The perpetual view's Blog

Apple’s Web of Tax Shelters Saved It Billions, Panel Finds

theperpetualview — Tue, 21 May 2013 05:05:16 +0000

May 20, 2013

Apple’s Web of Tax Shelters Saved It Billions, Panel Finds

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ and CHARLES DUHIGG

WASHINGTON — Even as Apple became the nation’s most profitable technology company, it avoided billions in taxes in the United States and around the world through a web of subsidiaries so complex it spanned continents and went beyond anything most experts had ever seen, Congressional investigators disclosed on Monday.

The investigation is expected to set up a potentially explosive confrontation between a bipartisan group of lawmakers and Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, at a public hearing on Tuesday.

Congressional investigators found that some of Apple’s subsidiaries had no employees and were largely run by top officials from the company’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. But by officially locating them in places like Ireland, Apple was able to, in effect, make them stateless — exempt from taxes, record-keeping laws and the need for the subsidiaries to even file tax returns anywhere in the world.

“Apple wasn’t satisfied with shifting its profits to a low-tax offshore tax haven,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that is holding the public hearing Tuesday into Apple’s use of tax havens. “Apple successfully sought the holy grail of tax avoidance. It has created offshore entities holding tens of billions of dollars while claiming to be tax resident nowhere.”

Thanks to what lawmakers called “gimmicks” and “schemes,” Apple was able to largely sidestep taxes on tens of billions of dollars it earned outside the United States in recent years. Last year, international operations accounted for 61 percent of Apple’s total revenue.

Investigators have not accused Apple of breaking any laws and the company is hardly the only American multinational to face scrutiny for using complex corporate structures and tax havens to sidestep taxes. In recent months, revelations from European authorities about the tax avoidance strategies used by Google, Starbucks and Amazon have all stirred public anger and spurred several European governments, as well as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based research organization for the world’s richest countries, to discuss measures to close the loopholes.

Still, the findings about Apple were remarkable both for the enormous amount of money involved and the audaciousness of the company’s assertion that its subsidiaries are beyond the reach of any taxing authority.

“There is a technical term economists like to use for behavior like this,” said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and a former staff director at the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “Unbelievable chutzpah.”

While Apple’s strategy is unusual in its scope and effectiveness, it underscores how riddled with loopholes the American corporate tax code has become, critics say. At the same time, it shows how difficult it will be for Washington to overhaul the tax system.

Over all, Apple’s tax avoidance efforts shifted at least $74 billion from the reach of the Internal Revenue Service between 2009 and 2012, the investigators said. That cash remains offshore, but Apple, which paid more than $6 billion in taxes in the United States last year on its American operations, could still have to pay federal taxes on it if the company were to return the money to its coffers in the United States.

John McCain of Arizona, who is the panel’s senior Republican, said: “Apple claims to be the largest U.S. corporate taxpayer, but by sheer size and scale, it is also among America’s largest tax avoiders.”

In prepared testimony expected to be delivered to the Senate committee by Mr. Cook and other Apple executives on Tuesday, the company said it “welcomes an objective examination of the U.S. corporate tax system, which has not kept pace with the advent of the digital age and the rapidly changing global economy.”

The executives plan to tell the lawmakers that Apple does not use tax gimmicks, according to the prepared testimony.

Mr. Cook is also expected to argue that some of Apple’s largest subsidiaries do not reduce Apple’s tax liability, and to press for a sweeping overhaul of the United States corporate tax code — in particular, by lowering rates on companies moving foreign overseas earnings back to the United States. Apple currently assigns more than $100 billion to offshore subsidiaries.

Atop Apple’s offshore network is a subsidiary named Apple Operations International, which is incorporated in Ireland — where Apple had negotiated a special corporate tax rate of 2 percent or less in recent years — but keeps its bank accounts and records in the United States and holds board meetings in California.

Because the United States bases residency on where companies are incorporated, while Ireland focuses on where they are managed and controlled, Apple Operations International was able to fall neatly between the cracks of the two countries’ jurisdictions.

Apple Operations International has not filed a tax return in Ireland, the United States or any other country over the last five years. It had income of $30 billion between 2009 and 2012. By shuttling revenue between international subsidiaries, Apple was able largely to sidestep paying taxes, Congressional investigators said.

In the prepared testimony, Apple executives disputed the characterization of Apple Operations International. “A.O.I. performs important business functions that facilitate and enhance Apple’s success in international markets,” the testimony states. “It is not a shell company.”

The Senate investigators also found evidence that the company turned over substantially less money to the government than its public filings indicated.

While the company cited an effective rate of 24 to 32 percent in its disclosures, its effective tax rate was 20.1 percent, based on the committee’s findings. And for a company of Apple’s size, the resulting difference was substantial — more than $8 billion in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Because of these strategies, tax experts say, Washington is forced to rely more and heavily on payroll taxes and individual income taxes to finance the government’s operations. For example, in 2011, individual income taxes contributed $1.1 trillion to federal coffers, while corporate taxes added up to $181 billion.

