New TARP? Only this bypasses even Congress

Barney Frank plan slides through House without committee hearings

 

By Bob Unruh

While America was distracted by the arguments over health care, Copenhagen, terror trials in New York and a "jobs" summit, a new type of TARP proposal that would set up a tax-and-spend process involving hundreds of billions of dollars and that would bypass Congress has been adopted by the U.S. House.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., was approved recently on a 223-202 vote without a single cosponsor and no hearings. Its major congressional actions were its introduction on Dec. 2 and its adoption on Dec. 11.

It is, according to Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., worse than Democrat plans to have the government take over health care across the nation and the massive new taxes proposed in the global warming "cap-and-trade" proposal, combined.

"That's saying a lot," Bachmann told WND today.

The plan will, for one thing, kill jobs, she said, citing a study from Profs. David Evans and Joshua Wright that the bill's "Consumer Financial Protection Agency" would cut jobs by 4.3 percent.

Essentially, she described the plan by Frank, which has yet to move through the U.S. Senate, as a new Troubled Asset Relief Plan like the original that gave truckloads of money to banks or financial institutions at the direction of the government.

This plan, likewise, would involve the government handing out billions of dollars to companies it chose; it also would have government oversight over even minutiae of those corporate operations; and further it would allow the collection of taxes – or "fees" – to fund operations.

But worst of all, Bachmann said, such decisions would be left to the whims of the president and someone who would be appointed to a newly created "credit czar" post.

"Almost no one had heard about the bill until last week," she said. It was given to lawmakers on their return to Washington Tuesday, the bill was on the floor of the House Wednesday, there were amendments Thursday and a vote was held on Friday.

No opportunity for committee review, she said, except for "bits and pieces" of the plan that had been discussed separately.

"In my opinion this was introduced intentionally when everyone was distracted by the president's Nobel, Copenhagen, Afghanistan, Sheikh Mohammad coming into the U.S., the fake jobs summit. … all of this was going on and amidst all of this Barney Frank's bill was introduced."

She said the vaguely written 1,300 pages of proposed law make permanent the bailout procedures used by President Bush, only it would eliminate to ask Congress for approval, as Bush was required to do.

"President Obama would be able to bypass Congress and have a permanent bailout authority – at his sole power and discretion," she warned.

It also, she said, would give the president the authority to impose billions of dollars in taxes – or "fees" – without any further congressional input.

That itself, she said, is a violation of the separation of powers which allows only the U.S. House of Representatives to launch taxation programs in the U.S.

Still worse, the definitions of the bill allow any company that is involved with financial transactions to be labeled a financial institution, and thus become subject to what essentially is the whim of the White House.

"The president could give bailouts with this incredible level of authority," she warned. "The government would now have the power to take over – at its discretion – private businesses either healthy or unhealthy."

"Starbucks could be considered a financial institution if the credit czar chooses to designate it," she said.

The "credit czar" also would "have the authority to ration credit."

According to one of the estimates cited by Bachmann, the program could reduce overall lending by as much as $55 billion and eliminate 450,000 jobs.

Bachmann's analysis revealed taxes of $150 billion would be assessed on financial firms to get the program started.

"If sufficient funds cannot be extracted from the industry to pay for the failures of firms the government deems 'systemically significant,' taxpayers will be on the hook," the report said.

It also, Bachmann said, would expand the Federal Reserve, undermine the safety and soundness regulation for financial companies, actually would give the government control of workers' wages in those companies involved in an "covered financial institution," and provides instructions for continuation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the high-risk mortgage loans that were blamed for a significant part of the U.S. economic meltdown.

U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady said the Wall Street overhaul is just too intrusive and controlling.

Read more >>

Spooky: 1 in 3 Democrats communicate with the dead

More likely than GOP to consult fortune-tellers, believe in astrology, reincarnation

 

By Chelsea Schilling

Democrats are far more in touch with the dead than Republicans and they also visit fortune-tellers more often, a study reveals.

