Contrary to the rhetoric of our leaders, U.S. taxpayers are still
subsidizing an ongoing bailout of the flailing Eurozone. This expansive
financial commitment — components of which have been cleverly disguised
as currency swaps — comes at a time when our country can least afford
it.
Entering 2012, the federal government’s debt stood at roughly $15.2
trillion — an amount that is projected to climb to at least $16.4
trillion in the coming year. This will be the fifth consecutive year in
which the federal government has spent more than $1 trillion in money
that it didn’t have – and yet lawmakers in both parties are still
refusing to make long-overdue cuts. Even worse, they’re still refusing
to address the unsustainable entitlement excess that's fueling this
soaring debt.
“The Fed is, working through the ECB, bailing out European banks and,
indirectly, spendthrift European governments,” O’Driscoll wrote,
noting that these swaps are nothing but thinly-veiled loans that the
Federal Reserve has no authority to make.
Such opaqueness and hypocrisy is commonplace coming from this
administration. Two months ago, White
House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “we do not in any
way believe that additional resources are required from the United
States and from taxpayers” to prop up the Eurozone. Hours later,
however, Barack Obama emerged from a meeting with European leaders
pledging that America would “do our part to help them resolve this
issue.”
“Our part?”
Get full story here.
As
recently reported by NetRightDaily, both the Senate and the House
passed the
2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA); a $662 billion
Defense bill. It broadens the military’s power to arrest and detain any
and all people as suspected terrorists without due process
protections, whether captured here or abroad. Despite veto threats from
our illustrious president, the bill passed and was
signed into law.
Then, as if that wasn’t enough, another bill was introduced into
Congress that threatened the safety and security of not just Americans,
but nationalized residents as well. It is called The Enemy Expatriation Act
or EEA (H.R.3166) and it is something out of a fascist’s playbook.
Introduced by Charles Dent [PA-15], and co-sponsored by Jason Altmire
[PA-4], Robert Latta [OH-5] and Frank Wolf [VA-10], this bill allows
the government to remove the nationality of anyone who participates in
any terrorist activity, or activity that seems to be of a terroristic
nature, or even something that only sort of has loosely to do with the
subject of terrorists. As
NetRightDaily also stated recently, this means that an American’s
citizenship rights and the constitutional protections those rights
infer can be stripped away merely based upon an allegation.
Both of these bills send shivers down the spines of the average
American, and yet somehow the powers that be saw fit to draft yet
another horrific piece of legislation that will haunt our dreams for
generations to come. A bill that goes beyond our physical security and
national status, and begins to threaten our First Amendment rights, the
very foundation on which our country was built.
This bill is called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and its Senate
ugly cousin, the Protect IP Act (PIPA). SOPA and PIPA would give the
government the power to obliterate the most important aspect of the
internet that separates it from all other media: its freedom.
Essentially what these acts set out to do in the name of preventing
copyright infringement is to target the host site itself, rather than
simply removing the copyrighted content and prosecuting the illegal
downloaders.
Get full story here.
During the extensive media coverage of Toyota’s “safety” problem,
General Motors vehicle sales jumped as the Japanese automaker struggled
to keep its reputation for making a reliable vehicle intact.
And that is ultimately one of the practical problems of the Obama
General Motors bailout. Every action by a regulatory agency dealing
with the company comes into question, and every action against a
competitor gets scrutinized as potentially being motivated by
self-interest rather than public safety.
The Chevy Volt itself should survive or fail based upon the
marketplace of consumers. However, the seeming regulatory push to save
the brand must have Ralph Nader spinning in his grave. Okay, Nader
isn’t dead, but his silence is certainly deafening.
Get full story here.
Or should I say, "primo!" As much as it
embarrasses me to admit it, given some of his views and how he expresses them,
the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and I could be distant cousins.
Romney's father, George, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and so was my
grandfather, Roman.
first Hispanic president. Don't laugh. Technically, Romney is
just as "Mexican" as former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was
born of a Mexican mother and American father. When Richardson ran for the White
House in 2008, he was often touted by the media as someone who would become the
nation's first Hispanic president.
Que? You didn't know that Mitt Romney was half-Mexican? It's
true. In fact, if he makes it to the White House, in addition to becoming the
first Mormon in the Oval Office, he could also be the nation's
That changed this week when Romney -- in talking about his
father, a self-made man who worked his way up from nothing to become head of
American Motors Corporation, governor of Michigan and a Republican presidential
candidate in 1968 -- told a crowd at the Rochester Opera House in New Hampshire
that his father was born in Mexico and came to the United States at 5.
