Morning Bell: Ghosts of Benghazi

- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation - http://blog.heritage.org -

Morning Bell: Ghosts of Benghazi

Posted By James Carafano On May 8, 2013 @ 7:03 am In Protect America | No Comments

The White House might have wanted to mute its response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi for fear of inflaming Anti-American sentiment. Perhaps the President did not want to acknowledge a successful attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11—right before a national election. Maybe it was just all “Keystone Kops” at the national command authority on the night four Americans were killed at their posts. It could be a bit of all three. The problem is, nine months later, we still don’t know for sure.

Dramatic hearings are expected today as Gregory Hicks ^[1], a State Department official who was on the ground in Libya during the 9/11 attack when four Americans died, talks to a House panel.

Some of his testimony from pre-hearing interviews with committee staff has already been released to the press. It includes claims that a Special Forces team that could have helped save lives and safeguard evidence and classified materials at the U.S. facility had been ordered to “stand down.” In addition, Hicks contends that from the outset, the ambassador’s team knew that they were under attack and reported that to Washington.

Hicks’s testimony follows a House Republican Conference report ^[2] and a detailed article on the “Benghazi Talking Points ^[3]” in The Weekly Standard that further call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration’s response.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that (1) the Administration bungled security before the incident; (2) the response to the assault was disjointed and inadequate; and (3) the Administration made a consistent and considerable effort to hide these facts.

The timeline ^[4] still does not add up.

That Hicks is only just now being allowed to testify before Congress reinforces concerns that the Administration continues to slow-roll the truth coming out. Yet the White House continues to stick to the increasingly incredulous line that it has been forthcoming at every step.

Just recently, the White House press spokesperson defended the State Department’s internal review ^[5] of the attack as “rigorous and unsparing ^[6],” even after the State Department Inspector General announced it is investigating the conduct of the panel ^[7] that produced the report.

Fundamental questions ^[8] about the security breakdown in Benghazi still have not been fully answered. With a White House that is still in denial about sharing the truth, it remains up to the Congress to press for answers and the press the Administration to take its responsibility of protecting our personnel overseas more seriously than protecting its political reputation at home.

The hearing will be streamed live here ^[9]beginning at 11:30 a.m. ET.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad ^[10].

Quick Hits:

• Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said yesterday that the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill sounds like another Obamacare ^[11].
• Gun crime in the U.S. is actually down substantially ^[12], but a new survey says more than half of Americans think it is up.
• The Hill reports that the Obamas had a “hush-hush, swanky, ultra-A-list party ^[13]” to celebrate the President’s second term that wasn’t listed on any inauguration schedules.
• South Korean President Park Geun-hye will address Congress in Washington today. Heritage’s Bruce Klingner wrote about the importance of her visit ^[14].
• At 8:30 a.m. ET on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” Heritage Vice President Derrick Morgan is discussing Heritage’s new study on the cost of amnesty. Tune in! ^[15]

---

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/08/morning-bell-ghosts-of-benghazi/

URLs in this post:

[1] Gregory Hicks: http://washingtonexaminer.com/meet-gregory-hicks-the-whistleblower-upsetting-obamas-benghazi-narrative/article/2528940?custom_click=rss

[2] report: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf

[3] Benghazi Talking Points: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html

[4] timeline: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

[5] State Department’s internal review: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

[6] rigorous and unsparing: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/297957-carney-benghazi-review-was-rigorous-and-unsparing

[7] investigating the conduct of the panel: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/02/report-state-departments-benghazi-review-panel-now-under-investigation/

[8] Fundamental questions: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/lessons-from-benghazi-investigation-leaves-important-questions-unanswered

[9] here : http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/benghazi-exposing-failure-and-recognizing-courage/

[10] Heritage Libertad: http://www.libertad.org/

[11] another Obamacare: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/rand_paul_on_rubios_immigration_plan_to_me_its_a_little_bit_like_obamacare.html

[12] down substantially: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

[13] hush-hush, swanky, ultra-A-list party: http://thehill.com/capital-living/cover-stories/298069-theres-no-party-like-a-white-house-party

[14] importance of her visit: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/05/07/use-south-korean-presidential-visit-to-affirm-the-bilateral-relationship/

[15] Tune in!: http://www.c-span.org/Journal/

 

 

PROGRESSIVES NOW WANT “PSYCHEDELIC MEDICINE”

PROGRESSIVES NOW WANT “PSYCHEDELIC MEDICINE”

By Cliff Kincaid
April 30, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

So-called “medical marijuana” apparently doesn’t cure all of their ailments. Now the progressives want easy access to “psychedelic medicine,” including LSD and Ecstasy.

alWorking with the George Soros-funded marijuana movement, which has achieved enormous “progress” in the various states, especially Colorado, a group called the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) is demanding acceptance of “psychedelics,” or mind-altering drugs that create hallucinations, to be accepted as “legal prescription drugs.”

Don’t laugh. Powerful and wealthy supporters of Barack Obama such as the late Ashawna Hailey, a transgender woman, have been among the noted backers of MAPS. She left her fortune to a slew of left-wing groups, including MAPS, Code Pink, and the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance.

A report on a MAPS-sponsored conference has just appeared on a left-wing website called AlterNet under the uplifting headline, “The Enormous Promise of Psychedelics for Sustaining Health, Happiness and Sanity.” The conference was actually titled, “Psychedelic Science 2013,” to give respectability to the use of illegal drugs. The Drug Policy Alliance was a “promotional partner,” along with such groups as the Psychedelic Society of San Francisco.

One presentation, “Communicating the Unspeakable: Linguistic Phenomena in the Psychedelic Sphere,” was about drugs which can “enable a broad and paradoxical spectrum of linguistic phenomena,” including “interior dialogues with the Other, whether framed as the voice of the Logos, an alien communication, or communion with ancestors and spirits…”

Bringing the subject back down to earth, their current project is to promote “the healing potential of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy on psychological and emotional damage caused by sexual assault, war, violent crime, and other traumas.” MDMA is another word for Ecstasy, a synthetic drug described as having amphetamine-like and hallucinogenic properties.

The promotion of an illegal drug for its alleged “medicinal” properties is the same scam used to set the stage for the legalization of marijuana in such states as Colorado, where “medical marijuana” is already out of control. Three people were shot during the 4/20 marijuana celebration in Denver.

Don’t think MAPS doesn’t have its friends on Capitol Hill. When the marijuana movement was taking off, then-Massachusetts Democratic Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, in 2007, sent a letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) urging the agency to approve a “medical marijuana production facility” that was to be under the sponsorship of MAPS. Later, 45 members of Congress signed a similar letter.

