WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Seeking an elusive middle ground, President Barack Obama is proposing a 2014 budget that embraces tax increases abhorred by Republicans as well as reductions, loathed by liberals, in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs.
“What I will say is that this is not the president’s idealized budget,” Carney said. “It is not what he would do if he were king, or if only people who supported his proposals were in Congress. It was what he believes is a fair and balanced approach to our deficit challenges. One that allows us to invest, that protects seniors, that helps secure the middle class–and give ladders to those who want to get into the middle class.”
The plan, if ever enacted, could touch almost all Americans. The rich would see tax increases, the poor and the elderly would get smaller annual increases in their benefits, and middle income taxpayers would slip into higher tax brackets despite Obama’s repeated vows not to add to the tax burden of the middle class. His proposed changes, once phased in, would mean a cut in Social Security benefits of nearly $1,000 a year for an average 85-year-old, smaller cuts for younger retirees.
Obama proposed much the same without success to House Speaker John Boehner in December. The response Friday was dismissive from Republicans and hostile from liberals, labor and advocates for the elderly.
But the proposal aims to tackle worrisome deficits that are adding to the national debt and placing a long-term burden on the nation, prompting praise from independent deficit hawks. Obama’s budget also proposes new spending for public works projects, pre-school education and for job and benefit assistance for veterans.
The budget, which Obama will release Wednesday to cover the budget year beginning Oct. 1, proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years. That figure would replace $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are poised to take effect over the next 10 years if Congress and the president don’t come up with an alternative, thus delivering a net increase in deficit reduction of $600 billion.
Counting reductions and higher taxes that Congress and Obama have approved since 2011, the 2014 budget would contribute to $4.3 trillion in total deficit reduction by 2023.
The budget wouldn’t affect the $85 billion in cuts that kicked in last month for this budget year
A key feature of Obama’s plan is a revised inflation adjustment called “chained CPI.” This new formula would effectively curb annual increases in a broad swath of government programs but would have its biggest impact on Social Security. By encompassing Obama’s offer to Boehner, R-Ohio, the plan would also include reductions in Medicare spending, much of it by targeting payments to health care providers and drug companies. The Medicare proposal also would require wealthier recipients to pay higher premiums or co-pays.
Obama’s budget proposal also calls for additional tax revenue, primarily by placing a 28 percent cap on deductions and other tax exclusions. That plan would affect wealthy taxpayers as would a new administration proposal to place limits on tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires.
Obama made the same offer to Boehner in December when he and the speaker were negotiating ways of avoiding a steep, so-called fiscal cliff of combined across-the-board spending cuts and sweeping tax increases caused by the expiration of Bush-era tax rates. Boehner rejected that plan and ultimately Congress approved tax increases that were half of what Obama had sought.
“If you look at where the president’s final offer and Boehner were … they were extremely close to each other,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “We do think that it’s a very good sign that the president has included real entitlement reforms in the budget.”
Boehner, in a statement Friday, said House Republicans made clear to Obama last month that he should not make savings in entitlement programs that both sides agree on, contingent on more tax increases.
“If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there’s no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes,” Boehner said. “That’s no way to lead and move the country forward.”
The inflation adjustment would reduce federal spending on government programs over 10 years by about $130 billion, according to White House estimates. Because it also affects how tax brackets are adjusted, it would also generate about $100 billion in higher taxes and hit even middle income taxpayers.
Once the change is fully phased in, Social Security benefits for a typical middle-income 65-year-old would be about $136 less a year, according to an analysis of Social Security data. At age 75, annual benefits under the new index would be $560 less. At 85, the cut would be $984 a year.
The concept behind the chained CPI is that consumers substitute lower-priced alternatives for goods whose costs spike. So, for example, if the price of oranges goes too high for some consumers, they could buy alternatives like apples or strawberries if their prices were more affordable. This flexibility isn’t considered in the current system of gauging inflation, a calculation that determines how much benefits grow each year. Taking it into account means such benefits won’t grow by as much.
Advocates for the elderly say seniors pay a higher portion of their income for health care, where costs rise more quickly than inflation.
The White House has said the cost-of-living adjustments would include protections for “vulnerable” recipients.
“The president should drop these misguided cuts in benefits and focus instead on building support in Congress for investing in jobs,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement.
AARP’s legislative policy director said Obama’s budget proposal, while not a surprise, was a disappointment.
“The message seems to be that the president wants a deal and is willing to even sacrifice such important benefits as Social Security as part of that deal,” said David Certner. The seniors lobby argues that Social Security doesn’t belong in the budget talks because it isn’t contributing to the deficit and is separately financed with its own dedicated taxes.
Citing the effect on veterans, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, said he was “terribly disappointed” in the Obama plan and would “do everything in my power to block” it.
While Obama has proposed the slower cost of living adjustment plan during fiscal negotiations with Republican leaders, placing it in the budget would put the administration’s official imprint on the plan and mark a full shift from Obama’s stand in 2008, when he campaigned against Republican Party nominee John McCain.
In a Sept. 6, 2008, speech to AARP, Obama said: “John McCain’s campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either.”
Obama also proposes $305 billion in cuts to Medicare over a decade, including $156 billion through lower Medicare payments to drug companies and higher premiums or co-pays from wealthy recipients. That’s to the right of the conservative budget of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., which barely touches Medicare in the coming 10 years, cutting just $129 billion from the program. The huge Medicare savings from Ryan’s proposal, which transforms the system into a program in which the government subsidizes health insurance purchases on the private market, wouldn’t accrue until the following decade.
Obama’s budget comes after the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-run Senate passed separate and markedly different budget proposals. House Republicans achieved long-term deficit reductions by targeting safety net programs; Democrats instead protected those programs and called for $1 trillion in tax increases.
But Obama has been making a concerted effort to win Republican support, especially in the Senate. He has even scheduled a dinner with Republican lawmakers on the evening that his budget is released next week.
As described by the administration officials, the budget proposal would also end a loophole that permits people to obtain unemployment insurance and disability benefits at the same time.
Obama’s proposal, however, includes calls for increased spending. It proposes $50 billion for public works projects. It also would make preschool available to more children by increasing the tax on tobacco.
