Monday, April 30, 2012
Book: Obama Held More Fundraisers Than Previous 5 Presidents Combined Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
President Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.
Citing the new book, the Daily Mail reports that Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.
In 2008, Obama vowed to "launch the most sweeping ethics reform in US history" and said that if elected he would "make government more open, more accountable and more responsive to the problems of the American people."
And in January, during his State of the Union speech, Obama bemoaned the “corrosive influence of money in politics,” the Mail points out. The following month, he reversed course and announced he was allowing cabinet members and top advisors to speak at big money events for so-called super PACs – outside groups raising money for his re-election.
The book, “The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign,” by Brendan J. Doherty, gives figures to prove that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.
Doherty found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.
But since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Sr.19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and George W. Bush 57 in 2004.
And while Carter visited eight out of 18 battleground states and Reagan seven out of 17. Bush Sr., Clinton and the younger Bush all visited around three-quarters of battleground states. Obama went to all 15 within his first 12 months.
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Book: Obama Held More Fundraisers Than Previous 5 Presidents Combined
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Friday, April 27, 2012
Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/arizona-immigration-law-battle-arrives-at-supreme-court
Published April 25, 2012
FoxNews.com
Supreme Court prepares to hear Arizona's...
Arizona's immigration law headed for...
Immigration fight heads to highest court
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it might uphold a key element of Arizona's immigration law, as justices across the board suggested the state has a serious problem on its hands and should have some level of sovereignty to address illegal immigration.
The justices appeared to ready to allow a provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the U.S. illegally.
The justices strongly suggested Wednesday they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn't think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.
"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
Just like the health care overhaul challenge heard earlier this month, Wednesday's hearing on the immigration law drew passionate surrogates from both sides. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was loudly booed by the law's opponents in front of the courthouse. She said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that "I am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true."
While the justices addressed the traffic stop provision Wednesday, it was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the law, voiced optimism in Arizona's chances.
"This was a very good day for Arizona in the Supreme Court today," he told Fox News. "The U.S. Justice Department was on the ropes."
But Brent Wilkes, director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, warned that the law would take a "human toll" on Arizona families if allowed to stand.
"This is really a racial profiling bill," he told Fox News.
The hearing Wednesday morning has implications far beyond Arizona's borders, as several states, including Alabama and South Carolina, have followed in Arizona's footsteps to craft their own immigration enforcement measures.
The Obama administration, which opposes those measures, has argued that the country cannot sustain a patchwork of separate immigration laws.
Verrilli, who is arguing on behalf of the government, said in his brief that the Executive Branch has the power to enforce immigration policy.
"For each state, and each locality, to set its own immigration policy in that fashion would wholly subvert Congress' goal: a single, national approach," he wrote.
But Arizona argued that the current system is broken, and that the state is paying an unfair price for that failure.
"Arizona shoulders a disproportionate burden of the national problem of illegal immigration," attorney Paul Clement argued in his brief. He argued that enforcement attention in California and Texas has turned the Arizona border into a funnel for illegal immigrants, with a third of illegal border crossings occurring there.
The attorney described Arizona's law as a response to an "emergency situation" -- with illegal immigrants soaking up millions of state dollars in health care and education, posing safety risks to ranchers and cutting into the state's job market.
Two of the key statutes, which have been blocked and will be at issue in Wednesday's arguments, are provisions to bar illegal immigrants from seeking a job and to require law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally in the course of a routine stop.
A ruling from the Supreme Court is likely to come this summer, in the thick of the presidential election year -- it could either bolster what has been a bold move from the Obama administration's Justice Department to intervene in state issues ranging from immigration to voter ID laws, or stop the administration in its tracks and open the floodgates to even more state laws that challenge federal authority.
The immigration case arrives at the high court Wednesday just weeks after the justices heard arguments in the multi-state challenge to the federal health care overhaul.
Democrats on Capitol Hill this week were already scrambling to prepare for the possibility that the high court upholds the immigration law. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced a plan to introduce a bill that would effectively nullify Arizona's law -- though it would stand virtually no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled House.
"Immigration has not and never has been an area where states are able to exercise independent authority," Schumer said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill hearing, where he announced he would introduce the proposal should the Supreme Court "ignore" the "plain and unambiguous statements of congressional intent" and uphold the Arizona law.
But former Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the law, said: "We have a national crisis, and yet everyone wants to ignore that: the cost, the damage, the crime."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/arizona-immigration-law-battle-arrives-at-supreme-court/#ixzz1t4cm3kVw
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Now is it time?
When will Gingrich bow out? IS it finally time to get behind Romney. Will Ron Paul give his support?
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
HR347
Watch The Video:
www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium
Read the bill:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
See the record:
www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/h/73
What do you think?
www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium
Read the bill:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
See the record:
www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/h/73
What do you think?
Monday, April 23, 2012
More Hypocracy
"Perhaps it would be in the interests of a complete and thorough and fair investigation not to make determinations about the conclusions of an investigation before they've even been reached, That's the president's position." These are the words of Jay Carney, Chief Spokesman for President Obama. Regarding the recently exposed Secret Service scandal.
What I find interesting is that no statement was made like this,by the same White House, in regards to George Zimmerman.
What I find interesting is that no statement was made like this,by the same White House, in regards to George Zimmerman.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
President Obama's camp tries to diversify
By JONATHAN ALLEN and JOSEPH WILLIAMS | 4/18/12 6:29 PM EDT
President Barack Obama’s team is looking to hire more African-Americans, a search that has stirred a debate among black Democrats about Obama’s record on diversity and its implications for his reelection.
Stefanie Brown, director of the campaign’s African American Vote program, wrote in an “urgent” March 21 email to contacts in the black community that “The Obama for America campaign is in the process of really staffing up in states around the country, and I need your help to find qualified, African American candidates for some of these positions.” The email, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, notes that “this is a fast moving process and your (quick) support is greatly appreciated.”
Campaign manager Jim Messina created and runs a working group “dedicated to ensuring that we are looking at a diverse pool of applicants for jobs” — both African-Americans and members of other minority groups — a campaign official told POLITICO, and Latinos for Obama was launched on Wednesday.
The diversity push — and specifically the effort to hire African-Americans — isn’t just on the campaign side: In Washington, four officials from the White House personnel office and lobbying shop met Monday with chiefs of staff for members of the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss building a better pipeline for black staffers to move from the Capitol to the White House. An administration official emphasized that the White House reached out to the CBC, not the other way around, and said the meeting was coincidental to the campaign’s efforts.
The race to stock up on black talent is a welcome development among Washington’s African-American power elite — and one that critics say is three years late in coming. The cynical take, offered up by black Democratic sources outside Obama’s camp: The president and his aides have focused their attention on hiring more African-Americans because they are worried about black turnout on Election Day.
It’s not that anyone expects black voters to suddenly rush to Mitt Romney — they won’t — but African-American turnout could be pivotal in several swing states Obama won in 2008 that show signs of being more competitive in 2010 because of shifts among white independents. Florida, North Carolina and Virginia rank in the top 10 states in total African-American population; and Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are in the top 15.
Exit polls show that roughly 1 million African Americans voted in the presidential election in North Carolina in 2008. Obama’s margin of victory: 14,000 votes.
“There’s a significant amount of concern,” one chief of staff to a black member of Congress told POLITICO. The excitement of the 2008 campaign is gone, this aide said, and African-American voters haven’t seen much improvement on issues such as an unemployment rate about double that for whites. The Obama campaign has time to reignite the enthusiasm, the aide said, “if they adjust and expand their message.”
