Political News & Info

Supporters of individual liberty and national sovereignty have been skeptical of the United Nations, and with good reason. With the support of statists such as George Soros , the U.N. pushes for crazy ideas such as global taxation and global currency . But there’s another international bureaucracy, also funded by American tax dollars , that is even more pernicious. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has the same leftist ideology as the U.N., but it actually has some ability to change policy. As you can imagine, this always means bigger government and more statism. Here are some examples. The OECD has an anti-tax competition project designed to prop up Europe’s bankrupt welfare states. The OECD is pushing a “Multilateral Convention” that is designed to become something akin to a World Tax Organization , with the power to persecute nations with free-market tax policy. The OECD has endorsed Obama’s class-warfare agenda , publishing documents endorsing “higher marginal tax rates” so that the so-called rich “contribute their fair share.” The OECD pulled off a hat trick of bad policy in a 2010 document , promoting a value-added tax, Obama’s global warming agenda, and failed Keynesian stimulus. The OECD endorsed Obamacare policies, as I explain in this video . The OECD even advocates higher taxes when nations are in the middle of economic crisis. The OECD also is pushing for higher taxes in Latin America , based on the odd notion that those nations should copy Europe’s failed welfare states. With this dismal track record, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the Paris-based bureaucracy has a new propaganda initiative that seeks to bolster a left-wing redistribution agenda. And as part of this new scheme, it has put together numbers that supposedly show that there is more poverty is the United States than there is in bankrupt and backwards nations such as Greece, Hungary, Portugal, and Turkey. This isn’t April 1, and I’m not joking. Here’s a chart ( click for larger image ), produced from the data at this OECD website , which you get to by clicking the “Poverty: Country comparisons” link on this OECD webpage . You may be wondering whether the bureaucrats at the OECD who put together these numbers are smoking crack or high on crystal meth. Well, they certainly can afford lots of drugs since they get tax-free salaries (just like their counterparts at other international bureaucracies ), but these numbers are the not the result of some ketamine-fueled binge. Instead, the OECD is lying. The website refers to “poverty rate” and “poverty threshold” and “poverty measure,” but the OECD is not measuring poverty. Instead, they have concocted a new – and deliberately misleading – set of data that instead measures the distribution of income. And if you’re wondering where they got this crazy idea, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that this is a scheme developed by the Obama Administration and it is designed so that “poverty” is only reduced if incomes become more equal, not if poor people become better off. Even moderates such as Robert Samuelson recognize this is absurd, and here is some of what he wrote . …the new definition has strange consequences. Suppose that all Americans doubled their incomes tomorrow, and suppose that their spending on food, clothing, housing and utilities also doubled. That would seem to signify less poverty — but not by the new poverty measure. It wouldn’t decline, because the poverty threshold would go up as spending went up. Many Americans would find this weird: People get richer but “poverty” stays stuck. The most amazing thing about this crazy approach is that it makes it seem as if America has more poverty than nations such as Bangladesh, even though the average “poor” American has much higher living standards than all but the wealthiest people in the developing world. And it also generates the laughable numbers in the OECD dataset, showing that Turkey and Portugal have less poverty than the United States. The main thing to understand, though, is that this new approach is part of an ideological campaign to promote bigger government and more redistribution. Which is very much consistent with the OECD’s overall agenda, as this video explains. The real outrage is that American taxpayers finance the lion’s share of the OECD budget , even though it is a hard-left organization that pushes policies that are contrary to U.S. interests. And this is why I wrote that defunding the OECD is a minimal test of fiscal seriousness for lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

See the original post:
OECD Pushes Crazy Assertion that Poverty Is Higher in the U.S. than in Greece, Hungary, Portugal, and Turkey

