on January 8, 2008.
The number of mental health NICS records has increased significantly under the new law, but there is much more to be done:
* There were 298,571 mental health records at the end of 2006.
* There were 1,107,758 mental health records at the end of 2010.
* The best available estimates indicate that there are more than 1,000,000 mental health records still missing, along with millions of other records on various types of prohibited purchasers.
Some states have made dramatic progress:
* According to the most recent state-specific data available – as of March 31, 2010 – three states have submitted more than 100,000 records:
o California: 256,106, an increase from 21 records at the end of 2006.
o New York: 154,962, an increase from 1 record at the end of 2006.
o Virginia: 139,185, an increase from 78,478 records at the end of 2006.
* Arizona has also made some progress:
o Arizona has submitted 5,036 records, up from zero at the end of 2006.
Still, many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding. Federal appropriators have granted only 5.3% of the authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011:
*Continuing Resolution funded NICS Improvement Act program at FY10 level. FY11 appropriations legislation has not been enacted.
In part as a result of chronic underfunding, ten states still have no people flagged as mentally ill in NICS: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
Eighteen more states and the District of Columbia still have fewer than 100 people listed as mentally ill in NICS: Iowa, Utah, Maryland, Vermont, Maine, Illinois, South Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, and South Dakota.
Millions of records are still missing. As of December 31, 2011, only 2,092 people are listed as drug abusers or addicts in NICS.
The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, had a history of drug arrests, drug abuse and mental health issues. He was nonetheless able to pass a federal background check and buy the Glock pistol and high-capacity magazines he used to kill six people and seriously injure 13 others. Why? Because the federal background check system has critical gaps and is chronically underfunded - even though Congress and President George W. Bush reformed the program after the Virginia Tech massacre.
The shootings in Arizona supply the latest example of the system's serious flaws. Under federal law, drug abusers and addicts are prohibited from buying guns. Loughner was arrested on drug charges in 2007 and rejected from enlistment from the U.S. Army in 2008 after admitting to habitual drug use. Less than a year later, he passed a background check and bought a shotgun. If the system had worked and records were available to demonstrate Loughner's drug offense and abuse, he would have failed that background check.
This is not the first time the failure to obtain and maintain relevant records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) allowed a dangerous person to slip through cracks in the law. On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech before taking his own life. Cho was found to be a danger to himself by a special justice of the Montgomery County General District Court on December 14, 2005. Therefore, under federal law, Cho could not purchase any firearm. But the records of his mental health problem weren't in the NICS system because the general practice at the time was to only submit involuntary inpatient mental health orders, even though outpatient orders are also disqualifying under federal law.
In the wake of Virginia Tech, there was a national consensus to require better reporting of mental health records to the NICS system, and Congress responded. Less than two months after the shootings, the House unanimously passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. The Senate passed an amended bill, again unanimously, later that year. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on January 8, 2008.
The number of mental health NICS records has increased significantly under the new law, but there is much more to be done:
* There were 298,571 mental health records at the end of 2006.
* There were 1,107,758 mental health records at the end of 2010.
* The best available estimates indicate that there are more than 1,000,000 mental health records still missing, along with millions of other records on various types of prohibited purchasers.
Some states have made dramatic progress:
* According to the most recent state-specific data available – as of March 31, 2010 – three states have submitted more than 100,000 records:
o California: 256,106, an increase from 21 records at the end of 2006.
o New York: 154,962, an increase from 1 record at the end of 2006.
o Virginia: 139,185, an increase from 78,478 records at the end of 2006.
* Arizona has also made some progress:
o Arizona has submitted 5,036 records, up from zero at the end of 2006.
Still, many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding. Federal appropriators have granted only 5.3% of the authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011:
Fiscal Year | Authorized Amount | Actual Appropriations | |
| FY2009 | $187.5 million | $10 million (5.3%) | |
| FY2010 | $375 million | $20 million (5.3%) | |
| FY2011 | $375 million | $20 million* (5.3%) |
*Continuing Resolution funded NICS Improvement Act program at FY10 level. FY11 appropriations legislation has not been enacted.
In part as a result of chronic underfunding, ten states still have no people flagged as mentally ill in NICS: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
Eighteen more states and the District of Columbia still have fewer than 100 people listed as mentally ill in NICS: Iowa, Utah, Maryland, Vermont, Maine, Illinois, South Carolina, New Jersey, Kentucky, Montana, Wyoming, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, and South Dakota.
