Tuesday, April 30, 2013

DiGenova: State Dept. Denying Clearance to Benghazi Whistleblowers' Attorneys | CNS News

DiGenova: State Dept. Denying Clearance to Benghazi Whistleblowers' Attorneys | CNS News

Former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova said today that the State Department is denying clearances to attorneys who want to represent Benghazi whistleblowers - even though one of the attorneys already has a current Top Secret security clearance.
"The Department of State is refusing to grant clearances to Victoria and other people who want to represent the whistleblowers in an attempt to prevent the testimony," DiGenova, founding partner of the Washington, D.C. law firm of diGenova & Toensing, LLP, charged in an interview on Washington DC's WMAL radio.

GRAHAM, MCCAIN CALL FOR SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI AFTER INTIMIDATION REPORTS

GRAHAM, MCCAIN CALL FOR SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI AFTER INTIMIDATION REPORTS

by BREITBART NEWS 30 Apr 2013, 12:05 PM PDT 89 POST A COMMENT VIEW DISCUSSION
On Tuesday, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) called for a Senate select committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack of September 11, 2012 that resulted in the death of four Americans including Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens. Their press release criticized the administration for alleged intimidation of witnesses from the incident: “Revelations about witnesses being afraid to testify and military assets that could have been deployed in a timely fashion justify appointing a joint select committee. In light of these new revelations it is imperative that we learn everything we can from what happened before, during and after the attacks. We cannot allow those who serve our nation to feel abandoned when under attack, or by Congress afterwards.”
In his press conference today, President Obama said he was “not familiar” with reports of intimidation and threats to such witnesses. According to a lawyer for a State Department employee, “her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials …. I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened. And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”

Created Equal

Created Equal

Two recent news items highlight the issue of income inequality in America. First, a study by the Pew Research Center found that the net worth of the upper 7 percent has risen by 28 percent since 2009 while the net worth of everybody else has dropped by 4 percent. Second, a recent poll conducted by Gallup found that 52 percent of Americans—an all-time high—think the government should “redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.”
Alexander Hamilton
Income inequality receives more attention from the left than from the right. Conservatives usually view it as a consequence of a capitalist economy in which individuals of naturally unequal talents operate. It may be regrettable in the short term, but over the long term the same free market that produces inequality raises everybody’s standard of living. Today’s man of few means enjoys a better quality of life than did John D. Rockefeller a century ago, because of progress produced through capitalism.
But that should not be the end of the story. Many of the Founders, whom conservatives rightly admire, were worried about income inequality, even though the concept of governmental redistribution was foreign to them. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and their allies did not see wealth per se as a problem, but they worried about the potential for moneyed interests to tilt policy in their direction, at the expense of the public good.

Pigford:The Obama/Clinton Reparations Scam | RealClearPolitics

The Obama/Clinton Reparations | RealClearPolitics

The Pigford case is like something out of a Tom Wolfe novel. It would be hard to invent a more damning fable of modern government. It is a tale of special-interest pleading and of the politicians who give in to it (at first, Barack Obama wanted to pander to rural blacks, then he needed to do catch-up pandering to Hispanics). It is a story of greedy lawyers and hapless bureaucrats. It is equally ludicrous and dismaying. Take a good long look, and then recoil.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/30/the_obamaclinton_reparations__118176.html#ixzz2Ry06ze6P
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Rand Paul Warns of 1984 Surveillance Scenario | National Review Online

Rand Paul Warns of 1984 Surveillance Scenario | National Review Online




Amid calls for increased security measures following the Boston Marathon bombing, Senator Rand Paul warned of the dangers of allowing the government to install more surveillance cameras “willy-nilly” in open spaces, citing George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. “I think it’s important to note that it’s a slippery slope, and someday you may have cameras everywhere,” Rand Paul told Fox News’s Eric Bolling over the weekend. “Think of 1984, where the cameras were in your bedroom, and in your dining room, everywhere. You never went a moment’s notice without being watched.”
Paul made a distinction between government surveillance cameras and those used by private companies for security, noting that most of the footage used to capture the Boston Marathon bombers came from private businesses.

Exclusive–-Sessions: Immigration Bill Gives Amnestied Residents 'Immediate' Access to Welfare

Exclusive–-Sessions: Immigration Bill Gives Amnestied Residents 'Immediate' Access to Welfare


The immigration bill introduced to the Senate a week and a half ago would, if passed, allow illegal immigrants to access state and local welfare benefits immediately, Breitbart News has learned. The financial impact of allowing potentially millions of immigrants onto state and local public assistance could overwhelm these programs' budgets.