Obama Surrounds Himself With The Most Extreme Appointees In American History
Much has been written about Obama’s controversial appointments, not only to the federal bench, but to key cabinet positions, as well as to the unaccountable (and probably unconstitutional) “Czar” positions. Much of the criticism has dwelled on the Obama administration’s lack of vetting when filling these rolls—but that’s not the issue.
To the contrary, the Obama team did investigate thoroughly and they choose precisely. When an administration repeatedly nominates hard-left individuals, it’s not a vetting error—it’s a pattern. We should not allow the media to portray these appointments as a series of errors; but rather, we need to realize that Team Obama is simply nominating those who share their goal of radically changing America.
Most Americans have a hard time understanding this because they refuse to believe Obama is this extreme. But he is. For a year prior to his election conservatives warned voters that everything we knew about Obama indicated that his views were far from the mainstream. This was obvious when one analyzed his friends, which groups he funded while a “community activist,” his Illinois State Senate record, his United States Senate record and even what he wrote in his own books.
The reality, of course, is that Obama’s views are far from the mainstream and it is embarrassing so many Americans fell for his leftist candy-coated lies. Indeed, it appears that Obama is the most far left President in American history. His appointees only confirm this. These appointees hail from the crowd who regard their pedigree as the 60’s activists who cheered on the Vietcong, while American boys were slaughtered in the jungles of Vietnam. They hate America, or more precisely, they hate America’s heritage; American institutions, and the American Constitution.
Many of these extremists nominated by Obama hail from academia, where they were shielded from outside scrutiny while they quietly indoctrinated our youth. But don’t let the cloak of academia fool you; they are out to change America in ways most Americans oppose. More importantly, Americans need to realize their views are Obama’s views.
The American media is partly responsible for bringing such extremists to power. There is little doubt the media engaged in a massive propaganda effort to convince Americans that Obama was some kind of hip moderate; a breath of fresh air, a reformer, and someone who would fight the corrupt ways of Washington. Until Americans wake up and stop relying on the mainstream media for their source of news, they will continue to pay a heavy price for their ignorance. Unfortunately, this report covers just a few of Obama’s policy-makers, but there are many more such extremists within his administration.
Domestic Policy:
The Regulatory Czar – Cass Sunstein
Sunstein was nominated and approved to be Obama’s “Regulatory Czar.” He supports massive gun control and doesn’t believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. He has straight out said, “We ought to ban hunting.” While this fruitcake strips Americans of their Constitutional right to own guns, he wants to give rights to animals and has argued that “Animals should be permitted to bring suit…” Naturally, he also supports the “Fairness Doctrine,” the wrongly-named concept which allows the government to regulate the airwaves.
Climate Czar – Todd Stern
Stern, a veteran of the Clinton administration, was the U.S. negotiator at the Kyoto conference in 1997 (which called for dramatic climate change regulations based on bogus assumptions.) Had the treaty been implemented, it would have plunged the world into economic chaos.
Since then, new evidence has revealed that the major climate models used to justify the Global Warming alarm was, in fact, not accurate. One would think Stern would address this, but chances are he won’t. Climate change seems to be more about giving the government control over our lives, than about phony climate crises. Indeed, Stern has made it clear that he thinks international agencies, such as the United Nations, should take the lead on forcing climate change down the throats of national governments. Stern has even gone as far as to propose that world powers form an “E8” group, who would meet yearly and dictate environmental policy to the rest of the world. What about national sovereignty? Clearly, Stern feels that’s an outdated concept.
Stern is also the nutcase behind the Cap and Trade proposal which, even an analysis by Obama’s own Treasury Department concluded, would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion dollars—just what we need for today’s economy!
Science Czar – John Holdren
In his book, Holdren advocates some of the most bizarre and horrifying policy stances imaginable. In the event of a “over-population crises,” Holdren supports “laws requiring compulsory abortion,” government confiscation of new born babies, the “development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin,” and, incredibly, “adding a sterilant to drinking water or stable foods….” as long a livestock would not be affected (as experimentally implemented in India). Holdren wants the government to dictate family size and advocate a “planetary regime,” run by the United Nations. This real life Dr. Frankenstein will be deciding science policy for the United States of America.
Chief Diversity Officer, Federal Communications Commission – Mark Lloyd
While Obama is playing coy with his plans to shut down conservative talk radio, we know what his real intentions are, due to his appointment of Mark Lloyd. Lloyd’s view of the 1st Amendment is shocking:
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.
This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references
to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination
of other communications policies. “[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect
global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”
Like many of Obama’s appointees, Lloyd worked for George Soros, the foreign billionaire who funds anti-America groups. He seems to be enamored with dictators and has even publicly praised Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez’s “incredible…democratic revolution.” He also wants to use the Fairness Doctrine to “balance” talk radio and believes there are too many white people in the media. He has written that unless there are “more people of color, gays and other people…we will not change the problem.” One of his solutions to “balance” the media is to fine conservative radio stations up to $250 million and give the proceeds to National Public Radio. Get ready for censorship like America has never seen before.
Attorney General – Eric Holder
Like most of Obama’s appointees, Holder is a member of the American Constitution Society, a ACLU-type group dedicated to destroying much the Constitution in order to make it “relevant” to the modern world. And as with many Obama’s appointees, he is obsessed with race, even to the point of refusing to pursue the prosecution of two Black Panther thugs who intimidated white voters at a polling place. The thugs were screaming things at the voters such as, “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.” If whites had harassing blacks at a polling place, they would still be sitting in a jail within days. Nevertheless, Holder apparently doesn’t mind undermining the democratic process. He is currently challenging the rights of states to enact citizen verification procedures previously approved by two federal courts. In other words, Holder wants to make it easier for illegal aliens to vote, which also happens to be ACORN’s goal. This comes as no surprise; Holder has been undermining the rule of law for most of his career. While serving as the #2 official in Clinton’s Justice Department, Holder was the driving force behind the effort to pardon members of the notorious Puerto Rican terrorist group, FALN, a group that engaged in over 130 attacks in the USA, killing six people. By refusing to carry out justice against the Black Panthers and the Hispanic FALN terrorists, he was clearly pandering to these two racial groups for political reasons. So this is what Obama’s Justice Department will be all about: racial pandering first and justice last. Speaking at an ACS convention last November, Holder announced that America would soon be “run by progressives.” At least he’s honest.