MAPS has now moved on to the “psychedelics.”

Although MDMA is classified as a drug with “high abuse potential and no recognized medicinal use,” CNN has favorably reported on the use of MDMA to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and quotes MAPS founder Rick Doblin as saying he’s working with the Defense Department in an effort to use the drug on active-duty troops. CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who was offered the job as surgeon general of the United States by President Obama, even narrated a story about a woman claiming relief from an experimental PTSD treatment using the drug MDMA.

Shawn Hailey, also known as Ashawna, supported Obama’s campaign for president and was a member of the MAPS Board of Directors. She passed away in 2011 and left $5.5 million to the organization. She made her money through high-tech companies in Silicon Valley and was a co-founder of Meta-Software Corporation, which was sold to Avanti Corporation in 1996.

She was also a strong supporter of the Marijuana Policy Project, the Soros-backed Drug Policy Alliance, Code Pink and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Actually, “she” was once a “he.” Shawn Hailey was born a man, but changed her gender to female and her name to Ashawna.

In total, she left over $10 million to the liberal-left. The Marijuana Policy Project used some of the money she left them to promote passage last November of the Colorado measure to legalize marijuana. I have previously written about all of the damage that marijuana-on-demand is already causing the people of Colorado.

A search of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records shows that under the name “Shawn Hailey,” she donated $20,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2008, $4,600 to Obama for president in 2007 and 2008, and $23,000 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2007. Another $30,000 went to the DNC in 2009 under the name “Ashawna Hailey.”

A photo of Hailey and Obama is on her memorial site. “Whether it was a morning board meeting, a lunch at Taco Bravo, a dinner with President Obama, or an all night dance, the sparkle of Ashawna will be missed and cherished by us all,” it says.

MAPS, the recipient of most of her largesse, sponsored a conference in 1990 featuring Timothy Leary, identified in literature from the event as the “psychedelic research pioneer,” but who was actually a charlatan who devoted much of his life to glamorizing LSD, marijuana, and other drugs. He eventually went to prison on illegal drug charges.

MAPS founder and executive director Rick Doblin once described himself to High Times magazine as an “LSD therapist,” after “having taken LSD rather often.” He took Leary’s advice to “turn on, tune in, drop out,” before going back to college and eventually starting MAPS in 1986. “His undergraduate thesis at New College of Florida was a 25-year follow-up to the classic Good Friday Experiment, which evaluated the potential of psychedelic drugs to catalyze religious experiences,” his bio says. He then completed a Ph.D. at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Indeed, according to a story about the “Good Friday Experiment,” which occurred in 1962, participants took hallucinogenic drugs and then attended a Good Friday worship service. They were later evaluated as to whether the drugs could produce “pseudo-mystical states.”

Doblin’s bio goes on, “His professional goal is to help develop legal contexts for the beneficial uses of psychedelics and marijuana, primarily as prescription medicines but also for personal growth for otherwise healthy people…”

The 1960s “New Left,” which became the Weathermen and the Weather Underground, was an outgrowth of this approach. Members of the Weather Underground were involved in arranging the escape from prison of Timothy Leary.

The book, The Harvard Psychedelic Club, discusses how the escape occurred and members of the Weather Underground “rendezvoused with the fugitive,” kept him hidden, then gave him a disguise and a false identity. “Timothy Leary was now ‘William John McNellis,’ a salesman from Salt Lake City,” the author writes. “After hiding out for a week in a farmhouse near Redding, California Leary made his way down to Utah to meet leaders of the Weather Underground, including Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadette [sic] Dohrn. They created ‘William McNellis’ with a forged birth certificate, Social Security card, and hunting license-paper that required no preexisting photo.”

After his escape, Leary had released a message through Bernardine Dohrn’s sister urging communist revolutionaries to “turn on” and continue a campaign of violence and terrorism.

Bernardine Dohrn, who praised the drug-crazed Charles Manson gang killers, herself issued a statement on September 15, 1970, saying:

“Dr. Leary was being held against his will and against the will of millions of kids in this country. He was a political prisoner, captured for the work he did in helping all of us begin the task of creating a new culture on the barren wasteland that has been imposed on this country by Democrats, Republicans, Capitalists and creeps.

“LSD and grass, like the herbs and cactus and mushrooms of the American Indians and countless civilizations that have existed on this planet, will help us make a future world where it will be possible to live in peace.“Now we are at war.”

The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee decided to look into this matter because of the implications for national and internal security and examined evidence that subversive groups played a significant role in the spread of the drug epidemic—both as propagandists and as traffickers.

The subtitle of the Harvard Psychedelic Club refers to how Timothy Leary and his collaborators “ushered in a New Age for America.” It is coming to pass under Obama, thanks to his transgendered backer.

---

Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One of Cliff’s books, “Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World” is still awailable.

Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.

Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc.

E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org

 

Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming

- The Daily Caller - http://dailycaller.com -

Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 10:42 AM 04/26/2013 In Daily Caller News Foundation | No Comments

Despite the heated rhetoric from the Obama administration and environmental groups about the urgency of global warming, climate scientists have begun to come to terms with the lack of evidence of catastrophic global warming over the last decade.

“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Establishment media outlets have been reporting about the unexpected stabilizing global surface temperatures over at least the last decade, and even former NASA scientist and environmental activist James Hansen has recognized the decade-long lull.

This has frustrated some environmentalists who recently sent a letter to major news networks urging them to have more coverage on global warming, and to stop portraying the issue as a “two-sided debate” by featuring global warming skeptics.

“The divergence of the real world observations from the multi-decadal climate predictions, both in terms of forecasting the magnitude of global warming and of changes in regional climate, is finally initiating a much overdue scientific debate on the level of our knowledge of the climate system,” Pielke added. “While there is no doubt that humans are altering the climate system, it is in a diverse variety of ways besides that caused by adding greenhouse gases such as C02.”

Pielke said that climate scientists are beginning to recognize that the natural climate forces and feedbacks play a larger role than previously thought.

“This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn’t tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before,” said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Fox News.

“The mainstream media cannot maintain the official man-made global warming narrative any longer,” Marc Morano of the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot.com told TheDC News Foundation. “With the lack of warming and the failure to shift the climate debate to ‘extreme weather,’ warmists are now losing once stalwart members of the media in promoting man-made climate fears.”

A study by Norwegian researchers from earlier this year found that global warming is less severe than was predicted by the United Nations climate authority. In fact, studies have been lowering their warming forecasts since the 2007 UN estimate.

