DENVER: RTD accused of double standard on ‘issue’ ads

DENVER — The operators of Denver’s bus and rail system are now under fire for “fact-checking” certain free speech and political ads while leaving others alone.

Before Republicans were allowed to run a political message on the side of a Denver bus, the Regional Transportation District in Denver asked for edits, citing its policy on “false, misleading, or deceptive” advertising.

When a pair of animal rights groups wanted to run political messages on the side of Denver buses, RTD again asked for edits, making certain all the facts checked out. One of the recommendations was so drastic, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) walked away without buying the space.

When a pro-Palestinian group wanted to run ads on the side of a Denver bus accusing Israel of war crimes and apartheid, RTD approved the message with no edits – except to change the color of a banner from red to yellow.

A months-long FOX31 Denver Problem Solvers investigation into how RTD makes decisions about issue advertisements uncovered a string of inconsistent decisions seemingly at odds with its written policy.

FOX31 Problem Solvers used Colorado Open Records laws to examine why RTD waived forward a controversial Anti-Israel ad while denying proposed campaigns submitted by Republicans and animal rights groups.

Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne found what appeared to be an uneven playing field.

When it comes to what messages get onto the side of a bus RTD’s written policy is simple.

They won’t accept ads for commercial products that are obscene or that pitch an illegal product and for “issue ads” RTD will not display anything false, misleading, or deceptive.

Late last year, pro-Palestinian groups made a splash around Denver buying bus ads implying Israel is guilty of war crimes and sending visitors to a website about “ethnic cleansing.”

RTD took the money then went on the defensive putting out a press release saying in part “political type-ads” are a “public forum” which there are “very limited controls.”

RTD spokesperson, Scott Reed told Halsne during a recent video interview, “You end up in a situation where you don’t like the ad, you don’t necessarily agree with it, but because of the fact it’s politically protected free speech it must be allowed to run otherwise it will result in a legal challenge.”

However, public records sought and obtained by FOX31 Problem Solvers show while RTD found nothing deceptive about the war crimes ad it had no troubles flagging, denying, and editing some other issue advertisements.

For example, FOX31 Denver uncovered a string of emails, contract changes, and other correspondence between the Colorado Citizens for Canine Welfare, RTD and RTD’s advertising partner, Lamar.

The records showed RTD intervened to “deny,” editorialize, then change the images and words on the canine group’s proposed bus billboard messages.

President of Colorado Citizens for Canine Welfare, Dr. Cheryl Saipe, says the group wanted a special ad placed on the back of twenty buses around Christmas 2013.

The banner originally said, “END PUPPY MILLS – SAY NO TO PET SHOPS AND ONLINE SELLERS – ADOPT!”

Records show RTD said no and stamped that version “denied.”

Halsne: “Did you think that your first submission was false or deceptive?”

Dr. Saipe:   “No.”

Halsne: “But RTD did?”

Dr. Saipe: “Well they didn’t use the word deception. I think they said you can’t prove that every pet shop sells only puppy mill dogs.”

Using its editorial control, RTD changed the ad to say no to puppy mill pet shops and online sellers – believing that was more accurate.

Saipe’s group was happy to add the words, but what was their alternative?

“We wanted an ad to get our message across about ending puppy mills by not buying dogs from pet stores or from the Internet,” said Dr. Saipe. “We’re new to this and I was just glad they would run it at all.”

Dr. Saipe added that RTD, despite the editorializing, treated them fairly, by allowing the ads to stay on some buses for a longer time period than listed on the contract.

Records show RTD also tried to change another animal rights ad. PETA wanted to buy bus backs saying, “Research shows livestock and poultry emissions cause more greenhouse gases than buses, cars and planes combined.”

RTD said no. Reed says the reason was simple: “They claim the study found certain things and that’s not what the study found.”

And, according to records obtained by FOX31 Problem Solvers, RTD thinks Boulder County Republicans got another ad wrong too.

The “BIG GOVERNMENT DEBT IS STEALING HER FUTURE!” message had a picture of a crying baby touting her share of the national debt at $150,000.

RTD did its own research and found that number was the amount owed by all taxpayers—and that babies don’t pay taxes. The debt number was lowered to $55,206 per citizen before being approved.