The number of Americans who say they have interacted with a ghost has doubled in the last 13 years, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life revealed in its "Many Americans Mix Multiple Faiths" report.

Now, approximately 18 percent of respondents say they have seen or been in the presence of a ghost, compared with only 9 percent in 1990 and 1996. Likewise, 29 percent of respondents felt that they had been in touch with someone who has already died, compared with 17 percent in 1990 and 18 percent in 1996.

The results also show that Democrats are far more likely to believe in supernatural phenomena than Republicans.

"Conservatives and Republicans report fewer experiences than liberals or Democrats communicating with the dead, seeing ghosts and consulting fortune-tellers or psychics," Pew reported.

According to the study:

• 36 percent of Democrats report being in touch with someone who is dead, compared with only 21 percent of Republicans.

• 21 percent of Democrats say they have seen a ghost, compared with only 11 percent of Republicans.

• 22 percent of Democrats say they have consulted a fortune-teller, compared with 9 percent of Republicans.

• 30 percent of Democrats say they believe in reincarnation, compared with 17 percent of Republicans.

• 31 percent of Democrats say they believe in astrology, compared with 14 percent of Republicans

• 31 percent of Democrats view yoga as a spiritual practice, compared with 15 percent of Republicans.

• 30 percent of Democrats say they believe in spiritual energy, compared with 17 percent of Republicans.

Among all the groups, black Protestant female respondents who were Democrats between the ages of 50 and 64 and had less than a high-school education were most likely to report being in touch with the dead.

White male Evangelical Protestants who were Republicans between the ages of 18 and 29 were least likely to say they have felt in touch with a dead person.

Pew Forum results for study on supernatural experiences

The survey, based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 4,013 adults, does not focus specifically on partisan differences. It lists groups categorized by gender, race, age, education level, faith and church-attendance rates.

"Having been in touch with a dead person is more common among women than men," the report said. "Women are also twice as likely to have consulted a fortune-teller or psychic. Blacks report more experience feeling in touch with the dead than whites or Hispanics. But they resemble whites and Hispanics on other items, such as encounters with a ghost or consulting a fortune-teller."

Read more >>

Reporters catch Gore in 'embarrassing error' about Arctic ice -- Gore admits...

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

From The Times - The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change "spin" row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

"It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. "This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics," Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

"You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic."

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

"Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb," said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: "I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said. "It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office."

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: "He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero."

 

Read more >>

Obama summons Senate Dems to WH

AP - WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will meet with Senate Democrats at the White House Tuesday to press for action at a make-or-break moment for his health care overhaul.

All 60 members of the Democratic caucus have been invited, according to three Democratic officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement was not yet public.

The meeting comes as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid works to round up votes to get a sweeping health bill passed before Christmas. The outcome is uncertain with moderates in danger of defecting on issues including abortion and a proposed expansion of Medicare.

Read more >>

Obama, Reid, Pelosi On Wild Spending Binge - With Your Money

By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

The Democrat Party, which controls the Senate, House, and Executive Branch, is on one of the wildest spending binges in American history. And, there’s no end in sight.

No project is too expensive; no Medicare cuts too steep; no pork barrel project too outrageous for these drunken spenders. They have the American taxpayer credit card and they’re running up incredible and unsustainable debt for future generations.

The Washington Examiner points out that the national debt will have exploded to approximately $14 trillion or 30% higher than it was a year ago. The debt burden on each family will go up $1,500 annually.

Now, so they can spend even more of your hard-earned money, the Democrats have raised the national debt limit by $1.8 trillion and have rung up a deficit of $1.42 trillion during Obama’s first year in office.

The House rammed through a $447 billion spending bill last week that includes more than 5,000 earmarks, which brings the total this year to 7,577. The total cost of these earmarks is $6 billion!

In addition, the House has given itself an 8.4% pay raise. Did you get an 8.4% raise this year? I doubt it.