In a Washington Times op-ed, Cato Institute climate scholar Patrick Michaels provides a partial list of studies that have made estimates lower than the UN:

“Richard Lindzen gives a range of 0.6 to 1.0 C (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2011); Andreas Schmittner, 1.4 to 2.8 C (Science, 2011); James Annan, using two techniques, 1.2 to 3.6 C and 1.3 to 4.2 C (Climatic Change, 2011); J.H. van Hateren, 1.5 to 2.5 C (Climate Dynamics, 2012); Michael Ring, 1.5 to 2.0 C (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012); and Julia Hargreaves, including cooling from dust, 0.2 to 4.0 C and 0.8 to 3.6 C (Geophysical Research Letters, 2012).”

“It’s appropriate to jump off a ship when it begins to take on water,” Michaels said. “If you look at the monthly temperature anomalies from the University of East Anglia you see no significant trend in any direction going back to the fall of 1996 which would put us at 17 years of no trend.”

“These are not good times for the promoters of global warming,” said Morano. “Earth is failing to follow global warming predictions and the new study claiming current temperatures are the ‘hottest ever’ may be facing a full scientific retraction. The great warmist retreat has officially begun.”

However, environmental groups were encouraged earlier this year when President Obama promised to address global warming during his second term, threatening executive action if Congress failed to pass legislation on the issue.

“We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence,” Obama said in his State of the Union Address. “Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late.”

Green groups may have a reason to be optimistic as a Gallup poll from March found that 58 percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 51 percent in 2011.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

---

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/climate-scientists-come-to-terms-with-the-lack-of-global-warming/

 

The Supreme Court, Gay Parenting and Science (Part 2)

What does science say about intact, biological, married parenting?

By Napp Nazworth , Christian Post Reporter

April 3, 2013|12:41 pm

 Correction Appended

While little is understood about children raised by gay or lesbian couples, there are a host of studies showing that children do better when raised by intact biological married parents. Plus, there is some preliminary research suggesting that children raised by gay or lesbian couples may not do as well as those raised by their married mother and father.

Part one of this series noted that researchers are at least two decades away from being able to reliably measure the health and well-being outcomes of children raised by gay or lesbian couples, despite what the American Sociological Association argued in an amicus brief for one of the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases on gay marriage. The phenomenon of same-sex parenting has only recently become socially acceptable and widespread enough to begin gathering reliable data. Researchers require large random samples that include same-sex parents. Plus, they need time for these children of same-sex parents to grow up, so they can compare their well-being to those not raised by same-sex parents.

It was also pointed out that most of the current studies of same-sex parents showing no difference between same-sex and heterosexual parents, or that same-sex parents did better, relied upon small, non-random, non-representative samples, which are not considered reliable by the standards of scientific research.

While same-sex parenting is too new for researchers to draw any conclusions about its impact on children, other forms of parenting are not new. Researchers have been able to draw conclusions about the well-being of children raised by other family structures – widowed parents, divorced parents, dual custody parents, co-habiting but not married parents, adoptive parents, and parents who have re-married or had multiple marriages, for instance. All of these different family structures can be compared to the traditional family structure – couples who get married, make babies and stay married.

Those raised by parents in a traditional family structure enjoy better physical health, fewer psychological problems and less mental illness, and lower rates of alcohol and drug abuse. They are also less likely to go to jail, more likely to graduate from high school, more likely to attend college and more likely to finish college if they do attend. These findings are consistent even when controlling for other factors, such as race, education and income. 

(For a summary of the research in this area, see Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, which was written by a team of 18 scholars and chaired by W. Bradford Wilcox, associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia.)

These findings have been so consistent that they are widely accepted among liberals and conservatives alike. President Barack Obama, for instance, has spoken often about the importance of fathers in the lives of their children. The Obama White House has also promoted Fatherhood.gov, whose mission is to “to provide, facilitate, and disseminate current research, proven and innovative strategies that will encourage and strengthen fathers and families.”

While most of the research on gay parenting relies upon small non-random samples, one recent study did use a large random sample. The New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas at Austin used a random sample of 15,000 Americans between 18 and 39 and asked them if their mother or father ever had a same-sex relationship. They interviewed further those who answered “yes.” This resulted in a sample of 248 – a small sample, but still much larger than most previous studies on the topic. Results from the study were published by principal researcher Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research.

Regnerus found that those who reported that their parents had a same-sex relationship were more likely to report being less healthy, more depressed, and unemployed. They had more sex partners, more sexual victimization, were more likely to have smoked marijuana and ran afoul of the law, and to reflect negatively on their childhood.

As one might expect, given that it cut against the deeply held views about homosexuality among sociologists, a field where liberals are strongly represented, Regnerus’ work generated some controversy. Typically in academia, professors respond to research they disagree with by publishing more and better research showing why the offending research is wrong. Regnerus’ critics chose a different path. They accused him of academic misconduct and asked the president of UT-Austin to sanction him.

There are limitations to Regnerus’ work, to be sure. For instance, to get a large enough sample, he collapsed several categories of same-sex parents – those who had a short-term same-sex tryst but were heterosexual most of their lives are in the same category as a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship. Regnerus freely admits the study’s limitations. He does not expect it to be the final word on the topic. Rather, he views the study as a first step in a long-term project.

So the Regnerus study is inconclusive about gay parenting, but it does raise doubts about the earlier studies using small non-random samples showing “no difference” in the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents. Additionally, unlike the authors of many of those studies, Regnerus is not asking courts and policy makers to use his study as the basis of public policy decisions regarding gay parenting, only that his study should bring doubts to the claim of “no difference” between gay parents and intact biological parents.

An amicus brief filed by Regnerus and six other social scientists for the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with gay marriage, therefore concluded that while science does not know enough about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents, the science is conclusive about married heterosexual parents.

“The social science of same-sex parenting structures remains young,” they wrote, “and subject to significant limitations about what can be known, given that the influence of household structures and experiences on child outcomes is not a topic for experimental research design. But those analyses that employ large, population-based samples continue to document differences, in contrast to contrary scholarly claims. With so many significant outstanding questions about whether children develop as well in same-sex households as in opposite-sex households, it remains prudent for government to continue to recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman, thereby promoting what is known to be an ideal environment for raising children.”

Correction: April 5, 2013:

An article from April 3, 2013 incorrectly stated that the National Fatherhood Initiative was begun by President Barack Obama. The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, or Fatherhood.gov, a different organization, was founded in 2005 and reauthorized by the Obama administration in 2010.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-supreme-court-gay-parenting-and-science-part-2-93148/#h4cUmxA7cTvdU5SL.99

Blather, Rinse, Repeat

• BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
• April 9, 2013

Obama perseverates again. Meanwhile, cops don’t think much of his antigun ideas.

