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