This Is Not the Purpose of Law Enforcement in a Free Society!

The 14-year-old Kid Arrested Over His Pro-NRA Shirt Now Faces a Year in Jail

From The Daily Caller, June 18, 2013

The West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended and arrested in late April after he refused to remove a t-shirt supporting the National Rifle Association appeared in court this week and was formally charged with obstructing an officer.

As CBS affiliate WTRF reports, 14-year-old Jared Marcum now faces a $500 fine and a maximum of one year in prison.

The boy’s father, Allen Lardieri, is not pleased.

“Me, I’m more of a fighter and so is Jared and eventually we’re going to get through this,” Lardieri told WTRF.  “I don’t think it should have ever gotten this far.”

“Every aspect of this is just totally wrong,” Lardieri added.  “He has no background of anything criminal up until now and it just seems like nobody wants to admit they’re wrong.”

Officials at Logan Middle School in Logan County, West Va. maintain that Marcum, who has since completed eighth grade, was suspended for one day because he caused a disruption after a teacher asked him to remove a shirt emblazoned with a hunting rifle and the statement “protect your right.”

“She said, ‘Are you supposed to wear that in school?’” Marcum had previously explained in an interview with local station, WOWK-TV. “I said, ‘I don’t see why I shouldn’t.’”

In a move The Daily Caller can only characterize as courageous, Marcum returned to school after his suspension wearing exactly the same shirt. Students across the rural county showed their support for Marcum by wearing similar shirts on that day as well.

There are no accounts of any additional arrests or suspensions when Marcum returned to school.

Lardieri has claimed that police in Logan City (pop. 1,779) threatened to charge Marcum with making terroristic threats during the incident that led to his arrest.

In legal documents obtained by the CBS station, the arresting officer, James Adkins, reportedly fails to inform the court about any terrorist threats or any violent action. Instead, Adkins asserts that the 14-year-old boy did not follow his orders to stop talking. This verbosity somehow prevented Adkins from performing his police duties.

“In my view of the facts, Jared didn’t do anything wrong,” Ben White, Marcum’s attorney, opined, according to WTRF.  “I think Officer Adkins could have done something differently.”

White has previously asserted that his client was exercising his free speech rights by wearing the shirt.

The school district’s policy doesn’t prohibit shirts promoting Second Amendment rights.

Logan police and the prosecuting attorney, Michael White, declined to answer questions.

Lady Liberty After Meeting Obama’s NSA

Media Focuses on Snowden, Ignores Gov’t Assault on Bill of Rights

From The New American by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., June 17, 2013

Lindsey Graham wants him “follow[ed] to the ends of the earth”; Ron Paul worries that he might be targeted for an Obama drone strike; and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) called him “a traitor.”

With this kind of reception, it’s little wonder that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden remains safely (for now) ensconced in his Hong Kong hideaway, waiting for asylum or for the climate to improve at home.

In Snowden’s case, however, absence is not making the hearts of some grow fonder.

On top of the threats and calumny coming from those who should be defending the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment rather than persecuting someone who exposes their violation, Fox News now takes a sideways shot at Snowden, suggesting he might be a Chinese double agent. A Fox News story reports:

Gordon Chang, author of “The Coming Collapse of China,” thinks there’s a strong possibility Snowden could be playing for both sides.

“The first clue is that he goes to Hong Kong and they have an extradition agreement with the U.S. and a tradition of close cooperation of law enforcement,” Chang told Fox. “That means, the only thing that stands between him and a lifetime in a super-max prison is Beijing.”

Going further in their Establishment-shilling effort to make Snowden the story rather than the revelation of the government’s brazen disregard for the Constitution and the participation of some of the country’s largest corporations in the construction of the surveillance state, Fox continues the tale:

Chang also says the timing of Snowden’s disclosures are [sic] suspect.

“He changed the global narrative of China hacking into the U.S. to the American government going after one of its own,” Chang said.

The first of Snowden’s disclosures came right before President Obama met with new Chinese President Xi Jinping.

“That really derailed Obama’s whole talk about cyber security,” he said, adding, “the most recent revelations have been about operational details of the NSA spying on Hong Kong and China. This only helps Beijing.”

Chang says it’s likely Snowden went public with his claims because he was tipped off that the NSA was on to him.