As companies’ earnings have accumulated offshore, many executives have been pushing more aggressively for a tax holiday that would allow them to bring back funds at lower tax rates. Apple has recently announced that it will return $100 billion to shareholders over three years through a combination of dividends and purchases of its own shares. Though Apple has enough cash on hand to pay for those initiatives, the company recently announced it would take on $17 billion in debt, rather than bring overseas money back to the United States to avoid paying repatriation taxes on those returning funds.

“If Apple had used its overseas cash to fund this return of capital, the funds would have been diminished by the very high corporate U.S. tax rate of 35 percent,” Mr. Cook is planning to testify, according to the prepared text. Apple “believes the current system, which applies industrial era concepts to a digital economy, actually undermines U.S. competitiveness.”

Critics, however, say these so-called repatriation holidays, which bring back funds at lower tax rates, do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy and benefit only corporations, their executives and shareholders. Congress enacted a repatriation holiday in 2004, allowing corporations to bring back about $300 billion from overseas and pay just 5.25 percent rather than the regular 35 percent corporate rate.

But a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 92 percent of the repatriated cash was used to pay for dividends, share buybacks or executive bonuses.

“Repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment or R.&D., even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions,” concluded the study, which was conducted by a team of three economists that included a former Bush administration official. Tuesday’s hearing on Capitol Hill, along with the disclosures about Apple’s tax policies, are likely to make lowering repatriation taxes a more difficult proposition for lawmakers to stomach, Congressional staff members said.

On Capitol Hill Monday, legislators made plain their fury over what they called Apple’s “egregious” and “outrageous” conduct.

While other companies have taken advantage of loopholes, Mr. Levin said, “I’ve never seen anything like this and we don’t know anybody who’s seen anything like this.”

Nelson D. Schwartz reported from Washington and Charles Duhigg from New York. David Kocieniewski contributed reporting from New York.

NAACP CHAIR JULIAN BOND IS A LIAR

theperpetualview — Mon, 20 May 2013 12:07:34 +0000

NAACP CHAIR JULIAN BOND IS A LIAR

By Lloyd Marcus

May 12, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Chairman emeritus, Julian Bond, of the NAACP said the tea party is “admittedly racist.” Mr Bond, I challenge you to show us the video, article, facebook post or the tweet in which the tea party admitted it is motivated by racism.

As a black tea party activist who has participated in over 400 tea party rallies, I am confident that your claim is bogus. Therefore Mr Bond, you sir are a despicable liar, severely compromising your image as a statesman. You and your ilk purposely inspire hate in low-info black voters against tea party patriots who simply said no to Obama’s socialist agenda and trashing of the Constitution. Shame on you Mr Bond.

The NAACP leadership has abandoned it’s commitment to traditional marriage, family, education, self-reliance and hard work. The once great well-intentioned organization has morphed into a far-left radial liberal racist hate group which exploits race, using it as a bludgeon to silence any and all opposition to Obama and the Democrats’ government overreaching, ever expending entitlement programs and Obama’s vowed redistribution of wealth. MLK would not approve.

Sadly, the NAACP feels embolden to lie about the tea party, confident that the mainstream media will not challenge them or demand proof of their outrageous allegations. The MSM gleefully distributes the NAACP’s lies.

Remember when NAACP president, Ben Jealous said he saw tea party protesters carrying signs which read, “Lynch Barack Hussein Obama” and “Lynch Eric Holder”?

Folks, the MSM hates the tea party. If the signs that Jealous claims to have seen existed, the MSM would have made sure they were posted everywhere. And yet, no one other than Mr Jealous has seen the lynch Obama and Holder signs. So, in plain English, Ben Jealous is a liar. The MSM never challenged Jealous to show them the signs. The MSM simply reported Jealous’ divisive hate-inspiring lie as fact.

Has anyone in the mainstream media asked Julian Bond to show them when and where the tea party admitted it is racist? No. Mr Bond is a black hate-filled liberal. The MSM loves blacks who say they are victims of a racist America. Thus, Bond’s accusation is reported as gospel.

What happened to the once great NAACP? What happened to Julian Bond, the dignified civil rights statesman? What seduced these trusted advocates for racial equality to the dark side, stumping for the socialists/progressives’ radical anti-America agenda? Money? MSM approval? A seat at the liberal Democrat massa’s table?

Mr. Bond, the NAACP and associates have lost their way, abandoning their mission of black empowerment. Their betrayal of black America includes re-enslaving them; making as many blacks as possible slaves of Obama’s welfare-state government subsidized and controlled America.

If true to their mission of real black empowerment, the modern civil rights movement would embrace and celebrate extraordinarily successful blacks such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and entrepreneur and presidential candidate Herman Cain.