By JAMES TARANTO

The guys at CBS News have a sense of humor. The Web headline on their story about President Obama’s antigun speech yesterday in Hartford, Conn., reads: “Obama on Gun Debate: ‘This Isn’t About Me.’ ” That reminded someone on Twitter of the same network’s headline from July 20, 2009: “Obama on Health Care: ‘This Isn’t About Me.’ ”

Try to imagine how soul-ravishingly tedious an Obama speech would be if it wereabout him. We dare you.

Obama’s speech, at once demagogic and pathetic, reminded us of Mayor Michael Nutter’s efforts to censor a different kind of magazine, which we noted last month. Like Nutter, Obama is seeking to restrain law-abiding individuals from exercising their constitutional rights in ways the liberal left disapproves. And like Nutter’s effort, Obama’s is unlikely to succeed.

Here’s an example of the president’s demagogy:

Ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. Think about that. How often do 90% of Americans agree on anything? And yet, 90% agree on this–Republicans, Democrats, folks who own guns, folks who don’t own guns; 80% of Republicans, more than 80% of gun owners, more than 70% of NRA households. It is common sense.

And yet, there is only one thing that can stand in the way of change that just about everybody agrees on, and that’s politics in Washington. You would think that with those numbers Congress would rush to make this happen. That’s what you would think. If our democracy is working the way it’s supposed to, and 90% of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy you’d think this would not be a heavy lift.

And yet, some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms. Think about that. They’re not just saying they’ll vote “no” on ideas that almost all Americans support. They’re saying they’ll do everything they can to even prevent any votes on these provisions. They’re saying your opinion doesn’t matter. And that’s not right.

At this point, the audience boos, and Obama leads them in a chant of “We want a vote!” So let’s see if we have this straight: 90% of the public agrees with Obama’s position, yet it can’t get a vote because opponents are playing politics? One or the other of these statements may be true, or both may be false, but they can’t both be true.

Now, this column strongly opposes all Obama’s gun-control proposals, but we’re with our colleague Kim Strassel in thinking Senate Republicans are foolish to try to prevent votes on them. Why not put red-state Democrats like Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich and Joe Manchin on the spot by making them vote on each and every antigun proposal? As Strassel notes, the GOP can always filibuster later, if there’s a danger of an actual bill going to the floor–or, if the Senate approves something, they can kill it in the House.

Obama uttered one of the worst lines in the history of presidential oratory yesterday: “This is about these families and families all across the country who are saying let’s make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.”

“Let’s make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down”? What a bizarre thing to imagine anyone saying. No doubt lots of parents, upon hearing of school shootings, react with fright at the thought that the victims could have been anyone’s children, including their own. Surely for most rational adults that feeling quickly passes, given that the odds of such a thing happening are minuscule. But who would say, with that creepy detachment, “Let’s make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down”? Only an exceedingly cynical politician.

Still, let’s put aside the ghoulish tone of that remark and give the substance its due. We suspect that for Obama and most of his supporters, the burdens his proposals would impose on law-abiding citizens are an argument for, not against, them. But of course they make their case by pointing to the alleged benefits: that the proposals would “make it a little harder” for would-be violent criminals.

Columnist Kim Strassel on the gun control legislation that is likely to emerge from the Senate this week. Photo: Getty Images

Would they? We doubt it, but one can only speculate. But PoliceOne.com has some speculation from a source some would regard as especially authoritative: police officers: “More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.”

Among the findings:

• Asked if a federal ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime, only 2.7% said yes, to 95.7% no.

• Only 7.6% thought a ban on so-called assault weapons would reduce violent crime; 71% thought it wouldn’t help, and 20.5% thought it would aggravate the problem.

• On the more general question of what effect the White House’s suite of gun restrictions would have on the safety of police officers, only 11.6% said it would help; 60.6% thought it would have no effect, and 24.6% thought it would make cops less safe.

• Asked what the likely outcome would have been at Aurora and Newtown had a legally armed civilian been on the scene, 80% said it would have meant fewer casualties and 6.2% said it would have prevented casualties altogether. Only 5.5% said it would have led to greater loss of life.

• Asked which measure would help most in preventing large-scale public shootings, a plurality (28.8%) said more-permissive concealed-carry policies for civilians. The second and third choices were also not on the Obama agenda: more-aggressive institutionalization of the mentally ill (19.6%) and more armed guards (15.8%). Only then do we get improved background screening for gun purchasers, (14%), followed by longer prison terms for gun-related violent crimes (7.9%). Bringing up the rear were tighter limits on weapons sales (1.5%) and legislative restrictions on “assault weapons” and magazines (0.9%).

The cops in the survey did lean toward supporting two measures: 58.8% said they thought harsher punishment for gun trafficking (including the use of “straw purchasers”) would reduce gun crime, and 56.7% thought lawful gun purchasers should be required to complete a safety course before buying at least some weapons.

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns,” Obama’s onetime University of Chicago colleague John Lott quotes him as having said during the 1990s. During his speech yesterday Obama paid lip service to the Second Amendment, but the Lott quote, whose authenticity we are inclined to trust, sounds believable. Given Obama’s social and political milieu, it would be astonishing if he really did believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

At any rate, while we don’t always trust the police, we’re inclined to give their views more weight on this subject than those of a leftist politician, even one who managed to make it to the White House.

Democrats Begin to Fear Super Obama

Posted 14 Hours Ago by Gary DeMar Filed under Christianity, Constitution, Politics, Religion

“President Barack Obama’s decision to launch his own political organization has some Democrats wondering: Is he just in it for himself?”

Welcome to the Fear Super Obama club. The Frankenstein story comes to mind. Beware what you create; the monster might turn on you.

Of course Obama is in it for himself. He’s waited decades to get back at the United States.

President Obama has created Organizing for Action, an organization that “will focus on his policy agenda – not on electing Democratic candidates – by raising unlimited amounts of cash and accessing the president’s secret list of 20 million supporters, volunteers and donors.”

Here’s the kicker. The newly formed organization “won’t share money, resources or the priceless Obama email list with the Democratic National Committee or campaign committees that help elect members of Congress, governors and legislators.”

Supporters of Obama “worry that it will take money and manpower away from the party as it heads into the 2014 elections for control of Congress.”

Obama is looking beyond 2016. He’s beginning to believe what his followers believe about him, that he’s the people’s savior. He’s nothing of the sort. But they believe he is, and that’s all that matters. It’s not surprising that an Adolf Hitler or a Hugo Chavez could come to power by the will of the people when we read stories like the following:

“Appearing on Sunday night’s Soul Train awards in Las Vegas, Oscar-winning actor Jamie Foxx called Barack Obama ‘our lord and savior.’

