[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....

THREE DAYS BEFORE SHOOTING, MUSLIMS STAGED PROTEST IN CHATTANOOGA AGAINST ‘AMERICAN TALIBAN’

The shooter at the Chattanooga Marine shooting has been identified as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, leading many to question if Islamism might have been the motivation for the shooting. It might not then be a coincidence that three days prior to the attack, Muslims staged a protest at Chattanooga defending Islam:

Imraan Siddiqi‏@imraansiddiqi

Protesters outside Chattanooga federal building blast handling of Robert Doggart case http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/jul/13/protesters-outside-chattanooga-federal-building-blast-handling-robert-doggart-case/314361/ …

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Rep. Jim Jordan: ‘Definitely’ Looking at Possibility of Impeaching IRS Commissioner

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) said that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is “definitely” looking at the possibility of impeaching IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in an interview with theWashington Free Beacon on Thursday.

“We are definitely looking at that,” Jordan said. “Definitely looking at that. I’ll say this, Mr. Koskinen has on more than one occasion come in front of the committee and conveyed information to the committee that later turned out not to be accurate.”

On June 25, 2015, the committee held a hearing on the 2013 IRS scandal and found that despite a subpoena and a preservation order, the IRS, under Koskinen’s control, had destroyed or degaussed422 tapes that might have contained emails from Lois Lerner, the former official at the center of the controversy. Around this time, a National Review article revealed that Republican leaders were considering possibilities to impeach Koskinen.

Jordan said that impeachment is a possibility for the IRS commissioner.

“When you have an individual who’s head of an agency with this kind of power the Internal Revenue Service has, who has stated things under oath that turned out later to be false, that’s a problem,” he said. “Couple that with the false information that was sent out to a lot of Obamacare enrollees that impacted their tax liability that was just false, and some of the data breaches that have taken place there too—so the main focus is, of course, the targeting scandal and his answers to questions in front of the committee under oath that I’ve said later turned out to be untrue.”

“But there’s also these other things, so that’s something that the committee is looking at but there’s a certain amount of homework you’ve got to do before you start down that path,” he said. “So we’re looking at it.”

Last year, Jordan introduced H. Res. 565 on May 2, 2014 that called on then-Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.

Jordan confirmed that he will continue to push Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the same issue.

“Yes, it’s something we’re looking at again,” said Jordan. He mentioned that Lynch would be in front of the Judiciary committee sometime in September and that he plans to ask her about that issue then.

Jordan also expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s handling of the IRS controversy.

“Everyone knows the fix is in at the Justice Department,” said Jordan. “The FBI announced a year and a half ago, according to the Wall Street Journal, that no one was going to be prosecuted. The President made his famous statement on Super Bowl Sunday a year and a half ago that there’s no corruption, not even a smidgen, and the lead attorney on the case is Barbara Bosserman who’s a maxed-out contributor to the President’s campaign.”

“So everyone knows the fix is in, and what really tells you that the fix is in with the Justice Department investigation is Lois Lerner was willing to sit down with Justice Department attorneys, Ms. Bosserman and her team, and answer their questions but she’s not willing to answer members of Congress’ questions,” said Jordan.

“Now remember I can’t put her in jail, the Justice Department can put her in jail,” said Jordan. “We’re just doing a congressional investigation; we’re just trying to get the facts for the American people. So she’s willing to talk to the people who could put her in jail but not willing to talk to people who can’t?”

“And the reason she won’t talk to people who can’t put her in jail is because she knows she’s not going to jail because the President’s already announced there’s no corruption and the FBI’s already leaked to the Wall Street Journal no one’s going to be prosecuted,” Jordan continued. “The fix is in, so of course we need a special counsel.”

Via: WFB:

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Lawmakers Knew About Planned Parenthood Video Weeks Ago (Video)

When an undercover video of a Planned Parenthood executive casually discussing the harvesting of fetal tissue and organs went viral Tuesday, House Republicans took notice, with party leaders calling for investigations just one day later. Speaker John A. Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy issued terse statements, the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce committees announced hearings and Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., called for a Justice Department probe into whether the nation’s largest abortion provider broke the law in supplying the tissue to medical research firms.

All in all, it was a furious, news-cycle dominating flurry of Capitol Hill reaction — to a video that at least two top Republicans said they first saw weeks ago.

Boehner Calls Planned Parenthood Video ‘Disgusting’

Rep. Tim Murphy, a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus and chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee looking into the video, said at a Wednesday news conference he’d seen the clip weeks before. Asked afterward why he and others waited until this week to take action, Murphy struggled for an answer before abruptly ending the interview with CQ Roll Call, saying he should not be quoted and remarking, “This interview didn’t happen.”