But rather than holding the blacks I have mentioned up to black youths as shining examples of what can be achieved in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet via education and hard work, these successful blacks are despised by the black liberal plantation overlords.

The NAACP and company thrives on black Americans believing themselves victimized, disenfranchised and hated. Their mantra to black voters is Conservatives, Republicans and whites want you to fail. Keep voting for us and we will keep them at bay. Folks, I am talking big-time evil.

Rush Limbaugh appropriately calls the NAACP the NAALCP. The “L” is for liberal. Blacks who are Conservative – who bypass government programs to achieve success and who love their country are on the NAACP and company’s excrement list; targeted for destruction.

I say again, Mr Bond, you are a despicable liar. The tea party would never say it is racist because it is not. As a matter of fact, my personal experience bears witness that the tea party seeks the best for all Americans. The Left are the ones relentless in their attempts to make the tea party’s opposition to Obama’s agenda about race in an effort to slander and intimidate the tea party into silence. In reality, the tea party considers Obama’s race irrelevant.

The tea party is motivated by love; love for the greatest nation on the planet and their refusal to see it transformed into an Obama-nation of the vision of our Founding Fathers.

By the way Mr Bond, I am the black singer/ songwriter who penned the “American Tea Party Anthem.” Check it out on Youtube. It has a great hook! God bless.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman – CampaignToDefeatObama.com

Self proclaimed Black Unhyphenated American, Lloyd Marcus is a featured columnist on American Thinker, Renew America, Canadian Free Press and numerous other Internet websites. A speaker, activist, singer/songwriter, recording artist and entertainer, Marcus was a featured act on the historical 2009 Tea Party Expressed Tour. The finale event was the Sept. 12th Taxpayers March and Rally in Washington DC where Marcus performed for a million people.

His appearances include FoxNews, CNN, PJTV and numerous TV and radio programs. He emcees and performs his patriotic original songs at rallies and special events across America. He was the featured entertainment at the 2009 Free Republic National Convention. Marcus’ mission is to use his God given gifts to spread the “truth” that Conservatism is best for all Americans. He resides in Central Florida.

An elected official, Marcus is Chairman for Precinct 424, Volusia County Florida. He is also Creative Director for the Republican Executive Committee of Volusia County.

Lloyd Marcus, Singer/Songwriter of the national “American Tea Party Anthem.” President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color)

E-Mail: mr_lloydmarcus@hotmail.com

Website: LloydMarcus.com

WILL OBAMA TAKE YOUR 401(K) RETIREMENT FUNDS?

theperpetualview — Mon, 20 May 2013 11:42:40 +0000

WILL OBAMA TAKE YOUR 401(K) RETIREMENT FUNDS?

By Paul Walter
May 20, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

For almost a year we’ve seen bold headlines that Barack Obama is in the process of taking 401(k)’s, ostensibly to pay down the national debt (created by politicians we elect to office). The same flavor of borrowing against federal employee retirement funds until Congress can borrow more money:

Government reaches debt limit, borrows against federal pension funds

“In a letter to congressional leaders Monday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he is suspending new investments in both the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) and the Thrift Savings Plan G Fund, which is invested in federal securities. In addition, the department will redeem some of the investments held by the CSRDF, Geithner wrote.

“Federal retirees and employees will be unaffected by these actions,” Geithner said. By law, both funds must be made whole once lawmakers agree to increase the debt limit.

“The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board also Monday stressed that TSP investors will not be harmed. Under a 1987 law, the government is required to repay suspended G Fund investments, including interest, once the debt ceiling is raised and the government can resume borrowing. The board will keep track of what Treasury owes and how much interest the G Fund would have accumulated had the investments not been suspended. “You have an IOU from the federal government for the G Fund,” board chairman Andrew Saul said. “It’s not going to affect them [TSP investors], period.”

It’s easy for Treasury Secretary Geithner to reassure federal employees filching their life long “nest egg” funds is backed by a worthless IOU since it’s not his retirement.

This is known as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Instead of reducing the size of government by eliminating unconstitutional cabinets and agencies, Congress simply borrows more debt from foreign governments. Repayment of those civil service retirement funds is paid with debt. Can you describe anything more irresponsible than that? Try this one: The US Government spends $435,841,200 per hour

Art. II, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the president to spend or borrow one penny of the people’s money. He can use the ‘bully pulpit’ with his party to move the idea along. But, any such change in existing laws would have to come from Congress. Does that mean Obama won’t try? Nothing is out of the realm of possibility when it comes to the current occupant of the White House.

As the dollar continues to lose its purchasing power, many seniors are finding their 401(k) accounts are not going to get them through through their golden years:

401 K’s are a disaster

“According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the median household retirement account balance in 2010 for workers between the ages of 55-64 was just $120,000. For people expecting to retire at around age 65, and to live for another 15 years or more, this will provide for only a trivial supplement to Social Security benefits. And that’s for people who actually have a retirement account of some kind. A third of households do not. For these people, their sole retirement income, aside from potential aid from friends and family, comes from Social Security, for which the current average monthly benefit is $1,230.”