Deputy Attorney General – David Ogden
This appointment must have been a favor for the porn industry; Ogden has probably done more than anyone in America to defend the “rights” of pornographers. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Ogden “is more than just a lawyer who has had a few unsavory clients. He has devoted a substantial part of his career, case after case, for 20 years, in defense of pornography.” For example, he argued in support of the American Library Association when they went to court to challenge mandatory anti-obscenity internet filters in school libraries. Incredibly, the ALA/Ogden position was that libraries should be free-speech zones in which school children should have the right to access anything they want – even pornography – on school computers. This comes as no surprise, when Ogden was an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, he argued on constitutional grounds to strike down the conviction of a defendant who received and possessed child pornography. Ogden believes there is a constitutional right to possess child pornography. The appointment of Ogden is apparently what Obama means when he talks about promoting “family values.”
Solicitor General – Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan has also been mentioned by the Obama forces as the next nomination to the Supreme Court. This is ironic considering her complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. She has never even been a judge or argued before the Supreme Court! Kagen has served as the Dean of Harvard Law School, but her job was to fundraise and make the students “comfortable.” As the Boston Globe writes, “Some of her initial acts as dean were small-scale improvements, like offering free coffee in classroom buildings and free tampons in women’s bathrooms.” Isn’t that nice! However, the few legal views she holds are certainly far from the mainstream. She described the “don’t ask, don’t tell” homosexual military policy adopted by President Clinton as “a profound wrong – a moral injustice of the first order,” and favors homosexuals being allowed to openly serve in the military. She argued that it was unconstitutional for Congress to withhold funds from colleges that banned military recruiters and she even took it upon herself to ban military recruiters from Harvard because of their policy regarding homosexuals. Clearly, her lesbianism has clearly created a bias that affects her shallow legal views.
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel – Dawn Johnson
Johnson is the former legal director for the National Abortion Rights Action League, a group on the extreme left of the abortion debate. They oppose any restrictions on abortion for any reason, at any time of pregnancy—even late term abortions. She has also worked for the ACLU. Johnson has argued that abortion is all about “sexual freedom.” That’s right: have sex with whoever you want and whenever you want and if you get pregnant, get an abortion. This same mentality has led to skyrocketing sexual disease rates, unwanted pregnancies, and untold sorrow. In a brief filed while working with NARAL,Johnson cited a source that said forcing women to bear children was “disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.” In other words, being pregnant is comparable to being a slave. Secretary, Department of Education – Arne Duncan. Obama appointed Duncan due to his alleged success as CEO of Chicago’s public schools. However, in 2007, only 10% of black 4thgraders in Chicago reached the proficiency level in reading and for black 8th graders, only 9% reached reading proficiency. In math, only 8% of black students reached proficiency in 4th grade and just 6% reached proficiency in 8th grade. This was the disappointing outcome, despite spending $13-$14,000 per student and is among the highest of any major city.Even worse, a majority of Chicago public school students drop out or fail to graduate with their class. Needless to say, the Duncan era was a disaster. He did, however, pursue an aggressive agenda to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the schools. So Chicago kids can’t read or write, but they all know how to engage in homosexual sex. If anyone tells you Duncan is an “education reformer,” tell them you’re the tooth fairy.
Assistant Deputy Secretary, Department of Education – Kevin Jennings
Jennings is the founder of the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a group dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda to school children as young as five. They’re sick people and even promote books that feature adult-child sex in a favorable way. Regardless, Obama must have been impressed with Jennings, as he appointed him to carry out his perverted mission nationwide in his new role as head of the Department’s “Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools.”
The reality is that homosexuality is not safe; it takes years off the average lifespan of males. But for Obama, is not really about safety; it’s about keeping the homosexual community happy—after all, they helped elect him. Jennings has been in the press lately due to revelations that he gave encouraging advice to a boy who privately confessed to him he was having sex with an older man. And what was Jennings’s advice? Buy a condom. Parents, start monitoring what your schools are teaching your children. It’s going to get ugly.
Foreign PolicyUnited States Ambassador to United Nations – Susan RiceEven though she served on the National Security Council under President Clinton, Rice seems to have slept through the last two decades. She is fanatically pro-UN and wants the United States to work closely with the United Nations in order to carry out all kinds of humanitarian and military actions, seeming unaware that the UN has never been supportive of US interests. They don’t stop wars; they don’t sanction terrorist regimes, and their internal corruption is so pervasive they can’t even carry out humanitarian missions. But rather than hold the UN responsible for its obvious failings over the years, Rice blamed Bush for being “unilateral” and for “stiff-arming our partners.” She even sits on the board of the UN Fund for UNICEF, an agency which has been repeatedly caught giving aid to terrorists, and during the Cold War, assisting communist insurgents.More seriously, she is overly cautious in regard to fighting terrorism. The former Ambassador to Sudan implicated Rice as the person who bungled the opportunity to take out Osama bin Laden when Sudanese officials offered him to the USA on a silver platter during the Clinton years.She rejected their offer. There’s a good chance 9/11 could have been avoided if Rice had accepted the Sudanese offer. Apparently, even though she worked for the NSC, she didn’t regard Al-Qaeda as a threat. No wonder we were hit on 9/11. And now she’s our UN Ambassador? I wonder whose interests she will serve…probably the UNs.
Counsel, State Department – Harold Koh
The man Obama has named as the State Department’s legal advisor is Harold Koh. Koh believes America should defer to the International Court of Justice to determine legal precedents; a totally unconstitutional endeavor. He is a member of the “trans-nationalism” school of legal thought that believes all distinctions between American Constitutional law and international law should vanish. Incredibly, he even believes Muslim law –Sharia law– should be applied to some disputes in US courts. Clearly, his views are in contradiction to the Constitution he swore to uphold, but no matter, he is now in charge of all legal issues for the U.S. State Department.
