Hillary 5.0: Why rebranding Clinton for 2016 race may be impossible

Obama Jr.

If, as The Washington Post recently reported, a new attempt by “marketing wizards” to “rebrand” Hillary Clinton is “focused on developing imaginative ways to let ‘Hillary be Hillary,’” then Mrs. Clinton and her presumed 2016 presidential campaign are in deep trouble.
That’s because when “Hillary is Hillary,” all kinds of contradictions and causes for mistrust arise.
The Washington Post wrote that, “Clinton’s words suggest that her 2016 campaign will stress economic fairness.” But consider Mrs. Clinton’s words, in a “thought leadership” lecture at UCLA. Mrs. Clinton said, “Businesses have taken advantage of unpaid internships to an extent that it is blocking the opportunities for young people to move on into paid employment.”

When “Hillary is Hillary,” all kinds of contradictions and causes for mistrust arise.

What the fawning mainstream media has missed is that the Clinton Global Initiative (part of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), in conducting its business, has taken advantage of unpaid interns, as the interns themselves testify.
Here are some of the comments from CGI interns from the website Glassdoor, which screens and then allows current and former employees to anonymously review their workplaces and managements.
“It is hypocritical that a non-profit that supports economic growth does not pay their interns and treat[s] them terribly.”
“No opportunities for advancement.”
“It is also unpaid, meaning the intern pool is filled with mostly well off folks, creating some tension among the intern pool.”
To be fair -- which Mrs. Clinton isn’t, while she hypocritically condemns corporations for doing exactly what she or “Clinton Inc.” does—the unpaid intern comments about CGI include positive remarks, such as this:
“Since the opportunity is unpaid, they compensate by offering a ton of networking and professional development opportunities!”
Back when she was a U.S. senator, Mrs. Clinton not only joined many of her Democratic and Republican colleagues in using unpaid interns, but, as The Washington Free Beacon revealed, between 2002-2008 “women working for her in the U.S. Senate were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.” Also, “During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man.”
Commenting on those pay disparities, Rosie Perez, a co-host on ABC’s The View said, “I have to be honest that, you know, I love Hillary and I was shocked. I was shocked. I was like, oh, no, this doesn't look good. This does not look good.”
In fact, there are legitimate explanations for unpaid internships and for pay differences between men and women. The trade-offs for unpaid internships often include experience and networking opportunities. And, as many studies have shown, wage gaps between men and women are largely accounted for by factors such as women choosing to work fewer hours, time taken off to have children or care for them, differences in education, and willingness to work at risky or high-pressure jobs.
But you won’t hear Mrs. Clinton speaking about that. It would ruin her “unfairness” demagoguery. Meantime, speaking of unfairness and compensation, Mrs. Clinton and her “rebranders” are grappling with a rash of conflict of interest, cronyism and questionable use issues surrounding Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
As Fox News reported, “The Clinton Foundation was on the defensive…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.” And, as The Washington Examiner wrote, “The New York Times editorial board, which can hardly be described as right-leaning, wrote that the foundation needed to ‘reassure the public that the foundation will not become a vehicle for insiders’ favoritism, should [Hillary] run for and win the White House.’”
The New York Times has also written that Mrs. Clinton’s “advisers say she can be expected to weave gender into matters of economic fairness and opportunity.” This will come in different forms: pushing the “barrier breaking” narrative of electing her as the first American woman president, but softening her hard-edged image with “frequent references to being a mother and grandmother,” and “present[ing] herself as a sensitive candidate capable of nurturing the nation at a difficult time.”
The real test of Mrs. Clinton’s “rebranding” is a test of authenticity. After decades in the public spotlight, will the “new, improved, rebranded” Hillary Clinton seem authentic or will her repackaging be transparent as just her latest image reinvention in her quest for power? Will voters buy what The Washington Post headlined “The making of Hillary 5.0” as real or merely political role-playing that serves her ambition but does not serve the best interests of America?
Indeed, when a “truth and trust” test is applied to “the making of Hillary 5.0,” the most relevant question may be a variation on one Mrs. Clinton used in her testimony about Benghazi: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Hillary Clinton's use of private email address while Secretary of State draws scrutiny

