Saturday, February 28, 2015

FCC Cartoon (INTERNET)


'Knives are out': Hawaii Dem faces backlash for taking on Obama over 'Islamist' extremism


She was Hawaii's golden girl after winning a seat in Congress with support from top liberal groups, but now that Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has been critical of President Obama, her political reputation in the bluest of blue states is taking a hit.
That isn’t stopping the twice-deployed 33-year-old Army veteran from continuing to challenge the president, her home state's favorite son, over his refusal to identify terror groups like the Islamic State as driven by "radical Islam.”
“Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him,” Gabbard told FoxNews.com. “Our leaders must clearly identify the enemy as Islamist extremists, understand the ideology that is motivating them and attracting new recruits, and focus on defeating that enemy both militarily and ideologically.”
Gabbard has been hitting this message for weeks now, putting her at odds with many in her party who toe the line that the Islamic State should not be associated with Islam.
“Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him."- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii
Gabbard called "mind-boggling" Obama's refusal to associate ISIS with the Muslim religion, even though the terrorist army is emphatic it is enforcing a strict interpretation of Islam.
"[Obama] is completely missing the point of this radical Islamic ideology that’s fueling these people,” she said.
Her comments have stunned political experts in her home state.
“It is very, very unusual for a junior member in the president's own party to criticize him,” said Colin Moore, assistant professor at the University of Hawaii Department of Political Science. “Especially for someone considered a rising star in the party. This is a serious gamble for her.”
Michael W. Perry, of Hawaii's most popular KSSK Radio's "Perry & Price Show," said that "while Gabbard is correct in her 'emperor has no clothes' moment, she may have lost her future seat on Hawaii's political bench." He said she's committed "a mortal sin" by challenging Obama, and "now the knives are out."
For now, she's taking her hits in the media.
The editorial board of the online political news journal Civil Beat, owned by eBay Founder Pierre Omiydar, said "the bright-red Right" is promoting her criticism but she is not "presenting serious policy arguments."
"One wonders where Gabbard is going with this. Sure, the Iraq war veteran and rising political star is achieving national prominence in a high-profile discussion. But at what cost?" the editorial board wrote, saying her comments could be dismissed "as pandering from a young pol with lofty ambitions."
Bob Jones, columnist for the Oahu-based Midweek, wrote a scathing piece suggesting Gabbard should be challenged in 2016. "I take serious issue when somebody who's done a little non-fighting time in Iraq, and is not a Middle East or Islamic scholar, claims to know better than our President and Secretary of State how to fathom the motivations of terrorists, or how to refer to them beyond the term that best describes them -- terrorists," Jones said.
Gabbard acknowledges the political risks. “I'm not naïve,” Gabbard said. “It could hurt me politically, but I don’t worry about it because that's not what I care about. ... Our national security and the future of our country is infinitely more important than partisan politics or my personal political future."

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who directed the Defense Intelligence Agency, said this should not be a political issue. “[Gabbard] has taken a very courageous stand in a party that just refuses to face reality,” he said.
Decorated intelligence officer and noted specialist on Islamic law, Stephen Coughlin, who authored the book "Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad," set for release in March, also sided with Gabbard. “Rep. Gabbard is correct as a matter of history, she is correct as a matter of current events, and she is correct of published Islamic law.”
While Gabbard has many detractors, she has a growing number of supporters, including a former Hawaii GOP congressional candidate who spent seven years in a POW camp in Vietnam.
“It is encouraging to see a bright young woman like Congresswoman Gabbard in politics in Hawaii, speaking up the way she is doing,” said retired Lt. Col. Orson Swindle, who was awarded 20 military decorations for valor in combat including two silver stars and two purple hearts.
Born in American Samoa as one of five children, Gabbard moved to Hawaii as a toddler. Her parents, strict social conservatives, were elected to public office in Hawaii -- her father, Mike Gabbard, to the state Senate, and her mother, Carol Gabbard, to the statewide Board of Education.
In 2002 at age 21, Gabbard was the youngest person ever elected to the Hawaii Legislature. The following year, she enlisted with the Hawaii National Guard, and was voluntarily deployed in 2004 to Iraq with the 29th Brigade. On the military front, she made a name for herself, awarded the Meritorious Service Medal during Operation Iraqi Freedom and designated a distinguished honor graduate at Fort McClellan's Officer Candidate School.
After her first deployment, Gabbard worked as a legislative aide in Washington, D.C., to U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, a beloved Hawaiian senator who advocated for his fellow veterans, until she was deployed a second time -- to the volatile "Sunni Triangle" in Iraq.
"She along with the soldiers of the 29th didn't spend all their time inside the wire, and witnessed the horrific Muslim on Muslim violence and carnage in the name of Allah," said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert G.F. Lee, the adjutant general for Hawaii during Gabbard’s deployment.
After returning home, Gabbard was elected to the Honolulu City Council in 2010. She stepped down to run for Congress in 2012, taking on the well-financed former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann. Much to the surprise of political observers, she easily beat Hannemann in the primary, largely with the help of the progressive veteran group VoteVets.org. She was also backed by Emily’s List and the Sierra Club.
Winning a second term in 2014 was easy. Throughout, she has been defined by her contrasts:
A captain in the Hawaii National Guard, she also was featured on the pages of Vogue magazine and named as one of The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful People.
She’s a left-leaning Democrat until it comes to foreign affairs.
She is a junior member of her party, but not afraid to speak up when she feels the highest-ranking member of her own party is wrong.
While she suits up at work, she leaves behind formalities to go surfing. She also is the first Hindu, the first Samoan, and one of the first two female combat veterans to serve as a member of Congress.
Some analysts believe she has stirred up controversy in preparation to challenge U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in the primary election in 2016. When asked by Fox News if she will run for U.S. Senate, Gabbard said “no.”
“Anyone who thinks I'm playing politics with national security issues clearly doesn't know me,” Gabbard said.

The Internet Gone Mad: Stop talking about white and gold dress. Now.