National Security Council – Samantha Power
Power is an anti-Israel pseudo intellectual, a strange position given that Israel is our top ally in the Middle East. She holds the view that until Israel allows Palestine to set up a separate state, all the other problems in the Middle East will remain. This, of course, ignores the 1,300 year old war of conquest waged by Islam against the West, most of it occurring long before the modern day Israel/Palestine conflict. She also holds to the conspiratorial view that everything America does in the Middle East – like the Iraq war – is due to Israeli influence.Finally, she pooh-poohs the idea that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a thoroughly discredited view in light of recent events. While she opposed sending troops to Iraq – she called it an “occupation”—she favored sending US troops to Israel to forcibly impose a Palestinian state. Power’s writing grossly exaggerates “war crimes” committed by Israel and never condemns terrorist activity by the Palestinians. The last thing we need in the midst of war between the West and Islamic terrorism is a nut on the NSC giving the President advice favoring our enemies.
Advisor, Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy – Rosa Brooks
This genius wrote that Al-Qaeda was just an “obscure group” until America began the war on terrorism, ignoring all the documentation that Al-Qaeda was making plans for rapid growth long before 9/11. Apparently, it’s America’s fault that terrorist groups exist today! She called President Bush “our torturer in chief” and compared Bush’s anti-terrorist policies to Hitler’s policies. Clearly, she ignored the fact that Bush’s policies were responsible for stopping over 17 different terrorist plots against the United States. She also called the successful surge in Iraq a “feckless plan” and seems completely blind to the successes we have had in the war on terrorism. But we shouldn’t be surprised; she used to work for a foundation funded by the foreign America-hater George Soros. It’s hard to believe Brooks is now deciding defense policy.
White House Staff Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs – Valerie Jarrett. Jarrett is involved with vetting all the extremists Obama has appointed and thus, has to be an extremist as well. For example, she was aware that former Green Czar Van Jones (who withdrew) had a long history of involvement in Communist Party causes, but still said she was “delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House.” She had to have known, because she married into a family with a pedigree of Communist Party involvement. Her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, worked closely with Obama mentor and Communist Party leader Frank Marshall Davis in a number of Communist Party front groups during the Cold War years. Valerie married Vernon’s son in 1983 and later became chief of staff for Mayor Richard Daley, where she was a key player in perhaps America’s most corrupt big city political machine. Obama does not go forward with anything without her counsel.
Political advisor – David Axelrod
For those who think Axelrod is just a good campaign consultant, you couldn’t be more wrong. Axelrod has a long history of working for obscure socialist candidates and Obama was no different, politically, from his other clients. In fact, promoting socialist causes was a family tradition. His mother wrote for a New York City tabloid called PM Magazine, which often promoted the Communist Party line. Indeed, author IF Stone, later revealed to be working for the KGB, was PM’s DC correspondent. Much of the tabloid’s funding came from Marshall Field, a hard left millionaire who also funded Saul Alinsky’s training school. Axelrod has spent his entire life promoting extremist candidates, but no one bothered to look into his background. Today, he advises Obama on all things political.
Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change – Carol Browner
Browner previously served as head of the EPA during the Clinton regime where she advocated incredibly stupid environmental regulations that destroyed entire industries. At a time when America is losing jobs in record numbers, she is precisely the right person for the Obama job-killing machine. Browner is a socialist and was picked by Socialist International to be one of 14 leaders of a group it created called the Commission for a Sustainable World Society. SI believes in massive wealth redistribution from the West to the Third World, choosing to ignore the evidence that Third World countries are poor due to their socialist policies.
Moreover, SI constantly attacks the free market in general and the United States in particular. The fact that Obama has chosen both Browner and Todd Stern (Climate Czar) does not bode well for the American economy. The recent disclosure that the climate models used by Browner and Stern to justify draconian new regulations – such as Cap and Trade – are based on inaccurate data, has not fazed the Obama administration one bit. For Obama, environmentalism is a tool for increasing government control and nothing else.
General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Management & Budget – Preeta Bansal
Bansal is very close to Obama; she acts behind the scenes advising him regarding the selection of federal judges. She is on the far left side of the judicial spectrum and is a leader of the misnamed American Constitutional Society, a group that believes in a “living Constitution” and works to “debunk” the “original intent” concept. Indeed, ACS’s view that the Constitution should constantly change undermines the very purpose for having a constitution. Needless to say, the ACS is obsessed with criminal rights, illegal alien rights, terrorist rights, and other phony rights. ACS is America’s main networking group for far-left attorneys and is where Bansal is recruiting many of Obama’s judicial nominees.
Bansal is also a member of the “critical race theory (CRT)” school of legal thought that boils all legal concepts down to racist conspiracies and that racism permeates all aspects of American society. Indeed, she even co-authored a paper claiming that republicanism is based upon racist consensus. In other words, she believes the entire concept of representative democracy is based upon racist assumptions. Indeed, CRT advocates even believe the founding of America was primarily due to racial motivations.
Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals called CRT supporters the “lunatic core” of “radical legal egalitarianism.” Bansal is a lunatic and her appointment will ensure that Obama’s judicial appointments will be far more about “diversity” than they will be about competence.
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, Executive office of the President — Cecilia Munoz
Munoz is a hard-core open borders advocate who served recently as the Vice President for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), where she supervised all legislative activities. La Raza is the nation’s foremost supporter of “rights” for illegal aliens and the granting of amnesty to the millions of illegals here in America. She does not care that illegal aliens are costing America billions of dollars; she believes they should enjoy the same rights as citizens. Not surprisingly, she served on the U.S. Programs board of the
Open Society Institute, a George Soros-funded group. You can expect Munoz to quietly push for a massive transfer of benefits and welfare to illegal aliens and for legislation granting amnesty to all those here illegally.
Director, Domestic Policy Council – Melody Barnes
Barnes is a certified wacko. She was previously Vice President of the far-left Center for American Progress and also served as Chief Counsel for Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her view on abortion is so extreme, she served on the boards of both Emily’s List and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She favors unrestricted abortions for any reason at any time of pregnancy.
