Homeless in Arizona

If you hate guns, and hate the Second Amendment you will also love Kyrsten Sinema. She doesn't like the label of "gun grabber" and prefers to think of herself as a person who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Kyrsten Sinema thinks the only people that can be trusted with guns, are cops and other government employees. Kyrsten Sinema doesn't think serfs like you can be trusted with guns.

If you love cops, you will love Kyrsten Sinema. Kyrsten Sinema's campaign signs point out that the police unions support her. Kyrsten Sinema doesn't like it when people says she supports the police state. She would prefer to say that she supports police officers and law enforcement.

If you think religion is nothing more then a bunch of superstitious rubbish, you will also like Kyrsten Sinema because she is an atheist.

A lot of Christians don't like that, but I think it is a positive point because it means she won't introduce a bunch of superstitious mumbo jumbo into the issues.

Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is also gay, lesbian, bisexual or whatever you want to call it.

A lot of Christian nut jobs don't like that, but I think it is a positive point because it means she won't introduce a bunch of superstitious mumbo jumbo into the issues saying gay folks are 2nd class citizens.

Last but not least Kyrsten Sinema is a member of the Green Party. Sure she ran for office as a Democrat, but that is just to help her get elected.

I suspect Kyrsten Sinema realized that you can't get elected as a Green Party member and have to tell people what they want to hear if you expect to get them to vote for you. And I suspect that is why Kyrsten Sinema is registered as a Democrat instead of a Green Party member.

Reasonable Restrictions on your First and Second Amendment rights

Imagine that the First Amendment is subject to just a few 'reasonable restrictions.'

All you have to do, it turns out, is apply for a federal Churchgoing License, a federal Prayer Permit, a federal Publication Permit, or a federal Letter-to-the-Editor License, whichever is appropriate.

The forms are free! Of course, you have to submit to fingerprinting. You have to mail in with your application and your fingerprint card a signed letter from your local sheriff or chief of police, stating he has no objections.

The application fee is $200. The waiting period to hear whether you've been approved generally runs about six months.

If you ask me there are NO reasonable restrictions on your rights.

As an atheist I suspect Kyrsten Sinema is 100 percent against putting any of these so called 'reasonable restrictions' on the First Amendment.

However I suspect that Kyrsten Sinema position on guns is that we should put all these so called 'reasonable restrictions' on the Second Amendment.

In fact I suspect that if Kyrsten Sinema gets her way she would repeal the Second Amendment and make guns illegal.

Washington Post article on socialist Kyrsten Sinema

In Arizona Kyrsten Sinema is most hated for the 300 percent tax bill medical marijuana she tried to pass.

Kyrsten Sinema is also know as a gun grabber and hated by freedom lovers who support the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.

Kyrsten Sinema will tell you she is a freedom fighter who supports the little person, but her campaign signs say she is endorsed by the police unions, which is an oxymoron.

Kyrsten Sinema will tell you she supports the Latinos in Arizona, while at the same time she has voted for the routine Arizona laws that attempt to run all the Latinos out of Arizona.

Kyrsten Sinema will tell you she is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while at the same time she has voted for laws that support the police and military industrial complex.

Kyrsten Sinema is also an atheist. I view that as a good thing, because I know she won't vote for things because of silly superstitious believes that there some magical guy in the sky that watches over us 24/7. But all atheists are not good guys, a lot of folks say Hitler was an atheist, even though I think he was a Catholic who routinely use religion to support his politics.

Source

Kyrsten Sinema: A success story like nobody else’s

By Manuel Roig-Franzia, Published: January 2

PHOENIX — Something is bugging Kyrsten Sinema.

It tugged at her while she spoke to kids at the elementary school where she once served as a social worker. It rubbed her wrong while she told the pack of teachers and staff members trailing her into the parking lot afterward about the time she got pulled over by a police officer on her way home from a similar speech. He asked for her license. She had left it in the school office.

“You’re a shambles,” she recalls the policeman telling her.

“Officer, yes, I am!” she told him.

Just then, it dawns on her what’s been bothering her all morning.

“I didn’t zip my dress! I’m like, there’s something itching,” she says. “Oh, it’s my dress!”

Now she’s digging under the ruffles of her jacket collar and waving over a photographer for help. Ah, relief. The whole thing cracks her up.

Sinema likes to crack herself her up. She likes to crack everyone else up, too, even though this last tendency — the aspirationally comedic — is forever getting her in trouble.

“I think there’s this pressure to get rid of the fun that makes us human,” Sinema says a few minutes later. “It hasn’t worked on me.”

Sinema is a bracingly unfiltered talker, a precocious achiever, a high-energy persuader, an adjunct professor, a lawyer, a marathon runner, a lover of designer clothes. She is a holder of many, many degrees — this she’s happy to tell you in a humble-braggy sort of way. And she can be a lot of fun to hang out with, a rambling, kind of kooky monologist who can pivot from whimsical and wacky to substantive and earnest without a pause.

Krysten Sinema is also — and it irks her to no end that this is such an object of fascination — an openly bisexual woman. And not just any openly bisexual woman, but the first openly bisexual person to be elected to Congress, an undoubtedly historic figure whose very presence on Capitol Hill could serve as an inspiration when she is sworn in Thursday and joins six openly gay and lesbian members in the most demographically diverse Congress in U.S. history.

In an era when gay men and lesbians getting elected to public office is trending from “oh, wow” to almost ho-hum, it’s a real bummer for this 36-year-old Arizona Democrat that news reports around the world have distilled her to a single distinguishing characteristic based on her sexual orientation (although Sinema has been open about her sexuality for years and welcomed the endorsement and financial support of gay rights groups). And when Sinema is bothered, she isn’t that fun-loving, self-deprecating, laugh riot with the quirky ways. She can turn lecturing, hectoring, defensive, accusatory, pouty and curiously repetitive. Even a softball question about how her sexual orientation has informed her thinking about public policy — she was, after all, the architect of a successful campaign to block a same-sex marriage ban in Arizona — peeves her.

“I don’t have a story to tell,” she snaps. “I don’t think this is relevant or significant. I’m confused when these questions come up.”

What’s curious about Sinema’s pique is that it only extends the conversation. She just keeps talking and talking and talking . . . and talking. [She is a Green Party version of Republican Sheriff Joe or self proclaimed Libertarian Ernie Hancock. All three of them never shut up!!!!]

“I’m not a pioneer. I’m just a regular person who works hard. Nor am I a poster child. I’m not forging away or pioneering . . . .”

Uh-huh.

“I don’t understand why it’s a big deal . . . .”

Okay. Got it.

“I don’t understand what the mystique is . . . .”

Ten-four.

After listening to Sinema go on for 20 minutes or so, one has to wonder: If she keeps this up, isn’t it possible that all these huffy and lengthy protestations about her sexual orientation not being a big deal end up making it into, well, a very, very big deal, indeed?

Home was abandoned gas station

Sinema does have another story to tell and it’s a terrific story. It often gets reduced to a simple Point A to Point B construct: Little girl grows up poor, becomes big success. But it’s more nuanced than that.

She was born in Tucson and moved to Florida after her parents went through what she describes as “a tough divorce.” Her mother later married the vice principal at her elementary school. They were middle class for a time, but her stepfather, the man she still refers to as Mr. Howard, lost his job, and Sinema says the family became “homeless.” For more than two years — starting when she was in third grade — they squatted in an abandoned gas station outside the town of Defuniak Springs on the Florida Panhandle, she says.

They had no electricity and no running water, she says, but, “we had a toilet.” How that toilet was flushed with no running water, she wouldn’t say. They showered in an uncle’s trailer “down the road,” she says, and her clothes were hand-me-downs from a girl named Monyca — that’s Monyca with a “y,” she says — who attended the same Mormon church as her family.

A large, old-fashioned chalkboard sufficed as a makeshift wall for the makeshift bedroom that she shared with her sister, she says. How did they prepare food? Sinema hesitates. “You know, you could make fires,” she says. “There are lots of people like that in this country. We don’t talk about it, but it’s true.”

The family’s circumstances eventually improved, she says, and they moved into a small farmhouse. She excelled at school, winning an Ezra Taft Benson Scholarship to attend Brigham Young University. [Even though she is now an atheist] “It’s like the most prestigious scholarship they have,” Sinema relates. “I think it’s a mix of academic achievement and service to others.”

Sinema says she left the Mormon Church after graduating from Brigham Young University with a bachelor’s degree, the start of an educational odyssey that has also led to a master’s degree in social work, a law degree and doctorate in justice studies at Arizona State University. Her parents and stepparents have remained in the church. Her father and stepmother are currently on a Mormon mission in the Philippines, she says.

“I have great respect for the LDS church — their commitment to family and taking care of each other is exemplary,” Sinema says. “I just don’t believe the tenets of the faith that they believe.” [Well she is an atheist and doesn't believe in any supernatural dude in the sky. But of course she probably won't mention that in this article because like most politicians she won't admit anything that could cause her to lose a few votes]

Debates percolate on the Internet about Sinema’s spiritual beliefs, a dynamic fueled by the vague responses she gives when asked about this aspect of her life. [Again like most politicians she won't admit anything that might cost here a few votes] The fascination with Sinema’s spiritual life is another source of pique for her. She is frequently referred to as agnostic or non-theist. [She is an atheist or a humanist, which is a sugar coated word for atheist] But when I asked, she wouldn’t go into detail, saying merely, “I am not a member of a faith community.” What she does believe, she says, is that Americans deserve “freedom of religion and freedom from religion.”

Somewhere along the way, though she says she doesn’t know exactly when, Sinema also came to identify as bisexual.

“For me it just doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter if that other person is a man or a woman,” she says. [Translation - she knows for some voters it does matter so she refuses to admit she is an atheist]

Sinema, who says she is single, doesn’t adhere to common notions about the categories of sexual orientation. Instead, she blends them. [She is gay, she is a lesbian. But again who cares!]

“Bisexuals are gay people — we’re all gay,” she says. “Some people don’t like that.”

‘This is a horrible game’

It’s an oddly cool Arizona afternoon and Sinema is driving her Toyota Prius — “I’m an environmentalist; I recycle,” she says — through Sunnyslope, the hardscrabble neighborhood she grew to know so well as a young social worker fresh out of BYU. The families she helped to find housing and clothes migrated from places such as Oaxaca and Sinaloa. Here is a tan stucco apartment complex where a sixth-grader she had been working with was killed in the crossfire of a police chase. A few blocks away, she’s flashing back to the mother who lost two boys in separate hit-and-run accidents.

She goes for long morning runs through the neighborhood still, grinding up the hilly streets, past the squat, shabby rentals and up the hillside where the houses that look like centerfolds from Architectural Digest rise into the sky. She chuckles about Rep. Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican and erstwhile vice-presidential candidate who claimed a suspiciously fast marathon time. “I will tell you this, I’m not fast, but I’m honest about it,” she says. “You don’t need to lie. I guarantee you he knows exactly what his time is.”

On her runs, Sinema can smell the poverty. Poverty smells like cheap laundry soap, she says. It smells like vagrants and stray cats. Like the poverty she grew up with, the poverty she runs past motivates her. This is what drives her, she says, not her sexual orientation or beliefs about religion or anything else.

“I don’t think religion or my orientation shaped my world view,” she says. “They’re parts of who I am, but they’re not driving the force.”

She started out in politics as a quixotic outsider, waging losing campaigns for the Phoenix City Council in 2001 and as an independent for the Arizona Legislature in 2002, a race in which she finished fifth with just 8 percent of the vote.

“There were concerns about the Democrats not being as strong as they should be on issues of environmental protection, either running away from it or not stepping up,” says her friend Sandy Bahr.

After being elected to the state legislature in 2004 as a Democrat, Sinema became a self-described “bomb thrower” because that’s what the “party elders” told her she should be, she says. “That’s what they taught me. . . . After about 10 minutes, I go, ‘This is a horrible game.’ ”

And that’s when she decided to play nice, a strategy that allowed her to actually get some things done, even though her party is hopelessly outnumbered to the point that fellow Democrats don’t even expect Democrats to get anything passed. Notably, she got lawmakers from both parties to back a bill that was eventually signed into law requiring state pension funds to divest their portfolios from some companies doing business in Sudan because of the genocide in Darfur.

“There was an evolution in her style from being very direct and combative. . . . Now she has many conservative friends,” Eddie Farnsworth, one of the Arizona Legislature’s most conservative members, said in an interview.

Her sexual orientation drew some attention, Farnsworth says, but she refused to be defined by it. “She doesn’t wear that on the sleeve of her persona,” says Farnsworth, a staunch opponent of gay marriage.

Sinema’s gestures toward bipartisanship haven’t endeared her to some progressives. Randy Parraz, an Arizona activist, accuses Sinema of not doing enough to support the successful recall of the once-powerful state senator Russell Pearce, author of the state’s controversial “papers please” immigration law. “She just didn’t show up,” Parraz says. [Another example of the double talk we get out of Kyrsten Sinema. She claims to be a freedom fighter, but she won't come out against the one of Russell Pearce who is one of the biggest tyrants in Arizona. Kyrsten Sinema also gets along rather well with Sheriff Joe, who is probably the biggest tyrant in the state of Arizona]

Parraz says he clashed with Sinema over his group’s plans to stage a media event critical of Pearce at the capitol a few days after the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords. Sinema called to tell him that it would be inappropriate, Parraz says. “That ended with her raising her voice, almost like a small child who didn’t get her way,” Parraz recalls. “You’re talking to someone who thinks she knows everything. It’s her way or the highway.”

Sinema’s signature triumph came at the ballot box, rather than in the legislature. In 2006, she spearheaded the effort to defeat a same-sex marriage ban, the first time such a proposal was defeated at the state level. She managed to do it by developing a strategy that shifted the focus away from sexual orientation, an approach that she says was intensely criticized by some gay rights activists. Instead, Sinema and other opponents argued that the proposition would hurt unmarried heterosexual couples because it would prevent them from participating in medical decisions for their partners.

“She had to change the conversation,” says Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, who credits Sinema with playing a key role in the proposition’s defeat.

Sinema’s wedge into national politics came courtesy of a redistricting plan that created a congressional district almost evenly split between Republicans, Democrats and independents. In a tense, tight primary followed by a tense, tight general election, Sinema crafted a message built around economic empowerment.

“I just focused on what matters to families,” she says. “That’s what voters care about. . . . It’s not what church you’re going to or what your orientation is. . . . All you have to do is talk about what matters to people.”

Her Republican opponent, a former official in both Bush administrations named Vernon Parker, and his opponents wanted to talk about Sinema’s predilection for — as one local columnist puts it — “lodging a Prada pump in her esophagus.” Attack ads dredged up a pretty loopy interview Sinema gave in 2006 to a now-defunct fashion magazine, 944. In the interview she dissed stay-at-home moms, saying “these women who act like staying at home, leeching off their husbands or boyfriends, and just cashing the checks is some sort of feminism because they’re choosing to live that life.” Sinema, who delights in her collection of stylishly funky glasses and has said she owns more than 100 pairs of shoes, also described herself as “a Prada socialist.” [Well she IS a Prada socialist]

Sinema brushed off the comments as a failed attempt at humor. She refused to engage in Republican calls for her to elaborate on her comments about representing people charged with murder in her work as a criminal defense attorney by disclosing which alleged killers she’d represented. (Her spokesman did not respond to a request for this article to discuss her criminal defense work, either.) [Again like most politicians she refuses to say anything that could cost here a few votes!!!]

The attacks didn’t stick, though that wasn’t a certainty on election night when the race was too close to call. It took a week before it was official: Kyrsten Sinema had made history.

Sinema has never made much money, she says. She laughs about the fellow congresswoman who asked her recently whether she’d paid someone to come to her hotel room to pouf her blond hair to the impossibly high peak she’s formed it into again today. But she likes nice things. “That’s why I have, like, five jobs,” says the lawyer, professor, legislator and activist.

Hoping to fix a few things

Her $174,900 salary as a member of Congress will be the largest of her life, by a mile. So she was particularly annoyed recently, when she ran into a fellow member of Congress on a plane ride home who didn’t think their salaries were sufficient and was considering living in his office. “I said: ‘That’s dirty. Why would you do that? That’s crazy.’ ”

Sinema is not sure what her schedule will be like in Washington. “I don’t know if you’ve looked at the calendar,” she says one afternoon. “With the Republicans in charge, they don’t do much.”

Her plans are modest; she’d like to fix some things. One afternoon in one of the urban hipster coffee shops that she uses as an office for now, her cadence quickens as she laments how former military service members have to complete civilian certification processes for skills they’d already acquired during their time in uniform.

She pounds the table. “Total waste of time and money! Right?” Here, she’s at her best. Utterly practical, utterly persuasive. A force. During her appearance at the school, she charms by speaking the language of her audience. Everything is “awesome!” or “crazy!” or “cool!” The kids smile and follow every word because it doesn’t sound like a put-on. [Translation - Kyrsten Sinema is a master of slinging the BS]

Sinema doesn’t have a television, but these kids do. And one, clearly a kid who doesn’t turn away during political ads, wants to know if it’s true that Sinema hates stay-at-home moms. Not so, Sinema assures them — her own mother was a stay-at-home mom.

“They also called me a communist, which is not true. I’m a Democrat,” Sinema says. “There’s a difference.” [Well no, Kyrsten Sinema is really a member of the Green Party, who runs as a Democrat because she knows she can't be elected as a Green]

But what she really wants them to know is that if they study, they can make it. Just like her.

“I got straight A’s,” she says. “Okay, I got one B in fifth grade because I was talking too much in math class. I was chatty.” [Was chatty? She is pretty much a Green Party clone of alleged Libertarian Ernie Hancock and Republican Sheriff Joe]

In a Diverse New Congress, Several 'Firsts'

In a Diverse New Congress, Several 'Firsts'

The Wall Street Journal

By Andrew Grossman

The Wall Street Journal

The new Congress to be sworn in on Thursday will be the most diverse ever, with women, minorities and gays making large gains in a shift that underscores the political effect of changing demographics and social mores.

In addition to the greater minority makeup across Congress, the House will have its first Hindu member, its first female combat veterans and its first openly bisexual member. [And according to insiders a lesbian, not a bisexual] The Senate will have its first Buddhist.

The increased diversity comes mainly among House Democrats, with the Republican conference made up overwhelmingly of white, Christian males. That split in some ways reflects the divide in the electorate in last year's presidential race, with President Barack Obama winning convincingly among minorities, women and gays while losing white voters to Republican Mitt Romney.

Republicans worried about their appeal among some of the largest or fastest-growing voter groups say they plan to make a new effort to recruit minorities and women as candidates. "We will have a very focused and concerted effort in terms of the diversity of our candidates," said Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the new chairman of the House Republican campaign arm. "We're going to be effective in our recruiting."

Mr. Walden's Democratic counterpart noted the differences in the new Congress's makeup. "The demography is changing throughout the country, and it's better to stay ahead of that than have to catch up to it," said Rep. Steve Israel of New York.

For the first time, white men will be a minority among House Democrats, with blacks and Latinos adding to the party's numbers. Democrats Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii will be the first female combat veterans in Congress, with the later also the chamber's first Hindu.

"My Hinduism...has taught me that true happiness comes when you're doing things for other people and not just living for yourself," Ms. Gabbard said.

Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat, is the first openly bisexual person elected to Congress. [Well according to insiders she is a lesbian, not a bisexual] Raised a Mormon in a low-income family, she lists her religious affiliation as none—a rarity in politics. [And those same insiders say she is an atheist, or humanist, which is just a sugar coated word for atheist]

In the Senate, Democrats have more women—of the record 20 women senators, 16 are Democrats. But Republicans count three ethnic minorities among their ranks, compared with two Democrats.

The new Senate will have that chamber's first Buddhist in Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat and current House member, who succeeds the retiring Daniel Akaka, a Democrat The Senate will also have its first openly gay member in Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, who succeeds Democrat Herb Kohl.

Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Sinema are part of the largest group of openly gay members of Congress in history. Among them are Mark Takano, an Asian-American Democrat from California, who will be the chamber's first openly gay ethnic minority. In all, six members of the new House are openly gay.

Mr. Takano and Ms. Gabbard are among the four new members of Congress, all Democrats, who are Asian-American or Pacific Islanders—ethnic groups among which Republicans think they can make inroads.

"I think you're going to see a far more aggressive outreach in the Hispanic and Asian communities for example, with far more Spanish-language advertising and a far more aggressive grass-roots effort to reach into minority communities," said Whit Ayres, a Republican consultant. "There's no reason in the world why Republicans should be losing Asian voters."

Republicans did run some high-profile House candidates in 2012 who didn't fit their conference's current mold. Mia Love, an African-American, lost a race for a Utah seat. Richard Tisei would have been Congress's only openly gay Republican had he won a Massachusetts race.

Rep. Allen West, one of two black Republicans in the House, lost his re-election bid. The other, Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, is set to become the only African-American in the Senate of either party, after being appointed to a vacant seat.

At the gubernatorial level, some of the nation's most prominent Republicans are minorities, including Indian-Americans Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina and New Mexico's Susana Martinez, who is Hispanic.

"Governors are a more visible picture of a political party in their state than congressmen or even senators," Mr. Ayres said. "The route is clearly open for center-right politicians who are not white to do very well as Republicans. We've got plenty of evidence of that. We just need more."

Kyrsten Sinema pretends to be a big fan of the Second Amendment???

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said

“those of us in Arizona, we believe very strongly in the Second Amendment”

Anybody who says they are a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment" followed by the word "BUT" tends to be a gun grabber.

I have know Kyrsten Sinema since the American government invaded Afghanistan and from my talks with her she is a dyed in the wool gun grabber. Kyrsten Sinema hates guns.

Despite the fact that Kyrsten Sinema is a gun grabber she is a real nice person. She can charm the birds out of trees and is a real nice person to talk to.

But I suspect Kyrsten Sinema will say anything to get elected.

Source

Arizona delegation seeks common ground on gun reform

By Dan Nowicki and Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:19 AM

If Arizona’s split delegation is a barometer of Congress on the issue of gun control, there may be a path forward for at least one proposal put forth last week by President Barack Obama: universal background checks.

Echoing many of his lower-chamber colleagues on Friday, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said he likely would have a hard time supporting a new federal ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines but suggested there may be common ground on universal background checks.

“I’ve always said we’ve got to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them,” Flake said. “There have been some technological issues with gun shows, and you want to make sure that people can legally buy guns for protection or recreation or collection without untimely delays. But I think technology has moved so that we can better deal with that issue and have broader background checks.”

He noted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has expressed misgivings about revisiting the assault-weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004.

“That’s a heavy lift in both bodies,” Flake said. “It’s a tough case to make that this would change the dynamic of gun violence very much.”

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., who represents southern Arizona’s 3rd District, said the Senate will be able to find compromise more easily than the House, where Republicans hold a majority and leadership has not indicated an appetite for a debate.

“What is doable and what should we have are two different things,” Grijalva said.

Obama’s executive orders, including ending the freeze on research into gun-related violence, were “low-hanging fruit,” he said. The heavy lifting, on controversial bills such as a renewed assault-weapons ban, will have to be done by Congress.

Grijalva has heard the argument that it would be victory enough for Democrats to drop the assault-weapons ban as a bargaining chip for other measures such as ammunition magazine-size restrictions and universal background checks.

“Is it a step in the right direction? Yes. Is it the comprehensive change that we need? No,” Grijalva said. “Many people would vote for a third of a loaf, instead of no loaf at all. But I think it’s still cowardly to not confront the whole issue.”

One national political expert told The Arizona Republic that he has talked to many lawmakers and staff members about the issue and said a compromise is possible but not necessarily probable.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said a compromise package would include certain gun reforms with some measures sought by the National Rifle Association.