Obama has increased the size of the federal government by 64% since taking office, the largest increase in at least three decades. What benefit has this been to the average Joe who is unemployed?

The Obama/Reid/Pelosi binge spenders are wildly out of control with your tax money. They must be stopped before they collapse our entire system of government.

How can they be stopped? By relentless and sustained citizen outrage, lobbying pressure, and the vote.

Our Founding Fathers constructed a system of government with checks and balances. Fortunately, we can still vote the binge spenders out of office and that’s what must be done if our nation is to survive three more years of Obama’s collectivist plans for our nation. 

Get to work. Time is running out.

Read more >>

The fury of voters scorned

Tiger Woods knows the meaning of "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." He learned the hard way.

Harry Reid is going through the same stresses, but not with wives, bimbos or sex. No, in Harry's case, it's politics and citizens on the warpath.

Poor, old Harry. The stress on the Nevada senator is showing. He thought he was in for clear sailing in getting government control over the entire health-care system in this country. After all, he has the 60 votes, doesn't he? He figured he had it knocked.

As my kids would say: Uh – uh-h-h-h.

It's clear the popularity of the Obama health-care plan is causing Harry Reid restless nights – and days, too. And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

The generally snotty arrogance of the man – comparing Republicans opposed to the bill with those who favored slavery – as he deals with the political minefields on road to the anticipated Democrat success, is haunting him now.

It will only get worse as his re-election battle looms closer. Old Harry isn't as well loved in his state of Nevada as he thought. He may have had a lock on his Senate seat for four terms, but he may not get another. A recent poll shows him behind two Republican potential challengers. To repeat, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

But while that battle lies ahead, the current Senate fight over health care continues. Despite the lack of voting muscle, Republicans are using every tool in their kit to cut Reid off at the pass and prevent him from ramming "health care" down the throats of the American people, like it or not, and in the process, permanently changing the face of this country and our economy.

GOP tactics resulted in stalling votes on proposed amendments and Democrats responded with a flurry of compromises with the core issues being a public option and the question of abortion funding.

From the beginning, the Democrat plan was for a "public option," a fancy way of misleading people. It sounds as though people would have the option – read that "choice" – of what insurance plan to buy.

Not so. It turns out the proposed legislation was rigged to eventually siphon everyone into the government plan. So why didn't they say that in the first place and just do it?

Cynics would say, "no guts." It's clear politicians know that people don't want government bureaucracy in charge of medical decisions. It raises alarms and comparisons reflected by asking if you'd want the post office or the DMV in charge of your doctor and medical decisions.

The chorus of "No-o-o-o-o-o" echoed across the country and different tactics were quickly devised in closed-door sessions and dumped first on the House where the proposed bill passed. Now, the Senate version is the focus of the battle. Together, both versions of the bill total more than 4,000 pages of new laws, bureaucracies, mandates, fees and controls.

The mind spins!

As last week ended, after the "public option" was compromised out of Reid's plan. The "solution" was an expanded Medicare program, allowing those between 55 and 64 to buy in, adding an estimated 50 million people. In addition, there'd be a separate national insurance program run by a government bureaucracy.

Unfortunately that "solution" would only exacerbate Medicare's major problem – it's already going broke. But Reid's Senate has a solution: Cut Medicare funding by some $500 million. The cuts would affect reimbursement to all medical practitioners and facilities.

The problem is that existing, low Medicare payments have already led many practitioners to refuse new Medicare patients. Forcing new cuts on physicians will lead to many leaving practice but worse, even with the spending cuts, the larger pool of people covered will only speed the flow of red ink. We're dealing with an unfunded liability that could reach more than $38 trillion. It will lead to the bankruptcy of the whole house of cards.

But that doesn't deter Democrats, and the man who is president continues his crusade to get the bill on his desk before the end of the year. Barack Obama apparently wants it the focal point of his State of the Union address in January. He wants it at all costs. There isn't much time left.

Americans are not happy and are holding protest rallies across the country. That and pressure on local and state politicians as they face the 2010 elections is making the pols nervous; some incumbents have declared they'll not seek re-election.