Incredibly, some naïve pro-life leaders supported Obama, believing he was pro-life because he supposedly wanted to find ways to reduce abortions. Barnes has put that myth to rest. In a meeting with key pro-family leaders, Barnes made it clear that “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.” As reported, the room went silent. Barnes glorifies abortion as being a “concept of liberty that includes women as equal.” She has written that “reproductive rights are human rights.” My guess is that the baby being aborted doesn’t quite feel the same way. Needless to say, there will NOT be any pro-life measures supported by this administration. The Nation magazine praised Barnes as a “dyed-in-the-wool progressive,” a nice term for a socialist. She is also a former staff member for the American Constitutional Society, the far-left legal group mentioned elsewhere.
The organization has been targeted by many on the left in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary last December. While the NRA argues that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens creates a safer community, many in the administration and on the left disagree, saying it leads to more gun violence and accidental deaths.
Most recently, the NRA has been publicizing a memo it by from the Justice Department that says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
LaPierre began his speech with a reminder on why he believes it’s so important to counter strict gun control measures:
“The Second Amendment — it’s not just words on parchment. It’s not a frivolous suggestion from our Founding Fathers to be interpreted on a whim. It lies on the very heart of what our country was founded upon. Our Founding Fathers knew that without the Second Amendment, all of our other freedoms could be in jeopardy. [And] our freedoms are the very essence of America. They are what make America unique.”
Now, he said, we’re witnessing the single-most devastating attack on that right that “our country has ever seen.”
He discussed NRA proposals to make schools safer, noting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) admitted that she had gun control legislation in her desk for a year and was waiting for the “right time” to introduce it. In his opinion, many gun control opponents more about politics than they are proven solutions.
“Waiting for an unspeakable act to occur so the American people could be persuaded to buy her political agenda?” LaPierre commented with disgust. “It’s not about making our kids or our streets safer, it’s all about their decades-old agenda.”
He soon got to the heart of his speech: universal background checks, and what he claims they’re really all about:
“Don’t you be fooled. There is nothing “universal,” nor “reasonable” about it. They ought to stop pretending and stop calling it what it will never be. Criminals will never be a part of it, and I have come to believe that the adjudicated mentally incompetent [won't either]…This so-called universal background check that you’re hearing about is aimed at one thing: it’s aimed at registering your guns and, when another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”
“Imagine right now, your name on a massive government list,” he asked the audience, noting that it would be pretty “handy” for a drug dealer, thug, or criminal. “How safe do you think that government list will be?” he continued, noting the flood of personal information released this year by various media outlets on gun owners.
LaPierre proceeded to highlight other gun control proposals state by state, concluding with a word on how the Mexican government has asked the U.S. Senate for a registry of all gun owners in the United States.
“What is the point of that?” he asked.
“They have all the security they want,” LaPierre said, referring to politicians. “Our only means of security is the Second Amendment when the glass breaks in the middle of the night, and we have a right to defend ourselves…They don’t have the right to take that right away.”
“Was this what our Founding Fathers intended?” he asked. What Washington needs to do is recognize that Americans really have shared goals: they want their communities to be safer, and they will do anything to protect their kids.
Start focusing on that, he said, and “stop trying to convince the American people that all law-abiding gun owners are criminals in waiting.”
He concluded with an inspiring statement on how many gun control proposals have failed, and NRA members and Americans need to continue standing up and making their voices heard. He told the crowd to call their congressmen and senators this week, then sit down and write a hand-written letter, and follow up with an email.
“We will not be duped. We will not be demonized. And we will not be divided,” he said.
“As lawful gun-owners, we deserve nothing less than absolute respect as people that believe in our individual rights, believe in individual responsibility, believe in protecting our families, and believe in defending our country.”
Missouri Dems Introduce Alarming Gun Confiscation Bill Giving Law-Abiding Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Certain Firearms or Become Felons
Democrats in Missouri introduced startling anti-gun legislation that would require gun owners to hand over their legally purchased so-called “assault weapons” to “the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction” within 90 days.
Under the proposed bill, “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.”
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
4. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
So essentially the law would turn a law-abiding gun owner today, into a felon tomorrow.
State Reps. Rory Ellinger (D-86) and Jill Schupp (D-88) reportedly introduced the anti-gun legislation, House Bill 545, this week.
Gun confiscation is being talked about more and more by lawmakers as a means to get so-called “assault weapons,” which are really semi-automatic rifles, off the streets. Democrats in California last week also proposed legislation that called for the potential confiscation of the state’s 166,000 legally purchased semi-automatic rifles.
30 dead after Egyptians angry about riot verdicts try to storm prison
By Reza Sayah and Amir Ahmed, CNN
Cairo (CNN) — A stern Egyptian court ruling tied to a soccer riot spurred clashes that left at least 30 people dead on Saturday, the latest round of violence in the unsettled North African nation.
In addition to those killed, more than 300 were wounded when people in the northeastern city of Port Said clashed with authorities outside a prison where their kin were being held, the head of Port Said hospitals told state-run Nile TV.
They were angry because 21 of their relatives had just been sentenced to death for their role in a February 1 riot in a Port Said stadium.
That 2012 incident — during a game between Cairo’s prestigious Al-Ahly football club and the host Al-Masry team — ended with 73 dead.
Two months later, Egypt’s general prosecutor charged 75 people with “premeditated murder and attempted murder,” while three Al-Masry officials and nine police officers were charged with “assisting the murderers.”
According to the prosecutor’s office, those in the latter group knew about the assault ahead of time, didn’t confiscate weapons in advance, didn’t stop them and — in the case of an electricity engineer who was charged — turned off the lights directly over the bleachers where the Al-Ahly fans were sitting right after the visiting team wrapped up its 3-1 victory.
Fans from both sides bashed each other with rocks and chairs, yet prosecutors claimed the Port Said supporters were also armed with knives and other weapons.
Many died after falling from bleachers inside the stadium, while others suffocated.
It was unclear whether intense sports rivalries or political strife sparked the riot, though witnesses said tensions had grown throughout the game with Al-Masry fans throwing bottles and rocks at the opposing players.
That violence begat more on Saturday, after some of the defendants’ relatives tried to storm the Port Said prison to free their loved ones being held inside, Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Osama Ismail told Nile TV.
The reaction was far different in Cairo, where Saturday’s verdict was issued due to security concerns.
One man cried for joy, feeling that “justice has been survived” following the death of his oldest son, the married father of two children.