“The consensus is that if anything passes, it would be universal background checks, or at least closing the gun-show loophole, combined with some mental-health reforms and perhaps some money for hiring guards at participating school districts,” Sabato said. “And maybe something about violent movies: It looks like, because of the First Amendment, about the only thing they can do is strengthen warning labels.”

Rodolfo Espino, an associate professor of political science at Arizona State University, said the Congress of 2013 and the Congress of 1994, when lawmakers adopted the now-expired 10-year ban on assault weapons, are much different. Because it has been so long since Congress tackled gun control, it’s unclear whether either side is willing to compromise.

“The last time that gun-control legislation was introduced or talked about at this level ... polarization in Congress was much lower,” Espino said. “It’s much higher now, and that also affects the ability to compromise.”

Unlike in 1994, the House is controlled by Republicans, and “it’s a much more conservative GOP,” he said.

A divisive topic

On other issues in Obama’s gun-control plan, there is far less agreement among the state’s members of Congress.

Some Republican members say they won’t even entertain talk of a law that would touch the Second Amendment. Others say there may be room for compromise on certain issues. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has been out of the country and could not be reached for comment.

Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., told The Republic that he thought Democrats and Republicans might be able to come together on background checks, some mental-health measures and school-safety improvements.

“But I think limiting the number of bullets in a magazine or any type of ban on assault weapons or anything to do with registration will be very difficult,” said Pastor, who supported the 1994 assault-weapons ban. “The NRA and their supporters are not going to go for that.”

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., suggested that any compromise on Second Amendment-related issues might be elusive. He said he was offended that President Barack Obama included children in his news conference to announce the gun proposals.

“The thing that is apparent to me is that the Obama administration’s motto that one should never let any crisis go to waste certainly is in vogue here,” said Franks, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution. “The administration is using one of the most tragic things to ever happen to families here to promote a policy, using them as props, that will not protect them.”

When Obama unveiled his proposals last week, he was joined by children who had written him following the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., urging him to take action against gun violence.

Given the potential Second Amendment implications, Franks said his subcommittee may have some jurisdiction on gun issues.

“One of my deepest desires is to protect the lives and the constitutional rights of all Americans,” he said. “I want to search for solutions that really will protect children, rather than use them to posture politically.”

Mental health

Freshman Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said because she has been in Congress only for a couple of weeks, it is somewhat difficult for her to say which proposals have a realistic chance of attracting bipartisan support.

“There is a shared concern about finding a balance that protects the Second Amendment,” Sinema said. “Particularly those of us in Arizona, we believe very strongly in the Second Amendment. We believe that it provides an individual right for people to bear arms and own weapons, but we also are concerned about having folks who are mentally ill or have a violent history getting access to firearms. So, I do think that there is room and there is opportunity to have a discussion to find that right balance.”

Sinema said she is particularly interested in the mental-health aspects of the debate. “That’s a difficult issue to address — it’s very complex — but I think it’s also the most important in this conversation,” she said.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., who represents rural northwest Arizona’s 4th District, was traveling and unavailable for comment. In a written statement, he said experience has shown tough gun restrictions have not reduced gun violence.

“When you limit an individual’s ability to lawfully purchase or carry firearms you are allowing only those with the intent to break the law to have weapons,” he said.

However, Gosar agreed with Obama on two points: the need for greater school-safety measures and improved mental-health services.

It’s unclear how much money House Republicans like Gosar, many of whom are focused on cutting the nation’s deficit, are willing to spend to support those objectives.

Background checks

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., who represents the rural northeast Arizona 1st District, said she is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, as are many in her district.

“But we also have to do something,” she said. “It’s a balancing of those interests, and I’m listening to people in the district about what makes sense to them.”

She plans to talk to police chiefs, sheriffs, mayors and residents from Flagstaff to near Tucson over the next few months to get their input.

But some proposals are no-brainers, she said. Kirkpatrick said she could easily get behind Obama’s request to stiffen penalties for gun traffickers and require universal background checks, which she has heard support for already.

“I hope that we can work across the aisle to find a consensus around this issue,” she said.

Sinema said she also has long supported closing the gun-show loophole that allows firearms to be purchased from private sellers without the background screening that buyers must submit to at a gun store.

“It doesn’t make sense that someone who would fail a background check can easily, knowingly and legally buy a cache of weapons at a gun show when this is a person that we know would not be able to get one otherwise,” she said.

GOP reaction

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., who represents the East Valley’s conservative 5th Congressional District, was not available for comment. But on his Facebook page, he said he was disappointed in Obama’s response to the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Salmon said the proposals would “limit the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.” He argued that the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, which occurred when the assault-weapons ban was in place, proved that renewing such a ban would “not stop individuals from committing horrific crimes.”

He told a Maricopa County GOP meeting last weekend, according to a YouTube video: “We have a president that believes that because of some very cataclysmic events over the last few months, it’s time to erode some of our freedom.”

Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., who represents the northeast Valley’s 6th District, was unavailable for comment. But in a fundraising e-mail to campaign supporters Friday, Schweikert called Obama’s moves a “gun grab.”

“They may say otherwise, but we know the truth,” the e-mail said. “The liberal left has never been shy about hiding their real intentions — the elimination of most Americans’ right to own a firearm.”

Hopeful survivor

Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., who represents southern Arizona’s 2nd District and is a survivor of the shooting near Tucson that wounded Gabrielle Giffords, said he thinks three proposals can make it through Congress: improved mental-health services, size limits on ammunition magazines and universal background checks.

Barber recently introduced a bill to provide training to teachers, firefighters and the general public about spotting and helping people with mental illness get treatment.

As for Obama’s executive orders, Barber believes the president did not overstep his authority. The orders put in motion things such as emergency safety plans for schools, reviewing standards for gun locks and gun safes, and launching a national dialogue on mental health.

But on the proposals Obama asked Congress to take up, so far, Barber said he has not heard support from any of his Republican colleagues.

Arizona’s delegation is deeply divided, as well, though Barber wouldn’t talk specifically.

“We’ve had some conversations,” he said. “Hopefully, we will continue to do so until we can find common ground.”

Kyrsten Sinema misses first vote in House

Source

Kirkpatrick misses 16 votes in House

By Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:30 PM

It’s not a flattering statistic to start out her return to Congress. In just the third and fourth days that Congress was in session this year — Jan.14 and 15 — U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., missed 16 votes.

Democratic Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Kyrsten Sinema have missed eight votes and one vote, respectively. Arizona’s other members didn’t miss any.

Kirkpatrick, who returned to Washington, D.C., this year after serving from 2009 to 2011, said she had to be in Arizona for a “personal obligation” and was in close contact with Democratic House leadership in advance of her absence about whether her vote was needed. In the end, the bill that took up most of the votes, on Hurricane Sandy relief, passed the House overwhelmingly.

Some rural constituents in the 1st Congressional District, which sprawls across northeastern Arizona, apparently are disappointed Kirkpatrick wasn’t in Washington to lobby to include wildfire-suppression funding in the relief bill. Colorado’s lawmakers unsuccessfully sought forest-fire aid for their own state in the Sandy legislation. Members of Congress often use emergency-relief bills to bring disaster funds back to their home states, which usually pleases constituents but irks pork-barrel-spending hawks.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., who represents the state’s rural northwestern District 4, did not seek wildfire aid either. Instead, he tried unsuccessfully to cut spending from the bill by stripping requirements for disaster-aid contractors to pay workers prevailing wages.

All four of Arizona’s Republican members voted against the Sandy bill, while the four other Democrats supported it.

While Kirkpatrick was gone from Washington — including on one day Congress was voting — she spent time traveling her district and holding meetings with constituents.

She declined to elaborate on why she had to be away from Washington while Congress was voting, saying it was private.

While in Arizona, she toured Resolution Copper’s proposed mine site and held a meet-and-greet in Superior, met with veterans in Flagstaff and toured the site of the Schultz Fire, where she talked to county officials about the impact of forest fires.

Kyrsten Sinema - U.S. Representative, Arizona, District 9

Here is a blurb the Washington Post published on gun grabbing, marijuana taxing, socialist Kyrsten Sinema.

If you are a police officer, a fan of the drug war, hate medical marijuana, love taxes, or hate guns you will probably love Kyrsten Sinema.

Kyrsten Sinema - U.S. Representative, Arizona, District 9

Source

Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.)

U.S. Representative, Arizona, District 9 (Since 2013)

Kyrsten Sinema was born in Tucson, Ariz., and has lived in Phoenix since 1995. She attended Arizona State University where she earned a master's in social work, a law degree and a doctorate in justice studies. She practices criminal defense law in Phoenix and also is an adjunct professor at ASU's School of Social Work. Sinema served three terms as a representative in the Arizona Legislature and was the assistant leader to the House Democratic Caucus from 2009 to 2010. She was elected to the state Senate in 2010 but resigned in early 2012 to seek a seat in Arizona's newly created 9th Congressional District. Sinema ran unsuccessfully for the state Legislature in 2002 and for the Phoenix City Council in 2001, both times as an independent candidate. She is single.

Birthday: July 12, 1976

Hometown: Tucson, AZ, United States

Alma Mater: JD from Arizona State University; MA from Arizona State University; PhD from Arizona State University

Web site: http://kyrstensinema.com/

Focus on Mental Health Laws to Curb Violence Is Unfair

Politicians railroad the mentally ill to prove they are tough on crime???

I suspect their main goal is to pass ANY law which they can use to tell voters they are tough on crime.

Of course it doesn't matter if the law works or not. All that matters is that they can say the voted for the law and use it to get reelected.

And of course the article points out that the mentally ill folks don't have a strong lobby to protect themselves against bad laws like the NRA protects gun owners against bad laws.

I suspect this is why we have all the insane, irrational and unconstitutional drug laws. Politicians vote for them to prove they are tough on crime, mainly as a line to help them get reelected.

And of course there is there really isn't a "drug users lobby" group to protect people against these insane and unconstitutional drug laws.

Source

Focus on Mental Health Laws to Curb Violence Is Unfair, Some Say

By ERICA GOODE and JACK HEALY

Published: January 31, 2013 35 Comments

In their fervor to take action against gun violence after the shooting in Newtown, Conn., a growing number of state and national politicians are promoting a focus on mental illness as a way to help prevent further killings.

Legislation to revise existing mental health laws is under consideration in at least a half-dozen states, including Colorado, Oregon and Ohio. A New York bill requiring mental health practitioners to warn the authorities about potentially dangerous patients was signed into law on Jan. 15. In Washington, President Obama has ordered “a national dialogue” on mental health, and a variety of bills addressing mental health issues are percolating on Capitol Hill.

But critics say that this focus unfairly singles out people with serious mental illness, who studies indicate are involved in only about 4 percent of violent crimes and are 11 or more times as likely than the general population to be the victims of violent crime.

And many proposals — they include strengthening mental health services, lowering the threshold for involuntary commitment and increasing requirements for reporting worrisome patients to the authorities — are rushed in execution and unlikely to repair a broken mental health system, some experts say.

“Good intentions without thought make for bad laws, and I think we have a risk of that,” said J. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist and clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego, who has studied rampage killers.

Moreover, the push for additional mental health laws is often driven by political expediency, some critics say. Mental health proposals draw support from both Democrats and Republicans, in part because, unlike bans on semiautomatic weapons or high-capacity magazines — like the one proposed in the Senate last week — they do not involve confrontation with gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association.

“The N.R.A. is far more formidable as a political foe than the advocacy groups for the mentally ill,” said Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman, chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University and president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association.

Indeed, the N.R.A. itself, in response to the massacre in Newtown, argued that mental illness, and not the guns themselves, was at the root of recent shooting sprees. The group called for a national registry of people with mental illness — an alternative that legal experts agree would raise at least as many constitutional alarms as the banning of gun ownership.

For mental health groups, the proposals under consideration are tantalizing: By increasing services for those with mental illness, they raise the possibility of restoring some of the billions of dollars cut from mental health programs in recent years as budgets tightened in the financial downturn. The measures also hold out hope for improvement of a mental health system that many experts say is fragmented and drastically inadequate. And some proposals — those to revise commitment laws, for example — have the support of some mental health organizations.

But some mental health and legal experts say that politicians’ efforts might be better spent making the process of involuntary psychiatric commitment — and the criteria for restricting firearms access once someone has been forcibly committed — consistent from state to state. And some proposals have caused concern, raising questions about doctor-patient confidentiality, the rights of people with psychiatric disabilities and the integrity of clinical judgment.

Especially troublesome to some mental health advocates are provisions like New York’s, which expand the duty of practitioners to report worrisome patients — a model likely to be emulated by other states. New York’s law, part of a comprehensive package to address gun violence, requires reporting to the local authorities any patient “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” Law enforcement officials would then be authorized to confiscate any firearm owned by such a patient.

John Monahan, a psychologist and professor of law at the University of Virginia, said that such laws are often superfluous.

Although many mental health practitioners mistakenly believe that federal laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act forbid them to disclose information about patients, such statutes already include exceptions that permit clinicians to give information to the authorities when a patient presents a threat to others, Dr. Monahan said. National Twitter Logo.

Most states also have laws requiring mental health professionals to notify the authorities and any intended victim when a patient makes a direct threat.

New York’s provision, Dr. Monahan said, differs from virtually every other state’s laws in allowing guns to be taken not only from those committed against their will but also from patients who enter treatment voluntarily.

“The devil is in the details,” he said of New York’s new law. “The two fears are that people will be deterred from seeking treatment that they need or that, once they are in treatment, they will clam up and not talk about violence.”

Most mental health experts agree that the link between mental illness and violence is not imaginary. Studies suggest that people with an untreated severe mental illness are more likely to be violent, especially when drug or alcohol abuse is involved. And many rampage killers have some type of serious mental disorder: James E. Holmes, accused of opening fire in a movie theater in Colorado in July, was seeing a psychiatrist who became alarmed about his behavior; Jared L. Loughner, who killed 6 people and injured 13 others in Arizona, including former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was severely mentally ill.

But such killings account for only a tiny fraction of gun homicides in the United States, mental health experts point out. Besides the research indicating that little violent crime can be linked to perpetrators who are mentally ill, studies show that those crimes are far more likely to involve battery — punching another person, for example — than weapons, which account for only 2 percent of violent crimes committed by the mentally ill.

Because of this, some criminal justice experts say it makes more sense to pass laws addressing behavior, rather than a diagnosis of mental illness. In Indiana, for example, firearms can be confiscated from people deemed a potential threat, whether or not they have a mental illness.

Proposals in a number of states seek to redefine the threshold for involuntary commitment to psychiatric treatment. But in doing so, they have reignited a longstanding debate about the role of forced treatment.

In Ohio, lawmakers are expected to consider a proposal to increase access to outpatient commitment instead of hospitalization, while also doing away with language requiring people with mental illness to show a “grave and imminent risk to substantial rights” of themselves or others before they can be committed.

In Colorado, where legislators are undertaking a broad overhaul of the state’s mental health system proposed by Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, the proposal also includes changing the criteria for involuntary commitment.

Under the state’s current laws, caregivers can place patients on 72-hour mental health holds only if they are believed to pose an “imminent danger” to themselves or others. The governor’s plan would allow caregivers to commit people if they believe there is a “substantial probability” of harm. Virginia and some other states already have standards based on “substantial probability.”

But some mental health advocates are wary about lowering the threshold. “The evidence that we have tells us that that’s not an appropriate solution, it’s not an effective solution to this problem,” said Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, an advocacy group for people with psychiatric disabilities.

But Cheryl Miller — whose 21-year-old son, Kyle, was shot by the police last June after he pointed a toy gun at them — believes that a revised law might have saved her child.

Two weeks before Kyle was killed she took him to an emergency mental health clinic to get him hospitalized. But the staff refused to commit him.

“I said, ‘I don’t want to take him home; he needs to go to the hospital,’ ” Ms. Miller said. “They didn’t think so. It goes back to, was he an imminent danger to himself? And it was ‘No.’ ”

Alleged Libertarian Marc Victor to run against Kyrsten Sinema

video

Source

12 News interview with Elizabeth Johnson’s attorney

By Lin Sue Cooney 12 News | azcentral.com Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:50 PM

Elizabeth Johnson took her baby to Texas — and came back without him.

And while no one knows what happened to the boy known as Baby Gabriel, Johnson will soon walk out of prison, thanks to the help of attorney Marc Victor.

The baby disappeared in December 2009. Johnson, who first told the boy’s father he was dead, then told police she had given him to a couple in a park, made headlines for much of the next three years as she faced trial.

Marc Victor was the fourth attorney to represent Johnson, and says he’s the only one she trusted. [Of course that is what Marc Victor says]

Victor says his mission in life is to promote freedom, even if it means running for public office again, where he hopes to challenge U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.

I talked with Victor about the Elizabeth Johnson case. How he could fight so hard for a defendant the public almost universally despised. What he’s like outside the courtroom. And what he thinks really happened to Baby Gabriel — a little boy who now would be almost 4 years old.

Kyrsten Sinema a gun grabber???

Source

County attorney says he would bring gun to a hearing

By Brahm Resnik 12 News Fri Feb 1, 2013 6:14 PM

"Sunday Square Off" is the leading weekend political news program in Arizona. "Square Off's" newsmaker interviews feature elected officials at the national, state and local levels. Our political roundtables bring together insiders with unique perspectives on the stories of the day and insight on what's next.

This Sunday

• Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema
• Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery
• State Rep. John Kavanagh
• Promise Arizona's Petra Falcon
• Panel: Chris Herstam, Christina Martinez, Stan Barnes

Maricopa County attorney says he would bring weapon into a hearing

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery says he would probably carry a gun into a mediation hearing like the one that led to the fatal shootings this week of a Phoenix lawyer and his client.

Montgomery is one of my newsmaker guests on this weekend's special edition of "12 News Sunday Square Off." The show was taped before a studio audience taking part in a daylong "Politics and the Press" event sponsored by ASU's Cronkite School of Journalism, the Arizona Republic and 12 News.

Also on the show:

-Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema (D-9th District) says she believes universal background checks on gun buyers have the best chance of passing Congress this year.

-Republican State Rep. John Kavanagh, a border hawk, debates Promise Arizona executive director Petra Falcon, an immigrant rights advocate, on the new immigration plans released this week.

--The roundtable of Stan Barnes, of Copper State Consulting; Christina Martinez, of Adalante Public Affairs; and 12 News political insider Chris Herstam make the cold political calculations on which big bills -- immigration reform and gun controls -- can get through Congress.

"12 News Sunday Square Off" airs at 8 a.m. Sunday on 12 News, right after "Meet the Press."

Kyrsten Sinema campaigns for more military spending???

Arizona's Congress members return after budget cuts hit

By Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Mar 2, 2013 1:16 AM

WASHINGTON - Arizona’s Congress members were packing their bags and boarding planes out of the capital this week as the deadline to avoid across-the-board federal budget cuts neared with no resolution in sight.

As negotiations continued between President Barack Obama and leaders of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the state’s nine House members were headed home, unlikely to be needed for a vote anytime soon.

Republican Rep. David Schweikert, of Fountain Hills, who supported the sequestration cuts as a way to balance the nation’s budget, was going from one cliff to another. Schweikert planned to spend the weekend with his wife and staffers hiking to the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

Others lamented the House’s recess.

“I love to go home, but I’d much rather be here working on this problem with Congress members on both sides of the aisle,” Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat, said hours before flying to Tucson. “I voted against all those adjournments because we should be here dealing with this issue.”

The Arizona Republic spent the week in Washington with members of the state’s delegation. The Arizonans were busy meeting with constituents, speaking on the House floor and voting on a controversial bill to extend funding for programs to address domestic violence.

Northern Arizona’s Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick was sitting down with members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and Navajo Nation to talk about education funding, as well as members of the Grand Canyon National Park Foundation, who updated her on efforts to preserve the Arizona treasure.

Barber spent time with an award-winning Girl Scout who started an anti-bullying campaign, while Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican based in Prescott, was meeting with military veterans.

Arizona’s one freshman representative, Kyrsten Sinema, delivered her first floor speech. Though she performed the symbolically powerful act before a nearly empty chamber, her words would be broadcast on C-SPAN and shared with constituents. Sinema used her five minutes to criticize the massive budget cuts as bad for Arizona.

“I stand with the dean of our state’s delegation, Sen. John McCain, when I say this sequester will be devastating,” she said. “Let’s roll up our sleeves together and get the job done.”

Political polar opposites, Rep. Trent Franks and Rep. Raul Grijalva, found themselves on differing sides of the debate, as usual.

Grijalva, a Democrat and co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, was championing an alternative budget-cutting plan that, among other things, would shutter the costly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program in favor of building F-18s.

Franks, a Republican whose district includes Luke Air Force Base, whose survival depends on the F-35, called the proposal a threat to national security. He said it showed a lack of understanding of the military’s technological needs.

Mesa Republican Rep. Matt Salmon, meanwhile, was calling for entitlement reform and chairing his first Western Hemisphere subcommittee hearing, a position he hopes to turn into generating greater trade between the U.S. and Latin America.

The state’s longest-serving member, Rep. Ed Pastor, was asked to think about his legacy, as he appears to be under consideration to join the Obama administration.

The Phoenix Democrat said he was torn over the possibility of becoming Transportation secretary, a job which he acknowledges the White House is vetting plenty of candidates for.

“Do I really want to leave? It’s one of those things you think about. I’m not unhappy with the job. I’m still enjoying representing Arizona,” Pastor said. “Just to be considered is good.”

He said the prospect of securing federal funding to extend the Valley’s light rail for now is stalled due to the ongoing budget problems.

“We’re dealing with a crisis every 30 days,” Pastor said.

As if on cue, the first effects of the budget cuts were felt even before sequestration hit Friday at midnight.

The Republic’s flight was delayed, though the weather was fine, the United Airways pilot said.

US Congress is the best job in the U.S.

The best job in the U.S.

Fri Mar 8, 2013 7:41 PM

Best job in the country: member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As a House member, you are given a salary of $174,000 per year. Your work schedule is 126 days a year, an average of 2.5 days a week. You are now making almost $14,000 per day at work, and this does not include all the benefits.

Additionally, you are given time to leave campus and make calls to raise funds for re-election.

We ask, “Why doesn’t anything get accomplished?” The answer is the work schedule.

Isn’t it time these representatives are paid for what they accomplish rather than for just showing up?

—Robert Rogers, Glendale

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema sells out the anti-war movement???

Source

Mar 11, 2013 8:09 AM

By Erin Kellyand Rebekah L. Sanders Republic Washington Bureau Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:44 AM

WASHINGTON -- Now that $85 billion in automatic, across-the-board federal budget cuts have begun to take effect, members of Arizona’s congressional delegation are turning their focus toward reaching a budget deal before month’s end to keep the federal government open.

But, like the rest of Congress, they don’t all agree on how best to do that.

Democrats in the delegation see the March 27 budget deadline as another chance to stop the cuts before they do major damage to the state’s education system, public-health programs and military bases.

Republicans are split between those who believe the cuts should stay in place to help reduce the nation’s $16 trillion debt and those who say they threaten the nation’s military readiness.

The delegation’s widely divergent views mirror those of Congress overall, underscoring why hammering out a federal budget is such a struggle.

“It’s really hard to reach consensus when all the choices are painful,” said John J. “Jack” Pitney Jr., a political scientist and congressional expert at Claremont McKenna College in California. “A lot of what they decide to do is going to depend on what they hear from their constituents. If their constituents are feeling the pain and complaining, then they may look seriously at replacing the (automatic) cuts. If they don’t hear that much, then the Republicans may stand firm and the cuts will stay in place.”

The government is being funded by a temporary budget resolution that must be replaced by March 27 to keep federal agencies operating through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Congressional leaders on both sides say they expect to avoid a government shutdown.

