Political Potluck Blog

House Passes 50th Consecutive Defense Authorization Bill

2011-12-15T08:41:00.000-08:00

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.

20 issues trump birth certificate circus

2011-04-28T09:59:00.000-07:00

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."

-----

Libertarians speak against Obama's War on Poker

2011-04-20T08:35:00.000-07:00

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."

Libertarians call spending compromise "travesty"

2011-04-18T08:05:00.000-07:00

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."

-----

Westmoreland Supports Budget to Cut $6.2 Trillion, Reduce Deficits $4.4 Trillion Over Ten Years

2011-04-15T12:20:00.001-07:00

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.

FRC Condemns Obama Justice Department for Abandoning DOMA, Urges Congress to Intervene

2011-02-23T12:26:00.000-08:00

/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

Obama Makes Super False Tax Claim: 'I Didn't Raise Taxes Once'

2011-02-07T14:10:00.000-08:00

/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

America should stop interfering in Egypt

2011-02-04T10:14:00.000-08:00

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."

Obama's State of the Union Talks New Jobs While Policies Destroy Them, says FACES of Coal

2011-01-27T08:47:00.000-08:00

/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.

Judicial Watch Details Ambitious Investigative Agenda for 112th Congress

2011-01-25T06:10:00.000-08:00

/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."

Protect Our Elections Asks DOJ to Prosecute Justice Thomas for Repeated False Statements Under Oath

2011-01-24T09:09:00.000-08:00

/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."

New Survey Finds Four in Five Americans Support a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United

2011-01-20T08:39:00.000-08:00

/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

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Constitution is Void

2011-01-19T06:55:00.000-08:00

/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 ."

Libertarian chair "sort of" commends Obama's Cuba decision

2011-01-18T09:47:00.001-08:00

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.

After Arizona Shootings, Background Checks Examined: Congress Refuses To Fund All Changes Made After Virginia Tech

2011-01-14T11:12:00.000-08:00

/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:

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.

FRC Urges Health Advisory Panel to Protect Conscience Rights, Oppose Mandates for Abortifacients in Obamacare

2011-01-12T15:10:00.000-08:00

/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

Pass the BBA Releases National Survey Results: Clear Majority of Voters Want a BBA

2011-01-12T07:22:00.000-08:00

/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.

-----

Arizona Killings Should be Wakeup Call for Broadcasters

2011-01-12T07:07:00.000-08:00

/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

FRC: Increase in Abortion Rate Underscores Need to Get U.S. Taxpayers Out of Abortion Business, Enact Pro-Life Protections

2011-01-11T10:02:00.000-08:00

/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

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret) Calls on Obama Administration to Identify Greatest Threat in History to Our Democracy

2011-01-11T07:06:00.000-08:00

/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."

The American Legion to Senate: 'DREAM Act Rewards Crime'

2010-12-09T11:26:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire -- The National Commander of The American Legion called on the U.S. Senate to stop the so-called DREAM Act after the bill passed in the House of Representatives, 216-198, yesterday.

"Some people mistakenly believe that the DREAM Act would encourage military service and the pursuit of college education," National Commander Jimmie L. Foster said. "Instead, it rewards illegal behavior. It says to those who are trying to legally enter our country, disregard the law and you will ultimately be rewarded. It might be called the DREAM Act, but it's really an amnesty nightmare."

A resolution passed by The American Legion's National Executive Committee, or board of directors, states, in part, "That The American Legion opposes legislation that would result in the granting of amnesty and legal residency, in any form or by any name, to illegal immigrants currently in the United States."

The nation's largest veterans service organization also opposes granting financial aid or "in-state tuition rates," to those who are here illegally. "The United States has dwindling financial resources, as those in the veterans and military communities are frequently reminded," Foster said. "Why would we want to spend those limited resources on educating people who have no legal right to be in this country? The American Legion has a comprehensive immigration strategy that can be found on our website, www.legion.org. That strategy begins with securing our borders."

Foster encourages members of The American Legion family and other like-minded citizens to call their U.S. senators and urge them to vote "No," on the DREAM Act. The number to the Capitol Switchboard is 877-762-8762.

With a current membership of 2.4-million wartime veterans, The American Legion was founded in 1919 on the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans affairs, Americanism, and youth programs. Legionnaires work for the betterment of their communities through more than 14,000 posts across the nation.

Libertarians oppose Republican plans to hang onto Obamacare

2010-12-03T08:56:00.000-08:00

Incoming Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that Republicans now want to keep two significant parts of Obamacare: forcing insurance companies to offer coverage for people up to age 26 under their parents' policies, and forcing insurance companies to issue coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "This switch is predictable. Republicans love to say the words 'less government,' but they always vote for more government. It's a shame that the big-government Republican Party succeeded in fooling Americans again on November 2. We tried to warn the tea partiers."

Hinkle continued, "Repealing one bill and replacing it with much of the same thing doesn't count as a repeal.

"Issuing coverage for a pre-existing medical condition is like issuing coverage for a house with a pre-existing fire. It doesn't make any sense, and no insurance company would do it in a free market.

"By the same token, forcing insurance companies to cover adults up to age 26 under their parents' policy is absurd. Republicans and Democrats both love to treat adults like children.

"If Republicans succeed in keeping these Obamacare policies, it will mean significantly higher insurance premiums for everyone, in order to subsidize the huge new expenses that insurance companies will be forced to pay."

The LP platform plank on health care states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines."

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision: Judges May Ignore the Constitution

2010-12-02T08:52:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to ignore the Constitution. The decision was buried among many other decisions on November 29, 2010, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Appeal No. 10-411). One word decision: DENIED.

Presented with this information, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petition:

"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 are:

1. Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts.

2. Whether the Supreme Court is prepared to declare the Constitution and its amendments null and void."

By denying the petition, the Supreme Court has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and refuse to protect Constitutional rights.

This is the first of four petitions that William M. Windsor has before the Supreme Court. Petition Nos. and 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690 will be decided soon.

Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:09-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 in Niagara Falls, 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 has been detailed for the Supreme Court.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia 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."

The Supreme Court has three more chances to do the right thing, but Windsor anticipates more of the same: "Based upon this decision, I have to say this shows that the corruption goes all the way to the top. 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. It's as if 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."

Obama Drilling Reversal Jeopardizes Trillions in Economic Opportunity

2010-12-02T08:42:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire/ -- In the wake of an announcement by the administration to reverse its plans to expand offshore oil and gas exploration in the Eastern Gulf and up the Atlantic Coast, LSU finance professor and nationally renowned economist Joseph Mason released the following statement:

"Uncertainty is a major hindrance for economic growth. Yet, uncertainty has been the hallmark of the administration's energy policy over the past seven months. Today's default on its promise of expanded offshore access marks only the latest move by administration officials to saddle our still unstable economy with more uncertainty.

"By imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling, the administration cost nearly 20,000 Gulf workers their jobs as of September. While the growing tally of jobs lost as a result of its ongoing de facto shallow water drilling ban remains unknown, this much is certain. If the Interior denies U.S. companies the opportunity to buy new offshore drilling leases in 2011, American policymakers will put an astounding amount of economic potential in jeopardy.

"In a 2009 analysis , I determined that America stood to gain $8 trillion in additional GDP, $2.2 trillion in tax revenue over the next 30 years, and 1.2 million new jobs annually by opening access to our offshore resources. Given that those estimates were based on federal inventories of offshore oil and gas reserves that have not been updated for decades, the actual economic benefits are likely much greater. In the same vein, the economic opportunities denied would be much greater too.

"Rather than opening up the pipeline for future economic investment in the Gulf region and other areas with restricted offshore resources, the administration is sealing them off. Washington must steer clear of harmful policies that unnecessarily extend recovery and, instead, focus on efforts which will invite investment, create jobs, and energize our economy."

TSA Manipulates National Opt Out Day

2010-11-29T13:47:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire/ -- News and personal reports from around the country indicate that the Transportation Security Administration deactivated many of their controversial body imaging scanners on Wednesday, November 24th – one of the busiest travel dates of the year. In so doing, the TSA defused "Opt Out" activities planned by civil libertarian and conservative activists, resulting in shortened waiting lines and quelling public dissent over recent changes in security procedures at our nation's airports.

"We'd like to think that the TSA has been listening to citizens concerned about being given a choice between naked imaging or pat down searches of people's private parts," said former Congressman Bob Barr, Liberty Guard's Chairman. "If this is the indeed the case, we'd like to commend the TSA for applying a bit of common sense to the controversial situation. However, it's far more likely the reason was political and we think the public should be made aware of the motivations of our country's security chiefs."

Toward this end, Liberty Guard has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Transportation Security Administration to determine why many airport imaging scanners were shut down across the country on Wednesday. The FOIA request specifically demands TSA's internal communication regarding certain activists and organizations that are opposed to the new intrusive procedures.

"Considering recent hardline statements made by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole, this apparent sudden reversal in the TSA's direction warrants additional scrutiny," said Joe Seehussen, President of Liberty Guard. "We'd like to know if we can expect a policy shift from the TSA or if they were merely attempting to shut down the public outcry regarding their search procedures."

Liberty Guard, is the sponsor of the Opt Out Alliance and is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with one specific mission: Protect and Defend Individual Liberty. Members of Liberty Guard believe the invasive nature of the newly implemented Full-Body Scanners and the new "enhanced" pat downs are a violation of the 4th Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizure.

Federal Emergency Unemployment Benefits Set to Expire Unless Congress Acts

2010-11-29T07:27:00.000-08:00

Georgians have received more than $2 billion in federal Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits over the last 12 months as part of the emergency UI program. To put that economic impact in context -- $2 billion is greater than the annual payroll for Robins Air Force Base. If Congress does not extend these benefits in December, millions of dollars will immediately stop flowing to Georgians pockets, lowering their purchasing power and impacting local economies across the state.

Congress provides emergency UI benefits in recessions to assist workers during periods of prolonged unemployment after they exhaust state UI benefits. These benefits help workers and families make ends meet when the number of job-searchers greatly out-numbers available jobs. For every 1 job opening nationally there are 5 unemployed workers. The job-population mismatch is especially pronounced in Georgia -- Today, Georgia has fewer jobs than in 2000, yet 20 percent more working age adults.

How would state leaders respond if a company with $2 billion in annual payroll suddenly announced they were eliminating all payroll in 2011? This is the dire reality faced by Georgia workers if federal UI benefits expire. An estimated 90,000 Georgians will lose benefits in December unless Congress acts, according to the National Employment Law Project.

Emergency UI Benefits Typical Until Unemployment Drops to 7.2%

Federal emergency benefits have been available in recessions since the 1950s and historically remain in place until unemployment falls to 7.2 percent or lower. Almost one in ten workers is unemployed today (9.6 percent nationally and 9.9 percent in Georgia), yet these emergency benefits are set to expire. Georgia's unemployment rate will likely stay above 9 percent in 2011, according to GSU Economic Forecasting Center.

Federal UI Benefits Have Helped Workers...And the State Budget

Georgia workers receiving federal UI benefits have contributed an estimated $100 million in income tax revenue over the last 12 months. UI benefits act as wage replacements for unemployed workers as they search for a job, and Georgia treats those benefits like regular wages when it comes to taxes. As the state has struggled with falling revenues and rising need, these tax contributions have added a small boost to revenues.

While the debate about UI extensions should focus on the very real impacts to workers and families, we at the state-level should also consider the impacts on state budget and tax policy. If emergency UI benefits expire and unemployment remains at 9 percent, as expected, will state leaders have to fill an additional $100 million hole in FY 2012 on top of the $1.8 to $2 billion budget shortfall? Will the demand for state services increase as these workers lose benefits -- at the same time revenues remain low? Is the state prepared to meet those additional demands for services?

The expiration of federal UI benefits has consequences for workers, families, and local economies, as well as the state's ability to meet rising needs for services.

Third National Poll Confirms: Americans' Concern About Nasty Politics Continues to Climb

2010-11-19T06:32:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Building on its April 2010 survey on the growing incivility in politics, the Center for Political Participation (CPP) at Allegheny College, in conjunction with Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW), today released the findings of new polling data that suggests Americans see politics as increasingly nasty and that the current political tone may be harmful to our democracy. Still, an overwhelming majority believe that passionate but respectful campaigning is possible.

Some 63 percent of respondents in the latest civility poll, conducted during the last four days leading up to the November midterm elections, believe politics has become less civil since President Barack Obama took office nearly two years ago. This is up from 48 percent in the April survey, and up from 58 percent in a second poll conducted in September, two full months before the midterms.

"You have to remember," said Professor Daniel M. Shea, director of the CPP, "our first wave of polling was done immediately following the health care reform vote. Things were rather hot in Washington. The dramatic increase in the perceptions of negativity since then is stunning. Things have gotten even worse."

A full 46 percent of registered American voters in the November poll said this year's election was the "most negative they had ever seen." An additional 26 percent said that it was "more negative than in the past," but they had seen worse. Only 4 percent said that campaigns were more positive than in the past.

"Sure, memories are short and it's common for all of us to think the most recent election was the worst," said Shea. "But these polling results are powerful. Nearly three out of four people believe this election was one of the nastiest they have ever seen."

A majority of voters (64 percent) polled in November said that the degenerating tone of politics is unhealthy for our democracy. Only 17 percent think the tone of campaigns is healthy for our democracy, while 14 percent think the tone has little impact on democracy. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats who viewed 2010 as the most negative election said that incivility in politics hurts our democracy. Independents and Republicans also see a detrimental effect, with independents at 78 percent and Republicans at 72 percent.

Although a majority of African Americans and Hispanics believe the negative tone of campaigns hurts our democracy, these groups (55 percent black, 50 percent Hispanic) were less likely than whites (67 percent) to consider this as harmful to democracy.

Even so, the November poll finds that voters remain optimistic about candidates' ability to run positive campaigns. Nine out of 10 registered voters believe it is "possible for candidates to run for office in aggressive, but in respectful ways."

"This percentage actually grew by 5 percent from our mid-September poll," said Michael Wolf of Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne, co-author of the study. "Just because the public views campaigns as brutal, particularly this year's, doesn't mean they think it has to be that way. At least for now there remains some optimism out there."

Does their perception of negativity in politics have an impact on voters' willingness to get involved? Thirty percent of all registered voters questioned in the poll reported that the tone of the midterm elections made them less interested in becoming engaged in the process. Independents and Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to say they were less interested due to the tone. Indeed, a majority of Republicans who said that the 2010 election was the most negative they had ever seen said the uncivil tone would actually push them to participate. Additionally, African-Americans—who on the whole are loyal to Democrats—were much more likely than all Americans to say that negative campaigning made them more interested in getting involved in elections.

Another sore subject for voters was the role that so-called "outside money" – through which interest groups not located in a particular district flood a race with ads, mailings and phone calls -- has played in campaigning. Just less than 60 percent of respondents oppose this practice. Democratic respondents were more opposed to outside money (69 percent) than independents (57 percent opposed). A majority of Republicans (51 percent) also oppose this practice.

"It's a bit early to know with certainty, but early evidence suggests a strong majority of outside money was aimed at helping the GOP retake control of Congress, and a vast majority of these ads were hard-hitting and negative," Shea said. "It would make sense that some of these ads actually revved up GOP voters."

This recent wave of polling for Allegheny and IPFW was conducted by SurveyUSA between Oct. 28 and Nov. 1, 2010. In all, 1,252 registered voters were contacted, yielding a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

For a complete set of the data, along with cross tabulations and graphic displays of the results, see: http://www.allegheny.edu/novemberpoll. The survey findings from the September poll, along with charts and cross tabulations, can be accessed at: www.allegheny.edu/septemberpoll. The April 2010 survey, "Nastiness, Name-calling & Negativity," is available at www.allegheny.edu/civility.

Nation's Frontline Physicians Unhappy with Health Care Reform Measures

2010-11-18T10:31:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The Physicians Foundation today released the results of a national survey of physicians that finds strong negative feelings towards the new health care reform law and fear that patient care will suffer in the months and years ahead. The survey was intended to gauge physicians' initial reaction to the passage of health reform and to learn the ways in which they plan to respond to it.

The research, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, a national physician search and consulting firm, on behalf of the Foundation, comes on the two-year anniversary of the Foundation's first national physician survey (available at www.physiciansfoundation.org) that found growing dissatisfaction among doctors as they struggle with less time for patient care and increased time dealing with non-clinical paperwork, difficulty receiving reimbursement and burdensome government regulations. The new research reinforces those findings and shows that the new health care reform could intensify existing problems for doctors and worsen the shortage of primary care doctors, making it more difficult for patients to access quality care.

"Physicians support reform; in fact, we were the ones leading the fight against the status quo. But this new research shows that doctors strongly believe the law is not working like it needs to – for them, or for their patients," said Lou Goodman, PhD, President. "For any health care reform effort to be successful, it must include the viewpoint of our nation's doctors. Their perspective from the front-lines of patient care is critical in determining what's broken in our system and how we can fix it."

Notably, physicians also felt that Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR) had an equally large impact on their practices as health care reform. Proposed cuts have been repeatedly put off by Congress and in January will reach approximately 30% if not addressed.

"Despite the high profile nature of the health reform discussion, physicians are equally concerned over the impact of SGR on their practices," said Walker Ray, MD, Research Committee Chair. "The fact that SGR was not addressed as part of this year's reform effort shows that we don't have a comprehensive solution yet, and also that doctors simply didn't have a voice at the table during the reform debate. That needs to change."

Key research findings include:

* The majority of physicians (60%) said health reform will compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients. Of these, 93% said they will be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicaid patients, while 87% said they would be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicare patients.
* 40% of physicians said they would drop out of patient care in the next one to three years, either by retiring, seeking a non-clinical job within healthcare, or by seeking a non-healthcare related job.
* The majority of physicians (59%) said health reform will cause them to spend less time with patients.
* While over half of physicians said health reform will cause patient volumes in their practices to increase, 69% said they no longer have the time or resources to see additional patients in their practices while still maintaining quality of care.
* 67% of physicians said their initial reaction to passage of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was either "somewhat negative" or "very negative" and a great majority (86%) believes the viewpoint of physicians was not adequately represented to policy makers during the run-up to passage of the law.
* Physicians are almost evenly divided over the relative importance of SGR (36%) and health reform (34%) to their practices, while 30% are unsure which will have the greatest impact.

United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution

2010-11-15T07:27:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire-/ -- The United States Supreme Court will soon issue a landmark decision on the validity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will consider three petitions filed by William M. Windsor, a retired Atlanta, Georgia grandfather. The decision should be rendered by the end of the year. Unless The Supreme Court acts, federal judges will be free to void the Constitution.

The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:

1. Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
2. Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
3. Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?