Both the White House and the Congress send up ‘trial balloons’ periodically to see how the American people will react to something being bandied about back rooms in the halls of Congress or the Oval Office that directly affect our lives. If the initial response isn’t the desired one, input from think tanks and special interest groups help shape new proposals:

Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System

“A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.

“The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.

“This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,” explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, “However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.”

“A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a “government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation).” She proclaimed that even “private annuities are problematic.”

“Such “reforms” would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. “These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system.”

Should Americans be concerned about such a move? Very. Congress has created a ‘national’ debt of close to $17 trillion dollars. Unpaid mandates that have to be paid down the road on social security, Medicare and the ‘prescription drug liability’ program total $123.9 trillion dollars. Your share of that debt is a whopping $1.9 million dollars over your lifetime.

Most people have a difficult time wrapping their head around such astronomical numbers. There isn’t any real money to pay those obligations, so where will the money come from? As quoted above: “.. once the debt ceiling is raised and the government can resume borrowing.”What better place to begin borrowing than private pension funds using state of the art accounting methods that endanger everyone’s retirement funds. Nationalize the nation’s pension system and you’ve got the goose that will lay golden eggs…..for about ten days of spending. Then what?

Americans were far better off before government stepped in to “help” them with saving for retirement because anytime the government says “we’re here to help you,” that’s the time to grab your money and run the opposite direction.

The first steps towards nationalizing your retirement are underway. Every “national” program administered by the federal government is a monumental financial disaster. The numbers don’t lie, but politicians do.

We are all victims of the inept, morally irresponsible actions of one Congress after another for decades, yet, we keep reelecting them expecting different results. If you don’t think allowing the federal government to take over the only thing you will have when you finally retire is a good idea, now is the time to let those who represent you in Congress know how you feel. Before they scoop up your life’s savings backed by an IOU. They will owe you all right and it won’t even buy a cup of coffee.

To summarize it all for you.

Lets say you spend 20 plus years in the military and retire at 38 or 40. You receive your pension from the service. Still at a young age you decide to work for government or a private corporation for another 20 years or so. That will entitle you for another retirement pension. Then at age 65 you qualify for Social Security. Politicians call that triple dipping. The time is coming (sooner than you think) you will only be allowed to keep one, all in the name of saving the economy. All a big lie of course, because they created the conditions in the first place. (Called Theses, Syntheses, and Antitheses. Create the problem, offer the solution and walla, you have the desired outcome). Why are they doing this you ask? Simple! Wealth means freedom and independence. A person that’s financially well off can not be controlled, a poor one can. Poor people will do whatever they’re told and look to government for sustenance. That’s Communism. Everybody looks to mother government to take care of them. What the communists (aka: RINO’s, Liberals or Democrats) fear the most is individuals who don’t need the government and can think and care for themselves. I believe the backlash is coming and they are counting on the loyalty of the police to protect the crooks from the angry public demanding justice.

Paul Walter escaped the slavery of communism at the age of 14 with his family in 1956 and immigrated to United States (legally) in 1959. He served 3 years in the U.S. Armed Forces, was honorably discharged and became a U.S. citizen in 1965. Owner of Walter Publishing & Research, Inc., he republished a 100 year old book titled: The Coming Battle, the true history of our national debt. The book is currently in its 5th printing.

E-mail: paulwalter1945@gmail.com

Scandals Expose Truth about Obama

theperpetualview — Thu, 16 May 2013 14:47:11 +0000

Scandals Expose Truth about Obama

By John Kass, Chicago Tribune May 15, 2013 11:01 am

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Dogged by scandal, and with his press secretary presumably now curled up in the fetal position and breathing into a brown paper bag, it’s obvious President Barack Obama is in need.

Our president must find his happy place again, away from irritating controversies.

Like Benghazi, where four Americans died and he stood before the United Nations and made a phony reference to a ridiculous video in order to save his politics at the expense of the truth.

And now it’s known that his Internal Revenue Service was used to threaten conservative and tea party groups and quash political dissent. The IRS also leaked damaging information from secret files against his political enemies to the media, prompting some to call him President Barack Milhous Obama.

Another scandal, involving the Justice Department seizing reporters’ phone records hoping to find administration leaks, is a chilling assault on the First Amendment that would have made Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover smile.

What Obama requires is another relaxing vacation. This time, the man needs a visit to Happy Land.

So please take my hand, Mr. President, and we’ll fly there, over those political storm clouds in Washington, to where things were just about perfect:

Back home to Chicago. Grant Park. November 2008.

Can you remember the looks of genuine adoration in their eyes?

Some were so overcome they couldn’t help but weep for joy. Others barely stopped their lips from twitching. Still others were wiggly with excitement, like puppies unable to keep still, and we know what puppies do when they’re excited.

