Iran Tensions Loom Over Israelis on Jewish New Year

JERUSALEM — Jews around the world are observing Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. In Israel, the mood is sober.

Rosh Hashanah marks the beginning of the Jewish High Holy Days and is a time of reflection and prayer. Israelis ushered in the New Year with a sense of uncertainty amid tensions with Iran that have heightened fears of war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had this message for Jews in Israel and around the world.  “I want to wish you all a happy New Year, a happy New Year in your personal lives, a happy New Year for the Jewish people and the Jewish state. The Jewish state and the Jewish people are facing great challenges. Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons. A rising tide of militancy is sweeping our region,” he said.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But it sees Israel as a Zionist enemy.

Netanyahu says Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability in just six or seven months, something Israel sees as a threat to its existence.

Netanyahu has accused the United States of failing to get tough on Iran; and despite strong opposition from Washington and the international community, he has threatened to launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Obama administration says it is not yet ready to draw a red line concerning Iran and continues to pursue a deepening of international sanctions against Tehran.

One man on the street in Jerusalem says Israel may have no other choice. “It is a very dangerous situation to allow a very disturbed and unstable nation like Iran to develop weapons of mass destruction,” he stated.

Via: VOA
Continue Reading...

Senate report: Quarter of Social Security disability benefits improperly awarded

The Social Security Administration improperly awarded disability benefits in more than 25 percent of cases examined between 2006 and 2010, according to a new Senate report -- potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

The findings conclude an 18-month investigation by the chamber’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and show that roughly a quarter of the 300 randomly selected disability cases were awarded benefits “without properly addressing insufficient, contradictory and incomplete evidence.” 

Each questionable decision can mean a big taxpayer expense. According to one estimate, the average lifetime disability award is $300,000. 

The investigation was led by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, a medical doctor and the subcommittee’s top Republican. He said the bipartisan report shows information gathered over the past several years concludes the Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs are “teetering on financial bankruptcy.”

The 136-page report focuses on questionable benefits rulings made by administrative law judges, including one in Oklahoma who was found to have awarded more than $1.6 billion in lifetime benefits in just three years. Judge Howard O’Bryan, in Oklahoma City, approved roughly 90 percent of more than 5,400 cases from 2007 to 2009 -- most of them held “on-the-record” without hearings, according to the minority report.

The report also found the agency since January 2009 added 5.9 million Americans to the disability rolls. And in 2011, 10.6 million people were receiving more $128.billion in disability insurance payments, the report said.

“The question is: Are benefits going only to those who are supposed to be getting to them?” Coburn asked Thursday during a Capitol Hill hearing on the issue. “The purpose of this program is to make sure that all Americans have a safety net if they become disabled and can no longer work. It should be remembered though that this law means ‘being unable to work any job in the national economy.’ ”

The Social Security Administration responded Monday, acknowledging the concerns and vowing continued improvement.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

Congress Could Impeach Sebelius

Obama must punish Sebelius

In a Monday memorandum, government watchdog group Cause of Action argued that President Barack Obama must fire – or at least suspend for 30 days without pay – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for her Hatch Act violation or his top-ranking health care official could face impeachment.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel said last Wednesday that Sebelius violated the law when she publicly endorsed Obama’s re-election and North Carolina Lieutenant Gov. Walter Dalton’s gubernatorial primary in a multi-way race during a taxpayer-funded public event on Feb. 25, 2012. The standard penalty for violating the Hatch Act is termination. But, the White House has suggested that Obama will offer Sebelius special treatment and let her keep her job.

According to OSC, any “employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual.”

Federal government employees who are not politically appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate may have their punishment lessened from termination “if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than a 30-day suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the board.”

But, according to Cause of Action executive director Dan Epstein, since Sebelius is a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee, she isn’t entitled to such a review.

“Thus the point is that by close of business on Sept. 12, 2012, the president has been informed of a Hatch Act violation and yet has decided not to fire Sebelius,” Epstein said. “The president has therefore decided to overlook the improper political activities of his appointees when in their official capacities. He has effectively said it is okay to politicize the executive branch.”