These questions are presented in three separate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus filed with The United States Supreme Court the first week of November 2010 (appeal numbers to-be-assigned).

Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a 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 all 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 in Niagara Falls, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay over $400,000 in legal fees. 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).

Windsor believes that the federal courts and nine federal judges violated the Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that, at least in Atlanta, Georgia, the federal courts operate like a police state in which the judges are all-powerful, committing criminal acts from their benches and violating the Constitutional rights of parties who have the misfortune of appearing in their courts."

Windsor has now tossed the hot potato right square in the laps of the justices of the Supreme Court. By filing mandamus petitions rather than an appeal, The Supreme Court is forced to deal with Windsor's allegations of corruption in the federal courts.

Grandfather Windsor hopes for the best but fears for the worst: "I hope The Supreme Court is decent, honest, and cares about the Constitution and the citizens of the United States. However, I am sorry to say that at this point, I suspect the corruption goes all the way to the top. My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I have said to The Supreme Court that the issues can all be boiled down to one question: Is The United States Supreme Court prepared to stop the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia from functioning like common criminals?"

Windsor says: "If The Supreme Court fails to act against these federal judges, the citizens of the United States need to know that there is not a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. Corruption has consumed the federal court system, and 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."

The Supreme Court may render its decision before the end of the year. It's one retired grandpa against the United States government.

New Congress Should Remove Restrictions on Flexible Spending Accounts to Help Consumers

2010-11-11T07:26:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Save Flexible Spending Plans today called on the new leaders in Congress to follow through on their campaign promises to fix problems with the health care reform law, including restrictions on employer-provided flexible spending accounts (FSAs).

The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act includes several restrictions on FSAs, which were incorporated to pay for a portion of the health reform bill. First, starting on January 1, 2011, participants will need a doctor’s prescription in order to use their FSAs to pay for over-the-counter (OTC) medications, such as allergy medicine and cough syrup. Second, beginning on January 1, 2013, contributions to FSAs will be capped at $2,500 per year.

“It was never a good idea to fund health reform on the backs of hard-working Americans who use flexible spending accounts to manage and contain health costs,” said Joe Jackson, chairman of Save Flexible Spending Plans and CEO of WageWorks, Inc., a benefits provider based in San Mateo, CA. “To improve and fix the health reform law, Congress should quickly repeal the requirement starting January 1, 2011 that a doctor’s prescription is needed for consumers to use their flex accounts to purchase over-the-counter medications, including Claritin, Zyrtec and Tylenol. This provision will not only drive up health care costs, but it is an utter waste of consumers’ and physicians’ limited time.”

Jackson recommends Congress preserve the usefulness of FSAs by taking the following actions:

Repeal the OTC Prescription Requirement

Employee benefits providers and retailers expect that the new OTC medication prescription requirement will blindside consumers and create an administrative nightmare. The new rule will also increase costs to the health care system since additional office visits will be required for patients seeking prescriptions to use their spending accounts for OTC medications.

If Congress can’t find a way to remove the restriction altogether, then it should at least follow the recommendation of leading industry groups, including the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, who have requested a delay in implementation of the provision in order to give providers and retailers an opportunity to educate consumers and develop applicable compliance procedures.

Remove the “Use it or Lose it” Provision

Today, FSA participants are required to spend their entire annual election before the end of the calendar year (or, in some cases, an extension deadline), or those funds are forfeited and returned to their employers. This “use it or lose it” rule often discourages individuals from utilizing FSAs to save on their health care expenses for fear that they will lose any remaining balance. Additionally, this forfeiture rule is no longer necessary now that an FSA contribution cap is set to go into effect on January 1, 2013.

Rather than forcing consumers to forfeit or spend unused money at the end of a plan year, Congress should revise the rule to allow participants each year to roll over up to $500 or cash-out unused FSA funds. With participants paying taxes on those funds or rolling over dollars into the next year, either solution would generate additional revenue for the federal government.

Increase the Contribution Cap

The future cap on FSA contributions will force approximately seven million hard-working Americans who use their FSAs to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses that exceed the $2,500 limit to pay higher taxes and health care costs. Sadly, Americans with the highest out-of-pocket health care costs – those with chronic conditions or children with special needs – will be hit the hardest by this restriction. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, individuals and families with chronic illnesses incur annual out-of-pocket expenses that average $4,398 per year, which significantly exceeds the proposed $2,500 cap.

A more appropriate response is for Congress to set a cap at $5,000.

“FSAs are a lifeline for working Americans, often making the difference between staying afloat and going into debt over health care needs, and sometimes between getting necessary treatment and avoiding it altogether because of the cost. They enable participants to play an active role in managing their health care and should be preserved,” added Jackson.

About Save Flexible Spending Plans

Save Flexible Spending Plans is a national grassroots advocacy organization that protects against the restricted use of flexible spending accounts. The campaign is sponsored by the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC), www.ecfc.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to the maintenance and expansion of private employee benefit programs on a tax-advantaged basis. To learn more, take action and read the personal stories of FSA participants, please visit www.savemyflexplan.org.

Consumer Watchdog Warns White House Strong Early Health Reform Rules are Needed to Prove Value of Law to Public

2010-11-10T07:41:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog today warned the White House that the insurance industry is still intent on demolishing modest consumer protections in the health reform law, and outlined the most damaging industry demands in a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The letter, noting that the chief industry lobbying group is hiring lobbyists with direct HHS and Justice Department ties, urges Sebelius not to accept any weakening and to repair some of the damage already done by industry pressure.

Read the letter, with data links, at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/SebeliusMLR1110.pdf

"The midterm elections are not a signal to water down reform until consumers can't see any benefit," said Carmen Balber, Washington director of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog. "The White House has to prove to doubting voters that it can protect them from having to choose between paying the mortgage and keeping their health insurance."

"Consumers' unhappiness with the health reform law stems directly from their belief that they won't personally benefit from it as they watch premiums soar," said Balber. "You can help most Americans see the benefit by enacting strong protections in these consumer regulations."

The letter said:

"As you know, the health reform law did nothing to cap runaway rate hikes. However, two provisions of the law meant to at least curb the premiums consumers pay are now in your court: rules to require insurance companies to spend more on actual health care and less on administration and profit, and rules to define and require insurance companies to justify 'unreasonable' premiums before they take effect. The insurance industry, in the wake of the midterm election, is refocusing its efforts against these provisions on your agency.

"The insurers have threatened to disrupt insurance markets if health reform regulations are not to their liking. We urge you to reject such intimidation.

"You must instead strengthen new rules intended to shine a spotlight on insurer spending and make the insurance industry more efficient in providing health care. This must include a strong definition of what constitutes an 'unreasonable' rate increase, given the unaffordable double-digit premium increases that insurers are now imposing on existing customers. Your definition will govern whether insurers have to publicly defend their rate increases, and should be as simple and inclusive as possible to ensure that any questionable increase receives additional review."

The letter also warned that insurers have key additional demands that would, if accepted, make meaningless the law's demand that insurers spend a higher proportion of premium revenue on health care:

"[The industry's] chief and most damaging additional demands are, in brief:

"1. To combine each plan of a single insurer at the national level. …. Combining them nationally for purposes of the medical loss ratio would allow insurers to gouge customers in high-profit states by offsetting areas of low medical spending with higher proportions in better-regulated states.

"2. To deduct insurance broker fees from premiums before measuring MLR. …. If the deduction is allowed, the MLR minimum of 80% in those markets will become meaningless.

"3. To give many plans a larger percentage 'bonus' in calculating whether they have met the 80% individual/small business minimum and the 85% group plan minimum for health care spending."

In addition, said the letter, HHS must tighten the NAIC's too-loose definitions of what can be counted as insurer health care, particularly: corporate image marketing campaigns wrapped in a public health care message; deduction of virtually all federal and state taxes from premium income before the health care percentage is calculated; and failure to make public the insurers' defense of what they are counting as health care.

Ultimately, said the letter,

"Consumers cannot expect to pay a fair price for health insurance until all insurance companies are required to justify, and get approval for, every premium change, and until the public is allowed to fully participate in the rate review process. We urge you to encourage the states to enact and enhance prior approval rate regulation and consumer participation. Strong rules on medical spending and premium review are nevertheless your strongest currently available tools to protect consumers from insurer profiteering and greed."

Consumer Watchdog is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA. Find us on the web at: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

What's Next? An Issue that Unites Americans: Preservation of Parental Rights

2010-11-08T08:28:00.000-08:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Michael P. Farris, J.D., President of ParentalRights.org:

In the aftermath of this past election, it is appropriate to ask the question: What next? What will some of the legislative priorities be for the newly constituted House and Senate?

An issue that motivated many activists in last week's elections, while going largely uncovered by the national media, is the protection of the right of parents to make decisions concerning their children. This promises to be on the short list of action items for a new House controlled by Republicans.

During the last election cycle, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and other Democratic leaders promised that they would seek and obtain ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Senator Jim DeMint (SC) introduced a resolution, S.Res.519, which opposes the ratification of the UN children's treaty that threatens the constitutional rights of parents. With the leadership of Senator DeMint and the substantial grassroots efforts of Parentalrights.org and 140+ affiliated family organizations, the Senate resolution has 31 formal sponsors. Written commitments from two additional senators bring the number to 33 Senators who stand against the use of international law to govern American parents. This is just one Senator away from the number needed to block ratification of this treaty.

A recent Zogby poll demonstrates that Americans oppose the Convention by 78.3% to 6.4%--a ratio of approximately 12 to 1.

On the flipside, 93% of Americans endorse the Supreme Court's traditional rule protecting parental rights as a fundamental freedom. And even with no explanation of the need for an amendment, 63% of the American public supports a constitutional amendment to protect these rights.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment currently has 142 co-sponsors in the House, including 140 Republicans and two Democrats. In addition, dozens of candidates for the 112th Congress signed a pledge to cosponsor the Parental Rights Amendment. With many of these winning on November 2, ParentalRights.org already anticipates 156 cosponsors on the measure in January.

Libertarians oppose abusive TSA strip-search machines

2010-11-07T10:22:00.000-08:00

Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle commented today (November 5) on the Transportation Security Administration's use of strip-search machines at airports.

Hinkle said, "The TSA should end the strip-search machine program immediately.

"We've reached a point where our government has no qualms about humiliating us.

"Everyone who cares about civil liberties should be outraged that the Obama administration has shown no respect for travelers' privacy or their right to be free from unreasonable searches. The fact that I want to travel on an airplane does not make me a threat, and it does not allow anyone to conduct a warrantless search under my clothing. The Obama administration apparently agrees with the neoconservative philosophy that there are no limits on government power in the areas of security and terrorism.

"Terrorists win when they provoke our government into overreacting. Apparently they have manipulated our government into chipping away at our rights and privacy. We should not let them get away with it."

American Pilots Association president Dave Bates recently spoke out against the strip-search machines, expressing concern about the possibly harmful radiation they emit.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently filed the opening brief in its lawsuit against the program. EPIC says that the machines violate the federal Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC's president called the program "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective."

Hinkle continued, "We can ignore the government's assurances that images will not be stored. Regardless of policy, some security personnel will want to store the images, and they will find ways to do it. This is already reported to have happened in Florida, where U.S. Marshalls stored thousands of images from a courthouse scanner.

"Many airlines are probably relieved to have the federal government assume responsibility for security. But it's the airlines who ought to be responsible, and they should bear the liability for what happens on their flights. Rather than have a one-size-fits-all approach imposed by the government, passengers and airlines should be free to work together to determine what methods and levels of security fit their needs best.

"We encourage Americans to call their newly-elected members of Congress and tell them that they don't want this expensive, worthless, intrusive, unconstitutional program."

The Hill Launches 2012 Election Coverage

2010-11-03T08:15:00.000-07:00

The Hill is launching its coverage of the 2012 presidential election today.

Two new columns will appear under the banner White House 2012 in Ballot Box, thehill.com's campaign blog.

One of the columns, Obama's Bid For Re-election, will chronicle the president's every maneuver, both overt and covert, to position himself for victory in two years, and a second term in the Oval Office. The column will be written by Sam Youngman, The Hill's White House correspondent, who has been reporting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue since the waning months of the Bush presidency, through the "change" election of November 2008, and the trials and triumphs of President Obama's first two years in office.

The Republican Primary column will focus on all the rising stars who might seek the GOP nomination — their exploratory committees and official announcements, the snows of New Hampshire and Iowa and the swelter of the convention. The column will be written by Christian Heinze, who founded the GOP12.com website two years ago and has built an unmatched trove of data about the politicking of potential Republican nominees.

“As one election ends, another cycle begins,” said The Hill’s Editor in Chief Hugo Gurdon. “Together these two columns will explain the long and hard-fought 2012 presidential campaign, which starts right now.”

Youngman will analyze, amid the unfolding events of government, what the president needs to do to recapture the excitement he created in 2007 and 2008..

Heinze will examine how establishment and outsider candidates approach a race in which the Tea Party is a factor with proven power but unclear direction.

To check them out go to the White House 2012 columns each Wednesday, at thehill.com/blogs/ballot box

Sincerely, Hugo Gurdon
Editor in Chief, The Hill
-------------------------------

The Hill, which has the largest circulation of any Capitol Hill publication, comes out daily when Congress is in session, and runs 24/7 on the web. Since its launch in 1994, The Hill has been the newspaper for and about Congress, breaking stories from Capitol Hill, K Street and the White House.

NPRA Statement on Defeat of Proposition 23 in California

2010-11-03T06:05:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Charles T. Drevna, president of NPRA, the National Petrochemical &Refiners Association, today issued the following statement on the defeat of Proposition 23 in California:

"Proposition 23 was defeated because a sophisticated multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign falsely led Californians to believe they were voting to clean their air of pollutants that posed a danger to their health. In fact, Proposition 23 would simply have temporarily postponed drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are made up largely of carbon dioxide, the same substance humans and animals exhale after every breath we take. The postponement would have been in effect only until California's unemployment rate dropped to reasonable levels for a year.

"The defeat of Proposition 23 will hurt families across California by destroying jobs and raising the costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity and more. It is the wrong medicine at the wrong time for California's ailing economy, which suffered from a 12.4 percent unemployment rate in September that left 2.27 million men and women unable to find jobs they so desperately need.

"The severe economic pain and hardship caused by the extreme mandates of Proposition 23 will accomplish absolutely nothing positive in terms of climate change. They will result in the relocation of jobs and businesses from California to other states and other countries, along with the relocation of carbon emissions produced by those businesses and people. Since every state and nation on Earth share the same atmosphere, moving carbon from one location to another will not bring about any reduction in greenhouse gases.

"The victories of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer in Tuesday's election certainly helped win passage of Proposition 23, since voters who cast ballots for the winning candidates understandably heeded their calls for support of Proposition 23. I would not be surprised to see Californians vote again on this issue in the future, after the full magnitude of the suffering created by AB32 becomes a reality. It's tragic that this economic pain now looming in California's future was not averted with the passage of Proposition 23."

New Lawsuit Seeks to Stop Illegal Censorship of Maricopa County Voters

2010-10-30T16:24:00.000-07:00

Goldwater Institute asks for emergency court order so voters can speak freely with “tea party” clothing on Election Day

The Goldwater Institute has asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order against Maricopa County officials who have pledged to stop voters from wearing clothing that mentions the phrase “tea party” on Election Day, even when such clothing does not attempt to influence other voters.

The motion seeks to protect the free speech of voters such as Mark Reed of Scottsdale, who wants to wear a tea party T-shirt when he votes Tuesday, Nov. 2.

“Maricopa County plans to go far beyond protecting the right to vote freely and will completely suspend the First Amendment at more than 1,100 polling places on Election Day,” said Clint Bolick, the Goldwater Institute’s litigation director. “Election officials have a legal and moral duty to defend our fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of speech.”

On Oct. 20, 2010, U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg issued a temporary injunction against Coconino County in a lawsuit filed by the Goldwater Institute to protect the right of members of the Flagstaff Tea Party to wear their T-shirts while voting on Tuesday.

However, Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne has said poll workers in her county will instruct voters to not wear or to hide any clothing that mentions a tea party group. “The tea party shirts would be seen as campaigning and would be inappropriate to be worn inside the polling place,” Ms. Osborne told the East Valley Tribune. The Goldwater Institute has an affidavit from a poll worker who confirms her training included instructions to not allow voters to wear clothing that refers to any tea party group.

On Wednesday, Oct. 27, the Arizona Republic reported Maricopa County had adopted a new instruction for poll workers related to anyone who insists on wearing this type of clothing while voting. They will be allowed to vote, the Arizona Republic reported, but poll workers will record their identities on a separate form for later investigation.

“State law classifies electioneering at polling places as a misdemeanor crime. Maricopa County is using the threat of a possible investigation after the election to intimidate voters into giving away their constitutional rights,” said Diane Cohen, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney in this case.

The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents Mark Reed, who intends to vote Tuesday while wearing a T-shirt that says “Tea Party: Principles Not Politicians” and includes a “Don’t Tread on Me” logo.

Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
---
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
Facebook: http://facebook.com/ArtsAcrossGA
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP

ATR Releases 2010 List of State Pledge Signers in Georgia

2010-10-30T08:48:00.000-07:00

State candidates join incumbents in making no-new taxes promise in upcoming election
Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) released an updated list of incumbents and challengers in Georgia who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge . These candidates have made a written commitment to their constituents to never raise their taxes. ATR strongly encourages taxpayers to consider those who have made this commitment. The list of incumbents and challengers who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is as follows

Incumbents

Ronnie Chance (S-16)

Jeff Chapman (S-3)

John Douglas (S-17)

Greg Goggans (S-7)

Johnny Grant (S-25)

Bill Heath (S-31)

Judson Hill (S-32)

Ralph T. Hudgens (S-47)

Bill Jackson (S-24)

Jack Murphy (S-27)

Chip Rogers (S-21)

Mitch Seabaugh (S-28)

Preston W. Smith (S-52)

Cecil Staton (S-18)

Renee S. Unterman (S-45)

John J. Wiles (S-37)

Tommie Williams (S-19)

Amos Amerson (H-9)

Timothy Bearden (H-68)

John Mark Butler (H-18)

Charlice Byrd (H-20)

David Casas (H-103)

Jill Chambers (H-81)

Brooks Coleman (H-97)

Sharon Cooper (H-41)

Clay Cox (H-102)

Steve Davis (H-109)

Katie Dempsey (H-13)

Matt Dollar (H-45)

Melvin Everson (H-106)

Bobby Franklin (H-43)

Mark Hamilton (H-23)

Ben Harbin (H-118)

Michael Harden (H-28)

John Mark Hatfield (H-177)

Bill Hembree (H-67)

Calvin Hill (H-21)

Billy Horne (H-71)

Penny Houston (H-170)

Sheila Jones (H-44)

Sean Jerguson (H-22)

Jerry Keen (H-179)

Barry Loudermilk (H-14)

John Lunsford (H-110)

Eugene T. Maddox (H-172)

Judith Manning (H-32)

Jeff May (H-111)

Fran Millar (H-79)

James Mills (H-25)

Billy Mitchell (H-88)

Larry O’Neal (H-146)

Allan Peake (H-137)

Alan Powell (H-29)

David Ralston (H-7)

Bobby Reese (H-98)

Tom Rice (H-51)

Carl Rogers (H-26)

Ed Rynders (H-152)

Martin Scott (H-2)

Donna Sheldon (H-105)

Barbara Sims (H-119)

Bob Smith (H-113)

Len Walker (H-107)

Mark Williams (H-178)

John P. Yates (H-73)

Challengers

Nathan Deal (Gov)

John Albers (S-56)

Tracy G. Bennett (S-31)

David Casas (S-9)

Barry Loudermilk (S-52)

Rashid Malik (S-9)

Diana Williams (S-43)

Charles Ashfield (H-124)

James Brown (H-77)

Chad Cobb (H-26)

Hayden Collins (H-15)

Kevin Cooke (H-18)

Christian A. Coomer (H-14)

Allen Freeman (H-140)

Tommy Patterson (H-6)

Jason Shepherd (H-37)

Jason Spencer (H-180)

Bruce Williamson (H-111)

Joseph Woods (H-160)

*List does not denote incumbents who are not running for reelection, who are termed out, or do not have an election this year.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or by email at jkartch@atr.org.

