Monthly Archives: April 2013

04.23.13
by

Fox News: Army warns of deeper cuts in troop numbers unless automatic budget reductions are stopped

Senior Army officials are warning they may have to cut as many as 100,000  more soldiers over the next decade unless the automatic spending reductions  forcing the military services to slash their budgets are stopped.

Army Secretary John McHugh tells a Senate committee Tuesday the losses would  undermine the service’s ability to be prepared for wartime missions. He says the  Army is already planning to trim its ranks by 80,000 active duty troops due to  previously planned budget reductions approved by Congress in 2011.

But if the automatic cuts, known as sequestration, continue into future  years, thousands more soldiers, including reservists, will have to be let go due  to a lack of money, McHugh says.

—

So it seems the game of chicken to either raise taxes or pile on more debt continue from all angles.  Click below for the full article.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/23/army-warns-deeper-cuts-in-troop-numbers-unless-automatic-budget-reductions-are/#ixzz2RLCkDyxw

 

04.23.13
by

ABC News: GOP Presidential Candidate Chris Christie Wants Gun Control: Chris Christie’s Gun Gamble

The Newtown, Conn., shooting has prompted a handful of states to enact tougher gun laws, and blue-state governors have led the way.

With Congress yet to agree on any federal changes, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — both thought to be Democratic presidential contenders in 2016 — have shepherded tighter restrictions in their states. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy signed a new gun law earlier this month.

Add Chris Christie to that list.

On Friday, the New Jersey Republican governor and possible GOP White House hopeful unveiled a new plan for tighter gun laws in the Garden State.

Previously on the record as supporting some gun restrictions on the books in New Jersey — some of the toughest in the nation — the governor took an active turn on the gun issue. Christie proposed requiring mental-health adjudication records be added to background checks, banning the Barrett .50 caliber rifle, new and stiffer penalties for straw-purchasers and gun trafficking, parental consent for violent video game sales, and making it easier for doctors to mandate commitment or outpatient treatment for mental-health patients deemed dangerous. He added a mental-health working group to a state gun-violence task force, charged with making recommendations.

“The existing system that we have placed in New Jersey is much stronger already than the proposed Toomey-Manchin legislation that failed in the Senate earlier this week,” Christie said at a news conference on Friday. “The [state] assembly has put some bills forward, the [state] senate’s gonna put some bills forward, I’ve now put bills forward, and now we have to let the process work to reach consensus of what works for the people of the state.”

PHOTO: In this March 12, 2013 file photo, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie addresses a packed house at St. Luke's Baptist Church in Paterson, N.J., during his 102nd town hall meeting.

Highlighting a political conundrum for Christie, the gun push will likely play well in his home state, which already restricts guns more aggressively than most — but it might raise concerns among Republicans elsewhere, posing a hurdle for Christie if he seeks the presidency in 2016.

“It’s only gonna hurt him,” said Keith Appell, a former adviser to Steve Forbes’ 2000 presidential campaign, the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth campaign, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s 2010 campaign.

“He may come right at it and try to stare people down by sheer force of his personality and attempt to convince people that he’s one of them in spite of these steps,” Appell said. “He will find, as many have before him, that it won’t play. It’ll slam him right back in the face.”

In his new push, Christie has bucked conservative orthodoxy for the second time this year. In February, he joined seven other Republican governors in accepting an expansion of state Medicaid programs under President Obama’s health-reform law, the Affordable Care Act.

“It is clear over the past two or three months that he really worked to prioritize his New Jersey constituency over his national conservative constituency, and this is kind of groundbreaking, because up until about two or three months ago, we saw a series of actions that really defied public opinions in the state,” said Prof. Brigid Harrison, who teaches political science and law at Montclair State University in Montclair, N.J.

Harrison referenced Christie’s cuts to family-planning funding in the state budget.

Christie already has some problems with conservative activists. After supporting a federal Hurricane Sandy relief bill, he was not invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual confab that hosts top conservative politicians for speeches to a large crowd of activists in the Washington, D.C., area.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/chris-christies-gun-gamble/story?id=19018480

 

04.23.13
by

The Daily Caller: Eighth-grader arrested over NRA shirt returns to school in same shirt

The West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and, astonishingly,  arrested last week after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National  Rifle Association returned to school on Monday.

In a move The Daily Caller can only characterize as courageous, 14-year-old  Jared Marcum returned to Logan Middle School in Logan County, West Va., wearing  exactly the same shirt, which depicts a hunting rifle with the statement “protect your right.”

According to Fox News, other students across the rural county showed their  support for Marcum by wearing similar shirts to school.

“There’s a lot of people wearing this same exact shirt, showing great, great  support and I really appreciate it,” Marcum said in the morning outside the  schoolhouse door, according to local NCB affiliate WBOY-TV.