On and on the character assassination goes. While Fox allows the charges of espionage (read: treason) to come from the mouth of Chang, they take their own shots at Snowden, as well.

In the story, Fox News reminds readers of the “facts,” including the charge that Snowden “looked at documents he wasn’t supposed to see.” Then, they solidify their case by revealing that “Snowden’s background isn’t squeaky clean.”

What is this crime that sullied Snowden’s background? According to the super-clean sleuths at Fox News, “During the eight years that he worked as a contractor for the Central Intelligence Agency and NSA, he routinely went online and ranted against corporations and citizen surveillance.”

He complained about the government’s unconstitutional surveillance of citizens and the corporate collusion that makes the deprivation of privacy even more insidious and insuperable.

To bolster their case against Snowden, Fox News props up another witness for the prosecution, none other than the gun-running, wiretapping attorney general himself, Eric Holder. The Fox News story quotes Holder saying during an appearance in Dublin, Ireland:

The national security of the United States has been damaged as a result those leaks. The safety of the American people and the safety of people who reside in allied nations have been put at risk as a result of these leaks. We are presently in the process of that investigation, and I’m confident the person who is responsible will be held accountable.

Fox News’ next witness is the head of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an organization identified by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the “mother ship” of the State Department and one of the United States’ primary sources of foreign policy marching orders. Fox reports:

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations recently tweeted, “Why is the media using sympathetic word ‘whistleblower’ for Edward #Snowden, who leaked secret #NSA program? He broke the law & made us less safe.”

He added, “A ‘whistleblower’ is person who reveals wrongdoing, corruption, illegal activity. None of this applies here even if you oppose US (government) policy.”

One is tempted to ask how Edward Snowden’s unmasking of unconstitutional wholesale surveillance has made the United States “less safe,” but again, even asking that question is falling for the Fox News trick.

As for Haass’ definition of whistleblower, to constitutionalists who view the surreptitious shredding of the Bill of Rights as wrong, corrupt, and evil, no other comment is necessary.

Fox News, though, feels compelled to pile on Snowden and try him on cable news in order to do its patriotic duty.

“The new information released by Reuters and Time magazine about Snowden’s employment record, online postings and education come[s] during a time when U.S. lawmakers are demanding answers from intelligence officials on how Snowden, a high-school dropout, got his hands on the country’s top secret programs,” the story says.

If Fox News — the ostensible “conservative” news network — legitimately cared about this country (the definition of patriotism), then it should dig into its deep pockets and devote those impressive resources to demolishing the federal government’s unconstitutional Panopticon until every brick is detached from the other and all that remains is a shameful pile of rubble.

What their story and others like it do, however, is to serve as critical misdirection allowing the federal government to make fundamental rights disappear.

Perhaps the editors and other decision makers at Fox should have read the op-ed written by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), published just two days before the attack on Snowden’s character. On June 12, Senator Paul wrote:

In the United States, we are supposed to have a government that is limited with its parameters established by our Constitution. This notion that the federal government can monitor everyone’s phone data is a major departure from how Americans have traditionally viewed the role of government.

If this is acceptable practice, as the White House and many in both parties now say it is, then there are literally no constitutional protections that can be guaranteed anymore to citizens.

In the name of security, say our leaders, the Constitution has become negotiable.

He continues:

But those who continue to defend the National Security Agency’s actions are essentially saying that something that would be controversial even as an exception — blanket phone trolling by the government — is now the new rule. They are saying it’s OK to spy on citizens’ phone data without a warrant, not just one time or a few times, but all the time.

They are saying that suspending the Bill of Rights is now the new normal.

In my world, the Constitution still applies.

If the Constitution is to continue to apply, citizens must maintain their close watch on the eyes of government whose sleight of hand is making our rights no more than an illusion.