“I finally felt that I am in a civilized country,” added a woman in Cairo’s capital. “My son (did) nothing wrong. But my son’s legacy will live on, because of the true justice served here.”
Egypt embroiled in deadly political unrest
Saturday’s Port Said violence comes on the heels of other bloodshed around the nation, which was tied more explicitly to unrest about Egypt’s current leadership but nonetheless symptomatic of instability and insecurity two years after longtime President Hosni Mubarak was ousted.
More recently, protesters have focused their anger at current President Mohamed Morsy.
The former Muslim Brotherhood leader, who became Egypt’s first democratically elected leader last year, has come under fire by some who compared him to Mubarak and said he amassed power for himself and his Islamist allies. He has insisted his moves were necessary to move Egypt forward in the face of pressing issues and persistent obstacles.
On Friday — the anniversary of what some call the January 25 Revolution — six people were killed in Suez and one in Ismailia, amid clashes involving anti-government protesters and those supportive of Morsy, as well as police. Hundreds more were injured in the unrest nationwide.
Referring to this violence and what happened Saturday in Port Said, Information Minister Salah Abdul Maqsoud read a statement on state TV saying the government was considering implementing a state of emergency in some areas.
“The (National Defense Council) denounces the acts of violence and demands all national and political forces be committed to the peaceful ways to express their opinion,” Maqsoud said after a meeting led by Morsy. “(The council) calls for wider national dialogue, led by (prominent) figures, to discuss the issues of political disagreement and reach national accordance.”
On Saturday in Suez — about 90 miles south of Port Said — the government deployed troops and armored military vehicles in response to the previous day’s clashes.
Brig. Gen. Adel Refat, the head of security in Suez, asked for the help after declaring the area “out of control,” according to state news. Protesters accused Egyptian forces of opening fire during the demonstrations, a claim Refat strongly denied.
Meanwhile, in Cairo, clashes extended to areas around the Shura Council, the upper house of parliament. Protesters overnight waged a standoff outside the Nile TV offices, with some tossing Molotov cocktails and police responding with tear gas.
Journalist Ramy Francis and CNN’s Reza Sayah reported from Cairo; CNN’s Amir Ahmed reported Atlanta. CNN’s Chelsea J. Carter, Greg Botelho, Yousuf Basil and Hamdi Alkhshali contributed to this report.
Don’t ‘Patronize’ and Look ‘Down Your Nose’ at Gun Culture
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton spoke with top Democratic donors at a private meeting on Saturday where, according to Politico, he warned the group to treat gun control differently than other political issues.
“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton reportedly said. “A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things…”
He proceeded to explain how, though polling data is certainly useful for politicians, it doesn’t measure the emotion and enthusiasm associated with an issue. And it’s the passion associated with gun control, Clinton argued, that makes it so delicate.
Politico continues:
Clinton dedicated a substantial portion of his 40-minute address before a joint meeting of the Obama National Finance Committee and a group of business leaders to the issue of guns and gun control, saying that it was a test-case for President Barack Obama’s grass-roots movements…
“The way the Obama campaign won Florida, won Ohio, won this election by more than projected was the combination of technology, social media and personal contact,” Clinton said. That’s “the only way that our side will ever be able to even up the votes in the midterms and as these issues come up, really touch people and talk to them about it.”
But he said that he understands the culture that permeates a state like Arkansas — where guns are a longstanding part of local culture.
“A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing,” he told the Democratic financiers. “Or they’re living in a place where they don’t have much police presence. Or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.” [Emphasis added]
In the opinion of the former president, those who are patting themselves on the back for their “brave” efforts on gun control may not be seeing the full picture.
“Do not be self-congratulatory about how brave you [are] for being for this” gun control push, he said. “The only brave people are the people who are going to lose their jobs if they vote with you.”
Obama Supporters Slam ‘Romney’ Policies…Then Find Out They’re Actually Obama’s
Back in September, radio personalityHoward Sternhighlighted an often overlooked aspect of the average voter– namely, that they tend to feel strongly about the candidates they like and dislike, but know very little about what the candidates actually stand for.
In a new video by “We Are Change,” controversial reporter Luke Rudkowski (he appears to have a number of 9/11 “truther” connections) went to New York City, where he told a number of self-described Obama voters that the president’s policies are actually being supported by Mitt Romney.
Though Rudkowski has a history of “stirring the pot,” it’s certainly fascinating to see how people respond.
Romney was quickly called “crazy,” “his” policies deemed “unconstitutional” and “immoral.” The crowd seemed particularly disturbed by the expansion of the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (which allows U.S. citizens to be detained without trial), and the proposed “Kill List.”
So what happened when Rudkowski had to tell the group that the policies they just eviscerated were actually being supported by their presidential pick?
To their credit, a number of the voters said they needed to look it up and do some more homework. Others refused to believe the man, while others spun 180 degrees almost immediately.
One girl concluded: “Well, I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a lot of other reasons I’m going to vote for Obama, and hearing that stuff honestly doesn’t change it…”
In the video’s description, the organization reiterated that their intention is not to support Mitt Romney, but to try to get an honest answer on certain issues.
Hat tip to Freedombytheway for this most excellent exerpt:
As the 2012 Presidential election rapidly approaches, I would like to share a quote from an article (translated into English) from the Prager Zeitung, a publication in the Czech Republic, dated 18 April 2011. “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him their president.”
On Tuesday evening Glenn Beck declared that if Barack Obama is reelected president, Americans will have only themselves to thank and will, essentially, reap what they deserve. He qualified that it pained him to admit such truths, but stressed that it is far better to deal with “harsh warnings” than the harsh consequences of a second Obama presidency. He ceded that during the 2008 election, Americans, being the consummate optimists, hoped to believe the best about Barack Obama when he emerged on the political scene. While the warning signs were there the public was “blinded” by the moment. “This time around there is no excuse, we will get exactly what we deserve,” Beck said.