When FOX31 Denver shared its findings with Scott Levin, regional director of the local Anti-Defamation League, he was surprised. The ADL is a group that battles hateful content and anti-Semitism.

Levin says RTD had been publically defending its approval of the pro-Palestinian ad based on their inability to interfere with politically protected free speech.

Now, after seeing the other cases we’ve found of RTD making changes, he wonders.

Levin says, “There is no credible evidence that Israel has been involved in any ethnic cleansing or war crimes. If RTD is actually willing to evaluate, in these other campaigns, whether or not something is false, misleading or deceptive, it really ought to be doing it in this situation — to not do so is a double standard. Our belief is people are entitled to have bad speech. The way you overcome that is just with a lot more good speech, but if you’re going to establish a policy we want to make sure you apply it and apply it fairly.”

The Israeli War Crimes campaign was paid for by the Friends of Sabeel, Coloradans for Justice in Palestine and the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign (SeaMAC).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling March 18 of this year that a metro bus service in King County, Washington could “reject the ad” and “thus not violate the First Amendment.”

SeaMAC responded to an inquiry from FOX31 Denver, saying “Yes, the bus ad that ran in Denver is substantially the same as the ad that was first approved and accepted and then revoked in Seattle.”

Via: FOX31 Denver

Continue Reading...

[OPINION] Coffman: Misplaced trust in Iran will come back to haunt us

US President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference on the nuclear deal with Iran on July 15 in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC. (Mandel Ngan, AFP/Getty Images)

President Obama's recent nuclear enrichment agreement with Iran is an example of dangerous naiveté, based on a trust of Iran that is entirely misplaced, coupled with a gift of over $100 billion to Iran that it is likely to spend funding terrorism.

While the president quietly pats himself on the back for negotiating in good faith with a regime that murders Americans, has vowed to destroy Israel, and has no compunction about breaking agreements at its convenience, I am gravely concerned.

The two issues of most concern to me are Iran's history of dishonesty and the release of funds to Iran's government, which I believe Iran will use to fund ongoing terrorist efforts rather than to improve the lot of its people.

When the nuclear talks with Iran first began, the purpose and intent of the plan was to permanently roll back Iran's nuclear program. Over the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration backtracked on the original goals time and time again. While the secretary of state and the president stood in front of podiums and promised to ensure Iran's military nuclear program's dismantlement at the negotiating table, they quickly abandoned that goal. Meanwhile, Iran's ability to lie, cheat and steal its way to success is all too well-documented.

Just take the example of its nuclear site at Fordow. According to a 2003 agreement, Iran was supposed to acknowledge all sites as soon as the decision to begin construction was made. But it hid the Fordow site and refused to acknowledge it until September 2009, after it was detected by Western intelligence agencies.

Iran's concessions rely on the false assumption that it has been truthful in its declarations of how much enriched uranium it currently has and that U.S. intelligence assessments on its programs are accurate. Absent a wide-open inspection arrangement, expecting this murderous regime to comply is simply wishful thinking.

The second issue is that this agreement will provide Iran- backed terrorists a new source of funding. While sanctions based on Iran's support for terrorist activities, human-rights abuses and missile development are not part of this deal, estimates are that with the end of nuclear sanctions, Iran may attain access to as much as $150 billion. The key question then is what Iran will do with those funds.

Given that our modern-day relationship with Iran began in 1979 when the Islamic Republic of Iran allowed the seizure of our embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, I am not optimistic Iran's government will use these funds solely for peaceful purposes.

Iran has routinely provided advanced explosive capabilities to our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, causing the death of American soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians. Additionally, Iran is a major sponsor and funder of terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

The Iranian government claims that the released funds will go toward peaceful purposes, but I cannot believe it. I am convinced these funds will build a lot of car bombs, improvised explosive devices, and fund terrorists that will place our citizens, friends and allies at great risk.

Why President Obama thinks he can trust Iran is simply a mystery. While he apparently sees Iran and its religious radicals as the leaders of just another nation, those of us who served in the region, as I have on multiple occasions, see Iran for what it is: a terrorist regime that wants to kill Americans and wipe Israel off the map.