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal e-mail account to exclusively conduct official business during her time at the State Department, a move that raises questions about access to the full archive of her correspondence, as well as the possibility that she violated federal law requiring official messages to be retained for the record.
The existence of the account was discovered by the House select committee investigating the deadly 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and was first reported by The New York Times.
Clinton did not even have a government e-mail address during her tenure as America's top diplomat, which lasted from 2009 to 2013, and The Times reports that her aides took no action to preserve her emails on department servers, as required by the Federal Records Act.
Instead, the paper reports, Clinton's advisers selected which of her emails to turn over to the State Department for archival purposes after going through tens of thousands of pages of correspondence. The department said late Monday that it had received 55,000 pages of Clinton's emails as part of a request made to previous secretaries of state to turn over any official documents they may have had in their possession.
It is not clear how many total emails from that period were in Clinton's personal account, nor is it clear how Clinton's advisers decided which emails to hand over to the State Department.
Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, told The Times that the former Secretary of State expected that emails to State Department officials would be preserved. The fate of emails to foreign leaders, private citizens, and non-State Department officials is unclear.
"The State Department has long had access to a wide array of Secretary Clinton’s records -- including emails between her and Department officials with state.gov accounts," State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf told Fox News late Monday. Harf added that the department turned over about 300 emails to the Benghazi select committee, and noted that Clinton's successor as Secretary of State, John Kerry, "is the first ... to rely primarily on a state.gov e-mail account."
Records officials interviewed by The Times expressed grave concern over Clinton's practice, saying it represents a severe ethical breach and noting that personal e-mail accounts are far less secure than official ones.
Jason Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives, told the paper he found it "very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private e-mail communications channel for the conduct of government business." Baron added that the use of private e-mail accounts is meant to be reserved only for emergencies, such as when a department's server is not working or compromised.
However, The Times reports that the imposition of penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements are rare because the National Archives has so few enforcement mechanisms.
The report has drawn heavy criticism from Republicans, including at least one potential challenger in the 2016 presidential race. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who released 250,000 emails from his gubernatorial tenure this past December, tweeted about the contrast between his disclosures and Clinton's secrecy. 