But it’s not clear whether lawmakers will engage in a fierce budget debate over the next few weeks or pass a quick budget resolution that lasts for six months and then take up the battle in earnest later this spring over the 2014 budget, which will begin Oct. 1.

“Because of the time constraints (with less than seven months left in this fiscal year), I think you may see them focusing more on 2014,” Pitney said. “This is all far from over. We’ve still got an enormous deficit and a sluggish economy. People want action on both, but that’s hard to do at the same time.”

The next big fight, Pitney predicted, may come over how to reduce the costs of popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“If you liked the sequester, you’ll love the entitlements battle,” he said. “It will be even harder.”

Republic reporter Dan Nowicki contributed to this article.

Here’s a look at what members of the Arizona delegation say they would like to see included in any budget deals for the next six months and beyond.

Serving his fifth Senate term after two terms in the House.

McCain said he believes the automatic cuts to military spending created by sequestration are dangerous and should be repealed.

“The centrifuges in Tehran are spinning,” McCain said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on March 3. “North Koreans are testing nuclear weapons. The Mideast is in a period of varying degrees of upheaval. Al-Qaida is spreading. So we are going to cut back on the training and readiness and capabilities of the men and women who are serving. ... They deserve better. And to my Republican friends as well as my Democrat friends, if you think that’s the right way to go, then you don’t know what’s going on in the world.”

Serving his first Senate term after five terms in the House.

Flake said he believes the automatic cuts slash too deeply into defense spending.

Flake would rather reduce spending by cutting entitlement programs. He said Congress needs to look at ways to reduce the costs of Social Security and Medicare by raising the age to qualify for retirement benefits and changing the way benefit increases are calculated.

“I hope that, frankly, we can achieve the same level or greater savings (as sequestration), but not so pointed at defense,” Flake said.

District 1, re-elected last fall after losing her first re-election bid.

Kirkpatrick said she wants to ensure that any budget deals include increased funding for Grand Canyon National Park; Indian Health Services; and Impact Aid, which provides grants to school districts that have lost property-tax revenue because of the presence of large amounts of federal land or federal employees.

“Those are my top budget priorities,” she said.

District 2, serving his first full term.

Barber said Social Security and Medicare benefits should not be sacrificed in the budget battle.

“People have paid into these programs all of their lives,” Barber said. “Social Security is an insurance policy that people took out to ensure they would have reasonable income, and that should be there when they retire. For 20 percent of retired Americans, that’s their only source of income.”

Medicare costs could be cut without reducing benefits by allowing the federal government to negotiate better prescription-drug prices with pharmaceutical companies and going after fraud in a more aggressive way, Barber said.

“The Veterans Administration is allowed to negotiate prescription-drug prices for their patients, and they pay 48 percent less than the Medicare system for similar drugs,” Barber said. “If we could fix that, it would be an incredible savings.”

District 3, serving his sixth term.

As co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Grijalva has offered up a detailed plan that would repeal what he calls the “haphazard” sequestration cuts and replace them with targeted cuts to subsidies for oil and gas companies while increasing revenue by closing loopholes for America’s wealthiest individuals and corporations.

The plan proposes to increase federal spending on education and on the construction and repair of highways, roads and bridges — actions Grijalva says will create jobs and boost the economy.

He would pay for the investment by cutting “wasteful Pentagon spending,” including bringing U.S. troops home from European bases and replacing the expensive new F-35 fighter jets — scheduled to take the place of Luke Air Force Base’s aging F-16 fleet — with more economical, older-model F-18s.

“We wouldn’t be taking a meat ax to everything,” Grijalva said. “We’d be getting people working, and bringing down the unemployment rate, instead of plunging us back into recession with these drastic cuts.” District 4, serving his second term.

Gosar, in a recent opinion piece published online at Breitbart.com, a conservative news site, said he believes the automatic cuts are a good thing.

“The federal government is addicted to spending,” Gosar wrote. “This 2 percent solution is just what the doctor ordered. Every hard working American got a 2 percent pay cut in January. Why? Because Congress allowed reasonable tax cuts to expire, thereby raising your payroll taxes by 2 percent. ... If the president thinks that hard working Americans can take a 2 percent cut, how in the world does he expect us not to believe overpaid federal bureaucrats can’t take a 2 percent cut?”

District 5, elected last fall after serving three terms in the 1990s.

Salmon said Congress needs to make even deeper cuts to restore the country’s fiscal health, including putting an end to the funding of the Affordable Care Act, the controversial 2010 health-care-reform law that aims to provide affordable health care to all Americans.

He said he would prefer to leave the sequestration cuts in place and even allow the government to shut down at the end of the month if it would force the Obama administration and Congress to spend and tax less.

He also wants to see changes in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the growing costs of these entitlement programs. Among the changes he wants to consider: raising the age for retirement benefits and reducing benefits for wealthier senior citizens.

“We need to take the bull by the horns right now and get the country on the road to fiscal health,” Salmon said. “If we don’t stop the political nonsense, all Americans are going to be hurt.”

District 6, serving his second term.

He supports keeping the automatic cuts in place.

“We’re fussing over a 2 percent cut on a budget that exploded the last five years,” Schweikert said, describing it as small compared with the cuts American families have had to make in their budgets. “I think (Americans) look at us and the president and just shake their heads.”

Schweikert said he believes the furor over sequestration will die down when the public realizes that nothing catastrophic has happened.

“We were told the world was going to come to an end, everyone was going to be fired, you would never see another park, food was going to poison you, water would become dirty, the air would become unclean,” Schweikert said. “Two months from now, will anyone notice a difference in their lives? No.”

District 7, serving his 11th full term.

Pastor said he wants to see “a balance” in any compromise: “To have cuts in those programs whose usefulness basically is gone. Invest money in programs that are still needed in research and development, the economy and infrastructure. And a revenue stream, whether it be tax-code reform or closing the loopholes.”

Pastor recalled when Congress passed a balanced budget and had a surplus, and said he believes it will take several years to get back to that.

“For me, my working knowledge is it’s going to take time,” he said. “But you’ve got to do it with some sensibility, especially with the economy starting to pick up. You’ve got to consider that. You’ve got to consider where we are going to be in the future in terms of investment.”

District 8, serving his sixth term.

Franks said the automatic cuts to the Defense Department are too deep and could jeopardize national security. But cuts across the federal government must be made, he said, to prevent the nation from going bankrupt.

“This debt left on its present course could be the central theme in America’s obituary,” he said.

Franks supports a balanced-budget amendment, which he believes would force Congress to spend within its means. He would allow exceptions for spending in an emergency.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat

District 9, serving her first term.

Sinema wants to replace the automatic cuts, which she believes will hurt the economy as it begins to recover.

She said she would support raising taxes on people who earn more than $250,000 per year while cutting costly travel junkets by federal employees and wasteful programs. [It looks like Kyrsten Sinema has sold out the anti-war movement and switch to the side of the military industrial complex in this article. She didn't say a word about cutting the military spending in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or cutting the billions in military pork that goes to the military industrial complex. Of course Kyrsten Sinema shows her true color like she always has when it comes to raising taxes. I don't think Kyrsten Sinema has ever met a tax she didn't instantly fall in love with]

“Congress should go back to the drawing board and work together,” Sinema said.

How do you spell military pork?? F-35’s

But I suspect that Kyrsten Sinema wants the campaign contributions to continue flowing in from the military industrial complex.

Federal bills take aim at federal marijuana ban

Kyrsten Sinema was NOT listed as a sponsor of this bill

I suspect Kyrsten Sinema has sold out to the military, industrial complex. Well except at least until election time when she runs around asking for votes.

Vote for me, I am a freedom fighter who supports woman, atheists, hard working Latino immigrants and other little people.

Yea, sure Kyrsten.

You sound a lot Obama when he told us to vote for him instead of John McCain. Of course Obama pretty much has turned out to be a carbon copy clone of George W. Bush and John McCain.

And while we are talking about Kyrsten Sinema, you should remember that when she was a member of the Arizona Legislator she sponsored a bill which would have slapped an outrageous 300 percent tax on medical marijuana in Arizona. I suspect that was an attempt to make medical marijuana illegal in Arizona by taxing the krap out of it.

Source

Bills take aim at federal marijuana ban

By Raju Chebium Gannett Washington Bureau Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:20 PM

WASHINGTON -- A few House members have begun a broad effort to overturn a 43-year-old federal ban on marijuana and say they’re prepared to keep up the pressure even if it takes years.

About 10 lawmakers, mostly liberal Democrats, are writing bills that will serve as legislative guideposts for the future if the GOP-controlled House, as expected, ignores their proposals during this Congress.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said it’s time to end the federal ban because 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana and many other states are exploring that option in response to growing public pressure.

“Maybe next year, maybe next Congress, but this is going to change. And the federal government will get out of the way,” he said. “I’m very patient. I’ve been working on this one way or another for 40 years and I think the likelihood of something happening in the next four or five years is greater than ever.”

Peter Bensinger, a former head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, urged lawmakers to keep the ban despite the pressure to legalize pot.

Advocacy groups, which have spent a lot of money over the years to push legalization, gloss over the negative effects of marijuana though studies show people do get hooked and smoking pot impairs judgment and could cause cancer like cigarettes, he said.

“Legalizing it is going to cost lives, money, addiction, dependency,” Bensinger warned in an interview Wednesday.

A number of lawmakers share that view, which is why previous congressional attempts to decriminalize marijuana went nowhere.

Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., acknowledged that getting any marijuana bill through a bitterly divided Congress -- which is consumed by debates over spending, gun regulations and other matters -- won’t be easy.

“It will take more states moving in the direction Washington and Colorado have before there’s a sufficient pressure on (Congress) to change the law,” he said. “It’s harder to get the attention of members of Congress from states where the legal status has not been changed because it’s simply not a relevant issue for their constituents.”

In February, Polis and Blumenauer introduced bills that begin to chip away at federal marijuana policy, which makes it illegal to grow, use, possess or distribute pot.

Polis’ measure seeks to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act. Blumenauer’s bill would allow the government to tax marijuana like tobacco and alcohol. If both bills become law, states would decide whether to legalize marijuana, not Uncle Sam, and state lawmakers would have Washington’s blessing to impose taxes on pot.

More proposals are expected in the coming months. For instance, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., is writing a bill to create a commission to study whether marijuana has medicinal value.

Though legalization advocates argue pot has proven benefits like relieving chronic pain and is not addictive, the federal government cites other studies showing pot has no medical benefits and acts as a “gateway,” leading users to try even more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin.

According to a 2011 federal survey, about 18 million people over the age of 12 have used marijuana at some point in their lives, making pot the country’s most-popular illegal drug under federal law. That means 7 percent of the nation’s 12-and-over population has used pot at some point.

So far, the legalization push in the House has very little bipartisan support.

The 10 lawmakers co-sponsoring Polis’ bill include California Democrat Barbara Lee, who represents San Francisco, New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler, whose district includes Manhattan, and one Republican, Californian Dana Rohrabacher, a tea party libertarian from conservative Orange County.

Blumenauer’s bill has six co-sponsors, including Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., and Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, but no Republicans.

Senators haven’t filed legislation to overturn the federal ban.

California became the first state to allow the use of pot for medical purposes in 1996.

Seventeen other states -- Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Michigan and Vermont -- and the District of Columbia now have medical marijuana laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Almost all of these states have set up patient registries to keep track of medical marijuana users. Eleven states also allow marijuana dispensaries.

In November, voters in Colorado and Washington took the unprecedented step of legalizing recreational use as well.

Nowhere in the world is it legal to grow and distribute pot, but that will be legal in those two states once authorities work out the regulatory details, according to Beau Kilmer, co-director of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Recreational-use ballot measures are considered likely in California and Oregon in the next few years, though Californians rejected similar language in 2010 and Oregonians said no in 2012.

According to the Marijuana Policy Project, lawmakers filed medical marijuana bills in 17 states this year: West Virginia, Texas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, New York, New Hampshire, Missouri, Mississippi, Minnesota, Maryland, Kentucky, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Florida and Alabama.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said if the federal ban is overturned in this Congress, liberal states are likely to adopt legalization laws within a decade.

“Anywhere the salt water touches the West Coast, there will be legalization. All of New England will move in this direction reasonably quickly,” St. Pierre said.

Legalization will take years to become reality in conservative America, just as it took states like Oklahoma a long time to allow alcohol sales after Prohibition was repealed in 1933, St. Pierre said.

Unless the federal ban is lifted, all current and future state laws will violate the Controlled Substances Act, a 1970 U.S. statute that classifies marijuana as a dangerous, addictive drug with no medicinal value.

The broad push in the House comes as the Obama administration continues to grapple with how to respond to the state pot laws. Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to announce the administration’s plan soon.

In 2009, the Obama administration told federal prosecutors they don’t have to go after pot distributors who are complying with their state’s medical marijuana laws. In December, President Barack Obama said going after pot smokers in Washington and Colorado is a low-priority item.

Pressure is coming from those who favor the ban as well.

Bensinger, who works with anti-drug groups, said Holder should sue Washington and Colorado under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which puts federal law above state law. Earlier this month, the International Narcotics Control Board, a United Nations agency, urged action saying state pot laws violate international treaties the U.S. has signed.

Overturning the ban is a tough job, Bensinger said.

“You’d have to undo the federal law, you’d have to have the Congress be willing to pay no attention to the supremacy clause, and you’d have to break an international treaty,” he said. “This is uphill sledding.”

Cyprus to tax bank accounts???

But from what I have read about Kyrsten Sinema it seems like she has never met a tax she didn't love, and will probably be angry with herself for not coming up with this tax, which effectively makes the government the owner of YOUR bank account.

Cyprus deposits grab shocks savers across Europe

Cyprus deposits grab shocks savers across Europe

By Menelaos Hadjicostis Associated Press Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:13 PM

NICOSIA, Cyprus — A plan to seize up to 10 percent of people’s savings in the small Mediterranean island nation of Cyprus sent shockwaves across Europe on Monday as households realized the money they have in the bank may not be safe.

A weekend agreement between Cyprus and its European partners called for the government to raid bank accounts as part of a €15.8 billion ($20.4 billion) financial bailout, the first time in the eurozone’s crisis that the prospect of seizing individuals’ savings has been raised.

Facing outrage, Cypriot authorities delayed a parliamentary vote on the seizure and ordered banks to remain shut until Thursday while it tries to modify the deal to reduce the hit on people with small deposits.

Several hundred protesters gathered outside the parliament building, with some chanting “thieves, thieves” and “people wake up, they’re drinking your blood.” One demonstrator dumped sheep wool and animal feces in front of a line of police officers guarding the entrance. Protesters later marched onto the presidential palace.

“It’s a precedent for all European countries. Their money in every bank is not safe,” said lawyer Simos Angelides.

In order to get €10 billion ($13 billion) in bailout loans from international creditors, Cyprus agreed to take a percentage of all deposits — including ordinary citizens’ savings. The surprise deal stoked fears that deposits in other countries could be targeted.

Financial stocks fell sharply across euro, as did the euro, even though the Cypriot economy accounts for only 0.2 percent of the combined output of the 17 European Union countries that use the currency.

“The damage is done,” said Louise Cooper, who heads financial research firm CooperCity. “Europeans now know that their savings could be used to bail out banks.”

The Cypriot government is now trying to modify the terms of the original plan and in particular to get a better deal for small savers with less than €100,000. The weekend deal foresaw a one-off charge of 6.75 percent on those savings, rising to 9.9 percent for those above the €100,000 mark.

While trying to make the package more appetizing for those with low savings, the government has to make sure that the total raised remains the same at €5.8 billion.

One solution doing the rounds is to make the tax more graduated: placing a one-time 3 percent levy on deposits below €100,000, rising to 15 percent for those above €500,000.

Another alternative pitched by European Parliament President Martin Schulz is exempting savings up to €25,000 from the tax. Schulz is also a member of Germany’s opposition Social Democrats.

Still, the government has a battle to get a majority in the 56-member Parliament after some 25 lawmakers from communist AKEL, socialist EDEK and the Green party said they would vote down the levy that they have criticized as disastrous. Even center right party DIKO, a government ally which holds eight seats, is wavering over its support.

Any modification to the deposit seizure must be approved by the other finance ministers in the eurozone — who will hold a phone conference later Monday — before the Cypriot parliament can vote on it.

The stakes are high for the country of a million people, because a rejection of the package could see the country go bankrupt and possibly out of the common euro currency. Officials also fear a run on Cypriot banks no matter which way the voting goes, though immediate consequences for other eurozone countries are limited.

The decision by Cyprus’ 16 partners in the eurozone and the International Monetary Fund marks a significant shift in the way the debt crisis is being addressed. It is the first time that savings have been touched in a financial bailout. While it is not expected to cause a run on banks in Italy or Spain, it may make savers more likely to withdraw their funds.

“This sets a worrying precedent for Spain and Italy, but doesn’t make widespread bank runs imminent,” said Dario Perkins, an analyst at Lombard Street Research.

Cypriot authorities said they had no choice in the matter.

“I believe (the levy) was a bad idea but they imposed it on us,” Cypriot Finance Minister Michalis Sarris said Monday.

Cyprus’ government spokesman, Christos Stylianides, accused eurozone countries of using “blackmail tactics” by insisting that if Cyprus did not raid savings accounts, it would have to immediately shut down the country’s top two lenders.

White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on Cyprus’ savings grab. “We’re obviously monitoring the situation right now,” Carney said.

One of the main reasons given for the raid on deposits is that Cyprus’ banks, which are in deep trouble after taking huge losses on bad Greek debt, are eight times the size of the economy. The Cypriot government would be unable to pay back the amount of loans it would need to rescue the banks.

Another reason for the raid is that Russian money accounts for a large part of the banks’ deposits. An estimated €20 billion ($26.17 billion) of Russian money sits in Cypriot banks, part of it thought to be linked to money-laundering. European officials were loathe to give Cyprus bailout loans to protect those Russians’ savings.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel needs to win support for a Cypriot bailout in Parliament amid widespread skepticism in the country over whether Cypriot authorities have done enough to combat money laundering.

“It is good that the Cypriot government, the Cypriot parliament, are now taking more time to reach a better solution,” Germany’s Vice Chancellor Philipp Roesler told reporters in Berlin. “But it is important to us that the overall volume is achieved all the same.

Stocks falter following Cyprus’s bailout plan

Stocks falter following Cyprus’s bailout plan

By Steve Rothwell Associated Press Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:59 PM

NEW YORK — Stocks closed lower on Wall Street as investors worried that a controversial proposal to seize money from depositors in Cyprus could set off another bout of anxiety over Europe’s shared currency.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell 62.05 points, or 0.4 percent, to 14,452.06 Monday. It had plunged as much as 110 points in the early going, briefly turned positive in the afternoon then fell back again in the last hour of trading.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 fell 8.60 points, or 0.6 percent, to 1,552.10 The Nasdaq composite dropped 11.48 points, or 0.4 percent, to 3,237.59.

European markets recovered most of an early slide and closed with modest losses. Yields on government bonds issued by Spain and Italy edged higher and the euro fell to a three-month low against the dollar.

The market rally that has pushed the Dow to record levels this year has been punctuated by concerns about the euro-region’s lingering debt crisis. The Dow fell 1.6 percent Feb. 25, its biggest wobble this year, after elections in Italy threw the country into political paralysis, endangering crucial economic reforms.

“Europe has got problems,” said Uri Landesman, president of Platinum Partners, a hedge fund. “You could get more stuff like this and the market isn’t priced to handle that.”

A weekend agreement between Cyprus and its European partners called for the government to raid bank accounts as part of a €15.8 billion ($20.4 billion) financial bailout, the first time in the euro zone crisis that the prospect of seizing individuals’ savings has been raised. The measures are stoking fears of bank runs in the other 16 nations that use the euro.

Cypriot authorities, facing an uproar, delayed a parliamentary vote on the seizure and ordered the country’s banks to remain closed until Thursday while they try to modify the deal to lessen the impact on small depositors.

Markets in Europe and Asia also fell during early trading, before retracing some of their losses later in the day. Germany’s DAX index dropped 0.4 percent and Spain’s main stock index shed 1.3 percent. Indexes in Britain and France each lost 0.5 percent.

The euro fell almost a penny against the dollar to $1.2954, touching its lowest level in three months. Gold climbed $12 to $1,604.60 an ounce.

The U.S. stock market’s reaction to euro zone developments has become more muted over time.

The Dow slumped more than 8 percent last year between May 1 and June 1 on concerns that Spain and Italy would be dragged into Europe’s debt crisis. While the Dow initially dropped last month in reaction to the Italian election results, it has since gained 4.6 percent. Likewise the market recovered much of the early loss Monday prompted by Cyprus’s bailout deal.

The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond, which moves inversely to its price, fell to 1.96 percent from 1.99 percent as investors moved money into low-risk investments. Yields on bonds issued by Spain and Italy, the two most vulnerable large European economies, rose but only slightly. Spain’s benchmark 10-year yield rose to 4.97 percent from 4.91 percent, and Italy’s rose to 4.57 percent from 4.55 percent.

The stock market’s resilience suggests that traders consider the Cyprus situation to be contained for now, said Quincy Krosby, a market strategist for Prudential. The threat of rising volatility may also deter the Fed from thinking about ending its economic stimulus program. The central bank starts its second two-day policy meeting of the year Tuesday.

“Absent the Cyprus flare-up, the markets were slowing a bit and it looked as if investors were digesting the gains and waiting for the next catalyst,” said Krosby.

Financial stocks were the biggest decliners in the S&P 500. Investment bank Morgan Stanley fell 60 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $22.99. Citigroup dropped $1.02, or 2.2 percent, to $46.24.

Goldman Sachs said Monday that it had lifted its end-of-year target for the S&P 500 to 1,625 from its previous target of 1,575. The investment bank is forecasting that the U.S. economy will grow 2 percent this year and 2.9 percent next year. It also predicts that corporate deals and dividend payments will increase.

Deutsche Bank also said Monday it was lifting its year-end prediction for the S&P 500 to 1,625 from 1,600, forecasting an upturn in business spending.

Among other stocks making big moves:

— Schlumberger dropped $3.06, or 3.9 percent, to $76.34 after the oilfield services company said that its first quarter activity was below its expectations as customers reactivated fewer rigs than forecast.

— Boeing fell $1.25, or 1.4 percent, to $85.18 after archrival Airbus signed its biggest deal of all time on Monday. The European plane maker won an order from Indonesia’s Lion Air worth 18

More on the Cyprus "bank account tax"

Based on that I suspect that when she heard about this tax that allows government to steal a person's bank accounts she fell in love with this tax, which would allow her and other government rulers to tap into your bank account.

Source

Could tiny Cyprus trigger collapse of the Eurozone?

By Carol J. Williams

March 20, 2013, 2:00 a.m.

It’s being marketed as a one-time tax -- a civic donation to the nation’s financial stability. But the people of Cyprus know it by another name: expropriation.

A government plan to siphon as much as 10% from individual bank deposits to co-finance a bailout went down in flames Tuesday with not a single one of the island’s 56 lawmakers voting in favor.

It’s back to Square One on Wednesday in devising a plan to pony up the $7.5 billion demanded by European central bankers in exchange for $13 billion from Eurozone partners to help Cyprus avert bankruptcy and expulsion from the euro common currency club. Without the bailout, Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades warns, Cyprus will face “indescribable misery.”

That tiny Cyprus, with fewer than a million people and less than 0.2% of the Eurozone economy, could pose any real threat to the euro’s future would have been laughable a few years ago. But as the currency’s lurch from crisis to crisis continues through a fourth year, economists caution against underestimating the potential damage should Cypriots stand firm on their rejection of conditions for continued Eurozone membership.