I’m color blind. There’s not much good that comes from being color blind. Traffic lights are a challenge. I can never be a pilot. My wife frequently sends me back into the closet to change the frightful mélange of colors in which I’ve adorned myself, and I’m useless as a sounding board for her when she’s shopping (there’s also the fact that she looks stunningly beautiful in any color).
But finally I’ve found the silver (or is it blue?) lining to being color blind. The gold/white, black/blue dress debate doesn’t matter to me. To me it’s green, blue, yellow, white, red, turquoise, magenta, grey, green and every other color on this great earth. And I don’t care.
I love Facebook, I tweet a lot, I’ve been known to Instagram on occasion. But this? This national debate over what color a dress may or may not be? What has happened to us?
If you see it a certain way, and like it, buy the damn thing. If you don’t it doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter -- not in a real sense, to anyone. No one. Not a single soul. But somehow the color combinations and what different brains and eyes register has taken Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and every water cooler conversation by storm.
People are fighting, yes fighting, over what colors they see in a dress. I hereby declare the Internet broken, the world gone mad, and our public discourse officially dumb and dumber.
Get a life people. This is a free country. See what you like. Wear what you like. Say what you like. Just stop doing it on social media.
Look, I love Facebook, I tweet a lot, I’ve been known to Instagram on occasion. But this? This national debate over what color a dress may or may not be?
What has happened to us? What has happened to debating the great issues of the day? New ideas on tackling terrorism, reaching across religious and cultural divides, discussing ways to end poverty in America and around the world, guarding our privacy in the digital era?
Hey, why talk about those things when there’s an ugly dress to talk about that could be blue and black or may be white and gold, or perhaps is made in both color combinations and there’s more than one photo of it. (Now there’s a whole new conspiracy theory to set Tumblr alight!)  The social square where we could all talk to each other and make the world a better, more inter-connected place has become a black hole of banality.
Just stop it.
And leave me alone in my purple and red pajamas. I’m watching llamas on the loose. They’re black and white. I think.

Jeb Bush stands firm on controversial immigration, education policies at CPAC


Jeb Bush stood firm at the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday, defending his position on immigration reform and Common Core before a sometimes skeptical crowd of voters who don’t always see eye to eye with his policies.
Energetic and composed, Bush also defended his record on granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants while he was governor of Florida.
“The simple fact is there is no plan to deport 11 million people,” he said. “We should give them a path to legal status where they work, where they don’t receive government benefits … where they learn English and where they make a contribution to our society.”
His comments were met with a mix of applause and scattered boos from the crowd – a change from earlier in the day when just the mere mention of his name triggered a chorus of boos.
Bush’s appearance at CPAC was largely seen as an olive branch to those conservative voters who have disapproved of some of his controversial ideas, as he moves toward a 2016 presidential bid.
At CPAC, Bush also defended his view on granting in-state tuition for students in the country illegally -- a stark contrast to ex-Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s view on the topic.
As Bush upheld his position on higher education standards, he also told the crowd that the “federal government has no role in the creation of standards” and said the government should not dictate what is taught in schools.
“The role of the federal government, if any, is to create more school choice,” he said to a cheering crowd.
Prior to Bush’s speech, there had been some talk of a walk-out. The National Review reported seeing “scores” of CPAC attendees leaving as soon as Bush began speaking with protesters reportedly chanting “USA, USA.”
Democratic National Committee spokesman Ian Sams said Bush’s speech was just more of the same.
“Jeb Bush isn’t a new type of Republican, and he certainly isn’t looking out for everyday people in America,” Sams said in a written statement. “Instead, he’s the same Jeb Bush who, as governor, supported slashing funding for urban schools and higher education, while giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations. Bush may say he can bring Latino voters into the GOP fold, but with priorities like these, that’s really hard to imagine.”
Earlier in the day, Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson strode onstage to give the conservative crowd a spirited history lesson, which included quotes from and about President John Adams and a lengthy warning about sexually transmitted illnesses.
Robertson’s unconventional speech was among the most well-received at CPAC.
The patriarch of the “Duck Dynasty” franchise was also on hand to receive the “Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award” at the event. During his acceptance speech, he launched into a lengthy monologue about morals, responding to criticism that he was too religious by telling the crowd, "I'm trying to help you, for crying out loud, America!"
“You lose your religion, according to John Adams, and there goes your morality,” he said. “We’re almost there. I hate to admit I got my facts from the CDC the day before yesterday -- 110 million, 110 million Americans now have a sexually transmitted illness.”
Robertson, whose walked on stage dressed down in a dark shirt and bandana, pulled out the Bible and read a passage from it. He exited the stage just as dramatically as he entered it.
He saluted the crowd and said in his signature dry tone, “God help us.”
Earlier in the day, former Texas Gov. Perry, declaring "our leadership is failing," told the crowd that the country needs to do a better job securing the border and fighting terror groups like the Islamic State -- but assured the audience "we will survive the Obama years."
Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said he was there “to speak plainly about the times we live in” and said the country “has entered a time of testing and our leadership is failing.”
Perry also called out Obama for comments he said have been less than truthful.
“The president declared that the advancement of ISIS has been stopped and that is not true,” Perry said. “He is wrong. To deny the nature of the threat and to downplay it is naïve and misguided. That’s the worst threat to freedom since communism.”
Perry also took on the topic of immigration. Perry said when the administration deals with immigration “people literally die.”
“We’ve had to deal with this issue last summer when there were literally tens of thousands of people showing up [at the border], “ he said. “The country was being impacted by it.”
Perry was among a handful of Republican presidential hopefuls courting the conservative crowd at this year’s conference.
As a parting shot, Perry told the crowd, “We survived Depression, we even survived Jimmy Carter and we will survive the Obama years too!”
Also making waves Friday morning at CPAC was Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
Rubio used his time to target Obama’s foreign policies, focusing mostly on Iran’s nuclear threat. During his speech, Rubio said America needed a leader who understands that the way to defeat the Islamic State “wasn’t to give him a job,” referencing comments made by State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf who suggested a way to fight the Islamic State was by creating jobs and economic opportunity.
Rubio also said negotiations between the Obama administration and Iran’s leaders to curb Tehran’s nuclear program were “foolish” and said the U.S. should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that it fully backs Israel.
Rubio also blamed Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s foreign policies for weakening America’s standing on the world’s stage.
“Because of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy, our allies no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us,” Rubio said.
Meanwhile, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton told reporters he’s considering a presidential run of his own and said those in the crowd were once again focusing on global threats.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., is scheduled to speak on Saturday – the final day of the three-day conference.

Where do your government tax dollars go?


While disclosing how tax revenues are spent will require added work for governments, added transparency could benefit them in the long term. We explain why.

By Joe Dalton and Aidan Manktelow
Photo credit: Thomas Koehler, Getty images         
Governments are increasingly finding themselves under the spotlight as the tax transparency debate continues to evolve. While multinationals may be challenged on how much tax they pay, governments are challenged on how they spend their revenues.
Brazil’s Football World Cup in 2014, billed as a way to showcase the country’s culture and growing stature as the world’s seventh largest economy, instead kicked off with controversy over unfinished infrastructures and protests outside resplendent stadiums by thousands demanding better health, transportation and education services.
In the United Kingdom, the activist group UK Uncut pairs its criticism of corporate tax avoidance with protests against reduced government services in the budget. The EU has faced calls to create an investment fund to pay for infrastructure. Government inspectors in the United States regularly make headlines with lists of wasteful spending projects.
Around the world, scrutiny of how governments spend tax revenue is the flip side of the additional transparency demands on taxpayers, leaving many officials feeling pressure to respond to constituent concerns.
“As many governments are facing economic crisis and imbalanced budgets, there is much more focus on the efficiency of the dollars that they spend on certain programs. And, of course, these issues are being discussed much more than they were in the past,” says Jean-Pierre Lieb, EY’s EMEIA Tax Policy Leader and former Director General of the tax authority in France.
Are governments opening up on spending?
While many taxpayers may see voting to remove an incumbent government from office as their primary means of holding them to account for misspending tax revenues, the rise of the tax transparency agenda may ultimately mean that citizens get a greater say over how tax revenue is spent.
International transparency initiatives are driving some countries to become more transparent about where revenues are spent. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), for instance, has led to the increased disclosure of payments made to governments by the extractive sector and, therefore, increased the accountability of tax-collecting authorities and governments.