According to the Monday Cause of Action memo, “[i]n an unprecedented situation like the present one, the President takes ‘appropriate action’ by substituting himself into the role of the MSPB – in other words ‘appropriate action’ means that the president must suspend Secretary Sebelius for at least 30 days or remove her from office.”

The Magnitude of the Mess We're In

Sometimes a few facts tell important stories. The American economy now is full of facts that tell stories that you really don't want, but need, to hear.

Where are we now?

Did you know that annual spending by the federal government now exceeds the 2007 level by about $1 trillion? With a slow economy, revenues are little changed. The result is an unprecedented string of federal budget deficits, $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and another $1.2 trillion on the way this year. The four-year increase in borrowing amounts to $55,000 per U.S. household.

The amount of debt is one thing. The burden of interest payments is another. The Treasury now has a preponderance of its debt issued in very short-term durations, to take advantage of low short-term interest rates. It must frequently refinance this debt which, when added to the current deficit, means Treasury must raise $4 trillion this year alone. So the debt burden will explode when interest rates go up.

The government has to get the money to finance its spending by taxing or borrowing. While it might be tempting to conclude that we can just tax upper-income people, did you know that the U.S. income tax system is already very progressive? The top 1% pay 37% of all income taxes and 50% pay none.

Did you know that, during the last fiscal year, around three-quarters of the deficit was financed by the Federal Reserve? Foreign governments accounted for most of the rest, as American citizens' and institutions' purchases and sales netted to about zero. The Fed now owns one in six dollars of the national debt, the largest percentage of GDP in history, larger than even at the end of World War II.

The Fed has effectively replaced the entire interbank money market and large segments of other markets with itself. It determines the interest rate by declaring what it will pay on reserve balances at the Fed without regard for the supply and demand of money. By replacing large decentralized markets with centralized control by a few government officials, the Fed is distorting incentives and interfering with price discovery with unintended economic consequences.

Via: Wall Street Journal

Continue Reading...

Historic NASA facilities going to waste

The space agency has an unusual problem: space.

A recent review of NASA’s land holdings on earth revealed a new challenge for the agency: poorly maintained, aging facilities once used for research and development or space vehicle construction, now essentially useless.

NASA spends about $1.1 billion annually on maintenance and upkeep of its more than 5,400 buildings, landing strips and other unique sites; but approximately 9 percent of its real property assets aren’t being used, NASA told FoxNews.com. The solution, according to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG): lease them

.

Kennedy leases a clean room where Apollo capsules were readied 40 years ago to Lockheed Martin. Boeing is building space taxis in a processing hangar where shuttles were once routinely readied to soar. And there are plenty of others, from Rolls-Royce and Google to local schools and, in areas where businesses aren’t interested, parks, gardens and visitor centers.

But not enough, according to Paul K. Martin, NASA Inspector General.

“Few incentives exist for NASA to identify underutilized property as unnecessary to its mission needs,” he concluded in the August report.

Olga Dominguez, NASA’s assistant administrator for the office of strategic infrastructure, agreed that the agency wasn’t 100 percent sure how many buildings and facilities were unusued. Part of the challenge, she said, was the changing nature of the space agency’s mission. As NASA has refocused from the space shuttle to the private space industry, its needs have changed as well.

“Because our mission has gone through such extensive changes, all of these new programs -- commercial crew, commercial space -- all of these have different requirements,” she told FoxNews.com. “So the space needs have changes every year.”

“Right now, well we think we might need [a facility] and then seven months later, no we don’t.”

NASA is the ninth largest land owner in the federal government, with more than 100,000 acres that occupy 44 million square feet and are estimated to cost $29 billion to replace.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

Morning Bell: Our Constitution Is Under Fire

Today, the federal government has acquired an all but unquestioned dominance over virtually every area of American life. It acts without constitutional limits and increasingly regulates our most basic activities, from how much water is in our toilets to what kind of light bulbs we can buy.