New Documents: Conservative Leader Disinvited from Speaking at Andrews Air Force Base Prayer Luncheon for Opposing Obama 'Issues'

2010-10-29T06:01:00.000-07:00

/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained new documents from the United States Air Force detailing the decision to retract an invitation to Family Research Council (FRC) President and Marine Corps veteran Tony Perkins to serve as a guest speaker for a prayer breakfast held in February at Andrews Air Force Base. According to the documents, obtained pursuant to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Air Force officials were concerned about FRC statements opposing President Obama's policies.

The following is an excerpt from a January 29, 2010, Air Force email included among the documents:

"General [REDACTED] came by a few moments ago and asked me to go to www.frc.org. That is the website for Mr. Tony Perkins who is to speak at the National Prayer Luncheon on 25 February 2010. The webpage has numerous Obama issues to which the organization is opposed. The organization can oppose initiatives, but the Command-in-Chief is named."

"CONCERN: Suppose the media gets a hold of this story."

On October 2, 2009, a Chaplain for the Air Force extended an invitation to Mr. Perkins to serve as the keynote speaker at the 2010 National Prayer Luncheon scheduled for February 25, 2010, at Andrews Air Force Base: "Sir, it would be a great honor for our community if you would accept our humble invitation and share with us some of the basic principles that have guided you along the way," the Chaplain wrote.

However, in a letter dated January 29, 2010, the Air Force rescinded the invitation. The letter cited Family Research Council website statements calling them "incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our commander in chief."

"It seems like this administration's enemies list just gets longer and longer. Mr. Perkins is not only a respected national leader who has held public office but he is also a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces. I find it unconscionable that the Air Force would ban Mr. Perkins from speaking to a prayer luncheon on a military base due to his organization's opposition to some of President Obama's 'issues,'" stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

"This new scandal is bound to outrage many Americans and it raises additional questions about the Obama administration's commitment to the First Amendment."

Visit www.JudicialWatch.org to access the Air Force records obtained by Judicial Watch.

President Obama Is Playing Politics With Domestic Violence Issue, Groups Warn

2010-10-28T07:07:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Domestic Violence experts are criticizing President Obama's pre-election unveiling of a new domestic violence initiative, saying the effort represents a concoction of unproven strategies that betray the needs of women.

The Obama plan will promote wider use of restraining orders -- but research shows such orders are flatly ineffective in preventing future violence: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse

The Independent Women's Forum has said such orders "lull women into a false sense of security," since a piece of paper is unlikely to deter a batterer intent on maiming a victim. Former Judge Milton Raphaelson of Massachusetts notes, "Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders and the arrests and conflicts ensuing therefrom."

According to a report issued Tuesday by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, lesbian and gay persons are nearly twice as likely to experience domestic violence as persons in heterosexual relationships. The report also documents cases of discriminatory practices and "verbal and sexual harassment of shelter staff towards lesbian clients:" http://www.avp.org/documents/2009DV-IPVREPORTFINAL2.pdf

"American women and men who face the grim reality of domestic violence in their daily lives are unlikely to be impressed by President Obama's plan," according to SAVE spokesperson Teri Stoddard. "Domestic violence programs should be based on solid evidence and research, and not consist of a series of disjointed efforts cobbled together on Election Eve."

An increase in female-initiated abuse has been documented in government surveys, but Obama's initiative is insensitive to a woman's request for counseling and treatment, or the needs of male victims. According to a 2007 Centers for Disease Control study, women commit 7 out of 10 acts of one-way partner violence.

Last week, former Playboy Playmate Angela Dorian took a handgun and shot her boyfriend in their Hollywood apartment. The 66-year-old Dorian was arrested Saturday night. Bail was set at $1,000,000.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) has developed a Domestic Violence Fact Sheet: http://saveservices.org/pdf/Seven-Facts-Every-American-Should-Know-About-DV.pdf

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments -- SAVE -- is a national 501c3 organization dedicated to ending intimate partner violence through public awareness, training, and evidence-based policy: www.saveservices.org

Why People Embrace God Before Elections

2010-10-27T10:12:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- As Americans consider which candidate to vote for in the upcoming elections, they are reminded of the government's vulnerability and wonder how their decisions will affect a fragile financial landscape.

This sense of instability can have wide implications, not just for government but also for faith in religion and God, according to new research from Northwestern University and Duke University.

The study examines how people cope with events that shake their fundamental need to believe in an orderly, structured world and suggests that when a government weakens, people's faith in a higher power becomes stronger. Surprisingly, the research also finds that when faith in the stability of God or the government is shaken, people turn to the other entity to restore a sense of control.

Professors Aaron Kay, Adam Galinsky and their colleagues examined whether changing political climates can drive religious belief, especially faith in a controlling or interventionist deity. They found that beliefs toward God and the government can help satiate the same psychological need for structure and order and are interchangeable with one another.

"This research holds important implications for our understanding of the formation and strengthening of religious belief," said Galinsky, the Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management at the Kellogg School.

Lead author Kay, an associate professor at Duke University, added, "Although there are undoubtedly multiple causes of religious belief, one cause may be that when people perceive their government as unstable, they turn to God or other religious deities to fulfill a need for order and control in their lives."

To test their theory, the authors conducted a diverse set of experimental designs, laboratory, field settings, and independent and dependent measures. The experiments were designed to demonstrate that external systems of control can also compensate for one another. The researchers gathered results from college campuses in Malaysia and Canada which found that perceptions of decreased government stability, such as immediately before an election, led to increased beliefs in a controlling God. Conversely, increased perceptions of political stability led to weaker beliefs in an interventionist God.

In a longitudinal field study conducted in Malaysia, the researchers tested people's sense of governmental stability and faith in a controlling God both before and after an election. Before the election, government instability was perceived to be high and people were more likely to believe in a controlling God, compared with immediately after an election, when a sense of government stability had been restored. In another study, when participants were led to believe that scientists have concluded that God is unlikely to intervene in the world's affairs (e.g., is not an effective source of control), they showed higher levels of government support compared with participants who were led to believe that God may play an interventionist role.

According to Kay, one implication of this research is that higher levels of religious belief, commitment, and possibly extremism might be more likely in those countries that have the least stable governments and other secular institutions.

Galinsky noted the timely relevance of their research: "Particularly in today's landscape and with upcoming elections, we find uncertainty swirling around government. It is in these cases when people are likely to turn to other sources of control like putting faith in an intervening God."

The new study, entitled "For God (or) Country: The Hydraulic Relation Between Government Instability and Belief in Religious Sources of Control," will be published in the November issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (published by the American Psychological Association). Kay and Galinsky co-authored the study with Stephen Shephard of the University of Waterloo, Craig Blatz of Grant MacEwan University and Sook Ning Chua of McGill University.

Libertarian Chair: Time to Re-Legalize Immigration

2010-10-26T07:39:00.000-07:00

Amid controversy over U.S. immigration policy, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle says the proper way to end illegal immigration is to re-legalize immigration. Hinkle released the following statement today:

"In debate after debate, Democratic and Republican politicians have decried the problem of illegal immigration, called for more border security and employer sanctions, and eagerly searched for evidence that their rivals employed undocumented help. The Obama administration proudly touts the fact that it is deporting more undocumented aliens than George W. Bush, while many of the families they support remain stranded in the United States, and most of whom were guilty of nothing more than the inability to satisfy a nightmarish bureaucracy.

"Our government has made it practically impossible for most would-be immigrants to work legally in America, a fact illustrated by this flowchart from Reason Magazine.

"For most of American history, immigrants streamed into this country, found jobs, and either stayed to build a life or returned to their native country if they couldn't. America was admired by the world and proudly displayed an ode to immigration on the Statue of Liberty, within sight of the major processing center at Ellis Island. We can and should return to that tradition.

"Every significant problem blamed on immigration in this country is either imaginary or caused by government. In Arizona, where illegal immigrants are being blamed for an increase in violent crime, violent crime has actually been declining for a decade, and declining much faster than the national average. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) commit crimes at lower rates than natives. If you're worried about gangs, then end the War on Drugs which funds them, just as it did the gangsters under alcohol prohibition.

"Immigrants are often accused of overloading the welfare system. This is again the fault of a government program. But the idea that welfare is a magnet for immigrants is a myth. In an ingeniously designed study by University of Hawaii Professor Ken Schoolland, patterns of migration within the 50 states, which have no travel restrictions between them, were studied. Schoolland found that were was, in fact, a very strong correlation between welfare and immigration: it was strongly negative. All of the states with the highest levels of government welfare benefits experienced net emigration to other states, and all of the states with the lowest levels of welfare experienced net immigration. Arizona, the current focus of anti-immigrant fears, ranks 46th in welfare benefits.

"Immigrants come here to work. Anyone who works and produces makes others better off. And unemployment and immigration actually are another two factors with a negative correlation. There has only been one decade in American history in which we did not have net immigration: the 1930s. If that is your idea of a great decade, you can have it.

"One unintended side effect of border crackdowns is to increase the number of undocumented aliens who remain because of the difficulty and cost of leaving and returning. Another is to create an 'underground railroad' that makes it easier for terrorists to enter without detection. The overwhelming majority of immigrants would love to come in through the front door. It is our bad immigration policy that has constructed the back door.

"It is time we stopped scapegoating the people who represent what is most admired about America. When the Libertarian Party was formed in 1971, we selected the Statue of Liberty as our symbol. We're the only political party that deserves it."

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

"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."

The Libertarian Party platform is available in Spanish.

The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 169 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.

We Can Pay Off Our National Debt Within a Decade with Freed Money Technology and the Denver Plan, Claims Congressional Candidate J. Moromisato

2010-10-22T07:56:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The Following is the fourth of a six-part statement by J. Moromisato.

4. A Zero National Debt Within a Decade Can Be Achieved with Freed Money Technology and the Denver Plan

With a growing national debt, now about 100% of our GDP, saddling our country with near $400 billion in interest payments every year, shouldn't we worry about reaching a breaking point?

There is the Denver Plan solution, which the mainstream media continues to ignore. It may be up to you to spread my message until the powers-that-be pay attention and do something about our dysfunctional financial system.

The Denver Plan explains how all the money government overspends, namely the annual fiscal deficit, goes one way or another into the pockets of the super-rich, which they in turn lend to the government in exchange for tradable securities that increases their wealth.

The Denver Plan proposes the establishment of Freed Money, which would decouple, or disconnect, the savings of the rich to the all-important flow of credit; this would enable the government to gradually raise taxes on the super-rich to the levels prevailing in the 1950s and 1960s -- when our country enjoyed the longest period of sustained economic growth.

Freed money would allow the Fed to replace all the privately held debt with bank-debt to the Fed, and the interest paid by the banks would thus constitute a new revenue stream for the government. How big would this be? The total outstanding debt in the U.S. is about $50 trillion, of which about $35 trillion are owed by private entities; at some point, perhaps a decade or so in the future, all that debt would become assets to the Fed; at a 4% interest rate, the interest to be earned by government would be $1.4 Trillion, that is larger than the total income tax -- from individuals and from corporations -- collected last year.

The combination of new interest and higher taxes revenues would enable the government to gradually pay the national debt -- now around $15 trillion. Furthermore, since the Fed would own that debt, and would return the interest it accrues to the Treasury, the government would save that $400 billion from its budget every year.

A Gift to the Drug Cartels

2010-10-21T06:17:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- A new Center for Immigration Studies Memorandum explores how seemingly innocuous legislation before the Senate could turn 25 miles of southeast New Mexico's Dona Ana County into a staging ground for drug cartels and illegal alien smugglers.

S. 1689, the "Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act," changes the currently designated "public use" of certain Department of Interior lands to a "wilderness" designation. The end result would be to severely curtail the Border Patrol's ability to operate due to the stringent nature of wilderness laws. New Mexico could suffer the same results as Arizona, as documented by the Center in its mini-documentary series (http://cis.org/HiddenCamerasSeries) showing the waste, destruction, and unsafe circumstances that borderlands suffer when wilderness laws (and poor federal government policy) create a law enforcement vacuum.

The new Center for Immigration Studies Memorandum, "A Gift to the Drug Cartels: Will New Mexico Become the Next Arizona?" (http://cis.org/new-mexico-cartel-gift), authored by Janice Kephart, Director of National Security Policy at the Center and producer of the "Hidden Cameras" mini-documentary series, leaves no doubt that bill's goal is to support legitimate environmental conservation. However, through an in-depth examination of current law and policy, Kephart concludes that the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act would leave the Border Patrol with little ability, and little incentive, to do its job. The measure would effectively hand drug cartels 25 more borderland miles for operations; an alternative would be to assure conservation with adequate law enforcement in the area, thus keeping the cartels under control while protecting our public safety and national security.

The measure, co-sponsored by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy &Natural Resources, and Tom Udall (D-NM), was passed out of Chairman Bingaman's committee in July 2010 and is awaiting consideration on the Senate floor.

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent non-partisan research institution that examines the impact of immigration on the United States and neither endorses nor opposes legislation.

Health Insurers Push Last-Minute Loopholes to Gut Rules Requiring Premiums Be Spent on Health Care, Not Overhead -- Watchdogs Ask President for Rate Freeze

2010-10-20T07:55:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire -- As the insurance industry lobbies state insurance commissioners in Orlando to weaken modest regulations on health insurance premiums, Consumer Watchdog's leaders reiterated their call for President Obama to place a moratorium on premium increases, articulated this week in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.

"Health insurance companies have declared war on President Obama's healthcare plan," argues Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court, author of "The Progressive's Guide To Raising Hell." "The struggling middle class cannot afford more double-digit premium hikes, and federal law says we are owed an explanation before having to pay them. Obama should forbid premium hikes until the companies comply with pricing provisions of the new federal law."

Read the Los Angeles Times op-ed calling for an executive order freezing rates: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=36580

On Thursday, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners is expected to take a final vote on new health reform rules requiring insurers to spend at least 80-85% of consumers' premiums on health care. State regulators continue to discuss how much information health insurance companies must disclose about unreasonable premium increases.

The insurance industry is pushing a series of last-minute amendments at the meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners this week that would weaken regulation under the health reform law, including measures that would allow them to:

- Maintain low spending on health care in some states if they spend a higher percentage in other states. This "aggregation" of medical spending across states will nullify the new medical spending rules for the very consumers they are meant to help - those whose insurance plans spend too much on administration and profits.

- Artificially boost the amount that insurers report spending on medical care. "Credibility" adjustments are meant to account for fluctuations in health care spending for plans with fewer customers by increasing the reported medical loss ratio. Insurance companies' proposal could allow insurers to get away with intentionally low medical spending, said Consumer Watchdog.

- Falsely identify administrative costs – including broker commissions, fraud prevention, claims handling and denials – as medical spending.

Public scrutiny of unreasonable premiums is the health reform law's only check on rate increases. However, because regulations are still being written, insurance companies are not currently justifying unreasonable increases. President Obama has the obligation to issue an Executive Order freezing premiums until insurers begin complying with the law, said Consumer Watchdog.

"Insurance commissioners have a choice. Send the current modest version of medical spending regulations to HHS, or give insurers free rein to continue spending too much money on bloated profits and paper-pushers and not enough on actual health care," said Carmen Balber, Washington DC director for Consumer Watchdog. "In the meantime, insurers rush to raise premiums now just in case they have to rein in spending tomorrow. President Obama has the power to protect consumers from arbitrary price hikes by freezing premiums until insurers explain how they're spent in the full light of day."

Insurance companies have lobbied to limit the information made public in the rate justification considered by state regulators today. Consumer Watchdog argued for more disclosure to explain how insurers spend customer premiums, including:

- Lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions;

- Advertising and marketing expenditures; and

- Transactions and transfers of funds to affiliates.

DHS Misleads Public with Partial Truth of Increased Enforcement, Says FAIR

2010-10-07T13:33:00.001-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Yesterday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano released the FY 2010 immigration deportation numbers claiming that "it's been another record-breaking year of record criminal alien removals." Yet, Secretary Napolitano neglects to mention that while deportation of criminal aliens has risen, the total removals are roughly the same, and the number of non-criminal aliens removed has dropped substantially.

Responding to the new report, Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR,) noted, "It is nice to hear that Secretary Janet Napolitano believes that the removal of people in the country illegally – especially those who have committed violent crimes – is an important function for DHS. However, policy directives from the highest levels of DHS clearly demonstrate that the administration is refusing to enforce laws against noncriminal aliens."

Removing violent and criminal aliens from American society must obviously be DHS's highest immigration enforcement priority. However, while DHS has acted to remove criminal aliens already in custody, they have adopted policies to assure all non-criminal aliens in the country face no threat of removal.

"Secretary Napolitano is giving herself and DHS a big pat on the back for stepping up enforcement without mentioning that the department is merely completing cases initiated under the previous administration, under policies that she and President Obama have aggressively dismantled since taking office," observed Stein. Some 58,000 fewer noncriminal aliens were deported in FY 2010 over the previous year.

DHS data show that the current administration has dramatically curtailed all aspects of immigration enforcement against illegal aliens who have not committed violent crimes in this country. In the critical area of worksite enforcement, administrative arrests have fallen by 77 percent, criminal arrests are down 60 percent, indictments are down 64 percent, and convictions have fallen by 68 percent since 2008.