Here’s an excerpt from CQ Roll Call’s hallway chat with Murphy:

CQ Roll Call: “So, what I wondered was, what’s happened in those few weeks? Why is it coming out now and not earlier?”

Murphy: “Um, I don’t know why. All I know is I saw it and he said he was going to post it eventually, so that’s all I know.”

Murphy spokeswoman Gretchen Andersen told CQ Roll Call on Thursday the congressman had a responsibility to do “due diligence” before starting an investigation.

Another Pro-Life Caucus and Judiciary committee member, GOP Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, said Wednesday he had also seen the video about a month ago.

Asked why steps weren’t taken immediately after he viewed the video, Franks said in an email, “The hope was to have as much information as possible so that the authorities could be notified effectively before the media.”

The video, shot a year ago by the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, shows an interview with a Planned Parenthood executive who discusses, between bites of salad and sips of red wine, the costs charged to researchers for organs taken from fetuses.

Officials at Planned Parenthood contend the video was edited to create the appearance of the start of a financial transaction. Planned Parenthood also said it only donates fetal organs and tissue when the mother has explicitly given consent, in accordance with the law.

The Center for Medical Progress did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

Wisconsin’s Shame: State Supreme Court Vindicates Victims of ‘John Doe’ Witch Hunt

Finds prosecutors raided conservatives’ homes to investigate constitutionally protected free speech.

In a ruling this morning, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rendered official what observers have long known: Wisconsin Democrats did, in fact, launch a massive, multi-county “John Doe” investigation of the state’s conservatives, featuring extraordinarily broad subpoenas and coordinated “paramilitary” raids of private homes; the “crimes” that provided the investigation’s pretext were not crimes at all, but First Amendment-protected speech; and the legal theory underpinning the investigation was bunk, “unsupported in either reason or law,” as the court put it. 

In two separate reports, National Review described these raids in detail. (The court cited our reports in its opinion.) On October 3, 2013, multiple Wisconsin conservatives were awakened by a persistent pounding on the door, their houses were illuminated by floodlights, and police — sometimes with guns drawn — poured into their homes. Once inside, the investigators turned the private residences of these innocent conservative citizens “upside down,” seeking an extraordinarily broad range of documents and information. These raids were supplemented by subpoenas that secured for investigators massive amounts of electronic information. The court was obviously disturbed:

 The breadth of the documents gathered pursuant to subpoenas and seized pursuant to search warrants is amazing. Millions of documents, both in digital and paper copy, were subpoenaed and/or seized.  Deputies seized business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys. The special prosecutor obtained virtually every document possessed by the Unnamed Movants relating to every aspect of their lives, both personal and professional, over a five-year span (from 2009 to 2013). Such documents were subpoenaed and/or seized without regard to content or relevance to the alleged violations of Ch. 11. As part of this dragnet, the special prosecutor also had seized wholly irrelevant information, such as retirement income statements, personal financial account information, personal letters, and family photos.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

Hillary Clinton Heckled on Climate Change at Town Hall

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had to deal with climate change hecklers during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire Thursday.

Before the heckling began, Clinton was challenged on her stance on climate change by a young woman, who asked if Clinton’s “refusal to take leadership on climate change” was “due to the fact that you have contributions from the fossil fuel industry in your campaign.”

“We have to change our energy policy,” Clinton responded. “I have been clear about that, I have been repeatedly clear about that. We also have to do it in a way that also doesn’t disrupt our economy. It’s really easy to say, “yeah, let’s ban all these fossil fuel extractions,” and forget about all the people who are employed, who have jobs, who rely on the energy.”

A few activists in the crowd were apparently not pleased with her answer. Another woman stood up and began shouting, before beginning a chant of “Act on climate!”

“That’s okay, that’s okay” Clinton shouted over the activists’ heckling. “I’m all in favor of acting on climate.”

Watch, via ABC News:

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading...

HOUSE HEARING TO EXAMINE SANCTUARY CITY THREAT

A House panel will take a closer look at sanctuary cities, which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, during a hearing next week.

“Sanctuary city policies needlessly endanger American lives by refusing to honor the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration laws,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said Thursday.

“Unfortunately, the Obama Administration’s own foolish policies enable rogue local governments to defy federal immigration laws,” he added. “All too often, these reckless policies create preventable tragedies.”

The murder of Kathryn Steinle — allegedly by a five-time deported, multiple-felon illegal immigrant who was released from police custody due to San Francisco pier’s sanctuary policies —  has brought sanctuary cities under increased scrutiny.