The bar may be higher for Obama than for other presidents.
“I think this administration is expected to have the greatest diversity program just given the fact that President Obama is the first African-American president, and he’s not run from issues of diversity,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). “The question would be ‘What do the facts say about it?’ and I think they would be the best judge of those numbers. You can always do better. And this administration is no different. You can talk diversity, which is good, but a better barometer is whatever the facts say.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75323.html#ixzz1sUKbltPb
President Barack Obama’s team is looking to hire more African-Americans, a search that has stirred a debate among black Democrats about Obama’s record on diversity and its implications for his reelection.
Stefanie Brown, director of the campaign’s African American Vote program, wrote in an “urgent” March 21 email to contacts in the black community that “The Obama for America campaign is in the process of really staffing up in states around the country, and I need your help to find qualified, African American candidates for some of these positions.” The email, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, notes that “this is a fast moving process and your (quick) support is greatly appreciated.”
Campaign manager Jim Messina created and runs a working group “dedicated to ensuring that we are looking at a diverse pool of applicants for jobs” — both African-Americans and members of other minority groups — a campaign official told POLITICO, and Latinos for Obama was launched on Wednesday.
The diversity push — and specifically the effort to hire African-Americans — isn’t just on the campaign side: In Washington, four officials from the White House personnel office and lobbying shop met Monday with chiefs of staff for members of the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss building a better pipeline for black staffers to move from the Capitol to the White House. An administration official emphasized that the White House reached out to the CBC, not the other way around, and said the meeting was coincidental to the campaign’s efforts.
The race to stock up on black talent is a welcome development among Washington’s African-American power elite — and one that critics say is three years late in coming. The cynical take, offered up by black Democratic sources outside Obama’s camp: The president and his aides have focused their attention on hiring more African-Americans because they are worried about black turnout on Election Day.
It’s not that anyone expects black voters to suddenly rush to Mitt Romney — they won’t — but African-American turnout could be pivotal in several swing states Obama won in 2008 that show signs of being more competitive in 2010 because of shifts among white independents. Florida, North Carolina and Virginia rank in the top 10 states in total African-American population; and Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are in the top 15.
Exit polls show that roughly 1 million African Americans voted in the presidential election in North Carolina in 2008. Obama’s margin of victory: 14,000 votes.
“There’s a significant amount of concern,” one chief of staff to a black member of Congress told POLITICO. The excitement of the 2008 campaign is gone, this aide said, and African-American voters haven’t seen much improvement on issues such as an unemployment rate about double that for whites. The Obama campaign has time to reignite the enthusiasm, the aide said, “if they adjust and expand their message.”
The bar may be higher for Obama than for other presidents.
“I think this administration is expected to have the greatest diversity program just given the fact that President Obama is the first African-American president, and he’s not run from issues of diversity,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). “The question would be ‘What do the facts say about it?’ and I think they would be the best judge of those numbers. You can always do better. And this administration is no different. You can talk diversity, which is good, but a better barometer is whatever the facts say.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75323.html#ixzz1sUKbltPb
Friday, April 20, 2012
http://www.infowars.com/mandatory-big-brother-black-boxes-in-all-new-cars-from-2015/
Provision is part of controversial MAP-21 bill expected to pass House
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
A bill already passed by the Senate and set to be rubber stamped by the House would make it mandatory for all new cars in the United States to be fitted with black box data recorders from 2015 onwards.
Section 31406 of Senate Bill 1813 (known as MAP-21), calls for “Mandatory Event Data Recorders” to be installed in all new automobiles and legislates for civil penalties to be imposed against individuals for failing to do so.
“Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part,” states the bill.
Although the text of legislation states that such data would remain the property of the owner of the vehicle, the government would have the power to access it in a number of circumstances, including by court order, if the owner consents to make it available, and pursuant to an investigation or inspection conducted by the Secretary of Transportation.
Given the innumerable examples of both government and industry illegally using supposedly privacy-protected information to spy on individuals, this represents the slippery slope to total Big Brother surveillance of every American’s transport habits and location data.
The legislation, which has been given the Orwellian title ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, sailed through the Senate after being heavily promoted by Democrats Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer and is also expected to pass the Republican-controlled House.
Given the fact that the same bill also includes a controversial provision that would empower the IRS to revoke passports of citizens merely accused of owing over $50,000 in back taxes, stripping them of their mobility rights, could the mandatory black boxes or a similar technology be used for the same purpose?
Biometric face-recognition and transdermol sensor technology that prevents an inebriated person from driving a car by disabling the automobile has already been developed, in addition to systems that refuse to allow the vehicle to start if the driver is deemed to be overtired.
The ultimate Big Brother scenario would be a system whereby every driver had to get de facto permission from the state to drive each time they get behind the wheel, once it had been determined from an iris scan that they were good citizens who have paid all their taxes and not misbehaved.
The push to pressure car manufacturers to install black box tracking devices in all new cars has been ongoing for over a decade. In 2006, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encouraged but did not require automobile manufacturers to install the systems.
However, in February last year NHTSA administrator David Strickland said the government was considering making the technology mandatory in the wake of recalls of millions of Toyota vehicles.
Earlier this year it was reported that the NHTSA would soon formally announce that all new cars would be mandated to have the devices fitted by law, which has now been codified into the MAP-21 bill.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
A bill already passed by the Senate and set to be rubber stamped by the House would make it mandatory for all new cars in the United States to be fitted with black box data recorders from 2015 onwards.
Section 31406 of Senate Bill 1813 (known as MAP-21), calls for “Mandatory Event Data Recorders” to be installed in all new automobiles and legislates for civil penalties to be imposed against individuals for failing to do so.
“Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part,” states the bill.
Although the text of legislation states that such data would remain the property of the owner of the vehicle, the government would have the power to access it in a number of circumstances, including by court order, if the owner consents to make it available, and pursuant to an investigation or inspection conducted by the Secretary of Transportation.
Given the innumerable examples of both government and industry illegally using supposedly privacy-protected information to spy on individuals, this represents the slippery slope to total Big Brother surveillance of every American’s transport habits and location data.
The legislation, which has been given the Orwellian title ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, sailed through the Senate after being heavily promoted by Democrats Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer and is also expected to pass the Republican-controlled House.
Given the fact that the same bill also includes a controversial provision that would empower the IRS to revoke passports of citizens merely accused of owing over $50,000 in back taxes, stripping them of their mobility rights, could the mandatory black boxes or a similar technology be used for the same purpose?
Biometric face-recognition and transdermol sensor technology that prevents an inebriated person from driving a car by disabling the automobile has already been developed, in addition to systems that refuse to allow the vehicle to start if the driver is deemed to be overtired.
The ultimate Big Brother scenario would be a system whereby every driver had to get de facto permission from the state to drive each time they get behind the wheel, once it had been determined from an iris scan that they were good citizens who have paid all their taxes and not misbehaved.
The push to pressure car manufacturers to install black box tracking devices in all new cars has been ongoing for over a decade. In 2006, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encouraged but did not require automobile manufacturers to install the systems.
However, in February last year NHTSA administrator David Strickland said the government was considering making the technology mandatory in the wake of recalls of millions of Toyota vehicles.
Earlier this year it was reported that the NHTSA would soon formally announce that all new cars would be mandated to have the devices fitted by law, which has now been codified into the MAP-21 bill.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Who is John Gault? I mean Ron Paul.
To many on the right, Ron Paul is the answer. Personally, I like him and would vote for him if I went to the National Convention. I think what hurts him with the "establishment" is many of his followers come across as Kooks. On another point, he has had many followers, for lack of better terms, take over conventions and get the delegate spaces filled with his supportors. What are your opinions on it?