So while we face many challenges, the most difficult task ahead—and the most important—is to restore constitutional limits on government. Forty visionaries signed a piece of paper 225 years ago today that became one of the most vital documents in the world: the U.S. Constitution.

By design, it limited the power of government under the rule of law, created a vigorous framework that expanded economic opportunity, protected national independence and secured liberty and justice for all. But how is that limitation of powers working today?

The Judicial Branch. The rise of unlimited government is most familiar and most prominent in the form of judicial activism. The Founders called the judiciary the “least dangerous branch,” but progressive judges have usurped the functions of the other two branches and transformed the courts into policymaking bodies with wide-ranging power. We need judges who take the Constitution seriously and follow it faithfully.

The Legislative Branch. For its part, Congress has long legislated without regard to limits on its powers. As a result, decisions that were previously the constitutional responsibility of elected legislators are delegated to executive branch administrators. Congress is increasingly an administrative body overseeing a vast array of bureaucratic policymakers and rule-making bodies. Congress should stop delegating to bureaucrats and actively take responsibility for all the laws (and regulations) that govern us.

The Executive Branch. Meanwhile, the President has unique and powerful responsibilities in our constitutional system as chief executive officer, head of state, and commander in chief. But the idea that the president— who is charged with the execution of the laws—doesn’t have to wait for the lawmaking branch to make, amend, or abolish laws, but can and should act on his own is toxic to the rule of law. It violates the spirit, and potentially the letter, of the Constitution’s separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the President.

Via: The Foundry (BLOG)

Continue Reading...

A Failed Presidency of Global Proportions

"These are the times that try men's souls."  So wrote Thomas Paine in the midst of the darkest days of the American Revolution, when the fate of what would become the grandest experiment in human liberty hung in the balance.  In recent weeks, those words have found renewed relevance as it becomes clear to this generation that the fate of our nation hangs in the balance again.

This much is now clear: on every count, domestic and foreign, the presidency of Barack Obama has failed.

Though pride or egotism may prevent many from acknowledging it, there is simply no rational argument left to plausibly deny this unfortunate reality.  Whether it is the crumbling value of the dollar, the demise of an economy once in recovery into one now slouching towards another recession, the crushing debt that is spinning us dangerously close to the point of no return, a persistent unemployment crisis that has not been remotely remedied by the continued spending or quantitative easing of all our brilliant government central planners, or the skyrocketing energy costs that break the collective banks of American family budgets both at the gas tank and with the monthly heating bill, President Obama has been a domestic policy disaster.  One of the worst ever.

On the foreign front, a similar conclusion was perhaps more difficult to discern until last week.  To any informed observer, there was certainly always reason for concern as the terror obsessed Muslim Brotherhood stretched its influence and consolidated its power throughout the Middle East under the protective cloak of the Obama-approved label "Arab Spring."  Prudent minds questioned how such a development could possibly end well for those who desire peace, and why despite being reassured by their president that "[t]he day I'm inaugurated, Muslim hostility will ease," America's approval rating in the Muslim world continued to plummet to new lows. 

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

For Every $1 Added to the Economy, Obama Added More Than $3 in Debt

AP Graphi

Since Obama has taken office ….
[through Q2 2012 for comparative purposes]

--> For every $1 added to the economy, we’ve added more than $3 in debt

--> added $5.23 trillion in debt vs. $1.68 trillion to the economy
--> 50% increase in debt vs. 12% increase in economic output

Total Public Debt:

$10,626T [Jan 20, 2009]
$15,856T [Jun 30, 2012]

--> $5.23 trillion increase in debt

[source: Treasury Dept]

......

GDP

$13,923T [Q1 2009]
$15,606T [Q2 2012]

--> $1.68 trillion increase in GDP

[source: BEA]

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

General Motors Pushing U.S. to Sell Stake: Report

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- The Treasury Department is resisting General Motors' push for the government to sell off its stake in the auto maker, The Wall Street Journal reports. Following a $50 billion bailout in 2009, the U.S. taxpayers now own almost 27% of the company. But the newspaper said GM executives are now chafing at that, saying it hurts the company's reputation and its ability to attract top talent due to pay restrictions. Earlier this year, GM GM -1.16% presented a plan to repurchase 200 million of the 500 million shares the U.S. holds with the balance being sold via a public offering. But officials at the Treasury Department were not interested as selling now would lead to a multibillion dollar loss for the government, the newspaper noted. 