"Once the pipeline opened under the Bush administration has been emptied, removal of illegal aliens who are not violent criminals will be reduced to a trickle," Stein said. "Resources appropriated by Congress intended to carry out worksite and other enforcement in the interior of the country are being used for meaningless paperwork audits, rather than serious enforcement against employers and the removal of illegal aliens from jobs that are desperately needed by American workers.

"It appears that the release of the FY 2010 data, and Secretary Napolitano's media tour, have more to do with addressing what the administration perceives as a political weakness heading into the midterm elections, than a sincere effort to deter and combat illegal immigration," said Stein. "The goal is to convince the American people that immigration enforcement is being dealt with so that the administration can move on to its real policy objective: massive amnesty for every illegal alien who is not a violent felon.

"Getting criminal aliens out of the country is important. But the American people also believe that it is important to enforce laws against other illegal aliens who are filling millions of needed jobs and consuming billions in public resources. The administration is defiantly neglecting those responsibilities, while misleading the public by taking credit for the results of policies they are now dismantling," Stein concluded.

Stop Bonuses For Dead Senators and Repeal the Death Tax!

2010-10-07T11:55:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswir/ -- Just as Congress was adjourning to campaign for reelection, the U.S. Senate voted to pay Senator Byrd's family a $193,400 Death Bonus.

"This was a blatant display of Washington cronyism at its worst," said Dr. Lawrence A. Hunter, President of the Alliance for Retirement Prosperity. "I would applaud a charitable act from our elitists in the Senate, but not one Senator took a thin dime out of his/her pocket. They took it out of ours!"

The Alliance for Retirement Prosperity is calling on all outraged citizens to sign a petition to protest this outrage and to call for the repeal of the Federal Estate Tax, commonly known as the Death Tax. The petition is available at http://wethealliance.com/alliance/petition-letter.

"When the Death Tax hurts small businesses, kills jobs and destroys family farms, it punishes precisely the kind of behavior society should want to reward: hard work, good sense, savings; it rewards behavior that should be discouraged: extravagance, overconsumption and leisure.

"The easiest way to avoid all death taxes is to spend your money before you go. But work hard, reinvest your earnings and leave your life's savings to your loved ones and the IRS becomes one of your heirs. Death should not be a taxable event.

"Americans work tirelessly their entire lives to provide for their families to build up a nest egg for their families for when they pass on. However, when Senators die their family receives a death bonus on top of all the other benefits government employees receive. If the Senate feels so strongly about paying the family a death bonus, then perhaps they should pool their own money and pay it out of their pocket instead of burdening the taxpayer."

Election Forecasts Favor Republican Gains in Midterm

2010-10-07T10:55:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- In the weeks leading up to the 2010 midterm elections, five forecasters or teams of forecasters offer models and predictions for the House in the most recent issue (October 2010) of PS: Political Science and Politics, a journal of the American Political Science Association. The models offer a broad consensus that the Republicans will make substantial gains in the House, although there is not a consensus over how large those gains will be. A 30-seat spread between the low and high end of the seat change forecast range exists, with two forecasters giving an edge to Democrats maintaining their control of the House and three forecasters anticipating Republicans retaking the chamber.

James Campbell of the University at Buffalo, SUNY, presents a "seats in trouble" model for his forecast. The model is based on the Cook Political Report's district-by-district assessment of the status of House races. He finds that the more seats a party has that are rated as toss-ups or worse before Labor Day, the more seats they actually lose in November. His model combines Cook's expert handicapping of districts with national variables such as presidential approval and the number of seats a party holds going into the election. Campbell's model combines the in-depth analysis of the Cook Report with the rigorous historical analysis of national statistical models. Based on his model, he forecasts that Democrats will lose 51 or 52 seats, allowing the Republicans to regain a majority.

Models created by Alan Abramowitz (Emory) and Joseph Bafumi (Dartmouth), Robert S. Erikson (Columbia), and Christopher Wlezien (Temple) corroborate the prediction of steep Democratic losses. Abramowitz uses the generic ballot and presidential approval to measure the national political climate, estimating that Republicans will gain 43 seats in the House. He further offers a forecast for the Senate, predicting a Republican gain of four seats. Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien give the Republicans a 79% chance of retaking the House, forecasting a 229 Republican to 206 Democratic split of seats, but they note that there is a wide dispersion of possible outcomes, and that seemingly minor variation in the national vote can have major consequences for the distribution of seats.

In contrast, the forecast by Michael Lewis-Beck (University of Iowa) and Charles Tien (Hunter College and CUNY) and the forecast by Alfred Cuzan (West Florida University) both predict that the Democrats are likely to maintain their control of the House. Lewis-Beck and Tien rely on established voting behavior theory in the formulation of their model and estimate a Democratic loss of only 22 seats, allowing the party to retain their majority. Cuzan uses a structural model relying on national-level variables and election outcomes as far back as 1914 to forecast Democratic losses of 27 to 30 seats, staving off Republican attempts to retake control. However, this model leaves a one in three or four chance that the Democrats will lose at least 40 seats, reducing them to a minority status.

Stepping beyond the collection of congressional predictions is Carl Klarner's (Indiana State University) forecast of state legislative elections. He calls attention to the 43 state legislative elections that will be held this November, noting that many of the winners will have the responsibility for drawing new district lines based on the 2010 census. According to his model, Republicans will gain control of 11 legislative chambers, leaving them with a total of 46 of 98 partisan chambers, and the Midwest is shaping up to be a battleground of note.

Primaries held in a number of states in mid-September offer a taste of how hotly contested the midterm elections in November are likely to be. Whether Democrats or Republicans ultimately assume control of the House, Campbell notes that this majority is likely to be much narrower than the current Democratic majority, which may present a roadblock to the Obama administration's legislative agenda and will quite probably make control of the House a real question again in 2012.

Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian

2010-10-07T07:24:00.000-07:00

In the violent wake of President Obama's military surge in Afghanistan, and his failure to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, the Libertarian Party (LP) says anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian with a clear conscience.

Sadly, President Obama is spending an even larger percentage of America's money on the military than George W. Bush did. According to the tracking website usgovernmentspending.com, during the first two budget years of the Obama administration (FY 2010 and 2011), military spending is expected to be over 6 percent of GDP: a larger percentage of GDP than during any year of the Bush administration.

LP Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "Anti-war liberals who thought President Obama and the Democrats would reduce military spending and American interventionism have been betrayed.

"Liberals have also been betrayed by Obama's unwillingness to reverse the serious civil liberties violations of the Bush administration. Obama has claimed the authority to kill American citizens overseas without indictment or trial. Even worse, he has claimed that 'state secrets' prevent his targets or their families from challenging him in court. Obama's expansion of the 'state secrets' claim is a page taken right out of the neoconservative playbook."

LP Executive Director Wes Benedict added, "In many ways, the Obama administration is looking like four more years of George W. Bush. A vote for Libertarians sends a message for peace and respect for the Constitution."

Benedict continued, "It's important to remember that many congressional Democrats voted for the PATRIOT Act, and many also voted for the War in Iraq. They tried to blame Bush later, even though they deserved just as much blame as Republicans."

The Libertarian National Committee has passed resolutions calling for U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

On September 12, 2001, the day after the major terrorist attacks, two-time Libertarian Party presidential nominee Harry Browne courageously spoke out against American interventionism. In his article he wrote, "When will we learn that we can't allow our politicians to bully the world without someone bullying back eventually?"

Benedict said, "The Libertarian Party doesn't have the resources to take the lead in organizing mass protests, but we like to join anti-war protests when we can find them. When George W. Bush was president, Democrats helped organize many anti-war protests. Now that Democrats are doing the war-making, protests are hard to find.

"I made an effort to express the Libertarian position at the One Nation March on October 2.

"The terrorists have tricked our government into massive overreaction, spending trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives to fight a small number of America-hating fanatics. Many thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed in the process. We have gotten bogged down trying to rebuild entire governments. Democrats and Republicans have both given in to this terrorist trickery. Libertarians, on the other hand, see through this trickery, and we would stop wasting lives and money on the disastrous policies of foreign interventionism."

Liberal vs. conservative support

There is a myth frequently repeated in the media that Libertarian candidates take votes from conservatives. In reality, the situation is mixed: many polls show that Libertarian candidates actually receive greater support from liberals.

In this Kansas poll, the Libertarian candidates received more support from liberals than conservatives.

This poll showed North Carolina Libertarian candidate Michael Beitler with more support from liberals than conservatives.

Hinkle said, "Libertarians have a lot in common with liberals. In fact, people with a libertarian philosophy often call themselves 'classical liberals,' in the sense of the word as it was used historically. Libertarians sometimes describe themselves as 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal.'

"We Libertarians have a saying that we're 'pro-choice on everything.' We are uncompromising supporters of free speech. We completely oppose corporate welfare, and we hate the way big corporations often manipulate the government to get subsidies and protection from competition. And we are more immigration-friendly than either Republicans or Democrats."

The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 169 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.

Voters Overwhelmingly Support Super-Majority Requirement for New Entitlement Programs

2010-10-05T08:44:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- PreserveOurFuture.org today released polling data that shows Americans overwhelmingly want to make it harder for Congress to create new entitlement programs. Seventy percent support requiring a two-thirds super-majority vote in Congress to create new entitlement programs. And nearly sixty percent believe Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlement programs.

David Manns, founder of PreserveOurFuture.org, said "The American people understand the fiscal calamity our nation is heading towards, and desperately want to make it harder for Congress to saddle us with ever more costly programs. It is stunning that a majority of Americans are already willing to amend the Constitution to make it harder to create new entitlements, even before our nationwide campaign kicks in. America wants action, and office holders who fail to deliver do so at their own peril."

The survey also found that 67 percent of Independents and 62 percent of Democrats favor requiring a two-thirds vote to create new entitlement programs. In addition, 75 percent of African American voters support requiring a two-thirds super-majority to create new entitlements, followed by 71 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of white voters. This broad support spanning political parties and different demographic groups demonstrates the widespread concern that Americans have about the reckless spending behavior of elected officials who are out of touch with concerns of their constituents.

PreserveOurFuture.org is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy group based in Russellville, Arkansas, and funded by individuals across the political spectrum. In launching the new non-profit, Manns said, "PreserveOurFuture.org has one simple goal – to make it more difficult to create permanent entitlement programs that cost trillions of dollars we don't have and can't afford. In short, enacting super programs should require a super-majority."

The nationwide poll was conducted by the Tarrance Group from September 12-14, 2010. The margin of error is 3.5% and the sample size was 800 likely voters.

Libertarians say Republicans owe apology, not pledge, to America

2010-09-27T05:45:00.000-07:00

In response to the recent Republican "Pledge to America," Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict released the following statement:

Instead of a "Pledge to America," the Republicans should have written an "Apology to America." It should have gone something like this:

"We're sorry, America. Sorry we grew the federal government budget from $1.7 trillion to over $3 trillion. Sorry we added $5 trillion to the federal debt. Sorry we doubled the size of the Department of Education. Sorry we started two incredibly costly foreign wars. Sorry we supported the absurd and costly TARP bailouts. Sorry we created a huge and costly new Medicare entitlement. Sorry we did nothing to end the costly and destructive War on Drugs. Sorry we did nothing to reform the federal government's near-prohibition on immigration. But hey, at least we helped you by shifting a lot of your tax burden onto your children and grandchildren."

There are so many lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and idiocy in this document that it's hard to know where to start.

It is deeply insulting to see the Republicans refer to "America's founding values" on their cover. The Republican Party has no understanding whatsoever of America's founding values. They have proven and re-proven that for decades.

The document talks a lot about "tax cuts." Unfortunately, the Republican "tax cut" proposals would really do nothing to cut taxes. All their proposals achieve is to defer taxes, pushing the burden onto our children and grandchildren. The only real way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, and the Republican document does almost nothing in that regard.

The Republicans say they want to "roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." In other words, to re-create the situation near the end of the Bush administration, after Republicans had massively increased federal spending on almost everything.

Republicans must love it when Democrats expand government, because it gives them the opportunity to propose small "cuts," while still ending up with huge government.

One shocking aspect of the document is that it actually includes subtle Republican proposals to increase government spending.

The Republicans offer no plan whatsoever to reduce military spending, America's foreign wars and nation building, or our military defense of rich foriegn nations. On the contrary, the Republicans apparently want to increase military spending, promising to "provide the resources, authority, and support our deployed military requires, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran."

The Republicans also appear to want to increase government spending on border control. They say "We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border," a costly proposition.

Furthermore, as expected, the document complains about "massive Medicare cuts," implying that Republicans want to make sure Medicare is kept gigantic.

The bulk of federal spending is in three places: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. The Republicans propose absolutely nothing to reduce spending on these three things, or even to slow down their growth.

There must be a typo in the document where it says "Undeterred by dismal results, Washington Democrats continue to double-down on their job-killing policies." That probably should read "Washington Democrats continue to double-down on Republican job-killing policies."

The best way to restore American prosperity would be to implement the straightforward 28 planks of the Libertarian Party platform, or even just follow the Constitution. I mean the actual Constitution, not the Republican re-write that allows for every federal government program imaginable.

I suppose the one positive aspect of the document is that it finally dispels any illusion that Republicans want to shrink government in any meaningful way.

Apparently the Republicans are hoping they can "fool some of the people all of the time." The Libertarian Party is ready to point out Republican lies and hypocrisy to American voters, and we hope that Americans who actually want small and constitutional government, not just hypocrisy and worthless rhetoric, will vote Libertarian this November.

The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 170 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections.

Log Cabin Republicans Call on Senator Harry Reid to a Full and Open Debate of the Defense Authorization Bill

2010-09-17T13:19:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The Log Cabin Republicans are appalled by the overwrought political actions by Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) by merely allowing 3 Democrat-only amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill (FY2011 NDAA). Right now, Senator Harry Reid is not permitting any open debate or other amendments to this bill.

However, one of the 3 amendments that does have Senator Harry Reid's full support is the DREAM ACT. The DREAM ACT would offer paths to citizenship for undocumented students who came to the US as children, most likely illegally. Nevada has the largest percentage of illegal immigrants in the United States.

"Senator Harry Reid is treating the United States Senate like his own personal re-election campaign," says R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director, Log Cabin Republicans. "We are simply asking the majority to play fair and not stack the bill with Democrat-only amendments that help Senator Reid's re-election bid and could potentially kill any Republican support."

Also appalled by the process, or lack thereof, are Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Senator Collins "would like the Senate to proceed to a full and open debate on the Defense Authorization bill, with members to offer other amendments on all relevant issues."

The Log Cabin Republicans met early today with Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) minority staff and were told, "the hay is in the barn." However, the LCR wants to know if that is the case "then why aren't the horses feeding?"

New Study Finds Defensive Medicine Costs $45 Billion Nationally

2010-09-16T12:02:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Lisa Maas, executive director of Californians Allied for Patient Protection (CAPP), issued the following statement in response to a recent study published in the 2010 issue of Health Affairs which found that costs related to medical liability account for more than $55 billion a year or 2.4% of the total costs to the U.S. healthcare system. According to the study, approximately 80%, or $45 billion of these costs are the result of defensive medicine, procedures performed to avoid unnecessary litigation.

CAPP is a coalition of physicians, hospitals, community clinics, local governments, dentists, nurses and other groups supporting California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) law which allows reasonable reforms on medical liability lawsuits to protect access to healthcare. MICRA provides injured patients unlimited compensation for economic damages (lost wages, medical costs), unlimited punitive damages, but limits non-economic damages (pain and suffering) to $250,000.

"Common sense dictates that if healthcare practitioners are looking over their shoulders and constantly worried about getting sued, they will take action to cover themselves. These actions have societal costs and this recent study found that the costs impact us by more than $45 billion per year.

"Meritless lawsuits do not result in better care, just more dollars spent on defensive medicine, unnecessary tests and litigation costs that drive up the cost of healthcare for everyone.

"The study demonstrates that if national medical liability tort reform were implemented to limit meritless lawsuits, it could produce a national healthcare savings of tens of billions of dollars. That is a significant savings. It would free up these funds to care for the uninsured, make insurance more affordable, or provide new dollars for more research.

"If President Obama and those working to implement national healthcare reform are serious about 'bending the cost curve down,' then national medical liability tort reform, similar to California's MICRA, would achieve significant savings nationally. The purpose behind the recent federal reform legislation was to reduce the cost of healthcare and make it more affordable for all Americans. Real medical liability reform complements this goal and will generate tangible savings quickly without negatively impacting care. We hope this study will spur Congress to adopt these evidence-based reforms in its next session."

"Toe-ing" the Line

2010-09-15T11:08:00.000-07:00

Ex-White House Spokesman Robert Weiner Asks, 'If There Were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, Why Can't There be Obama Republicans Now?' Roll Call Op-ed

2010-09-14T08:25:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Ex-White House spokesman Robert Weiner, and policy analysts Jonathan Battaglia and Noah Merksamer, are asking, "If there were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, why can't there be Obama Republicans now?"

In an op-ed in today's Roll Call, they assert that "In today's politics, bipartisanship seems like a distant memory. It was not always like this.

"Until the 1990s, we had consensus by issue, not by party -- fierce opposition and strong support, but not based primarily on party lines." Weiner traces the history of large minority votes on historic issues as contentious as today's -- Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, and show their contrast to almost no minority votes on recent budgets, tax cuts, health care, the economy, and financial reform.

"In 1935, 92 percent of Congress voted for the Social Security Act, including 81 Republicans in the House. There were dissenters -- Rep. Daniel Reed (R-N.Y.) said that with Social Security, Americans would 'feel the lash of a dictator.' Sen. Daniel Hastings (R-Del.) declared that Social Security would 'end progress.' Yet the measure passed 77-6 in the Senate, 382-33 in the House.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did away with segregation. 70 percent voted 'aye,' including 136 Republicans in the House and 21 in the Senate. Republicans and Southern Democrats crossed party lines on both sides of the issue -- they were voting on the issue, not the party regimen.

"When Congress was debating Medicare in 1965, Sen. Carl Curtis (R-Neb.) called the program 'brazen socialism' -- sound familiar? Yet 72 percent of Congress supported Medicare's creation, including 70 Republicans in the House.

"Under former Speaker Tip O'Neill (D), the Reagan tax cuts passed in 1981 with 48 Democrats supporting it. In addition, O'Neill and Rep. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) were able to keep Congress from slashing Social Security benefits amid President Reagan's cuts in domestic spending. Reagan and House Republicans were part of governing with bipartisanship.