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Quote of the Day.
"Apparently, I’m supposed to be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than by what Barack Obama does with mine."
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Gallup Tracking Poll: Romney Leads Obama
Mitt Romney is slightly ahead of President Barack Obama, 47 to 45 percent, in the inaugural Gallup Daily tracking poll. Gallup began tracking the general election April 11, when Rick Santorum suspended his campaign, making Romney the all-but assured Republican nominee.
The poll numbers are five-day rolling averages and the initial report is based on interviews with 2,265 registered voters. In the current poll, independents break for Romney, 45 to 39 percent, giving him his edge.
Gallup noted that a lead in the spring does not necessarily predict the outcome in the fall, pointing out that two incumbent presidents, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, held substantial leads in April before losing in November.
“Still, the current results, and the results that will follow as Gallup tracks the race on a daily basis, provide an excellent, scientific way to understand the dynamics of the election campaign, and the impact of foreseen and unforeseen events in the weeks and months ahead,” Gallup wrote. “And, at this point, the results show that the 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a close race.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The poll numbers are five-day rolling averages and the initial report is based on interviews with 2,265 registered voters. In the current poll, independents break for Romney, 45 to 39 percent, giving him his edge.
Gallup noted that a lead in the spring does not necessarily predict the outcome in the fall, pointing out that two incumbent presidents, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, held substantial leads in April before losing in November.
“Still, the current results, and the results that will follow as Gallup tracks the race on a daily basis, provide an excellent, scientific way to understand the dynamics of the election campaign, and the impact of foreseen and unforeseen events in the weeks and months ahead,” Gallup wrote. “And, at this point, the results show that the 2012 presidential election is shaping up to be a close race.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Obama Hammered for 'Jetting Around,' Taking Vacations While Americans Suffer
President Obama, during an interview with St. Louis's KMOV, was hammered for "jetting around, [taking] different vacations and so forth, sometimes ... under the color of state business." The interviewer, Larry Conners, suggested even that folks "get frustrated, even angered" seeing the president take these trips, and told Obama that these Americans think he's "out of touch, that [Obama doesn't] really know what they're experiencing right now."
Here's the transcript:
KMOV-STL’s Larry Conners: “The economy is a big issue and concern for folks. I mean, the unemployment, trying to make ends meet, gas prices, food prices going up. Some of our viewers are complaining, they get frustrated, even angered, when they see the first family jetting around, different vacations and so forth, sometimes maybe they think under color of state business and that you're out of touch, that you don't really know what they're experiencing right now.”
President Barack Obama: “Well, I don't know how many viewers you're talking about that say that.”
Conners: “We do hear from some.”
Obama: “I hear from all kinds of viewers about everything.”
Conners: “I’m sure you do.”
Obama: “But the fact of the matter is, I think if you look at my track record, I’m raising a family here. When we travel, we got to travel through Secret Service, and Air Force One, that's not my choice. I think most folks understand how hard I work and how hard this administration is working on behalf of the American people.”
6:32 PM, Apr 12, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Here's the transcript:
KMOV-STL’s Larry Conners: “The economy is a big issue and concern for folks. I mean, the unemployment, trying to make ends meet, gas prices, food prices going up. Some of our viewers are complaining, they get frustrated, even angered, when they see the first family jetting around, different vacations and so forth, sometimes maybe they think under color of state business and that you're out of touch, that you don't really know what they're experiencing right now.”
President Barack Obama: “Well, I don't know how many viewers you're talking about that say that.”
Conners: “We do hear from some.”
Obama: “I hear from all kinds of viewers about everything.”
Conners: “I’m sure you do.”
Obama: “But the fact of the matter is, I think if you look at my track record, I’m raising a family here. When we travel, we got to travel through Secret Service, and Air Force One, that's not my choice. I think most folks understand how hard I work and how hard this administration is working on behalf of the American people.”
6:32 PM, Apr 12, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Friday, April 13, 2012
US condemns North Korea's 'provocative' rocket launch Published April 13, 2012 FoxNews.com Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/12/north
North Korea's much-anticipated rocket launch ended quickly in failure early Friday, splintering into pieces over the Yellow Sea soon after takeoff.
North Korea acknowledged in an announcement broadcast on state TV that a satellite launched hours earlier from the west coast failed to enter into orbit. The U.S. and South Korea also declared the launch a failure.
A senior U.S. official told Fox News the rocket broke apart between 90 seconds and 2 minutes after launching.
Data suggests the rocket broke up in mid-flight inside the Earth's atmosphere. Officials say the rocket did not fall into any populated areas, suggesting it fell into the ocean.
The rocket likely broke apart between the first and second stages of a three phase process.
“This is just a reminder,” Seoul-based North Korea expert Alexi Lankov told Fox News, “ that Pyongyang hasn’t developed a credible vehicle for a nuclear weapon delivery system.”
The White House released a statement condemning the launch, saying: "Despite the failure of its attempted missile launch, North Korea's provocative action threatens regional security, violates international law and contravenes its own recent commitments."
President Obama has been prepared to engage with North Korea in a constructive manner, the statement said, but he also insists that the country live up to its earlier commitments and international obligations.
In response to the launch, Washington announced it was suspending plans to contribute food aid to the North in exchange for a rollback of its nuclear programs.
Japan's Defense Minister Naiki Tanaka said, "We have confirmed that a certain flying object has been launched and fell after flying for just over a minute." He did not say what exactly was launched.
He said there was no impact on Japanese territory from the launch.
North Korea had earlier announced it would send a three-stage rocket mounted with a satellite as part of celebrations honoring national founder Kim Il Sung, whose 100th birthday is being celebrated Sunday.
Space officials say the rocket is meant to send a satellite into orbit to study crops and weather patterns -- its third bid to launch a satellite since 1998.
The U.N. Security Council will hold a meeting Friday to discuss a possible response the launch, council diplomats said.
The United States, Japan, Britain, Russia and others say the launch would be a provocation and would violate U.N. Security Council resolutions banning North Korea from developing its nuclear and missile programs. Experts say the Unha-3 carrier is similar to the type of rocket that could be used to fire a missile mounted with a nuclear warhead to strike the U.S. or other targets.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking for the Group of Eight nations after their foreign ministers met in Washington, said all the members of the bloc agreed to be prepared to take further action against North Korea in the Security Council if the launch goes ahead.
"Pyongyang has a clear choice: It can pursue peace and reap the benefits of closer ties with the international community, including the United States; or it can continue to face pressure and isolation," Clinton said.
At the United Nations in New York, G-8 member Russia echoed that the launch would violate Security Council resolutions. But North Korea's other main ally, China -- which is not part of the G-8 -- was more circumspect.
"We are very concerned about that issue," China's U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong said, adding that Beijing wanted to "diffuse tension, not inflame" it.
Japan's parliament adopted a resolution Thursday condemning the scheduled rocket launch.
"A launch is a serious act of provocation that would affect peace and stability in the region that includes our country," Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said, reading the resolution adopted unanimously at the lower house. "We strongly urge North Korea to use self-restraint and not to carry out a launch."
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin, Greg Palkot, Justin Fishel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/12/north-korea-reportedly-launches-rocket/#ixzz1rvD4Fydj
North Korea acknowledged in an announcement broadcast on state TV that a satellite launched hours earlier from the west coast failed to enter into orbit. The U.S. and South Korea also declared the launch a failure.
A senior U.S. official told Fox News the rocket broke apart between 90 seconds and 2 minutes after launching.