“‘It’s like church over here. It’s like church in here. First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama. Barack Obama,’ he said.”

It’s been said that the rejection of one God only results in the creation of another God. For decades the State has been liberalism’s God.

Consider these god-like attributions of Obama:

“Since the 2008 election, several have attempted to deify Barack Obama.

“ABC’s Jake Tapper noticed the messianic tone of Obama’s first presidential campaign and wrote: ‘It’s as if Tom Daschle descended from on high saying, “Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat.”’

“In November 2010, Newsweek declared him ‘god of all things’ on its cover, and first lady Michele Obama once declared of her husband: ‘This President has brought us out of the dark and into the light.’

“During the 2012 Democratic National Convention, a poster was sold that called Obama ‘Prophecy fulfilled,’ and a calendar sold at the event appeared to compare Obama to Jesus Christ.

“Most recently, a book written by Florida A&M professor Barbara A. Taylor called Obama an ‘apostle’ sent by God to create a political heaven on earth. According to the professor, God told her this in her dreams.”

Obama’s self-delusion and that of his followers remind me of King Herod and Roman Emperor Domitian:

“On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. The people kept crying out, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man! And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died’” (Acts 12:21–23).

Domitian was declared to be Dominus et Deus — “Lord and God.” Democrats have created a monster that they will not be able to control.

The Democrats will need Super Obama and his war chest of they are to elect Hillary in 2016. But what will it cost them?

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10174/democrats-begin-to-fear-superobama/#ixzz2PMvMQIUV

WHY THE “BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT” IS A HOAX AND A DEADLY TRAP

WHY THE “BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT” IS A HOAX AND A DEADLY TRAP

 

By Publius Huldah
March 2, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

You can not responsibly support a proposed Amendment to Our Constitution unless you have read and understand the proposal and how it would change our Constitution. You must look behind the nice sounding name! Will the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) really ”reign in” the federal government? Will it really ”show them” that they have to balance their budget the same as we do?

Or does it actually legalize spending which is now unconstitutional? Is itactually a massive grant of new constitutional powers to the President and the federal courts – a grant which will cut the Heart out of The Constitution our Framers gave us?

Amending the Constitution is serious business – and you are morally bound to get informed before you jump on The Amendment Bandwagon.

So, lay aside your giddy joy at the fact that all 47 U.S. Senate Republicans are co-sponsoring the Balanced Budget Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 10 (March 31, 2011). Let’s go through it. What you believe the BBA will do, and what it will actually do, are two very different things indeed.

But First: How Did We Get a National Debt of $14.4 Trillion?

Congress gave us a debt of $14.4 trillion which increases at the rate of $4 billion a day. Let us look at a few of the items which comprise this $14.4 trillion debt: Congress spent $2.6 million to teach Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly. Congress appropriates $147 million a year to subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers. Congress spent $3.6 million to fund a study of thesex lives of dope-smoking, menstruating monkeys. Congress paid $500,000to paint a salmon on an Alaska Airlines passenger jet. Congress appropriates$6.9 billion a year for the National Science Foundation where they fund such research as that which revealed the amazing fact that sick shrimp do not perform as well on stamina tests as do healthy shrimp.[1] Citizens Against Government Waste’s pig book shows Congress spent $16,547,558,748. on pork projects last year. In Sen. Tom Coburn’s Waste Book 2010, which lists 100 spending projects, he shows that $1.5 million was spent to spruce up apartments in Shreveport, La. before they were torn down.

All this spending – every penny of it – and trillions more which is not here listed – has one thing in common: It is all unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution. Congress has no constitutional authority to spend money on these projects. So! It was Congress’ unconstitutional spending which put us in the mess we are in today.

What Does Our Constitution Permit Congress To Spend Money On?

WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Constitution wherein the powers WE delegated to the federal government are limited and defined – “enumerated”. Read the list at Art. I, Sec. 8! Basically, all WE gave Congress authority to do for the Country at large is international relations, commerce & war; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system (weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a money system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & road building.) Some Amendments authorize Congress to make laws protecting civil rights. That’s about it, Folks! The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully appropriate funds is short. The only significant authorized expense is the military. James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, said in Federalist No. 45 (9th para):

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface added]

Note that Madison contemplated that the federal government would be financed in large part by taxation on foreign commerce. That is because the constitutional powers of the federal government are so limited & defined! The States and the People are to handle everything else.

Do you now see that Our Constitution does not authorize Congress to pay for a museum for neon signs ($5.2 million), to archive memorabilia for a rock group ($615,000), or to post poems in zoos ($997,766.)? [See Sen. Coburn's Waste Book 2010]. Congress has no lawful authority to do most of what they do. They just do it because they want to, they have been doing it for a long time, and WE haven’t known enough to stop them. Our $14.4 trillion debt was caused by Congress’ spending in thousands of areas where they have no constitutional authority to spend.

Is the BBA Really the Solution?

So! These 47 Senate Republicans (and some in the House) are showing you how much they now “care” about fiscal responsibility by supporting the BBA.But think: Why don’t they control their spending now? The Republicans control the House - NO spending can get through the House unless the Republicans approve it. So if the Republicans really wanted to control spending and balance the budget, they could do it now. Why don’t they do it? Because they don’t want to.

Furthermore, the BBA they support with such broad smiles and glib promises of future fiscal responsibility, doesn’t make them control their spending. Instead, it would legalize spending which is now unlawfuland would markedly increase the powers of the federal government. And it would do nothing to reduce spending. In short, the BBA is a Scam and a Terrible Trick.

What Would We Get From the BBA ?

In plain English, this is what the 10 Sections of the BBA mean [but read it yourself - it's very short]:

Section 1: They won’t spend more than they take in unless they vote to spend more than they take in.

Section 2: They won’t spend more than 18% of the GDP unless they vote to spend more than 18% of the GDP.

Section 3: The President will write the budget: He will designate the taxes, and what the money will be spent on. He won’t spend more than he decides to tax you for, and he won’t spend more than 18% of the GDP. The GDP is a computation made by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce, an agency under the control of the President. [Do you see? The President controls the agency which computes the number which limits his spending.]

Section 4: Congress won’t make a law raising your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes.

Section 5: Congress won’t raise the debt limit unless they vote to raise the debt limit.

Sections 6 & 7: Congress can waive the above provisions of the BBA (except for Sec. 4 which says they can’t raise your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes) when there is a declared war or a “military conflict” which they think justifies their waiving the above provisions of the BBA.

Section 8: Courts can’t order your taxes to be raised. [But you can bet your life that this section, together with section 3, will be seen to authorize the President to order that your taxes be raised.]