The president has now chosen to trust Iran's extremist leaders to adhere to a deal. I have no such trust, and will oppose this deal when it reaches Congress.

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, a Republican, sits on the House Armed Services Committee and Veterans Affairs Committee. He has a combined 21 years of military service and is a veteran of the first Gulf War and the Iraq War.

Via: Denver Post

Continue Reading....

How The Republican Presidential Candidates Are Responding To The Iran Deal

The Republicans running for president are blasting the Obama administration over the nuclear deal announced with Iran Tuesday.

“President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran will be remembered as one of America’s worst diplomatic failures,” said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. “The deal allows Tehran to dismantle U.S. and international sanctions without dismantling its illicit nuclear infrastructure—giving Iran’s nuclear weapons capability an American stamp of approval.”

“This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“Shame on the Obama administration for agreeing to a deal that empowers an evil Iranian regime to carry out its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ and bring ‘death to America,’” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said. “John Kerry should have long ago gotten up on his crutches, walked out of the sham talks, and went straight to Jerusalem to stand next to Benjamin Netanyahu and declared that America will stand with Israel and the other sane governments of the Middle East instead of with the terrorist government of Iran.”

“I have said from the beginning of this process that I would not support a deal with Iran that allows the mullahs to retain the ability to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel, and continue their regional expansionism and support for terrorism,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said. “Based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security.”

“The nuclear agreement announced by the Obama Administration today is a dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal,” said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. “A comprehensive agreement should require Iran to verifiably abandon – not simply delay – its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.”

“The deal threatens Israel, it threatens the United States, and it turns 70 years of nuclear policy on its head,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said. “I urge Republicans and Democrats in Congress to put aside politics and act in the national interest. Vote to disapprove this deal in numbers that will override the President’s threatened veto.”

“If Secretary Clinton goes along with President Obama’s efforts to appease Iran, it will make our enemies stronger, endanger our ally Israel and trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that will destabilize the region,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

“The Iran deal announced today with fanfare and another heaping dose of false hope is almost certain to prove an historic mistake with potentially deadly consequences,” former neurosurgeon Ben Carson said.

“President Obama’s decision to sign a nuclear deal with Iran is one of the most destructive foreign policy decisions in my lifetime. For decades to come, the world will have to deal with the repercussions of this agreement, which will actually make it easier for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon,” said former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

President Obama made an early morning statement at the White House, saying: “Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Liberal Boston Mayor Says Trump Is Not Welcome

Boston’s liberal mayor Martin Walsh told the Boston Herald on Monday that he would do everything he could to block a Trump hotel or real estate project in Boston because of Republican Donald Trump’s remarks regarding illegal immigrants during his presidential campaign announcement last month.

“I didn’t criticize him; I just don’t agree with him at all,” Walsh said to the Herald. “I think his comments are inappropriate. And if he wanted to build a hotel here, he’d have to make some apologies to people in this country.”

Yet this morning Walsh tweeted “we are committed to retaining our talent and by working together to create a thriving innovative #Boston” in regards to an event coming to Boston.

Trump has received widespread condemnation from many on the left and some on the right for his remarks.

“They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us [sic]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said in his campaign kickoff speech.

Trump has remained firm in his immigration views, asking for an apology from the media because of the escape of drug lord ‘El Chapo’ from a Mexico Prison over the weekend. Trump believes that the escape validates his remarks.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Hillary Clinton’s Uber Speech Belongs in 1930s America

It is a supreme irony of modern American life that the political movement that terms itself “progressive” is, in the economic realm at least, increasingly passionate about the status quo. Speaking today about the burgeoning “gig economy,” presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton could not help herself but to set modernity firmly within aging ideological tram-lines. Developments such as AirBnB, Zaarly, Uber, DogVacay, and RelayRides, Clinton conceded, are not likely to “go away” any time soon. But they are worrying nonetheless. Indeed, the “sharing economy,” she proposed, is “polarizing” and it is disruptive — guilty of no less than “displacing or downgrading blue-collar jobs.” Technological advances, she concluded, must not “determine our destiny.”

And who should “determine our destiny”? Why, Hillary Clinton of course! 