"In contrast, last year's health care reform did not receive a single Republican vote in the House or Senate on final passage. Despite the bill's use of private insurance, no public option, no Medicare buy-in and 160 Republican amendments in the bill such as tax breaks for 95 percent of small businesses, the minority would not give the Democrats a vote. Democrats weren't flawless -- they let partisanship get in the way of including medical malpractice reform, despite Obama's public support for it. Regardless, in the past, a bill with such broad-based compromises would have received 30 to 100 Republican House votes on passage and 10 to 30 in the Senate.

"Only three Republicans in the Senate voted for Wall Street reform in July, despite the financial meltdown, and despite broad minority participation in the drafting.

"This recent unwillingness to compromise began in 1994, with the rise of former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and the Contract With America. Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) earned the nickname 'The Hammer' because he punished those who did not support George W. Bush. The leadership triumvirate of DeLay, Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) would not allow Republican Congressmen to vote against the party only on major issues -- exactly the time to express one's conscience."

Weiner, Battaglia, and Merksamer conclude by asking, "If there were Reagan Democrats in the '80s, why can't there be Obama Republicans now?"

Obama's FHA Short Refinance Program: Roy Oppenheim Says Too Little Too Late

2010-09-14T08:22:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- First loan modifications, then short sales ... now it's the short refi. Officially known as the FHA Short Refinance Program, it's the latest band-aid in Obama's bailout plans aimed at resuscitating Florida's underwater homeowners facing foreclosure. Oppenheim Law helps homeowners understand the "short refi" pros and cons.

The FHA Short Refinance Plan now offers aid to people who owe more than their mortgage is worth. Will it bring life back to the real estate market and stimulate the economy? This is the question market analysts and legal bloggers like Florida Attorney Roy Oppenheim are debating.

One of the biggest dangers facing the housing market is the glut of underwater homeowners who could default if their financial situations or home prices worsen. About 11 million borrowers, or 23% of households with a mortgage, were underwater as of June 30, 2010, according to CoreLogic Inc. That number is expected to double next year.

"This is a much needed program, but just might be a case of too little, too late," says Oppenheim, who continues to help Florida homeowners navigate through the tides of the real estate market. "Servicers will not be highly motivated and sometimes inclined to steer towards foreclosure." In addition, the Program, at best, is designed to help about four million homeowners according to the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Website.

Criteria for FHA Short Refi Program

-- Must occupy subject property as their primary residence
-- Must be current in your mortgage loan
-- Must be in a non-FHA loan
-- Credit score must be at least 500
-- Bank must agree to write off at least 10% of principal and
-- Second mortgage must be willing to cooperate (if applicable)

For two years, Oppenheim Law has advocated a much broader and bolder refi program pushing for an FDR-style program modeled after the Homeowner's Loan Corporation that assisted underwater homeowners during the Depression.

"History proves it's always the refinance market leading the country out of recession. This time, because the banks have absolutely no incentive to refi, they will not," said Oppenheim. "A strong government program could easily and quickly pump $50 billion back into the economy."

William H. Gross, managing director at Pimco, a giant manager of bond funds, has also proposed the government refinance millions of mortgages at lower rates.

"A more comprehensive short refi program would increase jobs and improve consumer sentiment," noted Oppenheim.

Sen. Reid's Former Campaign Manager Makes Shocking Revelations of Illegal, Undeclared Donations

2010-09-08T09:35:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The hot item generating buzz on the internet and heartburn in Democratic circles is KMZQ's morning host Steve Wark's 8/26 interview with Don Williams, Sen. Harry Reid's former campaign manager and 30-year associate.

Danny Tarkanian, chairman of 1001 Reasons to Vote Against Harry Reid, listened to the interview (click here: http://www.harryreidvotes.com/media/) and commented, "I'm certain Sen. Reid will denounce his old friend and campaign manager Don Williams and call him every vile name in the book. However, Williams has taken polygraph tests and the results would indicate that he is telling the truth."

KMZQ's host Steve Wark added, "Don Williams is a legend in the political and business circles in Nevada. He took the polygraph multiple times about this information and most folks would consider his stories about Harry Reid's consorting with Nevada's most famous pimp unimpeachable. After an hour I was convinced that Harry Reid was much more effective as a whore trader than a horse trader."

Tarkanian continued, "Many of these stories fit into the Reid pattern of saying one thing and doing the opposite. While brothels are legal in Nevada, Sen. Reid has emphatically stated over the years that he would never, ever accept money from anyone involved in prostitution. Well, accepting brown bags of cash from Joe Conforte of Mustang Ranch fame would certainly enable him to skirt the FEC reporting requirement which would have revealed his hypocrisy."

"There are more Reid stories about FEC law violations, mysterious bags of absentee ballots and disturbing quid pro quo with some extremely shady characters, and I would encourage my fellow citizens to listen to the interview in its entirety. I believe Don Williams, and I believe that Nevadans deserve better than Harry Reid," concluded Tarkanian.

'1001 Reasons to Vote Against Harry Reid' exists online at http://www.harryreidvotes.com/ for the purpose of educating the public about Senator Reid's voting record and raising the funds necessary to finance television and radio ads this fall. It is an independent 527 committee chaired by Nevada resident and former U.S. Senate candidate Danny Tarkanian. Voters are encouraged to visit the HarryReidVotes.com website and use the interactive quiz function, http://www.harryreidvotes.com/quiz, to see how their views align with Senator Reid's votes.

White House Launches GSA-Created Citizen Engagement Platform Challenge.gov

2010-09-07T12:45:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The White House today launched the new Challenge.gov, an online tool for federal agencies provided by the U.S. General Services Administration that allows agencies to post contests aimed at increasing public participation with the government. As part of President Obama's call for an open, transparent government, agencies were called upon to leverage challenges and prizes to spur citizen engagement. This new site allows all agencies to post challenges in one place at no cost.

"GSA continues to help the Administration move toward a more open, citizen-centered government by providing tools that simplify the engagement process for both agencies and citizens," said Dave McClure, GSA's Associate Administrator for Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies. "By providing agencies with a no cost, easy, ready-to-use solution through Challenge.gov, GSA has built upon the successes agencies have already had in using challenges and provided a platform that offers even more uniformity and consistency in how the public engages with their government."

Working with New York-based small business ChallengePost, GSA created the technology and design for this one of a kind engagement platform and paved the way for agencies to leverage the tool free of charge and by working with the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, GSA cleared all necessary legal and policy requirements for agency use.

Nearly 40 challenges from 16 agencies will debut on Challenge.gov, seven launching for the first time. The site features two GSA challenges:

-- The USA.gov GovGab blog asks citizen writers to submit guest blog
posts highlighting ways to use government information. Five winners
will be chosen and featured one per day during the week of GovGab's
third birthday.
-- Kids.gov, the official kid's portal for the U.S. Government seeks
creative "infographics" from children that answer the common question,
"How to Become President?" The goal of the contest is to educate kids
on the process of electing president and inspire children to new
heights. The prize is $5000 (split between one adult and one child).
Judges of the contest include Sara Slobin, New York Times Infographic
Designer, and Nicholas Felton, who served on the Design for America
challenge.

As the federal government's workplace solutions provider, GSA finds unique, cost-saving ways to help federal agencies engage with the public. In February, GSA provided agencies with an innovative public dialog tool at no cost to help them meet their open government needs. Through this tool, the public was given an easily accessible forum to share ideas, give feedback, and engage in Web-based discussions with their government. Twenty-three of 24 cabinet agencies are using GSA's public dialog tool, helping them devote their attention to running, moderating, and analyzing public input.

50 Worst Deserters of Jobless Americans

2010-09-03T11:15:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire-/ -- During the last two years of a virtual jobs depression, these 50 led Congress in allowing the addition of another 75,000 permanent working-age immigrants every MONTH and in allowing about 7 million illegal foreign workers to keep their jobs in construction, service, manufacturing and transportation. Recent government data show that 22 million U.S. workers who want a job can't find one. But these 50 Members of Congress deserted those Americans in favor of increasing the number of foreign workers competing with them in the hiring line.

The non-partisan NumbersUSA rates every member on every committee and floor vote and every bill co-sponsorship that would either increase or reduce the foreign workers (legal and illegal) in the country. All actions and the computerized grading calculations are displayed on www.NumbersUSA.com. Those in Congress who do the most to protect American workers in terms of immigration policies receive an A+, while those doing the least receive an F-minus.

All 50 "Deserters" on this list:
-- received grades of F-minus and 0%, failing to take a single action to
reduce competition for jobless Americans.
-- are asking voters to re-elect them to Congress this November
-- are in the Senate or in the House where they are leaders with special
opportunity to influence policy toward jobless Americans because they
either are congressional chairmen, leaders of their Party or on the
Judiciary Committee with direct jurisdiction over immigration.

WORST DESERTERS IN THE SENATE
-----------------------------
Bennet, Michael (CO)
Feingold, Russell (WI)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY)
Inouye, Daniel (HI)
Leahy, Patrick (VT)
Mikulski, Barbara (MD)
Reid, Harry (NV)

WORST DESERTERS IN THE HOUSE
----------------------------
Ackerman, Gary (NY 05th)
Baldwin, Tammy (WI - 02nd)
Becerra, Xavier (CA - 31st)
Berman, Howard (CA - 28th)
Chu, Judy (CA - 32nd)
Clarke, Yvette (NY - 11th)
Clyburn, James (SC - 06th)
Conyers, John (MI - 14th)
Cummings, Elijah (MD - 07th)
Engel, Eliot (NY - 17th)
Grijalva, Raul (AZ - 07th)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL - 04th)
Hastings, Alcee (FL - 23rd)
Hoyer, Steny (MD - 05th)
Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX - 18th)
Johnson, Hank (GA - 04th)
Kucinich, Dennis (OH - 10th)
Lewis, John (GA - 05th)
Lofgren, Zoe (CA - 16th)
Markey, Edward (MA - 07th)
McDermott, Jim (WA 07th)
Nadler, Jerrold (NY - 08th)
Napolitano, Grace (CA - 38th)
Olver, John (MA - 01st)
Quigley, Mike (IL - 05th)
Pelosi, Nancy (CA - 8th)
Rahall, Nick (WV - 03rd)
Rangel, Charles (NY - 15th)
Rush, Bobby (IL - 01st)
Sanchez, Linda (CA - 39th)
Schakowsky, Janice (IL - 09th)
Scott, Robert (VA - 03rd)
Serrano, Jose (NY - 16th)
Slaughter, Louise (NY - 28th)
Stark, Pete (CA - 13th)
Thompson, Bennie (MS - 02nd)
Towns, Edolphus (NY - 10th)
Velazquez, Nidia (NY - 12th)
Tsongas, Niki (MA - 05th)
Wasserman-Schultz, Debbie (FL - 20th)
Watt, Melvin (NC - 12th)
Waxman, Henry (CA - 30th)
Woolsey, Lynn (CA - 06th)

NumbersUSA also announced the "50 Best Defenders of Jobless Americans."

NumbersUSA is a non-profit and non-partisan organization with more than one million activist members. It was formed in 1996 in part to carry out the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Barbara Jordan) which opposed immigration policies that depress wages and job prospects for the most vulnerable members of the national community.

Gary Bauer Says Two-State Solution Not a Synonym for Peace

2010-09-03T07:27:00.001-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer on Friday in an exclusive analysis piece at Politico said that the "two-state solution" so popular with the media when covering Middle East peace talks is "not a synonym for peace."

As direct peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians began this week, Bauer detailed some of the problems that make forcing a two-state solution a mistake for those caught up in the violence of present day Middle East conflicts.

Bauer, the president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, noted: "As a strong supporter of Israel and its right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish state, I have sometimes been criticized for my skepticism about a two-state solution. But invoking the two-state mantra is not a panacea for what ails the Middle East. Two-state advocates differ wildly about what form each state would take. More fundamentally, there is voluminous evidence that many Palestinians, including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, desire not two states but the destruction of Israel.

Late in the piece, Bauer wrote, "I cannot accept a two state solution until I know what those states would look like, where they would be located, and until I'm sure that the ultimate result would not be the destruction of Israel as an independent Jewish state. The creation of two states may well be part of the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But we do all parties involved a disservice by pretending that it is a synonym for peace."

Libertarians: Obama is shockingly pro-war

2010-09-02T10:52:00.000-07:00

Following President Obama's "end of our combat mission" speech, Libertarian Party chairman Mark Hinkle released this statement:

"President Obama needs to stop lying. In his speech, he repeated the ridiculous and false claim that the U.S. combat mission is over in Iraq. He seems to think that if he keeps talking about the war in a nice way, then the war isn't really happening.

"Unfortunately, even though President Obama is the one person on Earth with the authority to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, he has chosen instead to keep over 50,000 troops there, risking their lives, and bleeding American taxpayers.

"The Republicans in Congress are just as bad. They have consistently failed to own up to the terrible financial impact of these wars, all the while claiming that they want to cut government. They want to nit-pick Obama's past statements about the war, but in fact they should be showering him with praise for doing exactly what they want.

"This war has been a shameful failure from the beginning. But even if the U.S. military could impose a sustainable modern democracy on Iraq, it would in no way be worth the hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives, lost in the process. The Bush-Obama War in Iraq has done nothing to safeguard the rights of Americans -- on the contrary, it has probably made Americans less safe, and certainly poorer.

"The purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to defend the territory of the United States, not to re-engineer foreign societies.

"Contrary to his rhetoric before being elected, the president has proven himself to be shockingly pro-war. In addition to sustaining the American war presence in Iraq, he has greatly escalated the War in Afghanistan. Just like his predecessor, Obama believes that government force is the answer to everything."

The Libertarian Party platform states under "3.3 International Affairs": "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."

President Obama Still Doesn't Get It, Says Small Business Advocate

2010-08-31T10:01:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- A national small business advocate agrees with President Barack Obama when he said a "magic bullet" doesn't exist for solving our current economic woes. However, she is urging the president to understand why businesses are not hiring and holding back on investments. According to Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan, perhaps if the President and his economic team get a true grasp of what's holding businesses back, the Administration would depart from its enthusiastic support of legislative and regulatory measures that are working to restrain our free enterprise system and prolong the recession.

"Small business owners feel they are under siege from Washington, and at a moment in time when they are facing the most difficult period in the history of their businesses," said Kerrigan. "Unfortunately, the small business lending bill is not an ample policy solution to leverage the potential of America's small business sector. The concerns and needs of most business owners go much deeper, and this legislation does not address broader issues related to taxes, regulations and excessive spending which threaten to aggravate currently poor economic conditions. At the end of the day, proposed tax hikes along with legislation and regulatory initiatives in the pipeline will drive business costs higher and drain more private capital from our economy. Anti-growth policies have led to low confidence among our nation's entrepreneurs, and it will not get better unless Washington backs off the never-ending stream of proposed tax hikes and intrusive policies that threaten all industries and all businesses," Kerrigan added.

According to Kerrigan, every industry and most businesses are under siege from Washington. Whether its new regulatory initiatives from the Department of Labor that threaten to tie America's workplaces in knots, to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules that will drive energy and business costs higher, to the expanded 1099-MISC reporting requirement from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) included in the new health care law and more, there is no business or workplace activity that the federal government has left untouched from burdensome and costly regulation. And then there is the new health care law, which by now most businesses realize is driving their health insurance costs higher and eventually will snatch away the health plans they currently provide despite promises to the contrary by President Obama.

New and proposed regulations in the telecommunications, energy, health care, and financial services sector only add to the uncertainty and anti-business thrust. To the casual observer and average American, it's quite easy to understand why businesses are not hiring and investment is weak. Yet, according to Kerrigan, our elite and well-educated political leaders simply don't get it.

"At this point, it appears that our economy will stay weak and business activity and hiring will remain anemic until business owners see a massive shift in the political environment," observed Kerrigan. "It seems most business owners are done with this Congress, and they are at least hoping that a divided government next year will bring practical, pro-growth governing policies to Washington," she concluded.

Support for Universal Healthcare Dropping Among all American Adults According to LightSource Poll

2010-08-27T11:28:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- When asked how much additional money they are willing to pay each year to achieve truly universal healthcare coverage for all United States citizens, Americans are becoming less willing to provide their own personal funds. According to LightSource Poll, conducted by KJT Group, the average amount that an adult is willing to spend has decreased dramatically over the past year.

The average adult was willing to spend $201 additionally per year as of February 2010. This dropped to $123 per year as of July/August. These figures are broken down in greater detail in Table 1.

Incremental Additional Amount Adults are Willing to Pay
               Yearly to Achieve Universal Healthcare

                                   February '10       July/August '10
                                         ------------       ---------------
                   $0                   73%                  68%
               $1-$50                    8%                  11%
             $51-$100                    6%                   8%
            $101-$150                    1%                   1%
            $151-$200                    2%                   2%
            $201-$250                    0%                   1%
       Over $250                        10%                  10%
       ---------                             ---                  ---
            Mean                        $201                 $123
                ----                        ----                 ----


  Table 1: How much additional adults are willing to pay annually in
          order to achieve truly universal healthcare coverage

Only 32% of all adults are willing to pay any additional amount of money on a yearly basis as of July/August 2010.

For each wave, there were no statistical differences between Democrats, Republicans and Independents in the average amount they are willing to spend on a yearly basis. Democrats and Independents are more likely than Republicans to contribute any amount toward achieving universal healthcare coverage.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans or Independents to agree with the statement that "Health care is a right, and should be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay or their behavior." These results are shown in Table 2.

Democrats       Republicans       Independents

                                    ---------       -----------       ------------

  Completely agree/

    somewhat agree               69%               26%                54%

             -----------------             ---               ---                ---

  Neither agree nor

       disagree                  13%               20%                16%

             -----------------             ---               ---                ---

      Completely

       disagree/

       somewhat

       disagree                  17%               54%                30%

              ----------                ---               ---                ---



Table 2: Percentage of adults who completely agree or somewhat
   agree that "Health care is a right, and should
  be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay or their
   behavior." July/August '10

While Democrats and Independents have remained relatively consistent with their agreement over the past year, Republicans have grown more antagonistic with this notion. 33% of Republicans completely disagree with the above statement.

This wave of the LightSource poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults (18 years or older) between July 29 and August 6, 2010. This was a non-probability, stratified sample, collected via web-based interviews. As such, margin of error cannot be accurately estimated. In addition to the results shown here, an oversample of 600 New York State residents was collected and is published separately. For more information such as a detailed methodology, or additional results from this wave of the LightSource, go to www.lightsourcepoll.com.

Likelihood to Vote for Tea Party-Supported Candidates Edges Past 50%

2010-08-26T16:59:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- PJTV's Tea Party TV today released its fourth iteration of their weekly Tea Party poll, which revealed that 52 percent of likely voters are likely to vote for a Tea Party-supported congressional candidate. Furthermore, the survey revealed that over half of likely voters (54%) support the Tea Party and one in three (30%) respondents strongly support the movement.