Section 9: I leave this to others to explain. But be assured the President’s minions will define stuff however he wants; make stuff “off-budget” or “on-budget” to fit his agenda.

Section 10: Congress can make laws to enforce the BBA, and can rely on numbers provided by the President who is to be given constitutional authority to order tax increases & decide how to spend the money.

So! Do you see? You get no benefit from the BBA. But it will cause us irreparable harm.

How Would the BBA Cut the Heart Out of Our Constitution?

1. It would Transform Our Constitution From One of Enumerated Spending Powers To One of General (“Unlimited”) Spending Powers.

Congress’ Powers are Enumerated. Thus, the objects on which Congress may lawfully appropriate funds are limited to those listed in the Constitution. Congress has ignored the limitations on its powers for many decades – but at least the limitations are still in the Constitution, to be invoked if We The People ever repent.[2]

But the BBA, by ignoring the unconstitutional objects of Congress’ spending, and by merely limiting the amount of such spending to 18% of the GDP & the taxes the President assesses, repeals the enumerated powers aspect of our Constitution. Furthermore, if Congress limited its appropriations to its enumerated powers, they could not possibly spend a sum as vast as 18% of the GDP. Thus, the BBA is clear intention to repeal the enumerated powers, and transform the federal government into one of general and unlimited powers.

Congress’ idiotic spending is now unlawful & unconstitutional. But with the BBA, it would become lawful & constitutional, as long as the total spending doesn’t exceed the limits (unless they waive the limits). With the BBA, it will become lawful for them to appropriate funds for whatever the President (who will write the budget) says![3]

2. The BBA Transfers Control of the “Purse” from Congress to the President.

The federal government didn’t even have a budget until Congress passed theBudget and Accounting Act of 1921. That “law” purported to grant budget making power (taxes & appropriations) to the President.

But the Budget Act of 1921 is unconstitutional: The Constitution places the taxing & appropriations powers squarely in the hands of Congress - not the Executive Branch; and contrary to the beliefs of indoctrinated lawyers, Congress may not “amend” the Constitution by making a law.[4]

Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, grants to Congress the Power to lay and collect Taxes; and Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to Congress the Power to make the appropriations:

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Accordingly, for most of our history, Congress made appropriations as the need arose; determined the taxes, and kept records of both. [See Bruce Bartlett's excellent history of the appropriations process.]

Our Framers gave us an elegant system of separated powers, whereCongress commands the purse - not the Executive Branch and not the Judicial Branch! In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton outlines this separation of powers:

“…The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules … The judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society…”[5]

In Federalist No. 58 (4th para from end) Madison explains why the House alone is granted power to propose taxes (Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 1): To protectThe People from overreaching by the other branches of the federal government:

“…The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the pursethat powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may … be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance…”

Ponder Hamilton’s and Madison’s words. You must understand what they are saying if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic. Otherwise, the BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship.

Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful.

But Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will become a rubber stamp.

Now look at this pretty little snare: Section 8 of the proposed BBA says:

“No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.” [emphasis added]

Our Constitution does not grant to courts any power to “order” tax increases. So why does Sec. 8 of the BBA say they can’t do it?

It’s a trap! There is an ancient maxim of legal construction which goes like this: “The Expression of One Thing is the Exclusion of Another“:

“An implied exclusion argument lies whenever there is reason to believe that if the legislature had meant to include a particular thing within the ambit of its legislation, it would have referred to that thing expressly. Because of this expectation, the legislature’s failure to mention the thing becomes grounds for inferring that it was deliberately excluded. Although there is no express exclusion, exclusion is implied. …” [emphasis added]

Why does Sec. 8 of the BBA exclude the President? From this exclusion, one may reasonably infer that the intent of Sec. 8 is to permit the President to order tax increases. If the BBA is ratified, you can be sure that Presidents will claim power under Sec. 8 of the BBA to order tax increases. That inference is strengthened by the fact that Sec. 3 of the BBA transfers constitutional power over the Budget to the President.

So! The BBA surrenders the purse to the President! Our Framers understood the danger of having the sword & the purse held by one person. That is why our Constitution provides for Congress to make the decisions on taxes & appropriations; and, as pointed out in Federalist No. 72(1st para), the President is to apply and disburse “the public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature.”

With the BBA, Congress’ sole remaining constitutional function over taxing & spending will be to rubberstamp the dictates of the President.

3. The BBA grants judicial power over taxing & spending to the federal courts.

Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 states: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution.”

If the BBA is ratified, it will become an Amendment to the Constitution which is subject to the judicial authority of the federal courts.

You say the BBA won’t transfer power over the purse to the President? You say Congress won’t become a mere rubberstamp whose sole remaining function over taxing & appropriations is to enact into law the dictates of the President?

Who will decide? Since this would be an issue “arising under the Constitution,” the supreme Court will decide. The Judicial Branch – a branch which Hamilton took care to point out should have no power whatsoever over The Purse.

And so five (5) people on the supreme Court will decide an issue which goes to the heart of our Constitution – an issue which the People clamoring for the BBA don’t even know exists. And remember: Our supreme Court is filled with fallen people who looked at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and said it means that women may kill their babies. They looked at the 1st Amendment and said it means that Congress may regulate political speech, and courts may ban Christian speech in the public square, but it gives Westboro “baptists” a “right” to spew their filth & hate at private funerals of dead American heroes.

If the BBA is ratified, do you really want five (5) of those judges deciding this issue?[6]

What is the Solution to The Financial Plight Congress has put us in?

We have 47 Republican U.S. Senators who don’t understand [or do they?] the ramifications of the BBA which some of them (most notably Senators Jim De Mint & Mike Lee) are determined to cram down our throats. Many supposedly conservative talk show hosts & pundits (most notablyRedstate.com) are carrying their water. Whether these people are fools or tyrants, I do not know. But you must learn that you can not trust anybody. You must insist that people prove what they say!

Oh my People! The grinning politicians who promise you “fiscal responsibility” with their BBA will actually strip you of the protections of Our Constitution. Their BBA will legalize a totalitarian dictatorship. Do not be deceived by them – they are leading you astray, and their BBA will destroy us.WE THE PEOPLE must reclaim our glorious Heritage. We must find & support candidates who understand the Constitution, obey it, and agree to work to dismantle the unconstitutional federal apparatus. We can eliminate the trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending by restoring constitutional government. In an orderly fashion, we can dismantle the multitude of offices and agencies and departments of the last 100 years which harass us and eat out our sustenance.

Oh you Proponents of this thoroughly Evil Scheme: I throw my glove in your face: Show me, if you can, where I am wrong. Or rethink it.