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) – In a surprise announcement, moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe said Tuesday she would abandon her campaign for a fourth term—a contest she was expected to win easily—because she is frustrated by a polarized atmosphere in Washington. The move dealt an immediate blow to Republicans hoping to take control of the Senate in November by giving Democrats new hope of winning the longtime GOP-held seat. “As I have long said, what motivates me is producing results for those who have entrusted me to be their voice and their champion, and I am filled with that same sense of responsibility today as I was on my first day in the Maine House of Representatives,” Snowe said in a statement. “I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and `my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.” The news came as a surprise to officials in both national parties. Snowe, 65, for months had been laying the groundwork for a strong re-election effort, putting together a campaign team, keeping a busy schedule of events in the state and raising campaign money. She had more than $3.3 million in her campaign account at the end of last year, her last campaign finance report showed. She had earned a reputation as an independent voice in the polarized Senate,but had voiced frustration with the sharp partisanship and gridlock that has come to characterize the upper chamber in recent years. She was the only Republican who voted for a version of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, joining Democrats and casting a vote for the plan in the Senate Finance Committee. But under pressure from fellow Republicans, she voted with the GOP to oppose the final legislation. Fellow Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine called Snowe’s decision a complete surprise. “Nobody can replace Olympia in the Senate,” she said. “It’s going to be a real void.” The Maine Democratic Party was also caught off guard by Snowe’s announcement, which could boost Democrats who are facing tough odds thiselection cycle. Senate Democrats hold a 51-47 majority with two independents who caucus with them. “This is a total game changer. It elevates this race to a top-tier race in the nation,” said Ben Grant, the state Democratic Party chairman. “Obviously, this is going to cause a great deal of turmoil in the Maine political scene.” Already there were three Democrats running for Snowe’s seat, a group led by former Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap. But the sudden vacancy means Democrats in both Maine and Washington may look for a stronger challenger. Candidates have only until March 15 to collect the 2,000 signatures necessary to qualify for the November ballot. Maine Democratic officials Tuesday night plan to speak privately with the state’s two Democratic members of Congress,Rep. Mike Michaud and Rep. Chellie Pingree. Neither had previously expressed interest in challenging Snowe, who was popular among Democrats and Republicans, but the vacancy changes everything. Indeed, despite a disastrous 2010 election, Democrats have traditionally done well at the statewide level. State voters have not supported a Republican in a presidential contest since 1988. “Maine is now a top pick up opportunity for Senate Democrats,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Executive Director Guy Cecil. Snowe, who has served 33 years in Congress, said she was confident she would’ve won re-election and will be retiring from the Senate in good health. She said in her statement she sees a “vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us” and that she sees opportunities to build support for that change from outside the Senate. “It has been an indescribable honor and immeasurable privilege to serve the people of Maine, first in both houses of Maine’s legislature and later in both houses of Congress,” she said. “To this day, I remain deeply passionate about public service, and I cherish the opportunity I have been given for nearly four decades to help improve the lives of my fellow Mainers.” The daughter of Greek immigrants, Snowe lost her mother to cancer when she was 8. Her father died a year later from heart disease and she was raised by an aunt and uncle. Snowe was widowed at 26 when her first husband, state Rep. Peter Snowe,died in a car crash. She won a 1973 election to fill his vacant seat. Five years later she was elected to the U.S. House where she served for 16 years before winning her Senate seat. She is married to former Maine Gov. John McKernan. Snowe was facing her first primary fight this year after cruising to a third term in 2006 with 74 percent of the vote, and was viewed by some as vulnerable because of her moderate position at a time when the tea party was gaining influence in Maine. But she had a healthy war chest and remained popular in her home state. Last week, one of her GOP challengers dropped out, leaving Scott D’Amboiseas the only other GOP candidate in the race, but other Republicans could decide to enter now. “While I would never underestimate the fight ahead in defending any openSenate seat, Republicans remain well-positioned to win back a Senate majority in November,” said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

More here:
Olympia Snowe to Retire from Senate

35 House Armed Services Committee republicans have written a letter to the President claiming that the White House plan to reduce our nuclear stock pile by 80% is dangerous.  They cite the aggressive nuclear buildup of China, Russia, and Pakistan to name a few reasons why.  Catch the audio here for the whole story with Bill Gertz and Frank Gaffney.

Go here to read the rest:
Bill Gertz: 35 HASC Republicans Challenge Obama’s 80% Cut to Nuclear Stock Pile

President Barack Obama and the Democrats adopted the tyrannical regime of Bashar al-Assad to display their opposition to, and departure from, the assertive democracy agenda of George W. Bush. Many were proud to have their photographs taken with the brutal Syrian dictator–and some Republicans were, too. Here is a bipartisan rogues’ gallery of Assad’s useful idiots: April 2, 2007: Republican Representatives Frank Wolf (VA), Joe Pitts (PA), and Robert Aderholt (AL) April 4, 2007: Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) February 15, 2008: Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State for President Jimmy Carter April 19, 2008: Former president Jimmy Carter February 21, 2009: Democrat Senator John Kerry (MA) February 21, 2009: Democrat Representative Howard Berman (CA)