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) uncovered this loophole in the bill and many others, and he will circulate a memo detailing the gaps in the bill on Tuesday. Breitbart News exclusively obtained a copy of the memo before its public release.
“The Gang of Eight made a promise that illegal immigrants will not be able to access public benefits,” Sessions said in a statement to Breitbart News. “We already know that, once granted green cards and ultimately citizenship, illegal immigrants will be able to access all public benefit programs at a great cost to taxpayers. We have, however, identified a number of loopholes that would allow illegal immigrants to draw public benefits even sooner than advertised.”
If the bill were signed into law, America’s 11 million illegal immigrants would be legalized within six months, when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano submits her border security plan to Congress. Illegal immigrants would immediately be eligible for Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status, making them legal to live and work in the country.
As Sessions’ staff points out in the memo, “state laws frequently extend benefits to anyone ‘lawfully present’ in the U.S.” The Sessions team points to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) brief that details how the only requirement many state and local governments have with regard to immigrant access to public benefits is that they are “lawfully present.” The term “lawfully present” is a legal definition.

According to page 91 of the bill, all illegal immigrants granted legalized RPI status would legally be considered “lawfully present.” That section reads as follows:
‘‘(4) TREATMENT OF REGISTERED PROVISIONAL IMMIGRANTS.—A noncitizen granted registered provisional immigrant status under this section shall be considered lawfully present in the United States for all purposes while such noncitizen remains in such status, except that the noncitizen—
‘‘(A) is not entitled to the premium assistance tax credit authorized under section 36B of            the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
‘‘(B) shall be subject to the rules applicable to individuals not lawfully present that are set forth in subsection (e) of such section; and           
‘‘(C) shall be subject to the rules applicable to individuals not lawfully present that are set forth in section 1402(e) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18071).”
In evaluating whether an illegal immigrant qualifies for RPI status, Sessions’ staff points out, the legislation “explicitly forbids” the Department of Homeland Security from using current law, which blocks entry to those who could become "public charges," i.e. dependent on government welfare programs.  
“Therefore, when those here illegally who are unable to support themselves are legalized, much of the immediate fiscal burden will fall on state and local governments,” Sessions’ staff wrote in the memo.
In addition to that loophole, Sessions and his staff found several more loopholes that allow current illegal immigrants access to public benefits even on the federal level before the promised wait time of 13 years from the bill’s passage.
In the memo, Sessions’ staff notes that current illegal immigrants who are “granted RPI status will immediately become eligible for federal benefits through citizen and permanent resident dependents, with no requirement that they support their household as a condition of receiving or maintaining legal status.” That means any current illegal immigrant who subsequently has dependent children, who are, by right of birth, U.S. citizens would qualify for federal welfare benefits through them.


Obama: 'Maybe I Should Just Pack Up and Go Home. Golly.' | The Weekly Standard

Obama: 'Maybe I Should Just Pack Up and Go Home. Golly.' | The Weekly StandardWhen asked about second term failures, President Barack Obama responded by saying, "Maybe I should just pack up and go home. Golly."

Sounds like a great idea to me!

The Coming ObamaCare Shock

The Coming ObamaCare Shock:
In recent weeks, there have been increasing expressions of concern from surprising quarters about the implementation of ObamaCare. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat, called it a "train wreck." A ...

Monday, April 29, 2013

Freedom Quote

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed."

Noah Webster, 1787

Time to Confront Obama on Radical Islam

Time to Confront Obama on Radical Islam:
The time has come for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to confront US President Barack Obama.
A short summary of events from the past three days: On Tuesday morning, the head of the IDF's Mi...

Obama's Recovery Increases Wealth Gap Between Whites, Blacks

Obama's Recovery Increases Wealth Gap Between Whites, Blacks
on Mon, 29 Apr 2013



According to a report from the New York Times on Monday, President Obama’s economic recovery – the weakest recovery on record – is creating more of a wealth gap between blacks and Hispanics on the one hand and whites on the other than there was before the recession. The Urban Institute reported that white families, as of 2010, earned $2 to each $1 earned by black and Hispanic families earned. That statistic has been unchanged for decades. But when assets like homes, savings, and retirement accounts are factored into the numbers, whites gain significantly more ground. As of 2007, white families were four times wealthier than non-white families. By 2010, white families had a 600% advantage: white families had $632,000 in wealth, against $98,000 for black families and $110,000 for Hispanic families.

Why did the gap grow? Part of it was that so many black and Hispanic families took a heavy hit from the real estate downturn – as a percentage, more blacks and Hispanics fell into foreclosure than whites. Naturally, the university professors think that this is a manifestation of banking racism, rather than a manifestation of forcing banks to give subprime loans to unqualified borrowers.

Overall, Hispanic families dropped 44% of their wealth in that three year period, and black families dropped 31%. White families lost about 11%. The Times’ answer: institutional racism. And, naturally, the Times wants more government involvement: “Even if blacks and Hispanics make progress in the years ahead as the economy improves, the persistence of the wealth gap has pushed many public policy scholars to recommend the adoption of more ambitious programs to help reduce worsening inequality.”

Drones: Coming to a Sky Near You | RealClearPolitics



Drones: Coming to a Sky Near You | RealClearPolitics


The heavens will soon be thick with drones.
That, at least, is the confident expectation of the Federal Aviation Administration and a slew of states and companies competing for a coveted designation as one of six U.S. sites that will test the capability and safety of unmanned aircraft. The FAA anticipates there will be at least 10,000 of these aircraft in the domestic skies by 2020.