Data suggests the rocket broke up in mid-flight inside the Earth's atmosphere. Officials say the rocket did not fall into any populated areas, suggesting it fell into the ocean.
The rocket likely broke apart between the first and second stages of a three phase process.
“This is just a reminder,” Seoul-based North Korea expert Alexi Lankov told Fox News, “ that Pyongyang hasn’t developed a credible vehicle for a nuclear weapon delivery system.”
The White House released a statement condemning the launch, saying: "Despite the failure of its attempted missile launch, North Korea's provocative action threatens regional security, violates international law and contravenes its own recent commitments."
President Obama has been prepared to engage with North Korea in a constructive manner, the statement said, but he also insists that the country live up to its earlier commitments and international obligations.
In response to the launch, Washington announced it was suspending plans to contribute food aid to the North in exchange for a rollback of its nuclear programs.
Japan's Defense Minister Naiki Tanaka said, "We have confirmed that a certain flying object has been launched and fell after flying for just over a minute." He did not say what exactly was launched.
He said there was no impact on Japanese territory from the launch.
North Korea had earlier announced it would send a three-stage rocket mounted with a satellite as part of celebrations honoring national founder Kim Il Sung, whose 100th birthday is being celebrated Sunday.
Space officials say the rocket is meant to send a satellite into orbit to study crops and weather patterns -- its third bid to launch a satellite since 1998.
The U.N. Security Council will hold a meeting Friday to discuss a possible response the launch, council diplomats said.
The United States, Japan, Britain, Russia and others say the launch would be a provocation and would violate U.N. Security Council resolutions banning North Korea from developing its nuclear and missile programs. Experts say the Unha-3 carrier is similar to the type of rocket that could be used to fire a missile mounted with a nuclear warhead to strike the U.S. or other targets.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking for the Group of Eight nations after their foreign ministers met in Washington, said all the members of the bloc agreed to be prepared to take further action against North Korea in the Security Council if the launch goes ahead.
"Pyongyang has a clear choice: It can pursue peace and reap the benefits of closer ties with the international community, including the United States; or it can continue to face pressure and isolation," Clinton said.
At the United Nations in New York, G-8 member Russia echoed that the launch would violate Security Council resolutions. But North Korea's other main ally, China -- which is not part of the G-8 -- was more circumspect.
"We are very concerned about that issue," China's U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong said, adding that Beijing wanted to "diffuse tension, not inflame" it.
Japan's parliament adopted a resolution Thursday condemning the scheduled rocket launch.
"A launch is a serious act of provocation that would affect peace and stability in the region that includes our country," Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said, reading the resolution adopted unanimously at the lower house. "We strongly urge North Korea to use self-restraint and not to carry out a launch."
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin, Greg Palkot, Justin Fishel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/12/north-korea-reportedly-launches-rocket/#ixzz1rvD4Fydj
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Maybe the Occupy movement can go after some true corruption!?
New video from GSA conference emerges as lawmakers scrutinize spending
Published April 09, 2012
| FoxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/09/former-gsa-head-rejects-push-to-blame-bush-administration-over-vegas-conference/#ixzz1rZHzxupz
Another video of federal employees laughing it up on the taxpayers' dime surfaced Monday -- this one showing an official for the General Services Administration joking at their 2010 conference about making a mock-music video at work.
The music videos from that conference have more or less gone viral by this point. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been releasing them, as it launches an investigation into GSA spending following an inspector general's report that chastised the agency for spending more than $820,000 at the Vegas-area conference.
The latest video clip showed employees singing about "going green" at GSA. They sang to a gospel soundtrack, holding up portraits of administration officials including President Obama during the course of the song.
At the October conference in Nevada, the representative from "Region 7" was then given an award for the performance.
In the presentation, GSA official Jeff Neely asked the recipient, "was there anybody in Region 7 who wasn't in that thing?"
"If they didn't work on Friday, then chances are they weren't in the video," she said, as the crowd laughed.
The office of oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in a statement accused the audience of laughing over an "admission" that the video was "made during taxpayers' time."
The committee said that segment was edited out of an earlier version of released footage. The footage first started to trickle out last week. One scene showed employees joking at the conference about a party held in the commissioner's suite.
The Obama administration, meanwhile, has not attempted to defend the 2010 conference. Top Obama officials have condemned the expenses and pledged to implement protections to clamp down on wasteful spending.
The inspector general's report led to the resignation of GSA's most recent administrator last week, as well as the firing of two top officials within the agency.
The administration, though, has pointed to rising costs under the George W. Bush administration to suggest that the $820,000 Vegas conference could have been avoided -- if the Bush-era GSA had acted.
According to figures obtained by Fox News, the budget for the so-called Western Regions Conference rose from $93,000 in 2004 to $323,855 in 2006. It then jumped to $655,025 in 2008.
But Lurita Doan, who headed the agency under Bush until her resignation in 2008, told Fox News that President Obama's team is trying to "divert attention" from its own scandal.
"Blaming anyone else for their own errors is an Obama administration stock and trade," Doan said Monday. "They love to blame George Bush for all of their problems. The fact of the matter is that there can be no comparison whatsoever. And when you look at it, it's one of these situations where there's simply no way that you can excuse the kinds of excesses that went on."
Doan was embroiled in her own set of controversies during her tenure in the Bush administration.
She was accused of trying to hook up a friend with a contract as well as dabbling in politics potentially in violation of federal rules. Doan, who eventually resigned, claims she was the victim of Democratic lawmakers eager to target Bush administration officials.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/09/former-gsa-head-rejects-push-to-blame-bush-administration-over-vegas-conference/#ixzz1rZHktztM
Published April 09, 2012
| FoxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/09/former-gsa-head-rejects-push-to-blame-bush-administration-over-vegas-conference/#ixzz1rZHzxupz
Another video of federal employees laughing it up on the taxpayers' dime surfaced Monday -- this one showing an official for the General Services Administration joking at their 2010 conference about making a mock-music video at work.
The music videos from that conference have more or less gone viral by this point. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been releasing them, as it launches an investigation into GSA spending following an inspector general's report that chastised the agency for spending more than $820,000 at the Vegas-area conference.
The latest video clip showed employees singing about "going green" at GSA. They sang to a gospel soundtrack, holding up portraits of administration officials including President Obama during the course of the song.
At the October conference in Nevada, the representative from "Region 7" was then given an award for the performance.
In the presentation, GSA official Jeff Neely asked the recipient, "was there anybody in Region 7 who wasn't in that thing?"
"If they didn't work on Friday, then chances are they weren't in the video," she said, as the crowd laughed.
The office of oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in a statement accused the audience of laughing over an "admission" that the video was "made during taxpayers' time."
The committee said that segment was edited out of an earlier version of released footage. The footage first started to trickle out last week. One scene showed employees joking at the conference about a party held in the commissioner's suite.
The Obama administration, meanwhile, has not attempted to defend the 2010 conference. Top Obama officials have condemned the expenses and pledged to implement protections to clamp down on wasteful spending.
The inspector general's report led to the resignation of GSA's most recent administrator last week, as well as the firing of two top officials within the agency.
The administration, though, has pointed to rising costs under the George W. Bush administration to suggest that the $820,000 Vegas conference could have been avoided -- if the Bush-era GSA had acted.
According to figures obtained by Fox News, the budget for the so-called Western Regions Conference rose from $93,000 in 2004 to $323,855 in 2006. It then jumped to $655,025 in 2008.
But Lurita Doan, who headed the agency under Bush until her resignation in 2008, told Fox News that President Obama's team is trying to "divert attention" from its own scandal.