See the original post here:
Syria: A Rogues’ Gallery of Assad’s Useful Idiots

In a recent op-ed by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), the freshman congressman said that while efforts such as the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act designed to stop members of Congress were commendable, ultimately, they will not work as intended. Writing in the Wisconsin Rapids Tribune , Rep. Duffy said: A few months ago, Breitbart News editor and author Peter Schweizer published a book titled Throw Them All Out which suggested that members of Congress were using their influence and access in the legislative process to fatten their investment portfolios. A 60 Minutes piece followed which brought the issue to national attention and rightly caused Americans to wonder: “Is my representative using the power I’ve entrusted in him for personal gains in the stock market?” As one of the 87 freshman legislators sent to Washington to clean up the mess, I think we owe it to the American people to do just that: clean up the mess. And that includes the reputation and perception that members of Congress operate above the law. Congress ought to hold itself to a higher standard. Rep. Duffy says that while he personally has not seen any of his congressional colleagues engage in insider trading, he considers it the better part of reason to remove the possibility for the practice to occur. To accomplish that, writes Rep. Duffy, Congress must pass the bill he recently introduced, the RESTRICT (Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency and Responsibility in Congressional Trading) Act: The RESTRICT Act is the only way to stop any real or perceived insider trading by members of Congress. Other members of Congress have introduced similar pieces of legislation such as the STOCK Act, which requires members to disclose $1,000 trades within 90 days. While I commend their efforts, the truth is that the STOCK Act doesn’t go far enough and, frankly, has loopholes you can drive a truck through. For example, under the STOCK Act, a member of Congress could trade a total of $50,000 in one day by making 50 trades at $950 per trade and never trigger the reporting requirement. In contrast, the RESTRICT Act is simple and straightforward — a refreshing change for a Congress accustomed to huge bills with carve-outs and loopholes to avoid the very practice the bill was intended to prevent. Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, who is widely regarded as the individual most responsible for spearheading the congressional insider trading reform movement, says he believes the RESTRICT Act is a superior solution to the problem and that he prefers it over the STOCK Act.  About the RESTRICT Act, Mr. Schweizer says: The RESTRICT Act is by far the best way to start addressing the problems of insider trading in Congress. It provides a simple transparent and direct approach that will help the American people hold their elected leaders more accountable According to Rep. Duffy, the RESTRICT Act will begin restoring much-needed transparency and accountability among members of Congress. It’s time Congress led with the transparency and accountability worthy of our office. In an age of dysfunctional government and growing public cynicism, the RESTRICT Act is one of those rare bills that can help restore confidence in government and unite commonsense Americans on both sides of the aisle. What citizen doesn’t want to limit corruption and make sure Congress is working in the best interest of the people who elected them? Let’s work together to restore high ethical standards in Congress — please share this column with your friends today. Help me spread the word about how we can “go all the way” to end Congressional insider trading by passing the RESTRICT Act. With Congress resuming this week, House members are expected to quickly take up debate on STOCK Act and Rep. Duffy’s RESTRICT Act.

Originally posted here:
Rep. Sean Duffy Says STOCK Act ‘Doesn’t Go Far Enough’ to End Congressional Insider Trading