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/29/drones_coming_to_a_sky_near_you_118155.html#ixzz2Rrif4aGU
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Obama’s National-Security Fraud | National Review Online

Obama’s National-Security Fraud | National Review Online


Unlike you, federal government officials are immune from charges of fraud. The executive branch, vested with all of the government’s prosecutorial authority and discretion, is not going to investigate its own operatives for carrying out its own mendacious policies.

That is the story of last week’s Boston Marathon bombing and the frantic efforts of the bombers, the brothers Tsarnaev, to evade capture, shoot it out with police (one of whom they killed, and another of whom they wounded), and — we’re now told — detonate more bombs in Times Square.

The Times Square non-attack is quite interesting. The specter of it, projected in the immediate wake of the Marathon murders and maimings, is horrific . . . so horrific that the government, in leaking this tidbit from its botched interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, knew that news media were certain to lead their broadcasts with it. The press would never wonder why they, and thus we, were being told about it.

Click on Link for entire article

CURL: After failed charm offensive, Obama back to bashing GOP - Washington Times

CURL: After failed charm offensive, Obama back to bashing GOP - Washington Times


President Obama’s charm offensive has been a dismal failure. Of course, he didn’t really try all that hard. He bought dinner for a few Republican lawmakers, vowed to meet them halfway, but within a week — after his gun-grab bill went up in flames — he called them “liars” and stomped off in a huff, taking his ball with him.

The midterm elections in 2014 will decide whether the president can actually implement his far-reaching socialist agenda or if he’ll have to settle for the federal takeover of one-sixth of the nation’s economy with Obamacare.
In the meantime, Mr. Obama, like Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before him, is stuck with a divided Congress

Yet unlike his two predecessors, this president has almost nothing nice to say about the coequal branch or the men and woman elected by Americans to represent their dreams and goals. In fact, he’s spent the past four years setting Congressup as the fall guy for all his faults, even more so now that he no longer can blame Mr. Bush.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/28/curl-after-failed-charm-offensive-obama-back-bashi/#ixzz2Rri7wzrn
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Bill McNabb: Uncertainty Is the Enemy of Recovery - WSJ.com

Bill McNabb: Uncertainty Is the Enemy of Recovery - WSJ.com


Anyone hoping for signs of a healthy economic recovery was disappointed by lower-than-expected GDP growth for the first quarter of 2013—a mere 2.5%, far short of the forecast 3.2%. Meanwhile, the stock market continues to soar, hitting record levels in recent weeks. It's a striking disconnect, and one that is discouraging and confusing for Americans as they seek to earn a living and save for the future.
Companies and small businesses are also dealing with the same paradox. Many are in good shape and have money to spend. So why aren't they pumping more capital back into the economy, creating jobs and fueling the country's economic engine?
David Klein
Quite simply, if firms can't see a clear road to economic recovery ahead, they're not going to hire and they're not going to spend. It's what economists call a "deadweight loss"—loss caused by inefficiency.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

46 Senators Willing To Subjugate 2nd Amendment To U.N. Doctrine

On April 2, the U.N. passed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by a 153-4 vote, with the U.S. voting in favor. President Obama is expected to sign the ATT on June 3, but it will not be binding on Americans because the Senate, which must approve the ratification of the treaty, rejected it by a vote of 53 to 46. Every vote in favor of the treaty in the Senate came from a Democrat or an independent. A few Democrats voted with Republicans.

The Senate did this at 3 a.m. on March 23, after Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced an amendment to the budget to keep the U.S from entering the ATT.

As Breitbart News has reported, the ATT is a clear threat to gun markets and the 2nd Amendment.

Here are the 46 Senator who voted opposed the effort to keep the U.S. out of the ATT, thereby subjugating the 2nd Amendment to U.N. Doctrine: Baldwin (D-WI), Baucus (D-MT), Bennet (D-CO), Blumenthal (D-CT), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Coons (D-DE), Cowan (D-MA), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Franken (D-MN), Gillibrand (D-NY), Harkin (D-IA), Hirono (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD), Kaine (D-VA), King (I-ME), Klobuchar (D-MN), Landrieu (D-LA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), McKaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Merkley (D-OR), Mikulski (D-MD), Murphy (D-CT), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Schatz (D-HI), Schumer (D-NY), Shaheen (D-NH), Stabenow (D-MI), Udall (D-CO), Warner (D-VA), Warren (D-MA), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR).

Once Obama signs the treaty, it can be called up for future Senate votes to accept or reject a resolution of ratification. It will require two-thirds of Senate votes to succeed in ratification.