"This week's Tea Party tracking poll numbers and election results both suggest the growing strength of the Tea Party movement," said Vik Rubenfeld, PJTV's Polling Director. "The Tea Party's strength was demonstrated during this week's elections, as many of the movement's candidates prevailed over those who were more traditional Republicans. Additionally, our polling data suggests that Independents, who have historically been the 'swing voters,' share the Tea Party's concerns regarding public expenditures, as more than eight in 10 worry the consequences of spending and debt will jeopardize the American dream."

The weekly PJTV/Pulse Opinion Research nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters tracks Tea Party support as well as provides a snapshot of public opinion regarding the week's top issues. In addition to the findings above, 51 percent of self-identified Independents and 75 percent of self-identified Republicans noted they were more likely to vote for a Tea Party-supported congressional candidate.

The nationwide support for Tea Party candidates likely stems from the increased concern over the debt and spending. The poll goes on to reveal that 79 percent of likely voters feel concerned that the American dream could be destroyed for current workers by national spending and debt. This theme was also pervasive during last week's survey, as 88 percent of likely voters and even 81 percent of self-identified Democrats believed there was a possibility of another financial crisis in the next five years.

Poll Highlights

-- 52 percent of likely voters are more likely vote for a Tea
Party-supported congressional candidate. For self-identified
Republicans, 75 percent are more likely to vote for a Tea
Party-supported candidate, as are 51 percent of self-identified
Independents.
-- 54 percent of likely voters support the Tea Party movement.
-- 79 percent of likely voters believe the American dream could be
destroyed for current workers by the U.S. federal debt and U.S.
federal spending, as do 83 percent of self-identified Independents.
-- 75 percent of likely voters believe the American dream could be
destroyed for current college and high school students by the nation's
federal debt and federal spending.

Methodology

The Tea Party Tracking Study is a PJTV survey. The telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on August 22, 2010. Pulse Opinion Research, LLC is an independent public opinion research firm using automated polling methodology and procedures licensed from Rasmussen Reports, LLC. Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Religious Leaders to Congress: 'Don't Tamper with our Rights'

2010-08-25T07:39:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Leaders from more than 100 religious organizations are urging Congress against tampering with the freedom of religion, contending that pending legislation would deny religious charities receiving federal grants their fundamental right to hire people who share their faith.

In a letter delivered today to every member of the House and Senate, the leaders of World Vision, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (UOJCA), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and others argue that, "such actions would be catastrophic to our efforts to serve those in need, and to all who value the protection for religious liberty."

Richard Stearns, the president and CEO of World Vision, U.S., says the letter and other efforts are targeting not just pending legislation, but also calls for Congress to ban religious hiring exemptions in an expected continuing budget resolution later this fall.

"Too much is at stake - especially among the tens of millions who receive help, care and support from faith-based charities," says Stearns. "Our nation needs religious charities. For decades, we have relied on and benefited from religious charities receiving federal grants. There is no good reason - nor a compelling legal justification - to jeopardize those organizations and, more importantly, the people they serve."

Interestingly, most of those signing the letter represent organizations and educational institutions that do not accept federal grants.

Contrary to a common misconception, the right of religious organizations to compete for federal grants while retaining the opportunity to hire people of like-minded faith is not a policy holdover from the administration of George W. Bush. Rather, it rests on legislation passed under two Democratic administrations:

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that allows religious employers to prefer staff who share their religious conviction and mission.

President Bill Clinton, in 1993 signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), based on which, the Justice Department recently concluded faith-based organizations are entitled to continue their religious hiring policy while also receiving federal grants. That legislation 17 years ago was championed by then-Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), as well as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and then Representative Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.).

The religious leaders also included a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. from constitutional scholar Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan law school. Laycock explains why RFRA protects the religious hiring rights of some faith-based grantees and urges Holder to enforce such rights.

"Does government substantially burden the exercise of religion, within the meaning of RFRA, when it offers monetary grants on condition that a religious organization abandon one of its religious practices?" Laycock wrote. "Yes it does."

Moreover, in 1987, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the law guaranteeing this right does not violate the separation of church and state.

"The law is clear and has been for nearly 50 years," says Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy for the UOJCA and a signatory to the letter. "Faith is foundational to faith-based agencies. It is the motivation for our work, and it is what drives us to engage in service to others."

Faith-based organizations recognize that if they receive federal grants they cannot discriminate in selecting recipients of services funded by those grants. Moreover, they are prohibited from proselytizing. Anyone needing assistance must be served equally, regardless of their interest - or lack thereof - in religion or religious activities or messages, according to the law.

"The law has long protected the religious freedom of both the people who receive government-funded services, and the groups that provide the services - long before President Obama, and long before President Bush," said Anthony R. Picarello Jr., General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Stripping away the religious hiring rights of religious service providers violates the principle of religious freedom, and represents bad practice in the delivery of social services."

Republicans Most Skeptical of Obama's Christianity after Viewing Graham's Comments

2010-08-24T16:41:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Results of a new national study among 1,003 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that Republicans reported being the most skeptical of President Obama's religious affiliation after viewing a video of Franklin Graham's comments regarding his religious practices.

The study was conducted during August 23 -24 by HCD Research using its MediaCurves.com® website to obtain Americans' perceptions of President Obama's religion and the influence that his religious beliefs may have on his decision-making. To view detailed results go to: www.mediacurves.com.

Among political parties, 43% of Republicans reported that Obama was of Muslim faith compared to 13% of Democrats and 22% of Independents.

Among the findings:

Which religion do you think Barack Obama practices?

Democrats Republicans Independent
                     Pre   Post Pre    Post Pre    Post
  Islam               13% 13%  45%    43% 24%     22%
  Christianity        76% 81%  32%    34% 58%     62%
  Judaism               1% 1%   2%     1%  0%      2%
  Buddhism              1% 1%   3%     1%  2%      0%
  Hinduism              2% 1%   1%     1%  3%      0%
  Other                 7% 4%  18%    12% 13%     16%

While viewing the video, participants indicated their perceived levels of agreement by moving their mouse from left to right on a continuum. The responses were recorded in quarter-second intervals and reported in the form of curves. The participants were also asked to respond to post-viewing questions.

Obama Administration Facing Critical Decision on Cuba Travel Policy

2010-08-23T09:38:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- "Time Magazine poses the right question, 'Will the White House Fight to End the Cuba Travel Ban?'" said John McAuliff, founder and executive director of a twenty-five-year-old non-governmental organization, the Fund for Reconciliation and Development.

"The Obama Administration must choose quickly how much to enable travel to Cuba for non-tourist people-to-people purposes. It has obligated itself to respond to Cuba's ongoing release of 'Black Spring' prisoners. Half of those who were still imprisoned since 2004 have already been freed," McAuliff observed.

McAuliff added, "the White House could take a minimalist approach and simply reinstate President Clinton's policy, which required time consuming and costly case-by-case applications to the bureaucratic and politicized judgment of the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Treasury Department. Or it could implement its pro-dialogue values and grant general licenses to the remaining eleven categories of non-tourist travel, just as it did for the category of Cuban American family visits more than a year ago."

"Under general licenses, travel could be freely organized by schools, cultural institutions, Chambers of Commerce, religious bodies, World Affairs Councils, humanitarian organizations, advocacy groups and other not-for-profit organizations. Tens of thousands of seriously interested Americans can meet their Cuban counterparts and create mutual understanding and trust, needed in both countries," McAuliff argued.

McAuliff urged the Administration to resist pressure from the exile mind-set of five Cuban Americans in the House and Senate. "Polls demonstrate that they no longer represent their own community, much less the two-thirds of Americans who support freedom of travel to Cuba. On Saturday they wrote to the President distorting the clear intent of the law, which gives him complete authority to allow non-tourist travel."

"They opposed even family travel and will denounce any and all reforms, so there is no reason for the White House to be constrained by their misleading statement that they, 'are deeply troubled that such changes would result in economic benefits to the Cuban regime.' At peak in 2003 only 80,000 people-to-people visitors went to Cuba, a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.4 million foreigners in Cuba last year, including 300,000 Cuban Americans."

McAuliff said, "What really troubles the old guard is that personal contact between diverse Cubans and Americans will puncture their isolationist balloon and contribute to reform in both countries, including the end of all U.S. and Cuban travel and trade restrictions."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2012476,00.html?xid=rss-topstor ies#ixzz0xQrh1qvI

The Main Event! The People Versus Congress

2010-08-23T05:39:00.000-07:00

None of us at the Georgia Front Page have read the following book (yet), but it sounded interesting so we thought we'd pass the info along to our readers. Let us know if you've read it or intend to read it. - GFP

Americans are disgusted with their Congress. Instead of being the agent of the people, it's become the setting for endless and vicious political warfare between the Democratic and Republican parties. Buoyed by an equally corrupted electoral system, many members of Congress have turned their attention from their constituents to their own desire to stay in office. In doing so, they’ve allowed campaign money to drown out the voice of the people. While the two parties slug it out, the nation hurtles toward disaster. Recent elections and the grass-roots emergence of the Tea Party movement prove that Americans seek fundamental change in government. Americans employ four Constitutional mechanisms to exert their sovereignty over Congress. But speech, assembly, petition and elections are all failing the people. Congress isn't seeing or hearing their constituents. And with only a few exceptions, elections only replace one failed party with the other, over and over again. The American people desperately seek a more effective tool to make Congressional reform happen.

The Next American Revolution: How to Demand Congressional Reform NOW is an extraordinary book that reveals what that tool is and how it can save our country. The Founding Fathers left their descendants with a never used, yet very real and effective fifth constitutional “people power.” Americans need to lay aside their differences and focus their combined strength toward one common cause---a revolution calling for a convention of the states specifically and solely for the purpose of restoring a people’s legislature. The author explains why this is our best (and last) hope of seriously reforming the legislative branch of government.

Each step of the process is summarized and three proposed amendment ideas are suggested: term limits; campaign finance reform; and increased electoral competition. Bridging modern Americans' love for liberty and their Constitution with that of their ancestors', the book is interspersed with quotes and images of leading figures from America’s rich, revolutionary history.

Charles R. Hooper empowers the citizens of America with the information they need to force congressional reform. Each individual American has the right and the power to legally, safely, and effectively take back their Congress. The book includes a complete copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The author, a masters-level social worker with a background education in Sociology and Political Science, has worked over two decades as an advocate for people in numerous settings. He has applied this background to develop a manual the people can use to repair their broken national legislature.

The Next American Revolution: How to Demand Congressional Reform Now is available for $14.95 through online retailers and by ordering toll-free at 800-266-5564. For more information, visit the author's web site at www.itsmycongress.com. First Edition. 6X9, 144 pages, eleven illustrations. ISBN 978-0-9843876-8-7.

Early Reviews

"Charles Hooper begins this important book by quoting Thomas Paine, whose famous line,'These are the times that try men's souls,' was used by George Washington to inspire his troops and whip the British. According to Hooper, we're again living in very trying times, due to the paralysis in Congress caused by partisanship and greed. He spends the rest of the book arguing for a new American Revolution -- a call for congressional reform and a return to our Founding values -- that will throw out self-serving bureaucrats and replace them with "servants of the people" envisioned by our Constitution. The book ends with a warning from 20th president James Garfield: 'If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.' As Hooper says, we owe it to past and future generations to fight for a better America."
- Jim Barnes, Editor, Independent Publisher Online

“The book is meant to be read by everyone...well written...well worth the read. It goes some way to allaying the fears of those fearful of even contemplating a Constitutional Convention. This is a valuable addition to the debate about how to rectify the current Washington vs. people disconnect.”

Andrew Ian Dodge

The Washington Examiner 7/13/10

“This is a book every American should read. It lays out the basic facts about an Article V convention in clear and precise terms.”
Bill Walker, co-founder
Friends of the Article V Convention

AJC Welcomes Secretary of State Clinton Announcement of New Direct Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks

2010-08-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- AJC (American Jewish Committee) welcomed today's announcement by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will resume in early September.

Clinton said the U.S. believes "the direct talks to resolve all final-status issues" can be completed in one year. "These talks should take place without preconditions," she said.

"This is encouraging news and instills a ray of hope for advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Secretary Clinton and Special Envoy George Mitchell have done a yeoman's job in achieving this breakthrough, securing agreement from the Palestinians to return to direct talks with Israel, which provide the likeliest path for moving the process forward."

Clinton announced that President Obama has invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Palestinian President Abbas, Egyptian President Mubarak and Jordanian King Abdullah to a dinner on September 1. The following day, Clinton will meet with Netanyahu and Abbas at the State Department to officially announce the resumption of direct peace negotiations.

Outrage over Public Pay and Benefits Reaches Fever Pitch

2010-08-19T22:57:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- A growing movement against outrageous government spending is sweeping the nation. Millions of new activists are joining tea party movements and grassroots organizations to advocate for tighter reins on out-of-control spending. One advocacy group, The Free Enterprise Nation (FEN) is gaining influence and membership as it raises a voice in the economic debate.

FEN launched nearly a year ago to educate the public on the hidden dangers of government pay and benefits and now has thousands of corporate and individual members. As the group celebrates its first anniversary, it is taking advantage of the growing public unrest. FEN's founder and CEO James MacDougald's book, "UNSUSTAINABLE: How Big Government, Taxes and Debt are Wrecking America," has climbed several best-seller lists.

"UNSUSTAINABLE" exposes how governments at every level hide the exorbitant pay and benefits they provide to themselves. Over the summer, the book reached #7 on Amazon's "Hot New Releases" for the Kindle version and #11 for print. The book also ranks in the top 50 of the economics category. The book has become the rallying cry for citizens outraged over lavish government salaries.

For example, the city of Bell, Calif., recently made news headlines because the city manager makes $787,637 a year. However, FEN collects examples like this in every state and the trend is truly disturbing. At TheFreeEnterpriseNation.org, there are thousands of examples of pay, benefits and pension abuse for every state in the Union. The database is searchable by topic, state or keyword and has become the most popular feature on the organization's website.

"Stories of outrageous government spending should not be limited to local news," said MacDougald. "We have found that the problem is systemic of government at every level."

The new attention to country's economic woes has enabled MacDougald to take the organization's message to the airwaves. He regularly appears on national cable news channels such as FOX News, MSNBC and CNBC. MacDougald also brings economic sensibility to the talk radio circuit and contributes to opinion columns.

"Regardless of political affiliation, everyone must be aware of the cresting economic crisis looming over our nation," said MacDougald. "We can and must preserve American businesses and the people they employ. We have to rein in spending and unleash free enterprise."

New Pew Research Center Survey Reveals Growing Number of Americans Who Say Barack Obama is a Muslim

2010-08-19T08:35:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- A new national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that a substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined. More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows.

According to the survey, nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim -- an increase from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, a sharp decrease from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama's recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.

The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).

The new poll, conducted between July 21 and Aug. 5 among 3,003 respondents, also examines the link between Americans' perception of Obama's religion and their opinion of his job performance, and covers views on the President's approach to religion, including the influence of his religious beliefs on policy decisions. In addition, the survey explores Americans' attitudes toward churches' involvement in politics and religion's influence on American life and government, and looks at religion's impact on voting preferences for the upcoming 2010 congressional races.

The report, including a summary and topline questionnaire, will be accessible on the Forum's new Web feature, "Religion & Politics 2010," which provides a variety of election resources, including:

-- Poll analyses and survey reports on topics related to the midterm
elections
-- Links to news stories about religion-related issues impacting 2010
congressional and gubernatorial races around the country
-- "Election news briefs" highlighting interesting articles and common
themes making news headlines

The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. As part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization, the Pew Forum does not take positions on any of the issues it covers or on policy debates.

Bauer Says That Obama's Support for Ground Zero Mosque Leads to the 'Final and Irrevocable Divorce' of the People From the President

2010-08-15T11:04:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer on Saturday said that President Obama's comments at a White House dinner in support of a mosque at Ground Zero was "proof positive" that he has lost touch with his fellow citizens and that his break from them can no longer be repaired.

The president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families made the following statement:

"Last night at a White House Iftar dinner in celebration of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, President Obama chose to endorse the building of a mosque on the hallowed soil of Ground Zero. In doing so, he sided with radical Islamic advocacy groups over 9-11 families and the overwhelming majority of the American people. This latest decision is proof positive that the President does not understand the values and sentiments of the American people, especially while we are still at war around the world with jihadists. I believe history will reveal that the President's actions last night will directly result in his final and irrevocable divorce from the American people."

-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage

FRC: FDA Approves New Abortion Drug, but Deceivingly Labels Ella as 'Emergency Contraceptive'

2010-08-13T17:28:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Today the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Ella, a drug that can cause abortions but is misleadingly labeled as a more effective "Emergency Contraceptive."

Jeanne Monahan, Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, had the following to say:

"The FDA opted against including the critical fact that Ella can cause an abortion on a baby already implanted in its mother's womb in the drug labeling information. This decision flies in the face of the Obama Administration's promise to transparency and a commitment to science. The difference between preventing and destroying life is enormous, and women have the right to know how this drug will act on their bodies and on their babies.

"Since Ella is chemically similar to RU-486 (which has been the cause of at least six deaths reported to the FDA in less than six years) it is likely that the serious health concerns for women will be similar. The FDA has very little knowledge about how this drug will impact women's health and for that reason alone should do more research before approval.

"In approving Ella, the FDA also ignored concerns raised in early August by ninety-one members of Congress, including fourteen Democrats. In a letter to the FDA Commissioner, these members requested that the FDA postpone approval of Ella until they could prove it did not cause abortions, among other conditions. Additionally, approval of Ella raises concerns about taxpayer funding of abortions, since currently the U.S. Government will pay for emergency contraception, but not abortion pills.

"The FDA advisory panel largely ignored important questions, including impacts on women's health and the abortifacient capacity of Ella. The FDA and the Obama Administration now follow suit. By approving this drug quietly on a Friday afternoon when most of Washington was on vacation, the Obama Administration and the FDA once again placed politics above science, women's health and informed consent.

"FRC and other pro-life leaders promise to do everything possible to educate the public about the truth of Ella."

Opinion: Outside Help for Social Security

2010-08-12T07:08:00.000-07:00

Rarely do you see two of our country's most intractable problems - illegal immigration and the solvency of Social Security - lumped together in the same sentence.

I would like to propose an imperfect idea that could address both problems at once. The plan wouldn't have to work that well to be an improvement on the current immigration system, and we know the financing problems of Social Security are dire.