It’s a curious thing, the sudden and bizarre demonization of true constitutional conservatives like Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R–Tennessee) by some conservative online agitants. Most conservatives understand that Rep. Blackburn is one of the more reliably intelligent and sober figures in contemporary politics.  That’s particularly true when it comes to technology policy.  While most political leaders speak in simplistic talking points, Rep. Blackburn is known for developing real knowledge about, and applies her steady conservative principles to, the issues. As the most prominent example, Rep. Blackburn remains one of the most steadfast and informed opponents of so-called “Net Neutrality,” which truly will launch governmental micromanagement of Internet service. So it’s especially odd and ironic that some conservatives suddenly slur her.  Said RedState’s (and CNN’s) Erick Erickson, “I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 re-election bid.”  His rationale?  Erickson has joined the likes of  MoveOn.org , Demand Progress, the Marxist group Free Press and others on the left in fanatically opposing legislation to stop foreign Internet piracy, H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).  In doing so, he and other generally reliable conservatives are promoting lawlessness and outright theft by foreign pirates over constitutionally protected property rights. So what is SOPA, and why all of the fuss? First, a personal observation:  I have never witnessed an opposition campaign characterized by such misinformation, ignorance and outright dishonesty as the one waged by opponents of the legislation.  To be clear, I have never met Mr. Erickson, I respect him generally and have absolutely zero ill will toward him personally.  He provides, however, a perfect example of misinformation by making claims such as, “The Act intends to stop online piracy. The way the Act goes about doing this is, in large part, allowing Eric Holder to take control of the internet and shut down websites he does not like.”  That is flatly, horribly false.  Anyone who has actually read the bill knows how preposterous that comment is.  Unfortunately, it’s all too typical of the anti-SOPA coalition. In previous commentaries I have addressed and corrected the main anti-SOPA myths more fully, but here’s the essence of the truth people should know about it. First, the bill targets foreign rogue websites dedicated to the theft of American intellectual property that would already be subject to seizure if located within the U.S.  Such websites currently pirate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American intellectual property, which accounts for an enormous portion of domestic jobs, exports and output. Second, the bill incorporates exhaustive due process protections for all parties involved.  This is critical, because opponents falsely claim that the Attorney General or rights holders would somehow possess arbitrary powers against innocent actors.  Quite the contrary, the bill explicitly incorporates the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that apply to all litigation. Relief can only be granted upon such prerequisites as notice to adverse parties, specific facts that “clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage” will occur, specific details justifying relief and opportunity for adverse parties to present their rebuttal.  The bill also punishes false claims, protects defendants against impossible or unreasonable burdens, allows courts to modify relief in the interests of justice and allows damages (including legal fees) for wronged defendants. So when opponents of SOPA claim that it deprives anyone of due process, they are speaking either dishonestly or ignorantly.  That is a simple fact. Opponents of SOPA also falsely claim that it somehow constitutes “censorship” or a threat to “free speech.”  Setting aside for a moment the sham that foreign thieves operating outside the jurisdiction of the United States somehow enjoy any First Amendment protections, otherwise illegal activity does not magically achieve sacred status or legal immunity simply because it occurs on the Internet rather than on a street corner.  Moreover, this legislation and judicial orders pursuant to it would remain subject to the same judicial review applicable to any other statute. Compounding the irony, Google, no friend to the conservative cause, constitutes the primary corporate interest driving opposition to the bill.  That’s no surprise, since Google profits handsomely from the theft of others’ intellectual property online.  Just last August, the search giant admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay a $500 million fine to avoid criminal charges that it had padded its bottom line for years by knowingly accepting advertising by foreign pharmacies preying on American consumers, which led to the illegal imports of unsafe prescription drugs. In other words, it’s no coincidence that the largest corporate interest fueling the misinformed opposition to giving domestic rights holders the tools necessary to protect their property against foreign theft online is also the company that stands to gain the most financially from SOPA’s defeat.  Indeed, the legislation’s defeat should be viewed for what it is: the ultimate policy bailout for Google.  And lest conservatives forget, Google furiously supports “Net Neutrality,” which actually does constitute toxic governmental encroachment against Internet freedom. So shame on so many SOPA opponents on the right, who have curiously joined the online equivalent of Occupy Wall Street to put the interests of foreign thieves ahead of the constitutional rights of American property owners. The fact that they can’t oppose the bill on honest, genuine bases speaks volumes.  As does the fact that they demonize proven champions of freedom like Rep. Blackburn, who is among the staunchest defenders against actual threats of censorship and improper government expansion.

Read the original:
Foreign Internet Piracy Apologists Falsely Demonize Rep. Marsha Blackburn