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

Footnotes:

1. Our Constitution does not authorize Congress to fund scientific research. Congress’ only power in the areas of the arts and sciences is to issue patents and copyrights (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8). If Congress obeyed Our Constitution and stopped funding “scientific” research, the proponents of these idiotic studies would have to do something useful instead of sucking at the taxpayers’ teat.
2. We must repent of our desire to live at other peoples’ expense. This is the contradiction which undermines the Tea Party. Many don’t want a constitutional government of limited & enumerated powers. They just want to eliminate funding for programs they don’t like. They want their social security, their Medicare, their government retirement pensions, their perks. I beg each of you who is now living at other peoples’ expense: Are you willing to sacrifice your grandchildren so that you can keep your handouts? Or will you accept an orderly & gradual dismantlement of the unconstitutional “entitlement” programs?
3. Are you aware that federal executive agencies are forming their own SWAT teams? Are you aware that DHS is federalizing our local police and using their fusion centers to turn them into a national secret police – America’s version of the STAZI? Building Obama’s “civilian national security force” which is “just as powerful just as strong just as well funded as the military” takes money. Lots of it! The BBA will permit the President to write into the Budget the funding needed to build this armed force; and it will be under his sole & personal control.
4. Article V sets forth the exclusive methods of amending The Constitution.
5. In Federalist No. 26, Hamilton addresses how Congress is to determine (after public deliberations) the appropriations for the military; and warns that the President must never be given power over the purse respecting armed forces:

“The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision [Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 12], once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence….” (9th para) [capitals are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

“It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature….” (12th para)

Do you see that Hamilton warned us not to trust the President with power to determine the funding for the armed forces? Learn from Hamilton & Madison. Or perish.

6. If the President disagrees with the supreme Court’s decision, he – who would, thanks to the BBA, hold both the sword & the purse – could ignore it with impunity.

© 2013 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Publius Huldah is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h

E-Mail: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Chavez: Holding the President’s Men Accountable

By Linda Chavez March 2, 2013 6:27 am

en one of Washington’s most distinguished journalists — Bob Woodward — accuses the White House of rewriting history, even liberals should take note. And when the White House responds by threatening him, you would think the story would become a national scandal. What makes the story even more important is that it deals with an issue that has dominated the news in recent weeks: the Draconian budget cuts that will take effect on March 1 unless a last-minute deal is reached in Congress.

Woodward has accused the White House of misrepresenting the president’s role in creating the plan to cut $1.2 trillion from the budget over the next decade. In his book “The Price of Politics,” Woodward describes in detail how the idea for the sequester came about. Writing in The Washington Post on Feb. 22, Woodward said that “the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of (then Office of Management and Budget Director Jack) Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.” Woodward not only names the individuals involved, but also gives exact timelines for when the discussions took place and how the final agreement came about.

Woodward’s complaint is not only that the White House is trying to place sole responsibility for coming up with the idea of the automatic cuts on Republicans, but also that it has now demanded that Republicans accept tax increases as a part of any deal, which was explicitly rejected when the deal was cut. “So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made,” he says.

Careful reporter that he is, Woodward phoned Gene Sperling, chief economic adviser to the president, before the article was to be published to get his version of events. But the phone call didn’t go well, according to Woodward. Sperling reportedly yelled at him for most of the conversation and then followed up with an email apologizing for raising his voice but also doing something far worse. The email, reprinted in Politico this week, shows Sperling threatening Woodward.

“I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying … that Potus (president of the United States) asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.”

Such ominous remarks coming from the president’s economic adviser are meant to intimidate. Reporters — even one as famous as Woodward — need access to pursue stories. And if a top White House official lets it be known that a reporter is persona non grata in the White House, the message goes out to others not to talk.

Worse, it is an example of this White House’s imperious style — one that hearkens back to another presidency with which Bob Woodward is all too familiar.

Woodward became a national figure as a young man reporting on the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation. Woodward’s bestselling book, “All the President’s Men,” is a chilling account of what happens when the people surrounding the president decide that protecting their boss is more important than upholding the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, which each of them takes.

In the case of the Nixon White House, the corruption emanated from the Oval Office. Woodward is not accusing President Obama of directing his men (and they are mostly men) to try to squelch legitimate journalistic inquiry — but if the president is not at fault, he has an obligation to clear the record. And Obama is doing just the opposite.

In the days leading up to the automatic cuts, the president has been out campaigning against Republicans, laying on their shoulders full blame for failing to reach a deal. But it is the president who has rewritten the terms of the agreement reached in 2011.

Sperling’s threat against a senior journalist was not made in a vacuum: It is an attempt to cover up the president’s own dissembling. The only cure is for the president to admit his misstatements and hold accountable those who would flaunt their power to keep the truth from emerging.

—

Linda Chavez is the author of “An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.” To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

 

Obama’s sequester deal-changer

Back to previous page

---

By Bob Woodward, Published: February 22

Bob Woodward (woodwardb@washpost.com) is an associate editor of The Post. His latest book is “The Price of Politics.” Evelyn M. Duffy contributed to this column.

Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lew’s nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew about the account in my book: “Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?”

“It’s a little more complicated than that,” Lew responded, “and even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States.”

“Did you make the suggestion?” Burr asked.

“Well, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator [Phil] Gramm and Senator [Warren] Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action.”

In other words, yes.

But then Burr asked about the president’s statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it.

Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: “Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.”

That statement was not accurate.

On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach” that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.

“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

This was an acknowledgment that the president and Lew had been wrong.

Why does this matter?

First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

Read more from PostOpinions: Bob Woodward: Time for our leaders to delegate on the budget Robert J. Samuelson: The lowdown on Lew Jennifer Rubin: Jack Lew’s truth problem Eugene Robinson: The sequester madness

© The Washington Post Company

ATF vs THE CONSTITUTION

ATF vs THE CONSTITUTION

 

By Michael LeMieux
February 6, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

In the United States, under a republican form of government, power is divided between the states and the central government. Within the central government, as is within the states, that power is further sub-divided between branches of the government. All of these government organizations have charters or documents that govern what power they have and the boundaries each organization must adhere to. The fundamental document outlining these powers and duties are the constitutions for their respective governments. Any action by these organizations that does not have a basis within their founding constitutions is unconstitutional and therefore constitutionally illegal.

In this article we will be dealing primarily with gun laws and the primary organization of the central government that enforces national gun laws the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The main areas I wish to present are the historical evolution of the ATF, their constitutional footing, and whether national gun laws are truly constitutional.

Evolution of the ATF:

The enactment of “firearms laws” is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1938 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code – “Commerce and Trade.” The new “laws” under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Many people felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.

From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”. However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.