Marcum’s attorney, Ben White, said that school officials are sticking by the  eighth-grader’s one-day suspension because, they say, he caused a  disruption.

“Their version is that the suspension was for disrupting the educational  process, not the shirt,” White told Fox News.

White has called the school’s position into question. He asserts that his  client was exercising his free speech rights. As ABC News reports, Marcum’s version of events is that  he had worn the shirt for several hours without incident.

At lunchtime, Marcum maintains, a teacher confronted him about the shirt.  When Marcum said he would not take off the shirt or turn it inside out, the  teacher began yelling, which caused a cafeteria scene.

“I believe the teacher was acting beyond the scope of his employment,” White  told ABC. “What the video shows is that students did step up on the benches to  the tables in the lunchroom when they were escorting Jared out of building. Kids  jumped up, clapping.”

The police chief in Logan City (pop. 1,779) said that Marcum was arrested for  the disruption he caused at school.

“His conduct in school almost incited a riot,” Chief E.K. Harper told  ABC.

White added that Marcum wore the shirt to express his support for the Second  Amendment. He said the school’s dress code does not forbid such shirts. A  straightforward reading of the dress code would seem to bear that interpretation  out. The dress code, which is posted online, forbids certain kinds of clothing — for example, messages that support violence, discrimination and alcohol use — but nowhere are constitutional rights mentioned.

—

Click below for the rest of the story of true courage and standing up for your constitutional rights.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/23/eighth-grader-arrested-over-nra-shirt-returns-to-school-in-same-shirt/#ixzz2RLAQESSA

 

04.23.13
by

Christian Science Monitor: Could chemical weapons in Syria force Obama’s hand?

President Obama may soon have to come to grips with what it means to issue a “red line” to a foreign government.

On Tuesday, Israeli military officials said they have evidence and are “nearly 100 percent certain” that forces of Syria‘s Bashar al-Assad regime have used chemical weapons – a step Mr. Obama said would be a game changer for the US in its policies toward Syria and the civil war raging there. Last August, Obama declared that any use or even “moving around” of Syria’s substantial chemical weapons stockpile would constitute a “red line” for the US – any crossing of which “would change my calculus … change my equation.”

With the closest US ally in the region now asserting that chemical weapons have been used, Obama will come under more pressure to demonstrate – possibly through the use of American force – that his “red line” was not a hollow threat, US foreign policy analysts say.

“If you make a flat statement like that and you don’t follow it up, then you undermine your credibility,” says Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official who is now a national security analyst at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington.

Obama has been reluctant to deepen US involvement in the Syria war, limiting US assistance to food and supplies for refugees and internally displaced Syrian civilians, and to nonlethal material for the rebel fighters the US supports. But use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad’s forces could prompt a more interventionist approach, some analysts say: for example, direct measures by US forces to destroy or safeguard Assad’s chemical weapons. Obama could also cite a crossed red line as justification for arming the rebels or taking other, more robust measures to protect Syrian civilians.

—

Click below for the full article.  What do you think about foreign aid to other nations or aiding them in wars?  Do you think it is constitutional or ethical for the United States to police the world?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0423/Could-chemical-weapons-in-Syria-force-Obama-s-hand

04.22.13
by

PC Magazine: What is CISPA, and Why Should You Care?

A controversial cyber-security bill known as CISPA is once again in the news. The House approved the bill last week, and it now moves to the Senate, but opponents of the measure are not going down without a fight. Today, in fact, hacker collective Anonymous is calling on websites to go dark in protest of CISPA as they did last year against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).

But what is CISPA and why is it creating such a ruckus? Why is it being compared to SOPA and PIPA? Let’s break it down.

What is CISPA? CISPA stands for Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

What does it do? CISPA would allow for voluntary information sharing between private companies and the government in the event of a cyber attack. If the government detects a cyber attack that might take down Facebook or Google, for example, they could notify those companies. At the same time, Facebook or Google could inform the feds if they notice unusual activity on their networks that might suggest a cyber attack.

Sounds OK. What’s the problem? Backers argue that CISPA is necessary to protect the U.S. against cyber attacks from countries like China and Iran. But opponents said that it would allow companies to easily hand over users’ private information to the government thanks to a liability clause. This, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “essentially means CISPA would override the relevant provisions in all other laws—including privacy laws.”

Is that true? The bill’s sponsors, Reps. Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, say no. But amidst backlash over the vague wording in the bill, the congressmen introduced an amendment that would require the government to anonymize any data it turns over to a private company.

Did that do the trick? Not exactly. The White House has threatened to veto CISPA, in part because it does not require private companies to do the same and anonymize the data they hand over to the government. That would impose an onerous burden on private companies and perhaps deter them from participating in this voluntary program, backers claim.