I don’t blame the Democrats for wanting to seduce Republicans into a tax-increase trap. Indeed, I completely understand why some Democrats said their top political goal was getting the GOP to surrender the no-tax-hike position . I’m mystified, though, why some Republicans are willing to walk into such a trap . If you were playing chess against someone, and that person kept pleading with you to make a certain move, wouldn’t you be a tad bit suspicious that they weren’t trying to help you win? When I talk to the Republicans who are open to tax hikes, they sometimes admit that their party will suffer at the polls, but they say it’s the right thing to do because of red ink. I suppose that’s a noble sentiment, though I find that most GOPers who are open to tax hikes also tend to be big spenders, so I question their sincerity (with Senator Coburn being an obvious exception ). But even if we assume that all of them are genuinely motivated by a desire to control deficits and debt, shouldn’t they be asked to provide some evidence that higher taxes are an effective way of fixing the fiscal policy mess? I’m not trying to score debating points. This is a serious question. European nations, for instance, have been raising taxes for decades, almost always saying that higher taxes were necessary to balance budgets and control red ink. Yet that obviously hasn’t worked. Europe’s now in the middle of a fiscal crisis . So why do some people think we should mimic the French and the Greeks? But we don’t need to look overseas for examples. Look at what’s happened in Illinois, where politicians recently imposed a giant tax hike. The Wall Street Journal opined this morning on the results . Here are the key passages. Run up spending and debt, raise taxes in the naming of balancing the budget, but then watch as deficits rise and your credit-rating falls anyway. That’s been the sad pattern in Europe, and now it’s hitting that mecca of tax-and-spend government known as Illinois. …Moody’s downgraded Illinois state debt to A2 from A1, the lowest among the 50 states. That’s worse even than California. …This wasn’t supposed to happen. Only a year ago, Governor Pat Quinn and his fellow Democrats raised individual income taxes by 67% and the corporate tax rate by 46%. They did it to raise $7 billion in revenue, as the Governor put it, to “get Illinois back on fiscal sound footing” and improve the state’s credit rating. So much for that. …And—no surprise—in part because the tax increases have caused companies to leave Illinois, the state budget office confesses that as of this month the state still has $6.8 billion in unpaid bills and unaddressed obligations. In other words, higher taxes led to fiscal deterioration in Illinois, just as tax increases in Europe have been followed by bad outcomes. Whenever any politician argues in favor of a higher tax burden, just keep these two points in mind. 1. Higher taxes encourage more government spending. 2. Higher taxes don’t raise as much money as politicians claim. The combination of these two factors explains why higher taxes make things worse rather than better. And they explain why Europe is in trouble and why Illinois is in trouble. The relevant issue is whether the crowd in Washington should copy those failed examples. As this video explains, higher taxes are not the solution. Heck, I’ve already explained that more than 100 percent of America’s long-fun fiscal challenge is government spending. So why reward politicians for overspending by letting them confiscate more of our income?

See the article here:
Illinois Downgrade Provides More Evidence that Higher Taxes Make Fiscal Problems Worse, not Better