Anastasiades is still haggling with Eurozone political leaders in hopes of knocking down the “bail in” figure. Cypriot Finance Minister Michalis Sarris is also sounding out his counterpart in Moscow on extension of a 2011 loan and a push for even deeper investment into the island’s financial welfare.

But economists say they doubt either the “troika” of international finance institutions negotiating a bailout with Cyprus or authorities in Moscow are likely to alter their positions. In that case, Cyprus would then be confronted with a choice of caving in to the deposit tax or facing a life outside the Eurozone.

Time isn’t on the side of the Cypriots. Banks closed Friday and won’t open until the bailout issue is resolved, to prevent a run on deposits. Anger is mounting in the streets of Nicosia, despite Tuesday’s decisive vote, over the very notion of the government seizing personal savings.

“It’s just amazing that we’ve gotten to the point where such a little country is making such big waves. It tells you something about the state of the world,” said Keith Savard, senior managing economist for the Milken Institute in Santa Monica. “I’m not convinced that if Cyprus goes that everything else will be fine, that its departure from the euro will be only an asterisk in history. It’s just not clear that’s the case, and that’s the worry.”

While the $22 billion Cyprus needs to bail out its banks and government finances is “pocket change” at the European Central Bank, Savard said, political considerations like elections in Germany later this year have compelled Eurozone leaders to tighten their fists.

No other troubled Eurozone member has been asked to dip into private bank holdings in exchange for bailout funds. Cyprus likely drew the unusual demand to avoid any appearance of Eurozone taxpayers being asked to compensate Russian oligarchs’ losses. At least a third of Cypriot bank deposits are held by Russians, and some of that $30 billion, though not all, is suspected to be proceeds from corruption or criminal enterprise.

Imposing a graduated levy on bank holdings would have hit the foreign high rollers hardest. As proposed by the government, deposits of less than $26,000 would have been exempt from the levy. Those between $26,000 and $130,000 would have been tapped for 6.75%, and accounts upward of $130,000 would have seen nearly 10% confiscated.

What remained unclear after Tuesday’s vote -- 36 to 0, with 19 abstentions and one absence -- was whether proposals to shift the burden even higher up the economic scale would be successful. Neither is it clear whether Cypriots are willing to abandon their euro membership rather than take the savings hit.

Economists warn that skimming private accounts violates Eurozone deposit guarantees and could spook depositors in other countries with troubled banks. There is also fear that European lenders may raise borrowing rates if they see Cyprus leaving the Eurozone and setting an example for Greece and others to follow.

“I think this represents a dangerous precedent. I would not rule out the possibility that this would be repeated elsewhere,” Uri Dadush, director of the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said of the deposit tax. “It’s a very, very dangerous course.”

Dadush criticizes what he sees as short-sightedness on the part of Europe’s central bankers in holding back the Cyprus bailout, which has triggered market sell-offs across the continent and an accelerating decline in the euro’s value.

“The reality is that they have saved themselves perhaps 5 or 6 billion euros in loans to Cyprus that they might not have gotten back, but they are now suffering the consequences of hundreds of billions of euros being wiped off the value of equities worldwide,” Dadush said.

Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, predicted that the “troika” -- the European Commission, the ECB and the International Monetary Fund -- would work out a more acceptable alternative for Cyprus than the deposit tax.

“They’re not going to let the whole Eurozone fall apart over this little bit of money,” Weisbrot said.

He pointed to ECB chief Mario Draghi’s assurances last summer that the bank would do “whatever it takes” to ensure the Eurozone’s integrity.

The Milken Institute’s Savard is less confident about that promise, pointing to the lack of progress on creating a European banking union or holding Eurozone members to commitments to cut deficits and reduce spending.

“If Cyprus does go, this will really force the ECB to do more than say words,” he said. “And I’m not sure they are willing to do this.”

Is the U.S. headed for fiscal collapse?

Nope, let me rephrase that, I suspect Kyrsten Sinema spends her own personal money much more wisely and frugally then she spends the money she has her government goons at the IRS take from you.

Here are a couple of interesting articles by Sergio Hernandez and David Stockman on the issue of is Congress bankrupting the American economy.

Some numbers from the Webmaster on that issue

Second the main difference between the American economy and that of Greece and other third world countries that are routinely bankrupted by their politicians is that the American economy is huge and it will take a lot more thievery by the politicians to destroy it.

Personally I suspect that it will only be a matter of time before the thieves in the US House and US Senate increase their level of theft, or taxation as they call it before they destroy the American economy.

And the question is not "will the crooks in Congress destroy America", but "when will the crooks in Congress destroy America".

Currently the National Debt is $16.7 trillion dollars. That means each of the 314 million men, women and children who live in the USA owe about $53,000 towards their share of the National Debt.

If you consider that only ADULTS work and pay Federal income taxes, then that $53,000 increases to $106,000 for every adult in the USA.

Then if you consider that only half of the Americans that work pay Federal income taxes, that means their share of the National Debt will jump from $106,000 for each adult to $212,000 for each adult taxpayer.

And of course as Congress rolls the printing presses printing trillions of dollars of fiat money those numbers will only increase.

When I started keeping track of the amount of money each person owed toward their share of the National Debt, the debt was at about $5 trillion and about 200 million people lived in the USA, making every man, woman and child's share of the National Debt about $25,000. As I just said that number has increased to about $53,000.

Last I just gave you the rose colored version of the story.

The actual amount of money the US government has promised to pay out is actually around 4 times larger then the National Debt when you throw in other things the US Government has promised to pay for in the future for things such as Social Security or Medicare.

So that $53,000 that every man, woman and child in the USA owes toward all their US debt obligations increases to $212,000 when you use those other obligations.

The $212,000 each adult taxpayer owes toward all their US debt obligations increases to $848,000.

If you use those numbers it should be obvious that America is on the brink of being bankrupted by the crooks in the US Congress.

Last for some really good reading on the subjects of "the gold standard", "the Federal Reserve" or "the Fed", and a number of other related subject check out the book:

The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

G. Edward Griffin

Time to run Kyrsten Sinema out of office????

And of course the article that follows this is all about how Kyrsten Sinema's socialized medicine is going to drive us bankrupt!!!

Source

Bisbee civil unions stir legal questions

By Robert Robb The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Apr 6, 2013 3:44 PM

SNIP

There’s an interesting pattern developing involving the Democratic members of Arizona’s delegation from swing congressional districts: Ann Kirkpatrick, Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema.

When they deviate from the Democratic Party line, they tend to do it together — all voting the same.

The House recently considered five different budget resolutions.

All of Arizona’s Democrats voted against Republican Paul Ryan’s budget, of course.

The main Democratic alternative offered by the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen, included $1.2 trillion in tax increases over 10 years. Only 28 Democrats voted against Van Hollen’s proposal.

All of Arizona’s swing-district Democrats were among them. In fact, none of the three cast a vote in favor of any of the budgets before the House.

Earlier, all three were among only 18 Democrats to vote in favor of a Republican bill forbidding the Obama administration from providing waivers to welfare work requirements.

Of the three, Barber is generally considered the most vulnerable in 2014. He had the narrowest margin of victory in 2012, and Mitt Romney carried his congressional district.

Sinema, however, may end up being the most vulnerable. “Obamacare” will have been implemented by then, and the launch is likely to be messy and disruptive.

Sinema was a tireless advocate for Obamacare. Voters didn’t seem to hold it against her in 2012.

It may play much bigger in 2014.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

On Obamacare, Arizonans need to look behind the curtain

Source

Patterson: On Obamacare/Medicaid, Arizonans need to look behind the curtain

Posted: Sunday, April 7, 2013 9:58 am

Guest Commentary by Tom Patterson | 0 comments

Arizona legislators are under intense pressure to pass the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. They’re getting it from all sides.

“Do the math” the governor condescendingly demands, as if it takes special genius to figure out there is short-term gain in accepting these federal funds.

“It’s your Christian duty,” helpful ministers explain, apparently forgetting that Jesus preached personal compassion for the poor, not government lobbying.

Even the business community is on their case, claiming more Medicaid business will create jobs and stimulate the economy. Of course, if government spending really created net jobs, we would be awash in jobs because we have definitely tried massive spending in recent years.

The opponents of Medicaid expansion are commonly depicted as crazed ideologues blinkered by their opposition to Obamacare. After all, the creators of Obamacare were so frantic to get the states on board with the Medicaid piece that they agreed to provide near total funding initially for this nominally state-operated program. Even by 2012, they promise to provide 90 percent of the funds. Such a deal.

But Arizonans might be wise to look behind the curtain. As time rolls on, Obamacare is already defaulting on most of its key provisions.

For example, we were told that the average family would save $2500 annually on insurance premiums. It turns out the cost of health insurance will increase from $2100-$5000 yearly when Obamacare is fully implemented.

Obama himself promised that under his plan, “if you like your doctor, nothing will change”. Yet a recent poll from the consulting firm McKinsey estimated that more than 40 million people will lose their employer-provided insurance. So much for that whopper.

The president also told us that no American families with incomes under $250,000 would see a tax hike. But there are more than 20 new taxes in Obamacare. Many of them, like the tax on medical devices, a new tax on drugs, another tax on certain high-end health plans and reduced deductibility for medical expenses all fall squarely on the middle class.

There’s much more. We were told that Obamacare would cost “only” a trillion dollars over 10 years, that the costs would be partially offset by massive reductions in Medicare spending on the elderly, and that we would achieve virtually complete universal coverage. It’s all false, false, false. With a track record like that who could believe their next promise?

Gov. Brewer’s response is to create a “circuit-breaker”, a provision that calls for Arizona to revoke the benefits expansion if the federal funding falls below 80 percent. That sounds good and she is undoubtedly sincere. But she likely won’t be the governor when that day comes and whoever is will be under intense pressure to somehow maintain the program.

That’s the way the welfare state works, the “ratchet effect”. Whatever government provides, it’s never enough and the demands for more stuff never ceases. When benefits are granted, it’s nearly impossible to retract them.

So right here, in Arizona’s intense Medicaid debate, we see how Big Government rolls over and co-opts good people. It pulls the bait-and-switch, puts them in an untenable political position and forces them to support even this unpopular program that is certain to fail.

There is a growing recognition that Obamacare is an ugly hybrid, combining the worst aspects of government medicine and highly regulated private sector medical care. It was never intended by its advocates to be a permanent solution to America’s problems with affordability and access to care. Pres. Obama and others have candidly stated the real goal is a completely government controlled medical system.

That’s why it’s critical to stop Obamacare now and replace it rather than let it fail amid calls for a government takeover. We are going to end up either with medical care dictated by federal bureaucrats or one in which the power of free markets and patient choice prevail.

Real tort reform, price transparency, ability to buy insurance across state lines and many other possible reforms are out there, but we will never get them if the Obamacare train isn’t stopped.

Obmacare must have buy-in from the states to proceed. The stakes for the Legislature are enormous.

East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.

Background checks on knife purchases????

And perhaps limit knife sales to knives with blades under 2 inches in length with dull blades. Society will be a safer place if people can only have dull butter knives, and only cops and government rulers are allowed to have sharp steak and other assault knives.

I'm just joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if some phoney baloney Arizona Libertarians I know try to say I actually believe that rubbish.

On the other hand I bet I will regret posting this article her on alleged gun grabber Kyrsten Sinema's web page. I bet as soon as she reads this she will interduce a bill requiring background checks for anybody who buys an "assault knife".

I bet an "assault knife" will be defined as anything other then a dull edged butter knife.

Source

Student charged in Texas college stabbing attack

Associated Press Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:54 AM

CYPRESS, Texas — A 20-year-old man from suburban Houston has been charged in a stabbing spree at a Texas community college that injured at least 14 people.

Sheriff’s officials say Dylan Quick is charged with three counts of aggravated assault in the Tuesday attack at Lone Star Community College in Cypress. The city is about 20 miles from Houston.

The Harris County Sheriff’s Office says in a statement that Quick used a “razor-type knife” to cut his victims, and pieces of the blade were found at the scene.

The sheriff’s office says Quick told investigators he’d had fantasies about stabbing people to death since he was in elementary school.

Investigators also say Quick indicated he’d been planning the attack for some time.

Rep. Bob Thorpe tries to protect his fellow crooks from us serfs???

The only good news about this article is that the crooks at the Arizona State Legislator seem to realize that they are crooks and need to protect themselves from the people they pretend to serve while they rob us blind.

Last if Rep. Bob Thorpe really is a "Tea Party" members who wants to protect us from the other government crooks, why is he trying to help protect his fellow crooks???

I suspect Rep. Bob Thorpe isn't really a "freedom fighter" and just ran on the "Tea Party" platform because it would help him get elected.

Source

Posted on April 9, 2013 3:30 pm by Laurie Roberts

Rep. Bob Thorpe looking for protection — and not just from bullets

In the wake of Sandy Hook, the state of Connecticut last Thursday enacted some of the strongest gun laws in the country, including limits on the size of magazines, a ban on armor piercing bullets and universal background checks.

Meanwhile, in the state of Arizona, a legislator on Thursday offered a response to our own massacre.

“In the wake of Tucson shooting, I have been researching body armor in order to inform our members about the costs and options for those wishing to purchase a vest for their personal use, for example, at town halls, parades and other public events,” Rep. Bob Thorpe, wrote, in an e-mail to fellow legislators. “These vests have prices ranging from about $600-$800, and options that include their weight and comfort, bullet stopping ability and colors.”

You’ve heard of Tupperware parties? Thorpe invited the Arizona Legislature to a body armor party. On Wednesday, a salesman from Arizona Tactical was supposed to be on hand in the House basement to offer discounts and take orders on the latest in tactical fashion.

Alas, legislative lawyers put the kibosh on Thorpe’s sale-a-thon. It’s seems you’re not supposed to use the state Capitol to sell bulletproof vests. Or anything else.

Now Thorpe is apparently steamed that his “internal” e-mail invite – the one sent out on his public e-mail account — wound up in the hands of the media.

“I’d love to know who leaked my email to the press, because I want to present them with a ‘Members Only’ jacket, as a reminder that some things, like my internal e-mail invitation, are intended for members only,” the Flagstaff Republican wrote in an e-mail on Tuesday.

Like his first e-mail, this one made it to my inbox within 15 minutes of his sending it.

Thorpe is a freshman legislator who made headlines earlier this year for his bill to require students to sign a loyalty oath before they could graduate from school — a bill he withdrew once somebody explained to him that it was blatantly unconstitutional. He’s a Tea Party guy who ran on a platform of protecting the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

Including, presumably, the law that says the Arizona Legislature is a public body – not the Augusta National Golf Club. And the one that says e-mail sent out on a government account is government business.

Or put another way: the public’s business.

Thorpe didn’t return my call to discuss public records and body armor and such. Pity, as I would have liked to ask him if that Members Only jacket would be outfitted in Kevlar.

In his Tuesday e-mail, Thorpe takes a shot at Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego — whom he suspects of “leaking” his e-mail – and notes that he arranged to have the body armor salesman come to the Capitol after a Democratic legislator told him she’d requested a police presence at a recent town hall meeting.

“She was concerned about her personal safety,” he wrote. “By the way, I sent out my e-mail invitation to all the House and Senate legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, because of my concern for the safety of all our members.”

Given his concern for safety, Thorpe might want to take up the cause for banning the sort of ammunition that would blast right through those bulletproof vests he’s hawking.

Sadly, his Senate colleagues rejected a ban on armor piercing bullets last week, along with a ban on high-capacity magazines and a call for universal background checks.

The irony wasn’t lost on Democrats.

“There are just so many other things that we should be working on and not just focused on our own personal safety but the personal safety of the public and for the children in our schools,” said Gallego, D-Phoenix.

“It’s is sad to see that we are almost at the 100th day of our session and yet we have not had a comprehensive discussion on gun violence for our constituents of Arizona,” Sen. Anna Tovar, D-Tolleson, told me.

For his part, Thorpe has provided his fellow legislators with the name and number for his body armor salesman. “His store is about a 10-minute drive from the Capitol and he’d like to try and arrange a time where perhaps 5 (or more) legislators can come in at a time for a joint briefing in one of their classrooms,” he wrote.

No doubt, Thorpe’s pal will have plenty of takers.

In addition to strafing other gun bills last week, the state Senate also rejected a bid to require basic firearms-safety training before you can carry around a concealed weapon.

Thus, the need, I suppose, for legislative body armor — to protect our leaders from the public.

Now, if only there was a way to protect the public from our leaders…

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan is a liar who will say anything to get elected!!!

Source

Quan flubs crime stat, again

Post has been updated as of 5:50 p.m.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has gained a reputation for citing crime statistics that don’t always add up or making statements to the press she later says were taken out of context.

It’s happened again.

In an interview with KCBS radio broadcast on Monday, Oakland’s mayor said the following:

For the last 2 months, violence in Oakland has been way down. It seems to come in these spurts. So like for six weeks there had been no murders east of High Street in East Oakland.

Problem is, there have been seven homicides east of High Street over the past six weeks, according to Shine in Peace, an online journalism project launching soon that’s tracking shootings and homicides in Oakland and noticed Quan’s statement.

“There’s no six-week period in 2013 where there were no homicides east of High Street,” said Susie Cagle, the project director.

Cagle said the homicides over the past six weeks included the following:

• Lionel Ray Fluker, 54, killed on April 4 near MacArthur Boulevard and Seminary Avenue.
• Qiunn Boyer, 34, died on April 4, two days after being shot near Keller Avenue and Hansom Drive.
• John Sunny Davis, 31, killed on Mar. 31 near 68th Avenue and Avenal Avenue.
• unidentified, killed on Mar. 31 near 70th Ave. and Hawley Street.
• unidentified, killed Mar. 31 on the 8900 block of International Boulevard.
• Noe Garcia, 28, killed on Mar. 2 near Apricot Street and Blenheim Street.
• Trisha Forde, 34, killed on Mar. 2 near Apricot Street and Blenheim Street.

Sean Maher, Quan’s spokesman, said the quote to KCBS was taken out of context in two important ways. Quan was only talking about gang-related homicides because she was discussing the effectiveness of Ceasefire, an anti-gang prevention program, Maher said.

Secondly, the mayor was talking about a specific period of time, Feb. 22 through Mar. 30. During that period, only the Mar. 2 double homicide killing Forde and Garcia occurred east of High Street in East Oakland — the target area of the gang-prevention efforts, Maher said. Police have said that homicide was not gang-related, he said.

Maher acknowledged that the period of time Quan referred to was only five weeks.

“Unfortunately, the KCBS report cuts their interview in a way that can be misleading,” said Maher. “Obviously, the mayor is aware of the recent spate of homicides that began on Easter Sunday.”

Cagle said her project’s data corroborates what Maher said. But she noted that there were five homicides east of High Street on Mar. 31 through Apr. 4. She said that hardly conveys success in reducing homicides.

“It seems like an odd thing to even be publicizing,” she said.

Obama proposes 94-cent tax hike on cigarettes

Of course with Kyrsten Sinema in Congress, I suspect she will rubber stamp any tax Obama wants. H*ll, I suspect Kyrsten Sinema will rubber stamp any tax proposed by anybody with her history of loving taxes.

Of course when you slap a high tax on an addictive drug like tobacco it won't stop addicts from using the drug. Instead tobacco addicts will turn to illegal markets, such as cigarettes smuggled into the US from Mexico or Canada, and a health problem will quickly be transformed into a criminal problem.

The cops, prosecutors, probation officers and prison guards will love it because it will create more high paying jobs for them. But for the rest of it will just create a new "war on tobacco" which will be a dismal failure like the "war on drugs"

Source

Obama proposes 94-cent tax hike on cigarettes

By Stephen Ohlemacher Associated Press Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:41 PM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s budget plan would increase taxes by $1 trillion over the next decade, including a new tax on cigarettes and familiar proposals to increases taxes on the wealthy and some corporations.

The president said his plan includes $580 billion in tax increases to help reduce government borrowing. But the tax hikes don’t stop there. Obama’s budget proposal would also impose an additional $400 billion in tax increases. Much of it would be used to pay for more spending.

Obama’s proposal would increase the federal tax on cigarettes from $1.01 a pack to $1.95. The new cigarette tax would raise an estimated $78 billion over the next decade to pay for pre-school programs for children.

Obama says his tax plan is part of a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes painful cuts to benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare. Most GOP lawmakers adamantly oppose new taxes, which means his plan has little chance of passing Congress.

Obama already got Congress to increase taxes by $600 billion in January. His budget would add to those tax hikes.

“To be clear, the package I am offering includes some difficult cuts that I do not particularly like,” Obama says in his budget message. “But these measures will only become law if congressional Republicans agree to meet me in the middle by eliminating special tax breaks and loopholes so millionaires and billionaires do their fair share to cut the deficit.”

In his budget, Obama calls for an overhaul of the nation’s tax laws that would cut tax rates and simplify the system while generating additional revenue to help reduce government borrowing. The plan, however, provides few details on how the rate cuts would be financed.

There is a growing movement in Congress to do tax reform but there is much disagreement over whether it should result in higher overall tax receipts. Many Democrats, including Obama, want to use tax reform to raise taxes. Most Republicans oppose higher taxes.

Obama’s budget would create a fund of about $100 billion that would be used to finance lower corporate tax rates. The fund, however, is more symbolic than substantive because $100 billion would only cover the cost of lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 34 percent.

Obama has said his goal is a corporate income tax rate of 28 percent.

Obama’s proposed tax increase on cigarettes is popular among health care advocates who believe it provides the additional benefit of encouraging smokers to cut back or quit. In addition to the direct revenue from the tax, the Congressional Budget Office analysis concluded that health improvements related to less smoking would save the government about $1 billion over 10 years and generate additional revenue of $3 billion because of a boost in earnings from healthier workers.

The tobacco industry promptly criticized the proposal.

“The idea of increasing taxes on low- to middle-income Americans at this time is ludicrous,” said Bryan Hatchell, a spokesman for Reynolds American Inc., the nation’s second-biggest tobacco company. “As middle-income Americans struggle to make ends meet in a very slow economic recovery period, this is not the time to hit them with higher taxes.”

The biggest tax increase in Obama’s budget would limit the value of itemized deductions for wealthy families. The limits would apply to all itemized deductions, including those for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes. They would also apply to tax-exempt interest, employer-sponsored health insurance and income exclusions for employee retirement contributions.

The proposal would raise $529 billion over the next decade.

Charitable groups have already mounted a lobbying campaign to oppose the limits because they are worried they would discourage wealthy people from donating. Obama has made similar proposals in previous budgets and received lukewarm responses from fellow Democrats. Most Republicans oppose it.

Among the other tax changes, Obama’s budget would:

— Impose the “Buffett Rule,” named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, an Obama supporter who favors higher taxes. The rules say people making more than $1 million must pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes. The rule would raise $53 billion over the next decade.

— Prohibit tax-free contributions to retirement accounts once the account’s assets reach a certain limit. The initial limit would be set at $3.4 million. The proposal would raise about $9 billion over the next decade.

— Eliminate a series of tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies, raising $44 billion over the next decade.

— Change accounting rules for the way companies value their inventories for tax purposes. The change would raise $81 billion over the next decade.

— Expand and make permanent the research and development tax credit, saving businesses $99 billion over the next decade. The current credit expires at the end of the year, though it is routinely extended.

— Make permanent rules that allow small businesses to more quickly write off expenses, saving business $69 billion over the next decade.

Kyrsten Sinema's tax collectors at the IRS are monitoring your Facebook and Twitter accounts???

We all know that there is nothing in the world that Kyrsten Sinema loves more then having the government take you money and give it to her special interest groups in the government.

And of course these IRS goons will do the best they can to make sure that you pay the government every last cent that Kyrsten Sinema thinks you owe them.

I discovered that the FBI, Homeland Security, TSA, DEA, BATF, Secret Service, or some other Federal agency is spying on me after I installed Google Analytics on my website.