“Governments should investigate the potential benefits offered by the changing transparency landscape.“

In the Democratic ­Republic of the Congo, for example, recent EITI reports helped identify a shortfall of US$26 million in royalty tax collections not properly accounted for by authorities.
The EITI also encourages informed debate among citizens about how revenues generated from the oil and gas sector should be used, putting pressure onto member governments to be more open about how they spend their revenue.
“The increased availability of this data will enable ­extractive stakeholders, analysts, journalists and ­citizens themselves to engage in debate about the management of natural resources, the impact this has on the economy, the medium- and long-term perspectives of the extractives sector and how revenues are shared between owners, operators and all levels of government,” EITI said in a recent progress report.
“EITI data will also create a better understanding of the volatility of the sector, optimal taxation regimes and, crucially, how mineral wealth translates into social benefits.”
The pressure’s on governments to open their books
In addition, civil society organizations such as the International Budget Partnership (IBP) and NGOs such as the Publish What You Pay (PWYP) coalition are also applying pressure on national governments to open their books. The IBP has created the Open ­Budget Index that assesses the transparency of government spending around the world.
Some governments are launching their own programs to increase transparency around where tax revenue is spent. As one example of this, in October, the UK Government, for the first time, sent a personal tax statement to its citizens detailing pound by pound how their tax payments contribute to public spending.
EY’s Jean-Pierre Lieb points out that countries such as Australia, Canada and France have appointed judicial bodies to control public accounts and issue a public statement on the quality and the fairness of public accounts. “These bodies will ensure that the money spent on those programs is well used and that there is a real economic or financial impact,” he says.
Citizens being directly consulted on government programs is perhaps the most transparent approach available to deciding government spending and taxation policies. Switzerland is one example of a country taking this approach, where direct votes by ­citizens are still held to approve budgetary measures.
Why transparency is good for governments
While disclosing how tax revenues are spent will require added work on the part of governments, transparency could benefit them in the long term. A government that responds more specifically to the priorities of its citizens will clearly be able to better target spending, which could boost its chances for officials’ re-election.
“The more transparency there is from governments about where they are spending ­revenue, the more individuals, electors and communities can assist those judgments and hopefully ensure that they align with the expectations and the aspirations of the people who our legislatures represent,” argues David Bradbury, Head of the Tax Policy and Statistics Division at the OECD.
New Zealand features at the top of the IBP’s Open Budget Index and similarly scores highest on the Corruption Perceptions Index 2013. It could be argued, therefore, that greater transparency from government helps to engender trust among the population.
The Open Budget Index suggests several other advantages of governments disclosing its tax receipts and spending:
  • It closes the door to waste and misappropriation of public funds.
  • It can lead to more efficient and effective government spending.
  • It helps governments to match national resources with national priorities.
  • It supports government efforts to manage debt.
  • It helps governments to secure cheaper international credit.
  • It helps build trust between governments and citizens and empowers citizens by giving them a voice on government spending.
The challenges of open budgets
Of course, open budgets bring their own challenges too. While a small country like Switzerland has proven it is possible to open up key spending decisions to a public vote, countries with larger, geographically dispersed populations or without advanced ­infrastructure and access to technology may face higher barriers to implement such a system.
There are also challenges in determining where to draw the line and how to overcome regional rivalries. For local councils and city administrations, there is also the concern that few have the time, the training or the inclination to really engage on anything other than fundamental issues.
Governments should investigate the potential benefits offered by the changing transparency landscape. Opening up tax revenue and spending information to engage the public in the budget process can deliver some valuable advantages, not least in enabling better targeting of revenue spend.
There are clearly significant practicalities that would have to be addressed, but the progress that has ­already been made in countries where a more open approach to revenue and budget spending is happening makes a case for additional transparency on the part of governments going forward.
Key action points
  • Consider the advantages of disclosing tax receipts and spending for building public trust as demonstrated, for example, by the IBP’s Open Budget Index
  • Study other government models for increasing transparency and consider which elements might be effective in your country
  • Understand that greater openness brings its own challenges, too, and anticipate them

Congress OKs stopgap DHS funding bill, lawmakers remain at impasse in immigration fight


After a dramatic and chaotic day of votes, Congress late Friday approved a stopgap bill to keep money flowing to the Homeland Security Department past a midnight deadline and avert a partial agency shutdown -- though Congress is no closer to a long-term deal.
The House voted 357-60 for a mere one-week spending bill. With the Senate already having approved the measure. President Obama signed the bill into law late Friday night.
But that legislation was passed only after efforts to pass a slightly more substantial stopgap – a three-week funding bill – melted down on the House floor Friday afternoon. Though it had been expected to pass, 52 Republicans defected and joined Democrats in opposing the leadership-backed legislation.
This led to bad blood late Friday between House Republicans who joined Speaker John Boehner in supporting the bill, and those who peeled off. One senior House GOP source told Fox News that the nearly 200 Republicans who backed that bill were “super mad” at those who left them hanging.
"There are terrorist attacks all over world and we're talking about closing down Homeland Security. This is like living in world of crazy people," tweeted Rep. Peter King of New York, a former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
In the end, Boehner was able to pass the one-week measure with the support of some Republicans, as well as Democrats – after Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told her caucus they could reverse course and back the last-ditch measure.
While DHS is funded for now, however, Congress’ punt only underscored the deep divisions over the way forward in a debate that centers not on DHS funding but the president’s controversial immigration executive actions.
Conservative Republicans want to reverse those actions as a condition for funding DHS. Democrats want to pass a stand-alone, full-year funding bill with no immigration provisions attached. But while some corners of the Republican caucus have backed down – namely in the Senate -- rank-and-file Republicans in the House have not.
"I am not going to vote under any circumstances to fund illegal conduct," Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., said earlier. "If it's illegal, it's illegal."
Their insistence on using the DHS funding as leverage to reverse or undermine the president’s immigration agenda leaves Boehner in a tough spot.
At some point, he could potentially resolve the stand-off by steam-rolling his rank-and-file to work with Democrats and pass the kind of long-term “clean” funding bill they want. There was speculation in the run-up to the late-Friday vote that he and Pelosi had struck a deal to do exactly that next week. (A spokesman for Boehner denies this.)
But on the Senate side, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has already met Democrats' demands to deal with the two issues separately. With his blessing, the Senate on Friday approved a longer-term, stand-alone DHS funding bill. However, House Republicans stalled that bill, voting instead for a so-called conference committee -- a way for lawmakers to hammer out a compromise measure.
But Senate Democrats have called this a "non-starter," and are trying to block it, teeing up another set of votes on that next week – unless the House takes a different tack. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats on Friday also blocked a separate bill undoing Obama's immigration actions.
The complicated debate leaves unclear how lawmakers can resolve the impasse, with Democrats not budging and Republicans divided over how far to take their fight against Obama's immigration plan, which gives millions of illegal immigrants work permits and a deportation reprieve.
Some argue that with a federal judge, for now, blocking the plan from going forward, there's less urgency to use legislation to achieve the same goal. Other conservative Republicans say the legislation is necessary.
"Some folks just have a harder time facing political reality than others," said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., speaking of other Republicans.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Fence Cartoon