Yet, I would imagine that a lot of Americans aren't aware of
this branch of the Romney family tree, and that's because it is not a detail
that Romney usually talks about publicly -- and especially not on the campaign
trail.
Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled the
United States and crossed into Mexico in 1885 to escape religious persecution.
He helped build the Mormon enclave of Colonia Juarez in Chihuahua.
Miles Park Romney never became a Mexican citizen, and
neither did his son, Gaskell, or grandson, George. They were all denied Mexican
citizenship because statutes on the books in Mexico denied that right to
American settlers and their offspring.
Speaking to the crowd in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney compared
his father's story to those of countless other immigrants who have come to this
country seeking economic opportunity.
My grandfather, a Mexican citizen, also came to the United
States legally as a child in the early 1900s with his family, trying to escape
the chaos of the Mexican Revolution. It was during the same time that Romney's
grandfather, Gaskell, returned to the United States with his family, also
legally and presumably for the same reason
Now, hold on to your sombrero.
I'm an American, born in the United States to parents who
were born in the United States. In fact, three of my four grandparents were
born in the United States. And yet, growing up, people in my hometown in
Central California referred to me and other Mexican-Americans like me as
"Mexican." That was the shorthand. But comparing bloodlines, you
could say that Romney is more "Mexican" than I am. After all, Romney
is just one generation removed from our ancestral homeland; I'm two.
This is ironic given that I've spent the last 20 years
criticizing politicians who twist the facts, propose simple solutions and pick
on those who don't have a voice.
And Romney has spent the last several months doing precisely
that, just like he did during his failed 2008 presidential bid. He has used
illegal immigration as a weapon against Republican opponents who propose
reasonable solutions and in the process portrayed illegal immigrants, most of
whom come from Mexico, as takers who come to the United States for free public
benefits and ought not be rewarded with "amnesty."
We can expect Romney to continue that theme over the next
week as he campaigns in South Carolina, where Republican primary voters will
cast ballots on January 21 and where illegal immigration is a bigger issue than
in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Lawmakers in the Palmetto State recently passed a tough
Arizona-style immigration law that requires local and state police to determine
the immigration status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant (read:
Latinos).
It's an approach that is wildly unpopular with Latinos and
which has the blessing of most of the Republicans running for president,
including Mitt Romney.
And that's one reason why Romney, even if he is the GOP
nominee for president, doesn't have much of a chance with Latino voters.
Political experts say that a Republican would have to earn at least 30% of the
Latino vote to win the White House. Given how he behaved in the primaries,
Romney will be lucky to get 20%.
In fact, a recent poll of Latino voters by the Pew Hispanic
Center put the figure at 23%. While it found a high level of anger with
President Barack Obama among Latinos over his aggressive deportation policies,
the poll also found that -- in a Obama-Romney matchup -- the Democrat would
easily beat the Republican, 68% to 23%. That's saying something given that,
according to the survey, Obama's job approval rating with Latinos is just 49%.
The takeaway: You want to make Obama more popular with Latinos? Easy. Pit him
against Romney.
Listen to Lionel Sosa, a San Antonio-based advertising
executive and Republican strategist who has advised George W. Bush and John
McCain. A few months ago, Sosa told The New York Times that Romney had blown
his chance with Latinos.
"(Romney) can make as many trips to Florida and New
Mexico and Colorado and other swing states that have a large Latino
population," said Sosa, "but he can write off the Latino vote."
It was Romney who recently promised to veto the Dream Act if
he's elected president and if Congress passes the bill. The legislation, which
would allow undocumented students to stay in the country legally if they
complete a college degree or join the military, is extremely popular with
Latinos.
It was Romney who first attacked Texas Gov. Rick Perry for
signing a law that allows illegal immigrants who live in Texas to pay in-state
tuition at public colleges and universities. And it was Romney who later
attacked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for declaring that the GOP
shouldn't support splitting up families and proposing a pathway for the
undocumented to work legally in the United States.
It was Romney who, in the debates, came across as naive by
suggesting that the illegal immigration problem could be solved by simply
putting more "boots on the ground" and as dishonest by not
acknowledging the contributions that illegal immigrants make to the local,
state and national economies.