In the eyes of us free-marketeers, the teams behind the host of new peer-to-peer services are no less than digital liberators. For us, the arrival of a system such as Uber is salutary, not scary: It is an end to waiting in the rain for a state-approved cab; it is the key to a transportation experience a cut above that which is provided by the cartels; it is the source of golden opportunities for those who wish to construct odd or custom-built work schedules or to make money without answering to a boss. That a few ingenious programmers have found a way around the artificial scarcity, state-union collusion, and high barriers to entry that The Man has seen fit to impose is, in our view, an extremely positive development. More of this, please. 

But for Hillary Clinton? It is a death knell. Like Bill DeBlasio before her, Clinton has seen the list of newly available iPhone apps, and she has grasped her own obsolescence.

If he is smart, the eventual Republican nominee will spend 2016 casting Clinton as the spirit animal of a washed-out and intellectually bankrupt generation that belongs nowhere near the levers of power. If they are really smart, the broader party will make this case broadly and perpetually — and long after next year’s election is over. All political movements are guilty of nostalgia, certainly. But few of them refuse to acknowledge their sentimentality in quite the same way as does the wing of the Democratic party to which Clinton is currently attempting to agglutinate herself. From self-described “conservatives,” one expects a Burkean preference for the tried and tested. From “progressives” — and yes, Hillary used the word today – not so much.

Economically, the Clinton-Sanders-Warren-O’Malley project is stuck squarely in 1938. Theirs is a country in which tax rates can be set without reference to global competition; in which the taxi commission and the trade union are the heroes while the entrepreneurs and the dissenters are a royal pain in the ass; in which families can simply not be trusted to determine which services suit their needs and which do not. It’s a country in which our heinously outdated, grossly illiberal, neo-Prussian educational system is to be set more firmly in place — even as it crumbles and falls. It is a country in which the state must determine which firms are Good and which firms are Bad, and reward or punish them according to its whim. It is a country in which Upton Sinclair is an up-and-coming writer, and in which anybody who doubts the efficacy of federal control is in danger of falling headfirst into a rendering vat.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Fiorina: Trump tapping into an ‘anger’

Carly Fiorina said in an interview Sunday that fellow GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is “tapping into an anger that I hear every day.”

People are angry that a commonsense thing like securing the border or ending sanctuary cities is somehow considered extreme,” she told ABC’s “This Week.” “It's not extreme, it's commonsense. We need to secure the border.”

“People are also angry at a professional political class of both parties that talks a good game, gives good speeches, but somehow nothing ever really changes,” she added. “And people are angry as well at a double standard in the media.

Fiorina said she had not been asked a “single question” about Trump’s comments on immigration during six days in New Hampshire.

Fiorina also blasted Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton during the ABC interview, saying the former secretary of State’s polices create more income inequality.

“Why? Because bigger government creates crony capitalism,” she said. “When you have a 70,000 page tax code, you've got to be very wealthy, very powerful, very well connected to dig your way through that tax code. … I will continue to point out … the fact that every policy she is pursuing will make income inequality worse, not better, crony capitalism even worse, not better. “

Clinton is scheduled to deliver a major economic policy speech in New York on Monday, when she is expected to call for a boost to the stagnating incomes of middle-class families.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

[COMMENTARY] Clerks are bound to follow law

FRANKFORT  – A Republican attorney I know sees the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage and the reaction in Kentucky – where some county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses – through the lens of history.

“It’s this generation’s Brown v. Board of Education,” he said, referring to the landmark court ruling that school segregation was unconstitutional.

“You don’t have to like it, but it’s the law,” my attorney friend continued.

The attorney is no Democrat. He’s not urban and he’s certainly not liberal. I have no idea how he feels about the morality of same-sex marriage. But he understands the law and how our system works.

There are similarities between the same-sex ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges, and the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that threw out the “separate but equal” justification for school desegregation.

Even the phrase “separate but equal” resonates in some Kentucky county clerks’ explanation of why their religious beliefs should allow them to refuse to grant marriage licenses. After all, they say, a couple can obtain the desired license simply by driving to a neighboring county – but they didn’t ask opposite-sex couples to do that until the court ruling.