As the stories from the government’s mainstream media mouthpieces attacking Snowden continue to multiply, readers would be wise to remind themselves that Snowden isn’t the story. The story is the indisputable fact that the Obama administration unapologetically carries on unconstitutional surveillance of millions of Americans in open and hostile violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

U.S. Troops, Missiles at Syrian Border

From The New American by Jack Kenny, June 17, 2013

A task force of 300 U.S. Marines and a Patriot anti-aircraft missile system have been deployed along Syria’s border with Jordan as the United States prepares to ship weapons to rebel forces in the two-year-old civil war in Syria that has so far taken an estimated 93,000 lives. The missile system and as many as eight F-16 fighter jets will likely remain in Jordan following the multi-national military exercise now underway in Jordan, military officials told NBC News. Meanwhile, speculation continues over the possible establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria to thwart aerial attacks on the rebels by the Bashar al-Assad regime. U.S. officials appeared to be downplaying that possibility, while at the same time not ruling it out.

“We have been clear that we are not excluding options, but at this stage no decision has been taken,” Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and President Obama’s incoming national security adviser, told the Reuters news service.

The United States and Great Britain imposed a no-fly zone against the air force of Saddam Hussein during the 12 years between the two Iraq wars, and a U.S. and NATO air defense of rebel factions in Libya helped topple the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. But Deputy National Security Adviser Benjamin Rhodes said Thursday that a similar effort in Syria would face greater obstacles, including “open-ended costs for the United States and the international community.” “It’s far more complex to undertake the type of effort, for instance, in Syria than it was in Libya,” Rhodes said. U.S. planes over Syria would be up against sophisticated anti-aircraft systems from Russia, a major supplier of weapons to the Damascus government.

Russia condemned the decision to provide weapons to the rebels, along with the military exercise, called Eager Lion, taking place within 75 miles of the Syrian border in northern Jordan. About 5,000 U.S. troops are among the 8,000 military personnel from Western and Arab nations taking part in the three-week exercise that began June 9. It will end with “a massive display of sea-land capabilities, June 18-20,” the U.S. Army News Service announced.

“This is happening very close to Syria, where for more than two years the flames of a devastating conflict are burning that Russia and its American partners are trying to stop by proposing to hold an international peace conference as soon as possible,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich protested.

Obama administration officials said the decision to ship light arms and ammunitions to the Syrian rebels is the result of a White House determination that Syrian government forces have been using chemical weapons, including the poison gas sarin, that have killed an estimated 100 to 150 people. Obama said last August that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would cross a “red line” and result in significant consequences. Both sides have accused the other of using the weapons and in April, White House legal adviser Michael Rodriguez said the U.S. intelligence community had assessed “with varying degrees of confidence” that the Syrian government had recently used sarin against the insurgents. In a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, Rodriguez said the “chain of custody” of the weapons was not clear, “so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred or under what conditions.” In what appears to have been a reference to erroneous intelligence assessments about chemical and nuclear weapons that led to a nine-year war with Iraq, Rodriguez said:

Given the stakes involved, and what we have learned from our previous experience, intelligence estimates alone are not sufficient — only credible and corroborated facts that will provide us with some degree of certainty will guide our decision-making and strengthen our leadership of the international community.

In early May, Carla Del Ponte, a member of a United Nations commission of inquiry into the chemical weapons allegations, said in an interview on Swiss-Italian television that while there was no “incontrovertible truth” that sarin had been used in the fighting, evidence from interviewing victims and doctors at field hospitals pointed toward its use.

“This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” said Del Ponte, a former attorney general of Switzerland who served as prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal judging war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.

In his statement announcing President Obama’s decision Thursday, Rhodes did not directly address the “chain of custody” question raised in the Rodriguez letter, but said: “We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.” The refusal by the Damascus government to allow a UN fact-finding mission “immediate and unfettered access” to chemical weapons sites “has prevented a comprehensive investigation as called for by the international community,” Rhodes said. Laboratory analysis of blood samples taken from victims and intelligence reports of plans by the Syrian government to use chemical weapons led to the “high confidence” assessment that it is the government and not the rebel units that has been using the sarin, Rhodes said.