"Blaming anyone else for their own errors is an Obama administration stock and trade," Doan said Monday. "They love to blame George Bush for all of their problems. The fact of the matter is that there can be no comparison whatsoever. And when you look at it, it's one of these situations where there's simply no way that you can excuse the kinds of excesses that went on."
Doan was embroiled in her own set of controversies during her tenure in the Bush administration.
She was accused of trying to hook up a friend with a contract as well as dabbling in politics potentially in violation of federal rules. Doan, who eventually resigned, claims she was the victim of Democratic lawmakers eager to target Bush administration officials.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/09/former-gsa-head-rejects-push-to-blame-bush-administration-over-vegas-conference/#ixzz1rZHktztM
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Santorum bows out.
Santorum has decided to get out of the way. It makes it pretty clear that Romney is the GOP candidate. Do you buy into the theory that it was all by design? Santorum runs to keep Gingrich and others at bay. Did he and Romney do this intentionally?
Iran - What will happen, what to do.
At our most recent meeting the group discussed "What is going to happen with Iran?" It was an interesting conversation to say the least. Several guys, with several different opinions. What would you think the next 12 months has in store with regards to Iran?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/world/middleeast/us-defines-its-demands-for-new-round-of-talks-with-iran.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/world/middleeast/us-defines-its-demands-for-new-round-of-talks-with-iran.html?_r=1&hp
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Gas Prices On Catalina Island Pass $7 Mark
AVALON, CATALINA ISLAND (CBS) — Catalina Island is known for many things… its picturesque scenery, seafood and hiking, to name a few. But what about high gas prices?
For the past two weeks, gas prices on Catalina Island have been an average of $7 a gallon.
Stacy Dizon, who works at the Santa Catalina Island Co.-owned gas station on Pebbly Road, tells CBSLA that a gallon of regular unleaded on Saturday is $7.03.
Gas Prices On Catalina Island Pass $7 Mark
The gas station is one of two service stations catering to the island and nearby, Avalon.
About 1.5 miles away, Ivan Hernandez at the city-owned Avalon Marine Dock says the price of regular unleaded is $6.90 a gallon, down 10 cents from Friday.
While some residents may be feeling the pinch, many aren’t complaining.
“There’s not a lot to complain about when we’re living on an island,” said Catherine Rogers, a server at Original Jack’s Country Kitchen.
Rogers has lived in Avalon for 33 years and tells CBSLA that she doesn’t hear a lot of complaints about gas prices since many residents walk and those who drive use golf carts to get around, many of which are electric.
On average, Rogers says, those who drive golf carts fill up about once a month.
Tony Gomez, who works at La Paloma, has lived on the island for 15 years. He tells CBSLA that as of last week, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded was $7.10.
As Gomez explains, residents on Catalina Island pay on average about $2 more for gas as compared to prices on the mainland.
As for the cause of the spike in gas prices, residents say they expect prices to be higher since the fuel is barged in.
The Auto Club of Southern California has not yet returned our call to provide a comment.
For the past two weeks, gas prices on Catalina Island have been an average of $7 a gallon.
Stacy Dizon, who works at the Santa Catalina Island Co.-owned gas station on Pebbly Road, tells CBSLA that a gallon of regular unleaded on Saturday is $7.03.
Gas Prices On Catalina Island Pass $7 Mark
The gas station is one of two service stations catering to the island and nearby, Avalon.
About 1.5 miles away, Ivan Hernandez at the city-owned Avalon Marine Dock says the price of regular unleaded is $6.90 a gallon, down 10 cents from Friday.
While some residents may be feeling the pinch, many aren’t complaining.
“There’s not a lot to complain about when we’re living on an island,” said Catherine Rogers, a server at Original Jack’s Country Kitchen.
Rogers has lived in Avalon for 33 years and tells CBSLA that she doesn’t hear a lot of complaints about gas prices since many residents walk and those who drive use golf carts to get around, many of which are electric.
On average, Rogers says, those who drive golf carts fill up about once a month.
Tony Gomez, who works at La Paloma, has lived on the island for 15 years. He tells CBSLA that as of last week, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded was $7.10.
As Gomez explains, residents on Catalina Island pay on average about $2 more for gas as compared to prices on the mainland.
As for the cause of the spike in gas prices, residents say they expect prices to be higher since the fuel is barged in.
The Auto Club of Southern California has not yet returned our call to provide a comment.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Iowa Republicans blast law school over refusal to hire conservative professor as faculty By Cristina Corbin Published April 06, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Iowa Republicans are taking aim at the state's top law school for denying a faculty position to a conservative law professor, who an assistant dean once said embraces politics the rest of the faculty "despises."
Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.
To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."
The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.
"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.
"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable."
Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.
In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.
"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.
Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."
Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."
Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.
Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."
At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.
Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/#ixzz1rH6qp3d8
Teresa Wagner, who works as an associate director of writing at the University of Iowa College of Law, is suing former dean Carolyn Jones for employment discrimination, claiming she was not hired for a professor position because Jones and other law faculty disapproved of her conservative views and activism.
To hold a law faculty position at the publicly funded university is viewed as a "sacred cow," Wagner said in an interview, and "Republicans need not apply."
The case, which goes to trial this October, has become a chief concern for Republicans in Johnson County, who on Monday passed a resolution calling on the Iowa House of Representatives' oversight committee to investigate hiring practices involved in Wagner's case and others like it.
"We think the hiring policies need to be such where there are certainly non-discriminatory practices which relate to political philosophy, as well as to race and gender and other issues," said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party. He claims students are deprived of "diversity of political thought" when conservative thinkers, like Wagner, are rejected based on their politics.
"We have a very active, conservative Republican community within the University of Iowa, which has not been met with an appropriate sense of respect for their ideas," he told FoxNews.com. "We see generally the climate as unfavorable."
Wagner, who graduated with honors from the law school in 1993, has taught at the George Mason University School of Law. She has also worked for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, and the conservative Family Research Council.
In 2006, Wagner applied for a full-time instructor position with the law school and was denied. She was also rejected for an adjunct or full-time position in four subsequent attempts, according to her attorney, Stephen T. Fieweger.
"For the first time in years, there are more registered Republicans in the state of Iowa than there are Democrats, which is obviously not reflected at the University of Iowa," Fieweger told FoxNews.com.
Fieweger said Wagner's candidacy was dismissed because of her conservative views, and he cited a 2007 email from Associate Dean Jonathan C. Carlson to Jones in which Carlson wrote: "Frankly, one thing that worries me is that some people may be opposed to Teresa serving in any role, in part at least because they so despise her politics (and especially her activism about it)."
Associate Dean Eric Andersen was not immediately available for comment when contacted Thursday. Tom Moore, a spokesman for the university, told the Iowa City Press Citizen last week that the school is "committed to equal opportunity, diversity and to following fair hiring practices."
Wagner's case was initially dismissed in a lower court that ruled the dean could hire whomever she wishes. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reinstated it in December. A trial is set for Oct. 15.
Fieweger said the law school and academic institutions in general have been so "entrenched" in discriminating against conservative-minded faculty over the years that "they don't recognize they're doing it."
At the time Wagner filed her complaint, Fieweger said, the number of registered Republicans on the law faculty stood at one.
Fieweger said the school argues Wagner was rejected because she "stunningly flunked the interview" in refusing to teach analysis -- a claim he said "just doesn't make sense and the jury is going to see that."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/iowa-republicans-blast-law-school-over-refusal-to-hire-conservative-professor/#ixzz1rH6qp3d8
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
The Secret Blue State Plan To Steal The 2012 Elections by Joshua Pundit
The deep Blue states above all have something in common. They’re all ruled by solid Democrat majorities in their State Legislatures and they’ve all passed legislation designed to favor Democrat urban strongholds, disenfranchise less populated Red States and have a decisive effect on the 2012 election.