Many hugged and offered high-fives, or loudly clapped, or clinked glasses and gave each other profound smiles of satisfaction and joy.

And that was just the journalists.

The rest of Obama’s voters were ecstatic too. But as historians will no doubt tell us, American journalists were especially thrilled.

Not all. A few grumpy types complained that messianic politics is never healthy for the Republic. But who could listen with all that joy in their ears?

The Republican establishment — the War Party — had been vanquished, and deservedly so, for talking out of both sides of its mouth about the need for a smaller government while feeding from that monstrous defense industry trough. They’re in the wilderness still, and should remain there for a while.

And Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton had already had her wings clipped. Remember? She and Bill had dared suggest that Obama had played the old Chicago race card on her in the Democratic presidential primary — that primary of the 3 a.m. phone call. The media response was to crush her.

There was no memo, but the messengers gathered with common purpose, as if compelled by journalistic pheromones to do what must be done. And it was done. To Hillary. For her apostasy, she was almost cast out.

Because Obama wasn’t just another politician. Reporters flocked to him as if he was the gentle forest faun, Mr. Tumnus straight out of the Narnia tales.

And American journalism was like that little girl in the C.S. Lewis stories, Lucy Pevensie, graciously accepting his tea and cakes, nodding off to the music of his woodland pipes, sleeping on his couch, smiling.

It was odd and somewhat frightening to watch so-called journalistic iconoclasts cleaving desperately to the myth of Obama as savior. His mouthpieces came up with excellent lines that were repeated endlessly, my favorite being that the guy from Chicago would transcend “the broken politics of the past.”

Obama doesn’t bother me. I disagree with his politics, but that’s not what’s galling. What’s appalling was the pack mentality of journalists — and I don’t need polls to tell me that most are liberals — who were so eager to wag their tails at his approach.

Benghazi is trouble enough for Obama, so troubling that a liberal soccer friend (yes, I do appreciate diversity of opinion) greeted me by sarcastically chanting, “Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!” as if that dusty, bloody town in Libya doesn’t mean a thing.

But it means something to Obama’s credibility, which is now in tatters. And it means something to the four dead Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. It means something to the whistle-blowers who say they were pressured not to talk.

And Benghazi means something to the presidential prospects of Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state’s snarky comment “What difference, at this point, does it make?” will hang from her neck like the dead albatross in the poem. By 2016 it should be exceedingly ripe.

These days, Benghazi is no longer being viewed as some isolated artifact in a glass jar. The other scandals have joined it, and combine in organic fashion to produce a president on the defensive. The Obama administration insists its fingerprints aren’t on this IRS business, and the president himself condemns it as an outrage.

But it is worse than an outrage. And the president was the beneficiary. If he were truly angry, he’d have fired people immediately. The push by the White House for an “independent” investigation is also an outrage.

It is the Congress’ job to investigate. Let them ask the IRS why it provided information damaging to tea party members and conservatives to investigative reporters at ProPublica.

Using the IRS to smother dissent and grabbing the phone records of The Associated Press isn’t something a gentle Mr. Tumnus would do.

But it is something done by politicians from Chicago, where government is the muscle that shuts the mouth.

jskass@tribune.com

Twitter @John_Kass

Judge Jeanine” fact Blasts”

theperpetualview — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:42:27 +0000

Roe gave abortion opponents a target » News — GOPUSA

theperpetualview — Wed, 15 May 2013 02:17:52 +0000

go pusa.co m http://www.go pusa.co m/news/2013/05/13/ginsburg-ro e-gave-abo rtio n-o ppo nents-a-target/?subscriber=1

Roe gave abortion opponents a target » News — GOPUSA

CHICAGO – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

says she supports a woman’s right to choose to have an

abortion, but f eels her predecessors’ landmark Roe v. Wade

ruling 40 years ago was too sweeping and gave abortion

opponents a symbol to target.

Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members of the nation’s

high court, spoke Saturday at the University of Chicago Law

School. Ever since the decision, she said, momentum has

been on abortion opponents’ side, f ueling a state-by-state

campaign that has placed more restrictions on abortion.

“That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at

relentlessly,” she told a crowd of students. “… My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the

momentum that was on the side of change.”

Four decades later, abortion is one of the most polarizing issues in American lif e, and anti-abortion activists

have pushed legislation at the state level in an ef f ort to scale back the 1973 decision. This year, governors in

North Dakota and Arkansas signed strict new abortion laws, including North Dakota’s ban on abortions as

early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that struck down only the Texas law

that brought the matter bef ore the court. That law allowed abortions only to save a mother’s lif e.

A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a

number of states were expanding abortion rights, she said. She added that it might also have denied

opponents the argument that abortion rights resulted f rom an undemocratic process in the decision by

“unelected old men.”

Ginsburg told the students she pref ers what she termed “judicial restraint” and argued that such an approach

can be more ef f ective than expansive, aggressive decisions.

“The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political

process,” she said.