Chicago credit downgrade hangs over Emanuel's mayoral runoff race

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s already struggling reelection bid has suffered another potential hit, with a fresh credit downgrade giving political ammunition to his runoff rival.
Moody's Investors Service last week downgraded the city’s credit rating, citing $20 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The agency lowered the rating on $8.3 billion in general obligation debt to near junk bond status and issued a cautious forecast about the city’s longer-term financial future.
The news comes as Emanuel, a former chief of staff to President Obama, heads into a runoff for a second term, after failing to get 50 percent in the Feb. 24 election. He faces Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, who finished second in the four-man race.
"The Moody's downgrade is yet another sign that Emanuel's financial priorities are simply wrong," said Garcia campaign manager Andrew Sharp. "It's time for change."
The credit-rating downgrade, from a Baa1 to Baa2, means that Chicago, the country’s third-largest city, will have to pay more to borrow money in the future.
Chicago has the worst-funded pension system of any major U.S. city, with the roughly $20 billion hole spread across four accounts.
Legislation approved last year seeks to eliminate a $9.4 billion shortfall in two of those pension systems by cutting benefits and increasing contributions for both the city and employees.
But Emanuel's pension overhaul is being challenged in the courts by retirees and public labor unions, which contributed to Moody’s also issuing the cautious outlook.
"Regardless of outcome of the legal challenges to pension reforms, we expect Chicago's unfunded pension liabilities -- and the costs of servicing those liabilities -- to continue to grow, placing significant strain on the city's financial operations," Moody's said.
Emanuel and Garcia, a fellow Democrat, are headed for an April 7 runoff.
Democratic strategist Philip Molfese said Monday he doesn’t think the downgrade will have a big impact on the race because voters are more interested in deciding which candidate presents the best opportunity to achieve the goal of having a "world-class city."
“It’s two Chicagos,” he said. “This race is fundamentally about becoming a world-class city and the path to that in which people don’t get left behind.”
Molfese pointed out that Garcia is considered a grassroots candidate, compared with Emanuel “who might be seen as somebody who looks to experts.”
But either way, he said, Chicago leaders have to hastily continue to reduce violent crime “because obviously the rate is not fast enough for anybody.”
The Emanuel campaign is trying to downplay the Moody’s report, saying other ratings services have reaffirmed Chicago's bond rating and citing Emanuel's moves "in righting the city's fiscal ship."
"The action by Moody's underscores the need to have a mayor who is willing to take on our challenges and level with Chicagoans, not try to distract them with empty rhetoric," said Emanuel campaign spokesman Steve Mayberry.
City Treasurer Kurt Summers said Emanuel has made significant progress in addressing the pension challenges without unfairly burdening taxpayers.
Moody's said action is needed to stop the debt from growing. The agency said commitments to increasing tax revenue or cutting costs could also prompt it to boost Chicago's rating.
However, Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, told the Chicago Tribune it was difficult to see how the next administration would manage the crisis "without significant new revenue or dramatic reductions in city services."
"Decades of pension underfunding, failure of the General Assembly to provide pension reform, and the city of Chicago's years of reliance on debt to fund operations have put the city in this financial position," he said.

Netanyahu ready to take Iran case to Congress in controversial speech

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday will make his case to Congress – and the American people – for why a pending nuclear agreement with Iran would risk his country’s security, in a controversial address that is drawing immense interest.
House Speaker John Boehner’s office, which invited the Israeli leader to give the address, says the demand for tickets is the highest for any such event since Boehner took over.
“The demand for tickets – from both Republicans and Democrats – is unprecedented, and has far outweighed their availability,” Boehner spokesman Mike Steel said.
Though some Democrats are sitting out the speech in protest, demand for tickets is still so high that both the House and Senate have set up alternative viewing locations, according to Boehner’s office.
However no member of the administration was expected to be present.
When asked if Daniel Shapiro, the American ambassador to Israel, would attend Netanyahu's speech, a State Department official told Fox News, "No member of the administration is attending."
On Monday, Netanyahu warned in a speech to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington that a potential nuclear deal with Iran "could threaten the survival of Israel."
As he kicked off a contentious visit to the United States meant to build the case against such an agreement, the Israeli leader underscored the dangers he said are posed by Iran, which he called the world's "foremost sponsor of state terrorism."
"Iran envelops the entire world with its tentacles of terror," he said, displaying a map showing various connections between Iran and terror groups. He warned Iran could pursue Israel's destruction if it obtained a nuclear weapon.
"We must not let that happen," Netanyahu said.
Both the Obama and Netanyahu administrations, as a matter of policy, agree that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon. But the Israeli leader has concerns that the framework of the current diplomatic talks could lead to an ineffective deal.
President Obama, speaking in an interview Monday night with Reuters on the eve of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, acknowledged the shared goal, then added Netanyahu “thinks that the best way to do that is either through doubling down on more sanctions or through military action, ensuring that Iran has absolutely no enrichment capabilities whatsoever…
“What we've said from the start is by organizing a strong sanctions regime, what we can do is bring Iran to the table.”
He added, “there’s no good reason for us not to let the negotiations play themselves out.”
Despite Obama saying he believed Netanyahu was “sincere about his concerns with respect to Iran,” the Israeli leader’s address to Congress on Tuesday has become the source of immense tension between the two governments.
The speech was arranged at the invitation of Boehner, but without the president’s involvement.
Some Democrats plan to boycott that speech, and Obama has no plans to meet with the prime minister -- although the White House insists this is out of a desire not to appear to be influencing upcoming Israeli elections.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News on Monday this is the "worst" he's ever seen the U.S.-Israel relationship. He claimed critics are acting "in such a hysterical fashion" because they're concerned Netanyahu will make a "compelling argument" against the pending Iran agreement.
Netanyahu, though, stressed Monday that the alliance is "stronger than ever" despite the current disagreement, as he gently mocked the recent media coverage.
"Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn't been given," he said. Netanyahu also said he meant no "disrespect" to Obama or his office in agreeing to address Congress. He said he "deeply" appreciates all Obama has done for Israel and did not intend to "inject Israel into the American partisan debate."
But he said he had a "moral obligation" to speak up about the dangers Israel faces, and stressed that these dangers are, for his country, a matter of "survival."
The prime minister's address was bracketed by speeches from two senior U.S. officials: U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.
Power, who spoke Monday morning, tried to ease tensions and offer assurances of the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship. She said that partnership "transcends politics" and always will.
She also stressed that diplomacy with Iran is the "preferred route" but the U.S. will keep its security commitments.
Rice, speaking Monday night, said the U.S. was seeking a deal that would cut off "every single pathway" Iran has to producing a nuclear weapon,” adding that Obama keeps all options on the table for blocking Tehran's pursuit of a bomb and declaring that "a bad deal is worse than no deal."
Still, Rice warned against holding out for "unachievable" outcomes, such as getting Iran to fully end domestic enrichment.
"As desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic or achievable," she said. "If that is our goal, our partners will abandon us."
Netanyahu considers unacceptable any deal that does not entirely end Iran's nuclear program. But Obama is willing to leave some nuclear activity intact, backed by safeguards that Iran is not trying to develop a weapon. Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and medical research.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday afternoon again touted the U.S.-Israel bond, and stressed that options remain on the table -- including a military option -- if Iran does not comply with any nuclear agreement.
He continued to give the chances for a deal a "50-50" shot, citing lingering questions over whether Iran's political leadership would sign off on one.