Beck posited that under another Obama presidency America could become vulnerable to additional terrorist attacks and that the threats to Israel would mount as anti-Semitism rises across the globe. Likewise, record deficits, spending, bailouts, rising unemployment and corruption along with unsustainable investments (like Solyndra) will all boil down to disaster. He added that the economy both here and abroad could likely collapse and that the Muslim Brotherhood will begin to see success as it morphs from Islamic militant group to the architects of a far-reaching, anti-Western caliphate.
The usual suspects
So what, exactly, would the country look like during and after a second Obama term?
Aside from the possible outcomes Beck outlined, are increases in defense cuts and “green energy” investments — sound or otherwise. In turn, should President Obama occupy the Oval Office for another four years, it is almost definite that the Affordable Care Act will not be reformed in any meaningful or significant way, even if Republicans keep the House and take the Senate.
But while speculation abounds, Obama has been far from reticent in voicing exactly what he himself would like to accomplish if reelected. At the end of March, the president detailed his second-term priorities which include immigration reform, energy reform with an emphasis on climate change, education reform and executing an “effective transition out of Afghanistan.”
Of course, a 2012 agenda would not be complete without tackling the deficit, which Obama proposes to do by raising taxes on the nation’s high income earners.Some believe a continuation of these failed economic policies will only result in America’s credit rating declining even further. Since liberals have shown little desire to curb spending or truly address entitlement reform, the country’s S&P rating is ”practically guaranteed to drop at least another notch,” by some report’s estimations.
More than meets the eye
As we seek to glean additional insight into the years 2012-2016 under an Obama presidency, one cannot help but look to Dinesh D’Souza and his recently released documentary by a similar name: “2016: Obama’s America,” in which the author posits that the president’s deep-rooted anti-colonial worldview will result in the downsizing of America. D’Souza explores the potential “global reparations” that would be doled out by a second-term Obama administration seeking to reduce America’s footprint in the world. According to D’Souza, so deep is Obama’s anti-colonialism, that he seeks to aid the world’s “99%,” not just America’s. The logic adds up when one considers that if the president truly does believe the U.S. to be an imperialist, aggressor state that has “stepped on” other countries, then by that same token he would seek to make amends with said countries and bring America back down to size.
“So, anti-colonialism is a program of global reparations, not racial reparations,” the author said in an interview with the Christian Post. “It’s reparations for global injustice. Obama’s goal is to shrink America. He wants to reduce America’s footprint in the world because he thinks we are stepping on the world. He wants to redistribute money away from the rich and toward the poor. But we are not talking about the rich and the poor in America solely. We are talking about a redistribution of income away from the rich countries – America included – toward the poor countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, and so on.”
In fact, if one looks not very far back, Obama seemed fixated on the Brazilian oil industry, offering Petrobras oil company $2 billion in loan subsidies to encourage the very same kind of offshore oil exploration he deemed verboten in America. Ironically, Human Events noted that the president’s offshore drilling moratorium had already cost the U.S. economy over a billion dollars and some 20,000 jobs at the time.
Thus, D‘Souza’s observation that Obama is preoccupied with giving a leg up to other countries “in need” while at the same time demoting American progress could be an astute one.
Redistributing suburbs’ wealth?
As highlighted on the Blaze Blog is the president’s dubious plan to rob from the suburbs to give to the cities. Yes, you read that correctly. According to a Stanley Kurtz at Forbes, another second-term plan of Obama’s includes an initiative to “systematically redistribute the wealth of America’s suburbs to the cities.” The project has been crafted in collaboration with one of Obama’s community organizing mentors, Mike Kruglik.
Kurtz explains:
Kruglik’s new group, Building One America, advocates “regional tax-base sharing,” a practice by which suburban tax money is directly redistributed to nearby cities and less-well-off “inner-ring” suburbs. Kruglik’s group also favors a raft of policies designed to coerce people out of their cars and force suburbanites (with their tax money) back into densely packed cities.
To wit, the Sustainable Communities Initiative is now setting up planning commissions across the nation with “regional equity” and “smart growth” as goals — each code words, of course. According to Kurtz, “regional equity” means that:
…by their mere existence, suburbs cheat the people who live in cities. It means, “Let’s spread the suburbs’ wealth around” – i.e., take from the suburbanites to give to the urban poor. “Smart growth” means, “Quit building sub-divisions and malls, and move back to where mass transit can shuttle you between your 800 square foot apartment in an urban tower and your downtown job.”
The author suspects that said planning commissions will soon issue “recommendations” which Obama would directly turn into requirements for additional federal aid — not far fetched considering his administration has used these very tactics to impose federal education requirements on certain states. Further, Kurtz believes one of Obama’s motivations for targeting suburbs is to “undercut the autonomy of suburban school districts.”
Other milestones the president may seek to achieve
Some conservatives also posit that a second-term Obama administration would create a modern version of Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration program, thus creating a new bureaucracy with which to expand government. Following suit would potentially be a proposal for an increase in the minimum wage and even mandates forcing businesses to provide or extend paid benefits to employees seeking bereavement, sick or maternity leave.
Among Townhall’s “7 things to expect” if Obama is re-elected, are an increase in taxes on the middle class (this is already a given when Obamacare is enacted); gas and energy prices would sky-rocket under the burden of cap and trade and the president’s “doubling down” on green energy investments. This prediction seems all the more plausible when taking into consideration the following statements Townhall reminds us of:
Obama once said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” His Energy Secretary Steven Chu added, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
Perhaps that is why the president blocked development of Keystone oil pipeline and banned drilling in ANWR.
SCOTUS moves to left?
Another interesting point Townhall’s recent review brings up is that The Supreme Court could very well move further left. Currently, four of the justices including Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are well over the age of 70. Replacing any of them them with younger, left-leaning judges would guarantee the president five SCOTUS votes to use as his “wild card.”
Of course gun control will be a priority:
Barack Obama filled out a “questionnaire in which he called for banning ‘the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns‘” and he let everyone know what he thought about gun owners even before he was elected with his notorious “bitter clingers” quip. His campaign website doesn’t even have a section addressing 2nd Amendment issues, perhaps because Obama would have to admit that he’s already calling for a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.
And no second-term Obama presidency would be complete without at least one renewed attempt to close Guantanamo Bay, especially if his phase-out efforts in Afghanistan fall short of the mark.