Via: Market Watch

Romney to explain plans to cut $500 billion per year in federal spending

Mitt Romney is launching a “renewed emphasis” on specifics related to policies he would advance as president, his campaign said Monday, including how he plans to cut $500 billion in annual federal spending.

“These things will result in about $500 billion a year by the end of his first term,” Romney campaign senior adviser Ed Gillespie explained in a Monday conference call.

Gillespie said Romney would “look to increase the productivity of Washington by reducing federal government employment by 10 percent through attrition, and combine agencies and departments to reduce overhead, and link government compensation to that of the private sector.”

Romney, he added, would “limit spending for programs that have been growing uncontrollably fast,” including Medicaid, which he would turn back to the states. He would also limit funding increases to the inflation rate plus one percent.

“We think people will be appreciative to hear some of those kinds of specifics,” Gillespie said, explaining the renewed focus is meant to target independent voters who the campaign believes are just now tuning in to the election.

“A lot of those voters who are in the middle and truly independent, undecided, are looking for information now,” he said.

The Romney campaign has been wary to say the names of what federal departments or agencies he would eliminate or consolidate. Gillespie dodged a question about whether they plan to announce specific departments that could get the axe in this new emphasis on policy specifics.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Axelrod: Billionaire GOP Donor Sheldon Adelson Is Just Greedy

Now the Obama Administration is using what-used-to-be-thinly-veiled-and-is-now-becoming-more-overt-day-after-day anti-Semitism to attack Sheldon Adelson as greedy in their latest campaign email from David Axelrod.

It reads:

Sheldon Adelson, the conservative billionaire Las Vegas casino owner, has pledged to give up to $100 million -- whatever it takes -- to defeat Barack Obama.

Is there one of us with Adelson’s money who wouldn’t?

We know it's not out of love for Mitt Romney, so why part with so much money? As President Clinton reminded us last week, sometimes the answer is as simple as arithmetic.

This is despicable. Adelson has always been concerned about Israel, and Romney is clearly light-years more concerned about Israel than Obama. And just how many millions has Adleson given to charity compared to that Obama hack?

So let's do the math: According to a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Adelson could see up to $2 billion in savings under Mitt Romney's tax plan versus the President's plan. That's how much Romney's policies would favor millionaires and billionaires.

If Mitt Romney wins -- $2 billion more for Adelson. If Barack Obama wins, millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.

It's a highly cynical but straightforward calculation.

No, the one who has always been cynical is you, Axelrod.

Today, you can help write a different equation.

Donate $3 or more, and let's make sure this election is decided by millions of Americans, not a handful of billionaires.

Here's how it would work for Adelson in a Romney-Ryan administration:

Romney would keep in place the Bush tax cuts, and cut Adelson's income taxes by an additional 20 percent. Adelson savings: $1.5 million per year on income he earns as CEO.

    

Romney's plan eliminates taxes on foreign profits like the ones Adelson makes on his Asian casinos. Adelson savings: $1.2 billion.

Romney's plan maintains the current low tax rate on dividends. Adelson savings: $120 million per year.

Romney's plan removes the estate tax. Adelson heirs save: $8.9 billion.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Book: Justice Scalia ‘Enraged’ With Chief Justice Roberts Over Obamacare Decision

(THE BLAZE) A new book details how Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the court to uphold President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul and says Justice Antonin Scalia was “enraged” at him for doing so.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court“ says the other four conservative justices on the court wanted to ”kill off the entire health care law,“ alienating Roberts who sought out a ”middle ground,” according to excerpts of the book published Saturday by Politico.