Ninety-Five Congressmen Sponsor DC Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act | CNS News

Ninety-Five Congressmen Sponsor DC Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act | CNS News

Ninety-five congressmen led by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) today introduced a bill restricting abortions in the Nation's Capital after the 20th week of pregnancy.
"The medical community has reached a clear consensus that unborn children at this stage, and perhaps even in earlier stages, can feel pain, Rep. Franks said after introducing the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Rep. Franks said.
"Several states, including my home state of Arizona, have already signed similar legislation into law," Franks noted. In July of last year, a federal judge upheld the ban.
Rep. Franks cited the horrific details coming out of the ongoing murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell to highlight the cruelty of abortion:
"The graphic accounts from abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell's murder trial remind us that abortion is a brutal and torturous enterprise.  This trial brings to light the gruesome nature of what happens in abortion clinics all across the country, including our nation's Capital where abortions are legal up to the moment of birth.
"The District of Columbia has always had an abysmal record where the protection of unborn children is concerned.  Now is the time for my colleagues to step up to our Constitutional responsibility and not sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure, which rips the live pain capable babies apart limb by limb, continues in the national Capital of the land of the free and the home of the brave."

More Documents Released Show USDA's Partnership with Mexico in Promoting Food Stamps for Illegals in US | CNS News

More Documents Released Show USDA's Partnership with Mexico in Promoting Food Stamps for Illegals in US | CNS News

A watchdog group released further documents detailing the USDA's partnership with Mexico in promoting food stamp usage among illegal aliens in the United States, particularly a Spanish language flyer provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sent to the Mexican Embassy saying they need not show documents while trying to enroll their children in the food stamp program.
"The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as 'SNAP' (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance. Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, 'You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children,'" writes Judicial Watch.
The documents were obtained by the watchdog group after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on July 20, 2012.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, says the collaboration between the USDA and the Mexican government to promote SNAP benefits for illegal immigrants should directly impact the immigration debate in America.
"The revelation that the USDA is actively working with the Mexican government to promote food stamps for illegal aliens should have a direct impact on the fate of the immigration bill now being debated in Congress," said Fitton. "These disclosures further confirm the fact that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. And the coordination with a foreign government to attack the policies of an American state is contemptible."

Rand Paul Throws Cold Water On Fast Moving Immigration Bill

Rand Paul Throws Cold Water On Fast Moving Immigration Bill

WASHINGTON — Sen. Rand Paul called for comprehensive immigration reform legislation to be delayed until Congress can investigate the Boston terrorist bombings to determine what added protections should be added to the legislation.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Paul bluntly warned, "We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?"

Losing Paul's support for the legislation could doom the Gang of Eight's legislation. Earlier this year the Tea Party favorite came out in support of comprehensive reform, including a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented workers in the country. His support has given cover to a number of other conservatives who have come out in support of tackling the issue this year.

But Paul made clear he would not be comfortable moving legislation without additional hearings on Boston, and new provisions.

"I respectfully request that the Senate consider the following two conditions as part of the comprehensive immigration reform debate: One, the Senate needs a thorough examination of the facts in Massachusetts to see if legislation is necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future. Two, national security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform to make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror," Paul wrote to Reid.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Guess What? Breitbart Was Right About Pigford

Guess What? Breitbart Was Right About Pigford

It’s rare to get this kind of vindication, so let’s enjoy it in memory of Andrew Breitbart for as long as possible.  For more than two years, Andrew and Lee Stranahan have investigated the Pigford settlement and the fraudulent claims that not only have cost taxpayers billions, but have left the original black farmers who sued the USDA over discrimination in the lurch.  Today the New York Times reports what Andrew and Lee have been saying all along — that the Pigford settlement was a political hack job by Tom Vilsack’s Department of Agriculture, and that it’s a magnet for fraud (via Twitchy):
The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.
From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.
Yet those concerns were played down as the compensation effort grew. Though the government has started requiring more evidence to support some claims, even now people who say they were unfairly denied loans can collect up to $50,000 with little documentation.
As a senator, Barack Obama supported expanding compensation for black farmers, and then as president he pressed for $1.15 billion to pay those new claims. Other groups quickly escalated their demands for similar treatment. In a letter to the White House in September 2009, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading Hispanic Democrat, threatened to mount a campaign “outside the Beltway” if Hispanic farmers were not compensated.

Freedom Quote

Every act of government intervention limits the area of individual freedom directly and threatens the preservation of freedom indirectly.

Milton Friedman

Obama's Debt Per Household Greater than Median Household Income

How exponentially has the national debt grown under Barack Obama? Since he took office, the annual amount of debt per household in the United States is greater than the annual median household income.

Since Obama took office, the federal debt has climbed $6,167,472,778,984.22 (at the time of this writing). Divided by the 115,031,000 households in the country, that means Obama has borrowed $53,616 for each household, compared to the latest recorded median household income of $50,502 (for 2011).

The federal debt on Jan. 20, 2009, was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On April 25, 2013, it was $16,794,349,827,897.30.

Dem Officials Convicted of Fraud in Getting Obama, Clinton on 2008 Ballot Illegally

Dem Officials Convicted of Fraud in Getting Obama, Clinton on 2008 Ballot
on Sat, 27 Apr 2013


In 2008, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got on the ballot illegally in the presidential primary in Indiana. On Thursday, two Democratic political operatives were convicted on all counts relating to the scheme.