Next Thursday the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled “Sanctuary Cities: A Threat to Public Safety.”

“The border is porous, there are insufficient internal security mechanisms in place, and this administration has embraced non-enforcement and a constitutionally-suspect rewriting of what inadequate current laws do exist,” Subcommittee Chairman 

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

85%

 said.

“These administration policies enable the willful failure of localities to respect detainers and create more than benign-sounding things like ‘sanctuary’ cities. It creates gaping holes in our criminal justice system, which leads to deadly consequences,” he added.

At a House Judiciary Committee Department of Homeland Security oversight hearing this week, DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson argued against legislation forcing sanctuary cities to comply with federal immigration law.

Republicans in recent weeks have filed a number of bills aimed at compelling sanctuary cities to honor federal immigration detainer and notification requests.

The House Appropriations Committee earlier this week approved a DHS appropriations bill that includes a provision prohibiting sanctuary cities from receiving federal law enforcement grants.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Pelosi: ‘No, No,’ Release of 4 U.S. Hostages Held by Iran Should Not Be Part of Nuke Deal

(CNSNews.com) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the four American hostages being held in Iran should not have been released as a pre-condition to the Iran nuclear deal.

At a Capitol Hill press conference, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Pelosi, “Do you think the four American hostages being held in Iran should have been released as a pre-condition to any deal made about Iran’s nuclear program?”

Pelosi answered: “No, no. It would have been good. But it’s just, no, this is a nuclear deal. This is a nuclear agreement. And I think that we have to--I appreciate the fact that since we have a nuclear negotiation and now we have a nuclear agreement that a much brighter light is being shone on the prisoners of conscience in Iran.”

 “Again, I just took a trip in the spring with my colleagues on the subject of trade and we brought up these issues with the government of Vietnam, we brought up these issues with the administration about what was happening in Malaysia in terms of trafficking,” said Rep. Pelosi.  

“So, again,” she said, “any issue that shines a brighter light enables us to say: Are we consistent with what we believe? Or is it changed depending on our economic and commercial relationships with the country.”

“Security to protect and defend--that’s our first responsibility,” said Pelosi.  “Who we are as a nation, that we respect the dignity and worth of every person and that we want those prisoners released and the more attention that is paid to it the better.”

Pelosi continued, “The worst, most cruel and excruciating pain that can be inflicted on a prisoner of conscience -- and again I’ve been working on these issues on China, as you know, since I arrived here -- is that they tell the prisoners ‘nobody remembers you’re here, they don’t know why you’re here. You’re wasting your time, you might as well confess,’ or convert or whatever it is they want them to do. And this will shine a very bright light and I’m very optimistic.”

“I know that the administration has this as a very high priority,” said the Democratic leader.  “There’s so many prisoners of conscience throughout the world in so many countries that we do have dealings with. Hopefully this will  serve as a model, a bridge to  a better understanding of who we are as a nation and why that is important to us.”    

President Obama answered questions yesterday as to why the four American hostages were not part of the Iran nuclear agreement. He responded that the issue of the detained Americans and that of the nuclear agreement were “not connected.”

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] 'Nightmare' in Chattanooga: 4 Marines Killed, 1 Officer Wounded in Attacks on Navy Facilities

FOX NEWS

Four Marines were killed Thursday at a Chattanooga, Tenn., Navy training center, in what authorities called a possible "act of domestic terrorism" that consisted of two attacks carried out by a lone gunman at military facilities just seven miles apart, officials said.

The unidentified gunman shot up a recruiting center before driving to the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center and killing four Marines before he was shot, authorities said. Sources told Fox News police chased the gunman from the recruiting center to the Center, where the killings took place. The FBI and military police were investigating the attack, but authorities could not rule out the possibility of terrorism.

“We are treating this as an act of domestic terrorism,” said Bill Killian, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The names of the Marines who were reportedly shot were not immediately released pending notification of their families. The Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center lies along a bend in the Tennessee River, northeast of downtown Chattanooga.

Despite Killian's statement, an FBI Special Agent Ed Reinhold told reporters that it may have been a criminal act. The gunman was killed, but authorities did not comment on his identity, motivation or the circumstances of his death. Authorities said the gunman did not work at either military facility.

Reinhold said all the dead were killed at the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center Chattanooga. It sits between Amnicola Highway and a pathway that runs through Tennessee RiverPark, a popular park at a bend in the Tennessee River northeast of downtown Chattanooga. It's in a light industrial area that includes a Coca-Cola bottling plant and Binswanger Glass.