A lifelong Republican, Roberts originally intended to vote to overturn the law, but it became apparent to the other justices in April and May that he was going “wobbly,” Toobin wrote:

“The four conservatives had overplayed their hand with the chief justice. By demanding that Roberts kill off the entire health care law, they prompted him to look for some kind of middle ground. … [Justice Antonin ] Scalia was enraged at the chief.”

“Wobbly,” incidentally, is the same word sources used to describe Roberts in a major CBS News story published just days after the court announced its decision.

Part of the reason for Roberts’ switch, according to Toobin, is that he had two goals for his tenure as chief: “to push his own ideological agenda but also to preserve the court’s place as a respected final arbiter of the nation’s disputes.”

A complete nullification of the health care law on the eve of a presidential election would put the Court at the center of the campaign … Democrats, and perhaps Obama himself, would crusade against the Court, eroding its moral if not its legal authority. … Gradually, then with more urgency, Roberts began looking for a way out. …

Via: Pat Dollard

Continue Reading...

Nearly 40% Of Chicago Public School Teachers Send Their Kids To Private Schools

The Chicago teachers’ strike is an awkward dinner conversation between President Barack Obama and his former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.   Many of the policy prescriptions in the new Chicago teachers’ contract designed to create more accountability are supported by the Obama administration.

As the Chicago teachers’ strike continues, we’ve learned that they make $71-76,000 a year and they turned down a 16% pay increase, which amounts to $11,360.  They work nine months out of the year, but say that this strike is benefits oriented.  However, given that ABC World News didn’t even air this story last Sunday and most of the media, with the exception of CBS, failing to mention the compensation statistics in their broadcast – suffice to say that the  media will probably ignore the fact that almost 40% of Chicago’s public school teachers send their kids to private schools.

I’m not against public education, but the fact that these teachers make enough to send their kids to private schools shows that Chicago’s public teachers are aware of the serial failure within the system.  Second, it shows that these teachers have zero confidence in their own respective school district.  Why are the teachers going on strike?  Aren’t the contentious measures they’re squabbling about aimed at enhancing accountability that will make their institutions of learning better for the students?  It appears this strike, like most union strikes, are defined by these three words: give. me. more.

However, given the state of public education and that of Chicago, it’s not alien for public school teachers to ship their kids to private institutions.  According to The Washington Times in September of 2004, they quoted the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which found that:

 More than 1 in 5 public school teachers said their children attend private schools.

In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.

In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading...

CBS: OBAMA LEADS IN OUR D+13 POLL

Anyone following the presidential campaign through the prism of media polls is doing themselves a serious disservice. Virtually every one uses a polling sample that is so heavily-skewed towards Democrats that it distorts the actual state of the campaign. Of course, that is a feature, not a bug of the polls. The polls are specifically designed to drive a narrative that Obama is surging and Romney is struggling. Increasingly, though, the polls are having to go to ridiculous efforts to support this meme. Friday's CBS/New York Times poll, for example, uses a D+13 sample of registered voters. This is absurd. 

In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. Repeat after me; the Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 model than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama's support. 

CBS does apply a Likely Voter screen to the head-to-head match up. The LV sample is D+6, similar to the make up of the 08 election. In that, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points, 49-46. In the RV sample, which more than doubles the proportion of Democrats to D+13, Obama leads by 8 points, 51-43. See the simple relationship there? 

Let's try a simple thought experiment. Imagine if, for a week, all media polls decided to use a sample that replicated the 2004 electorate--a D+0 model. Given the GOP's enthusiasm edge--even the CBS poll found Republicans voters with a double-digit lead on enthusiasm for the election--the electorate is going to look a lot more like 2004 than 2008. Imagine how the narrative of the campaign would change. The CBS poll found Romney beating Obama among Independents by 11 points. With a balanced partisan sample, Romney would likely post consistent leads against Obama. 

A week of this and Politico would run out of fuel for its daily "Romney is struggling" theme. Which is why the media will never adjust its samples. This election, it isn't so much about polling as propaganda. The polls are simply a tool being used by the media to try to depress GOP turnout and give a powerful lift to Obama's obviously lackluster campaign. 