Internet Reg. Cartoon

Walker: 'My view has changed' on immigration reform

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a presumptive 2016 Republican presidential candidate, says he has changed his immigration stance and no longer backs comprehensive reform that would allow illegal immigrants to be penalized but remain in the country.
“My view has changed,” Walker said in a “Fox News Sunday” interview taped Friday. “I’m flat out saying it.”
Walker in 2013 said a plan in which illegal immigrants can become United States citizens by first paying penalties and enduring a waiting period “makes sense.”
However, he is now saying such a plan is tantamount to amnesty, amid criticism that he has flip-flopped on that issue and others -- including right-to-work legislation in his home state.
“I don’t believe in amnesty,” said Walker, who finished second Saturday in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll for potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates. “We need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works -- a legal immigration system that works.”
Walker also is among the 25 Republican governors who have joined in a lawsuit challenging the president’s 2014 executive action that defers deportation for millions of illegal immigrants.
After calling the right-to-work bill in the Wisconsin Legislature a “distraction” during his 2014 re-election season, Walker now touts the GOP-backed plan, which essentially stops unions from collecting dues from non-union workers.
On Sunday, Walker said that “now is the perfect time” for the bill to be passed and for him to sign it.
Walker also attempted to further clarify comments he made Thursday during his speech at CPAC, the country’s largest annual gathering of conservative activists, in which he seemed to compare the Islamic State and union-backed protesters he has faced.
“I'm not comparing those two entities,” Walker said. “What I meant was, it was about … the leadership we provided under extremely difficult circumstances, arguably, the most difficult of any governor in the country, and maybe in recent times. To me, I apply that to saying if I were to run and if I were to win and be commander in chief, I believe that kind of leadership is what's necessary to take on radical Islamic terrorism.”