It doesn't mean the bill won't pass, but it does mean the administration and congressional liberals from both parties made one big mistake: that despite their efforts otherwise, they allowed Americans to know too much about what's in the bill.

Polls show increasing numbers opposed to the bill. If elected representatives follow their political ideologies and ignore the will of the voters, they'll feel the heat.

Remember "the fury of a woman scorned?"

Just wait until the politicians who vote for this monstrosity face re-election. Multiply that "scorned woman" by millions of voters of both sexes who'll get vengeance on Election Day.

They won't use golf clubs. They'll use their votes.

And it works!

Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker," as she's known to her KSFO 560 radio talk-show audience in San Francisco, has a 20-year radio, TV and newspaper career in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

Read more >>

Obama sells out radical left base

Radical left "progressives" are angry, frustrated and lashing out at President Obama for what they perceive as his many "sell outs" of the radical transformation of America that "change" was supposed to bring.

The Huffington Post still gamely tries to defend the president against his leftist critics, but read Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Firedoglake or the recent Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone to get the passionate frustration that, despite the Democrats' takeover of the House, Senate and White House, the opportunity is being squandered.

"Stop the war"? Nope. Both "Bush" wars continue. The surge Sen. Obama opposed in Iraq, President Obama has now ordered to Afghanistan.

Single-payer, government-provided health care for all? Nope. "Obamacare" now looks like a windfall for the very health insurance companies denounced by candidate Obama.

Climate-change law to stop killing the planet? Nope. It passed the House and died in the Senate. The EPA's threat to impose CO2 limits without Congress approval is causing backlash even among Democrats. Obama's Copenhagen speech has been seen as toothless.

Amnesty for "undocumented workers"? Nope. Sen. Schumer promised a bill by September – it hasn't even been introduced yet. Groups who view illegals as "undocumented Democrats" are livid at Obama's silence.

As appalled as conservatives are by the president's successful, unconstitutional takeover of Wall Street, the auto industry, the mortgage industry and the completion of a political merger of the Fed and the Treasury, the radical left wanted much more. Disillusionment with Obama is growing among his hard-core, radical base.

I feel the liberals' pain. I believe I can help with some perspective.

As a conservative, I felt similar anguish during the Bush years. I understand being sold out.

Elected as a "compassionate" conservative, the Bush domestic agenda became the opposite of conservative principles of small government, low taxes and an "opportunity" society.

President Bush enjoyed Republican control of the House and Senate, too – at least from 2000 to 2006. With the exception of the Jim Jeffords flip/bribe incident.

During that time, while conservatives cheered the Bush Supreme Court nominees, Bush failed to advance a single conservative domestic legislative objective.

To the contrary, Bush teamed with Ted Kennedy on "No Child Left Behind" to enlarge the power and size of the federal education bureaucracy that ought to have been dismantled, with the money and the power returned to local communities.

Bush championed and signed a farm bill that made all farmers – corporate and family – sharecroppers on Uncle Sam's plantation.

Bush advocated and signed into law the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society: the Medicare drug benefit.

Tragically, it was Bush, a Republican, who (channeling President Ford) sent out checks – free money! – to stimulate the economy. Only to have Tom Daschle diss the small amount of the check as "not enough to buy a muffler."

In his final months, President Bush opened the door (that Obama has marched his socialist armies through) to TARP, the bailout of the fat cats and the federal government takeover of the "too big to fail" companies.

"Frustrated"? "Angry"? I can tell you about frustration and anger when you realize that all your efforts to elect a president to champion your views are turning to dust.

I've been there.

　

Roger Hedgecock is the longtime top-rated radio talk host in San Diego, Calif., on KOGO and, more recently, a nationally syndicated daily radio host heard already in 75+ markets and on XM Satellite.

Read more >>

What if Mother Mary had Obamacare?

By Chuck Norris

Washington is up to its old political shell game again, but this time – to steal an often used word from the mouth of our president – in an unprecedented way.