The polls confirm that the media aren't really biased. Rather, they are active players for the other team. 

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Obama can be sued over insulting film: Iran official

A senior Iranian official says US President Barack Obama could face legal action in connection with the production of an anti-Islam movie by an American Jew.

“A complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) calling for respect of faiths,” Javad Mohammadi, the deputy head of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution (SCCR), said on Sunday. 

“Article 18 and 27 of the ICCPR, adopted by the United Nation, stipulate that the religion and the rights of the minorities should be respected,” Mohammadi said. 

The US government is a signatory to this covenant and has to respect it. Therefore, an individual or an NGO (non-governmental organization) can file a lawsuit against the president of the country for breach of the covenant, he added. 

Mohammadi heaped praise on the Muslims for their massive protests against the movie, noting “Protest against insults to religious sanctities should not be limited to time, place and customary reactions and we should undertake legal measures.” 

“The world’s elite know pretty well that Islam is a divine religion and Muslims have always respected divine religions and messengers and would never remain silent vis-à-vis any desecration,” the official said.

The controversial movie that has sparked outrage in the Muslim world has been produced by anti-Islam Israeli-American Sam Bacile. 

Bacile has assumed responsibility for the direction and production of the blasphemous film, which he said was made thanks to Jewish donations totaling USD 5 million.

Via: Press TV

Continue Reading...

Obama Administration: No Security Lapse In Libya

"The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place."

Susan Rice, the Obama administration's UN ambassador, said this morning on ABC's This Week that the Benghazi consulate, where four Americans were killed on September 11, had the level of security the State Department thought was needed.

"The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place," Rice told ABC's Jake Tapper. "We'll see when the investigation unfolds whether what transpired in Benghazi might have unfolded differently in different circumstances."

"We had substantial presence," Rice said, "with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans there killed were providing security. That was their function. And indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them. It obviously didn't prove sufficient to the nature of the attack and sufficient in that moment." 

Rice did not say how many U.S. security personnel were at the consulate in Benghazi.

Here's a transcript of the exchange between Rice and Tapper: 

TAPPER: Why was there such a security breakdown? Why was there not better security at the compound in Benghazi? Why were there not U.S. Marines at the embassy in Tripoli?

AMB. RICE: First of all, we had substantial presence with our --

TAPPER: Not substantial enough --

Via: The Weekly Standard

Continue Reading... 

Bill Press: Anti-Islam Filmmakers 'As Guilty as the Terrorists' Who Killed Americans in Libya

Radio host Bill Press is determined to win the title of most useful idiot to the jihad.

With his most recent lunacy this past Friday, Press is well on his way. (Audio clip after page break)

Behold, what passes for wisdom from the warped wasteland known as liberal radio (audio) --

Now here's the question though and the question that I ask you and it's not an easy one, I understand that.  What, if anything, should happen to the people who made this video? I gotta tell you, I think they are as guilty, that's my opinion, I think they are as guilty as the terrorists who carried out those attacks against our embassy in Libya. Look, we don't know everybody who was involved, but we've seen, I've seen some of them on television. This is a group of extremist, Muslim-hating, so-called Christians in southern California who are using their religion to stir up hatred against Islam. They're basing this on their Christian beliefs. They are, I believe, every bit as guilty as al Qaeda members who, think about it, who use the Koran and abuse their religion to stir up hatred against the United States. These so-called Christians, anybody who uses religion to stir up hate, is not a true believer. And certainly Christians who do so are not true Christians.

So these so-called Christians using their faith to stir up hatred against another of the world's great religions, it is absolutely disgusting and they've gotta know, they had to know what would result in that. After what happened with those Danish cartoons, right, or cartoons drawn for that Danish newspaper. After what happened with that nutjob Terry Jones down in Florida burning the Koran and people getting killed in Afghanistan over the protest that that, that that triggered. After what happened when we saw the video of American troops urinating on Muslim soldiers, right? After that, you had, they had to know that a video like this, not saying that the Muslims are not overreacting. I mean, they're hypersensitive about this stuff, I mean, Jesus, you know, just cool it, right? I mean, we show Jesus naked all the time hanging on the cross.