From the Associated Press: NAIROBI, Kenya — The October al-Qaida video shows a light-skinned man handing out food to families displaced by famine in Somalia. But the masked man is not Somali, or even African — he’s a Wisconsin native who grew up in San Diego. Militant Islamist insurgency is recruiting Americans A handful of young Muslims from the U.S. are taking high-visibility propaganda and operational roles inside an al-Qaida-linked insurgent force in Somalia known as al-Shabab. While most are from Minnesota, which has the largest Somali population in the nation, al-Shabab members include a Californian and an Alabaman with no ancestral ties to Somalia. “They are being deployed in roles that appear to be shrewdly calculated to raise al-Shabab’s international profile and to recruit others, especially those from the United States and other English-speaking countries,” said Anders Folk, a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted suspected al-Shabab supporters in Minnesota. Officials fear another terrorist attack in East Africa. Kenya announced Jan. 7 that it had thwarted attempted al-Shabab attacks over the holidays. The same day, Britain’s Foreign Office urged Britons in Kenya to be extra vigilant, warning that terrorists there may be “in the final stages of planning attacks.” More than 40 people have traveled from the U.S. to Somalia to join al-Shabab since 2007, and 15 of them have died, according to a report from the House Homeland Security Committee. Federal investigations into al-Shabab recruitment in the U.S. have centered on Minnesota, which has more than 32,000 Somalis. Abdisalan Hussein Ali: American became suicide bomber At least 21 men have left Minnesota to join al-Shabab in that same time. The FBI has confirmed that at least two of them died in Somalia as suicide bombers. A U.S. citizen is suspected in a third suicide bombing, and another is under investigation in connection with a fourth bombing Oct. 29 that killed 15 people. Jehad Mostafa The star of the al-Qaida video was Jehad Mostafa, 30, a Californian who handed out food using the name Abu Abdullah al-Muhajir, according to the SITE Monitoring Service. The Washington Post reported last year that Mostafa served as top lieutenant to Saleh Nabhan, a senior al-Qaida operative killed by Navy SEALs in a helicopter attack inside Somalia in 2010. Mostafa and the Alabaman, Omar Hammami, 27, are among about a dozen men who have been charged in federal court in the U.S. and are believed to be in Somalia. The Americans appear to have been motivated by the Ethiopian army’s intervention in Somalia in 2006, which they saw as an invasion. However, many experts believe it’s only a matter of time before al-Shabab turns its wrath on the U.S., which in February 2008 designated it as a terrorist organization. The group killed 76 people in terrorist bombings in Uganda in 2010 during the World Cup final. U.S. military commanders fear that Americans inside al-Shabab could train as bombmakers and use their U.S. passports to carry out attacks in the U.S. E.K. Wilson, the agent overseeing the FBI’s investigation in Minneapolis, said he cannot comment on whether there is an outstanding order to capture or kill Americans fighting for al-Shabab. The FBI has publicly said the Americans should return to the U.S. It’s a mystery what caused Mostafa, a young man whom many remember as mild and friendly, to join an extremist group. Mostafa grew up in San Diego and graduated from the University of California, San Diego. Imam Abdeljalil Mezgouri of the Islamic Center of San Diego, the city’s largest mosque, said Mostafa was a respectful teen and good student. “He was a very quiet, very loving boy. He didn’t talk too much but when he did talk, people liked him,” said Mezgouri. Mezgouri said Mostafa got married in his early 20s to a woman he believed was from Somalia. Public records show Mostafa was the president of the now-defunct Muslim Youth Council of San Diego, or MYCSD. The former organization’s Web site says the group was “dedicated to showing the world that Islam is a religion of peace and Muslims are a peaceful and productive part of society.” Mostafa’s father, Halim Mostafa, a Kurdish Syrian, is a prominent figure in San Diego’s Muslim community who has tried to build bridges with non-Muslims. He made a low-budget film released in 2008 called “Mozlym” to show how the true meaning of Islam is often lost amid the misconceptions of non-Muslims in America, according to the film’s Web site. Mostafa’s father declined to talk. “I just don’t want to get involved. I’m really sorry I cannot say anything. God bless you,” he said. Edgar Hopida, a spokesman for the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Halim Mostafa believes in the most liberal interpretation of Islam and noted that “it’s ironic if his son is involved with al-Shabab.” Mostafa is believed to have met American militant Anwar al-Awlaki about a decade ago at a San Diego mosque, according to The Washington Post. He went to Somalia in 2005. Federal officials declined to comment. Mostafa was indicted in August 2010 on terrorism charges for allegedly providing material support to al-Shabab. Mostafa has a leadership role inside al-Shabab and serves as a key liaison to al-Qaida, said Evan Kohlmann, who has assisted government investigations into al-Shabab recruiting and financing. AP could not reach Mostafa or Hammami for comment. A spokesman for al-Shabab said that the questions AP emailed were “of a personal nature relating to the roles and activities of certain individuals and for that reason they were left unanswered.” The spokesman also said al-Shabab and al-Qaida were “brothers in Islam.” He did not provide a name but emailed from an address used by al-Shabab’s media outreach wing, which also recently launched a Twitter feed. The Alabaman, Hammami, 27, has taken on the role of jihadi lecturer and Islamic scholar. After U.S. Navy SEALs killed al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan earlier this year, Hammami appeared at a news conference near Mogadishu and threatened to avenge the killing. Al-Awlaki’s death by a U.S. drone in Yemen in September left Hammami as the most influential U.S. English speaker in the jihadi propaganda sphere, said terrorism expert Ben Venzke. Hammami is also known as Abu Mansour al-Amriki or “the American.” “His more accessible image and manner of speaking may prove a growing and significant threat to not just the region around Somalia but for future attacks on U.S. soil,” said Venzke of the Washington-based IntelCenter. Hammami grew up in Daphne, Ala., a bedroom community of 20,000 outside Mobile known for sunsets on the Gulf of Mexico, seafood and high school football. The phone directory lists 43 Christian churches and not a single Islamic congregation in Daphne. The son of a Christian mother and a Syrian-born Muslim father, Hammami attended Daphne High School. Then-assistant principal Don Blanchard recalls Hammami as generally well liked. “Omar I would not classify as a troubled kid,” said Blanchard. Hammami enrolled at the University of South Alabama, where he was president of the Muslim Student Association. Following the 2001 terrorism attacks, Hammami spoke to the student newspaper. “Even now it’s difficult to believe a Muslim could have done this,” The Vanguard quoted Hammami as saying. Hammami went to Somalia in 2006. He was indicted in 2007 on terrorism charges, and faced more charges in 2009 for providing material support to terrorists. Hammami, who wears a long beard and often raps in al-Shabab videos, released a nearly 50-minute lecture in October to commemorate five years with the group. He spouts hatred for “Western oppression.” In the video, provided to AP by the IntelCenter, he contrasts his upbringing in America with his life in Somalia, where he says a microwave — “or even a normal oven” — is a rarity. The English speaker serves as a recruiter and fund-raiser and is one of the top people in charge of al-Shabab’s foreign fighters, Kohlmann said. Hammami attends morning fighting drills and motivates new recruits, former al-Shabab fighter Abdi Hassan told AP. Hammami avoids mobile phones for fear intelligence agencies will trace him, and uses pseudonyms on the Internet. “He sometimes cries with emotion, which makes others cry with him,” said Hassan. He added, “Every new American is asked to convince his friends to come. The Americans’ suicide attacks and speeches are meant to attract other Americans.” The Americans helped produce what Venzke calls one of the most sophisticated recruitment videos ever released, featuring Minneapolis men in a July 2008 ambush of Ethiopian troops along a road in Somalia. Another video features a Minneapolis man who appeals to others to join the cause in English. Al-Shabab does not just recruit from the U.S. Three suspects accused of having ties to al-Shabab are in prison in Australia and awaiting sentencing for allegedly planning an attack on an Australian military base. Dozens of U.K. residents have also traveled to Somalia to join al-Shabab, and the British government is concerned that Somalia shows many of the characteristics that made Afghanistan “a seedbed for terrorism.” Rick Nelson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said just the possibility of military reprisal might not deter al-Shabab from carrying out an attack inside the U.S. “All the elements are there for it to happen,” he said.