Every day I get one or two hits from an IP address in the Washington, DC suburb of Shady Side, Maryland which I suspect is a headquarters for some Federal government site that spies on Americans.

I should say the city and the IP address changes over time, but it is pretty obvious that somebody in the Federal government is spying on me.

For those of you who wish to use Google Analytics to see if the government is spying on you it is free and this link will tell you how to install the software.

To get Google Analytics working on your web site all you have to do is create a free account with them and then put the following lines of code on each of your web pages.

Google will give you the following code, which you will have to cut and paste on to your web pages. The account number which has been replaced with "*************" will be replaced with your account number.

Last but not least you don't need to understand any of this computer mumbo jumbo to use Google Analytics.

Just cut and paste the code Google gives you and you will be on your way to seeing the government thugs that are spying on you.

Once you create the Google account you can visit the Google Analytics site and get reports on who is visiting your websites on an hour by hour basis.

I suspect if enough people start doing this Uncle Sam's goons will cut a deal with Google Analytics and order them not to tell you when Uncle Sam's goons visit your website.

Emperor Obama to cut Social Security????

Of course some people raised the issue that Uncle Sam was a crook because you could put that 6.2 percent of you income Uncle Sam stole in a low interest bank saving account and get a far better return then Uncle Sam gives you.

Of course now it turns out that Uncle Sam really is a crook and President Obama has decided he doesn't want to give you back the money he stole from your paycheck under the false pretenses that he was going to let you use the money for your retirement.

I always thought Obama was kinda like a socialist Robin Hood who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Now it seems like Obama is more like a Republican who steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

For the record I should say that at least one Supreme Court decision has said that Social Security is a TAX and that while you are required to pay the SOCIAL SECRUITY TAX. The same Supreme Court decision also said that you are not entitled to one cent in benefits for the thousands of dollars you paid in Social Security taxes. So it's not surprising that Emperor Obama is attempting to cheat the old folks out of the money they paid in Social Security taxes.

Source

Obama’s budget strategy: Social Security, Medicare cuts an effort to break stalemate

By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:52 AM

In the first budget of his second term, President Barack Obama set aside the grand ambitions that marked his early days in office and sent Congress a blueprint aimed at achieving a simple goal: ending the long partisan standoff over the national debt.

The 10-year budget request Obama unveiled Wednesday calls for nearly $300 billion in new spending on jobs and public works. That includes a landmark, $77 billion expansion of preschool education financed by smokers, who would have to pay an extra 94 cents a pack for cigarettes.

But barely five months after winning a decisive re-election victory, Obama proposed nothing on the scale of the $1.2 trillion initiative to extend health coverage to the uninsured that he pursued after taking office in 2009.

Even his hopes for a jobs package have diminished; the budget suggested that Obama would like $300 billion to pump up the sluggish economy but would settle for $50 billion to build a few new roads and bridges.

Instead, with sharp automatic spending cuts threatening to slow the economic recovery and another showdown over the federal debt limit looming, the blueprint establishes a budget deal with Republicans as Obama’s top fiscal priority. For the first time, he is formally proposing to trim scheduled Social Security benefits — a GOP demand that is anathema to many Democrats.

He is also offering to make meaningful reductions in Medicare benefits, including higher premiums for couples making more than $170,000 a year.

“With this budget, you can’t say the president isn’t leading. He’s clearly leading,” said Robert Greenstein, president of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the specific policies, he has definitely stepped up to the plate to try to break the gridlock.”

House Republicans and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., quickly dismissed the proposal, which formalizes an offer they rejected in December. McConnell called the cuts to Social Security and Medicare too “modest” to justify Obama’s bottom-line demand for nearly $700 billion in new taxes on the wealthy, primarily through new limits on itemized deductions for households in the top brackets.

“I don’t see this as fundamental entitlement reform as much as clarifying a statistic which does happen to save money,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said of Obama’s offer to apply a less-generous measure of inflation — known as the chained Consumer Price Index, or chained CPI — to Social Security benefits.

Some rank-and-file Republicans in the Senate were more complimentary. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., said Obama is “talking about Medicare reform, he’s talking about entitlement reform, and it will be interesting to see where the conversation goes.”

Isakson and other GOP senators were scheduled to join Obama for dinner at the White House on Wednesday.

With McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, showing no interest in further talks, administration officials see Senate Republicans as their best hope for advancing a bipartisan agreement.

Obama warned during remarks in the Rose Garden on Wednesday that the budget represents his bottom-line offer. Any deal, he said, must not only replace “the foolish across-the-board spending cuts,” known as the sequester, that are “already hurting our economy” but also raise revenue from “the wealthiest individuals and biggest corporations.”

Of the entitlement cuts, Obama said, “I don’t believe that all these ideas are optimal, but I’m willing to accept them as part of a compromise.” He added, “When it comes to deficit reduction, I’ve already met Republicans more than halfway. So in the coming days and weeks, I hope that Republicans will come forward and demonstrate that they’re really as serious about the deficits and debt as they claim to be.”

Though presidents have for nearly a century launched the budget process, Obama’s request for the fiscal year that begins in October arrived on Capitol Hill 65 days late, weeks after the House and Senate had each adopted its own spending blueprint.

In the House, Ryan’s plan seeks to balance the budget over the next decade without new taxes, in part by keeping the sequester in place, repealing Obama’s health-care initiative and making unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and other programs for the poor. In the Senate, Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., won narrow approval for a competing spending plan that would replace the $1.2 trillion sequester in part with nearly $1 trillion in new taxes.

Neither proposal would trim Social Security benefits. And though Ryan proposes to replace Medicare with a cheaper system known as “premium support,” Obama’s budget offers by far the largest Medicare savings in the near term: $370 billion over the next decade vs. roughly $130 billion in the Ryan budget.

The president’s debt-reduction proposal mirrors an offer he made to Boehner in negotiations over the “fiscal cliff.” At the time, Obama called for $1.2 trillion in new taxes. He ultimately won about $600 billion, with the bulk of the money coming from higher rates on households earning more than $450,000 a year.

Now Obama is proposing to pick up where he left off, replacing the sequester with $1.8 trillion in alternative policies that were left on the table.

In addition to higher taxes on the wealthy — including a new minimum tax rate of 30 percent on households earning more than $1 million a year — the package calls for replacing the sequester’s indiscriminate cuts to the Pentagon and other agency budgets with the sort of long-lasting entitlement changes Republicans have long demanded.

That includes nearly $400 billion from federal health programs, primarily Medicare, with the bulk of the cuts falling on drug companies and other providers. But Medicare beneficiaries would also take a hit, through higher premiums and requirements to substitute more expensive brand names with generic drugs.

Obama also proposes to slow the growth of Social Security benefits through the chained Consumer Price Index, trimming cost-of-living increases by roughly 0.3 percent a year and saving the government about $130 billion over the next decade.

White House officials said the change would not affect programs for the poor, such as Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, and would be adjusted to reduce the impact on retirees 77 or older.

Still, the proposal has infuriated many Democrats, who have long demanded that Social Security be protected from any debt-reduction deal.

Combined with budget deals enacted as part of the 2011 debt-limit fight, the fiscal-cliff talks and other agreements, Obama’s new proposal would reduce borrowing by a projected $4.3 trillion over the next decade — close to the sum recommended by independent budget analysts. That includes roughly $660 billion in new savings on top of the sequester, administration officials said.

For the coming fiscal year, the blueprint proposes to spend $3.78 trillion and projects a deficit of $744 billion, or 4.4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. That’s down from the $973 billion deficit the White House projects for the current fiscal year and heralds an end to the era of record deficits in excess of $1 trillion that ramped up the national debt during and after the recent recession.

White House projections show the budget gap narrowing steadily over the coming decade, shrinking to $439 billion in 2023, or 1.7 percent of GDP. The national debt, meanwhile, would continue to grow to $25 trillion from today’s $16.8 trillion.

It would be slowly shrinking when measured against a growing economy but would remain at historically high levels throughout the next decade.

Obama’s budget request — the fifth of his presidency — proposes a range of other initiatives.

His written message to Congress calls a growing economy the “North Star that guides our efforts,” and his budget seeks $100 billion in new cash for roads and railways, $1 billion for 15 new institutes to promote innovation in manufacturing and $8 billion to help community colleges prepare students for existing jobs.

Obama also seeks hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue, including a $3 million cap on the value of individual retirement accounts and an increase in the estate tax after 2018.

Administration officials emphasized that those proposals are separate from their offer for a debt-reduction compromise, which remains the top priority.

Democrat Kyrsten Sinema a big fan of corporate welfare???

For the record Kyrsten Sinema is an atheist like most of the people on this listserver. Although like most politicians she refuses to publicly admit that and claims not to be an atheist, but not have a religion. She is also gay.

Usually Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema are socialists who love to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

On the other hand Republicans usually steal from the poor and give to the rich. Like in this article where Kyrsten Sinema wants to steal billions of dollars from poor folks and give it to rich corporations.

Oddly Kyrsten Sinema seems to want to have it both ways. Like a Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema likes to steal money from the rich and give it to the poor in her socialist welfare schemes. And like a Republican, Kyrsten Sinema likes to steal money from poor folks and give it to rich corporations as in this $5 billion government welfare program for rich corporations that make solar panels.

Source

Rep. Sinema’s bill seeks break for green technology

By Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:43 PM

Solar companies that assemble panels in Arizona and other renewable-energy manufacturers based in the United States could be in line for money from the federal government if U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema succeeds in pushing legislation through Congress.

Sinema, a Democrat from Phoenix, introduced Wednesday the Security in Energy and Manufacturing Act, a bill to spur domestic production of energy technology and create jobs. The legislation is part of a package of more than 40 bills that House Democrats have put forward as part of the party’s “Make It in America” initiative to re-energize the U.S. manufacturing sector.

Sinema, a closely watched freshman, could face challenges with her first bill in Congress. Similar versions introduced by House and Senate members failed in the past two sessions, and contentious budget debates in Washington have created an environment hostile to new spending.

Sinema argued there is wide support from both parties for encouraging the expansion of wind, solar and geothermal companies based in the United States.

“This bill provides an opportunity for bipartisan action to create more jobs,” she told The Arizona Republic after stumping for the bill on the House floor. “We’ve utilized this program before, and it created 180 additional manufacturing sites in 43 states. So we know it works.”

Sinema said the program gave companies leverage to secure additional private loans.

The legislation would set aside $5 billion to restart the program, known as the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit program, or 48C. During the tax credit’s short run, from 2009 to 2010, about $3.2 billion was doled out before funding ran out.

Energy manufacturers would receive a 30 percent tax credit, or grant in lieu of the tax credit, to invest in new or bigger factories or buy additional equipment. The factories would have to be in the United States, a requirement designed to counter the rapid rise in manufacturing in places like China that boast lower costs.

Sinema said companies like Rioglass Solar Inc. in Surprise, which is expanding its factory, and Monarch Power Corp. in Scottsdale, a startup that wants to get into manufacturing, could benefit. Sinema mentioned Monarch in her speech and on Saturday will visit the company headquartered at Arizona State University’s SkySong. While campaigning last year, Sinema pledged to work on funding for renewable energy and research and development.

Monarch Chief Executive Officer Joseph Hui, an ASU engineering professor whose company is venturing into portable solar units, said the bill would be “tremendously helpful.”

Though his fledgling company has not yet sold its Lotus units, which fold up like a flower bud, Hui is betting on demand from emergency responders, outdoor vendors and electric-car owners as he looks to move into production soon.

Hui recently submitted a bid to purchase the Suntech Power Holdings Co. factory in Goodyear, which is slated to close this month. He said, if successful, he would hire back the 43 laid-off workers and aim to double the workforce by peak production. A tax credit would help him start that process, he said.

“It’s such a good opportunity,” Hui said.

NRA - Worlds largest gun control organization???

Some people like to say that the NRA is the worlds largest gun control organization.

I think this editorial cartoon by Steve Benson on April 11, 2013 gives credibility to that.

In the cartoon NRA leader Wayne LaPierre is picture on TV saying

We think it is reasonable to provide instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.

Who is that idiotic bobblehead.

It's you Wayne, don't you remember.

Testimony before House Judiciary Committee on Crime, 27, May 1999

Know the enemies of the Second Amendment!!!

Source

Gun reform needed now

Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:59 PM

Regarding “Arizona’s gun divide” (Republic, Friday):

As leaders of grass-roots gun-safety groups, we must address some false impressions that may have been left by the article.

First, Maricopa Gun Club President Lisa Durst represents a small minority. Only 15 percent of women — and just 34 percent of households — own guns. Background checks are supported by 91 percent of Americans, including 88 percent of gun owners. [Yea and 90 percent of Americans are Christians, but that wouldn't make it right to round up the 10 percent of Americans that are atheists and force them to believe in the silly Christian god!!!]

Second, the term “assault weapon” was defined in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and is refined in AWB 2013. Under NRA lobbying pressure, Congress allowed the 1994 ban to expire in 2004. “Modern sporting rifle” is an industry marketing term. [Yea, and “assault weapon” is a scarey sounding term used by people who want to flush your Second Amendment rights down the toilet and take your guns!!!]

There were 8,583 firearm murders in the U.S. in 2011, excluding thousands of suicide and accidental gun deaths. Gun deaths now exceed traffic fatalities in Arizona and four other states. [So it is time to ban automobiles in those 45 states???]

We stand with the majority of Americans, including Arizonans, for change. There were bipartisan victories last week in Connecticut and elsewhere.

On Friday, we delivered two petitions with more than 150,000 signatures to Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, demanding universal background checks, assault-weapon and high-capacity magazine bans, and federal prosecutions of gun trafficking. [John McCain, Jeff Flake didn't they both support invading Iraq and Afghanistan in which the American government murdered thousands, and probably millions of innocent civilians with American GUNS!!! Asking John McCain and Jeff Flake to protect you is like asking Hitler to protect the Jews]

— Kara Pelletier, Scottsdale
(Moms Demand Action, Phoenix)

— Hildy Saizow, Phoenix
(Arizonans for Gun Safety)

— Mari Bailey, Phoenix
(Greater Phoenix Million Moms March)

— Ellen Davis, Phoenix
(Arizona People Acting for a Safer Society)

Obama - addicted to taxes

You get a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!

The government views you as either an enemy that belongs in prison, or a source of cash with a big wallet they want to steal. And in both cases they ain't going to let a fair trial get in their way of putting you in prison and stealing your wallet.

Source

Guantanamo dogged by new controversy after mishandling of e-mails

By Peter Finn, Published: April 11

The military justice system at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has been dogged by charges of secret monitoring of proceedings and defense communications, became embroiled in a fresh controversy Thursday when it was revealed that hundreds of thousands of defense e-mails were turned over to the prosecution.

The breach prompted Col. Karen Mayberry, the chief military defense counsel, to order all attorneys for Guantanamo detainees to stop using Defense Department computer networks to transmit privileged or confidential information until the security of such communications is assured.

Army Col. James Pohl, the chief judge at Guantanamo, also ordered a two-month delay in pre­trial proceedings in the military-commission case against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of organizing the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. Defense attorneys in the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed , the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and four co-defendants filed an emergency motion — via a handwritten note — seeking a similar pause in proceedings.

Pretrial hearings in both cases were set to resume this month.

“Is there any security for defense attorney information?” said James Connell, attorney for Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, one of the Sept. 11 defendants. “This new disclosure is simply the latest in a series of revelations of courtroom monitoring, hidden surveillance devices and legal-bin searches.”

The inappropriate transfer of the e-mails follows other questions about government intrusion and secrecy that have undermined the legitimacy of a judicial process that has struggled to establish itself as an effective forum for the prosecution of some terrorism cases.

In February, a military lawyer acknowledged that microphones were hidden inside devices that looked like smoke detectors in rooms used for meetings between defense counsel and their clients. The military said the listening system was not used to eavesdrop on confidential meetings and had been installed before defense lawyers started to use the rooms. The government subsequently said it tore out the wiring.

That same month, Pohl learned that the soundproofed courtroom at Guantanamo was wired with a “kill switch” that allowed an unknown government entity, thought to be the CIA, to cut audio feed of the trial to the public gallery. Pohl ruled that in the future only he could turn off the audio feed to protect classified information. But defense lawyers questioned whether the audio equipment in the courtroom had been manipulated to allow the government to monitor attorney- client conversations.

In the latest controversy, the prosecution gained access to about 540,000 e-mails from defense teams. It is not clear which cases or lawyers the e-mails concerned; a Pentagon spokesman declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

Defense attorneys said prosecutors told them that they stopped looking at the e-mails as soon as they realized that the messages contained confidential defense information.

The mishandling of the e-mails was detected when IT specialists were conducting a search of the government’s computer system on behalf of prosecutors in a particular case. When they did so, they came across not only the e-mails they were seeking but also those between defense lawyers.

Defense attorneys said military IT personnel unsuccessfully tried to refine their search parameters two more times — and in each case discovered more confidential defense material.

In another controversy, defense counsel recently complained that huge volumes of work files were lost when the Defense Department tried to upgrade its network and mirror at Guantanamo the computer system that is available to defense lawyers handling detainee cases in the Washington area.

“Entire files, months of work was just gone,” said Navy Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes, an attorney for Nashiri. “I have no evidence of any nefarious conduct, but it demonstrates again that we don’t have confidence that our files and communications are secure.”

Reyes noted that a prosecution file also was recently found in the defense computer system.

The latest delay in the commission hearings comes as the Obama administration faces a widening hunger strike among the detainees at Guantanamo.

Attorneys for the detainees and the military have clashed over the number of participants in the protest. The Pentagon said Thursday that 43 of the 166 detainees were on hunger strike, of whom 11 are being force-fed, while defense attorneys said the overwhelming majority of the 120 or so detainees in Camps 5 and 6 are on hunger strike.

The military has refused requests from the media, including The Washington Post, to allow reporters to observe conditions at the camps. Human Rights groups also have requested unfettered access to the camps.

A team from the International Committee of the Red Cross is visiting the camp, but the organization does not make its recommendations public.

ICRC President Peter Maurer said Thursday in an interview at The Post that the hunger strike is born of detainees’ frustration at being held indefinitely without any further review, even in cases in which they have been cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo.

With Police in Schools, More Children in Court

Let's face it, it's not about the kids. It's about high paying, cushy jobs for cops.

Well at least that is probably how the cops and police unions feel about it.

Source

With Police in Schools, More Children in Court

By ERIK ECKHOLM

Published: April 12, 2013 175 Comments

HOUSTON — As school districts across the country consider placing more police officers in schools, youth advocates and judges are raising alarm about what they have seen in the schools where officers are already stationed: a surge in criminal charges against children for misbehavior that many believe is better handled in the principal’s office.

Since the early 1990s, thousands of districts, often with federal subsidies, have paid local police agencies to provide armed “school resource officers” for high schools, middle schools and sometimes even elementary schools. Hundreds of additional districts, including those in Houston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, have created police forces of their own, employing thousands of sworn officers.

Last week, in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, a task force of the National Rifle Association recommended placing police officers or other armed guards in every school. The White House has proposed an increase in police officers based in schools.

The effectiveness of using police officers in schools to deter crime or the remote threat of armed intruders is unclear. The new N.R.A. report cites the example of a Mississippi assistant principal who in 1997 got a gun from his truck and disarmed a student who had killed two classmates, and another in California in which a school resource officer in 2001 wounded and arrested a student who had opened fire with a shotgun.

Yet the most striking impact of school police officers so far, critics say, has been a surge in arrests or misdemeanor charges for essentially nonviolent behavior — including scuffles, truancy and cursing at teachers — that sends children into the criminal courts.

“There is no evidence that placing officers in the schools improves safety,” said Denise C. Gottfredson, a criminologist at the University of Maryland who is an expert in school violence. “And it increases the number of minor behavior problems that are referred to the police, pushing kids into the criminal system.”

Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of students are arrested or given criminal citations at schools each year. A large share are sent to court for relatively minor offenses, with black and Hispanic students and those with disabilities disproportionately affected, according to recent reports from civil rights groups, including the Advancement Project, in Washington, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in New York.

Such criminal charges may be most prevalent in Texas, where police officers based in schools write more than 100,000 misdemeanor tickets each year, said Deborah Fowler, the deputy director of Texas Appleseed, a legal advocacy center in Austin. The students seldom get legal aid, she noted, and they may face hundreds of dollars in fines, community service and, in some cases, a lasting record that could affect applications for jobs or the military.

In February, Texas Appleseed and the Brazos County chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. filed a complaint with the federal Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Black students in the school district in Bryan, they noted, receive criminal misdemeanor citations at four times the rate of white students.

Featured in the complaint is De’Angelo Rollins, who was 12 and had just started at a Bryan middle school in 2010 when he and another boy scuffled and were given citations. After repeated court appearances, De’Angelo pleaded no contest, paid a fine of $69 and was sentenced to 20 hours of community service and four months’ probation.

“They said this will stay on his record unless we go back when he is 17 and get it expunged,” said his mother, Marjorie Holmon.

Federal officials have not yet acted, but the district says it is revising guidelines for citations. “Allegations of inequitable treatment of students is something the district takes very seriously,” said Sandra Farris, a spokeswoman for the Bryan schools.

While schools may bring in police officers to provide security, the officers often end up handling discipline and handing out charges of disorderly conduct or assault, said Michael Nash, the presiding judge of juvenile court in Los Angeles and the president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

“You have to differentiate the security issue and the discipline issue,” he said. “Once the kids get involved in the court system, it’s a slippery slope downhill.”

Mo Canady, the executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers, defended placing police officers in schools, provided that they are properly trained. He said that the negative impacts had been exaggerated, and that when the right people were selected and schooled in adolescent psychology and mediation, both schools and communities benefited.

“The good officers recognize the difference between a scuffle and a true assault,” Mr. Canady said.

But the line is not always clear. In New York, a lawsuit against the Police Department’s School Safety Division describes several instances in which officers handcuffed and arrested children for noncriminal behavior.

Many districts are clamoring for police officers. “There’s definitely a massive trend toward increasing school resource officers, so much so that departments are having trouble buying guns and supplies,” said Michael Dorn, director of Safe Havens International, in Macon, Ga., a safety consultant to schools.

One district in Florida, Mr. Dorn said, is looking to add 130 officers, mainly to patrol its grade schools. McKinney, Tex., north of Dallas, recently placed officers in its five middle schools.

Many judges say school police officers are too quick to make arrests or write tickets.

“We are criminalizing our children for nonviolent offenses,” Wallace B. Jefferson, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, said in a speech to the Legislature in March.

School officers in Texas are authorized to issue Class C misdemeanor citations, which require students to appear before a justice of the peace or in municipal court, with public records.

The process can leave a bitter taste. Joshua, a ninth grader who lives south of Houston, got into a brief fight on a school bus in November after another boy, a security video showed, hit him first. The principal called in the school’s resident sheriff, who wrote them both up for disorderly conduct.

“I thought it was stupid,” Joshua said of the ticket and his need to miss school for two court appearances. His guardian found a free lawyer from the Earl Carl Institute, a legal aid group at Texas Southern University, and the case was eventually dismissed.

Sarah R. Guidry, the executive director of the institute, said that when students appeared in court with a lawyer, charges for minor offenses were often dismissed. But she said the courts tended to be “plea mills,” with students pleading guilty in the hope that, once they paid a fine and spent hours cleaning parks, the charges would be expunged. If students fail to show up and cases are unresolved, they may be named in arrest warrants when they turn 17.

In parts of Texas, the outcry from legal advocates is starting to make a difference. Jimmy L. Dotson, the chief of Houston’s 186-member school district force, is one of several police leaders working to redefine the role of campus officers.