While the mainstream media are focused on President Obama's two trips to Europe (last week to Oslo and this week to Copenhagen), the Democrats in Congress slipped major pro-abortion legislation under the radar.

First, last Monday the Senate tabled the amendment introduced by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that would ban federal funds from providing for abortion in its health-care reform bill.

Then on Thursday the House

of Representatives rushed the clandestine approval of an overinflated $1 trillion omnibus bill that includes 5,224 earmarks costing about $3.9 billion and an underhanded provision that overturns a long-standing budget ban in the District of Columbia (whose budget is overseen by Congress) for federally funding abortions.

After the Democrat-controlled Senate cleared a procedural vote on Saturday needed to end a Republican filibuster, on yet another near-secret Sunday afternoon session, the Senate passed the omnibus bill, and its provision that also overturns the 1988 Dornan Amendment, which prevented use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in Washington, D.C. Tragically, the bill also appropriates $648.5 million for international family planning funding (an increase of $103 million over 2009) and contains funding for Planned Parenthood and for the United Nations Population Fund, both of which have pro-abortion agendas.

According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, what the congressional Democratic leaders did was to take "a single appropriations bill that's just supposed to cover a couple of departments and just stapl[ed] a bunch of other bills to it that were never even taken up by the Senate." Johnson further explained, "So, they ram[med] these through under a fast-track procedure where the Senate would never have even debated nor had a chance to vote on these measures."

In short, while President Obama was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the Democrats in Congress drove a sword through the womb of the unborn.

But when politicians like Sen. Barbara Boxer liken funding abortion for women to funding Viagra for men, can't we see that politicians have lost touch with reality and America is in deep, deep trouble? Even Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., added to the ludicrousness by asking, "What if we were to vote on a Viagra amendment and it had the same limits that would apply for abortion?" He concluded by saying that he wanted his daughters and granddaughters to have access to all "reproductive health care."

The big question and bottom line, as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked, is: "Why should people of conscience be forced to participate in any aspect of abortion?"

Washington has certainly reached a new low by forcing American citizens who oppose abortion to pay for them via their taxes in this massively comprehensive way. Is it intentionally trying to spark the next Boston Tea Party? (Washington's wild spending and abandonment of the American people and our founder's vision is what prompted me to add a 64-page expansion to the new paperback version of my New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism," being released in Jan. 2010 through Fidelis Books. See the new website.)

Congress' latest pro-abortion strategy is a radical divergence from – and sheer contradiction of – Obama's promise just given back on Sept. 9, "Under our [health care reform] plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." Looks like Congress will assist him after all in fulfilling his campaign promise to Planned Parenthood to "turn the page" on the abortion debate.

Let there be no doubt about this: Obama is still hell-bent to fulfill his campaign promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, which is a sweeping bill that would abolish all pro-life regulations across the nation, from parental notification laws to bans on all federal funding of abortion.

If that pro-abortion page is going to turn, however, the Democrats in Congress know that they must modify the existing amendments that prohibit federal funding for the termination of life in the womb, and the Dornan Amendment is their place to start. Next will likely be the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the same through Health and Human Services like Medicaid. (If Congress can overshadow Medicaid with its new pro-abortion, universal socialized medical plan, how long will it take before the Hyde Amendment is regarded as obsolete?)

Tragically, all of these pro-abortion actions are being taken by Washington despite a new nationwide survey revealing that four out of five U.S. adults (82 percent) would limit abortion's legality. One out of three (38 percent) would limit abortion to rape, incest or to save the mother's life. One out of three (33 percent) would also limit abortion to either the first three or first six months. Only nine percent said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy.

Mark my words, federal funding of abortion will become a reality unless America stands up now and assures the passage of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which would stop federal funds for new programs created by H.R. 3962, and the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, which would also restrict such funding in the Senate health-care reform bill.