Millions of records are still missing. As of December 31, 2011, only 2,092 people are listed as drug abusers or addicts in NICS.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
FRC Urges Health Advisory Panel to Protect Conscience Rights, Oppose Mandates for Abortifacients in Obamacare
/PRNewswire/ -- At a meeting today in the nation's capital of a federal advisory committee on the new health care law, Family Research Council (FRC) expressed its strong opposition to designating abortion as a means of pregnancy-prevention. The Institute of Medicine Committee on Preventive Services for Women is hearing comments about regulatory mandates for women's preventive services under Obamacare.
Additionally, FRC sent a letter today to U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius encouraging HHS to not recommend the inclusion of abortion or contraceptive drugs as a mandated service that all health plans would be required to cover at no cost to patients. The letter states that to do so would violate the principles of conscience rights laws.
Jeanne Monahan , FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, made the following comments after addressing the second meeting for the Committee:
"The committee should not recommend the inclusion of abortion as a means of preventing pregnancy. FRC rejects any suggestion that 'abortion is healthcare' or that pregnancy is a disease. Including abortion, whether chemical or surgical, as a mandated, free-of-charge preventive care service would further expand abortion in the health care law and undermine the conscience rights of many in the health care profession.
"Additionally, several drugs have been approved by the FDA to be legally categorized as 'emergency contraceptives,' but can destroy a preborn baby before or after implantation. Any mandates including drugs such as ella would expand taxpayer funding for abortion. Inclusion of contraceptives also undermines conscience protections that President Obama promised would be maintained.
"Earlier today, we sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius urging HHS not to mandate that abortion or contraceptives be covered free of charge under the new health care law. If the IOM and HHS recommend these mandates, the conscience rights of thousands of Americans will be violated, including issuers of plans, providers who contract with such plans, and Americans who will pay for the cost of these services. The IOM should focus on items and services that prevent actual diseases, and not include controversial services just to placate the abortion industry," concluded Monahan.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Additionally, FRC sent a letter today to U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius encouraging HHS to not recommend the inclusion of abortion or contraceptive drugs as a mandated service that all health plans would be required to cover at no cost to patients. The letter states that to do so would violate the principles of conscience rights laws.
Jeanne Monahan , FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, made the following comments after addressing the second meeting for the Committee:
"The committee should not recommend the inclusion of abortion as a means of preventing pregnancy. FRC rejects any suggestion that 'abortion is healthcare' or that pregnancy is a disease. Including abortion, whether chemical or surgical, as a mandated, free-of-charge preventive care service would further expand abortion in the health care law and undermine the conscience rights of many in the health care profession.
"Additionally, several drugs have been approved by the FDA to be legally categorized as 'emergency contraceptives,' but can destroy a preborn baby before or after implantation. Any mandates including drugs such as ella would expand taxpayer funding for abortion. Inclusion of contraceptives also undermines conscience protections that President Obama promised would be maintained.
"Earlier today, we sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius urging HHS not to mandate that abortion or contraceptives be covered free of charge under the new health care law. If the IOM and HHS recommend these mandates, the conscience rights of thousands of Americans will be violated, including issuers of plans, providers who contract with such plans, and Americans who will pay for the cost of these services. The IOM should focus on items and services that prevent actual diseases, and not include controversial services just to placate the abortion industry," concluded Monahan.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Pass the BBA Releases National Survey Results: Clear Majority of Voters Want a BBA
/PRNewswire/ -- Pass the BBA today released the results of a survey they commissioned through Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) on voter attitudes towards a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The newly-formed Pass the BBA wishes to establish a baseline of national voter sentiment before they begin a targeted grassroots campaign to educate voters about their respective representative's position on the BBA over the next several months.
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
Arizona Killings Should be Wakeup Call for Broadcasters
/Standard Newswire/ -- Following Saturday's tragedy in Tucson, Arizona where six people were killed, including a nine year-old girl, Sarah Palin and her Tea Party, along with some talk show hosts, are being blamed for the horrific incident. Will America view this as a wakeup call or just another story in the news cycle?
On Sunday morning, highly respected ABC commentator George Will is ready to forget it saying, "Whenever these things happen, and that is a search of the social environment to find some prompting that caused this, to make it more soothing and understandable. The truth is there are 308 million people in this country and a few of them are unhinged and that may be the final explanation."
That may be the final explanation if you make your living in television news and represent conservatives in America. Obviously, there are many people in this country who are capable of these types of violent acts, but not everyone is as eager as Will to brush it off and move on.
"The facts about the killer are coming out now and revealing him to be one of the unhinged people George Will referred to," said John Ruane, longtime journalist, media relations expert and author of "The Wizards of Spin." "The politicians have their own set of issues to sort out here, but the broadcasting community should take responsible steps to ensure they aren't playing a role in pushing these types of people over the edge. That's really the issue they have to face here."