Perhaps the sharpest change has come to E. L. Furr High School, which serves mainly low-income Hispanic children on the city’s east side. Bertie Simmons, 79, came out of retirement 11 years ago to try to turn around a school so blighted by gang violence that it dared not hold assemblies.

“The kids hated the school police,” said Ms. Simmons, the principal. They arrested two or three students a day and issued tickets to many more.

Ms. Simmons searched for officers who would work with the students and build trust. She found them in Danny Avalos and Craig Davis, former municipal police officers who grew up in rough neighborhoods, and after years of effort, the campus is peaceful and arrests and tickets are rare. Discipline is usually enforced by a principal’s court with student juries, not summonses to the criminal courts.

“Writing tickets is easy,” Officer Avalos said. “We do it the hard way, talking with the kids and coaching them.”

With new guidelines and training, ticketing within the Houston schools was reduced by 60 percent in one year. Citations for “disruption of classes,” for example, fell to 124 between September and February, from 927 in the same period last year.

“Our role is not to be disciplinarians,” Chief Dotson said in an interview. “Our purpose is to push these kids into college, not into the criminal justice system.”

Government rulers all talk, no action on public records.

Arizona's public records laws, or freedom of information act which is A.R.S 39 §121 requires government bureaucrats and elected officials to answer all requests for public records as quickly as possible. That's the good news.

The bad news is there is no criminal or civil penalties for government bureaucrats and elected officials who refuse to obey the law.

And you can't call the cops to enforce the public records law. The only way you can do that is for YOU to sue the bureaucrat who refused to honor your request for public records.

And the Arizona's public records law doesn't even guarantee that your expenses for suing will be covered. It says "The court MAY award attorney fees and other legal costs"

Source

San Jose fights disclosure of email, text message records

By John Woolfolk

jwoolfolk@mercurynews.com

Posted: 04/12/2013 06:21:01 AM PDT

SAN JOSE -- San Jose drew praise for its progressive approach to open government in the digital age by adopting a policy three years ago making elected officials' personal email and text messages about city business public records subject to disclosure.

But the City Council this week voted unanimously to appeal a judge's ruling last month that effectively applies that policy to the whole city workforce by declaring government employees' communications about public business subject to the California Public Records Act whether on official or private devices.

The case sets up a showdown that will be watched statewide and beyond over what open-government advocates say has become a gaping hole in public records law that was written in the typewriter era and didn't contemplate officials with Gmail, Facebook and iPhones. And they say, bring it on.

"I'm glad the city is appealing the ruling, since it is likely to be affirmed on appeal," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition in San Rafael. "That will force all California cities and counties to treat emails about government business as public records, regardless of the status or ownership of the email accounts or devices. What matters is the substance of the message -- is it about government business or is it purely personal? -- not the technology."

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, who ran as an open-government champion, had made the same argument in 2010 when he pushed a policy that would require disclosure of messages about city business sent or received by the mayor, council members and their staffs whether they were communicated on personal or city phones and networks. The City Council approved the policy unanimously in March 2010 on a trial basis and, citing no problems since, made it permanent in December.

Scheer said at the time the council adopted the policy that he knew of no other city that had gone so far in updating public records policy to account for modern technology. Most cities have fought efforts to force disclosure of officials' messages on private networks, citing both privacy concerns and practical questions of how a government could search for relevant documents and messages on phones and email networks it doesn't control.

Reed said that such disclosure rules covering private devices and networks can be justified and managed on a small scale involving a few dozen elected officials and their staffs. But he said the council appealed out of concern that applying those rules throughout a city organization of 5,500 full-time employees -- the practical effect of a decision that personal emails are subject to the California Public Records Act -- would be invasive and burdensome.

"It's about the scope of it," Reed said. "I think it's too broad. It sets up practical problems."

The case originated in June 2009 when activist Ted Smith requested voice mails, text messages, and emails sent or received by the mayor and council members related to a downtown redevelopment project in San Jose, whether on official or personal networks and devices. He sued in August that year when the city claimed it lacked authority to access any records on officials' private personal accounts.

Last month, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg ruled in Smith's favor, stating that under the city's interpretation of public records law, "a public agency could easily shield information from public disclosure simply by storing it on equipment it does not technically own."

"Regardless of where a record is retained, if it is drafted by a public official," Kleinberg wrote, it "constitutes a 'public record.' "

Scheer said that while the practical and privacy concerns cities have raised are legitimate, they can easily be overcome by requiring public officials to copy messages about public business to their official email where the city can search for and retrieve it.

In the city's petition with the Sixth District Court of Appeal, San Jose argues that the council disclosure policy for private email and phone networks is irrelevant to Smith's case because it was adopted 10 months after his records request and was not retroactive. The city added that "local policies simply do not affect the courts' interpretation of the Public Records Act," and that the council had chosen to limit its policy to affect about 30 city employees.

But San Jose also advanced arguments that seemingly conflict with the policy that the council adopted for itself.

"A council member is not a governmental entity," San Jose's appellate filing stated. "A council member is an individual public official with no authority to act alone on behalf of the city. Consequently, emails and documents found on a council member's personal computer or personal electronic device do not fall within the definition of a public record because any record personally and individually created by a council member is not a documentation of a transaction or activity of the city as a local agency."

Contact John Woolfolk at 408-975-9346. Follow him on Twitter at Twitter.com/johnwoolfolk1.

Green energy too pricey

Green energy too pricey

Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:53 PM

If not for laughing so hard, I think I might have cried reading your article touting Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema’s plan to pump billions more taxpayer dollars into the bottomless pit that is “green energy” (“Sinema’s bills seeks boost for green tech,” Business, Thursday).

Haven’t we learned anything from the billions of taxpayer dollars President Obama has already flushed down the toilet?

Many of Obama’s “chosen” companies have already gone belly-up despite all the “free” money they received. It’s bad enough that these companies were so inept they couldn’t succeed even with handouts, but their failures are compounded further when you consider the fact that the consumers of their products were also being subsidized in the form of tax credits to make their product easier to purchase.

The long and the short of it is this: Green energy is too expensive to produce. Even with all the subsidies, solar panels still take 15 or more years to pay for themselves. Any investment adviser will tell you that is a bad investment. By the way, wind and geothermal are worse investments.

The most glaring proof that “green” energy is a poor investment is the fact that venture capitalists won’t invest, even with the subsidies. That alone speaks volumes because if there is a buck to be made, they will trip over themselves trying to invest. They aren’t, so there must be a reason.

— Steve “Willy” Williams, Phoenix

Note: 20 years ago in an article in "Home Power" they pointed out that electricity generated by solar cells can't even come close to competing with electricity generated by the grid. They said that homes powered by solar cells are only economically feasible in homes that are out in the boondocks too far to be cheaply hooked up to the grid.

And of course "Home Power" is a magazine written an produced by "tree huggers" like Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema.

Steve “Willy” Williams was kind enough not to mention that Kyrsten Sinema's $5 billion corporate welfare plan is probably pay back for the bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions she received from the solar industry.

Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema gets $333,000 in campaign contributions

Source

Sinema, Barber flex fundraising muscle

By Ronald J. Hansen and Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:51 PM

Though she is only a freshman on Capitol Hill, U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema has quickly established herself as one of the more prolific fundraisers in Congress.

Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat, collected $333,000 between January and March and ranked 55th among all incumbents in the House. Her haul wasn’t far behind the $345,000 raised by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Posting an impressive fundraising total in the beginning of an off-election year could help Sinema ward off potential challengers to her toss-up seat — or at least intimidate them. Two fellow Arizona Democrats, Reps. Ron Barber of southern Arizona and Ann Kirkpatrick of northern Arizona, were close behind in total fundraising, reflecting the importance of campaign cash for the three incumbents who took narrow victories last year.

Barber raised $297,000 and Kirkpatrick $314,000.

By contrast, Reps. Trent Franks of Glendale and Paul Gosar of Prescott, two Republicans holding among the safest conservative seats in the country, raised less than $100,000 combined. Both ranked near the bottom of fundraisers among incumbents, Federal Election Commission records show.

“The first quarter fundraising shows that Kirkpatrick, Barber and Sinema are taking their re-elections seriously,” said Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report, based in Washington, D.C. “If you raise a lot of money early, it does give challengers pause. But I don’t think at this early stage potential challengers look at a fundraising number and think, ‘It’s too big, and there’s not enough time to get there.’ ”

“By the time we get to next summer and fall,” Gonzales added, when the election cycle will be at its peak, “both sides will be dumping money in.”

Among potential challengers to Sinema, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Wendy Rogers, a Tempe Republican, raised $103,000 in the first quarter. Rogers’ total was among the highest in the country among non-incumbents. Sinema represents parts of Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Paradise Valley and Scottsdale.

Rogers, who has begun sending e-mails touting her campaign bid, ran in the district last year, as did Vernon Parker and Martin Sepulveda. Parker, who won the Republican primary and lost to Sinema in November, raised $11,000. Sepulveda took in 70 cents.

Republicans in Barber’s district appear to be pinning their hopes on retired Air Force Col. Martha McSally. Barber barely scraped by her in November, but easily raised more cash than McSally in the first quarter. McSally reported $8,400 in contributions, half of which came from a Georgia-based GOP PAC.

Barber’s district includes part of Tucson and all of Cochise County near the U.S.-Mexico border.

In recent months, McSally has appeared on national news shows, sent out e-mails from her campaign account and visited political groups in the district, sending signals that she will run again, but she has declined to make it official.

“If we see a couple more quarters from McSally with that showing, there will be concern on the Republican side,” Gonzales said. But “for someone like McSally who just got off the campaign trail, I think there’s usually a natural pause before getting things ramped up again.”

Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, raised $75,000; Rep. Ed Pastor, a Democrat, raised $90,000; Rep. Matt Salmon, a Republican, raised $94,000; and Rep. David Schweikert, a Republican, raised $172,000.

Senate filings were not yet available.

Most Glendale tax dollars go to the POLICE!!!!

I suspect the reason the police and fire unions back Kyrsten Sinema is because she shoves our tax dollars to them.

And not Kyrsten Sinema doesn't live in Glendale. When I knew her she lived in Phoenix.

But these numbers are typical for Arizona cities in the amount of their budgets they spend on cops and firemen. And sadly based on these numbers America is really a police state that would make Hitler, Stalin and Mao proud.

And of course Kyrsten Sinema is part of the problem when it comes to making America a police state. She gives these police tyrants all the money they want.

This article had a photo and graph which showed that the police in Glendale get 41 percent of the budget.

That is followed by the fire department which gets 22 percent of the budget.

And all other departments combined share the remaining 37 percent of the budget.

They had a second graph that showed the number of Glendale police employees was 550, the number of fire department employees was 250. All the other city employees on the graph were 500. So the police and fire departments have more employees then all the other departments combined.

Those numbers are typical for other city budgets I have seen and the money spent on the cops is usually twice as much at the fire department, and that the police and fire departments budgets are always more then that of all the other city departments combined.

Which leads me to say that America cities are police states because most of the money is spent on the police.

The sad part is that most of the arrests the police make are for victimless drug war crimes. I have read that at the Federal level two thirds of the people in prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes. I am not sure what percent of people in state prisons are there for victimless drug war crimes, but I suspect it is also a huge number.

Glendale city finances could be nearing steep cliff

Glendale city finances could be nearing steep cliff

By Paul Giblin The Republic | azcentral.com Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:59 AM

The mostly new Glendale City Council is contending with a mostly old problem. The city’s financial position has been on a downward slope for years.

In an effort to offset declines in tax revenues, the state’s fifth-largest city has nearly chewed through its financial reserves while it has shed employees and cut services.

Yet, according to the city’s projections, its financial position is about to get far worse.

According to current forecasts, the city will have $3.4 million in reserve in the general fund at the end of fiscal 2014. Without serious restructuring, by 2015 the city would be $3.8 million in the red, and by 2018, the city would have a $20.3 million shortfall.

One option city bookkeepers recommend is to make $3.5 million in cuts for the fiscal year opening in July, followed by $10.8 million in reductions for 2015, and an additional $8.2 million in cuts in 2018.

The seven-member council, with its four new members, is trying to determine how to shape a budget that will keep enough police on patrol and parks in good repair.

But those goals seemed to border on unachievable during an opening series of budget workshops in recent weeks.

If all goes as scheduled, the council will offer a draft of the 2014 budget and a 10-year capital-improvement plan May 28, then authorize a final budget June 11.

Glendale’s financial experts project the city to finish the current fiscal year with an $11.4 million reserve in the general fund.

Ending with any savings, or a reserve, in 2014 requires $3.5 million in reduced spending that would be accomplished by eliminating vacant positions and related costs, Financial Services Executive Director Sherry Schurhammer told the council.

With those cuts and deeper ones recommended by staff, the city could build its reserve to nearly $20 million by fiscal 2018.

Without changes, the city’s financial position is set to become particularly grim in 2018, because that year marks the first year without revenue from a current, but temporary sales tax.

“What I want to make clear here — or hope I’m making clear — is that this ongoing structural operating deficit exists even if that sales tax does not sunset, because you’ve got this negative fund balance,” she said March 27.

The general fund is important because it’s the city’s largest operating fund and it supports the widest range of programs, she said.

The city’s financial position is headed downward because municipal spending patterns were based on prerecession tax collections, and spending was not reduced enough to keep pace as tax collections tapered off during the recession, Schurhammer said.

Most city departments have reduced spending by letting vacant positions remain unfilled in recent years, but those efforts aren’t enough to balance the books, she said.

The heads of most municipal departments told council members that staffing cuts already have cut into their programs.

Acting Police Chief Debby Black and Fire Chief Mark Burdick told council members that they have run out of ways to cover the staffing cuts by adjusting employees’ work schedules and assignments. Both departments need more employees, they said.

Likewise, the number of positions in the Community and Economic Development Department has fallen from 78.5 in 2009 to 39.8 this year, according to city records. Projections call for the department to lose three more positions next year.

Yet the city’s economic development officials are handling more business prospects than they have in years, Executive Director Brian Friedman said.

In addition to anticipated budget expenses across the city, council members are expected to consider an array of new expenses in coming weeks. Among them:

Payments to the potential new owners of the Phoenix Coyotes or a separate management firm to operate Jobing.com Arena. Next year’s budget assumes the city could pay an arena manager $6.5 million.

Funding air-traffic controllers at Glendale Municipal Airport beginning in June when the federal government discontinues the service.

Securing permanent parking and perhaps even building a parking garage around University of Phoenix Stadium.

Possible pay raises or cost-of-living adjustments for city employees, whose pay has been frozen for years.

Criminalizing Children at School

Basically the government schools have become a jobs program for teachers, administrators, and cops and are run for the sake of the teachers, administrators, cops and unions, not the parents and children.

Now the cops seems to want to use recent shootings to turn the schools into a bigger jobs program for police officers. And this article addresses some of that.

I suspect that Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is a big fan of turning our schools into a job program for cops, because after all in every election I have seen Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema has gotten the endorsement of the police unions, so she probably supports jobs programs for cops like this is.

Source

Criminalizing Children at School

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Published: April 18, 2013 13 Comments

The National Rifle Association and President Obama responded to the Newtown, Conn., shootings by recommending that more police officers be placed in the nation’s schools. But a growing body of research suggests that, contrary to popular wisdom, a larger police presence in schools generally does little to improve safety. It can also create a repressive environment in which children are arrested or issued summonses for minor misdeeds — like cutting class or talking back — that once would have been dealt with by the principal.

Stationing police in schools, while common today, was virtually unknown during the 1970s. Things began to change with the surge of juvenile crime during the ’80s, followed by an overreaction among school officials. Then came the 1999 Columbine High School shooting outside Denver, which prompted a surge in financing for specially trained police. In the mid-1970s, police patrolled about 1 percent of schools. By 2008, the figure was 40 percent.

The belief that police officers automatically make schools safer was challenged in a 2011 study that compared federal crime data of schools that had police officers with schools that did not. It found that the presence of the officers did not drive down crime. The study — by Chongmin Na of The University of Houston, Clear Lake, and Denise Gottfredson of the University of Maryland — also found that with police in the buildings, routine disciplinary problems began to be treated as criminal justice problems, increasing the likelihood of arrests.

Children as young as 12 have been treated as criminals for shoving matches and even adolescent misconduct like cursing in school. This is worrisome because young people who spend time in adult jails are more likely to have problems with law enforcement later on. Moreover, federal data suggest a pattern of discrimination in the arrests, with black and Hispanic children more likely to be affected than their white peers.

In Texas, civil rights groups filed a federal complaint against the school district in the town of Bryan. The lawyers say African-American students are four times as likely as other students to be charged with misdemeanors, which can carry fines up to $500 and lead to jail time for disrupting class or using foul language.

The criminalization of misbehavior so alarmed the New York City Council that, in 2010, it passed the Student Safety Act, which requires detailed police reports on which students are arrested and why. (Data from the 2011-12 school year show that black students are being disproportionately arrested and suspended.)

Some critics now want to require greater transparency in the reporting process to make the police even more forthcoming. Elsewhere in the country, judges, lawmakers and children’s advocates have been working hard to dismantle what they have begun to call the school-to-prison pipeline.

Given the growing criticism, districts that have gotten along without police officers should think twice before deploying them in school buildings.

U.S. uses the Bible as “an excuse for invading other countries.”

While I think it is wrong to murder innocent people like the people that planted the bombs in the Boston Marathon, I think that Tamerlan Tsarnaev quote is correct.

If the American government would stop terrorizing people in other countries these terrorist acts would stop overnight.

Also from this quote it sounds like the American police force have a double standard of justice. They seem to think it's OK to flush our Constitutional rights down the toilet to help them catch alleged criminals.

U.S. officials said a special interrogation team for high-value suspects would question him without reading him his Miranda rights

Source

Final shootout, then Boston bombing suspect caught

Associated Press Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:26 AM

WATERTOWN, Mass. — For just a few minutes, it seemed as if the dragnet that had shut down a metropolitan area of millions while legions of police went house to house looking for the suspected Boston Marathon bomber had failed.

Weary officials lifted a daylong order that had kept residents in their homes, saying it was fruitless to keep an entire city locked down. Then one man emerged from his home and noticed blood on the pleasure boat parked in his backyard. He lifted the tarp and found the wounded 19-year-old college student known the world over as Suspect No. 2.

Soon after that, the 24-hour drama that paralyzed a city and transfixed a nation was over.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s capture touched off raucous celebrations in and around Boston, with chants of “USA, USA” as residents flooded the streets in relief and jubilation after four tense days since twin explosions ripped through the marathon’s crowd at the finish line, killing three people and wounding more than 180.

Will cops torture Boston Marathon bombing suspect to get answers???

President Barack Obama said there are many unanswered questions about the Boston bombings, including whether the two men had help from others. He urged people not to rush judgment about their motivations.

Dzhokhar and his brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were identified by authorities and relatives as ethnic Chechens from southern Russia who had been in the U.S. for about a decade and were believed to be living in Cambridge, just outside Boston. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died early in the day of gunshot wounds and a possible blast injury. He was run over by his younger brother in a car as he lay wounded, according to investigators.

During a long night of violence Thursday and into Friday, the brothers killed an MIT police officer, severely wounded another lawman during a gun battle and hurled explosives at police in a desperate getaway attempt, authorities said.

Late Friday, less than an hour after authorities lifted the lockdown, they tracked down the younger man holed up in the boat, weakened by a gunshot wound after fleeing on foot from the overnight shootout with police that left 200 spent rounds behind.

The resident who spotted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in his boat in his Watertown yard called police, who tried to persuade the suspect to get out of the boat, said Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis.

“He was not communicative,” Davis said.

Instead, he said, there was an exchange of gunfire — the final volley of one of the biggest manhunts in American history.

The violent endgame unfolded just a day after the FBI released surveillance-camera images of two young men suspected of planting the pressure-cooker explosives at the marathon’s finish line, an attack that put the nation on edge for the week.

Watertown residents who had been told Friday morning to stay inside behind locked doors poured out of their homes and lined the streets to cheer police vehicles as they rolled away from the scene.

Celebratory bells rang from a church tower. Teenagers waved American flags. Drivers honked. Every time an emergency vehicle went by, people cheered loudly.

“They finally caught the jerk,” said nurse Cindy Boyle. “It was scary. It was tense.”

Police said three other people were taken into custody for questioning at an off-campus housing complex at the University of the Massachusetts at Dartmouth where the younger man may have lived.

“Tonight, our family applauds the entire law enforcement community for a job well done, and trust that our justice system will now do its job,” said the family of 8-year-old Martin Richard, who died in the bombing.

Queries cascaded in after authorities released the surveillance-camera photos — the FBI website was overwhelmed with 300,000 hits per minute — but what role those played in the overnight clash was unclear. State police spokesman Dave Procopio said police realized they were dealing with the bombing suspects based on what the two men told a carjacking victim during their night of crime.

The search by thousands of law enforcement officers all but shut down the Boston area for much of the day. Officials halted all mass transit, including Amtrak trains to New York, advised businesses not to open and warned close to 1 million people in the city and some of its suburbs to unlock their doors only for uniformed police.

Around midday, the suspects’ uncle, Ruslan Tsarni of Montgomery Village, Md., pleaded on television: “Dzhokhar, if you are alive, turn yourself in and ask for forgiveness.”

Until the younger man’s capture, it was looking like a grim day for police. As night fell, they announced that they were scaling back the hunt and lifting the stay-indoors order across the region because they had come up empty-handed.

But then the break came and within a couple of hours, the search was over. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured about a mile from the site of the shootout that killed his brother.

A neighbor described how heavily armed police stormed by her window not long after the lockdown was lifted — the rapid gunfire left her huddled on the bathroom floor on top of her young son.

“I was just waiting for bullets to just start flying everywhere,” Deanna Finn said.

When at last the gunfire died away and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was taken from the neighborhood in an ambulance, an officer gave Finn a cheery thumbs-up.

“To see the look on his face, he was very, very happy, so that made me very, very happy,” she said.

Authorities said the man dubbed Suspect No. 1 — the one in sunglasses and a dark baseball cap in the surveillance-camera pictures — was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, while Suspect No. 2, the one in a white baseball cap worn backward, was his younger brother.

Chechnya, where the brothers grew up, has been the scene of two wars between Russian forces and separatists since 1994, in which tens of thousands were killed in heavy Russian bombing. That spawned an Islamic insurgency that has carried out deadly bombings in Russia and the region, although not in the West.

U.S. uses the Bible as “an excuse for invading other countries.”

Also, the FBI interviewed the older brother at the request of a foreign government in 2011, and nothing derogatory was found, according to a federal law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The official did not identify the foreign country or say why it made the request.

Exactly how the long night of crime began was unclear. But police said the brothers carjacked a man in a Mercedes-Benz in Cambridge, just across the Charles River from Boston, then released him unharmed at a gas station.

They also shot to death a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer, 26-year-old Sean Collier, while he was responding to a report of a disturbance, investigators said.

The search for the Mercedes led to a chase that ended in Watertown, where authorities said the suspects threw explosive devices from the car and exchanged gunfire with police. A transit police officer, 33-year-old Richard Donohue, was shot and critically wounded, authorities said.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ran over his already wounded brother as he fled, according to two law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation. At some point, he abandoned his car and ran away on foot.

The brothers had built an arsenal of pipe bombs, grenades and improvised explosive devices and used some of the weapons in trying to make their getaway, said Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Watertown resident Kayla Dipaolo said she was woken up overnight by gunfire and a large explosion that sounded “like it was right next to my head … and shook the whole house.”

“It was very scary,” she said. “There are two bullet holes in the side of my house, and by the front door there is another.”

Tamerlan Tsarnaev had studied accounting as a part-time student at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston for three semesters from 2006 to 2008, the school said. He was married with a young daughter.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was registered as a student at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Students said he was on campus this week after the Boston Marathon bombing. The campus closed down Friday along with colleges around the Boston area.