At the end of the day, the policies Obama has already enacted in his first term are indelibly etched into the nation’s framework. A second term, where the president may feel more liberated to take even greater risks, can only guarantee that which he so desires: a fundamental transformation of America.
EXCLUSIVE: Intelligence source in Libya tells Fox News that contrary to Obama administration claims, there was no demonstration outside the US Consulate in Benghazi before last week’s attack that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Meanwhile, protests spread to more Muslim nations, including Lebanon where Hezbollah al-Mahdi scouts shouted anti-American slogans during a march through Beirut.
An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.
“There was no protest
and the attacks were not
Spontaneous,”
the source said,
adding the attack
“Was planned and had
nothing to do with the
Movie.”
The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.
The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.
“There wasn’t a single ant outside,” the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.
These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.
U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day — but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.
But a senior Obama administration official told Fox News on Monday morning that the Libyan president’s comments are not consistent with “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” which has been investigating the incident, and are accordingly not credible.
“He doesn’t have the information we have,” the U.S. official said of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif. ”"He doesn’t have the (data) collection potential that we have.”
The Libyan leader told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the government in Tripoli harbors “no doubt” that the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was “preplanned, predetermined.” That assessment conflicted directly with the preliminary conclusion offered on Sunday by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows.
There, Rice maintained that the Benghazi incident “was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video,” and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, “those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”
Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident – the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks — was simply a coincidence, the senior U.S. official said on Monday: “It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, ‘Oh, it’s September 11th, we must avenge…’”
The senior U.S. official added that this is “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point,” and that Rice “was not out there volunteering her own opinions.”
The official also discounted as “not accurate” reports that staff at U.S. embassy in Egypt warned the State Department — in a cable purportedly sent on the afternoon of Sept. 10 — about the effect the anti-Islam video was having, and the likelihood of violent protests in Cairo, but received no response from Washington.
“There was cable traffic, involving discussion of the video and the potential for protests, the Embassy was aware,” the U.S. official told Fox News. ”There were discussions about protests between the relevant agencies — intel and State — but the idea that there was no response from State is false.”
Officials at the State Department and the White House continue to express satisfaction with the cooperation they are receiving from foreign governments in the protection of American diplomats and their families. This is said to be especially the case in those instances where President Obama has reached out to foreign heads of state, namely Egypt, Yemen and Libya.
Still, the State Department over the weekend — in a shift of plans that occurred sometime after Friday evening — announced the evacuation of diplomats’ family members and “non-essential” personnel from U.S. Embassies in Tunisia and Sudan, sites of some of the most violent scenes on Friday.
Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, James Rosen and Pamela Browne contributed to this report.
The decline of the Roman Empire refers to the gradual societal collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Many theories of causality prevail, but most concern the disintegration of political, economic, military, and other social institutions, in tandem with foreign invasions and usurpers from within the empire. The English historian Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) made this concept part of the framework of the English language, but he was not the first to speculate on why and when the Empire collapsed. “From the eighteenth century onward,” Glen W. Bowersock has remarked,[1] “we have been obsessed with the fall: it has been valued as an archetype for every perceived decline, and, hence, as a symbol for our own fears.” It remains one of the greatest historical questions, and has a tradition rich in scholarly interest. In 1984, German professor Alexander Demandt published a collection of 210 theories on why Rome fell, and new theories have emerged since then.[2][3]
This slow decline occurred over a period of four centuries, culminating on September 4, 476, when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain. Some modern historians question the significance of this date,[4] and not simply because Julius Nepos, the legitimate emperor recognized by the East Roman Empire, continued to live in Salona, Dalmatia, until he was assassinated in 480. The Ostrogoths who succeeded considered themselves upholders of the direct line of Roman traditions. The Eastern Roman Empire was going from strength to strength and continued until the Fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453.
Many events throughout the empire’s history are considered to have worsened the empire’s so-called “decline”. The Battle of Adrianople in 378, the death of Theodosius I in 395 (the last time the Roman Empire was politically unified), the crossing of the Rhine in 406 by Germanic tribes, the execution of Stilicho in 408, the sack of Rome in 410, the death of Constantius III in 421, the death of Aetius in 454, the second sack of Rome in 455, and the death of Majorian in 461 are all macrohistorical events concerning the decline of the Western Roman Empire.
Hat tip to The Blaze for this report
Attorney General – Eric Holder
Assistant Deputy Secretary, Department of Education – Kevin Jennings
to carry out all kinds of humanitarian and military actions, seeming unaware that the UN has never been supportive of US interests. They don’t stop wars; they don’t sanction terrorist regimes, and their internal corruption is so pervasive they can’t even carry out humanitarian missions. But rather than hold the UN responsible for its obvious failings over the years, Rice blamed Bush for being “unilateral” and for “stiff-arming our partners.” She even sits on the board of the UN Fund for UNICEF, an agency which has been repeatedly caught giving aid to terrorists, and during the Cold War, assisting communist insurgents.More seriously, she is overly cautious in regard to fighting terrorism. The former Ambassador to Sudan implicated Rice as the person who bungled the opportunity to take out Osama bin Laden when Sudanese officials offered him to the USA on a silver platter during the Clinton years.She rejected their offer. There’s a good chance 9/11 could have been avoided if Rice had accepted the Sudanese offer. Apparently, even though she worked for the NSC, she didn’t regard Al-Qaeda as a threat. No wonder we were hit on 9/11. And now she’s our UN Ambassador? I wonder whose interests she will serve…probably the UNs.
Counsel, State Department – Harold Koh 
Advisor, Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy – Rosa Brooks
Political advisor – David Axelrod
Bansal is very close to Obama; she acts behind the scenes advising him regarding the selection of federal judges. She is on the far left side of the judicial spectrum and is a leader of the misnamed American Constitutional Society, a group that believes in a “living Constitution” and works to “debunk” the “original intent” concept. Indeed, ACS’s view that the Constitution should constantly change undermines the very purpose for having a constitution. Needless to say, the ACS is obsessed with criminal rights, illegal alien rights, terrorist rights, and other phony rights. ACS is America’s main networking group for far-left attorneys and is where Bansal is recruiting many of Obama’s judicial nominees.
Director, Domestic Policy Council – Melody Barnes