So here goes: We allow immigrant workers to come to the United States to work for up to three years. The cost of a work permit would be that immigrant workers and/or their employers would have to pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Workers would not be able to get benefits from either system even though they paid taxes, thereby lessening the impact of the looming Baby Boomer retirement on both programs.
Some illegal immigrants pay such taxes now and cannot benefit, but routinizing this arrangement would maximize taxes paid and reduce identity theft. Employers would get employees, and workers would get a job that enabled them to return money to their home nation. At the end of three years, they would return home.

I start out with two basic assumptions - that the benefits of illegal immigration accrue mostly to the immigrants and their employers, and that these same benefits outweigh the costs to society as a whole.
If it were the other way around, we would have found a more effective means of stopping illegal immigration. The benefits include the contribution of illegal workers to the economy, perhaps doing jobs that citizens don't want. Costs include health care and other social services, notably schooling that is provided to workers and their children.
The intangible benefits and costs of the cultural diversity inherent with illegal immigration are difficult to estimate, and I doubt if any analysis on such a subjective question would change the views of many people, so I assume they are a wash.

I acknowledge there are many problems with my idea. First, one reason illegal labor is attractive to employers is because they can presumably pay such workers lower wages. Such employers are unlikely to want any change.
Second, lack of health insurance and the related issues of a person receiving care in an emergency room will remain. We would need to develop a catastrophic insurance scheme that could be financed primarily or fully by immigrant workers. (most workers are likely to be young and healthy).
Third, what if they have kids while in the U.S.? Currently, that child is an American citizen, with all the afforded rights. There have been suggestions of changing the Constitution so that children so born would not be citizens. What about children born to parents of mixed status (one parent a citizen, the other not)? This is a tangled issue with many dimensions, and some sort of compromise solution would have to be worked out.
Fourth, this doesn't address the illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. I view the deportation of 12 million people as unrealistic, so some form of amnesty is inevitable.
And, finally, how do we make sure the workers leave the country when their three years are up? The best hope of doing so is transforming a now-illegal labor market into a workable guest worker program that can be monitored.
These problems notwithstanding, the biggest benefit of my idea is that it acknowledges that some employers now see fit to hire illegal immigrants. If they didn't, there wouldn't be an illegal immigration problem. The goal should be to maintain this source of labor if it is truly important to our economy, but to do so in a way that broadens the benefits of now-illegal labor by helping to address the financing problems of Social Security and Medicare.
And if it turned out that persons no longer wanted to come to work under this arrangement, or that employers no longer wanted to hire them because they would be forced to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, then we would have developed a market-based solution to illegal immigration where an interdiction approach has not worked, and seems unrealistic.

By Donald H. Taylor Jr.

Donald H. Taylor Jr. is an associate professor of public policy at Duke who blogs at www.donaldhtaylorjr.blogspot.com

----

Mainstream Media Hijacking Tea Party Movement

2010-08-11T12:52:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The National Inflation Association today released the following article to its http://inflation.us/ members:

Today is a sad day for America. Last night, Peter Schiff lost the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in the State of Connecticut. Linda McMahon was the winner of the primary with 49% of the vote compared to Rob Simmons at 28% and Peter Schiff at 23%. Peter Schiff received 53% more votes than what the latest Quinnipiac poll had indicated, which showed his support at only 15%.

NIA believes that Peter Schiff understands the upcoming hyperinflationary crisis better than any other candidate who was running for office this year nationwide. He was perhaps our nation's last and only hope to prevent U.S. hyperinflation. It won't take long for the true nature of our country's dollar bubble to become apparent to all and when this time comes, Americans will sadly regret not electing Peter Schiff to the U.S. Senate.

America's tea party movement started out as a libertarian movement but it has recently been hijacked by FOX News and others in the mainstream media. On June 21st, thousands of NIA members wrote to FOX News asking for Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly to feature Peter Schiff on their respective shows. All three of them decided to completely ignore Peter Schiff's senate campaign, despite the fact that Peter Schiff's credentials are stronger than any of the tea party candidates they are supporting.

Glenn Beck previously had Peter Schiff as a guest on his show on several occasions and obviously knew he was running for senate. It appears as though Glenn Beck wants to have Peter Schiff on only when it is supporting his agenda. Glenn Beck doesn't care about helping the public become educated about a true libertarian candidate who would actually make a difference in Washington.

Glenn Beck is not our friend. This is not the first time he has showed his true colors. Back when Ron Paul was running for President, Ron Paul raised a record $4.3 million in a single day "money bomb" all from grassroots supporters. Rather than praising Ron Paul and his supporters for their tremendous accomplishment, Glenn Beck questioned the use of the word "bomb" in "money bomb" and said that Americans who were supporting the "Ron Paul Revolution" were taking the word "revolution" way too seriously. Glenn Beck even said that he feared the U.S. military would one day need to be used domestically against Ron Paul donors.

On one occasion, Glenn Beck had Ron Paul on as a guest during his Presidential campaign. Instead of highlighting how Ron Paul was the only candidate running for President who has a perfect voting record for protecting the U.S. constitution and reducing government spending, Glenn Beck did everything he possibly could to sabotage Ron Paul's campaign. Glenn Beck asked Ron Paul bizarre questions on the air including "No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11th instead it was a missile fired by elements from inside the American state apparatus, yes or no?" and "Were the planes that hit the World Trade Towers remotely controlled, yes or no?". Glenn Beck unfairly smeared Ron Paul and his supporters as terrorist sympathizers.

NIA believes that both Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the debt crisis the U.S. has today. In the last Presidential election, Americans had a choice between two candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, both who supported our country's destructive bailouts of Wall Street. At the same time that Ron Paul raised a record $4.3 million in his money bomb, John McCain's campaign was completely broke. The only reason John McCain came back to win the Republican nomination was because the mainstream media did everything possible to marginalize Ron Paul and support a candidate who was exactly the same as Obama on every important issue.

Glenn Beck is working tirelessly to set Sarah Palin up as the leader of the tea party movement. FOX News clearly wants Sarah Palin to take on Obama in the 2012 Presidential election. NIA considers Sarah Palin to be a neocon who doesn't support libertarian principles. If tea partiers embrace Sarah Palin as the leader of the tea party movement, NIA will have no choice but to officially write the tea party movement off as being useless.

The U.S. is in such bad financial shape that we currently have a budget deficit from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone. If Americans were taxed 100% of their income it still wouldn't be enough to balance the budget. With the phony economic recovery beginning to lose steam and the Federal Reserve getting ready to unleash the mother of all quantitative easing, Americans will soon experience a major decline in the purchasing power of their savings and income.

When Linda McMahon was asked on the campaign trail about entitlement spending, her response was, "I can certainly tell you I'm not adverse to talking in the right time or forum about what we need to do relative to our entitlements. I mean, Social Security is going to go bankrupt. Clearly, we have to strengthen that." Linda McMahon chose to avoid the topic of entitlement spending completely, saying she would only talk about it in the right "forum." The right forum would obviously be a debate, yet she outright refused to attend all of the Republican primary debates leading up to yesterday's vote and the mainstream media did nothing to call her out on this.

By saying that we clearly have to "strengthen" Social Security, Linda McMahon is outright deceiving and misleading the American public. There is no way to strengthen a program that has $14.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The only choice the U.S. has is to either default on its Social Security obligations or print the money to pay for them and create hyperinflation. Either way, millions of babyboomers who are getting ready to retire and planning to live off of their Social Security benefits will soon find out that they don't have the financial means to support themselves.

NIA's movies 'Meltup', 'The Dollar Bubble', 'Hyperinflation Nation', 'Japan: America's Lost Decade', 'Empty Store Shelves Coming to America', and 'Debt Slave' have now received a total of over 2.4 million views. This represents only a small percentage of the U.S. that NIA has been able to reach with the facts and truth about the U.S. economy. The mainstream media has chosen to completely ignore our documentaries. The only time the mainstream media covered our work extensively is when we wrote an article about the effects inflation will have on Lebron James' new contract.

NIA has proven through a countless number of facts and statistics how hyperinflation in the U.S. is inevitable. It's a shame that the majority of America is too distracted by 'American Idol' and the 'Jersey Shore' to take an interest in the U.S. economy and politics. Education is the most important key to America's survival. The only way our country will have the resources to rebuild after hyperinflation is if enough Americans become educated to the truth by watching documentaries like ours.

It is important for NIA members not to be discouraged by Peter Schiff's failed senate run. In NIA's latest documentary 'Meltup', Gerald Celente spoke about the "20% solution." According to Gerald Celente, if we can get just 20% of America to understand the truth and think for themselves, and if this 20% of the population moves in a focused direction, we can one day have an America far greater than we ever imagined. With 23% of the Republican primary voters in Connecticut voting for Peter Schiff, we at least have some reason to believe that our message is getting out there and resonating with people.

Please spread the word about NIA and have your friends and family subscribe for free at: http://inflation.us/

Federal Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional

2010-08-11T06:18:00.000-07:00

/24-7/ -- In a recent landmark decision, Judge Joseph L. Tauro (of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts), declared that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (commonly known as DOMA) violates the United States Constitution. Judge Tauro's legal opinion centers around equal protection as well as the concept of states' rights. This lawsuit arose in the year 2009, when the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) challenged the law on behalf of seven same-sex couples (who were legally married under Massachusetts law). GLAD argued that the DOMA violated same-sex couples' right to equal protection under the law, discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. A subsequent, nearly identical suit was brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, arguing that the states themselves should possess the ultimate right to define the legality or illegality of a marriage. Historically states have enjoyed - since the country was founded - the right to establish their own rules about marriage.

What Does This Mean?

In spite of this recent Massachusetts decision, North Carolina (and 40 other states around the nation) continue to support the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and have passed legislation similar to the federal DOMA. Of those, 30 even have Constitutional amendments specifically barring same-sex marriages. North Carolina has repeatedly proposed such an amendment, but a bill favoring it has yet to make it past the North Carolina House Rules Committee.

It is unlikely that this decision, though widely heralded by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups as a huge victory, will have any effect on marital-status laws enforced by North Carolina or any other state. While it may have persuasive value, courts ultimately must follow and respect the concept of state's rights.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and around the country (as well as representatives of states that currently have a state-level version of the DOMA) claim the contemptuous verdict is a case of judicial law making. Some have even gone so far as to opine that the United States Justice Department - who defended the DOMA on behalf of the federal government - failed to mount a case because of President Obama's open desire to have the DOMA repealed. They also doubt that the DOJ will bring an effective appeal, even though the federal government obviously has a duty to stand behind its laws.

Article provided by Breeden Law

Public Notice Launches New Radio Ads Targeting Government Overspending

2010-08-11T06:11:00.000-07:00

(BUSINESS WIRE)--Public Notice, a non-partisan, non-profit, will launch this week a ten-state radio ad campaign to draw attention to the crisis of government overspending and the staggering fiscal problems it has created.

“Overspending isn’t helping the economy and it isn’t creating jobs. In reality, we’ve been burying the American people under a mountain of debt for the last decade.”

This week, Congress will interrupt its “August Recess” to rush back to Washington to...you guessed it: add tens of billions more onto the deficit with another round of spending the nation clearly can't afford.

Despite overspending by $1.5 trillion (projected fiscal year 2010 deficit) this year alone--and despite endless pledges to get its spending under control--Congress returned to Washington today to vote on a $26-billion spending package to pay for state workers the states themselves cannot afford.

This will be the latest in a string of bailouts to add to our already-record deficit, and prevent state and local governments from scaling back their own bloated budgets. It will also be another example of Washington paying lip service to fiscal discipline, but continuing to overspend at historic levels.

Public Notice's new ad campaign highlights this problem in hopes of enlisting Americans to push for change.

Gretchen Hamel, executive director of Public Notice said the following:

“Overspending isn’t helping the economy and it isn’t creating jobs. In reality, we’ve been burying the American people under a mountain of debt for the last decade.

“The good news for the U.S. is that we still have time to cut spending to avert disaster. However, this requires an amount of political courage currently lacking in Washington. A fiscal crisis could happen here; thinking it won’t has been the mentality of far too many nations…just before they tumble off the brink.”

Ads airing include:

“Stop Digging” – We’re $13 trillion in debt but Washington just keeps spending more. This ad questions the wisdom of Washington politicians continuing to dig our nation into a fiscal hole ever deeper.

“European Crisis” – Think it couldn’t happen here in America? It’s happening now. This ad highlights how Washington’s out-of-control spending and unfunded mandates are actually hurting the economy.

The 60-second radio ads are set to target the metropolitan areas of Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia and will run for the next month.

Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit to Obtain Records of Phoenix Police Chief's Involvement in Obama Administration Lawsuit Challenging SB 1070

2010-08-10T08:33:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit on August 4, 2010, against the City of Phoenix pursuant to Arizona Public Records Law to obtain records related to Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris' sworn declaration in the Obama administration's lawsuit challenging Arizona immigration law SB 1070 (Judicial Watch v. City of Phoenix, Case No. CV 2010 052443 (Superior Court of AZ Maricopa County)).

Judicial Watch is seeking the following records: "Any and all records concerning or relating to the preparation or submission of the Declaration of Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, dated June 25, 2010, in the matter captioned United States of America v. State of Arizona, Case No. 2:10-cv-01413-SRB (D. District of Arizona)..." Judicial Watch is also seeking documents regarding communications between Harris and the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice. The Phoenix Police Department received Judicial Watch's request on July 13, 2010, but has failed to produce any documents or indicate when documents will be forthcoming.

On or before June 25, 2010, Chief Harris prepared and/or signed a declaration to be submitted on behalf of the U.S. government in its lawsuit challenging SB 1070. On July 6, 2010, the U.S. government attached Chief Harris' declaration to its motion in support of a preliminary injunction.

The Phoenix City Council, however, made the decision in May 2010 to stay neutral in the legal battle between the State of Arizona and the federal government over SB 1070. According to the Arizona Daily Star, in response to a threat by Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon to challenge the new illegal immigration law, "Phoenix City Attorney Gary Verburg said only the City Council has the power to authorize lawsuits." The City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation (AR) 2.16 specifically states: "It is the public policy of the City, reflected in this AR, that...Employees not engage in activities that are inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or are harmful to their duties as City employees."

"Chief Harris had no business sticking his nose in the middle of the federal government's lawsuit against the State of Arizona. The City of Phoenix adopted a position of neutrality regarding the litigation. And as a City employee, Police Chief Harris was required to stay out of it. The City of Phoenix has an obligation to shed light on Chief Harris' declaration and it can start by releasing these records," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

In October 2009, Judicial Watch filed a taxpayer lawsuit against the Phoenix Police Pension Board, its five members, and City of Phoenix Chief of Police Harris to stop the illegal payment of pension benefits to Chief Harris valued at approximately $90,000 per year.

Judicial Watch's Arizona counsel is Todd Feltus of the firm Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC.

FRC Praises House Resolution Condemning Judge Walker's Proposition 8 Decision on Same-Sex 'Marriage'

2010-08-09T14:14:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council today praised House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) for his resolution condemning Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that declares the U.S. Constitution includes a right to same-sex "marriage."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following statement regarding the resolution:

"I applaud Rep. Smith for introducing a resolution that condemns Judge Walker's flawed decision and urges its appeal. As the resolution points out, Judge Walker is a single judge who thinks he knows better than seven million Californians and voters in more than 30 states who have approved marriage amendments.

"This is an activist decision by a district-level court judge. Judge Walker is forcing his view on not only the millions of Americans who have voted on this issue, but the history of marriage itself.

"Judge Walker showed disregard for both the Constitution and the will of the significant majority of the American people. What happened last week in California only fuels America's disillusionment with government by the judiciary, not their elected representatives or their own direct votes.

"The judge's opinion ignored the social science, which shows that policies such as no-fault divorce have devalued marriage and truly impacted children.

"I thank Congressman Lamar Smith and his colleagues for introducing this resolution that counters Judge Walker's notion that a child doesn't deserve a mother and a father. This case is far from over, and we hope that common sense will reign when the case makes its way to the United States Supreme Court," concluded Perkins.

Prop 8 Ruling Represents Significant Legal, Social Developments

2010-08-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

The ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, striking down California's ban on same-sex marriage, represents the intersection of significant legal and social developments, says Emory University's Robert Schapiro, professor of constitutional law, in an analysis of the federal court decision Aug. 4.

"With regard to constitutional law doctrine, the decision demonstrates the importance of the federal courts' new, higher level of scrutiny of laws resting on traditional moral assumptions," Schapiro says. "For most of the 20th century, the court divided equal protection claims into two boxes. If the claim fit into the narrow category of 'strict scrutiny,' generally limited to issues of race and gender, then unequal treatment was presumptively unconstitutional.

"Otherwise, the federal courts generally allowed all kinds of differential treatment, on the theory that the legislature might possibly have some basis for distinguishing between the young and the old, or opticians and optometrists, or all kinds of other groups. Basically, the courts did not require any justification for unequal treatment, outside of matters of race and gender," Schapiro says.

However, the federal courts have shown signs of dissatisfaction with the rigid, two-box doctrine in recent cases, especially when it comes to issues relating to sexual orientation, he says.

"Recent legal developments have required more than traditional moral disapproval to justify laws that deny equality. Judge Walker concluded that social experimentation and psychological reseach have not offered scientific support for bans on same-sex marriage," he says, noting that the judgecited psychological research that had conclusively established that children ‘raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.'

"Law and society came together in Judge Vaughn Walker's courtroom to invalidate California's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling marks the beginning of the federal stage of this debate," Schapiro says.

-----

FRC Statement on Elena Kagan's Approval by the U.S. Senate

2010-08-05T20:45:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Today the U.S. Senate voted 63-37 to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say on the vote.

"Elena Kagan will bring a radical judicial philosophy and a history of sharp-edged political maneuvering to the nation's highest legal bench. Her confirmation is another body-blow against genuine constitutional governance.

"Her confirmation is especially troubling in light of yesterday's ruling by a San Francisco federal judge striking down the historical definition of marriage. She has shown repeatedly that she will do exactly what she says a judge should not - creatively reinterpret the written text of the Constitution according to her own convictions.

"Her record is that of a hard-line political activist, one willing to trim the law to fit the contours of personal beliefs.

"As I pointed out in my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she denied military recruiters access to Harvard's Law School campus, in direct violation of federal law, because of her admitted disdain for the Armed Forces' ban on homosexuality in the ranks.

"She re-wrote a technical medical document, produced by the American Medical Association, in order to justify the brutal 'partial birth abortion' procedure the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan called 'too close to infanticide.'

"She is open to the application of foreign law to the United States and believes that the commerce clause is not limited, but authorizes federal regulation of nearly any human activity.