A similar dynamic is playing out over gay marriage and the speculation over how the Supreme Court might act

on that issue.

The court decided in December to take up cases on Calif ornia’s constitutional ban on gay marriage and a

f ederal law that denies to gay Americans who are legally married the f avorable tax treatment and a range of

health and pension benef its otherwise available to married couples.

Among the questions now is whether the justices will set a nationwide rule that could lead to the overturning of

laws in more than three dozen states that currently do not allow same-sex marriage. Even some supporters of

gay marriage f ear that a broad ruling could put the court ahead of the nation on a hot-button social issue and

provoke a backlash similar to the one that has f ueled the anti-abortion movement in the years f ollowing Roe.

The court could also decide to uphold Calif ornia’s ban – an outcome that would not af f ect the District of

Columbia and the 11 states that allow gay marriage.

Ginsburg did not address the pending gay marriage cases.

Asked about the continuing challenges to abortion rights, Ginsburg said that in her view Roe’s legacy will

ultimately hold up.

“It’s not going to matter that much,” she said. “Take the worst-case scenario … suppose the decision were

overruled; you would have a number of states that will never go back to the way it was.”

—

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]

please wait…

Rating: 6.0/10 (8 votes cast)

Ginsburg: Roe gave abortion opponents a target, 6.0 out of

10 based on 8 ratings

Missouri lawmakers pass bill to nullify federal gun control laws

theperpetualview — Fri, 10 May 2013 04:40:38 +0000

Missouri lawmakers pass bill to nullify federal gun control laws

Published May 09, 2013

Associated Press

Dec. 22, 2012: People look over a table of handguns for sale at a gun show in Kansas City, Missouri. (Reuters)

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The Missouri Legislature sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would expand gun rights and declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable, in a response to President Obama’s push for gun control legislation.

The Republican-led Legislature passed the measure hoping to shield the state from federal proposals that would ban assault weapons and expand background checks. But the U.S. Senate’s defeat of a background check expansion three weeks ago did nothing to assuage the fears of Missouri Republicans who pressed forward with their legislation.

The Missouri House voted 118-36 Wednesday to send the bill to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the measure earlier this month.

Supporters argue the measure protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and it includes language condemning the theft and illegal use of firearms. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Doug Funderburk, said his aim is to ensure Missouri is the only regulator when it comes to firearms.

“We have the authority to enforce these laws. We are trying to position us so that we in this state can have safer neighborhoods,” said Funderburk, R-St. Peters.

Opposition came mostly from House Democrats who said the measure would increase access to guns and make schools less safe. They argued the measure doesn’t address gun violence in urban areas.

“I don’t understand why this body continues to turn their back and ignore gun violence in order to increase access to weapons,” said Rep. Stacey Newman, D-University City.

In addition to declaring federal gun laws unenforceable, the bill would allow concealed weapons to be carried by designated school personnel in school buildings. It would allow appointed “protection officers” to carry concealed weapons as long as they have a valid permit and register with the state Department of Public Safety. The officers would also be required to complete a training course.

The bill would also allow people with a firearms permit to openly carry weapons less than 16 inches in length even in localities that prohibit open-carry of firearms.

Privacy rights of gun owners have been a hot topic this legislative session after lawmakers learned the state Highway Patrol shared the list of concealed weapons permit holders with a federal agent in the Social Security Administration.

The legislation passed Wednesday would prevent people from publishing any identifying information on gun owners. A person who publishes such information would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. It also would prevent doctors or nurses from being required to ask patients about firearm ownership.

The measure would also lower the minimum age required to obtain a concealed weapons permit from 21 to 19.

Even if Gov. Jay Nixon signs the legislation, it may face legal hurdles that will prevent its implementation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas last month saying the federal government would challenge its recent gun law. The Kansas legislation would prohibit federal regulation of guns that are manufactured and remain in the state. It would also criminalize the enforcement of federal gun control laws.

Missouri lawmakers are also considering a constitutional amendment that would declare gun rights “inalienable.”

Sept. 12 E-mail Identified Terrorist Group in Benghazi Attack

theperpetualview — Fri, 10 May 2013 04:28:54 +0000

Thursday, 09 May 2013 10:51

Sept. 12 E-mail Identified Terrorist Group in Benghazi Attack

Written by Jack Kenny

A previously undisclosed e-mail from a top State Department official identified the terrorist organization that carried out the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)said Wednesday. The e-mail went out four days before U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said in several TV interviews that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous demonstration.”

Gowdy said the September 12 e-mail was sent to senior State Department officers from Elizabeth Jones, acting secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. The South Carolina Republican, a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, read the message aloud at a committee hearing on the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three members of his staff. Gowdy said the e-mail is not classified, but claimed Democrats on the committee had blocked its release. He urged the Democrats to exercise “bi-partisanship” by agreeing to make the document public.