And it was Romney whose campaign put up, in New Hampshire,
anoffensive television ad that attacked Perry by linking him to Mexico and
former Mexican President Vicente Fox, because Fox happened to agree with the
Texas governor on letting illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition.
So the candidate who winds up vilifying Mexico is the same
one whose father was born in Mexico? Who can make sense of this?
Listen up, Primo Mitt. You've made your bed. You're persona
non grata with Latino voters, and it's your own fault. You can't win without
them, but they can help make sure you lose.
We don't care where your family's from. What matters is
where your heart is.
Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican and son of GOP presidential
candidate Ron Paul, was blocked at Nashville airport Monday after
refusing a TSA pat-down, his spokeswoman said.
“Just got a call from @SenRandPaul,” his spokeswoman, Moira Bagley, wrote on Twitter
Monday. “He’s currently being detained by TSA in Nashville.”
In a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Paul
said that the incident occurred after an alarm went off when he passed
through a scanner at Nashville Airport Monday. Paul said the alarm had
apparently been triggered by his knee, though “the senator said he has
no screws or medical hardware around the joint,” the AP said.
TSA agents refused his request to walk through the scanner again to
reconcile the anomaly, and he refused their demand for a pat-down, Paul
said.
The Kentucky Senator said that “he asked for another scan but refused
to submit to a pat down by airport security,” the AP reported. Paul
“said he was ‘detained’ at a small cubicle and couldn’t make his flight
to Washington for a Senate vote scheduled later in the day.”
Tell
Congress: End DHS Police State Measures! The Department of Homeland
Security and the Transportation Security Administration are targeting
innocent American citizens and destroying our freedom — select here to send messages to Congress and sign the
petition.
This article was written
by the Associated Press; full article at Yahoo! News …
Forces loyal to Libya's late leader Muammar Gaddafi attacked the
former regime stronghold of Bani Walid today, killing at least four
fighters from the new government, officials and residents said.
The fierce clashes in the town, 90 miles south east of Tripoli, came
as Libya's new leaders struggle to stamp out lingering resistance from
pro-Gaddafi forces and unify a deeply fractured country after eight
months of civil war and more than 40 years of authoritarian rule.
Mahmoud al-Warfali, a spokesman for the new regime in Bani Walid,
said up to 150 pro-Gaddafi fighters raised his old green Libyan flag at
the northern gate of the town and were battling revolutionary forces in
the streets with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47s.
"These are Gaddafi remnants who tried to take over the city," Mr
al-Warfali said. "They have tried to do this before and take over the
interim government's office, but thank God we have been able to fight
them off."
He said four revolutionary fighters were killed. He did not know how
many people were wounded.
Bani Walid resident Moussa al-Warfali said the clashes began when
Gaddafi loyalists angry over the arrest of one of their men attacked
revolutionary fighters in the town.
The fighting was centred around the revolutionary brigade's base, but
has since spread to other parts of the town.
The clashes are considered serious enough that dozens of
revolutionary fighters from Tripoli have been dispatched to Bani Walid
to help, said brigade commander Saddam Abdel-Zein.
Revolutionary commanders in Tripoli also said "sleeper cells" loyal
to Gaddafi opened fire in the capital in an attempt to take advantage of
the fighting in Bani Walid. There was no word of casualties.
Abdel-Rahman al-Soghayar, a commander from the new regime in the
capital, said shooting took place in several neighbourhoods of Tripoli,
forcing people to remain indoors and stores to close early.
There were also reports of shooting in the western Nafusa mountains,
according to Mr al-Soghayar, who was in touch with fellow fighters
there. No further details were available.
The outbreak of violence prompted revolutionary fighters in the
western city of Misrata and the eastern city of Benghazi to declare a
high alert, setting up checkpoints and securing entrance points to the
cities, according to Benghazi military officials and Misrata's
revolutionary brigade spokesman, Walid Khashif.
The main flashpoint remained Bani Walid, where pro-Gaddafi fighters
have long tormented Libya's revolutionaries.
After the fall of Tripoli to anti-Gaddafi fighters in August,
loyalists of the ousted regime took refuge in the town and held off
revolutionary forces for weeks, using the surrounding mountains and
valleys to pick off revolutionary forces.
Even after Gaddafi's capture and killing in October, the city and its
surrounding region have troubled Libya's new leaders.
In November, 15 soldiers were killed in an ambush by Gaddafi
loyalists just outside the town. Revolutionary fighters in Bani Walid
have complained that the country's interim government has done little to
help secure the city.
By Howard Rich