Former St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition. It was apparently a plan hatched by Morgan, who told Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures on petitions so Obama and Clinton would be eligible for the state ballot. Blythe forged scores of names on the petitions.

Former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett was originally part of the scheme but then quit; he waited three years before he came clean with the plan. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton, who both could have been thrown off the ballot if the petitions had been challenged, marched merrily on.

In Indiana, presidential candidates need 500 signatures from each of the state's nine congressional districts to qualify for the ballot. With the help of the illegal plot, both candidates managed to garner enough signatures in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional district; Obama netted 534 signatures, Clinton, 704.

An Indiana State Police investigator said the police perused the Obama petitions and, "selected names at random from each of the petition pages and contacted those people directly. We found at least one person (and often multiple people) from each page who confirmed that they had not signed petitions or given consent for their name and/or signature to appear." The audacity of the forgers was so great that they even forged the signature of Joe Kernan, a former governor of the state.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Conservative Fact

In 1970, only 1.7% of the labor force was receiving federal disability benefits. Today, 5.7% of the labor force is receiving federal disability. Of interest, this change occurred while jobs were moving from hammer swinging to paper pushing. www.aHardRight.com

Social policies: Time to scrap affirmative action | The Economist

Social policies: Time to scrap affirmative action | The Economist


ABOVE the entrance to America’s Supreme Court four words are carved: “Equal justice under law”. The court is pondering whether affirmative action breaks that promise. The justices recently accepted a case concerning a vote in Michigan that banned it, and will soon rule on whether the University of Texas’s race-conscious admissions policies are lawful. The question in both cases is as simple as it is divisive: should government be colour-blind?
America is one of many countries where the state gives a leg-up to members of certain racial, ethnic, or other groups by holding them to different standards. The details vary. In some countries, the policy applies only to areas under direct state control, such as public-works contracts or admission to public universities. In others, private firms are also obliged to take account of the race of their employees, contractors and even owners. But the effects are strikingly similar around the world (see article).
The burden of history
Many of these policies were put in place with the best of intentions: to atone for past injustices and ameliorate their legacy. No one can deny that, for example, blacks in America or dalits in India (members of the caste once branded “untouchable”) have suffered grievous wrongs, and continue to suffer discrimination. Favouring members of these groups seems like a quick and effective way of making society fairer.
Most of these groups have made great progress. But establishing how much credit affirmative action can take is hard, when growth also brings progress and some of the good—for example the confidence-boosting effect of creating prominent role models for a benighted group—is intangible. And it is impossible to know how a targeted group would have got on without this special treatment. Malays are three times richer in Singapore, where they do not get preferences, than in next-door Malaysia, where they do. At the same time, the downside of affirmative action has become all too apparent.
Awarding university places to black students with lower test scores than whites sounds reasonable, given the legacy of segregation. But a study found that at some American universities, black applicants who scored 450 points (out of 1,600) worse than Asians on entrance tests were equally likely to win a place. That is neither fair on Asians, nor an incentive to blacks to study in high school. In their book “Mismatch”, Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor produce evidence that suggests affirmative action reduces the number of blacks who qualify as lawyers by placing black students in law schools for which they are ill-prepared, causing many to drop out. Had they attended less demanding schools, they might have graduated.
Although the groups covered by affirmative action tend to be poorer than their neighbours, the individuals who benefit are often not. One American federal-contracting programme favours businesses owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged” people. Such people can be 87 times richer than the average American family and still be deemed “disadvantaged” if their skin is the right colour. One beneficiary of South Africa’s programme of “Black Economic Empowerment” is worth an estimated $675m; he is also the deputy president of the ruling party. Letting members of certain groups charge more and still win public contracts is nice for the few who own construction firms; less so for the many who rely on public services. The same goes for civil-service quotas. When jobs are dished out for reasons other than competence, the state grows less competent, as anyone who has wrestled with Indian or Nigerian officialdom can attest. Moreover, rules favouring businesses owned by members of particular groups are easy to game. Malaysians talk of “Ali-Baba” firms, where Ali (an ethnic Malay) lends his name, for a fee, to Baba (a Chinese businessman) to win a government contract.
Although these policies tend to start with the intention of favouring narrow groups, they spread as others clamour to be included. That American federal programme began by awarding no-bid contracts to firms owned by blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans; now it covers people with ancestry from at least 33 countries. In India 60% of the population are eligible for privileges as members of scheduled castes, tribes or “other backward classes”. Such policies poison democracy by encouraging divisions along lines drawn by discriminatory rules. The anger thus stoked has helped stir bloody conflicts in India, Rwanda and Sri Lanka. And such rules, once in place, are almost impossible to get rid of. In 1949 India’s constitution said quotas should be phased out in ten years, but they are now more widespread than ever. America’s policies have survived decades of legal pushback, though not unscathed.
The content of their character
The University of Texas (UT) justifies discriminating in favour of black people not on the ground that society owes it to them, but because, it claims, a diverse university offers a better education to all its students. That is a reasonable argument—some companies benefit from understanding a variety of customers, for instance, and the police probably keep order better if enough of them share a culture with the neighbourhood they patrol—but it does not wash for most institutions. In UT’s case, although colleges benefit from a diversity of ideas, to use skin colour as a proxy for this implies that all black people and all Chinese people view the world in a similar way. That suggests a bleak view of the human imagination.
Universities that want to improve their selection procedures by identifying talented people (of any colour or creed) from disadvantaged backgrounds should be encouraged. But selection on the basis of race is neither a fair nor an efficient way of doing so. Affirmative action replaced old injustices with new ones: it divides society rather than unites it. Governments should tackle disadvantage directly, without reference to race. If a school is bad, fix it. If there are barriers to opportunity, remove them. And if Barack Obama’s daughters apply to a university, judge them on their academic prowess, not the colour of their skin