What type of personal information are we talking about? According to the EFF, “CISPA is written broadly enough to permit your communications service providers to share your emails and text messages with the government, or your cloud storage company could share your stored files.” Bill sponsors, however, argued that CISPA is needed to keep that data safe, pointing to foreign hackers who have hit U.S. companies in an effort to steal information. The ability to share data about incoming cyber attacks as quick as possible could thwart the improper use of that data, they said.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417993,00.asp

04.22.13
by

Reuters: House Republican blocks consumer watchdog from testifying

A Republican lawmaker escalated a partisan fight over the new consumer protection watchdog on Monday, saying the bureau’s leader was not welcome to appear before a congressional panel that oversees financial regulators.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a Republican who leads the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray could not appear before the panel because he has not been confirmed to his position by the U.S. Senate.

Lawmakers have battled over the bureau since it was created in 2010. President Barack Obama appointed Cordray in January 2012 to lead the consumer watchdog on a temporary basis, but Senate Republicans have refused to confirm him for a full term until Democrats agree to change the bureau’s structure.

The bureau’s critics argue a recent court ruling proves that Cordray’s position is invalid, though Democrats and the consumer watchdog dispute that conclusion because the case did not deal directly with him.

Cordray is scheduled to appear before a Senate committee on Tuesday to present a semi-annual report on the bureau’s activities, but Hensarling said he would not be asked to deliver the report to the House panel.

“The Committee on Financial Services stands ready to accept the testimony of the director of the CFPB on the semi-annual report as soon as an individual validly holds this position,” Hensarling said in letters to Cordray and to bureau general counsel Meredith Fuchs.

The CFPB, formed after the 2007-2009 crisis to protect Americans from financial scams, oversees mortgages, credit cards and student loans.

Obama used a controversial maneuver known as a “recess appointment” to install Cordray temporarily while most lawmakers were out of Washington, after Senate Republicans refused to confirm him to a full term. They say the bureau should be run by a bipartisan board and not a single director.

Republicans said Cordray’s appointment, as well as three additional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, was invalid because lawmakers were not technically on recess at the time.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-financial-regulation-consumerbureau-idUSBRE93L1DM20130423

04.22.13
by

ABC News: Boston Bombing Suspect to Be Tried as Civilian Over Strident Objections

The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will not be tried as an enemy combatant, the White House said today, rejecting calls from some lawmakers to do so.

“He will not be treated as an enemy combatant. We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters today. “Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. And it is important to remember that since 9/11, we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., today blasted the decison as “premature.”

“It is impossible for us to gather the evidence in just a few days to determine whether or not this individual should be held for questioning under the law of war,” Graham told reporters.

In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed a joint resolution called the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which granted the president the power to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

A Supreme Court ruling three years later seemed to suggest that a U.S. citizen captured while fighting for al-Qaida could legally be held as an “enemy combatant,” but left unanswered was how to proceed if the accused is nabbed on U.S. soil.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/boston-bombing-suspect-civilian-strident-objections/story?id=19016171#.UXX-l1_D_HY

04.22.13
by

National Constitution Center: Constitution Check: Are there limits on questioning a bombing suspect?

Lyle Denniston looks at the issues of Miranda warnings, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tsarnaev’s protections under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, and the public safety exception.

The statements at issue:

“The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda [warnings] if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario.”

– Emily Bazelon, a columnist for Slate.com, in an article on April 19, “Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?” 

“[As of Saturday night] Authorities have not read him his Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Federal law enforcement officials said they plan to use a public safety exception, outlined in a 1984 Supreme Court decision, ‘in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence.’”

– Washington Post story on April 21, by reporters Joel Achenbach and Robert Barnes, “Authorities seek answers in Boston Marathon bombing.”

We checked the Constitution, and…

Some three decades ago, the Supreme Court for the first time gave police and federal agents the authority to avoid giving criminal suspects Miranda warnings about their constitutional rights, when the public safety justified that suspension. That authority, given in the 1984 decision of New York v. Quarles, has since been expanded by lower courts so that, even if a suspect has claimed the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, the questioning can go on if the public safety threat remains.

How long such questioning can continue, and what kinds of questions can be asked, is now the source of considerable uncertainty, as officials have developed interrogation policies they think are necessary in dealing with terrorist incidents. But one thing does remain certain: the Constitution still requires that the police not use outright coercion in order to get answers even to the most pressing questions. If authorities want to use the evidence that they gain by such questioning, that evidence must have been given voluntarily.

In the case of the 19-year-old suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon and other crimes after that, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, there is no doubt that he has some protection under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment against being forced to implicate himself. He is a U.S. citizen, so he has the legal shield of the Constitution. (On April 2, we discussed the rights during terrorism investigations of suspects who are not U.S. citizens; those rights may differ.)

—

Click below for the full article.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/04/constitution-check-are-there-limits-on-questioning-a-bombing-suspect/