And very few people know about it.
The legislation is known as The National Popular Vote bill, and there’s an ongoing attempt to get it passed in as many states as possible. It’s mainly being championed by Democrats, with a sprinkling of Republicans to give it the aura of ‘bi-partisanship’.
The states above control 138 electoral votes. Because they’ve all signed on to The National Popular Vote Act, those electoral votes will automatically go to the candidate who gets the most popular votes nationally -regardless of how the citizens of these states actually vote.
For instance, let’s say that in 2012 the largely Republican voters in downstate Illinois and some of the suburbs manage to outvote the Democrats, corpses, illegal aliens and vagrants put together by the ward bosses and the machine in Chicago and Cook County. Because the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature have managed to push the National Popular Vote Act through, Illinois’ 20 electoral votes would go not necessarily to the Republican candidate the majority of voters in the state chose but to whichever candidate got the majority of votes nationally. If Barack Obama were to win the popular vote nationally by even as little as 100 votes, Illinois’ 20 electoral votes will automatically go him.
This scenario is also known as Al Gore’s wet dream.
None of these states held a referendum on this. It was all done by legislative fiat.
It’s also interesting to look at some of the people behind this.
The Chairman, Dr. John Kozas of Los Altos California is a wealthy lefty who made his money from co-inventing the scratch-off lottery ticket and then lobbying state governments to sell them. Among many other far Left and socialist groups and candidates he’s supported as a donor and/or bundled for is Howard Dean’s Democracy For America ( DFA) political organization, Berkeley nut case Rep. Barbara Lee, Senator Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, The Democratic Farmer/Labor Party, the DNC, Senator Boxer’s PAC for a Change, and of course, Barack Obama. The list is a long one.
Tom Golisano is a prominent business man with deep pockets who was the co-counder of the Independence Party of New York, a party split between Perotistas and a strong Marxist element. He was also a Kerry donor.Forbes estimates his personal wealth at $1.2 billion.
Barry Fadem, the president, is a long-time Democrat operative in California, who worked for Governor Jerry Brown and Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally arguably one of the most incompetent and perhaps racist public officials in state history. He’s another Boxer donor, as well as to ActBlue, an organization that seeks to organize boycotts to penalize businesses thought to be too ‘Republican’.
Jason Roe was a Republican operative in the northeast with all that implies until he got a little too close to Jack Abramoff.
National Popular Vote Secretary Chris Pearson is another long time far Left Democrat operative who worked with admitted socialist Bernie Sanders and the Progressive Party.
Larry Sokol is a longtime Democrat legislative staffer and lobbyist in California. His connections were instrumental in shepherding the Nation Popular Vote Bill through the California Legislature.
Former Minnesota GOP Representative Laura Brod is something of the odd person out here.While the cast of the group is overwhelmingly Left- leaning, Brod says there is a conservative argument for NPV.
She claims that this is a state’s rights prerogative according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, that the current system means that national candidates spend their time and resources and craft policy based on the needs of battleground states while ignoring states with little electoral clout and states they feel they have no chance of carrying. Brod’s argument is that NPV will make every vote count and force National candidates to campaign in every state. These arguments all have some validity. Democrat nominees usually give Utah and Texas a pass and Republicans do the same to Connecticut and Massachusetts…Please read the entire article as it is quite educational: Joshua Pundit
The NY Senate will vote first and, to date, only Senator Lee Zeldin and Assemblyman Al Graf have told me they are opposed. We have work to do New York and if the politicians tell you it probably won’t be voted on, please know that it is on the calendar and can be voted on any day. If they tell you it probably won’t pass, ask them why it is on the calendar.
And very few people know about it.
The legislation is known as The National Popular Vote bill, and there’s an ongoing attempt to get it passed in as many states as possible. It’s mainly being championed by Democrats, with a sprinkling of Republicans to give it the aura of ‘bi-partisanship’.
The states above control 138 electoral votes. Because they’ve all signed on to The National Popular Vote Act, those electoral votes will automatically go to the candidate who gets the most popular votes nationally -regardless of how the citizens of these states actually vote.
For instance, let’s say that in 2012 the largely Republican voters in downstate Illinois and some of the suburbs manage to outvote the Democrats, corpses, illegal aliens and vagrants put together by the ward bosses and the machine in Chicago and Cook County. Because the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature have managed to push the National Popular Vote Act through, Illinois’ 20 electoral votes would go not necessarily to the Republican candidate the majority of voters in the state chose but to whichever candidate got the majority of votes nationally. If Barack Obama were to win the popular vote nationally by even as little as 100 votes, Illinois’ 20 electoral votes will automatically go him.
This scenario is also known as Al Gore’s wet dream.
None of these states held a referendum on this. It was all done by legislative fiat.
It’s also interesting to look at some of the people behind this.
The Chairman, Dr. John Kozas of Los Altos California is a wealthy lefty who made his money from co-inventing the scratch-off lottery ticket and then lobbying state governments to sell them. Among many other far Left and socialist groups and candidates he’s supported as a donor and/or bundled for is Howard Dean’s Democracy For America ( DFA) political organization, Berkeley nut case Rep. Barbara Lee, Senator Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, The Democratic Farmer/Labor Party, the DNC, Senator Boxer’s PAC for a Change, and of course, Barack Obama. The list is a long one.
Tom Golisano is a prominent business man with deep pockets who was the co-counder of the Independence Party of New York, a party split between Perotistas and a strong Marxist element. He was also a Kerry donor.Forbes estimates his personal wealth at $1.2 billion.
Barry Fadem, the president, is a long-time Democrat operative in California, who worked for Governor Jerry Brown and Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally arguably one of the most incompetent and perhaps racist public officials in state history. He’s another Boxer donor, as well as to ActBlue, an organization that seeks to organize boycotts to penalize businesses thought to be too ‘Republican’.
Jason Roe was a Republican operative in the northeast with all that implies until he got a little too close to Jack Abramoff.
National Popular Vote Secretary Chris Pearson is another long time far Left Democrat operative who worked with admitted socialist Bernie Sanders and the Progressive Party.
Larry Sokol is a longtime Democrat legislative staffer and lobbyist in California. His connections were instrumental in shepherding the Nation Popular Vote Bill through the California Legislature.
Former Minnesota GOP Representative Laura Brod is something of the odd person out here.While the cast of the group is overwhelmingly Left- leaning, Brod says there is a conservative argument for NPV.
She claims that this is a state’s rights prerogative according to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, that the current system means that national candidates spend their time and resources and craft policy based on the needs of battleground states while ignoring states with little electoral clout and states they feel they have no chance of carrying. Brod’s argument is that NPV will make every vote count and force National candidates to campaign in every state. These arguments all have some validity. Democrat nominees usually give Utah and Texas a pass and Republicans do the same to Connecticut and Massachusetts…Please read the entire article as it is quite educational: Joshua Pundit
The NY Senate will vote first and, to date, only Senator Lee Zeldin and Assemblyman Al Graf have told me they are opposed. We have work to do New York and if the politicians tell you it probably won’t be voted on, please know that it is on the calendar and can be voted on any day. If they tell you it probably won’t pass, ask them why it is on the calendar.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Justice Department under deadline to answer court over Obama's health law comments
The Obama Justice Department has roughly 24 hours to explain to a federal appeals court whether the administration believes judges have the power to overturn federal laws -- in the latest escalation between the two branches of government over the federal health care overhaul.