Examiner Editorial: How the FBI was blinded by political correctness | WashingtonExaminer.com

Examiner Editorial: How the FBI was blinded by political correctness | WashingtonExaminer.com


As the initial elation over the swift identification and ending of the Brothers Tsarnaev manhunt fades, a steady stream of facts are emerging that strongly suggest the need for a more sober assessment of the FBI's performance in the two years prior to the Boston Marathon bombing.
FBI counter-terrorism agents interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the brothers, in January 2011 after receiving a tip from Russian intelligence. Since the interviewing agents thought they heard nothing to indicate Tsarnaev was a terrorist, little else was done and the case was closed two months later. A few months after that, Tsarnaev went to Russia and encountered somebody or experienced something that apparently prompted him to become quite open about his devotion to a radical vision of Islamic jihad. The FBI visited him a second time after he returned to the United States but again concluded that Tsarnaev was not a threat. It is speculation now, of course, but it's difficult to believe the Tsarnaevs would have been able to carry out the bombing had they been under active surveillance before the 2013 Boston Marathon.
Whatever else may yet be discovered about what the FBI missed, there is no excuse for the agency not grasping the significance of the radical Islamist video Tamerlan posted on his Facebook page entitled "The Emergence of Prophecy: The Black Flags of Khorasan." The video explains and glorifies the prophecy of a mighty Jihadist army rising from the Iranian region of the Near East to conquer the world and establish an enduring Muslim empire. The Khorasan connection is a staple of al Qaeda ideology, and the video's presence on Tsarnaev's Facebook page was a red flag that should have alerted agents to a very real potential danger.
It is quite possible, though, the FBI agents who interviewed Tsarnaev on both occasions failed to understand what they saw and heard because that's what they were trained to do. As The Washington Examiner's Mark Flatten reported last year, FBI training manuals were systematically purged in 2011 of all references to Islam that were judged offensive by a specially created five-member panel. Three of the panel members were Muslim advocates from outside the FBI, which still refuses to make public their identities. Nearly 900 pages were removed from the manuals as a result of that review. Several congressmen were allowed to review the removed materials in 2012, on condition that they not disclose what they read to their staffs, the media, or the general public.
With the recent proliferation of revelations about FBI blindness on the Brothers Tsarnaev, a comment made last year by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, to Flatten now has a tragic resonance: "We've got material being removed more because of political correctness than in the interest of truth and properly educated justice officials. We are blinding our enforcement officers from the ability to see who the enemy actually is." The Boston bombing showed the tragic consequences of that blindness.