Obama administration policy had been to supply “non-lethal aid,” starting with food and medicine, to the rebels. By February of this year, the U.S. had spent $117 million in that effort, but in April, Secretary of State John Kerry announced another $123 million in aid, saying it might include armored vehicles, night-vision goggles, and advanced communications equipment. Meanwhile, the CIA, starting in early 2012, was assisting the rebels in arranging purchases of weapons from Turkey, Croatia, and Arab governments, delivered to rebel strongholds in Syria on military cargo flights from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

The question of arming the rebels has become a contentious issue, with Obama’s domestic opponents arguing the move will draw us deeper into Middle East military conflicts, while critics both here and abroad point to growing reports of al-Qaeda affiliates becoming a dominant force among the rebel groups fighting the Assad regime. The al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda ally that fought American and coalition forces in Iraq, is playing a leading role in the fighting and has become the “group of choice for foreign groups pouring into Syria,” the New York Times reported. While the units are reportedly “vetted” by the CIA to assure the weapons do not end up in “the wrong hands,” there remain grounds for concern that the arms supplied to rebels in Syria today may be turned on Americans tomorrow.

“There are fake Free Syrian Army brigades claiming to be revolutionaries,” rebel commander Hassan Aboud told the Times, “and when they get the weapons they sell them in trade.”

Mother Protects Kids From Alleged Carjacker: ‘I Told Him He Messed With the Wrong Witch’

By ROB NELSON and ALEXIS SHAW | Good Morning America, June 16, 2013

A Texas mother’s determination to keep her family out of danger drove her to battle an alleged carjacker until he fled from her minivan — only to be struck by her vehicle as she tried to “stop him so he didn’t hurt anybody else,” the woman said.

While Dorothy Baker and her 2-year-old and 5-year-old sons were shopping Friday at a CVS in Baytown, Texas, a man identified as Ismael Martinez allegedly hid out in her unlocked van, police said.

When the family got back into the car, Baker said Martinez “popped up out of the backseat and said that if I didn’t want my kids to get hurt, that I would do exactly what he said.”

Martinez, 54, allegedly pulled a knife on Baker while she was driving and demanded she stop at an ATM for money, she said.

When she refused, Martinez allegedly became violent, she said.

Baker said she fought back, refusing to compromise the safety of her children.

“She’s got a cut that goes across her chest, and she grabbed the knife and he bit her hand,” Baker’s husband, Charles Flugence said.

“I took my fist and I hit him in the face, and I told him to get out of my car,” Baker said.

Baker intentionally drove her van into a telephone pole in hopes of sending Martinez through the front windshield, according to the Baytown Police Department crime report.

Police said she managed to dial 911 while she grappled with the suspect in hopes that a dispatcher might hear what was going on in the car and find a way to help, ABC station KTRK-TV in Houston reported.

“I thought, ‘If you swerve and hit the pole, he’s not wearing a seatbelt, he’ll go through the windshield or at least hit his head, and you can stop him. You can do something to make sure that he doesn’t hurt your kids,’” Baker told KTRK-TV. “That’s all I was thinking of really, was just to get him away from my kids.”

Police said Martinez eventually jumped out of the van and tried to flee. But before Baker knew it, she had run her car into him.

“I didn’t mean to run him over,” she said. “I was just trying to stop him so he didn’t hurt anybody else.”

Martinez was airlifted to Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston with serious injuries after the alleged attack. He is expected to face felony charges once he is discharged.

Meanwhile, Baytown residents have rallied around Baker’s bravery.

“She was trying to protect herself and her kids. I would do the same thing,” resident Joyce Sparks said.

But Baker said she is just glad her family is safe.

“You don’t come after people with kids,” she said. “I told him he messed with the wrong witch.”

Top-11 “Only In America” Observations

By An Unknown Canadian

1) Only in America  could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not  paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

2) Only in America could people claim that the  government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black  President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.

3) Only in  America could they have had the two people most responsible for their tax code,  Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in  favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react  by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of  thousands of dollars for the privilege yet advocate letting  anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government  investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect  more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still  spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for a total spending of  $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough  money.

10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund-raising  event.

11) Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no experience …and a complete failure at his job … be re-elected President.

Law Enforcement Must Oppose Amensty for Illegal Aliens!

Law Enforcement Advocates Group Blasts “Shamnesty” Bill

From The New American by Alex Newman, June 13, 2013

As the debate in Congress intensifies over so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” amid fierce opposition from conservatives, critics are hammering the S. 744 legislation from all angles, arguing that it would provide amnesty to potentially tens of millions of illegal immigrants while costing trillions and doing nothing to secure the border. This week, meanwhile, an organization that advocates on behalf of law enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents voiced its own opposition to the plan due to numerous concerns over national security, uncontrolled immigration, agent safety, and more. 

Some opponents of the immigration reform measures, meanwhile, are even arguing that the future of America’s constitutional Republic could be at stake if the controversial legislation gets through. More than a few Republicans have also argued that if the bill becomes law, aside from rewarding illegal activities, Democrats may be creating enough new voters to completely seize control of the federal government. Homeland Security boss Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano even predicted that immigrants would turn the Republican stronghold of Arizona into a Democrat-dominated state.

In a strongly worded letter to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) this week, the Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council (LEOAC) joined the growing chorus of opposition voices, laying out multiple arguments against what the group blasted as “the U.S. Immigration Capitulation Act of 2013” and “Shamnesty.” According to LEOAC, which is asking for its criticism to be entered into the congressional record, border security is already an abject failure after being sabotaged by top officials from the Bush and Obama administrations — and the amnesty legislation would make the problems worse.

“This bill was clearly influenced and partly written by the Mexican government and their agents in America, including Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza,” LEOAC Founder and President Andy Ramirez told The New American, referring to a controversial pro-amnesty outfit with a name that translates to “The Race” and its president. “Murguia testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee along with a self-admitted illegal-alien female. Yet not one conservative Hispanic opposed to the U.S. Immigration Capitulation Act, as I call it, was invited to testify before the Senate.”

A third-generation American of Mexican ancestry with a long history of advocating for Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement officers, Ramirez has testified before Congress about border security and immigration-related matters on multiple occasions. This time, however, the deck appears to be stacked in favor of the legislation’s supporters. In an interview with The New American, Ramirez said his organization submitted its declaration of opposition knowing that victory for the bill in the Senate “was a done deal long decided in a backroom deal.”

While there were more than a dozen senators, including Sen. Cruz, who voted against cloture on the bill, even lawmakers say the game is rigged — at least in the Senate, if not yet completely in the House. “However, I am not letting this go without a fight,” Ramirez continued. “The Senate has talked about border security like they actually know what they’re talking about, and they’re just as guilty of misleading the American people as the Department of Homeland Security. In essence, we’re being sandbagged by the Senate yet again with fool’s gold-type promises and a farce that the master of satire, the legendary Mel Brooks, would be proud of.”

Throughout the four-page letter, LEOAC highlights the various roles played by key characters in what the organization views as the “sabotage” of border security. Ramirez, citing his previous congressional testimony and other evidence, argued that the Department of Homeland Security under former President George W. Bush deliberately implemented policies that not only prevented proper immigration enforcement but also put national security and border agents at risk. Those sabotage efforts have continued under Obama, according to LEOAC.

Among the officials at the heart of the problems: ex-Border Patrol chief David Aguilar, who eventually became Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “He is the key player and handpicked all top U.S. Border Patrol managers personally, well documented as cronies and like-minded individuals,” Ramirez and his organization said in the letter to Sen. Cruz. “When we look to why border security has been an abject failure, which is acknowledged by top retired U.S. Border Patrol Agents including managers who have also denounced S-744, the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO), it is clear as day, who shares responsibility, David V. Aguilar.”  

Still, while he may have played a crucial part, Aguilar is hardly alone — the crisis is systemic throughout the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. In the letter, Ramirez documented what he argues is a “pattern of internal sabotage by DHS over two presidential administrations to factually demonstrate that the claims of fixing border security… is both false and filled with the same lies and propaganda DHS has stated since its inception,” he told TNA in an e-mail, referring to the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators pushing the bill as “tr8ors.”

“The Gang of Tr8ors and their cohort supporters talk about providing resources,” Ramirez said. “But for all those very resources added, they refuse to admit the fact that DHS is an abject failure serving only as a ministry of propaganda and a money pit. Its agencies are ruled by the type of cronyism and terror tactics one has come to expect from a tyrannical dictatorship instead of what America represented to so many — a cradle of liberty and freedom or, as President Reagan often referred to it, ‘a shining city on the hill.’”

Also among the myriad individuals and government agencies responsible for the current fiasco, Ramirez continued in his letter, are the Department of Justice and some U.S. attorneys. According to LEOAC and its sources, attacks on law enforcement officers near the border, including gun shots, are now occurring on a regular basis. However, when agents ask that the Justice Department prosecute criminals responsible for attacking agents, the requests are regularly denied — especially when Johnny Sutton served as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas. 

“Consider the chilling message that [is] provided to agents: DOJ will protect illegal aliens but not law enforcement,” LEOAC said in the letter. “It’s no wonder when we see agents like Brian Terry are murdered, yet not one person is brought to justice for sending our agents into the field with rules that compromise their safety including the use of non-lethal loads though our agents face heavily armed drug cartels and alien smuggling organizations.” Passing the current “immigration reform” bill will only make it worse, Ramirez said — jeopardizing citizens and law enforcement alike.  

Some critics have gone even further, saying the amnesty plan actually threatens the Republic itself. “I think the master plan of the ruling class that runs Washington, D.C., is to ram this bill through before the American people know what has hit them, and before members of Congress even know what has hit them.” Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) told WND. “This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands.”

Other concerns expressed by critics include the estimated price tag: more than $6 trillion over the next 25 years, according to a study by the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation. Another key problem with the bill, according to lawmakers such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), is the effort to foist an unconstitutional national ID card on Americans. If approved, the identification scheme could include all sorts of biometric data and would be required to have a job. For now, the bill’s fate remains uncertain, but even some lawmakers say a strategy to ram it through both houses of Congress is already in place. The only way to stop it, opponents argue, is a massive public outcry.

ObamaCare Costs May Compel U.S. Lawmakers and Aides to Resign

From The New American by Raven Clabough, June 13, 2013

In November 2010, a significant number of members of Congress were ousted from their posts because of their votes for the passage of ObamaCare earlier that year. This year, quite a number of lawmakers may also be leaving their jobs as a result of the healthcare legislation — except this time, it’s voluntary: in fear of the rising costs of their health insurance premiums.

The provision at issue is called the Grassley Amendment, which states that the government may offer members of Congress and their staff only health insurance plans that are “created” in the bill or “offered through an exchange.”

Currently, aides and lawmakers are covered under a very generous federal health insurance package whereby the government subsidizes approximately 75 percent of the premiums for the health insurance plans.

But Politico explains why dozens of lawmakers are considering retiring early or simply quitting:

Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.

Sources said several aides have already given lawmakers notice that they’ll be leaving over concerns about Obamacare. Republican and Democratic lawmakers said the chatter about retiring now, to remain on the current health care plan, is constant.

Politico notes that Democrats and Republicans in Congress are awaiting specific details from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on the ObamaCare provision that will do away with government-subsidized premiums. A decision on that rule is expected by fall.

However, if the issue is not resolved, there is some speculation that there will be a mass exodus of lawmakers and aides from Capitol Hill, just as Congress is supposed to be addressing significant legislation such as immigration.

The issue may be even more dire for members of the House, as they are typically less wealthy than those in the Senate.

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) states that if the issue is not resolved, “I think we should begin an immediate amicus brief to say, ‘Listen this is simply not fair to these employees.’ They are federal employees.”

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) believes there will not be a resolution and that the fear of high costs will become a reality. “This is the law,” he contends. “It’s going to hinder our ability with retention of members; it’s going to hinder our ability for members to take care of their families.”

Sessions adds that lawmakers have been engaged in “quiet conversations” regarding the impending threat.

Veteran lawmakers are hopeful that if they retire this year, they may be able to remain covered under the current healthcare plan. Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) had already planned his resignation from Congress. And now his staff is being influenced by the effects of Obama’s signature healthcare legislation: “I’ve lost one staffer,” said Bonner, “who told me in confidence that he had been here for a number of years and the thought of losing the opportunity to keep his health insurance on Dec. 31 [forced him to leave]. He could keep what he had and on Jan. 1 he would go into that big black hole. And then I’ve got another staff member that I think it [ObamaCare] will be a factor as she’s contemplating her future.”

Throughout the year, Democrats and Republicans have discussed options to correct the problem, including administrative corrections.

“The leadership has assured members that fixing this issue is a top priority,” said one Democratic leadership aide. “This issue must be fixed by administrative action in order that the flawed Grassley Amendment’s spirit is honored and all staff and members are treated the same.”

Of course, how correcting this issue will be perceived by the American people is another issue. The notion behind the Grassley Amendment is ultimately “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Therefore, it stands to reason that if the provisions of ObamaCare are not sufficient for members of Congress, they are certainly not sufficient for the American people.

For some, the uncertainty is making it difficult to plan.

“Between the constant uncertainty surrounding sequestration, and the likelihood aides will soon be paying for the subsidy portion of their health care coverage, congressional office budgets are being squeezed once again, and it’s causing a lot of concern amongst chiefs of staff regarding how to best handle the situation,” said one chief of staff to a senior Democratic member of the House. “Do we give raises to junior level aides so they can afford to pay for their higher health care costs, and if so, where do we find the funds to do so? Additionally, leadership has been relatively silent in terms of providing guidance to offices, which is frustrating.”

That is a feeling with which the American people are all too familiar. Forbes reported last month that businesses are citing “uncertainty over Obamacare” as a basis for not hiring new employees and insurers are blaming the healthcare law for skyrocketing premiums.

But with many in Congress believing that they deserve to be exempt from these woes, critics are wondering whatever happened to a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”?

Tunisia Rapper Gets 2 Years Prison for Police Song

From The Associated Press, June 13, 2013

A Tunisian court convicted on Thursday a rap artist for insulting police with a song calling them dogs and sentenced him to two years in prison, his lawyer said.

The verdict comes as Tunisia’s justice system is under increasing scrutiny after a series of controversial decisions, including sentencing women’s rights activists to four months in prison for demonstrating topless while releasing suspects in last year’s attack on the U.S. Embassy.

Lawyer Ghazi Mrabet described the sentence as overly severe and said he would appeal the verdict against his client Alaa Yacoub, 24, known by his rapper name Weld El 15, or “Son of 15.”

Yacoub’s song “Boulicia Kleb,” or “the police are dogs,” was released on YouTube.

He was originally tried and convicted in absentia for inciting violence against officials and insulting police back in March. He turned himself in and was retried, but given the same two-year sentence.

His supporters were outraged by the verdict and struggled with police outside the courtroom. Four people, including a journalist, another rapper and two friends of the artist were arrested, according to Mrabet.

Yacoub’s case is remarkably similar to that of Moroccan rapper Mouad Belghouat, who last year served a year in prison for insulting police with his song “Dogs of the State.”

Tunisia under former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was a police state in which security forces were widely reviled.

Tunisians overthrew the government in January 2011 in an uprising that sparked off pro-democracy movements around the region.

Police are still widely mistrusted even under a new elected government.

Budget Cuts Cost Border Patrol Gas Money

From http://www.valleycentral.com by Nadia Galindo, June 7, 2013

Thursday afternoon Weslaco Police were chasing a reckless driver.

The incident started in Donna when two men allegedly threw a rock at a woman.

According to police the men fled the scene and later drove through Weslaco attempting to take the woman to the hospital.

The chase ended and the people inside bailed.

With two people in custody and two on the loose police called the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Air and Marine for a helicopter for backup.

But instead of responding, officers were told the helicopter had no gas.

“Fuel is being reduced as far as agents on the ground on vehicles that we are sending out to the field we are not sending as many vehicles to the field,” union representative Chris Cabrera, National Border Patrol Council, said.

Cabrera told Action 4 budget cuts caused by sequestration have trickled down to the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol which is known as one of the busiest areas on the border.

“We’re not given the resources to properly secure the border and that’s a problem,” Cabrera said.

The cuts are impacting local law enforcement.

“These guys bend over backwards to help us and we appreciate it however they should be concentrating on their communities and we should be concentrating on the border,” Cabrera said.

Border Patrol could not comment on the Weslaco incident because the helicopter requested is part of different department known as Air and Marine.

They did release this statement:

“The effects of sequestration continue to have serious impacts on CBP’s operations including nearly $600 million in cuts. We continue to encourage all parties to work together on a solution that can replace sequestration entirely and avoid the damaging impacts to CBP and critical services across the country.  The Chief Patrol Agent of the sector has a responsibility to operate within a prescribed budget.  The $600 million cut to CBP does impact the local operating budget and therefore the sector must take cost saving actions while still maintaining the integrity of border security operations.”

Cabrera said the cuts are threatening the safety of our border and need to stop.

“Anybody that comes down here and walks in our shoes for more than 10 minutes knows that it’s not secure down here,” Cabrera said.