DOJ Clears Zimmerman: Holder's political pandering comes to predictable end

Eric Holder’s political pandering has finally come to a predictable end. The outgoing attorney general will not bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin. Was there ever a doubt?
There was never a scintilla of evidence that the confrontation had anything to do with race or civil rights. But that did not stop Holder from abiding the racial hysteria ginned up by the Reverend Al Sharpton crowd. Nor did it stop President Obama from injecting race into a race-less case.

It seems inescapable that Holder chose to demagogue a tragic case to appease civil rights vocalists and burnish his liberal bona fides. If so, he elevated racial politics over the integrity of the law.

Never mind that a Florida jury acquitted Zimmerman last year of any culpability, finding that he acted purely in self-defense. Never mind that not a single witness testified that race was a factor. Forget that even the prosecutor told jurors in closing arguments that race played no role.
It didn’t matter to Holder that the FBI concluded more than two years ago that “there is no evidence the shooting was driven by racial bias or animus.”
None of that deterred Holder from reviving, after the verdict, his much publicized pursuit of a racially motivated crime where none existed. Let the grandstanding begin, facts be damned.
Any lawyer could tell you that what Holder was peddling amounted to pure fiction. But why?
It seems inescapable that Holder chose to demagogue a tragic case to appease civil rights vocalists and burnish his liberal bona fides. If so, he elevated racial politics over the integrity of the law.
Which is beyond shame. It is an abuse of power.

Democrats, Republicans accuse each other of trying to spin Netanyahu visit to their political advantage

The controversy over Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming congressional address intensified Sunday with Democrats and Republicans accusing each other of injecting too much politics into the event.
Secretary of State John Kerry said Netanyahu was welcome to speak in the United States and that the administration did not want the event "turned into some great political football."
Kerry made his remarks in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” that was broadcast before he left for more talks in Switzerland toward a long-term, multi-nation deal to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon.
Netanyahu is set to arrive in Washington late Sunday and will press his opposition to a diplomatic accommodation of Iran's program in a speech Tuesday to Congress.
The prime minister says he is making the address out of concern for Israel's security.
House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu last month, without consulting the White House, to give a joint address to Congress.
The invitation was considered a diplomatic no-no and further exposed tensions between Israel and the United States.
Netanyahu’s acceptance further angered the White House and Democrats, who were forced to choose between showing support for Israel and backing the president.
Boehner, R-Ohio, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the White House has "attacked" him and Netanyahu over the issue.
“It has been, frankly, remarkable to me, the extent to which, over the last five or six weeks, the White House has attacked the prime minister, attacked me, for wanting to hear from one of our closest allies," Boehner said.
He defended his decision to extend the invitation, saying Netanyahu can talk about Iran’s nuclear threat better than anyone.
“And the United States Congress wants to hear from him,” he continued. “And so do the American people."
He also said the demand for seats in the House to hear the speech has been huge, despite some Democrats vowing to skip the event.
The White House has said it will not meet with Netanyahu while he is in a reelection effort with a March 17 vote.
Whether Vice President Biden will attend the event remains unclear.
However, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told CBS that she plans to attend the event but won’t “jump up and down” like other members might.
She also took issue with Netanyahu saying he will be an emissary of the Jewish people, telling CNN’s “State of the Union” that he “doesn't speak for me on this."
Kerry’s remarks were a step back from Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, last week described the timing and partisan manner of Netanyahu's visit as "destructive" for the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
He also said that he talked to Netanyahu as recently as Saturday and argued that Israel is safer as a result of the short-term nuclear pact that world powers and Iran reached in late 2013.
Officials have described the U.S., Europe, Russia and China as considering a compromise that would see Iran's nuclear activities severely curtailed for at least a decade, with the restrictions and U.S. and Western economic penalties eased in the final years of a deal.
"Our hope is that diplomacy can work,” Kerry said. “And I believe, given our success of the interim agreement, we deserve the benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly good agreement with respect to the future."
Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Senate is pushing for a final say in the deal and wants to impose tougher sanctions on Iran should Tehran back out of a final agreement.
“The idea that Congress would sit on the sidelines and watch John Kerry, Susan Rice and Barack Obama negotiate with the Iranians … is just mind-boggling,” South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News’ “American's News Headquarters." “And I don't think we're going to let that happen.”
Graham also said six Democratic senators appear willing to side with Republicans on the issue.
Netanyahu also planned to speak Monday at the annual conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC.
He considers unacceptable any deal that does not entirely end Iran's nuclear program. But Obama is willing to leave some nuclear activity intact, backed by safeguards that Iran is not trying to develop a weapon. Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and medical research purposes.