Why final two years under Obama are extremely dangerous


He can’t bring himself to call Islamic terrorists what they are, but President Obama finally said something with which we can all agree. Speaking of his remaining time in office, he said: “Two years is a long time.”
He can say that again — and did, attaching a scary promise about his plans for the twilight of his ­tenure.
“Two years is also the time in which we’re going to be setting the stage for the next presidential election and the next 10 years of American policy,” he told wealthy ­donors in San Francisco. “So I intend to run through the tape and work really hard, and squeeze every last little bit of change.”
There you have it. Instead of cleaning up the messes he’s created, Obama is hell-bent on making more of them.
To continue reading Michael Goodwin's column in the New York Post, click here.
Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

FCC approves sweeping Internet regulation plan, Obama accused of meddling


The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday adopted sweeping new regulations sought by President Obama for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, in a party-line vote that is sure to be challenged by the broadband industry.
The commission, following a contentious meeting, voted 3-2 to adopt its so-called net neutrality plan -- a proposal that remained secret in the run-up to the final vote.
On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring service providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."
But the rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like a public utility, meaning providers like Comcast or Verizon would have to act in the "public interest" when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone.
Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, who delivered some of the most scathing criticism of the plan Thursday, warned the policy represents a "monumental shift" to "government control of the Internet."
Further, he accused the FCC of bending to the will of Obama, who last fall came out in favor of such a sweeping regulatory plan.
Pai said the FCC was reversing course from past positions for one reason: "President Obama told us to do so."
He warned of a litany of negative consequences, intended or not, from the net neutrality plan. He said it allows rate regulation -- and, ultimately, rates will go up and broadband service will slow.
Pai said that while the plan defers a decision on applying a service fee to Internet bills -- much like is applied to phone bills -- that surely will change.
"The order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes," he said. "Read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It's just a matter of when." 
Further, he pointed to slower Internet speeds in Europe, which largely treats the Internet as a public utility, in warning that the additional regulation will lead to less investment and slower speeds in the U.S. as well.
"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," Pai said.
Fellow Republican member Michael O'Rielly called the plan a "monumental and unlawful power grab."
Republican lawmakers, as well, blasted the proposal as an antiquated solution that would hurt, not help, Internet innovation.
"The Obama Administration needs to get beyond its 1930s rotary-telephone mindset and embrace the future," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.
While the broadband industry is expected to sue, Republicans in Congress said they will try to pass legislation scrapping the rules, although it's unlikely that such a bill would be signed into law by Obama.
But Democrats on the commission hailed the plan. To charges that the plan represents a secret scheme to regulate the Internet, Wheeler said: "Nonsense."
He claimed it was no more a plan to regulate the Internet "than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech."
Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn -- despite reports she was seeking last-minute changes in the plan to scale it back -- also voted with Wheeler on Thursday. She said it "strikes the right balance."
At stake, Clyburn said, is the risk of businesses getting preferential treatment over start-ups by getting better Internet speeds, or teachers having to worry about whether students can do research online without websites loading at "dial-up speeds."
Twitter said the new rules were a matter of protecting free expression.
"Safeguarding the historic open architecture of the Internet and the ability for all users to `innovate without permission' is critical to American economic aspirations and our nation's global competitiveness," Twitter wrote in a company blog post this week.
Net neutrality is the idea that websites or videos load at about the same speed. That means you won't be more inclined to watch a particular show on Amazon Prime instead of on Netflix because Amazon has struck a deal with your service provider to load its data faster.
For years, providers mostly agreed not to pick winners and losers among Web traffic because they didn't want to encourage regulators to step in and because they said consumers demanded it. But that started to change around 2005, when YouTube came online and Netflix became increasingly popular. On-demand video became known as data hogs, and evidence began to surface that some providers were manipulating traffic without telling consumers.
By 2010, the FCC enacted open Internet rules, but the agency's legal approach was eventually struck down. FCC officials would erase the legal ambiguity by no longer classifying the Internet as an "information service" but a "telecommunications service" subject to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.
That would dramatically expand regulators' power over the industry by requiring providers to act in the public's interest and enabling the FCC to fine companies found to be employing "unreasonable" business practices.
The FCC says it won't apply some sections of Title II, including price controls. That means rates charged to customers for Internet access won't be subject to preapproval, though critics warn of future regulation. But the law allows the government to investigate if consumers complain that costs are unfair.

No deal? House eyes stopgap to buy time as DHS funding deadline nears


House Republican leaders are looking at passing a stopgap funding bill to prevent an imminent partial shutdown of the Homeland Security Department, Fox News is told, as lawmakers struggle to reach a long-term deal.
The House is now weighing a roughly three-week funding bill, to buy time ahead of a Friday midnight deadline. This comes as the Senate prepares to move a longer-term bill -- after GOP Leader Mitch McConnell met Democrats' demands to remove provisions blocking President Obama's immigration actions -- but Fox News is told House Republicans plan to reject that.
Instead, they want to try and hammer out a new measure with the Senate in a so-called conference committee -- something Senate Democrats call a "non-starter."
The last-minute maneuvers continue to raise doubts about any long-term funding plan.
Earlier in the day, House Speaker John Boehner was coy about disclosing his chamber's next move and even blew kisses to reporters at one point.
On the Senate side, McConnell struck a deal with Democrats on Wednesday. He agreed to drop a GOP demand that President Obama's immigration actions be reversed as a condition for funding DHS. The problem, though, is dozens of Republicans want Boehner to keep fighting on the House side even if that means risking a funding lapse.
Boehner was coy when asked about the next step.
"We're waiting to see what the Senate can or can't do, and then we'll make decisions about how we're going to proceed," he said.
But alternative options appeared to be emerging late Thursday. One option is for Congress to move a short-term, stopgap bill to buy time -- something Congress often does when stuck in tough negotiations.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., said such a measure would likely last three weeks. He said an interim bill would be "ready to go."
Still, there’s concern Democrats could balk at another stopgap solution.
Lawmakers might have a little more time, though. While the funding deadline technically is Friday at midnight, lawmakers might -- practically speaking -- have until Monday morning, allowing them to work through the weekend to reach a funding deal. The idea is that if it looks like Congress is working toward an agreement, they wouldn't have to formally notify the federal government's equivalent of an HR office that DHS workers were losing funding -- at least until Monday.
For now, on the Senate side, things were going more smoothly. McConnell on Wednesday earned support from senior members of his caucus, with fellow GOP leaders making clear that the approach may be the only way to fund DHS past the deadline.
“This is crunch-time,” DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said Wednesday. “The clock is ticking. We’re running out of money.”