Jones wrote that she had spoken with the Libyan ambassador to Washington, Gowdy said, quoting: “I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”

“Let me say that again,” Gowdy said. “She told him. The State Department, on September 12, days before our ambassador went on national television, is telling the ambassador to Libya the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with terrorists.”

Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission under Stevens, said Libyan President Mohammed Magariaf was on U.S. television talking about the planned terrorist attack on the U.S. mission on the same day Rice was on five Sunday morning interview programs saying a “spontaneous demonstration” at the consulate had been “hijacked” by extremists. Hicks, who was at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time, told the committee there was no evidence of a demonstration prior to the heavily armed assault and that he was certain Stevens would have called to tell him about it if there had been.

When asked what impact Rice’s comments had on relations between the United States and the Libyan government, Hicks said U.S. officials ran into bureaucratic resistance and that it took about 18 days before the FBI was allowed in to investigate.

“The crime scene was unsecured for 18 days?” Gowdy asked, his voice rising.

“Yes,” Hicks replied.

Ansar al-Sharia is an affiliate of al-Qaeda and House Republicans have accused the Obama White House and senior State Department officials of deleting references to al-Qaeda or terrorism from the “talking points” given to Rice. The attack occurred during last year’s presidential election campaign, when the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and success in the war on terrorism were major Obama campaign themes.

According to a report from House Republicans released in April, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland wrote in an e-mail that “my building leadership” at the State Department was not happy with the original talking points prepared by the CIA. Within the next 24 hours, the talking points had been edited and references to Islamic terrorism removed, the report said.

Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) said the House Intelligence Committee had already investigated the talking points issue. “Gen. Petraeus, the former head of the CIA, made it clear that the change was made to protect classified sources of information — not to spin it, not to politicize it — and it wasn’t done at the direction of the White House,” Tierney said.

Hicks, one in a panel of three State Department “whistleblowers” appearing before the committee Wednesday, is the first person who was in Libya at the time to publicly testify about the Benghazi attack. He described the three waves of attacks that occurred from the night of September 11 into the next morning, and became choked up at times when describing the courage and heroism of the diplomats trapped in the compound during the heavily armed assault. He also repeated previous testimony he had given to committee investigators about a four-man team of special operations forces that was ordered not to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi to reinforce troops defending U.S. diplomatic personnel in the early morning hours of September 12. A previous team had arrived in Benghazi at 1:15 a.m., Hicks said, and the second Special Forces unit was about to drive to a C-130 aircraft when its commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, got a phone call from a superior at Special Operations Command Africa. “They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it,” Hicks told the committee.

Asked how the unit responded to the order, Hicks said, “They were furious.” He quoted Gibson as saying “I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.”

The State Department cited a report by an Administrative Review Board appointed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to investigate the attack and its aftermath.

“The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference,” according to a statement issued by the department. “Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night.”

Mark Thompson, former deputy coordinator of the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, was questioned by committee member Eleanor Holmes, a Democrat form the District of Columbia, about a statement attributed to him in news reports alleging that Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy had tried to keep the bureau out of the discussion and decision-making process on the night of the attack. Homes cited an emphatic denial issued Monday by Daniel Benjamin, then the head of the bureau. Thompson said it was the bureau’s Foreign Emergency Support Team, known by its initials, FEST, that was not involved in the discussions. Thompson said the FEST unit, which he headed, had responded to similar attacks in the past, including the 1998 attack on the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, and the bombing of the USS Cole off coast of Yemen in October 2000.

Eric Nordstrom, the former regional security officer in Libya, has criticized the State Department over denials of requests for added security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack. He told the committee Wednesday that he had spoken up because he wanted to get the truth out.

“It matters to me personally and it matters to my colleagues at the Department of State,” he said. “It matters to the American public for whom we serve, and most importantly it matters to the friends, the family” of those killed.

Democrats accused Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) of using the witnesses in an effort to score partisan political points against the Obama administration and against Clinton, generally considered a likely presidential candidate in 2016. Holmes and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings of Maryland were among the committee members taking Issa to task over his previous statement that Secretary Clinton had lied and misled the American people by denying she had seen requests that had come to the State Department for added security in Benghazi. Issa claimed Clinton had signed a document refusing such a request. Holmes said the document Issa had cited did not have the Secretary’s signature, but only her printed name at the bottom of the page, as is the case with thousands of documents that go out from the State Department. The D.C. Democrat noted that the Washington Post fact checker had given Issa “four Pinnochios” over the charge.

“I don’t think there’s a smoking gun here today,” said Rep. Mark Pocan, (D-Wisc.) “Not even a lukewarm slingshot.” He suggested the committee stop “rehashing” old stories. That brought a rejoinder from Gowdy, who said the committee needed to keep probing for the truth.