The people who broke immigration will not help fix it | RedState

The people who broke immigration will not help fix it | RedState


One aspect of my growing skepticism about the immigration reform proposals advanced by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and his Gang of Eight partners is that our immigration system did not break by accident.  It was mangled, deformed, defanged, and abused on purpose, by both government and private interests.  Rubio’s earnest enthusiasm would be appropriate for someone cleaning up after a natural disaster, but he’s dealing with something closer to sabotage.
That’s why all those promises about border security “triggers” ring so hollow.  The elements of the Administration that would be responsible for enforcing those triggers are almost hilariously straightforward about saying they won’t even seriously attempt to measure border security progress.  Rubio is looking for good-faith assurances from people who have little good faith to offer.  Between open-borders ideology and good old bureaucratic inertia, it’s entirely predictable that the Administration will simply pronounce itself fully compliant with any standards laid out by the Gang of Eight legislation… and then savagely attack anyone who suggests otherwise.  If skeptics in the years ahead actually try to delay the amnesty process because those triggers haven’t been satisfied, they’ll be denounced as xenophobes.  The Democrats actually have incentives to force such a showdown, because it would be a political field day for them.
A U.S. District Court judge just chastised Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano around for her deliberate refusal to obey immigration law.  Napolitano is getting sued by the union for immigration agents, because they don’t want to be accomplices to her efforts to impose her own agenda on deportation proceedings.  She greeted this suit with utter contempt, refusing to even meet with the agents’ union.  “I have never heard of a situation in which a group of law officers sued their supervisor, and you, for blocking them from following the law,” Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Napolitano on Tuesday. “They weren’t complaining about pay, benefits, working conditions – they were saying their very oath they took to enforce the law is being blocked by rules and regulations and policies established from on high, and that this is undermining their ability to do what they are sworn to do.”
Obama and Napolitano have been trying to impose the “DREAM Act by fiat,” invoking extra-legal powers to defer deportation action against illegal aliens who meet the conditions laid out in the DREAM Act, such as entering the country before they turned 16 and avoiding serious criminal offenses.  A District Court judge on Tuesday found that “DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings,” and allowed the suit by ICE agents to move forward.
The ostensible reason for Napolitano’s action was to “prioritize” her department’s resources.  ”The executive cannot remove 11 million people,” said a Justice Department lawyer.  ”The executive has authority to exercise its discretion.”  We’re always hearing that tired old song.  Immigration enforcement is too hard for the people who say they can manage our entire health-care system.  We’ll have tens of thousands of new IRS agents and helpful “navigators” to assist us with ObamaCare paperwork, but we can’t possibly spare anyone to enforce our immigration laws.
And yet, this same exhausted, hapless Homeland Security department is going to process millions of new citizens, collecting back taxes and fines from them along way, while deporting those who fail to meet the exacting conditions laid out by the Gang of Eight bill?  This spent, undermanned, threadbare bureaucracy is going to verify with total accuracy that everyone applying for amnesty was living in the United States before December 31, 2011?
The Administration has no reason to live up to its end of the Gang of Eight deal, and lots of reasons to violate it.  They don’t want to make themselves look bad by conceding that border-security triggers have not been met.  They don’t want to invest the effort required to carefully process 11 million potential applicants, who they currently insist they cannot keep tabs on.  They don’t want to take grief from “immigration advocates” for deporting those who don’t make the cut.  They want all those new Democrat voters rolling down the pathway to citizenship.
The Washington Times ran a story on Monday saying that 99.5 percent of the illegals who applied for legal status under Obama’s non-deportation policy were approved.  I’ve heard the methodology used to calculate this percentage called into question, but the approval percentage is clearly very high, and there’s every reason to think it will be remarkably high under the Gang of Eight regime.  The incentives to keep it that way are too powerful.
Many of those who willfully broke our immigration system can be found in the private sector.  CNS News relates that the Inspector General found over 10 million “no match” W-2 forms in a 2008 study – forms in which the name and Social Security number don’t match.  An “elite group” of 1,650 employers filed 500 or more no-match W-2 forms apiece.  One employer submitted 37,375 of them.
“For more than a decade, the federal government has suspected that employers who file large numbers of no-match W-2s may be knowingly hiring illegal aliens,” Terence Jeffrey of CNS explained, pleading with the government to at least investigate the top offenders who filed thousands of bad forms.
Border security is only part of the total security picture.  The integrity of the border will never be 100 percent perfect, so efforts to detect and deport those who cross it illegally must be ongoing.  But even though reams of data on these illegals have always existed, the problem was deliberately allowed to fester until it reached critical mass, and amnesty became an irresistible political imperative.  Even illegal immigrants themselves are treated like helpless victims of circumstance, when in truth they deliberately ignored clear legal requirements to cross the border.  We’re not supposed to refer to them as criminals or “illegal immigrants.”  That’s a way of using language control to obscure their active decision to violate American law.
The immigration system was broken on purpose; it cannot be restored on the honor system.  That’s one of the reasons that border security and tough immigration law enforcement must come first, with verifiable standards that cannot be gamed or ignored, before any discussion of a “pathway to citizenship” begins.  Let’s try using the information we have to enforce existing laws for a change, then see how large the remaining illegal population is, and make reasonable plans to assimilate it.


Ordered Liberty » The ‘Public Safety’ Follies

Ordered Liberty » The ‘Public Safety’ Follies

From a national security standpoint, there was no good reason to file a criminal charge against the Boston bomber suspect so soon and thus trigger procedures that, as everyone involved in the decision well knew, would stop the interrogation and require a Miranda warning.

The Presidential Wheel Turns - WSJ.com

The Presidential Wheel Turns - WSJ.com


Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 because he was not George W. Bush. In fact, he was elected because he was the farthest thing possible from Mr. Bush. On some level he knew this, which is why every time he got in trouble he'd say Bush's name. It's all his fault, you have no idea the mess I inherited. As long as Mr. Bush's memory was hovering like Boo Radley in the shadows, Mr. Obama would be OK.

Related Video

In an excerpt from a longer interview, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is asked by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution whether he plans to run for president in 2016. "Uncommon Knowledge" is produced by the Hoover Institution for WSJ Live.
This week something changed. George W. Bush is back, for the unveiling of his presidential library. His numbers are dramatically up. You know why? Because he's the farthest thing from Barack Obama.
Obama fatigue has opened the way to Bush affection.