32,000 emails recovered in IRS targeting probe amid allegations agency chief may have lied


Investigators said Thursday they have recovered 32,000 emails in backup tapes related to the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative organizations.
But they don't know how many of them are new, and told a congressional oversight committee that IRS employees had not asked computer technicians for the tapes, as directed by a subpoena from House oversight and other investigating committees.
That admission was in direct contradiction to earlier testimony of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.
“It looks like we’ve been lied to, or at least misled," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. at a congressional hearing Thursday evening,
J. Russell George, the IRS inspector general, said his organization was investigating possible criminal activity.
The emails were to and from Lois Lerner, who used to head the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. Last June, the IRS told Congress it had lost an unknown number of Lerner's email when her computer hard drive crashed in 2011.
At the time, IRS officials said the emails could not be recovered. But IRS Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus said investigators recovered thousands of emails from old computer tapes used to back up the agency's email system, though he said he believed some tapes had been erased.
"We recovered quite a number of emails, but until we compare those to what's already been produced we don't know if they're new emails," Camus told the House Oversight Committee.
Neither Camus nor George would describe the contents of any of the emails at Thursday's hearing.
The IRS says it has already produced 78,000 Lerner emails, many of which have been made public by congressional investigators.
Camus said it took investigators two weeks to locate the computer tapes that contained Lerner's emails. He said it took technicians about four months to find Lerner's emails on the tapes.
Several Oversight committee members questioned how hard the IRS tried to produce the emails, given how quickly independent investigators found them.
"We have been patient. We have asked, we have issued subpoenas, we have held hearings," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the Oversight Committee. "It's just shocking me that you start, two weeks later you're able to find the emails."
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., questioned the significance of the recovered emails in an exchange with Camus.
"So as I understand it from your testimony here today, you are unable to confirm whether there are any, to use your own words, new emails, right?" she asked Camus.
"That is correct," Camus replied.
Maloney: "So what's before us may be material you already have, right?"
Camus: "That is correct"
Maloney. "So may I ask, why are we here?"
The IRS issued a statement saying the agency "has been and remains committed to cooperating fully with the congressional oversight investigations. The IRS continues to work diligently with Congress as well as support the review by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration."
The IRS estimated it has spent $20 million responding to congressional inquiries, generating more than one million pages of documents and providing agency officials to testify at 27 congressional hearings.
The inspector general set off a firestorm in May 2013 with an audit that said IRS agents improperly singled out Tea Party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Several hundred groups had their applications delayed for a year or more. Some were asked inappropriate questions about donors and group activities, the inspector general's report said.
The week before George's report, Lerner publicly apologized on behalf of the agency. After the report, much of the agency's top leadership was forced to retire or resign, including Lerner. The Justice Department and several congressional committees launched investigations.
Lerner's lost emails prompted a new round of scrutiny by Congress, and a new investigation by the inspector general's office.
Lerner emerged as a central figure in the controversy after she refused to answer questions at two House Oversight hearings, invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself at both hearings. At the first hearing, Lerner made a statement saying she had done nothing wrong.
Last year, the House voted mostly along party lines to hold her in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions at the hearings.

Conservative media may be asking the questions, but presidential hopefuls shouldn't expect a walk in the park


NATIONAL HARBOR, Md .– Republicans said after the 2012 election that they wanted to radically change the model for presidential debates in 2016 and have conservatives do more of the question-asking, rather than the "liberal media."
On Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the GOP got a first look at how that might go.
Talk radio personality Laura Ingraham conducted a 20-minute question and answer session with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Fox News host Sean Hannity queried Texas senator Ted Cruz, in a departure from the regular standard speeches that presidential hopefuls give to this annual gathering of activists.
Ingraham’s session with Christie heavily focused on Christie’s vulnerabilities – his recent political struggles, his volatile temperament, and his changes of position – while Hannity’s briefer interview with Cruz was marked by an awkward exchange over former President Bill Clinton’s libido. And Walker gave an ill-advised answer to a totally innocuous foreign policy question, an unforced error.
The takeaway: getting conservatives to ask the questions might not be as much of a pleasure cruise as Republicans think. The Republican National Committee made the change one of its top priorities and conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt has already been named as part of a panel of questioners at CNN’s primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library in California this September.
Hewitt is known as a tough interviewer, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush – considered the leader of the pack in the early days of the 2016 primary field taking shape – appeared on his radio show Wednesday. Hewitt asked Bush if he would be afraid of sending U.S. soldiers into combat over concerns it would be labeled “a third Bush war.”
Bush fended off the question, but it was similar in spirit to the ones that Ingraham threw at Christie on Thursday here. The irony may be that because there is no question about where interlocutors like Hewitt, Ingraham and Hannity stand on the ideological spectrum, political candidates may believe they are in for easier treatment, and will have far less ability to point a blaming finger at the media if things go awry, which in recent years has become an easy escape hatch.
Ingraham’s first question for Christie thrust his recent political struggles into his face, while several thousand conservatives watched from the floor of a darkened convention room floor.
“This has been a rough couple of months for you in the media,” Ingraham said, noting that many observers are saying to Christie, “You’re toast.” It gave Christie the opportunity to bash – who else – the media, and particularly the New York Times, but it was still a very public reminder of the many stories about Bush’s domination of the battle for donors and operative talent.
Ingraham then asked Christie why he had signed on to Common Core in 2010, forcing him to admit he regretted doing so. She pressed even further. “Not political regrets? These are regrets, real regrets?”
“Well these are implementation regrets,” Christie said.
Ingraham’s very next question went at him even harder: “Here are words used to describe you: explosive, short-tempered, hothead, impatient. And that’s just what your friends are saying.”
Christie said he was “passionate.” If a journalist from a mainstream TV network had been asking the questions, he or she might have been getting booed by the conservative audience by this point . Ingraham was not. She went on to attempt to draw Christie into criticizing Bush on his immigration positions, and then came back to his woeful standing in current polling.
“You were a frontrunner. Now you’re near the bottom,” she said. “Ben Carson is ahead of you.”
Christie could only point out that in February of 2007 “it was going to be Rudy Giuliani versus Hillary Clinton. That’s what the polls said then. So I feel pretty good.”
Ingraham asked a few more questions. One of them came back to Bush’s current strength, and her final question attempted again to pull Christie into a back-and-forth with his likely rival for the nomination.
It was an interview chock full of horse-race questions and attempts to spark intra-party fighting, two of the very things that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and other Republicans have complained were problems mainstream media outlets had created in the past.
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, by contrast, gave a pep rally of a speech to the conservative faithful that brought them out of their seats several times. It helped him continue the momentum he has built since a successful appearance in Iowa last month. But in the few moments that he was asked questions after his remarks, by American Conservative Union board member Ned Ryun, he gave a stumbling answer to a straightforward question about how he would deal with the Islamic State if he were president.
Walker said Americans want a president who does “everything in their power" to fight America’s enemies, and mentioned “confidence” as a key personality trait. He then cited his victory in a 2012 recall election spurred by pro-union activists as experience enough to prepare him for taking on terrorists.
“If I can take on 100,000 protesters I can do the same across the world,” Walker said.
Walker’s response was lambasted even by the conservative National Review. He denied afterward he was comparing Wisconsin protesters to Islamic radicals. “My point was just, if I can handle that kind of pressure, that kind of intensity, I think I’m up for whatever might come, if I choose to run for president,” Walker told Bloomberg News .
And he grew combative, accusing the media of wanting to “misconstrue” his comments. But in comments to CNN and the New York Times, he also backed off the substance of his assertion that facing down peaceful political protestors engaged in the democratic process of trying to oust him from office had prepared him for fighting an international menace. “I'm just pointing out the closest thing I have to handling a difficult situation, was the 100,000 protesters I had to deal with,” Walker said.
As for Cruz, he too gave a red meat speech to the crowd. But in a few minutes of questions from Hannity, it was a digression into Colorado’s legalization of marijuana that took the senator and the Fox News personality down a rabbit hole.
“I was told Colorado provided the brownies here today,” Cruz joked when Hannity asked him about the decision to legalize marijuana. Hannity responded by joking that he had eaten the brownies. “The magical mystery Hannity hour,” Cruz riffed.
Hannity then asked for one-word responses by Cruz to the names he would throw out.
“Hillary Clinton,” Hannity said.
“Washington,” said Cruz.
“Bill Clinton,” Hannity said, and then adopted a Clintonesque southern drawl, and began impersonating the former president ogling a member of the audience. “Hey, by the way, I want to say hi to that really hot chick in row seven over there,” Hannity said, pointing into the crowd as the audience laughed. “Hey, you know sweetheart, I’ll give you a tour backstage.”
Hannity stopped himself. “Sorry, he’s not responsible for this,” he said of Cruz, and then repeated Bill Clinton’s name.
Cruz paused, and then made a veiled reference that followed along with Hannity’s joke about the former president’s extramarital affairs.
“Youth outreach,” Cruz cracked.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Difference Cartoon