Iraqi forces reportedly begin attack to recapture Tikrit from ISIS

 Iraqi forces backed by Shiite and Sunni fighters have begun an offensive to recapture the northern town of Tikrit from ISIS militants, state TV reported Monday.
Al-Iraqiya television said that the forces were attacking the city, backed by artillery and airstrikes by Iraqi fighter jets. It reported that militants were dislodged from some areas outside the city, but gave no details.
Tikrit, some 80 miles north of Baghdad, fell into the hands of ISIS last summer along with the country's second-largest city of Mosul, and other areas in its Sunni heartland. The city, which has an estimated population of around 260,000 people, may be best known as the hometown of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Any operation to take Mosul likely would require Iraq to seize Tikrit first, as the town sits on the main road from Baghdad.
News of the offensive came hours after Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called on Sunni tribal fighters to abandon ISIS, warning that Tikrit "will soon return to its people."
Al-Abadi offered the Sunnis what he called "the last chance", and promised them a pardon during a news conference in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad. His office said he arrived in Samarra to "supervise the operation to liberate Tikrit from the terrorist gangs."
"I call upon those who have been misled or committed a mistake to lay down arms and join their people and security forces in order to liberate their cities," al-Abadi said.
The Iraqi military previously launched an operation in late June to try to wrest back control of Tikrit, but that quickly stalled. Other planned offensives by Iraq's military, which collapsed under the initial ISIS blitz, also have failed to make up ground, though soldiers have taken back the nearby refinery town of Beiji, backed by airstrikes from a U.S.-led coalition.
Al-Abadi's comments appear to be targeting former members of Iraq's outlawed Baath party, loyalists to Saddam Hussein, who joined ISIS during its offensive, as well as other Sunnis who were dissatisfied with Baghdad's Shiite-led government. The premier likely hopes to peel away some support from the terror group, especially as Iraqis grow increasingly horrified by the extremists' mass killings and other atrocities.
In February alone, violence across Iraq killed at least 1,100 Iraqis, including more than 600 civilians, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq said Sunday. Last year was the deadliest in Iraq since its 2006-2007 sectarian bloodshed, with a total of 12,282 people killed and 23,126 wounded, according to the U.N.

Stand Behind Israel.

Internet Cartoon

Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Washington to address Congress

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu headed to Washington on Sunday to press his case against an emerging deal on Iran's nuclear program in a contentious address to the U.S. Congress, which he said he is delivering out of concern for Israel's security.
The address has caused an uproar that has exposed tensions between Israel and its most important ally, the United States. In accepting a Republican invitation to address Congress, Netanyahu angered the White House, which was not consulted with in advance of the invite, as well as Democrats who were forced to choose between showing support for Israel and backing their president.
Netanyahu plans to express his disapproval over a potential deal between Iran and world powers that he says falls short of preventing Tehran from having the ability to make an atomic bomb. A preliminary deadline is late this month.
"I feel deep and genuine concern for the security of all the people of Israel," Netanyahu told reporters on the tarmac, his wife by his side, before boarding his flight. "I will do everything in my ability to secure our future."
He called the trip a "crucial and even historic mission" and said he feels like "an emissary" of all citizens of Israel and the Jewish people.
Tuesday's speech to Congress has touched off a wave of criticism in Israel, where Netanyahu is seeking re-election on March 17.
His main challenger, Isaac Herzog, had demanded he cancel the speech. The former head of Israel's Mossad spy agency has called the address pointless and counterproductive. Netanyahu has long been a vocal critic of Iran, and his position is already well-known.
Stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb has become a defining challenge for both President Barack Obama and Netanyahu, yet they have approached the issue differently.
Netanyahu considers unacceptable any deal that doesn't end Iran's nuclear program entirely. Obama appears to be willing to leave some nuclear activity intact, backed by safeguards that Iran is not trying to develop a weapon.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Venezuela to shrink US Embassy staff, require Americans to apply for tourist visas

Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro announced Saturday the country will restrict the activities of U.S. diplomats, shrink the size of the U.S. Embassy staff and require Americans to apply for visas if they want to visit.
Maduro said at a protest against imperialism that “gringo” meddling had forced him to adopt the series of limitations that also includes requiring U.S. diplomats to seek approval from the Foreign Ministry before conducting meetings.
The new tourist visa requirement was imposed for national security reasons after authorities had detained several Americans, including a U.S. pilot, who allegedly were involved in espionage, Maduro said.
About an American pilot possibly being held in Venezuela, a State Department official told Fox News “we are still looking into it.”
Venezuela released four missionaries from North Dakota earlier Saturday. They were detained for several days for unknown reasons. Venezuela banned them from the country for two years.
Maduro also addressed President Obama directly Saturday, saying the U.S. president has "arrogantly" refused to engage in conciliatory talks. 
"I'm very sorry, Mr. President, that you have gone down this dead end," he during a speech that all Venezuelan television and radio stations were required to carry.
Venezuela plans to charge Americans the same tourist visa fees that the U.S. charges Venezuelans. The payment will have to be made in dollars. Maduro said he welcomes all comers.
A senior administration official in Washington said the U.S. government had not received any communications from Venezuela and couldn't comment yet on the new restrictions, which come after the U.S. recently imposed a travel ban on a list of top Venezuelan officials accused of human rights violations.
The official also again rejected Maduro's claims that the U.S. is plotting against Venezuela.
"We are aware of reports that President Maduro repeated a number of inflammatory statements about the United States during a televised political rally today. The continued allegations that the United States is involved in efforts to destabilize the Venezuelan government are baseless and false," said the official.
Earlier in the day, Venezuelans participated in two different protests. One rally called for the attention to a crackdown on government opponents and another showed support for the socialist administration.
Government supporters marched to the presidential palace to express their rejection of imperialism and commemorate the 26th anniversary of a convulsion of violence in Caracas widely seen by government backers as evidence of the brutality of pre-socialist administrations.
Opposition activists, meanwhile, gathered to denounce the arrest of Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma earlier this month and the death on Tuesday of a teenager who was shot during an anti-government protest.

Colleges using coffers for financial aid to illegal immigrants stirs debate on immigration reform