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday at noon whether the administration believes judges have that authority. The challenge came after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care law and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court case.
The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.
"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.
Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to that question.
A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.
Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.
The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, though, told Fox News that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws.
"Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional," Carney said Tuesday.
However, he said the president was specifically referring to "the precedent under the Commerce Clause" regarding a legislature's ability to address "challenges to our national economy."
The most significant Supreme Court case hinges on the question of whether the individual mandate to buy health insurance violates the Commerce Clause. The administration argues it does not.
Though Carney said the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
Carney said that Obama was expressing the point that on national economic challenges, "there should be due deference paid as a matter of precedent to our democratically elected officials."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/04/justice-department-under-deadline-to-answer-court-over-obamas-health-law/#ixzz1r5K5kkz0
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday at noon whether the administration believes judges have that authority. The challenge came after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care law and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."
One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court case.
The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.
"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.
Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered "yes" to that question.
A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.
Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
"That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."
Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.
All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.
The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, though, told Fox News that there's no dispute from the administration regarding the courts' authority to strike down laws.
"Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional," Carney said Tuesday.
However, he said the president was specifically referring to "the precedent under the Commerce Clause" regarding a legislature's ability to address "challenges to our national economy."
The most significant Supreme Court case hinges on the question of whether the individual mandate to buy health insurance violates the Commerce Clause. The administration argues it does not.
Though Carney said the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown "deference" to Congress and that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
Carney said that Obama was expressing the point that on national economic challenges, "there should be due deference paid as a matter of precedent to our democratically elected officials."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/04/justice-department-under-deadline-to-answer-court-over-obamas-health-law/#ixzz1r5K5kkz0
Coming soon to a country near you.
The Telegraph
Internet activity 'to be monitored' under new laws
Ministers are preparing a major expansion of the Government's powers to monitor the email exchanges and website visits of every person in the UK, it was reported today.
Under legislation expected in next month's Queen's Speech, internet companies will be instructed to install hardware enabling GCHQ – the Government's electronic "listening" agency – to examine "on demand" any phone call made, text message and email sent, and website accessed in "real time", The Sunday Times reported.
A previous attempt to introduce a similar law was abandoned by the former Labour government in 2006 in the face of fierce opposition.
However ministers believe it is essential that the police and security services have access to such communications data in order to tackle terrorism and protect the public.
Although GCHQ would not be able to access the content of such communications without a warrant, the legislation would enable it to trace people individuals or groups are in contact with, and how often and for how long they are in communication.
The Home Office confirmed that ministers were intending to legislate "as soon as parliamentary time allows".
"It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes," a spokesman said.
"Communications data includes time, duration and dialling numbers of a phone call, or an email address. It does not include the content of any phone call or email and it is not the intention of Government to make changes to the existing legal basis for the interception of communications."
Nick Pickles, director of the Big Brother Watch campaign group, said: "This is an unprecedented step that will see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance seen in China and Iran.
"This is an absolute attack on privacy online and it is far from clear this will actually improve public safety, while adding significant costs to internet businesses.
"If this was such a serious security issue why has the Home Office not ensured these powers were in place before the Olympics?"
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, said that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had resisted the plan when they were in opposition.
"There is an element of whoever you vote for the empire strikes back," she told Sky News's Murnaghan programme.
"This is more ambitious than anything that has been done before. It is a pretty drastic step in a democracy.
"It was resisted under the last government. The coalition bound itself together in the language of civil liberties. Do they still mean it?"
Conservative backbencher Margot James said ministers would come under pressure to water down the proposals as the legislation passed through Parliament.
"I am sure there will be considerable pressure brought to bear as the proposals are debated for protections to be built in to protect people's privacy," she told the Murnaghan programme.
Internet activity 'to be monitored' under new laws
Ministers are preparing a major expansion of the Government's powers to monitor the email exchanges and website visits of every person in the UK, it was reported today.
Under legislation expected in next month's Queen's Speech, internet companies will be instructed to install hardware enabling GCHQ – the Government's electronic "listening" agency – to examine "on demand" any phone call made, text message and email sent, and website accessed in "real time", The Sunday Times reported.
A previous attempt to introduce a similar law was abandoned by the former Labour government in 2006 in the face of fierce opposition.
However ministers believe it is essential that the police and security services have access to such communications data in order to tackle terrorism and protect the public.
Although GCHQ would not be able to access the content of such communications without a warrant, the legislation would enable it to trace people individuals or groups are in contact with, and how often and for how long they are in communication.
The Home Office confirmed that ministers were intending to legislate "as soon as parliamentary time allows".
"It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes," a spokesman said.
"Communications data includes time, duration and dialling numbers of a phone call, or an email address. It does not include the content of any phone call or email and it is not the intention of Government to make changes to the existing legal basis for the interception of communications."
Nick Pickles, director of the Big Brother Watch campaign group, said: "This is an unprecedented step that will see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance seen in China and Iran.
"This is an absolute attack on privacy online and it is far from clear this will actually improve public safety, while adding significant costs to internet businesses.
"If this was such a serious security issue why has the Home Office not ensured these powers were in place before the Olympics?"
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, said that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had resisted the plan when they were in opposition.
"There is an element of whoever you vote for the empire strikes back," she told Sky News's Murnaghan programme.
"This is more ambitious than anything that has been done before. It is a pretty drastic step in a democracy.
"It was resisted under the last government. The coalition bound itself together in the language of civil liberties. Do they still mean it?"
Conservative backbencher Margot James said ministers would come under pressure to water down the proposals as the legislation passed through Parliament.
"I am sure there will be considerable pressure brought to bear as the proposals are debated for protections to be built in to protect people's privacy," she told the Murnaghan programme.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Muslim Brotherhood aims for Egyptian presidency
By Heba Saleh in Cairo
khairat al-shater
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Islamist group that controls parliament, has announced it would field a presidential candidate in a move that is likely to escalate its confrontation with the country’s military rulers.
The group said on Saturday evening it has chosen Khairat al-Shater, its top strategist and deputy leader, as its candidate in the May 23 presidential election.
The Brotherhood had pledged last year that it would not contest the presidential election in an apparent bid to reassure the army and western countries that there would be no Islamist power grab.
It now says it has been forced to present a candidate by the intransigence of the ruling military council which has refused to sack the interim government and appoint a new one led by the main forces in the elected parliament.
Freedom and Justice, the political arm of the Brotherhood, occupies just under half of the seats in parliament. Nour, an ultraconservative Islamist group, controls a quarter of the seats. The FJP has started measures in parliament to withdraw confidence from the government headed by Kamal Ganzouri who was appointed by the military.
Mahmoud Hussein, a senior Brotherhood official, said the decision was made in response to “threats to the Egyptian revolution” and to the country’s democratic transition.
Signs of a power struggle between the Brotherhood and the military council burst into public view last week with the two sides trading threats. The Islamists warned against a second revolution, while the generals hinted at a possible return to the repressive measures of the past targeting the Brotherhood.
Analysts say the formation of a new government is not the only issue in dispute between the soldiers and the politically-ascendant Islamists. The two sides, they say, are tussling over how much power the military will be able to retain in the post-Mubarak era.
The military has promised to hand over power after the election of a president in June, but they are understood to want to retain some political influence and a privileged status in the new constitution which shields them from civilian oversight.
The generals are also keen to preserve their economic interests and to get immunity from prosecution over any crimes or financial irregularities that may have been committed under Mr Mubarak or during the transition period since he was ousted.
khairat al-shater
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian Islamist group that controls parliament, has announced it would field a presidential candidate in a move that is likely to escalate its confrontation with the country’s military rulers.