The court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. But it was 1964 before the Glasgow schools I attended integrated. Significant social change sometimes doesn’t happen overnight.

There are likely to be others who resist the ruling of the court. Just like some did in the civil rights era, some are now calling for changes to our court system and decrying a decision by “five liberal, unelected lawyers” (never mind a majority of the court is conservative and was appointed by Republican presidents).

Like civil rights and abortion, there will probably be more court battles as some resist the ruling. But supporters of same-sex marriage can probably draw hope from the history of the civil rights battles and from the general trend of American history to enlarge and expand individual minority rights rather than restrict them.

Via: Glasgow Daily Times

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Nolte: 9 Facts About Illegal Alien Crime The Media Covers Up

They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting. — Donald Trump

–

Did you know that in the state of Texas alone over the last few years, more than 2000 illegal aliens were deported after committing sex crimes?

Did you know that in the state of Texas alone over the last few years, nearly a thousand illegal aliens have been convicted of sex crimes against children?

Of course you didn’t. The media has covered these horrors up for years, and even after Donald Trump dared reveal these horrors, the rape-deniers in the media continue to cover them up. The media is covering up all kinds of horrific statistic regarding illegal aliens. Before we get to those, let’s start with why.

To Democrats and their media allies, a few hundred raped children a year is seen as a small price to pay for the political benefits that come with an unsecure border. Mexicans vote 3-to-1 for Democrats. Now to Trump specifically…

We are currently entering week four of the mainstream media asking Donald Trump the same immigration questions over and over and over again. This is the media’s Todd Akin Playbook. If you remember in 2012, an obscure Senate candidate said something stupid about rape during the presidential campaign. Immediately, every Republican on the planet and the RNC distanced themselves from this lunacy, but the media made sure that didn’t matter.

The media knew they had an issue that would damage the GOP with women voters, so for months, solely to benefit Barack Obama, the media used whatever means it could to keep that non-story big and loud. The Todd Akin Playbook also distracted from Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s serial lies about Benghazi

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

'President Trump' May Not Be So Far-Fetched - And the Polls Scare the Establishment to Death

Donald Trump

WASHINGTON — Republicans who started off viewing Donald Trump as an amusing sideshow are starting to fret that the real-estate billionaire is becoming the main event.

Since he defied skeptics and launched his presidential bid last month, Trump has rocketed in the polls, dominated media coverage and helped steer the debate on issues.

“I don’t know that he even knows how far he takes this,” former New York GOP Rep. Thomas Reynolds, who is close to GOP candidate and ex-Gov. George Pataki, told The Post. “He has the wherewithal . . . He has put together a pretty wholesale ground force in New Hampshire, and that has to be taken seriously.”

Trump accounted for a stunning 48 percent of all social-media and tra­di­tional-media conversation about politics over the last week, according to analytics group Zignal labs for The Washington Post. Trump had 1.9 million mentions, compared with just 448,000 for top Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Trump’s presidential rivals at first steered clear of his controversial comments about Mexican “rapists” pouring into the country — although several took opportunities in the last week to distance themselves from Trump. The pushback doesn’t seem to have hurt Trump, who continues to poll strongly and is assured a spot in next month’s Republican debate on Fox.

Trump told NBC’s “Today” show on Thursday he had “nothing to apologize for” and credits himself with raising the immigration issue in the campaign.

Trump’s success in early polling is undeniable.

He even leads the latest North Carolina poll, by Public Policy Polling, with 16 percent. He’s second to Jeb Bush in the latest CNN national poll and is also running second in Iowa.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading...

Florida’s congressional districts rejected as gerrymandered

Senate Reapportionment Chairman Sen. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton discusses an amendment on the floor of the Senate Monday, August 11, 2014, at the Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla. Behind him are maps of the 2012 Florida congressional districts, left, and the redrawn ... more >

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state’s congressional maps don’t meet the requirements of a voter-approved constitutional amendment that prohibits political lines from being drawn to favor incumbents or a political party. The court ordered the Legislature to try drawing the maps again.

The ruling means there could be an upheaval as incumbents seek re-election and candidates from both parties seek to fill open seats. Florida has 27 congressional districts and the court ordered eight be redrawn, along with any districts they border.