If you haven't done so, now is the critical time for action: Contact your representatives and senators at (202) 224-3121 or by visiting the websites of the Senate and House. Then contact the White House at (202) 456-2111 or fax (202) 456-2461 with the following:

1. Tell your representatives and senators to quit fast-tracking these momentous bills without a period of debate and during secret weekend sessions when America is least attentive;

2. Tell your representatives and senators of your extreme disappointment of them approving the outrageous omnibus spending bill, spending frivolously under America's recession and adding more to our national debt.

3. Tell your representatives and senators to support the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and the Nelson-Hatch Amendment in the House and Senate health-care bills.

4. Call or write the White House and demand that President Obama not sign the outrageous omnibus bill (with pro-abortion provisions and more than 5,200 earmarks) into law.

5. Join 300,000 people who have signed the Manhattan Declaration to fight for the unborn by doing the same.

6. Share this column with your pro-life pastor, priest, family and friends, and encourage them to mobilize troops on these pieces of legislation.

7. Get involved with a local pro-life organization, like my wife, Gena, who supports the Dallas Council for Life and the Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center. She'll be speaking again for the group in January.

Lastly, as we sit on the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary were covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor uninsured teenaged woman were provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind, if only they too would have been as progressive as Washington's wise men and women!

America doesn't need to "turn the page" on culture wars like abortion. It needs to reopen the pages of its history to our founders' elevated views of and rights for all human beings (including those in the womb) as documented in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We need to revive and re-instill their value of humanity back into society, our children and our children's children.

And, most of all, Washington needs to run our government as Thomas Jefferson outlined, when he wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

(Don't miss my Christmas column next week, titled "Away with the manger," about how the feds are whitewashing America's Judeo-Christian heritage via a progressive, politically correct and pro-Muslim platform.)

Read more >>

Federal Employees Owe Uncle Sam $3 Billion in Unpaid Taxes...

At a time when the White House is projecting the largest deficit in the nation's history, Uncle Sam is trying to recover billions of dollars in unpaid taxes from its own employees.

Federal workers owe more than $3 billion in income taxes they failed to pay in 2008. According to Internal Revenue Service documents, 276,300 federal employees and retirees owe $3,042,200,000.

The IRS tracks the voluntary compliance rate of federal employees and retirees each year, and each year feds come up short. The one bright spot in this year's report is that after several years of a steady increase, the amount owed by feds is down from the previous year.

Federal employees and retirees owed $3,586,784,725 in unpaid income taxes in 2007.

The documents show delinquent employees from nearly every federal agency with more than 25 employees. Based on percentages, the Department of The Treasury, which includes the IRS, has the best compliance rate. Fewer than 1 percent of Treasury employees didn't pay their taxes in 2008.

The IRS is the only federal agency where employees can be fired for not paying their taxes. The non-compliance rate for IRS employees in 2008 was 0.76 percent -- down from 0.89 percent in 2007.

The agency with the most tax scofflaws is the U.S. Postal Service, with 28,913 employees who owe $297,933,756. But that is still a dramatic improvement from 2007 when more than 54,000 employees owed more than $407 million.

"We urge our employees to comply with all tax laws and are encouraged that many who have been delinquent have agreed to payment plan with the IRS," USPS spokesperson Mark Saunders tells WTOP in a statement.

"It's important to look at the percentage of postal employees who may be delinquent on their federal taxes, not just the number itself. According to IRS figures, the delinquency rate for Postal Service employees is relatively small."

The Postal Service, the largest employer in the federal government aside from the military, has a non-compliance rate of 3.95 percent compared to the federal average of 2.8 percent.

Retired military personnel make up about 33 percent of the money owed with $1,343,538,055 in unpaid taxes for 2008.

The agency with the highest percentage of delinquent employees is the National Capital Planning Commission, where 10.42 percent of its 48 employees owe $26,947.

"NCPC is committed to working closely with the Department of The Treasury to resolve issues of federal income tax delinquency involving its staff," NCPC spokeswoman Lisa MacSpadden said in a statement.