The group said on Saturday evening it has chosen Khairat al-Shater, its top strategist and deputy leader, as its candidate in the May 23 presidential election.
The Brotherhood had pledged last year that it would not contest the presidential election in an apparent bid to reassure the army and western countries that there would be no Islamist power grab.
It now says it has been forced to present a candidate by the intransigence of the ruling military council which has refused to sack the interim government and appoint a new one led by the main forces in the elected parliament.
Freedom and Justice, the political arm of the Brotherhood, occupies just under half of the seats in parliament. Nour, an ultraconservative Islamist group, controls a quarter of the seats. The FJP has started measures in parliament to withdraw confidence from the government headed by Kamal Ganzouri who was appointed by the military.
Mahmoud Hussein, a senior Brotherhood official, said the decision was made in response to “threats to the Egyptian revolution” and to the country’s democratic transition.
Signs of a power struggle between the Brotherhood and the military council burst into public view last week with the two sides trading threats. The Islamists warned against a second revolution, while the generals hinted at a possible return to the repressive measures of the past targeting the Brotherhood.
Analysts say the formation of a new government is not the only issue in dispute between the soldiers and the politically-ascendant Islamists. The two sides, they say, are tussling over how much power the military will be able to retain in the post-Mubarak era.
The military has promised to hand over power after the election of a president in June, but they are understood to want to retain some political influence and a privileged status in the new constitution which shields them from civilian oversight.
The generals are also keen to preserve their economic interests and to get immunity from prosecution over any crimes or financial irregularities that may have been committed under Mr Mubarak or during the transition period since he was ousted.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Top Obama re-election campaign donor accused of fraud
WASHINGTON – A major donor to President Barack Obama has been accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official, creating new headaches for Obama's re-election campaign as it deals with the questionable history of another top supporter.
The New York donor, Abake Assongba, and her husband contributed more than $50,000 to Obama's re-election effort this year, federal records show. But Assongba is also fending off a civil court case in Florida, where she's accused of thieving more than $650,000 to help build a multimillion-dollar home in the state -- a charge her husband denies.
Obama is the only presidential contender this year who released his list of "bundlers," the financiers who raise campaign money by soliciting high-dollar contributions from friends and associates. But that disclosure has not come without snags; his campaign returned $200,000 last month to Carlos and Alberto Cardona, the brothers of a Mexican fugitive wanted on federal drug charges.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt declined comment to The Associated Press. He instead referred the AP to previous statements he made to The Washington Post, which first reported the allegations against Assongba in its Sunday editions.
LaBolt told the paper 1.3 million Americans have donated to the campaign, and that it addresses issues with contributions promptly.
Assongba was listed on Obama's campaign website as one of its volunteer fundraisers -- a much smaller group of about 440 people.
Assongba and her husband, Anthony J.W. DeRosa, run a charity called Abake's Foundation that distributes school supplies and food in Benin, Africa. A photo posted on Assongba's Facebook page shows the couple standing next to Obama at a May 2010 fundraiser.
In one Florida case, which is still ongoing, Swiss businessman Klaus-Werner Pusch accused Assongba in 2009 of engaging him in an email scam -- then using the money to buy a multimillion-dollar home, the Post reported. The suit alleges Assongba impersonated a bank official to do it. Pusch referred the AP's questions to his attorney, who did not immediately return requests seeking comment Sunday.
Meanwhile, Assongba has left a trail of debts, with a former landlord demanding in court more than $10,000 in back rent and damages for a previous apartment. She was also evicted in 2004 after owing $5,000 in rent, records show.
In an interview with the AP on Sunday, DeRosa said the allegations against his wife were untrue, although he couldn't discuss specifics because of pending litigation. He said he and Assongba were "very perturbed" by the charges, and said the couple's charity does important work in Africa.
Assongba has given more than $70,000 to Democratic candidates in recent years, an AP review of Federal Election Commission data shows. Her larger contributions include $35,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between Obama and the Democratic Party, and $15,000 to Democrats running for Congress. DeRosa also gave $15,000 to Obama's victory fund in April 2011, records show.
Abake's Foundation is listed by the IRS as a registered nonprofit organization; its financial reports were unavailable. A representative who picked up the phone at the foundation's Benin office declined to answer questions, and instead referred the AP to Assongba.
Obama's campaign declined to comment on whether its vetting procedures were thorough enough, or whether Assongba's contribution would be refunded. All told, Obama has raised more than $120 million this election, not counting millions more from the Democratic Party -- giving him a financial advantage thus far over any of his Republican challengers.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/top-obama-re-election-campaign-donor-accused-fraud/#ixzz1qsqWwEAX
The New York donor, Abake Assongba, and her husband contributed more than $50,000 to Obama's re-election effort this year, federal records show. But Assongba is also fending off a civil court case in Florida, where she's accused of thieving more than $650,000 to help build a multimillion-dollar home in the state -- a charge her husband denies.
Obama is the only presidential contender this year who released his list of "bundlers," the financiers who raise campaign money by soliciting high-dollar contributions from friends and associates. But that disclosure has not come without snags; his campaign returned $200,000 last month to Carlos and Alberto Cardona, the brothers of a Mexican fugitive wanted on federal drug charges.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt declined comment to The Associated Press. He instead referred the AP to previous statements he made to The Washington Post, which first reported the allegations against Assongba in its Sunday editions.
LaBolt told the paper 1.3 million Americans have donated to the campaign, and that it addresses issues with contributions promptly.
Assongba was listed on Obama's campaign website as one of its volunteer fundraisers -- a much smaller group of about 440 people.
Assongba and her husband, Anthony J.W. DeRosa, run a charity called Abake's Foundation that distributes school supplies and food in Benin, Africa. A photo posted on Assongba's Facebook page shows the couple standing next to Obama at a May 2010 fundraiser.
In one Florida case, which is still ongoing, Swiss businessman Klaus-Werner Pusch accused Assongba in 2009 of engaging him in an email scam -- then using the money to buy a multimillion-dollar home, the Post reported. The suit alleges Assongba impersonated a bank official to do it. Pusch referred the AP's questions to his attorney, who did not immediately return requests seeking comment Sunday.
Meanwhile, Assongba has left a trail of debts, with a former landlord demanding in court more than $10,000 in back rent and damages for a previous apartment. She was also evicted in 2004 after owing $5,000 in rent, records show.
In an interview with the AP on Sunday, DeRosa said the allegations against his wife were untrue, although he couldn't discuss specifics because of pending litigation. He said he and Assongba were "very perturbed" by the charges, and said the couple's charity does important work in Africa.
Assongba has given more than $70,000 to Democratic candidates in recent years, an AP review of Federal Election Commission data shows. Her larger contributions include $35,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between Obama and the Democratic Party, and $15,000 to Democrats running for Congress. DeRosa also gave $15,000 to Obama's victory fund in April 2011, records show.
Abake's Foundation is listed by the IRS as a registered nonprofit organization; its financial reports were unavailable. A representative who picked up the phone at the foundation's Benin office declined to answer questions, and instead referred the AP to Assongba.
Obama's campaign declined to comment on whether its vetting procedures were thorough enough, or whether Assongba's contribution would be refunded. All told, Obama has raised more than $120 million this election, not counting millions more from the Democratic Party -- giving him a financial advantage thus far over any of his Republican challengers.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/top-obama-re-election-campaign-donor-accused-fraud/#ixzz1qsqWwEAX
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)