Iran hangs Obama in effigy even as it negotiates nuclear deal with US


Just weeks before Secretary of State John Kerry held new nuclear talks with Iran’s foreign minister in Geneva, Iranians were hanging Kerry's boss in effigy at a huge Tehran-sponsored rally marking the Islamic Revolution’s 36th anniversary, an event that critics say underscores the absurdity of the ongoing diplomatic effort.
The U.S. and Iran are trying to reach a final nuclear agreement by a March 31 deadline against a backdrop of ongoing anti-American hatred in the Islamic republic. Photos posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute this week show Iranians marching in front of a display depicting President Obama hanging from a gallows and carrying signs of Kerry, portrayed as a devious fox.
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took part in the Feb. 11 Revolution Day, which commemorates the 1979 overthrow of the U.S.-assisted Shah of Iran. The Iranians, as they have in past, chanted, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They also burned and trampled an American flag.
“The Iranians on the one hand want to get as many concessions as they can from America during the nuclear talks but on the other hand they are not ready to give up their anti-Americanism.”- Ali Alfoneh, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
MEMRI said other photos from the rally show Iranians waving posters of Obama looking like Pinocchio.
The U.S. and other superpowers want to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear intentions are peaceful, a claim that experts dismiss.
“The Iranians on the one hand want to get as many concessions as they can from America during the nuclear talks but on the other hand they are not ready to give up their anti-Americanism,” said Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.
Alfoneh said Iran’s 'anti-Americanism' gives the country some degree of legitimacy in the Muslim world.
“They’re using their hatred of America and their promotion of hatred of America to take over  the mantel of leadership in the Muslim world,” he said.
“This of course to me shows that even if a nuclear deal is reached between Iran and the U.S. it does not necessarily mean that Iran is going to change its ideological fundamental line against the U.S.”
The Iran expert said the Feb. 11 rally doesn’t necessarily mean Iran doesn’t want a nuclear deal.
“But what they are demonstrating is that if there is a deal they are not going to change their view of the U.S. as an enemy,” Alfoneh said.
Another Iran expert, Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said the Revolution Day footage indicates that Iran still views the U.S. as the main enemy.
“And that is not going to change even if we make a deal,” Berman said. He said the problem for the White House is the expectation that a deal on the nuclear front will lead to a broader reconciliation with Iran, which is not going to happen.
“What you have is an unreconstructed revolutionary regime and they’re not interested in relations with the U.S. in a long-term, meaningful way,” Berman said.
For months now, the U.S. and the world’s other superpowers have been trying to hammer out a deal with Iran that would freeze the Islamic republic’s nuclear program for a period of time. In exchange the U.S. would lift billions of dollars in sanctions that have damaged Iran’s economy. Last weekend Kerry flew to Geneva to join the negotiations and then on Tuesday went to Capitol Hill to make his case for a deal with Congress.
Also Tuesday an Iranian opposition group urged inspection of an "underground top-secret site" outside Tehran that it said was being used to enrich uranium intended for nuclear weapons beyond the detection of U.N. inspectors.
MEMRI said the day before Iran’s Revolution Day, the Facebook page of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called on Iranians to participate to show the U.S. that sanctions had not harmed the country.
"A U.S. official said that sanctions have trapped Iranians; On (Feb. 11) they will receive a decisive answer, God willing," Khamenei said in his call-to-action poster.
MEMRI that at a Revolution Day event in Kermanshah, Basij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi called the U.S. and the other superpowers at the nuclear talks—Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, the 5 + 1 coalition—“a coalition against humanity and against Islam.”
“The enemies always fear Islam and the progress of the Iranian nation, but do not (openly) say so,” Naqdi said. “Iran’s significant regional and global role has put an end to their exclusive hegemony.”
MEMRI also found a sermon Assembly of Experts member Ahmad Khatami gave on Feb. 13 in which he said that “this year’s processions" produced two new slogans: "‘No to sanctions an no to humiliation, (yes to) dignified negotiations,’ and ‘(our) response to all the (American ) options on the table is: death to American that opposes Islam.’”
He added, "So the Iranian people's hatred for America grows from year to year."