The two entrances to the fenced facility have unmanned gates and concrete barriers that require approaching cars to slow down to drive around them.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

CA Holds Services Hostage to Push Tax Increases

All agree that the roads desperately need revenue yet new funds from the increased budget were not directed to the roads. It’s been that way for some time – transportation infrastructure pretty much ignored by general funds instead relying on shrinking targeted funds. Shorting revenue for a vital service can set up a play for more taxes for that service. It’s happened before in California.

Two years ago, Bloomberg Business ran a lengthy, celebratory piece on Jerry Brown and his governorship. In essence, the writer argued that Brown found a solution to California’s funding problem by cutting programs until it hurt so that voters felt they had to raise taxes.

One gets the sense a similar approach is building support for transportation funds through fees and/or taxes.

Here’s what the article argued:

To get tax-hating Californians to vote to raise their own taxes, Brown became Governor Gloom. If the tax-cutters’ theory was to cut taxes so much we’d have to shrink government, he was going to shrink government so much that people would raise taxes. In addition to schools and community colleges, he would cut medical programs, aid to the disabled, and child health care. “Our breakthrough came because of the breakdown,” he says. “There were more layoffs, more pink slips, more agitation. Cutting was very conducive to the success of Prop 30.” In short: Jerry Brown scared the crap out of people.

Concluding the piece, the author wrote:

So that’s his theory: cut, cut, cut until the people can’t take it anymore. Then inspire them with stories of what government can do.

Let’s be clear that ignoring transportation funding needs goes back much farther than Brown’s current governorship. The deficit for transportation infrastructure is so great that it is not a case of cutting that caused the crisis. Over the course of many years, transportation funding was not adequately met even in good budget years. In essence, this situation amounts to a similar situation as described in the Bloomberg piece, although it certainly extends prior to Brown regaining the governor’s office. This crisis falls on past governors and legislators, too. The government did not fund the transportation system while often putting monies into new programs.

Not adequately funding the roads has led many to call for new taxes despite record budgets. Deprive, deprive, deprive transportation infrastructure instead of cut, cut, cut until the people can’t take it anymore.

The idea of moving current revenues to roads has been argued for a long time. In fact, 27 years ago Paul Gann and I were co-proponents of Proposition 72, which, among other things, directed state sales taxes on fuels to roads and highways. It was defeated.

The need for more transportation money is even greater now than it was when we tried to direct money for that purpose in 1988. Current proposals in the special session also would require certain funds to be dedicated exclusively for transportation purposes. But, a fair question to ask: Will an echo of Prop. 30 strategy as described in the Bloomberg article end in a like result of a tax increase?

(Originally posted on Fox and Hounds Daily.)

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading...

[VIDEOS] Fed's Yellen: Remain on track to raise rates this year if economy evolves as expected

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen appeared before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday to deliver a monetary policy report.

In her prepared testimony released earlier, she said the U.S. has made progress, but labor market conditions are "not yet consistent" with maximum employment. Still, Yellen reiterated earlier comments that the Fed remains on track to raise rates this year—as long as the economy evolves as expected.

As the hearing began, Yellen was immediately put on the defensive. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, called for more oversight and accused the Fed of flouting the law by ignoring requests for key documents. "The Fed's refusal to cooperate in a congressional investigation threatens both its reputation and its credibility. The Fed is not above the law," he said.

The most heated exchange of the day came when Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., accused the Fed and Yellen of willfully quashing that Congressional leak probe. You can read about that here.

Via: CNBC

Continue Reading....

[EDITORIAL] S.F. 'sanctuary' policy violates common sense: Our view

A little bit of common sense and discretion might have prevented the killing this month in San Francisco of Kathryn Steinle — a victim not only of random gunfire but of the mindless handling of the city's immigration policy.

Her accused killer is Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican immigrant who had a felony drug record going back 20 years, had been deported five timesand had repeatedly sneaked back into the USA (which raises serious questions about border security that the current, polarized debate isn't addressing in a helpful way).

OPPOSING VIEW: Sanctuary policy makes San Francisco safer

Lopez-Sanchez was in the San Francisco County jail in April and should have been deported yet again. Federal immigration authorities had lodged a "detainer," seeking to get custody and do just that. All they needed was a call or other contact from the sheriff's office.

The contact was never made, not because of some ghastly mistake or miscommunication but because of a city ordinance that prohibits police from honoring detainers except in rare cases. And, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, because of a policy by the local sheriff that bars contact with immigration authorities. After a local charge against Lopez-Sanchez was dropped, he was held for three weeks, then put on the street.