The court chastised the Republican-led Legislature for working behind the scenes to draw the maps.

“The Legislature itself proclaimed that it would conduct the most open and transparent redistricting process in the history of the state, and then made important decisions, affecting numerous districts in the enacted map, outside the purview of public scrutiny,” the ruling said.

A coalition that included the League of Women Voters challenged the lines, saying Republicans who drew them up ignored the new constitutional requirements approved by voters in 2010. A lower court agreed that GOP leaders and operatives made a mockery of the amendment, but only ordered two central Florida districts be redrawn.

The Supreme Court said that wasn’t good enough.

Republicans have maintained that the maps adhere to constitutional requirements despite evidence that political operatives helped draw them.

It’s yet to be seen how the ruling will affect the majority of Florida’s members of Congress who are seeking re-election, as well as their challengers.

Via: Washington TImes

Continue Reading....

Simple bill to help vets shows things in Congress aren’t so simple Measure from Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan would let veterans get new ID card

A bill that would create a uniform identification card for U.S. military veterans is in the final stages of its journey from idea to law, and is being seen both as a nice benefit for America’s fighting men and woman and an illustration of just how hard it can be to get anything through Congress.

Sponsored by U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, a Florida Republican who represents the Bradenton and Sarasota areas, the bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to issue a veteran’s identification card. Such a card would allow veterans to prove their status without having to carry around military service records, such as the common form known as a “DD-214.”

Those forms, Buchanan said, contain sensitive personal information such as veterans’ Social Security numbers, leaving them at a higher risk for identify theft. The VA does offer some veterans – those in the VA health system, for example – ID cards. But there is a large population of veterans who served honorably yet have no easy way to prove their military service.

“On the surface it doesn’t sound like a gigantic thing,” said Buchanan. “But at the end of the day it’s a very big thing for veterans. ... We’re very excited about it.”

The “Veterans Identification Card Act of 2015” was introduced on the first day of the current session of Congress and eventually picked up 82 co-sponsors, roughly divided between the two parties.

It passed the U.S. House in May by a vote of 402-0 and the Senate last month by unanimous consent. The bill has been endorsed by veterans’ groups, while others took no position on it. The bill is expected to go for final action in the House on Tuesday, where differences between House and Senate versions are expected to be easily passed; then it will go to the president for his signature.

The Obama administration, however, isn’t so enthusiastic. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs last month, a top VA official, Rajiv Jain, said that veterans in most U.S. states can get veteran status noted on their drivers’ licenses and that such options “can meet the intent of the legislation without creating within VA a new program that may not be cost-efficient.”

In his prepared statement, Jain also said a new VA-issued ID card could create confusion among veterans, since other cards are specifically designed to help them get health care and other benefits. “Having several VA-issued cards creates the potential for confusion on several levels,” said Jain, an assistant deputy under secretary for health.

Diane M. Zumatto, the national legislative director for the advocacy organization AMVETS, sees the bill as a simple, cost-effective way to help veterans. As for the state options, she said those often aren’t enough: “The service we performed was federal, so the card should be federal,” she said.

“I just don’t see any drawback to the bill,” she said. “I understand there are many more critical things that are on the agenda for Congress. But hey, gather up these no-brainers and pass ’em.”

That’s easier said than done – even on a piece of legislation with such bipartisan, unanimous support.

Despite the simple nature of the bill and the fact that it is intended to be cost-neutral – veterans would pay a fee for their cards – it’s taken a long time to get such a bill through Congress. Similar legislation was introduced in 2011 and 2013 but went nowhere.

And that’s the way it is in Congress, where 535 representatives and senators all have bills but face limited time, energy and political capital to do anything about them.

Via: McClatchy

Continue Reading....

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article26596969.html#storylink=cpy

CALL FOR AN ‘ASSEMBLY OF THE STATES’ IN MAY 2016

It is time for states to undertake specific steps to re-assert their 10th amendment rights against the usurpations of the federal government.

We are, after all, the United States of America, not the United Federal Government of America.

Here’s my proposal for a starting point:

One state legislature can pass an act for it to host an “Assembly of the States” whose purpose will be to identify and share best practices for the assertion by the states of their 10th amendment rights among the several states.