In the introduction to "The Wizards of Spin," Ruane chronicles the change in the news media over the past 30 years, moving away from the "just-the-facts" reporting of the Walter Cronkite era to the sensationalistic commentary that dominates cable news over the past 10 years. There are so many choices for viewers and listeners now, and media outlets have to compete for ratings to survive, so it's easy to see why some talk show hosts have become more combative and sensationalistic.
"I have been on the book circuit talking about how some of the talk show hosts are inciting their listeners and viewers to the point where this country has become very angry and divided along social and political lines," Ruane said. "It's obvious some broadcasters purposely incite their listeners along those lines of division, growing the gap between a respectful debate and violent argument, and that can't be dismissed here. Something has to be done to demand responsibility on the part of all broadcasters. There are very smart professionals in this country who I believe can be assembled on an independent panel to address this issue."
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
On Sunday morning, highly respected ABC commentator George Will is ready to forget it saying, "Whenever these things happen, and that is a search of the social environment to find some prompting that caused this, to make it more soothing and understandable. The truth is there are 308 million people in this country and a few of them are unhinged and that may be the final explanation."
That may be the final explanation if you make your living in television news and represent conservatives in America. Obviously, there are many people in this country who are capable of these types of violent acts, but not everyone is as eager as Will to brush it off and move on.
"The facts about the killer are coming out now and revealing him to be one of the unhinged people George Will referred to," said John Ruane, longtime journalist, media relations expert and author of "The Wizards of Spin." "The politicians have their own set of issues to sort out here, but the broadcasting community should take responsible steps to ensure they aren't playing a role in pushing these types of people over the edge. That's really the issue they have to face here."
In the introduction to "The Wizards of Spin," Ruane chronicles the change in the news media over the past 30 years, moving away from the "just-the-facts" reporting of the Walter Cronkite era to the sensationalistic commentary that dominates cable news over the past 10 years. There are so many choices for viewers and listeners now, and media outlets have to compete for ratings to survive, so it's easy to see why some talk show hosts have become more combative and sensationalistic.
"I have been on the book circuit talking about how some of the talk show hosts are inciting their listeners and viewers to the point where this country has become very angry and divided along social and political lines," Ruane said. "It's obvious some broadcasters purposely incite their listeners along those lines of division, growing the gap between a respectful debate and violent argument, and that can't be dismissed here. Something has to be done to demand responsibility on the part of all broadcasters. There are very smart professionals in this country who I believe can be assembled on an independent panel to address this issue."
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
FRC: Increase in Abortion Rate Underscores Need to Get U.S. Taxpayers Out of Abortion Business, Enact Pro-Life Protections
/PRNewswire -- A new report released this morning by the Guttmacher Institute finds an abortion rate increase of 1 percent, to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age in 2008.
Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council's Director for the Center of Human Dignity, made the following comments:
"The nation's abortion rate has declined for many years because of the tireless work of and growth of pregnancy resource centers, pro-life educational campaigns, and the enactment of state laws such as parental notification and informed consent. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans now describe themselves as pro-life, and are overwhelmingly opposed to their hard earned dollars going to pay for abortions.
"However, this report indicates that much work remains to be done in Congress and in state legislatures to protect mothers and their unborn children.
"In its 2008-2009 annual report, the country's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, reported that it took home $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during that time period -- a $13.6 million increase from the prior year -- and performed an unprecedented 324,800 abortions in the same time frame. In other words, abortionists have an overabundance of funds. Claims made by Guttmacher that a slight increase in abortion somehow warrants fewer restrictions on late-term abortions or an increase in restrictions on peaceful protests is absurd. How can they say abortion rates aren't high enough?
"Moreover, the last Congress approved abortion funding in the health care law and funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. Funding abortion will only increase, not decrease the abortion rate. This is why we urge the new Congress to approve newly introduced legislation by U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) called the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,' which would wipe the slate clean of government projects that force Americans to pay for abortions and abortion coverage.
"Several states have enacted legislation to opt out of abortion funding as part of health care reform. Women have a right to know that their unborn babies are children which is why we are working with state legislators to pass ultrasound bills such as the law recently enacted by Louisiana," concluded Monahan.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council's Director for the Center of Human Dignity, made the following comments:
"The nation's abortion rate has declined for many years because of the tireless work of and growth of pregnancy resource centers, pro-life educational campaigns, and the enactment of state laws such as parental notification and informed consent. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans now describe themselves as pro-life, and are overwhelmingly opposed to their hard earned dollars going to pay for abortions.