More:
US Muslims Joining Islamic Insurgency In Africa

Apparently, “respecting the U.S. Constitution” didn’t make it onto President Obama’s 2012 New Year’s resolution list, as evidenced by his “recess” appointment of anti-business extremist Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Just an few hours later, Obama made three additional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has become little more than a Big Labor battering ram under this president. Obama is terming his appointments “recess” appointments. They are nothing of the sort, because Congress is not in recess. Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days …” To prevent any recess appointment, the Republican-controlled House has refused to consent to Senate adjournment, resulting in the Senate coming into pro forma session every three days. But as Ed Meese, who served as Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, points out : these pro forma sessions aren’t gimmicks. The two-month extension of the payroll tax holiday was approved during a pro forma Senate session. But in an unprecedented power grab, Obama has decided that he can decide when Congress is or is not in session. Meese rightly calls it a “constitutional abuse of a high order.” If this abuse stands, the U.S. Senate’s constitutional role to advise and consent in the confirmation of key executive appointees, already undermined by Obama’s many czar appointments, could become moot. The response to these outrageous and unconstitutional appointments was swift and severe. The editors at Bloomberg immediately splashed an editorial on its website warning that the “ president is playing with fire ” and choosing “politics over principle” with these appointments. “He risks an election-year legal challenge that could hamstring the consumer bureau and several other financial regulators whose pending confirmations will probably now stall,” they warned. Any substantial actions by Obama’s pretend appointees at the CFPB or the NLRB would, it can seriously be argued, “ null and void .” Nonetheless, Barack Obama appears undeterred by such considerations. The Cordray appointment, in particular, earned the ire of Senate Republicans who filibustered this nomination in December 2011. According to The Washington Times : Defying Congress, President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a move Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab. The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — a move that breaks with at least three different precedents which have held that the Senate must be in recess for at least three days before a president can act… …The appointment in question is former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, whom Mr. Obama tapped to head the CFPB. The board was set up under the new Wall Street regulation bill Democrats powered through in 2010, just before losing their majority in the House. You may recall that the CFPB was created by the Dodd-Frank monstrosity and got its sea legs under its first head, Elizabeth Warren, another anti-business zealot now running for Senate in Massachusetts (you can read more about Warren’s troubled past here ). If Cordray is the “right man for the job,” as Barack Obama noted in his remarks, then why would the president need to resort to such extreme measures to get “his guy” in position at the CFPB? Because given Cordray’s controversial background and penchant for inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric, there is no chance he could survive the confirmation process — especially when you consider that Congress does not control the agency’s purse strings. The CFPB gets its funding from the Federal Reserve. Here’s what I mean by “inflammatory and irresponsible.” In a scathing editorial when Cordray was first nominated, The Wall Street Journal said that throughout his career, Cordray has demonstrated a “hostility toward business.” The Journal explains: [Cordray] sued Ally Financial’s GMAC Mortgage over its foreclosure practices—a lawsuit that helped spawn the national robo-signing uproar, which has mushroomed into an effort to force big banks to cough up billions for Democrats to redistribute. He sued rating agencies for grading mortgage-backed securities as safe investments. He sued Bank of America for purportedly hiding losses and bonuses prior to the Merrill Lynch merger. The list of cases is long. In an interview with the Journal, Cordray also compared employees of a financial services company to the “Nazis at Nuremberg” who said they were just following orders. And, as John Berlau points out in The American Spectator , “Cordray has long supported ESOP, formerly known as the East Side Organizing Project, an Ohio housing advocacy group that has distinguished itself by storming into banks and launching plastic ‘shark attacks’ on the lawns of private homes.” These are tactics that would make any Wall Street Occupier proud. But while Cordray was all too happy to spew venom at U.S. corporations, the then-Ohio attorney general showed little regard for one of his own constituents, including Ohio citizen and small businessman Joe Wurzelbacher, also known as “Joe the Plumber.” Cordray looked the other way while Ohio government officials (and Obama hacks) combed through Mr. Wurzelbacher’s private government files and attempted to dig up dirt and smear his name – all because Mr. Wurzelbacher had the gall to question then-candidate Barack Obama about his tax policies. Commenting on his decision to bypass Senate confirmation, the president explained, “I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve.” The president said it was his “obligation” to ignore the Senate and simply install Cordray. And following through on his “obligation,” Obama moved quickly to install three more of his cronies over at the NLRB. Obama first announced these three NRLB nominees on December 15. They haven’t been filibustered, they haven’t had their background checks, and no hearings have been scheduled yet by the Democratic-controlled Senate. So Obama thinks it appropriate to install appointees in violation of the law of the land simply because he anticipates opposition? I understand this president fantasizes about being king, but this act shows that he is acting out his fantasy. According to The Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, “The move, which is arguably as important as the Cordray appointment, will ratchet up opposition from Republicans and make this an even bigger fight, since they have been attacking the NLRB…” Sargent accurately points out that the president’s appointments will “help energize unions in advance of the 2012 election…” So, who is it exactly that is putting politics ahead of what’s best for the country? Barack Obama cannot toss enough bones to his friends in Big Labor. From Obamacare waivers to recess appointments to the NLRB’s controversial Boeing lawsuit , the president seems intent on paying Big Labor in advance for union votes coming his way in November. What is there to be done about Obama’s power grab? Short of impeachment (which, however extraordinary, for the first time in this presidency ought to be given serious discussion), Congress can make its displeasure known through the appropriations process and by holding up more nominees (which may not be any good given the president’s usurpations this week). For Judicial Watch’s part, our lawyers and investigators will endeavor to consider a variety of approaches to challenge and investigate this lawlessness. The Iowa caucuses results this week were newsworthy, but the transformation of our constitutional order by Barack Obama is the big news. Judicial Watch has the most comprehensive investigation of Obama’s czars currently available. Click here to read our recent report.