"The agency takes this matter very seriously and recognizes that federal employees must adhere to the highest ethical standards regarding financial matters.

"We remind our employees of this responsibility as part of our mandatory annual ethics training. Upon receipt of an official notice from the IRS about a specific employee's noncompliance, NCPC will take appropriate administrative action."

Other notable agencies on the list:

• Executive Office of the President (includes the White House): 50 employees owe $812,917;
  
• U.S. Senate: 231 employees owe $2,469,026;
  
• U.S. House of Representatives: 447 employees owe $5,809,631;
  
• U.S. Tax Court: 3 employees owe $39,752;
  
• Active Duty Military: 27,111 employees $102,474,672.

While some taxpayers may scratch their heads and ask why the federal government doesn't garnish the wages of these employees, the reality is they can't. According to federal tax laws, employees are treated the same as any other taxpayer who doesn't pay their taxes.

The IRS must go through the same procedures and court process with feds as it does with John Q. Public. Once a court awards the IRS a judgment or if the employees enter a voluntary payment plan, the IRS can garnish wages. However, federal employees do jeopardize any security clearance they may have if they don't pay their income taxes.

As for the general public's voluntary compliance rate, the IRS no longer tracks those numbers, so it is impossible to compare. But an IRS report from 2001 (PDF) showed the total tax gap to be about $345 billion. The tax gap is the difference between what is owed each year and what is paid, and includes income, corporate, employment, estate and excise taxes.

Read more >>

Secret document exposes Iran's nuclear trigger

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

"Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application," said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. "This is a very strong indicator of weapons work."

The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: "We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions."

Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: "Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it."

The revelation coincides with growing international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran insists that it wants to build a civilian nuclear industry to generate power, but critics suspect that the regime is intent on diverting the technology to build an atomic bomb.

In September, Iran was forced to admit that it was constructing a secret uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. President Ahmadinejad then claimed that he wanted to build ten such sites. Over the weekend Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, said that Iran needed up to 15 nuclear power plants to meet its energy needs, despite the country’s huge oil and gas reserves.

Publication of the nuclear documents will increase pressure for tougher UN sanctions against Iran, which are due to be discussed this week. But the latest leaks in a long series of allegations against Iran will also be seized on by hawks in Israel and the US, who support a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities before the country can build its first warhead.

Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: "The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution."

The Times had the documents, which were originally written in Farsi, translated into English and had the translation separately verified by two Farsi speakers. While much of the language is technical, it is clear that the Iranians are intent on concealing their nuclear military work behind legitimate civilian research.

The fallout could be explosive, especially in Washington, where it is likely to invite questions about President Obama’s groundbreaking outreach to Iran. The papers provide the first evidence which suggests that Iran has pursued weapons studies after 2003 and may actively be doing so today — if the four-year plan continued as envisaged.

A 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that weapons work was suspended in 2003 and officials said with "moderate confidence" that it had not resumed by mid-2007. Britain, Germany and France, however, believe that weapons work had already resumed by then.

Western intelligence sources say that by 2003 Iran had already assembled the technical know-how it needed to build a bomb, but had yet to complete the necessary testing to be sure such a device would work. Iran also lacked sufficient fissile material to fuel a bomb and still does — although it is technically capable of producing weapons-grade uranium should its leaders take the political decision to do so.

The documents detail a plan for tests to determine whether the device works — without detonating an explosion leaving traces of uranium detectable by the outside world. If such traces were found, they would be taken as irreversible evidence of Iran’s intention to become a nuclear-armed power.

Experts say that, if the 2007 date is correct, the documents are the strongest indicator yet of a continuing nuclear weapons programme in Iran. Iran has long denied a military dimension to its nuclear programme, claiming its nuclear activities are solely focused on the production of energy for civilian use.

Mr Fitzpatrick said: "Is this the smoking gun? That’s the question people should be asking. It looks like the smoking gun. This is smoking uranium."

Read more >>