On July 1, less than three months later, Steinle, 32, was dead, collateral damage in a long-running feud between the local and federal governments over deportation.

San Francisco is one of nearly 300 cities and counties across the country with sanctuary laws or policies aimed at separating federal immigration enforcement from local policing, in order to build trust between immigrant communities and local police. The reasoning goes like this: If immigrants, including millions of undocumented ones, see local police officers as a tool for deportation, they will not report crimes or come forward as witnesses, even when they are victims, and public safely will suffer.

In that context, there's a certain logic to the "sanctuary" idea, but not when carried to extremes. Sanctuary policies set by cities, counties and states differ from place to place, but San Francisco's violates all common sense. Protecting a hard-working undocumented immigrant charged with a misdemeanor is one thing. Putting a long-term felon and serial illegal entrant on the street is the antithesis of ensuring public safety.

That's especially true when there is a more reasonable approach, one used, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, by many police departments under sanctuary laws. Officers pick up the phone to call immigration when they plan to release potentially dangerous immigrants wanted for deportation. Immigration comes to pick them up.

Kathryn Steinle's death ought to be a cause for sober reevaluation of sanctuary policies. Without a cease-fire and a working agreement in this war that has pitted local law enforcement against federal immigration authorities, there will be more innocent casualties.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

Via: USA Today

Continue Reading....

California: Prop. 13 Proves Lower Taxes Are Better for Economy

Californians know them well. They are the Proposition 13 “blamers.” They blame Prop. 13 for everything they see or even imagine as negative in the state of California.

Some years ago, a newspaper editorial asked if Prop. 13 was responsible for a measles epidemic saying it may have limited the availability of vaccine. A national publication suggested that O.J. Simpson’s acquittal of murder charges was due to the tax limiting measure because prosecuting attorneys may not have been paid enough.

Most recently, a column by a West Coast writer published in the New York Times claimed that one of the reasons that Los Angeles is becoming a “third world” city is reduced funding for education caused by the tax revolt that passed Prop. 13. As is typical, the writer ignores the fact that California now spends 30 percent more per pupil, in inflation adjusted dollars, than the amount spent just prior to the passage of Prop. 13 — a time when both liberals and conservatives agree that California schools were among the best in the nation.

Most Californians know they are overtaxed and that’s bad news for the blamers. And the latest news about California tax revenue is even worse for Prop. 13’s detractors. According to a review by the California Taxpayers Association of counties that have so far released their assessment rolls — showing the value of property as of January 1, 2015 — there is dramatic increase in values and that’s driving property tax revenue up rapidly. For example, Santa Clara County has seen an increase of 8.67 percent over the previous year.

Rapidly rising property tax revenue is not only making the Prop. 13 blamers look foolish, it is adding compelling evidence to the argument that California should be considering tax reductions, not increases. News reports abound in the Golden State about the California economic recovery and a $6 billion dollar budget surplus. The two big sources for state revenue — sales taxes and income taxes — have preceded property taxes in seeing big increases. The latest news from county assessors simply completes the tax revenue trifecta.

Here’s the rub. Interests groups that want tax hikes — mostly public sector labor organizations — are running out of time to make a decision on which tax hikes to pursue for the November 2016 ballot (to qualify an initiative takes about a year of lead time). We at HJTA hear that there are disagreements within those interests as to which tax hikes to pursue. Californians will almost certainly see a tobacco tax increase on the ballot as well as a possible tax on oil production. But what about extending the Prop. 30 tax hikes on sales and income? The flush status of the state budget renders those proposals questionable.

More importantly, the significant increase in property tax revenues raises serious questions about the viability of a so-called “split roll” proposal which would deprive business property of Prop. 13 protections. Split roll proposals have been defeated before in California and, of all the tax hikes being considered by the tax-and-spend lobby, hitting commercial property with a $9 billion tax hike is going to be next to impossible to justify to California voters.

The next few months will be very revealing as to the tax raisers’ strategies. But whatever taxes they decide to target, those paying the bill should be prepared to push back with the argument that California does not need any more tax hikes at all. And we should push back very hard.

(Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights. Originally posted on HJTA.)

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

CHATTANOOGA SHOOTING: 4 MARINES KILLED in GUN FREE ZONE (Video) — Shooter: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Four Marines were killed today in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The Marines were shot in a gun free zone.

Four Marines killed inside a military office.

It was a Gun-Free Zone–

Hat Tip Dana Loesch

No guns allowed inside:

FBI investigator said it was likely a gun-free zone.

Via: The Gateway Pundit

Continue Reading...