Several U.S. colleges are giving financial aid directly to students who are young illegal immigrants, extending the debate about helping people in the United States illegally at the expense of Americans who are in need of similar opportunities.
Such opportunities have opened up since President Obama's 2012 executive action that deferred deportation to millions of young people brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents. However, they still are largely ineligible for state or federal student aid.
New York University -- which receives federal, state and city money -- says the aid given to illegal immigrants is not at the expense of American students.
“This is not taking away from anybody,” MJ Knoll-Finn, an N.Y.U. admissions officer, told The New York Times, which first reported the story. “This is a formalized way of making sure these students know they’re welcome.”
However, others disagree.
"This policy not only encourages new illegal immigration, but comes at the expense of the college dreams of young Americans," Stephen Miller, spokesman for Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on immigration and the national interest, told FoxNews.com on Saturday.
Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Times that such funding has a "zero-sum aspect to it."
"The fact is, there is not an unlimited pot of money to help needy students or high-achieving low-income students. And there is a certain one-for-one, a crowding-out effect," he said.
NYU received at least $310 million in federal money in 2012, in addition to state and city grants, according to the school’s website.
In addition, school President John Sexton has put the NYU community’s support behind a budget proposal by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to give financial aid to illegal immigrants.
“Expanding educational opportunities for immigrant youth not only helps individual students,” Sexton wrote Cuomo in a Feb. 7 letter. “It helps entire communities, states and the nation as a whole.”
The New York legislature on Thursday pass a so-called DREAM Act, which would make illegal immigrants eligible for state tuition breaks and college savings plan. But the measure will face strong opposition from state Senate Republicans in the budget negotiations.
The battle is similar to those in Washington and across the county.
Congressional Republicans nearly shut down the Department of Homeland Security this week by trying to tie a funding bill to efforts to roll back Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Congress late Friday passed a last-minute bill, signed by the president, to fund the agency. But the funding is for just seven days, and the battle will resume next week.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Texas earlier this month temporarily halted the executive actions. The judge declined a Justice Department request to lift the stay by Wednesday. He is expected by Monday to make a decision on the request, but the administration will likely attempt to take the issue to a federal appeals court.
Other colleges reportedly acknowledge that the financial aid for illegal immigrant students comes from the same coffers that help American students but argue that diversity is always an admissions’ challenge and that illegal immigrant students bring a unique perspective to the campus community.
Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania is among the other colleges that are giving financial aid to illegal immigrant students.
President Daniel R. Porterfield said the school has been offering more of such aid as a result of the 2012 executive action, known as DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
“It now gives those students the legal right to be more out of the shadows than they had been when they were simply undocumented,” he told The Times.
Illegal immigrants in some states, including California and Texas, are eligible for state financial-aid programs. And more than a dozen reportedly allow illegal immigrant students who have attended public high schools to pay in-state college tuition.

Reports of possible deal on DHS funding reignites chatter about Boehner ouster

Multiple reports that House Speaker John Boehner has cut a deal to pass a long-term funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security without ties to rolling back President Obama’s executive action on immigration has reignited rumblings about a Boehner coup.
The deal was purportedly struck as the House agreed late Friday night to fund the agency for seven days to avoid a partial shutdown.
At least one congressional aide said the deal between Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was to get enough Democratic votes in the Republican-led chamber to avoid the shutdown at midnight Friday, in exchange for Boehner’s promise to allow a vote next week on a long-term funding bill “clean” of the immigration issue.
Boehner spokesman Mike Steel told Fox News that such a deal doesn’t exist. Pelosi’s office has neither confirmed nor denied such a deal.
The calls for Boehner’s ouster appear to be coming mostly from the 50-plus, most-conservative members who formed the new Freedom Caucus. And they appear to be growing more restless.
The number of House Republicans who voted Friday night against the 7-day funding for DHS was 55, compared to 52 who voted against the failed 3-week funding bill earlier in the evening.
The party’s most conservative wing tried unsuccessfully in January, at the start of the 114th Congress, to replace Boehner.
A dozen House Republicans either voted for somebody else or didn’t cast a vote.
Ousting a House speaker is unprecedented. Electing a House speaker and thus trying to remove one is a “privileged” effort in the lower chamber. Privileged resolutions can skip to the front of the legislative line and not be sidetracked by leadership.
Jefferson’s Manual, crafted by Thomas Jefferson and still used today as one of the main sources for House operations, says the following:
“A Speaker may be removed at the will of the House and a Speaker pro tempore appointed.”
But it’s unclear how that process happens since no speaker has ever faced a challenge in the middle of the Congress.
Boehner opponents could write a “privileged” resolution declaring that the speakership is vacant. The House would then vote on that motion or possibly vote to table or kill it.
The closest the House ever got to this scenario came during the failed coup attempt in July 1997 on House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
They tried to bring forth such a privileged “vacancy” resolution, but the coup fizzled after Gingrich learned of it and those who tried it realized they didn’t have the votes.

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.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

The Army veteran has encountered rough political surf since challenging President Obama.

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.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

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.

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.”