The men’s father, Anzor Tsarnaev, said in a telephone interview with the AP from the Russian city of Makhachkala that his younger son, Dzhokhar, is “a true angel.” He said his son was studying medicine.

“He is such an intelligent boy,” the father said. “We expected him to come on holidays here.”

A man who said he knew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Krystle Campbell, the 29-year-old restaurant manager killed in Monday’s bombing, said he was glad Dzhokhar had survived.

“I didn’t want to lose more than one friend,” Marvin Salazar said.

“Why Jahar?” he asked, using Tsarnaev’s nickname. “I want to know answers. That’s the most important thing. And I think I speak for almost all America. Why the Boston Marathon? Why this year? Why Jahar?”

Two years ago, the city of Cambridge awarded Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a $2,500 scholarship. At the time, he was a senior at Cambridge Rindge & Latin School, a highly regarded public school whose alumni include Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and NBA Hall of Famer Patrick Ewing.

Tsarni, the men’s uncle, said the brothers traveled here together from Russia. He called his nephews “losers” and said they had struggled to settle in the U.S. and ended up “thereby just hating everyone.”

———

Sullivan and Associated Press writers Stephen Braun, Jack Gillum and Pete Yost reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Mike Hill, Katie Zezima, Pat Eaton-Robb and Steve LeBlanc in Boston, Rodrique Ngowi in Watertown, Mass. and Jeff Donn in Cambridge, Mass., contributed to this report.

DUI and "drug war" laws are a jobs program for cops????

When you’re paying officers $50-$60 an hour in overtime to make arrests and appear in court, the cash will be gone in a flash.

Source

Richardson: When will Arizona, cities get serious about alcohol-related crime?

Posted: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:27 am

Guest Commentary by Bill Richardson

It was no surprise a 20-year-old man was arrested over the weekend for stabbing another man at the Country Thunder music festival in Pinal County. News reports tell of an argument escalating into violence. I’d bet excessive and criminal alcohol consumption played a part in this crime.

Country Thunder is well known for its wild parties, exhibitionism, drunkenness and violence. In 2011 an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer and Pinal County sheriff’s deputy were attacked by a drunken crowd resulting in serious injuries to both officers.

We constantly hear about violent outcomes to citizens encountering drunks and DUI drivers, but police officers contact drunks regularly and get hurt and killed. I can recall four officers, three from Tempe and one from Gilbert, in Tempe being seriously injured and killed. Two were shot — one beaten and another run over after their assailants spent the night drinking to excess at local watering holes and boozefests. Officers from Mesa, DPS, Chandler, Phoenix and other agencies have also fallen victim to criminal alcohol abusers in their communities.

[Oddly ex-cop Bill Richardson just plain forgot to mention DPS police officer Steven Svestka who was arrested, while he was drunk as a skunk at the Country Thunder concert who was busted in a woman's restroom.]

Gov. Jan Brewer’s Office for Highway Safety recently awarded an $80,000 grant to Tempe to the city get a handle on its illegal alcohol activities and related crime. Officials said the money would be used for “DUI enforcement downtown and on streets citywide, including to impact Large Party Liquor Enforcement, enhance existing Covert Underage Buyer Program in partnership with the Arizona Department of Liquor License, Control and Investigations, and limit the purchase of alcohol with fraudulent ID in liquor establishments.”

An amount like $80,000 will no doubt help pay the extra overtime in Tempe’s efforts, but what happens when the money is gone? When you’re paying officers $50-$60 an hour in overtime to make arrests and appear in court, the cash will be gone in a flash. [Sounds like a jobs program for overpaid and under worked cops. If we are going to pay them $50 or $60 an hour we should at least make them hunt down real criminals, not victimless liquor crime]

Will there be thousands for Scottsdale to help them with their booze related problems? What about Pinal County’s annual problems at Country Thunder? Will there be money for DPS and surrounding cities to deal with the problems that are pushed out of Tempe and onto the highways and into other cities? I doubt with Arizona’s budget and federal sequestration there’ll be many more handouts.

What’s going to be done long-term?

Does the Legislature need to make the criminal law violations relating to the liquor law enforcement more police friendly versus liquor industry friendly? Should it be easier for officers to make arrests for serving an intoxicated patron or allowing drunks on the premises? Should using a fake ID card to get alcohol be a more serious crime? What about a “sin tax” on alcoholic beverages and liquor licenses to pay for police to enforce liquor laws, grants for assistance, education and treatment of those with alcohol problems? [Sorry there already are hefty federal and state taxes on liquor which pretty much are sin taxes]

Should Arizona return liquor law enforcement to DPS and remove it from the state liquor board that’s run by a political appointee? Currently there are only 10 liquor board officers enforcing laws at 11,000 establishments. Should law enforcement “data mine” DUI arrest reports to look for bars that chronically produce drunk drivers? Police officers collect data on where arrested drivers were drinking but the information mostly sits in files and could be used as part of an intelligence led policing effort to prevent crime and target trouble spots. Bars have long been havens for money laundering, drugs, stolen property and the sex trade and with little or no liquor law enforcement these kinds of crimes have only flourished. Should liquor law enforcement be a higher priority for law enforcement?

There’s no question the criminal use of alcohol in Arizona has contributed to crime. [And no doubt that the "war on liquor", like the "war on drugs" is mostly a jobs program for cops and has nothing to do with public safety]

The question is, does Arizona and its cities really want to get serious about confronting alcohol related crime and the misery it causes?

Retired Mesa master police officer Bill Richardson lives in the East Valley and can be reached at bill.richardson@cox.net.

Sens. Graham, McCain say Tsarnaev should be sent to Guantanamo

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken

Source

Sens. Graham, McCain say Tsarnaev should be sent to Guantanamo

By Richard A. Serrano

April 20, 2013, 10:33 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), said Saturday in a joint statement that alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be denied a defense attorney and declared an “enemy combatant.”

They added in a statement on Graham's Facebook page, "It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city.”

The two Republican conservatives have demanded that terror suspects not be Mirandized or tried in federal courts and instead be shipped to the detainee prison on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But the Supreme Court has never said that a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil, like Tsarnaev, could be treated as an enemy combatant.

“The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans,” the senators said. “We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now.

"Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks."

In a separate tweet, Graham added, “The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to 'remain silent.'"

Tsarnaev was arrested Friday night in Watertown, Mass. He was being held at a local hospital, and a Justice Department official said he likely would be charged later Saturday. Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney in Boston, invoked a “public safety exemption in cases of national security and potential charges involving acts of terrorism” as a reason not to immediately read him his Miranda rights against self-incrimination.

In 2011, a Justice Department memo expanded the use of the public safety exception in domestic terrorism cases, so that it can be invoked in exceptional circumstances even when there is not an imminent safety threat. The changes were made after a controversy over the handling of the suspect in the Christmas Day 2009 airline bomb attempt, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was questioned by FBI agents for less than an hour before being read his rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union, meanwhile, said in a statement that “every criminal defendant” is entitled to Miranda rights, noting that Tsarnaev became a naturalized American citizen.

“The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule,” the ACLU said. “Every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions."

F*ck his Constitutional rights, he is a criminal!!!

Sadly the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from those very government tyrants who want to flush his 5th Amendment rights down the toilet.

Of course if you ask me I would tell Mr Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev to take the 5th and not say a word to the cops. It's his Constitutional right!

Source

Debate Over Delaying of Miranda Warning

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: April 20, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s announcement that it planned to question the Boston Marathon bombing suspect for a period without first reading him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present has revived a constitutionally charged debate over the handling of terrorism cases in the criminal justice system.

The suspect, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, a naturalized American citizen, remained hospitalized on Saturday for treatment of injuries sustained when he was captured by the police on Friday night, and it was not clear whether he had been questioned yet. But the administration’s effort to stretch a gap in the Miranda rule for questioning about immediate threats to public safety in this and other terrorism cases has alarmed advocates of individual rights.

Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it would be acceptable for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ask Mr. Tsarnaev about “imminent” threats, like whether other bombs are hidden around Boston. But he said that once the F.B.I. gets into broader questioning, it must not “cut corners.”

“The public safety exception to Miranda should be a narrow and limited one, and it would be wholly inappropriate and unconstitutional to use it to create the case against the suspect,” Mr. Romero said. “The public safety exception would be meaningless if interrogations are given an open-ended time horizon.”

At the other end of the spectrum, some conservatives have called for treating terrorism-related cases — even those arising on American soil or involving citizens — as a military matter, holding a suspect indefinitely as an “enemy combatant” without a criminal defendants’ rights. Two Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, called for holding Mr. Tsarnaev under the laws of war, interrogating him without any Miranda warning or defense lawyer.

“Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks,” they said. “We remain under threat from radical Islam and we hope the Obama administration will seriously consider the enemy combatant option.”

The Miranda warning comes from a 1966 case in which the Supreme Court held that, to protect against involuntary self-incrimination, if prosecutors want to use statements at a trial that a defendant made in custody, the police must first have advised him of his rights. The court later created an exception, allowing prosecutors to use statements made before any warning in response to questions about immediate threats to public safety, like where a gun is hidden.

The question applying those rules in terrorism cases arose after a Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. After landing in Michigan, he was given painkillers for burns and confessed to a nurse. He also spoke freely to F.B.I. agents for 50 minutes before going into surgery.

After he awoke, the F.B.I. read Mr. Abdulmutallab the Miranda warning, and he stopped cooperating for several weeks.

Republicans portrayed the Obama administration’s handling of the case in the criminal justice system as endangering national security, setting the template for a recurring debate.

In late January 2010, Mr. Abdulmutallab’s family and lawyer persuaded him to start talking again, and he provided a wealth of further information about Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen. Later, during pretrial hearings, his lawyers asked a federal judge, Nancy G. Edmunds, to suppress the early statements.

But Judge Edmunds ruled that the statement to the nurse had been voluntary and lucid despite the painkillers, and that the 50-minute questioning was a “fully justified” use of the public safety exception. She declined to suppress the statements, and Mr. Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.

By then, the Justice Department had sent the F.B.I. a policy memo urging agents, when questioning “operational terrorists,” to use a broad interpretation of the public safety exception. The memo asserted that giving the “magnitude and complexity” of terrorism cases, a lengthier delay is permissible, unlike ordinary criminal cases.

“Depending on the facts, such interrogation might include, for example, questions about possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by weapons that might post an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations and activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks,” it said.

Judge Edmunds’s ruling was seen by the administration as confirmation that its new policy was constitutional — and that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to put domestic cases in military hands.

Stephen Vladeck, an American University law professor, said the middle ground sought by the administration has put both the civil libertarian and national security conservative factions in a bind.

“This is the paradox of progressive national security law, which is how do you at once advocate for the ability of the civilian courts without accepting that some of that includes compromises that are problematic from a civil liberties perspective?” he said. “The paradox is just as true for the right, because they are ardent supporters of things like the public-safety exception, but its existence actually undermines the case for military commissions.”

Phoenix city council bans gun ads at bus stops???

From this article it sounds like the gun grabbers on the Phoenix City Council have banned gun ads at bus stops.

If the Phoenix City Council says the First and Second Amendments are null and void in the city of Phoenix it won't be long before the rest of the Constitution is also null and void in Phoenix.

Source

Unlikely allies in Phoenix pro-gun advertisement case

By Dustin Gardiner The Republic | azcentral.com Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:32 PM

Two prominent legal watchdog groups are teaming up to fight Phoenix’s decision to remove 50 pro-gun advertisements from city bus shelters.

The large posters, which said “Guns Save Lives” and advertised a website for firearm-safety classes, were removed in 2010. Phoenix officials said the signs conveyed a political message, violating its policy against non-commercial advertising on buses and transit stops.

Arizona’s conservative Goldwater Institute has been waging a legal battle to overturn the city’s move, and it recently got a powerful ally in the case: the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The seemingly unlikely legal partners say the case has broader implications for free-speech rights in Arizona. They argue the city’s “vague” policy is unconstitutional and allows for censorship.

“It involves the scope of the Arizona Constitution’s grant to all persons of the right to freely speak, write and publish on all subjects,” the ACLU argued in a recent court brief.

The lawsuit stems from a dispute between the city and gun-rights activist Alan Korwin, who manages the website TrainMeAZ.com. After the 2010 passage of a state law expanding concealed-carry rights, Korwin and other gun-safety instructors created the website and launched the advertising campaign.

Korwin purchased ad space at city bus stops and the controversial posters went up across the city. He said the purpose of the ads was to capture business for the website, which links gun owners to training classes.

But Phoenix officials saw the message of the ads much differently, and the pro-gun posters were removed within days.

They said the ads, which had been installed by a billboard company that contracts with the city, did not have a commercial purpose, as required. City policy does not allow the use of transit ad space for political advertising or public-service announcements.

The ads said “Guns Save Lives” in large writing against the backdrop of a red heart. Below that, also printed in large lettering, were “Arizona Says: Educate Your Kids” and “Train MeAZ.com.” Smaller text promoted the state’s expansive gun-rights laws and the website’s offerings.

Last fall, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain ruled in the city’s favor, stating that the city had created reasonable guidelines for what it will and won’t allow on transit billboards.

“What we want is advertiser’s commercial products that do not get into ideological, political debates as part of the proposed ad,” David Schwartz, an attorney for Phoenix, argued in court. “This is not going to stop (Korwin) from putting the ad, if he wants, anywhere else.”

Korwin and Goldwater are now challenging the ruling in state Appeals Court, and the case is expected to be argued later this year.

Goldwater and ACLU attorneys contend that Phoenix’s ban on non-commercial ads is too broad. They say content-based restrictions on ads should be stopped entirely or, at the least, the city should have a more objective standard.

“The city’s arbitrary decision making is exactly the type of censorship the U.S. and Arizona constitutions forbid,” said Clint Bolick, Goldwater’s vice president for litigation. “This odd-couple alliance between the Goldwater Institute and the ACLU highlights the importance of the case to our fundamental freedoms.”

They are not BRIBES, they are campaign contributions???

Source

Posted on April 22, 2013 5:30 pm by Laurie Roberts

Legislators slurp up thousands in free food and drink

The numbers are in and I must say, some of our state legislators have quite the appetite… for free food and drink, that is.

According to the Arizona Capitol Times, former Rep. Amanda Reeve, of Phoenix, allowed lobbyists to treat her 58 times during her 2011-12 term, gobbling down $2,851 in refreshments. The Cap Times puts her first on its list of freeloaders. No wonder she lost her re-election bid.

Coming in second was Sen. John McComish of Ahwatukee, who was wined and dined 37 times for a total of $3,357.

Rep. David Gowan of Sierra Vista grabbed the No. 3 spot with 48 dates with lobbyists in which he scored $2,073 worth of free food and drink.

Gowan, a Sierra Vista Republican, defended his intake of freebies, saying he gets lonely when in Phoenix and doesn’t have the cash to pick up the tab.

“I’m looking for free food,” he told the Cap Times. “I get (paid) $24,000 per year … “

Nice.

Rounding out the Cap Times’ Top 10 were Sen. Don Shooter of Yuma, House Speaker Andy Tobin of Prescott Valley, Rep. Jeff Dial of Chandler, Sen. Steve Pierce of Prescott, Rep. Brenda Barton of Payson, Sen. Kimberly Yee of Phoenix and Sen. Al Melvin of Tucson. All 10 are Republicans, the party that runs the joint.

I’m guessing that means they won’t be supporting any bills to ban legislative freebies.

Oh wait a minute, there are no bills banning legislative freebies. None that got heard anyway.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema raises $330,000

Congressional pay cut? Not anytime soon

By Rebekah L. Sanders The Republic | azcentral.com Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:05 PM

With Congress less popular than cockroaches (yes, pollsters have asked), legislation to dock members’ $174,000-a-year paychecks has become de rigueur.

U.S. Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., is the latest member to propose a pay cut. His bill to slash congressional salaries by 20 percent, introduced Wednesday, may proffer the largest gouge so far. Arizona Reps. Matt Salmon, a Republican, and Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat, among others, have backed smaller pay cuts.

Barber’s source of outrage is the furloughs and overtime cuts expected to reduce Border Patrol agents’ pay by as much as 40 percent over the next few months. Barber represents Tucson and parts of the U.S.-Mexico border. He opposed the federal budget cuts known as sequestration.

“It is only right that those of us in Congress share the pain of those agents, defense civilian employees and other federal employees who have been hit in their wallets because of Congress’ failure to act,” Barber said.

Congress wouldn’t feel the pain soon. The 27th Amendment bars changes to members’ pay before the next election. So if Barber’s bill — or any other trimming salaries — were to pass, it would go into effect no earlier than the 2014 lame-duck session, long after the Border Patrol cuts take hold. Passage, however, is unlikely. Congress has not lowered its pay since 1933.

In other news:

Sen. John McCain’s transfer of cash among campaign accounts may renew speculation about whether the 76-year-old, five-term senator will seek re-election in 2016. According to Federal Election Commission records, McCain shifted $819,000 from the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund Inc., an account to cover costs from his 2008 presidential campaign, to Friends of John McCain, his Senate campaign fund.

Spokesman Brian Rogers told the Center For Public Integrity, which first reported the transfer, that McCain plans to close his presidential campaign funds this year.

“Transferring those funds to the (Senate) campaign committee gives Senator McCain maximum flexibility to manage them in the coming months and years,” he said. Rogers added to The Arizona Republic that John Kerry did the same thing in 2007.

Freshman Rep. Kyrsten Sinema appears to be trying to scare off potential 2014 challengers. The Phoenix Democrat announced a massive fundraising haul — $330,000 — for the first three months of the year. That’s money she raked in during an off-year right after an election, when donors are reluctant to open their pocketbooks. [Remember Kyrsten Sinema is the Arizona politician who made up a bill that would slap a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana, I suspect in an attempt to outlaw medical marijuana by taxing the krap out of it!!!]

More details about Sinema’s first-quarter fundraising and that of the rest of the delegation will be known when reports are filed. They are due to the FEC by 9 p.m. Phoenix time on Monday. Finance reports filed by two Republicans who ran in Sinema’s district last year and have said they could run again indicate how seriously they’re taking it. Wendy Rogers raised $103,000. Martin Sepulveda raised zero.

Native American voters helped push Kirkpatrick to a win in 2012, and the Flagstaff Democrat has been working to balance her relationship with voters there while in office.

Kirkpatrick crossed leaders of the San Carlos Apache and a coalition of Arizona tribes earlier this year when she reaffirmed support of legislation to build North America’s largest copper mine on land near Superior that is considered sacred.

But she got the chance to redeem tribal goodwill last week, co-sponsoring a bill by Rep. Trent Franks, a West Valley Republican, to block a casino near Glendale.

Kirkpatrick provided the key backing to make the bill bipartisan, undoubtedly pleasing the casino’s opponents, the Gila River Indian Community and a coalition of Arizona tribes. The Gila tribe, like the San Carlos tribe, resides in Kirkpatrick’s district.

The only tribe Kirkpatrick risked upsetting with the bill is the proposed casino builder, the Tohono O’odham Nation. And they live miles away, in Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s district.

Sanders covers Congress for The Republic. National political reporter Dan Nowicki’s column will return next week. Follow Sanders at azdc.azcentral.com and @RebekahLSanders.

New film looks at ‘War on Whistleblowers’

Sadly Emperor Obama is just a Democratic version of George W. Bush!!!

By Joe Davidson, Published: April 23

The Obama administration’s approach to federal whistleblowers has been likened to “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.”

On the good doctor’s side, President Obama has important accomplishments in protecting the rights of whistleblowers. Yet whistleblower advocates are fuming at the administration’s actions against federal employees whom it considers to be leakers of national security information.

“There’s a schizophrenia within the administration,” said Tom Devine, legal director of the nonprofit Government Accountability Project. “It’s been Obama versus Obama on whistleblower policy. Until recently, there was a virtual free-speech advocacy for whistleblower job rights that’s unprecedented, more than any other president in history.

“At the same time,” Devine added, “he has willingly allowed the Justice Department to prosecute whistleblowers on tenuous grounds.”

That last point — the Mr. Hyde side — is the focus of the new film “War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.” (Disclosure: The documentary features comments by Dana Priest, a Washington Post colleague.) It is a project of the Brave New Foundation, a social justice advocacy organization. The film is being shown in theaters in New York City and Los Angeles, but the main distribution channels will be iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and cable systems.

The Justice Department rejects the notion that it is overzealous in its prosecution of those the government calls national security leakers.

“Unauthorized disclosures of classified information cause damage to our national security and we take the investigation and prosecution of such matters very seriously,” Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman, said via e-mail. “In these and all other cases, Justice Department investigators and prosecutors follow the facts and the law to determine whether charges are appropriate.”

The Justice Department does not target whistleblowers, he added: “However, we cannot condone the knowing and willful disclosure of classified information to the media or others not entitled to such information. An individual in authorized possession of classified information has no authority or right to unilaterally determine that it should be made public or otherwise disclose it.”

The film recognizes the president’s good side, with a quick nod by Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight. The “good news,” she said, is passage of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which Obama supported, and his directive providing protection for national security whistleblowers. That mention, however, is not until 59 minutes into the 66-minute film.

Balanced? No. But the stories about the government’s aggressive moves against federal employees who worked to uphold the finest traditions of public service are chilling and deserve the notice and outrage the film hopes to generate.

Franz Gayl’s is the first case presented. The Defense Department civilian employee was punished for his efforts to save the lives of U.S. troops at war.

“Hundreds of Marines were tragically lost and probably thousands maimed unnecessarily, so I said, let’s replace the Humvees with what are called MRAPs, Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles,” he says in the film.

After taking his concerns to Pentagon officials with no luck, he went to the news media. Then the blowback hit. He was stripped of his security clearance, the lifeline for national security workers, and suspended.

“They were using all these personnel actions against me,” he said. “I’m the substandard employee, bottom 3 percent, unreliable, untrustworthy, et cetera, et cetera. After investigations and after all these personnel actions and reprisals, I was placed on administrative leave.

“I was fearful. If I have to leave the government now and I don’t have security clearances, we’re gonna have to move away. I can’t get a job around here. You can’t do anything without a security clearance around [the] D.C. area. I knew that life was gonna go ‘foof,’ fall off a cliff.”

Gayl was fortunate to have whistleblower advocates who cushioned his fall. And in November 2011, after intervention by an Office of Special Counsel that was re-energized by Obama, the military’s threat to suspend Gayl indefinitely was lifted and his security clearance was reinstated.

There’s a lot left out of his story in this space, and similar stories of other whistleblowers can’t be mentioned at all. Gayl’s is a distressing tale of Uncle Sam playing the bully, making life hell for a federal employee who fought to better protect American troops.

“I’m now working back at the Pentagon in the office from which I was removed,” Gayl says at the end of the film. “I feel very lucky, because I received a lot of support from a lot of outsiders that I don’t think every person in my situation gets.”

The film makes you wonder how many more trampled, and largely unknown, federal whistleblowers like Gayl are out there.

Twitter: @JoeDavidsonWP

Previous columns by Joe Davidson are available at wapo.st/JoeDavidson.

It wasn't a $100,000 bribe - It was a $100,000 campaign contribution. Honest!!!!

Va. Gov. McDonnell says no special treatment given to big campaign donor under investigation

By Associated Press, Published: April 30

RICHMOND, Va. — Gov. Bob McDonnell said Tuesday his administration never gave special treatment to a dietary supplement company that is under a federal securities investigation and whose chief executive gave more than $100,000 in political contributions and thousands of dollars more in gifts to McDonnell’s family.

McDonnell said on WTOP radio he and first lady Maureen McDonnell have been friends with Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams for four or five years. He acknowledged receiving gifts from Williams, including a $15,000 check to his daughter to help her pay for her June 2011 wedding.