In 1968 the “Gun Control Act” was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government’s lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms.” Doesn’t that title sound allot like Chapter 15 Commerce and Trade? In fact even today the firearms laws deal, for the most part, in taxing control. Machine guns falling under the firearms control act are still legal to own if you do the background check and pay a $200.00 “tax stamp” fee.

However, the stated purpose of the act is as written states:

“Title I – State Firearms Control Assistance

Purpose

“Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.”

To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and void. And as a good friend of mine, Dave Champion, said “Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its “intentions” or its “goals”, but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.”

So, in 1934 we have a “revenue” tax scheme that charges $200.00 for the sale or transfer of a machinegun, a short barreled rifle/shotgun, or a silencer. What was the net effect of this “revenue” tax scheme? It all but completely eviscerated these businesses, put people out of work, and resulted in a drop in tax revenue on the legitimate sales of these items. In 1934 a silencer could be purchased for 5-20 dollars at your local hardware store. But who would pay a $200.00 tax on a 5 dollar item. Many towns had shooting ranges in the city limits and required silencers to keep noise down for local residents. Most shooters could afford the $200 tax stamp so these businesses closed as well. So as a “revenue” scheme the Firearms Act was a complete bust unless you look at the evolutionary progress of the ATF in its expansion to control not only the firearms industry but also to become national crime fighters as well.

The ATF evolved from an arm of the IRS under title 15 “Commerce” to now being a part of the Department of Justice under title 18 “Crimes and Punishment.” I ask once again – under what constitutional authority? At least under title 15 the central government had a nexus to commerce as they originally only involved those individuals and businesses that were in the firearms trade. Today, however, someone who only possesses an item can be put in jail for not asking permission and paying tribute, even when they are not “in the business” of manufacturing or selling firearms.

There is no constitutional authority for the ATF as they are currently organized and only very limited constitutional authority as originally organized. As congress can only legally legislate those areas to which the states have seceded, as outlined in Article 1, section 8, all other laws are, by their very definition, unconstitutional. But because the government has the power of creating law they can enforce even unconstitutional laws – it does not make them right it only makes them wrong with a gun.

The concept of natural inherent rights within the body of the people is unique to the United States. All other countries today endow their citizens with varying degrees of “rights” and privilege. Our founding precepts are espoused in our Declaration of Independence stating that we, the people, are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments were instituted among men to secure these rights. So even if the Second Amendment was not listed in the “Bill of Rights” it would still exist.

Let me say very clearly – your rights do not come from government. You have these rights solely on the basis of your existence. The Constitution grants no rights to the citizens of this country and are listed as Amendments to the Constitution to PROHIBIT the central government from acting against these specific, enumerated, rights that where are endowed in the citizenry before the government was created.

“…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We already know that the Bill of Rights was written to place limitations on the federal government in its dealings with the people. What does it mean to be infringed? From the Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 edition it reads: “1. obsolete: defeat, frustrate. 2. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Synonymous with trespass.”Based on this definition any action which attempts to make guns obsolete, or to defeat the ability of ownership, or frustrates the keeping and bearing of arms is infringing on the rights of the citizens and is an affront to the Constitution.

United States Representative Ron Paul, from the 14th District in Texas, stated in a November 6th, 2006 article entitled “Gun Control on the Back Burner”:

“The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.” (Bold added) You can read this entire article and more on his official web site.

I may be cast a heretic; but the fact of the matter is, laws are not meant to stop crime. In many cases laws create crime where none existed. An example would be what I call the stupidity laws, such as mandatory helmet wearing on motorcycles or seat belts in cars etc. These “laws” tell us that the government knows what is best for you, and they will enforce their will upon you by writing laws to protect you from yourself. This is EXACTLY the mentality of a communist society and brute force is EXACTLY the methodology a communist government would use to make you do what they know is best for you.

What crime is committed by possessing an object? Who or what is damaged? If I own an icepick to break up blocks of ice and fill my ice chest – is that a crime? Yet I can use that icepick to rob, damage, or kill another person. Would that person be any deader if I used a gun? There are more people killed each year in cars than with guns – should we limit the speed a car can travel to reduce it killing capability? In fact more people are killed with hands and feet than with guns – should we have to register our limbs as well? I have known people who have never been in a car collision their entire lives. They are safe and effective drivers. I have likewise known many people who have owned guns and have never shot anyone.

Now the central government is attempting to unconstitutionally expand their power even more by trying to infringe further upon our Second Amendment rights by banning common weapons, invading the Fourth Amendment by forcing us into “trade” by mandating how we dispose of our private property at an added cost burden. And the very weapons they are trying to ban are very much a protected type of weapon as stated by the Supreme Court in US V Miller.

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.”

The court reasoned that based on the information they had at the time a saw-off shotgun did not have “some reasonable relationship… of a well regulated militia” and that it was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment.” Well we have testimony from the Commander in Chief, Diane Feinstein, and a host of liberals in Congress that they are trying to ban the very same “military style weapon” that the Supreme Court said was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. But they want it both ways and the only conclusion we can make is that they do not care about the Constitution or for what it stands and especially ANY limitation on their agenda.

Article 1 of the Constitution tells us how we can solve our crime problem within a year. Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress has the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.” Every mass murder, every gun attack, drive by shooting, home invasion, car jacking, or any other such crime is already crime and the tool the criminal uses really does not change the crime. But if every second or third law abiding citizen was armed crime would very quickly dry up.

You, the “We the People” of our great nation are responsible for your own safety. The Sheriff the Policeman, even the entire judicial system, is only there to deal with the bad guy. Yes they drive around with a motto painted across the car saying “to Protect and Defend” but did you know that, by law, they have not responsibility to protect anyone? In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services the court ruled, and many others as well, that the only individuals that the police have a responsibility to protect are those that are incarcerated or restrained against their will such as prisoners or mental patients stating: “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.”

The gradual expansion of government to control the firearms industry to keep criminals out of the trade then expanded to tax ordinary citizens from owning certain pieces of equipment then expanded to everyone buying from a dealer and now expanding once again to encompass every law abiding citizen who has a gun even if they are not in firearm commerce.

© 2013 Michael LeMieux – All Rights ReservedBut will this solve the problem? Well, as I have said before, if laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty. So laws will not stop the type of crimes that have happened in the past nor will they stop them from happening in the future. Some may say that by banning these weapons (law) then they will not have them to use. If that were true prohibition would have been a success, the drug war would be over by now and our streets would be drug free. All the central government is managing to do is to increase the victim pool by disarming the law abiding citizen because as we all know the criminal will not obey the law and if he does not have one now the black market will provide it to him just as it always has.

---

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be “infringed” upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through