Donation to Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State violated ethics agreement, report says


The Clinton Foundation was on the defensive Wednesday after disclosing that it had accepted millions of dollars from several foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, including one donation that violated the foundation's ethics agreement with the Obama administration.
Most of the contributions -- which had not previously been detailed by the foundation -- were possible due to exceptions written into the organizations's 2008 agreement with the White House that limited donations from foreign governments, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the contributions. 
But foundation officials acknowledged that they should have sought approval from the State Department's ethics office in one instance. In a statement to Fox News, the foundation said it had received an unsolicited donation of $500,000 to its Haiti earthquake relief fund from the Algerian government in 2010. 
"As the Clinton Foundation did with all donations it received for earthquake relief, the entire amount of Algeria's contribution was distributed as aid in Haiti," the foundation's statement read, in part. "This donation was disclosed publicly on our website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed. This was a one-time, specific donation to help Haiti and Algeria had not donated to the Clinton Foundation before and has not since."
The statement did not make clear when foundation officials found out that the donation violated the ethics agreement or why the foundation did not alert the State Department at the time. 
At the time of the contribution, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.
The revelation that foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government were allowed to donate millions of dollars to the foundation could raise questions about Clinton's impartiality while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Earlier disclosures made on the foundation's website have revealed an increase in donations by foreign governments since Clinton left the State Department in 2013. 
The Post reported that rarely, if ever, has a potential presidential candidate been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from overseas. Clinton is widely expected to declare her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination sometime in the coming months.

‘Locked and Loaded’: FCC primed for vote on Internet regs, amid 11th-hour drama


The Federal Communications Commission is driving toward a landmark vote Thursday on a sweeping plan that critics warn would impose a new era of regulation for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, even as 11th-hour appeals inject added drama behind the scenes. 
The so-called net neutrality proposal has been the subject of fierce debate, in part because the 332-page plan is being kept from public eyes. President Obama's vocal push for aggressive Internet rules also has raised questions on Capitol Hill over undue influence by the White House -- but House Republicans who had planned a hearing on that very subject said Wednesday they would postpone after Chairman Tom Wheeler allegedly refused to testify. 
"This fight continues as the future of the Internet is at stake," House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., vowed, in a statement announcing the hearing delay. 
For now, the plan is in the FCC's hands. 
At issue is a proposal that proponents say would ensure an "open" Internet, by growing the government's power to oversee Internet service providers and establish new rules to bar companies from blocking or slowing data. 
But The Hill reports that a vital Democratic member, Mignon Clyburn, is now seeking last-minute changes to scale back Wheeler's proposal. 
This puts Wheeler in a tough spot because the FCC is composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. The Republicans are likely to oppose the plan, and Wheeler would need Clyburn on board to push it through. 
According to The Hill, Clyburn would leave alone the most controversial plank of the proposal -- a call to regulate broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, treating it much like telephones. 
But she reportedly wants to strip a new legal category that would give the FCC additional legal authority over certain deals over back-end Internet traffic. 
Her requests may be in the weeds, but they have the effect of potentially complicating Thursday's vote. The two Republican members, Ajit Pai and Mike O'Rielly, earlier this week already urged Wheeler to postpone that vote -- and to release the plan so the public can review it. Wheeler so far has not agreed to do so. Wheeler needs a three-member majority to approve the plan. 
Asked about the report in The Hill, Clyburn's office said she would not comment "on any potential changes to the Open Internet Order out of respect for the deliberative process." 
Her office said: "Any reports about policy or position shifts when it comes to the item have not been verified or confirmed by her office. Commissioner Clyburn continues to advocate for strong open Internet protections for consumers and looks forward to voting the item on Thursday." 
Still, Clyburn's supposed requests may not be a deal-breaker. 
One FCC official told FoxNews.com there appears to be little sign of the vote being delayed. 
"They are very locked and loaded with this whole thing," the official said. 
Pai and O'Rielly, meanwhile, have made their position clear. Pai tweeted a photo of himself with the proposal on Wednesday, announcing that he would oppose it. 
While Wheeler and consumer groups say the proposal is necessary to prevent providers from creating slow or fast Internet lanes in which content companies like Netflix can pay to jump to the head of the queue, Pai co-authored a Politico op-ed with Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman describing the plan as "heavy-handed." 
They said it would allow the FCC to regulate broadband rates; "decree" whether companies can offer "consumer-friendly service plans" like unlimited access to streaming music; and claim the power to force companies to "physically deploy broadband infrastructure." 
The commissioners argued that the panel was conjuring the idea of "digital dysfunction" in order to "justify a public-sector power grab." 
Wheeler, though, has pushed back on the calls for a delay. 
He tweeted earlier this week that the future of the "open Internet" is at stake, and, "We cannot afford to delay finally adopting enforceable rules to protect consumers & innovators." He also noted that the commission received "more than 4 million comments on #OpenInternet during past year that helped shape proposal." 
"It's time to act," Wheeler tweeted. 
Asked Tuesday about the call for a delay, an FCC spokesperson also told FoxNews.com that the 4 million comments amounted to an "unprecedented" level of public response. 
"In accordance with long-standing FCC process followed in both Democratic and Republican administrations, Chairman Wheeler circulated his proposal to his fellow Commissioners for review three weeks before the scheduled vote. The Chairman has seriously considered all input he has received on this important matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues," the spokesperson said. 
Even if the FCC approves the plan on Thursday, the next stop may be the courts. Industry lobbyists say it's likely that one of the major providers will sue and ask the court to suspend enforcement pending appeal. 
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that efforts by Hill Republicans to fight the plan with legislation appear to be fading. 
''We're not going to get a signed bill that doesn't have Democrats' support," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told the newspaper, though his office later pushed back on the notion that Republicans were giving up on the issue.

California Dems push to repeal 'welfare queen' law


California Democrats are trying to reverse a decades-old state law that bars families from getting extra welfare money for having an additional child, describing the law as "sexist" and "classist" -- despite concerns that repealing it could compound the state's money woes. 
The so-called "welfare queen" law was passed two decades ago during the heyday of welfare reform. At the time, Democrats were in charge of the state legislature and Republican Pete Wilson was governor. 
Today, Democrats are still in charge, but the base of support for the law is fading.
State Sen. Holly Mitchell recently introduced a bill that would repeal the policy, which she says was initially engineered to discourage welfare recipients from having additional children. The problem, she argues, is that it didn’t work.
In fact, with the cap in place, California’s childhood poverty rate has climbed to the highest in the nation. For Mitchell, this is her third attempt at abolishing the “welfare queen” law.
“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said in a written statement. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”
But Republican strategist Bradley Blakeman warned there could be repercussions to nixing the policy. 
“California is in serious financial difficulty,” Blakeman told FoxNews.com’s “Strategy Room.” “The law should stay as it is. It makes sense. It’s a good deterrent for parents to be responsible and not bring children into a world they cannot care for.”
Repealing the law indeed would cost California taxpayers. One analysis estimates that overturning it would cost an already cash-starved state close to $205 million just in the first year.
Coined in the 1970s when then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan described the case of a Chicago welfare fraudster, the term “welfare queen” has evolved into shorthand for a poor woman with children she can’t support without government checks.
Nationally, President Clinton signed sweeping welfare reform legislation into law in 1996. The next year, then-California Gov. Wilson and state lawmakers collaborated on a program called CalWORKs which set grant levels, work requirements and other standards for people eligible for financial assistance. 
The family cap idea was pitched as a way to cut down on government dependency. But Mary Theroux, senior vice president of The Independent Institute, told FoxNews.com that the data doesn’t add up. 
She said the current policy "isn’t even a Band-Aid," and, “They are dealing with symptoms, not causes.” 
Theroux isn't pushing for repeal, but rather, believes a better way to reduce the poverty rate is to tear down economic and educational barriers. 
California is among 24 states that have put family cap policies in place over the past two decades, according to the California Berkeley Law Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice. There are currently 15 states that have family cap policies, including Arizona, Mississippi and Virginia.
Under California’s law, welfare assistance is denied for any child born into a family in which any parent or child was receiving aid 10 months prior to the birth.
California, though, is the only state that grants exemptions based on the failure of three specific forms of contraceptives: IUD, Norplant and sterilization. The law says families that want to challenge the restriction must provide proof that their birth control failed. There are also exemptions in place for children born from rape or incest.
Some anti-poverty advocates like the California Latinas for Reproductive Justice say the government is “using the threat of deeper poverty” if recipients don’t use contraception.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Kim Jong Cartoon