"However, this report indicates that much work remains to be done in Congress and in state legislatures to protect mothers and their unborn children.
"In its 2008-2009 annual report, the country's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, reported that it took home $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during that time period -- a $13.6 million increase from the prior year -- and performed an unprecedented 324,800 abortions in the same time frame. In other words, abortionists have an overabundance of funds. Claims made by Guttmacher that a slight increase in abortion somehow warrants fewer restrictions on late-term abortions or an increase in restrictions on peaceful protests is absurd. How can they say abortion rates aren't high enough?
"Moreover, the last Congress approved abortion funding in the health care law and funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. Funding abortion will only increase, not decrease the abortion rate. This is why we urge the new Congress to approve newly introduced legislation by U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) called the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,' which would wipe the slate clean of government projects that force Americans to pay for abortions and abortion coverage.
"Several states have enacted legislation to opt out of abortion funding as part of health care reform. Women have a right to know that their unborn babies are children which is why we are working with state legislators to pass ultrasound bills such as the law recently enacted by Louisiana," concluded Monahan.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret) Calls on Obama Administration to Identify Greatest Threat in History to Our Democracy
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Security Matters' Contributing Editor, Lt. Col. James G. Zumwalt, has called on the Obama administration to clearly identify what he terms "the greatest threat in history to our democracy." He further identifies clearly that threat to be the one "posed by Islamic extremism."
Lt. Col. Zumwalt, author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will - Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," strongly believes that earlier generations of free societies were able to recognize, understand and defeat earlier threats to their existence posed by Nazism and Communism because those threats were made clear to them. But, the threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a President unwilling to call it what it is. He states the irony of the president's position when he says, "Obfuscating a threat seeking the destruction of our way of life shows unbelievable naivete by our President, underscored by a determined unwillingness to call Islamists 'the enemy' at the same time he freely attaches such a label to his political opponents."
In comparison, Lt. Col. Zumwalt points to the utter failure of South Korea's President Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" which sought a soft policy of political and economic interaction with Pyongyang, thinking it would reap more benefit. Under cover of that policy, Pyongyang—using other assets it garnered under the policy and the millions of dollars paid by the South in 2000—aggressively pursued its nuclear arms program, and other aggressions which culminated in the sinking of a destroyer and artillery attack on a South Korean island. The Sunshine Program was abandoned in 2008 under the new presidency of Lee Myung-bak.
Similarly, while acts/plots of domestic terrorism by Islamists in the U.S. were low between 2001 and 2008, the number had doubled by 2009, a time during which this administration removed all reference to "Islam," "Islamic extremism" and "jihad" so as not to risk offending moderate Muslims.
Carol Taber, president of FamilySecurityMatters.org , where Lt. Col. Zumwalt's article "Obfuscating the National Security Threat" appears said, "The threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a political leadership unwilling to call it what it is. Thank God some of our other leaders, such as Lt. Col. Zumwalt, do not lack that courage."
Lt. Col. Zumwalt, author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will - Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," strongly believes that earlier generations of free societies were able to recognize, understand and defeat earlier threats to their existence posed by Nazism and Communism because those threats were made clear to them. But, the threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a President unwilling to call it what it is. He states the irony of the president's position when he says, "Obfuscating a threat seeking the destruction of our way of life shows unbelievable naivete by our President, underscored by a determined unwillingness to call Islamists 'the enemy' at the same time he freely attaches such a label to his political opponents."
In comparison, Lt. Col. Zumwalt points to the utter failure of South Korea's President Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" which sought a soft policy of political and economic interaction with Pyongyang, thinking it would reap more benefit. Under cover of that policy, Pyongyang—using other assets it garnered under the policy and the millions of dollars paid by the South in 2000—aggressively pursued its nuclear arms program, and other aggressions which culminated in the sinking of a destroyer and artillery attack on a South Korean island. The Sunshine Program was abandoned in 2008 under the new presidency of Lee Myung-bak.
Similarly, while acts/plots of domestic terrorism by Islamists in the U.S. were low between 2001 and 2008, the number had doubled by 2009, a time during which this administration removed all reference to "Islam," "Islamic extremism" and "jihad" so as not to risk offending moderate Muslims.
Carol Taber, president of FamilySecurityMatters.org , where Lt. Col. Zumwalt's article "Obfuscating the National Security Threat" appears said, "The threat posed by Islamism to America remains obfuscated by a political leadership unwilling to call it what it is. Thank God some of our other leaders, such as Lt. Col. Zumwalt, do not lack that courage."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)