But, at any rate, their reaction is way overblown. But these, I hate to call them Christians, these so-called Christians had to know that that video would result in certain parts of the world, it would result in violence, it would result in lives being lost. I think, again, they are every bit as guilty and I think the United States, this is not freedom of speech. It's just the old thing, you can't cry fire in a crowded theater and have people trampled to death and say, oh, I was just exercising my freedom of speech. This is an abuse of the First Amendment. It's using, abusing their freedom of speech to cost innocent lives and to cause the taking of innocent lives in certain parts of the world. So, I think the United States ought to identify, yeah, we oughta be going after these terrorists that carried out the attacks in Libya and we are. I think we also ought to be identifying the people who made this video and go after them with the full force of the law and lock their ass up.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading... 

OBAMA-ROMNEY: THE BIG FIGHT IN VEGAS

President Barack Obama’s fundraising trip to Las Vegas on Wednesday--shameful though it may have been, in the midst of a deadly foreign policy crisis--was a sign of how important Nevada remains to his re-election prospects. 

Mitt Romney was in the state the day before, giving a foreign policy address to the National Guard in Reno, though keeping his pledge not to attack his opponent on the anniversary of 9/11.

Obama drew a smaller crowd at the Cashman Center this year than in 2008--just 8,000 attendees inside the 10,000-seat arena, as opposed to the 11,000 he drew last time at the outdoor Cashman Field. 

The rest of the Democratic ticket in the state is also looking weaker than it has in recent years. Harry Reid may have survived Sharron Angle’s bid in 2010, but Rep. Shelley Berkley is struggling in her campaign against Sen. Dean Heller.

Both parties are bombarding the state’s weary television viewers with advertisements. The Democrats are targeting women in particular with commercials claiming that their opponents “opposed funding for Planned Parenthood,” leaving out the crucial word “federal,” creating the impression that Romney and the Republicans would wipe out the organization entirely. Other ads misrepresent Romney’s position on abortion entirely.

Social issues are all the Democrats have to run on in a state where unemployment is sky-high and the physical evidence of the bust are evident even on the Las Vegas Strip. Beyond the shiny Fashion Show complex and the glittering Trump International hotel lies the unfinished Echelon, which even Reid could not save. The many unfinished projects in the region have even inspired their own macabre art exhibitions.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Constitution First, Democracy Second

Hillsdale College this week held one of its on-campus seminars, Center for Constructive Alternatives (CCA). The college holds two each semester, each on a different topic, showcasing expert lecturers from across the country. This week’s seminar was entitled, “The Supreme Court: History and Current Controversies.” As usual, the speakers were enlightening, making the general point that the Supreme Court is entrusted with the responsibility of defending the Constitution.

Sometimes the Court has proven more successful than others.

Two major topics of current interest were campaign finance regulation, as in the Citizens United case, and issues with respect to the Commerce Clause – most recently per the Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

As I listened to the lectures I kept thinking of the arguments made by the winner of the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics, Friedrich Hayek in his 1960 book, “The Constitution of Liberty.” One of Hayek’s points was that democracy only makes sense when individuals can make arguments and arrive at decisions independent of what they are told by their government. How can we possibly decide on whom to elect – and what policies to support – if our only source of information are those in power?

That is one reason we find various rights protected in the Constitution such as the right to free speech, the right to peaceable assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of the press. (As an aside, one might wonder how a system of government education fits into this – but that is a topic for another column.) Capital University Law School Professor Brad Smith, in supporting the Court’s decision in Citizens United, made a compelling argument for the importance of protecting the freedom of political speech .

The Commerce Clause has been used as in a major way to stretch the bounds of the Constitution. Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University Law School gave a history of the use of the Commerce Clause from the New Deal to Obamacare. Lund made the salient point that, although Justice Roberts ultimately found another way to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare, we can take some comfort that a majority on the Court held that interstate commerce does not include not buying things.

Via: CA Political Review

Continue Reading...