"The 36 Republicans and the sole Democrat who stood up for the United States Constitution today deserve the thanks of all citizens who care about the future of our nation. The others who voted for Ms. Kagan voted, by extension, for liberal activism on the nation's highest court. This should not be lost on voters in November and I encourage them to send a strong message to President Obama about appointing federal judges who disregard our founding document."

FRC Praises Senator Coburn's Senate Companion Bill to Remove Abortion from Obama Health Care Law

2010-08-05T16:29:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council praised legislation introduced today by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would apply the Hyde amendment abortion funding restriction to the new health care law which currently can fund and subsidize abortion.

The new health care law sends tax credits to pay for plans with abortion, thereby bypassing the annual Hyde amendment, and directly spends federal dollars on programs without any abortion funding restrictions. The "Excluding Abortion Coverage from Health Reform Act of 2010" would, like U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts's measure in the House of Representatives, restore the historic ban on federal funding of abortion in health care.

Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

"President Obama's new health care law destroys the traditional provision against federal funding for abortion. I applaud Sen. Coburn for introducing legislation that would put in place an abortion funding ban within the President's new health care plan. The American people, regardless of their view of the underlying issue, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. Sen. Coburn's bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the longtime prohibition against government funding of elective abortion.

"On Tuesday, Missouri voters stated emphatically their opposition to the individual mandate within the health care law. The outrage of voters spread even further after the Health and Human Services Department recently agreed to fund abortion in several state high risk insurance pool programs. HHS reversed course only after its approval of abortion funding was exposed, demonstrating that current law does not prevent abortion funding.

"Passing Sen. Coburn's bill is the only way to restore the status quo on abortion funding in health care. If the Obama Administration is honest when it says it will not fund abortion, then the Coburn/Pitts measures should be passed with resounding support," concluded Perkins.

Bipartisan Senate Bill Gives States Option to Raise Interstate Weight Limits

2010-08-05T08:45:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP), a group of more than 160 shippers and allied associations dedicated to responsibly increasing federal weight limits on interstate highways, today applauded Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) for introducing the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, S. 3705, in the U.S. Senate. To read the joint statement from Sens. Crapo, Collins and Kohl, visit http://crapo.senate.gov/.

Like identical companion legislation now pending in the House of Representatives, the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would permit state DOTs to raise interstate weight limits within their states to 97,000 pounds for trucks equipped with six axles instead of five. Without making the truck any larger, the additional axle maintains safety specifications, including stopping capability and current weight per tire. The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would safely make the shipment of heavier cargo more efficient, as many trucks meet the current 80,000-pound federal weight limit with significant space in their rigs. Under the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, shippers could safely utilize extra cargo space and reduce truck loads, fuel, emissions and vehicle miles traveled for each ton of freight shipped.

"With freight increases in the forecast, the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would make roads safer, greener and more efficient -- both now and in the future," said CTP Executive Director John Runyan. "The American Trucking Associations estimates that the trucking industry will haul 30 percent more tonnage in 2021 than it does today. If current weight restrictions remain the same, that means our economy will require 18 percent more trucks on the road driving 27 percent more miles than they do now. The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would ease the burden on our roads by adjusting weight limits to safely reduce the number of trucks required to ship a given amount of goods."

"The truck weight reform outlined in the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act is not a new concept," Runyan added. "The UK raised its gross vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for six-axle vehicles in 2001 and has experienced exactly what we need in the U.S. More freight has been shipped, yet vehicle miles traveled have leveled off and fatal truck-related accident rates have declined by 35 percent. Additionally, the Wisconsin DOT found that a law like the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would have prevented 90 truck-related accidents on Wisconsin roads during 2006."

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, H.R. 1799, was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Reps. Michael Michaud (D-ME) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH). It currently has 54 cosponsors.

Geithner is Wrong: The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Tax Hike is Not a 'Return to the 1990s'

2010-08-04T12:29:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- In advance of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's major economic address today Americans for Tax Reform released the following:

In a speech today at the Center for American Progress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will say that the largest tax hike in American history (coming this January) is a return to the "pro-growth" fiscal policies of the 1990s. This is patently absurd. Here is why:

1. The tax rates scheduled under current law and the Obama budget are higher than those of the Clinton years. Everyone forgets that Obamacare imposes a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and raises the top Medicare payroll tax rate to 3.8 percent in 2013. That means that the top tax rates on the table are higher than they were in the 1990s:

Obama     Current
               Clinton/     Budget       Law
                  GOP
               Congress
  Capital
   Gains              20%      23.8%       23.8%
  Dividends         39.6%      23.8%       43.4%
  Majority
   of Small
   Business
   Profits          42.5%      43.4%       43.4%

2. We can't afford to raise tax rates while other countries have been cutting them. The United States has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world (39 percent when states are factored in). The average in the developed world is 26 percent. Back in 1995, the developed world's average was nearly 37 percent, and the U.S. level was the same as today. So the corporate tax rate around the world has been slashed, and the United States has stayed the same. We can't afford to raise taxes at the same time as other countries have been cutting them.

3. The capital gains tax rate in the 1990s was going down, but the Obama budget calls for the rate to go up. The GOP Congress and President Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut in 1997, lowering the top rate from 28 to 20 percent. However, the combination of the January 2011 tax hike and Obamacare means that today's capital gains tax rate will rise from 15 to nearly 24 percent.

4. Spending was going down in the 1990s, but it is at record-high levels today. That's why the 1990s had surpluses, and this decade has record deficits. Between 1990 and 2000, federal spending fell from 22 percent of the economy to 18 percent of the economy. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending this decade will hover around 23 percent of the economy--each and every year, and far above the historical average of 21 percent. Record-high spending is causing deficits this decade, just as spending restraint caused surpluses in the 1990s. Taxes should not be hiked to pay for massive, deficit-causing spending.

What Happens Now? Questions on the Passage of the Dodd-Frank Financial Bill

2010-07-28T13:10:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- The following statement is attributed to Tom O'Grady, CEO, Pro Teck Valuation Services.

Pro Teck Valuation Services applauds the passage of the Dodd-Frank Financial Bill. It incorporates the best of HVCC, provides overdue protections to consumers and limits the financial exposure firms can maintain while investing.

Now comes the hard part.

During the next 90 days the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration Board and the Federal Housing Finance Agency will be drafting the regulations, rules, interpretive guidelines and general statements of policy - a daunting task. With so many moving parts, interdependencies and constituents, drafting the regulation should prove more difficult than passing the bill.

As an AMC, Pro Teck hopes that common sense prevails while drafting regulation. Most notably, we look forward to clarification on AMC appraiser registration fees and the definition of "customary and reasonable" fees paid to appraisers.

Part of the Dodd-Frank bill was a yearly $25 per appraiser per AMC registration fee (which may be adjusted to a maximum of $50 per appraiser per year). While Pro Teck understands the need to finance the new regulation, the way it is now written looks to be excessive.

Currently there is no cap on the fee an AMC can pay.

As an example, let's say there is an appraiser in California who works with 10 different regional and national AMCs (there are 350 registered AMCs in CA). The government would now receive $250 in fees for that one appraiser. If you estimate that approximately 40,000 appraisers are on at least one AMC panel, the cost to AMCs, including registration fees to comply with various State AMC registration and regulation laws, are likely to be in excess of $10,000,000.

These increased costs of doing business will eventually be passed onto the consumer.

Also in the bill it says that "customary and reasonable" fees will be determined by a study, excluding the fees that are "customary and reasonable" when an appraiser works with an AMC. Because of the reach of national lenders and their need for a national appraisal solution, 70% of appraisals in 2010 are being performed through AMCs.

How can you exclude 70% of the market in a study to determine market rates?

A good AMC adds value by investing in technology, data, quality control and customer service - all leaving the appraiser more time to appraise. AMCs also finance receivables, do all sales and marketing and manage workflow and orders.

Isn't it reasonable that the AMC would share some of the fee for what it provides the client and appraiser?

A recent experience of mine made the absurdity of these provisions come to light. What experience? Buying a dishwasher.

I bought the dishwasher at Sears, but it just as easily could have been Home Depot, Best Buy or any other national chain. I paid Sears the "customary and reasonable" fee to have the dishwasher delivered and installed by a licensed master plumber. The fee was the same as if I went to a plumber myself. The plumber took less from Sears for the customer service, marketing, billing, back office and planning they provide. I'm happy with my dishwasher, the plumber was happy for the business and Sears was happy with the sale.

Now, what if Sears had to register each plumber they use? What if each chain had to do the same? What if the government came in and told the chains how much they had to pay the plumber?

Sears needs the plumbers, so they will pay the added cost, but who is ultimately going to pay? The consumer.

Same is true in this. I know installing a dishwasher and appraising a piece of property are two totally different things, but the free market dynamics, wholesale versus retail, and responsibilities of the contractor and managing companies are the same.

Large national lenders are still going to work with AMCs because most banks do not want to become AMCs. They don't want the added cost, overhead and it's not a core competency. So who is going to pay?

The consumer.

For more than 30 years banks, servicers, investors and independent appraisers have seen the value of doing business with AMCs like Pro Teck. The need is there, the positive track record is clear, yet the bill in its current form does not reflect these truths.

Pro Teck Valuation Services sees the need for AMCs, lenders, appraisers, investors, consumers and the federal government to work together to guarantee efficient and effective commerce. We believe that if those writing the Dodd-Frank regulations share this belief, then common sense will prevail.

Libertarians oppose record federal spending levels

2010-07-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

The White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently released its Mid-Session Review. On reviewing the report, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle called the report's spending projections "disappointing and troubling."

According to the report, federal spending was 24.7% of GDP in 2009, and is expected to be 24.6% this year, rising to 25.1% in 2011. (All years are fiscal years.)

Hinkle commented, "The federal government is commanding a larger percentage of our economy than it has at any time in American history, except a few years during World War II. Instead of free citizens making our own economic decisions, the federal government is making those decisions for us."

Hinkle added, "At the beginning of the twentieth century, the federal government spent less than five percent of GDP."

The report projects that federal spending will still be over 23% of GDP in the year 2020. "In other words," said Hinkle, "the White House is admitting that its spending will be at record-high levels as far as the eye can see. That's great for special interests who get their money from the federal government, but it's very bad news for the rest of us.

"I'm seeing visions of low economic growth and high dependence on government. Future generations are facing economic hardship instead of prosperity.

"The current crop of politicians in Washington simply don't have what it takes to reverse this damage. Democrats and Republicans have proven decade after decade that they are incapable of doing anything but grow government. In just the last ten years, they have worked together to give us two costly wars, a giant Medicare expansion, and the TARP bailouts, among many other massive new expenses.

"It's time for American voters to start thinking outside the box, and electing Libertarians to office."

FRC Action: Senate's Rejection of DISCLOSE Act is a Victory for Free Speech Rights

2010-07-27T17:59:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- FRC Action, the legislative advocacy arm of the Family Research Council, released the following statement after the U.S. Senate failed to reach cloture on the DISCLOSE Act, which would limit free speech for organizations during election cycles.

Among the bill's requirements is that organizations must list their top five donors on a television advertisement, regardless of whether or not those donors contributed to the particular campaign.

FRC Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky made the following comments:

"The Senate's rejection of the DISCLOSE Act is a victory for free speech rights and for the democratic process. Liberals in Congress failed in their attempt to push through legislation which only amounts to Democrat incumbent protection legislation disguised as campaign finance reform.

"Instead of addressing the problems often found in the financing of campaigns, the DISCLOSE Act would add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations that act within the law by going after their donors and exposing them in public forums. The exceptions, or 'carve-outs,' in this unconstitutional bill demonstrate the hypocrisy of its supporters. They provide special treatment for select special interest groups in a bill supposedly designed to crack down on the power of special interests.

"The leadership of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on this legislation has solidified him as the leading champion of the First Amendment in the U.S. Senate," concluded McClusky.

FRC Calls Obama Administration's Defense of the National Day of Prayer Inadequate

2010-07-22T12:02:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Today Family Research Council and The Liberty Institute announced the filing of a motion for argument in a recent National Day of Prayer (NDP) case citing the Obama Administration's weak defense of the NDP as the cause. Last April, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. The district court's decision is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

"President Obama's Justice Department filed a brief that doesn't go far enough in defending the National Day of Prayer, which is why we are petitioning the court to participate in oral arguments. The President's attorneys failed to cite any of the key cases that would require immediate dismissal of this lawsuit because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring it. FRC plans to mount a robust defense of this important national event that a liberal judge has attempted to scrub from the public square," Perkins said.

Ken Klukowski, Director of Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty and lead counsel for FRC's amicus brief in the case, added to Perkins' remarks:

"In recent months, Obama Administration officials have stated a willingness to defend the 'freedom to worship' but much more is at stake in this case - our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, which goes far beyond just worship.

"FRC is respectfully requesting that the court allow us to participate in oral arguments to ensure a vigorous defense is made against a lawsuit that claims a national day of prayer - a tradition as old as the country itself - is unconstitutional. It is our hope that the Court will recognize that the American people deserve and expect their elected leaders to vigorously defend our constitutional right to religious freedom.

"The courts cannot ban free religious expression by citizens who participate in the NDP because such participation is not imposed. Neither the Constitution nor the NDP itself require any religious activity by anyone, anywhere. So, if permitted, we intend to present a convincing case that this is a perfect example of a harassing lawsuit that should have been dismissed at the outset," concluded Klukowski.

Statement by Governor Jan Brewer Comments Regarding Federal Border Security Efforts

2010-07-20T06:55:00.000-07:00

"Part of my rationale for signing S.B. 1070 was to get the federal government to do its job and secure the border. Despite the mantra by the Obama administration that the border is 'as secure as ever,' in Arizona both Republicans and Democrats recognize they have failed. Their failure to date is borne out by today's announcement of more federal resources. While the announcement of more resources is welcomed, it does not appear to be enough, or tied to a strategy to comprehensively defeat the increasingly violent drug and alien smuggling cartels that operate in Arizona on a daily basis. We need the implementation of a federal plan to achieve victory over these brutal cartels and the porous nature of our open border."

Governor Jan Brewer
July 19, 2010

Ridiculous pornography trial violates Constitution

2010-07-16T05:32:00.000-07:00

The federal trial of pornographer John Stagliano began last week. Libertarian National Committee Chairman Mark Hinkle issued the following statement July 15:

"The Obama Administration's prosecution of John Stagliano is a travesty.

"As Reason magazine's Richard Abowitz wrote, 'The case against Stagliano concerns the selling of movies performed by consenting adults to entertain adult DVD viewers who have chosen to watch these films. In a free and open society this is exactly the kind of prosecution that should not happen.'

"Many Americans find it far more obscene that Democrats and Republicans are piling trillions of dollars of debt on our children and grandchildren, in order to further the creation and expansion of bad federal programs. The president should be worrying more about these problems, and less about prosecuting and censoring Mr. Stagliano.

"Different people will have different opinions about how valuable or harmful Mr. Stagliano's products are. Fortunately, no one is forced to watch them.

"Federal anti-obscenity laws are unconstitutional in two ways. First, because the Constitution does not grant Congress any power to regulate or criminalize obscenity. And second, because the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech.

"In addition, there appear to be serious irregularities in the judge's conduct of the trial. He is reportedly refusing to allow the defense to call expert witnesses; refusing to allow the jurors to see the entirety of the films, even though that is necessary to apply the legal tests required by earlier Supreme Court rulings; and refusing to allow the press to see evidence or the questionnaires that were used in jury selection.

"It is worth noting that this case was not initiated by citizen complaints. FBI agents just purchased the materials, watched them, and then brought charges. It's clear that the FBI budget needs to be cut.

"Apparently President Obama's Justice Department is no different than former President Bush's when it comes to prosecuting speech. Obama has sustained the 'Obscene Prosecution Task Force,' which was created by the Bush Administration in 2005."

The Libertarian Party's platform states, "We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology."

Disclosure: John Stagliano has been a donor to the Libertarian National Committee.

FRC Action: Donald Berwick's Views on Rationing Will Undermine U.S. Health Care System

2010-07-07T11:48:00.000-07:00

/PRNewswire/ -- Today, the White House announced that Donald Berwick will be appointed to serve as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Dr. Berwick is the President and CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement. He will play an instrumental role in implementing the recently-enacted health care overhaul law.

FRC Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky released the following statement regarding the President's choice:

"Donald Berwick is another example of President Obama's extreme liberal agenda, and only the latest in President Obama's numerous missteps related to health care in America.

"Donald Berwick has stated himself that England's socialized medical services are better than those in the United States, and has said that 'any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional.'

"Another quote from just last year shows how Dr. Berwick makes very clear his view of the government's role in health care. He stated in an interview that '[t]he decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'

"Americans should keep their eyes open to guard their health from Donald Berwick's extreme view of medicine. He will only bring America's high standards for health care services down, and hurt Americans through rationing and lower standards of medical treatment."

Libertarians say government shares blame with BP for oil spill

2010-06-21T07:56:00.000-07:00

Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian Party, issued the following statement June 18:

"The federal government and BP share the blame for the large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"When the CEO of BP appeared at a Congressional hearing yesterday, Republicans and Democrats predictably engaged in finger-pointing and blame-ducking, trying to score political points. Their fingers should have been pointed at themselves.

"When President Obama gave his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, there was one important word missing: the word 'liability.' The president never mentioned that, thanks to liability caps provided by the federal government, BP was able to engage in riskier activities than it would have otherwise. If BP had known in advance that it would be fully liable for all damages related to an oil spill, it probably would have taken greater safeguards. When you know that your liability will be strictly limited, cutting corners becomes a lot more attractive.

"The spill will cause a lot of damage to the property and livelihood of people living along the Gulf. We have a well-developed system of civil courts to help people obtain compensation. Unfortunately, the legislative and executive branches have inappropriately trampled on this territory, and they seem to be trying to take the place of the courts.

"The president has apparently convinced BP to put $20 billion in some kind of compensation account. He said in his speech that it will be 'administered by an independent third party.' Will this third party be able to decide what 'legitimate claims' are, and how much they should receive? Assessing damages should be done by courts, not by political bureaucrats appointed in backroom deals between the president and a large corporation.

"The president could have taken the opportunity to talk about getting government out of the energy industry, and allowing the free market to guide the future of energy production. Unfortunately, he instead blamed the free market for government failures, and discussed his hopes of increasing government interference in the energy industry.

"For decades, Libertarians have warned against putting trust in government regulatory bureaucracies like the Minerals Management Service (MMS). While costing the taxpayers a lot of money, these agencies generally fail to deliver the kind of protections they promise, they tend to become corrupt, and they discourage vigilance on the part of citizens by lulling them into a false sense of security.

"When large companies and the government start working together, the results can be disastrous. Congressional liability caps, the MMS bureaucracy, and BP have all cooperated to create a costly disaster that should never have happened."