“The good news is there is no statute of limitations on truth,” he said

Arkansas—— Religion Is Not Welcome: How a Prayer Wrecked a Graduation

theperpetualview — Fri, 10 May 2013 04:01:03 +0000

Religion Is Not Welcome: How a Prayer Wrecked a Graduation

Takepart.com – 2 hrs 43 mins ago

The debate over school prayer has reared it’s head in Arkansas this week.

Two sixth grade graduations were cancelled in Riverside Unified School District after a parent protested against a prayer that was to be recited during the ceremony.

“Those campuses for the last several years had discussed whether we should continue with sixth grade graduation or not,” Tommy Knight, the superintendent of the Riverside School District told Fox News. “The controversy arose out of this one. When it came to my attention, the board and I decided to go ahead and discontinue sixth grade graduations.”

The school received a letter from Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin’s nonprofit with a mission to educate the public “on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.”

A group of Arkansas freethinkers called the cancellation “selfish.”

“The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers is disappointed that Riverside school cancelled its graduationsimply because the school couldn’t sponsor a prayer,” Anne Orsi, a member of the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, told TakePart. “We think that the students are the big losers in this astonishing display of religious selfishness on the part of the school’s administration. There is absolutely no reason thegraduation ceremony cannot continue without forcing the attendees to submit to a public prayer. There is no reason to punish these children.”

School prayer and religion in public schools remains a hot button issue that has resulting in numerous court cases. Many schools throughout the country are trying to delicately deal with religion during upcoming graduation activities.

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools cannot sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies, citing a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But students can express themselves during graduation and that might include prayer.

In Georgia, a school was recently forced to stop saying prayers or playing songs with religious references at graduation ceremonies after the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a warning letter.

“Public schools should not be seeking out songs that exclude students and create a divisive environment,” FFRF attorney Andrew Seidelan wrote in the letter.

In Kentucky, the Lincoln County High School principal is trying to find middle ground on the prayer front. Traditionally, the school’s graduating class has had student-led prayer during the ceremony. But, to do so, graduating students had to okay the prayer with a unanimous vote. This year, six students said they did not want the prayer. It has since been cancelled.

Earlier this month, a former Navy chaplain offered a $1,000 reward to any student who says a prayer during a graduation ceremony at a school in St. Johns County, Florida.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told TakePart that there is a current fear of prayer in this country.

“How very sad that our culture is collapsing under the weight of religious intolerance that it is fearful of a prayer,” he said. “Prayers are said in Congress, at presidential inaugurations, and by chaplains in our military. To forbid a prayer at a school activity because one person objects is just sad. Can one person protest our accommodating Muslim food and prayers at Gitmo and get that stopped?”

In Lake City, Arkansas, parents are meeting Thursday night to decide on a church that will host a private graduation ceremony for Christian students who attend the public school.

This thrills Arkansas school prayer supporters.

“I am personally definitely a proponent of prayer, even prayer in school. I believe guiding our children to seek a relationship with God is the ultimate in community service,” Laurie Lee, a conservative activist in Arkansas, told TakePart. “What inspires me most, is how these parents are handling the situation. It’s wonderful that they are taking what could have been a very disappointing event and it is evolving into a celebration based on faith and inclusion for all in the community.”

Related Stories on TakePart:

• ACLU Demands Mississippi Principal Stop ‘Pervasive’ School Prayer

• Sing It, Don’t Say It? Preschool Owner Finds Loophole in Arkansas Law Banning School Prayer

• Is This Just a New Way to Get Prayer Inside Schools?

Suzi Parker is an Arkansas-based political and cultural journalist whose work frequently appears in The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor. She is the author of two books.@SuziParker | TakePart.com

Guns in Schools: Superintendent Ready to Accept New Responsibility

theperpetualview — Fri, 10 May 2013 03:30:23 +0000

Guns in Schools: Superintendent Ready to Accept New Responsibility

By: KARK

Updated: May 6, 2013

Hot Springs, AR- Guns in Schools, it is a topic that continues to be a part of the public conversation, months after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.

Here in Arkansas, it is illegal to take a gun to school unless you are certified, but in one district, a school administrator is working to get that certification so she can take her gun on campus.

Nancy Anderson is the Superintendent of the Cutter Morning Star School District.

She loves her students, is dedicated to education, and she is serious about school safety.

“I am very comfortable around guns,” says Anderson.

She has decided to take the students’ protection into her own hands.

In the next school year, Anderson says she plans to keep a gun in a lock-box in her office, and carry it if deemed necessary.

Anderson says if there is ever a threat on campus, or she feels students are at risk, she will strap on the gun.

“The lockster is a locked holster, so students will not be able to pull it out.”

Anderson is in the process of receiving full certification to keep a gun at school.

“There are four different tests and then you have to go to a range and qualify to be able to carry.”

Essentially, she is becoming a security guard on top of being a superintendent.

“I respect firearms, I know it’s dangerous. I’m very serious about firearms and very cautious.”

She says thiw wasn’t her first choice, and she wishes she didn’t have to go to this measure, but Anderson says she would rather be safe than sorry.