Netanyahu turns down meeting with Senate Democrats


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday turned down an invitation to meet privately with Senate Democrats next week during his visit to Washington, saying the session "could compound the misperception of partisanship" surrounding his trip.
Angering the White House and Democrats, Netanyahu accepted an invitation from Republican leaders to address a joint meeting of Congress on March 3 and speak about Iran. The GOP leaders did not consult with the Obama administration, which the White House called a breach of protocol.
Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Monday invited Netanyahu to meet in a closed-door session with Democrats during his visit. He declined the invitation on Tuesday and expressed regret about the politically fraught tone of his trip.
"I regret that the invitation to address the special joint session of Congress has been perceived by some to be political or partisan," Netanyahu wrote. "I can assure you that my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."
Netanyahu said to meet with Democrats "at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship regarding my upcoming visit."
More than a half dozen House and Senate Democrats have said they will skip the speech, calling it an affront to President Barack Obama and the administration as they engage in high-level negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Vice President Joe Biden will be traveling and has no plans to attend the speech.
Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu, with the administration saying such a session would break with past practices of engaging with world leaders close to elections. Israel's elections are set for March 17.
Durbin said in a statement that he regretted that Netanyahu could not meet with the Democrats.
"We offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to balance the politically divisive invitation from Speaker (John) Boehner with a private meeting with Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel strong," Durbin said. "His refusal to meet is disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades."

African-American media group sues Comcast, Time Warner, Al Sharpton for $20 billion


A group representing black-owned media companies said two media conglomerates paid off Al Sharpton to make their merger look good.
While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has yet to decide whether media giants Comcast and Time Warner Cable can merge as proposed, the National Association of African-American Owned Media group has filed an explosive $20 billion lawsuit against the companies – and MSNBC host Al Sharpton -- for allegedly discriminating against black-owned media.
The complaint, filed in California on Friday, also names an array of African-American advocacy organizations for partaking in the “devious” discrimination. The plaintiff says it is a group that seeks to “unite voices across the communications and entertainment industries to fight for economic inclusion, including equal access to distribution, investment capital, sponsorship, and other critical resources.”
The suit alleges that Comcast’s memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with non-media civil rights groups, including the NAACP, National Urban League, Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network, further “facilitate Comcast’s racist practices and policies in contracting – or, more accurately, refusing to contract – with 100 percent African American-owned media companies.”
It claims that, to date, the only 100 percent African American-owned channel Comcast has agreed to broadcast is the Africa Channel, “with only limited distribution and channel carriage fees.”
“To obtain support for the NBC-Universal acquisition and for its continued racist policies and practices, Comcast made large cash ‘donations’ to the non-media groups that signed the MOUs. For example, Comcast has paid Reverend Al Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network over $3.8 million in ‘donations’ and as salary for the on-screen television hosting position on MSNBC that Comcast awarded Sharpton in exchange for his signature,” the suit continues. “Comcast spent millions of dollars to pay non-media civil rights groups to support its acquisition of NBC-Universal, while at the same time refusing to do business with 100 percent African-American owned media companies.”
According to the suit, such payments contained an ulterior motive – “to make Comcast look like a good corporate citizen while it steadfastly refused to contract” with fully African-American owned channels, and also claims that the media conglomerate refuses to treat these channels “the same as similarly-situated white-owned media companies.”
“White-owned media in general – and Comcast in particular – has worked hand-in-hand with governmental regulators to perpetuate the exclusion of 100 percent African American-owned media from contracting for channel carriage and advertising,” the suit alleges. “This has been done through, among other things, the use of ‘token fronts’ and ‘window dressing’ – African American celebrities posing as ‘fronts’ or ‘owners’ of so-called ‘Black cable channels’ that are actually majority owned and controlled by white-owned businesses.”
The suit goes on to note that Comcast is a “major player in Washington, D.C. and has used its clout and money to buy approval for its acquisitions and sweep its racist practices under the rug,” alleging that Comcast’s chief lobbyist and executive vice president, David Cohen, is the “mastermind behind Comcast’s many conflicts of interest.”
A representative for Comcast told FOX411 that while they do not generally comment on pending litigation, this complaint represents “nothing more than a string of inflammatory, inaccurate, and unsupported allegations.”
“We are proud of our outstanding record supporting and fostering diverse programming, including programming from African American owned and controlled cable channels. We currently carry more than 100 networks geared toward diverse audiences, including multiple networks owned or controlled by minorities,” continued the statement. “Comcast has engaged in good faith negotiations with this programmer for many years.  It is disappointing that they have decided to file a frivolous lawsuit.  We will defend vigorously against the scurrilous allegations in this complaint and fully expect that the court will dismiss them.”
The National Action Network told The Hollywood Reporter that they have yet to be served with court papers, but dismissed the claims against them as “frivolous” and declared their intention to “gladly defend our relationship with any company as well as to state on the record why we found these discriminatory accusations.”
California-based attorney, Leo Terrell – who is not connected to the suit – says it has “no merit whatsoever.”
“The plaintiffs have no direct evidence of discrimination. The lawsuit is nothing but accusations without factual support of racial motivation,” he told FOX411. “Had the plaintiffs approached me for representation, I would not take their case.”   
In December, the National Association of African-American Owned Media also filed a similar $10 billion racial discrimination lawsuit against AT&T and DirecTV.
"It is appalling, deeply upsetting and totally unacceptable now and moving forward that economic exclusion of 100 percent African American-owned media continues to be perpetuated by these behemoth media conglomerates and their persistent, rigid refusal to contract with 100 percent African American owned media," Mark DeVitre, President of NAAAOM, said in a statement at the time.

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos