Monthly Archives: May 2013

05.24.13
by

CNN: Obama: U.S. will keep deploying drones — when they are only option

Watch this video

Drone strikes are a necessary evil, but one that must be used with more temperance as the United States’ security situation evolves, President Barack Obama said Thursday.

America prefers to capture, interrogate and prosecute terrorists, but there are times when this isn’t possible, Obama said in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington. Terrorists intentionally hide in hard-to-reach locales and putting boots on the ground is often out of the question, he said.

Thus, when the United States is faced with a threat from terrorists in a country where the government has only tenuous or no influence, drones strikes are the only option — and they’re legal because America “is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and their associated forces,” Obama said.

He added, however, “To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power — or risk abusing it.”

Increased oversight is important, but not easy, Obama said. While he has considered a special court or independent oversight board, those options are problematic, so he plans to talk with Congress to determine how best to handle the deployment of drones, he said.

 The nation’s image was a theme throughout the speech, as Obama emphasized some actions in recent years — drone strikes and Guantanamo Bay key among them — risk creating more threats. The nature of threats against the United States have changed since he took office — they’ve become more localized — and so, too, must efforts to combat them, he said.

“From our use of drones to the detention of terror suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation and world that we leave to our children,” he said.

Today, al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and Afghanistan worry more about protecting their own skin than attacking America, he said, but the threat is more diffuse, extending into places such as Yemen, Iraq, Somalia and North Africa. And al Qaeda’s ideology helped fuel attacks like the ones at the Boston Marathon and U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Obama said the use of lethal force extends to U.S. citizens as well.

On Wednesday, his administration disclosed for the first time that four Americans had been killed in counterterrorist drone strikes overseas, including one person who was targeted by the United States.

“When a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America — and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot — his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team,” Obama said.

To stop terrorists from gaining a foothold, drones will be deployed, Obama said, but only when there is an imminent threat; no hope of capturing the targeted terrorist; “near certainty” that civilians won’t be harmed; and “there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat.” Never will a strike be punitive, he said.

Those who die as collateral damage “will haunt us for as long as we live,” the president said, but he emphasized that the targeted individuals aim to exact indiscriminate violence, “and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.”

It’s not always feasible to send in Special Forces, as in the Osama bin Laden raid, to stamp out terrorism, and even if it were, the introduction of troops could mean more deaths on both sides, Obama said.

“The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars,” he said.

The American public is split on where and how drones should be used, according to a March poll by Gallup.

Although 65% of respondents said drones should be used against suspected terrorists abroad, only 41% said drones should be used against American citizens who are suspected terrorists in foreign countries.

—–

What do you think?  Should American Citizens be targeted and killed on American or Foreign soil without due process of law?  Click below for the full article.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/politics/obama-terror-speech/index.html?hpt=po_c1

05.23.13
by

USA Today: IRS replaces official involved in Tea Party controversy

Embroiled in scandal, the IRS has replaced the official who supervised agents involved in targeting Tea Party groups.

Lois Lerner, IRS director of exempt organizations, refused to answer questions by a House committee Wednesday, saying she did nothing wrong but was nevertheless invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify against herself.

“I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules and regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee,” Lerner said.

She was replaced Thursday by Ken Corbin, a 27-year IRS veteran who had a deputy director in the wage and investment division.

In announcing the change in an e-mail to IRS employees, the agency’s new acting commissioner, Danny Werfel, did not mention Lerner. Administration and congressional sources told news organizations that she was placed on administrative leave.

The move came hours after Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., who lead the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent Werfel a letter urging him to suspend Lerner “immediately.”

Lerner was the IRS official responsible for the office in Cincinnati that created a “be on the lookout” list for tax-exempt applications from groups using the words “tea party,” “patriot” and “9/12 project” in their names. Those applications were held up for more than a year while applications from liberal groups requesting similar status were routinely approved, a USA TODAY review found.

An audit by the IRS inspector general found that Lerner tried to immediately correct that list when she learned about it in 2011 but replaced it with criteria that included groups “critical of how the country is being run.” Members of Congress from both parties want to know why she never informed Congress — even under direct questioning.

Levin and McCain wrote that they believe that Lerner “failed to disclose crucial information concerning the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of some conservative … organizations” during the committee’s investigation into how the IRS enforces the law for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups.

“Given the serious failure by Ms. Lerner to disclose to this Subcommittee key information on topics that the Subcommittee was investigating, we have lost confidence in her ability to fulfill her duties as Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS,” the senators wrote. “Ms. Lerner’s continued tenure in the office she holds, where she is responsible for overseeing 1.6 million tax-exempt organizations, would erode public trust and confidence in the IRS and its professional integrity. We believe that the immediate removal of Ms. Lerner from office would be a vital step in helping to restore public trust in the agency.”

Last week, acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller resigned at the request of President Obama.

—–

Click below to view the article on USA TODAY’s website:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/23/irs-lois-lerner-leave/2356065/

05.22.13
by

Portland neighbors pave their own potholes

PORTLAND – A group of Southwest Portland residents decided they were tired of neighborhood potholes and hired a contractor to fix the problem. But the city might now charge those residents to bring those unpermitted repairs up to code.

Read entire article with link below:

http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/SW-Portland-neighbors-repair-street-city-fuming-207540181.html?c=n&fb=y&can=n

05.20.13
by

The Washington Post: Senate panel approves immigration changes requiring fingerprint system at 30 U.S. airports

Every immigrant leaving the United States through one of the 30 biggest airports would have to be fingerprinted by federal authorities under an immigration reform measure that won early committee approval in the Senate on Monday.

The plan approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee is a concession to Republicans and some Democrats who support establishing a nationwide biometric tracking system at all U.S. air, sea and land ports of entry, a key recommendation made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to track potential terrorists entering or leaving the country.

The committee rejected a similar GOP proposal last week that would have forced the Department of Homeland Security to establish a biometric immigration tracking system at every U.S. air, sea and land port of entry. The committee’s Democrats and the four members of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” who wrote the immigration bill and sit on the panel said such a plan would be too expensive.

But bipartisan negotiators sought a compromise after Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — a key GOP member of the “Gang of Eight” — said he supports the concept of a nationwide biometric system and would fight for the proposal once the immigration bill reaches the full Senate.

Under the new agreement sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), DHS would need to establish a fingerprint tracking system at the nation’s 10 largest international airports within two years of the bill’s approval. The program would expand to the next 20 largest international airports within six years.

—–

Click below for the full article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-panel-approves-immigration-changes-requiring-fingerprint-system-at-30-us-airports/2013/05/20/2ac2299e-c169-11e2-bfdb-3886a561c1ff_story.html

05.20.13
by

San Francisco Chronicle: More Obama aides knew of IRS audit; Obama not told

White  House chief of staff Denis  McDonough and other senior advisers knew in late April that an impending  report was likely to say the IRS had inappropriately targeted conservative  groups, President Barack  Obama‘s spokesman disclosed Monday, expanding the circle of top officials  who knew of the audit beyond those named earlier.

But  McDonough and the other advisers did not tell Obama, leaving him to learn about  the politically perilous results of the internal investigation from news reports  more than two weeks later, officials said.

The Treasury  Department also told the White House twice in the weeks leading up to the  IRS disclosure that the tax agency planned to make the targeting public, a  Treasury official said.

The  apparent decision to keep the president in the dark about the matter underscores  the White House’s cautious legal approach to controversies and reflects a desire  by top advisers to distance Obama from troubles threatening  his administration.

Obama  spokesman Jay  Carney defended keeping the president out of the loop on the Internal  Revenue Service audit, saying Obama was comfortable with the fact that “some  matters are not appropriate to convey to him, and this is one of them.”

“It  is absolutely a cardinal rule as we see it that we do not intervene in ongoing  investigations,” Carney said.

Republicans,  however, are accusing the president of being unaware of important happenings in  the government he oversees.

“It  seems to be the answer of the administration whenever they’re caught doing  something they shouldn’t be doing is, ‘I didn’t know about it’,” Sen. John  Cornyn, R-Texas, told CBS News. “And it causes me to wonder whether they  believe willful ignorance is a defense when it’s your job to know.”

Obama  advisers argue that the outcry from Republicans would be far worse had McDonough  or White  House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told the president about the IRS audit before  it became public, thereby raising questions about White  House interference.

Still,  the White House’s own shifting information about who knew what and when is  keeping the focus of the IRS controversy on the West Wing.

—–

Click below for the full article.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/More-Obama-aides-knew-of-IRS-audit-Obama-not-told-4532117.php

 

 

05.20.13
by

Reason.com: Justin Amash, Jared Polis Introduce Bill Requiring a Court Order for Telephone Records

While the White House very lamely attempted to do damage control on the Department of Justice’s grotesque Associated Press surveillance dragnet by unconvincingly re-animating a push for a federal shield law exempting the professional press from most non-national-security-related federal fishing expeditions, some actual civil libertarians in Washington have introduced a bill that would increase protections for all Americans against unchecked federal snooping.

Via InstaPundit, here’s your press release:

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), joined by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), today introduced legislation to prevent federal agencies from seizing Americans’ telephone records without a court order.

H.R. 2014, the Telephone Records Protection Act, requires court approval when the government demands telephone records from service providers. Current law allows the government to subpoena such records unilaterally, without any judicial review. The Department of Justice likely used its administrative subpoena authority to seize the Associated Press’s telephone records in its recent investigation of a CIA leak.

“The Justice Department’s seizure of the AP’s phone records—likely without the sign-off of a single judge—raises serious First and Fourth Amendment concerns. Regardless of whether DOJ violates the legitimate privacy expectations of reporters or ordinary Americans, we deserve to know that the federal government can’t seize our records without judicial review,” said Amash.

—–

The Liberty Report Take: It is refreshing these days to find elected officials committed to upholding the constitution, civil liberties, and actually RESTRAINING the power of the government.

05.19.13
by

The Motley Fool: How Much GM Truly Stole From American Taxpayers

General Motors  (NYSE: GM )  figures its re-entry into the S&P 500 club will be quite soon, even though the company is still in the early stages of its turnaround. There’s no denying that the U.S. automotive recovery is going well for Detroit. It’s only been a few years since the ugly recession, financial collapse, and ensuing bailouts for two of Detroit’s Big Three, the exception being Ford  (NYSE: F ) . And all three companies have gained market share this year in the U.S. at the expense of Japanese rivals Toyota  (NYSE: TM )  and Honda  (NYSE: HMC) . GM just recorded its 13th consecutive profitable quarter, so the nearly $50 billion that taxpayers like you and I funded to save GM was a huge success. Right?

Wrong.

Most people don’t realize how much GM actually took from taxpayers, and how little it’s given back. If I told you GM has repaid only $6.7 billion out of the $49.5 billion in loans it was given, would you be surprised? If I told you the expected loss to the U.S. Treasury of roughly $12 billion isn’t even a fraction of the real cost, would you believe me? If not, you might be in for a nasty surprise.

Bailout by the numbers The Treasury plans to exit its entire holdings of GM by next April. By the end of this past March, the government had reclaimed just over $30 billion of its investment, leaving a substantial loss. While the government says it didn’t anticipate making a profit from saving the auto industry, the other $419 billion in TARP funds were 94% recovered — making GM a big loser. At today’s GM stock price, the Treasury looks to lose between $11 billion and $12 billion, unless the stock price changes drastically.

Yet that number doesn’t tell the whole story.

Consider that the only true loan GM received from the U.S. government was for $6.7 billion at 7% interest, which it has since repaid. The majority of the nearly $50 billion was in stock purchases by the U.S. Treasury at a price that GM didn’t lose money when recently rebuying shares.

Also consider that GM was “gifted” tax losses from the “Old GM” corporation in amounts of $45 billion. What that really means is the “New GM” can write off current profits up to that amount and not pay taxes on it. That’s a complete joke, in my opinion.

Think of it like this: GM took our tax dollars to save its company, and then after turning 13 quarters of profit, it still isn’t paying a single income-tax dollar. Are you kidding me? News flash: My recent taxes cost me and my wallet a bundle, and I didn’t turn billions in profit.

Too often, people assume that since GM received nearly $50 billion in taxpayer funding, and when people hear that GM has fully repaid its obligations, we assume that means it repaid the said $50 billion. That couldn’t be further from the truth. GM has merely paid its initial pure loan of $6.7 billion with interest, and rebought some of its own shares from the Treasury — often at a cheaper price. Most of us taxpayers don’t even realize Ford paid an effective tax rate of 26% in 2012, compared with 0% for GM — a complete joke to Ford, which didn’t take any of our taxpayer dollars.

Bottom line You’ll see in my disclosure that I own stock in both Ford and GM. But I own stock in both for completely different reasons. I believe Ford has excellent management and is way ahead of GM in operating efficiency and global consolidation of platforms — helping it create net income off lower revenue. It’s also way ahead in creating value and quality in segment trends dominated by fuel efficiency — not to mention that its F-Series has been the best-selling truck for 36 years.

——

Click below for the full article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/19/how-much-gm-truly-stole-from-american-taxpayers.aspx