See the original post here:
Obama Starts Constitutional Crisis, Installs New Radical Czars

The forthcoming defense cuts, as laid out in the new DoD strategic document Sustaining Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense , calls for severe cuts in particular areas. The nuclear stockpile will be reduced and there will be a reduction of forces in Europe.  The DoD says that it will particularly work to protect our capabilities in “special operations forces, in new technologies like [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and unmanned systems, in space, and in particular in cyberspace capabilities;  and also our capacity to quickly mobilize if necessary,” said the Sec Def Leon Panetta. The Air Force will get its new stealth bomber, but otherwise they plan to get rid of “Cold War-era systems” which means other big platforms like navy ships, fighters, and tanks. The challenge is that if you are going to reorient America’s national defense, you have to know with certainty what sort of threats we will face in the future. Changes made now will affect what our forces look like twenty years from now. Can we do that with certainty? Who would have projected in, say, 1991 that we would be fighting major ground battles in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can we know with certainty that we won’t need as many Cold War era platforms? What about the rise of China, which is investing in precisely these sorts of systems? Historically we have gone through significant swings because we were totally wrong in our projections. After World War II we dramatically cut back on defense spending, and things were shockingly bad in the early days of the Korean War. Likewise, we didn’t anticipate the military structure we would need to fight effectively in Vietnam. During the 1970s, we consistently underestimated the threat from the Soviet Union. In short, our military crystal ball has been very cloudy in the past. In our difficult financial environment, some budget cuts are going to be necessary at the Pentagon. But if you trim things to the bone, you better be right in predicting the future . And the track record for the United States on that front has been particularly bad.

Read the original post:
Coming Defense Cuts: Where Will They Come From?