Topics to be addressed would be practical and timely:

(1) Which federal grants (presumably almost all) make the most sense for a state to reject and what are the best ways to deal with the real world consequences of those rejections?

(2) What specific actions shall be taken to resist unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions?

(3) What specific actions should be taken to resist egregious and unlawful federal regulations and which regulations are most deserving of resistance?

(4) What practical free-market health care policies can be introduced at the state level that will improve the availability and delivery of health care services to residents of each state, given the federal government’s ever increasing tentacles of control in that sector of the economy?

The recommendations of the Assembly of the States are not designed to be binding on any individual state; rather they are a set of suggestions for effective actions each state can undertake to restore its constitutionally granted sovereignty based on thoughtful consideration and actual experience.

The proposed Assembly of the States is not an Article V Convention of the States as recommended by conservative author Mark Levin, but there would be no restriction upon the Assembly discussing proposed constitutional amendments for the consideration of any future Convention of the States.

The concept of an Assembly of the States is not entirely original. Several representatives to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the 40-year-old “nonpartisan membership association for state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty,” floated the concept in 2014.

Unlike my proposal, however, the ALEC proposal focused more on setting the stage for an Article V Convention of the States as opposed to a “best practices” 10th amendment gathering.

Like the Article V Convention of the States, however, state legislatures under my proposal do not need any authorization from their state’s governor to either host the Assembly of the States, or send a delegation to the Assembly of the States.

The hosting state legislature would invite state legislatures of the other 49 states to authorize and send a five-member delegation to the Assembly of the States, which I propose be held in May 2016 in the capital city of the host state.

The Assembly of the States would convene irrespective of the number of state legislatures that choose to send a delegation. Should all 50 states choose to send a delegation, a total of 250 delegates would be present. Should just the host state’s delegates attend, a total of only 5 delegates will be present.

There is little concern in my mind, however, that only the host state will send delegates to the proposed Assembly of the States.

Several states may be in the competition to serve as host of the proposed initial Assembly of the States in 2016, including my own state of Tennessee. Texas, Montana, Oklahoma, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, and Idaho all have state legislatures with the independence of spirit necessary to consider hosting the gathering of state delegations.

I doubt any of the state legislatures from the “dirty dozen” blue states in which President Obama received more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 will send delegations, but I leave open the possibility one of them might surprise me. After all, one of the most popular conservative radio talk show hosts in the country, Howie Carr, is based in Boston, Massachusetts and is heard daily in at least half of those “dirty dozen” states.

Whether the proposed Assembly of the States attracts delegations from a mere handful of solid limited government states, all of the “Great 38 States” in which President Obama received less than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012, or an even greater number, the mere fact that such a gathering convenes at all will send a shot across the bow of the ever growing usurpations of the new federal royalty.

Even more importantly, it will help the states develop a concrete set of action steps that can be undertaken to re-assert their 10th amendment rights and begin to reverse the course of the Big Government juggernaut.

As to the matter of approval of the recommendations made by the Assembly of the States, I propose that each state’s delegation have one vote.

Each state legislature may determine how it wishes to select its 5 delegates. They may select from among their member legislators, appoint any citizens of their state they determine have the appropriate qualities of character and judgment, or hold a statewide election to choose all or some of the 5 delegates in a manner akin to the selection of the delegates to the statewide Constitution ratification conventions of 1787 to 1791.

Those states that choose to elect delegates can do so in the most economical way by “piggy-backing” those elections to the Presidential primary contests already budgeted for and planned in their states for 2016.

My personal preference for my home state of Tennessee would be to select one member of the delegation from the state’s lower legislature, one from the state’s upper legislature, and elect three members of the delegation statewide, either at-large or by geographic area.

The Assembly of the States is intentionally scheduled for May 2016, immediately prior to the 2016 Republican and Democratic conventions so as to allow the Assembly to invite Presidential candidates of both parties to address it.

By watching which candidates accept an invitation to address the Assembly of the States and paying close attention to what those who show up say in their addresses, we should have a good indication which Presidential contenders are serious about restoring constitutionally limited government to the country, and which are mere pretenders.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....