***

In all his recent interviews Mr. Bush has been modest, humorous, proud but unassuming, and essentially philosophical: History will decide. No finger-pointing or scoring points. If he feels rancor or resentment he didn't show it. He didn't attempt to manipulate. His sheer normality seemed like a relief, an echo of an older age.
And all this felt like an antidote to Obama—to the imperious I, to the inability to execute, to the endless interviews and the imperturbable drone, to the sense that he is trying to teach us, like an Ivy League instructor taken aback by the backwardness of his students. And there's the unconscious superiority. One thing Mr. Bush didn't think he was was superior. He thought he was luckily born, quick but not deep, and he famously trusted his gut but also his heart. He always seemed moved and grateful to be in the White House. Someone who met with Mr. Obama during his first year in office, an old hand who'd worked with many presidents, came away worried and confounded. Mr. Obama, he said, was the only one who didn't seem awed by his surroundings, or by the presidency itself.
Mr. Bush could be prickly and irritable and near the end showed arrogance, but he wasn't vain or conceited, and he still isn't. When people said recently that they were surprised he could paint, he laughed: "Some people are surprised I can even read."
Coverage of the opening of his presidential library Thursday was wall to wall on cable, and a feeling of affection for him was encouraged, or at least enabled, by the Washington press corps, which doesn't much like Mr. Obama because he's not all that likable, and remembers Mr. Bush with a kind of reluctant fondness because he was.
But to the point. Mr. Obama was elected because he wasn't Bush.
Mr. Bush is popular now because he's not Obama.
The wheel turns, doesn't it?
Here's a hunch: The day of the opening of the Bush library was the day Obama fatigue became apparent as a fact of America's political life.
When Bush left office, his approval rating was down in the 20s to low 30s. Now it's at 47%, which is what Obama's is. That is amazing, and not sufficiently appreciated. Yes, we are a 50-50 nation, but Mr. Bush left office in foreign-policy and economic failure, even cataclysm. Yet he is essentially equal in the polls to the supposedly popular president. Which suggests Republicans in general have some latent, unseen potential of which they're unaware. Right now they're busy being depressed. Maybe they should be thinking, "If Bush could come back . . ." Actually, forget I said that. Every time Republican political professionals start to think that way, with optimism, they get crude and dumb and think if they press certain levers the mice will run in certain directions.

***

The headline of the Bush Library remarks is that everyone was older and nicer.
Jimmy Carter, in shades, with wispy white hair, was gracious and humorous. Anyone can soften with age, but he seemed to have sweetened. That don't come easy. Good for him.
George H.W. Bush was tender. He feels the tugs and tides of history. "God bless America, and thank you very much." He rose from his wheelchair to acknowledge the crowd. That crowd, and the people watching on TV—the person they loved and honored most was him.

Peggy Noonan's Blog

Daily declarations from the Wall Street Journal columnist.
Bill Clinton does this kind of thing so well—being generous to others, especially former opponents. "We are here to celebrate a country we all love," he said. He was funny on how he wanted Mr. Bush to paint him and then saw Mr. Bush's self-portrait in the bath and thought no, I'll keep my suit on. He got a laugh when he called himself the black sheep of the Bush family. I said everyone was older and nicer. It's occurred to me that the Clintons and both Bushes were president when baby boomer journalists were in their 30s and 40s and eager to rise. Everyone was meaner, both the pols and the press, because they were all young. Now they're in their 60s. When they went through the 9/11 section of the library, the day before the opening, some had tears in their eyes. They understood now what that day was. Young journalists: You're going to become more tolerant with time, and not only because you have more to tolerate in yourself. Because life will batter you and you'll have a surer sense of what's important and has meaning and is good.
President Obama was more formal than the other speakers and less confident than usual, as if he knew he was surrounded by people who have something he doesn't. "No matter how much you think you're ready to assume the office of the president, it's impossible to understand the nature of the job until it's yours." This is a way of seeming to laud others when you're lauding yourself. He veered into current policy disputes, using Mr. Bush's failed comprehensive immigration reform to buttress his own effort. That was manipulative, graceless and typical.
George W. Bush was emotional: "In the end, leaders are defined by the convictions they hold. . . . My deepest conviction . . . is that the United States of America must strive to expand the reach of freedom. I believe that freedom is a gift from God and the hope of every human heart." He then announced that on Saturday he would personally invade Syria. Ha, kidding. It was standard Bush rhetoric and, in its way, a defiant pushing back against critics of his invasions and attempts to nation-build. Who isn't for more freedom? But that bright, shining impulse, that very American impulse, must be followed by steely-eyed calculation. At the end Mr. Bush wept, and not only because the Bush men are weepers but because he means every word of what he says, and because he loves his country, and was moved. John Boehner weeps too when he speaks about what America means to him. You know why they do that? Because their hearts are engaged. And really, that's not the worst thing.
Back to the point. What was nice was that all of them—the Bush family, the Carters and Clintons—seemed like the old days. "The way we were." They were full of endurance, stamina, effort. Also flaws, frailty, mess. But they weren't . . . creepy.
Anyway, onward to Obama fatigue, and the Democratic Party wrestling with what comes next. It's not only the Republicans in a deep pit.