Williams’ gifts to McDonnell and to state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, both Republicans, have come under growing scrutiny in the past two months. It intensified after the former Executive Mansion chef Todd Schneider was charged with stealing food from the mansion and alleged that his prosecution by Cuccinelli was politically motivated.

Cuccinelli is running for governor this year; McDonnell, elected in 2009, can’t run because Virginia is the only state that doesn’t allow its governor to serve consecutive terms.

The FBI is looking at the relationship between McDonnell and Williams, according to two people who spoke on condition of anonymity because their roles preclude them from talking publicly. Neither is charged with wrongdoing.

Federal authorities began questioning people close to the McDonnells as an outgrowth of the securities probe, the two people said. FBI agents have asked about gifts the McDonnells received and whether the governor or his administration aided the company in return.

McDonnell said he appeared at an event promoting Star Scientific at the Executive Mansion in August 2011, but said the company has received no state economic development incentives from his administration.

“During my time as governor, neither Jonnie Williams nor Star Scientific or any other person or any other company that’s come before our administration for something regarding the budget or legislation or anything else has been given any special treatment,” McDonnell said on his monthly call-in radio show.

News of the FBI probe was first reported Monday by The Washington Post. A day later, Circuit Judge Margaret Spencer barred attorneys from discussing the case.

The investigation was revealed after the former chef at the Executive Mansion alleged in court papers that he gave FBI and state police investigators evidence a year ago of wrongdoing by McDonnell and his family. It included documents showing Williams paid Schneider’s private catering company $15,000 for McDonnell’s daughter Cailin’s wedding reception, court records showed. Schneider had been the mansion chef.

McDonnell did not disclose the gift on his January 2012 statement of economic interests, saying state law does not require the disclosure of gifts to family members.

“I made the determination — and I believe it was correct — that it was a gift to my daughter, and therefore under the current laws it did not need to be disclosed. I think obviously from the attention it has gotten, it has certainly now been disclosed,” he said.

McDonnell has acknowledged signing the catering contract. Court documents filed by Schneider claim he paid a deposit for the services and Maureen McDonnell received a $3,500 check for overpayment of catering expenses.

Asked if he’d allow his daughter to accept the gift again, McDonnell struggled with the reply.

“That’s hard to say in retrospect. Obviously there’s been a lot of attention to that. It’s caused a fair amount of pain for me personally I’m a governor but I’m a dad and I love my daughter very much,” he said.

Williams has given McDonnell’s political action committee nearly $80,000 and gave his 2009 campaign for governor $28,584, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonprofit group that tracks of money in Virginia politics. McDonnell received personal gifts totaling $7,382 from the company in 2012, according to the group.

Based just outside of Richmond, Star Scientific started as a cigarette company in 1990, focused on ways to remove harmful compounds from tobacco. The company incurred annual losses for most of that time, including a $22.9 million loss last year.

In November, Williams, who has been CEO since 1999, announced he was cutting his salary from $1 million a year to $1 a month until the company becomes profitable. A month later, the company, which has 23 full-time employees, said it would shift its focus to its anti-inflammatory supplement, Anatabloc.

Schneider headed the mansion kitchen operations from 2010, when McDonnell moved in, until last year, when he was dismissed during a state police probe. He was later charged with four counts of taking state property worth $200 or more.

Schneider’s motion said he told federal and state investigators that the mansion staff and other state employees had witnessed him being instructed to take state-purchased food as payment for personal services, and that they saw others “openly taking cases of food and other supplies from the governor’s mansion.”

The motions said the charges against him should be dismissed on the grounds that Cuccinelli had a conflict of interest because he had also accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Williams and Star Scientific.

Cuccinelli filed a motion last week to recuse his office from prosecuting Schneider. A hearing was scheduled Thursday.

Political and official aides to Cuccinelli dismissed the motion by Schneider’s attorney, Steven D. Benjamin, as a further effort to politicize and sensationalize a criminal trial. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office, said the case “will be tried in court and not in the media.”

Just before Schneider’s indictment in March, defense lawyers said Cuccinelli’s office ignored Schneider’s information “concerning the use of the mansion by Williams, the promotion of Williams’ food supplement by the governor and first lady,” according to the motion.

Benjamin said Cuccinelli sold 1,500 shares of Star Scientific stock last summer at a profit of $7,000. He also noted Cuccinelli’s free use of Williams’ Smith Mountain Lake vacation lodge for a summer 2012 vacation worth $3,000 and another stay there for Thanksgiving in 2010, complete with a catered holiday dinner worth $1,500.

Cuccinelli did not disclose the gifts until last week.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Imprisoned at Guantanamo - America's Honor!!!!

It seems like Kyrsten Sinema is now part of the problem, like the rest of Congress.

The last Kyrsten Sinema blurb I heard was she supports a strong American military. I suspect she needs to get the votes of the military to get re-elected and stay in power and, more importantly keep her $174,900 salary as a member of Congress.

Let's face it government is all about money and has nothing to do with justice and fairness.

Poll: undocumented immigrants more popular than Congress

Source

Poll: undocumented immigrants more popular than Congress

Undocumented immigrants are more popular than Congress. No wonder. They work harder.

A New York Times/CBS poll last month found that a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is favored by a whopping 83 percent.

What’s more, 56 percent of those who favored a path to citizenship said legal status should be offered while the border is being secured, not after the border is secure. So forget the triggers, Congress.

Or forget the public. That’s more likely.

And people know it.

Only 40 percent of those polled trust Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions about immigration. President Obama inched ahead with 43 percent saying he’d make the right choices on this issue.

Overall, only 17 percent approve of how Congress is doing its job.

Sixty-one percent disapprove of how Democrats in Congress are doing their job, and 69 percent disapprove of how the GOP is handling things.

The public is not pleased.

But the public doesn’t think Congress cares.

Only 9 percent said they think members of Congress are most interested in serving the people. But 85 percent said most members of Congress are more interested in serving special interests.

The public will on immigration reform is quite clear.

But Congress has a long history of ignoring the public will.

People have noticed.

So maybe we should just stop paying Congress. Turn off the lights. Shut down the phones. Let them hitchhike home.

Nothing is likely to get done right anyway.

1 out of 4 Arizonans are on welfare????

I wonder if she is proud of the fact that 1 out of 4 Arizona's are on the dole and are parasites who live off of the rest of us.

From this article it sure sounds like the welfare programs offered by the government are a dismal failure.

Also according to the article about 1 out of 4 people in Arizona are on the dole. The article says DES provides free stuff to 1.6 million people out of the 6.4 million people living in Arizona.

Source

DES launches Arizona welfare-reform plan

By Mary K. Reinhart The Republic | azcentral.com Fri May 10, 2013 10:56 PM

The state’s array of safety-net services must be reorganized around people, not programs, to help more Arizonans become self-sufficient, the director of the state’s social-welfare department said Friday at the launch of a new initiative.

Clarence Carter, director of the state Department of Economic Security, announced a demonstration project, beginning with 10 food-stamp recipients, that focuses on coordinating services and better evaluating family circumstances and barriers to employment, with the goal of reducing dependency on the state’s social-welfare system.

“We believe the safety net ought to be a trampoline, not a hammock,” Carter told a gathering of several dozen non-profit agency administrators and business leaders at the Arizona Community Foundation. “We pay for things which, quite frankly, are stupid.”

Carter, a former director of the federal food stamp program, said the state will need federal waivers to allow more-flexible spending on families and to restructure some eligibility requirements.

For example, people on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, should have stepped-down benefits that encourage them to increase their earnings, he said.

“You create a cliff ... which you push people off,” he said. “We want to see if we can design a slope.”

The pilot program is to eventually include 1,000 people, and Carter said he hopes to officially launch it by Sept. 1.

Carter said other state agencies, as well as local business and provider organizations, should be involved in what he’s calling a reinvention of the state’s safety net. He has assembled a group of university professors and national think-tank members to advise in the design and implementation, but most of the details, such as how program effectiveness would be evaluated, are unknown. [Translation more jobs for government bureaucrats to hand out free stuff???]

Advocates for children and families said they agreed with Carter’s premise but said the idea of case coordination and a holistic approach to people and families in need is not new and that many programs are already doing it, such as Arizona’s home-visiting program for new mothers.

“I think he’s articulating some very good ideas that have been focused on and talked about for 20 years, going back to welfare reform in the mid-’90s,” said Dana Wolfe Naimark, CEO of Children’s Action Alliance. “I think the hard part is the implementation. They really haven’t gone beyond concept yet.”

State Sen. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, a social worker who has worked with children and families, said similar proposals under previous administrations failed to produce results, but she welcomed a new effort to reduce bureaucracy and make the system work better for low-income Arizonans.

But Hobbs and Naimark said they’re concerned such an ambitious effort could divert attention from Child Protective Services, which continues to struggle with a record number of children in foster care, thousands of backlogged cases and employees juggling caseloads that are double state standards.

Three young children died in a one-month period this spring, and one nearly died, all of whom had prior CPS reports, including two with open cases. The last monthly CPS report shows more than 14,400 children are wards of the state, including 54 infants and young children in crisis shelters and group homes.

But Carter said that was nothing to be concerned about.

“This does not divert an ounce of resource away from our efforts to reform (CPS),” he said. “We have got to continue to fix and resource that system. But we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.”

Carter has tapped DES early-intervention administrator Molly Bright to run a new strategic partnership office, which will oversee the program.

DES serves about 1.6 million Arizonans through administration of programs that provide cash assistance, child-care subsidies, food stamps, child-support enforcement, job training and unemployment benefits, as well as services for the developmentally disabled and the elderly. [According to Google there are 6,482,505 people in Arizona as of 2011]

Reach the reporter at maryk.reinhart@arizonarepublic.com.

Tempe gets 1st medical marijuana dispensary

And of course some politicians like atheist US Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema make worse by attempting to tax the krap out of medical marijuana. When atheist Kyrsten Sinema was a member of the Arizona Senate she tried to slap a 300 percent tax on medical marijuana. You would figure that a 300 percent tax on marijuana that was something only a nut job Christian would come up with, but sadly some atheist are also big fans of the insane war on drugs.

Source

Tempe gets 1st medical marijuana dispensary

By Weldon B. Johnson The Republic | azcentral.com Sun May 12, 2013 10:46 PM

The name, Harvest of Tempe, on the modest storefront in a south Tempe strip mall might suggest it is home to a food bank or perhaps a fresh-produce shop.

If you make it inside, though, your first impression might be of a secure bank.

That’s just what the owners want. Harvest of Tempe is the southeast Valley’s first medical-marijuana dispensary and is among a handful of dispensaries to open since Arizona voters approved the Medical Marijuana Act in 2010.

To enter, customers must pass through a magnetically locked door controlled from the inside. At that point, they must show their medical-marijuana card and other state-issued identification before they can pass through another locked door to the area where they meet with Harvest employees to discuss the type of marijuana needed.

Bulletproof glass protects the employees who handle money and dispense marijuana. Cameras record each transaction.

There are some samples of marijuana on display in that portion of the facility, but the rest is kept locked in a vault.

A large flat-screen monitor serves as a menu board, informing patients of the varieties of marijuana and edibles — brownies, cookies and candy containing the drug — that are available.

Reinforced concrete pillars have been installed at the rear of the building, at 710 W. Elliot Road, and similar planters have been placed in front to discourage any attempt to ram the facility with a vehicle to gain access.

Cameras cover the parking lots in the rear, side and front of the building, and capture anyone who enters.

The Ariz. law allows for the use of marijuana in the treatment of certain medical conditions, such as cancer or chronic pain.

“We’ve worked hard to make sure it’s not what most people would expect,” said Steve White, a member of the dispensary’s management group. “We’ve worked really hard with (Tempe) and the Police Department.

“We have safety precautions that are unlike any other place you’ll find in the state. We have taken it upon ourselves to create the nicest possible storefront.”

It is too early to know if the dispensary’s presence will lead to additional calls for police service, or if there will be an uptick in crime in the neighborhood.

Online reviews of the dispensary, which opened May 4, have been mostly positive. Randy Taylor, for example, said he loves the place.

“I’ve had my card for about two years,” Taylor said. “I’ve been to some of the caregiver clubs. This is a completely different deal. It’s nice to have a place like this where it’s just a regular transaction.”

Before the first dispensary opened in Glendale last December, more than 35,000 people who hold medical-marijuana cards could obtain the product legally only by growing it themselves or from caregivers who could grow the plants for as many as five patients.

Taylor said he was not comfortable with some of the other places where he’s obtained marijuana.

“Have you ever been to one of those clubs?” Taylor said. “It’s almost like you have to know a secret handshake, or you put money in a basket or you have to take a class. Some of those places in are not-so-nice neighborhoods, too. This place has a nice feel. It feels safe.”

White said that Tempe has placed requirements on its dispensaries beyond what state law mandates. Tempe also approved a facility on the north side of the city that has yet to open.

State law requires that there be only one entrance for customers, even if there is another entrance for employee use in the building. But in Tempe, there can only be one entrance to a dispensary.

As a result, the back door of the Harvest storefront has been removed and bricked over.

Tempe requires that patients accessing the facility be at least 21 years old. The state requirement is 18.

The menu monitor appears to be the only allusion in the facility to the illicit history of marijuana in this country.

Though Harvest employees won’t use words such as “pot” or “weed” to describe marijuana, the menu does contain the colorful names of strains such as AK47, Big Blackberry Rhino and Super Lemon Haze.

White said that some of those names make him cringe, and that Harvest has had to modify or change other names.

“There was a different culture of people who were naming these things at a time when it wasn’t legal,” White said. “So at some times, you’ll get names that will make you go, ‘That’s not going to work here.’ Our objective is to make this a professional, legitimate medical-cannabis dispensary. Having those types of names doesn’t work for us.

“We’ll tell people what they might have heard it called previously, but we really think that does a disservice to what we’re doing.”

So, when someone says that Harvest of Tempe isn’t what he or she expected, the owners take that as a compliment.

“We spent a lot of extra money to ensure we’re compliant with the state, compliant with the city and presented an atmosphere that patients will really like,” White said.

For more information, visit harvestoftempe.com.

More drug war lies??? Marijuana is a dangerous drug???

Source

Pot lobby’s talking points masking hidden dangers

By Ed Gogek My Turn Sat May 11, 2013 6:58 PM

A recent Liberty Mutual survey found that most teenagers believe they drive better, or at least no worse, high on marijuana. Research shows the opposite, that smoking pot impairs driving and can be as deadly behind the wheel as alcohol, but teens don’t read scientific journals. [I think the survey found SOME teenagers think they can drive better after smoking pot, not MOST teenagers. But hey, who needs to stick to the facts when you are demonizing drugs.]

Apparently, neither do the pundits who repeat pro-marijuana talking points even when those points have been proved wrong.

The latest is syndicated columnist Froma Harrop, proclaiming legalization will boost state-tax revenue (“Marijuana sales sprouting taxes, savings for Colo.,” Opinions, April 30).

The marijuana lobby sold legalization to Colorado and Washington state with this same promise, that taxes on pot would fill state coffers and fund education. But experts now say legalization will cost those states money.

A study by the Colorado Futures Center, a Colorado State University think tank, concluded that “the costs of regulating recreational marijuana — plus possible extra costs for law enforcement, public health and human services — may exceed the tax revenue from the recreational marijuana industry.”

No one should be surprised.

According to a Rand Corp. report, taxes on alcohol cover less than 10 percent of alcohol’s cost to society. Why would pot be different? [Because there are major differences between the two drugs. Alcohol is probably the second most destructive drug on the planet following tobacco. Every year millions of people die from tobacco and alcohol related illness. Of course year in and year out there are a big ZERO documented deaths caused from using marijuana. If the costs to the taxpayers were a reason to outlaw drugs, liquor and tobacco would be the first drugs outlawed.]

Harrop also says states will save money spent on arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations of pot smokers — another pot lobby talking point that’s also untrue. This should be obvious; police in America don’t go looking for pot smokers. They almost always find pot when arresting someone for another crime.

Three-fourths of all prison inmates are substance abusers, according to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, and many smoke pot. But most of them got arrested for crimes they committed because they were drunk or high, and that includes violent and property crimes. Even if drugs were legal, they’d still be in prison. [That's like saying mothers milk causes crime and that because 99.9 percent of the people in prison drank mothers milk when they were babies]

Selling drugs gets people locked up, too, but possession — almost never. According to the Arizona Sentencing Report, fewer than 100 of Arizona’s 40,000 inmates are in prison solely for drug possession, and most of those pleaded down from a more serious charge. [yea, and that is 100 too many people in Arizona's prisons for victimless drug war crimes]

Besides, history shows that when drugs are legal, use and abuse increase. Since drug abuse causes most crime, legalization would actually increase criminal-justice costs. [Wrong, it's not drug abuse that cause crime, it's the laws criminalizing drug use that cause crime. Legalize drugs and all these victimless crimes will disappear overnight!]

The marijuana lobby position that legalization will keep pot out of the hands of kids is equally wrong. Kids have no trouble getting legal alcohol. And data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health shows teen marijuana use is 30 percent higher in “medical” marijuana states. [Yea so what!!! Today despite the fact that marijuana is illegal, kids can still get marijuana easier then they can get liquor. So the bottom line is that the laws making marijuana illegal don't keep children from obtaining or using marijuana or any other drugs]

America has the choice between legalizing drugs, which would promote drug abuse and cost states money, or maintaining tough drug laws, which prevent crime and protect the next generation. The marijuana lobby is on one side of this debate. Good research is on the other. [Again drugs don't cause crime!! The laws against drugs cause crime. And just because something is "legal" doesn't mean society promotes it's use. While alchol and tobacco are both "legal" drugs, society doesn't encourage people to be drunks are tobacco addicts]

Ed Gogek is an addiction psychiatrist and board member of Keep AZ Drug Free, a group that opposes drug legalization and medical-marijuana laws.

IRS targeted groups critical of government

I wonder if the IRS also singled out groups for harassment that are critical of the "war on drugs" like NORML and the Libertarian Party??? And of course atheist groups who demand that the government honor the First Amendment and not mix religion and government.

I also wonder how Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema with her history of loving taxes feels about this. I suspect the IRS is her favorite government agency and she LOVES the IRS because they collect the taxes she votes for.

Source

IRS targeted groups critical of government, documents from agency probe show

By Juliet Eilperin, Published: May 12

At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials singled out for scrutiny not only groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names but also nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that the IRS field office in charge of evaluating applications for tax-exempt status decided to focus on groups making statements that “criticize how the country is being run” and those that were involved in educating Americans “on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

The staffers in the Cincinnati field office were making high-level decisions on how to evaluate the groups because a decade ago the IRS assigned all applications to that unit. The IRS also eliminated an automatic after-the-fact review process Washington used to conduct such determinations.

Marcus Owens, who oversaw tax-exempt groups at the IRS between 1990 and 1999, said that delegation “carries with it a risk” because the Cincinnati office “isn’t as plugged into what’s [politically] sensitive as Washington.”

Owens, now with the firm Caplin & Drysdale, said that before the agency’s most recent reorganization, it had a series of “tripwires in place” that could catch unfair targeting, including the fact that the IRS identified its criteria for special scrutiny in a public manual.

“There’s no longer that safety valve, and as a result, the IRS has been rolling the dice ever since,” said Owens, who worked at the agency for nearly a quarter-century and now represents some organizations seeking tax-exempt status.

The IRS came under withering attack from GOP lawmakers Sunday. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican, described the practice as “absolutely chilling” and called on President Obama to condemn the effort.

“This is truly outrageous,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” adding that even though White House spokesman Jay Carney has said the matter deserves an investigation, “the president needs to make crystal clear that this is totally unacceptable in America.”

In March 2012, then-IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, told Congress that the agency was not targeting conservative groups. On Sunday, the agency declined to answer questions about whether senior officials asked IRS exempt organizations division chief Lois G. Lerner and her staff in Cincinnati about this heightened scrutiny before testifying it did not take place.

“There has to be accountability for the people who did it,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” adding: “And, quite frankly, up until a few days ago, there’s got to be accountability for people who were telling lies about it being done.”

The appendix of the inspector general’s report — which was requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and has yet to be publicly released — chronicles the extent to which the IRS’s exempt organizations division kept redefining what sort of “social welfare” groups it should single out for extra attention since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision allowed corporations and labor unions to raise and spend unlimited sums on elections as well as register for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, as long as their “primary purpose” was not targeting electoral candidates.

The number of political groups applying for tax-exempt status more than doubled in the wake of the Citizens United ruling, forcing agency officials to make a slew of determinations despite uncertainty about the category’s ambiguous definition.

Of the 298 groups selected for special scrutiny, according to the congressional aide, 72 had “tea party” in their title, 13 had “patriot” and 11 had “9/12.” Lerner, who apologized Friday for the targeting of such groups, described it as a misguided effort to deal with a flood of applications for tax-exempt status. She did not release the names of the groups.

On June 29, 2011, according to the documents, IRS staffers held a briefing with Lerner in which they described giving special attention to instances where “statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.” She raised an objection, and the agency adopted a more general set of standards. Lerner, who is a Democrat, is not a political appointee.

But six months later, the IRS applied a new political test to social welfare groups, the document says. On Jan. 15, 2012, the agency decided to look at “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement,” according to the appendix in the IG’s report.

The agency did not appear to adopt a more neutral test for 501(c)(4) groups until May 17, 2012, according to the timeline in the report. At that point, the IRS again updated its criteria to focus on “organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit.)”

Campaign reform groups have been pressing the IRS for several years to conduct greater oversight of nonprofits formed in the wake of the Citizens United case, given that many have become heavily involved in elections. “But this isn’t the type of enforcement we want,” said Paul Ryan, a senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “We want nonpartisan, non-biased enforcement.”

Loyola Law School professor Ellen Aprill, who specializes in tax law, said any groups that have applied for tax-exempt status has “opened themselves up to scrutiny” by the IRS. “It’s part of their job to look for organizations that may be more likely to have too much campaign intervention,” she said. “But it is important to try to make these criteria as politically neutral as possible.”

Aprill said one of the problems is the agency’s top officials have not provided clear enough guidelines on what constitutes too much political activity for a social welfare group because it’s been “a hot potato,” and that now with this new controversy, “it’s going to make it even more difficult to do so.”

Toby Marie Walker, president of the Waco Tea Party, said the IRS subjected her group to a series of unreasonable requests after it applied for tax-exempt status in June 2010. The requests came in early 2012, Walker said, after being initially informed by an official in the Cincinnati field office that he was “sitting on a stack of tea party applications and they were awaiting word from higher-ups as to how to process them.”

The agency asked the group’s treasurer to supply information on its “close relationship” with current candidates and elected officials as well as future candidates, along with detailed information about its contributors and members. It also asked for transcripts of any radio interviews its officials had done and hard copies of any news articles mentioning them.

“That would take me years to do,” Walker said, noting that in some cases, Chinese media outlets referred to her organization. “Am I responsible for every news article across the globe?”

The group had even more difficulty providing transcripts and details of speakers at its events, since they hosted informal gatherings such as “rant contests” where anyone could come and express their views.

While the IRS awarded the Waco Tea Party tax-exempt status about six weeks ago, Walker said the group was now considering suing the agency since the process not only consumed time and effort but prompted the group to scale back its 2012 get-out-the-vote operation. “We were afraid to do it and get in trouble,” she said.

Sal Russo, chief strategist for the Tea Party Express, said that even though the agency’s actions intimidated tea party adherents, he gives the IRS “credit for standing up and admitting” it targeted them. And while only two of the agency’s officials — the commissioner and the chief counsel — are political appointees, Russo said the administration needs to conduct better oversight.

“The culture is set at the top,” Russo said. “Obviously you can’t control what every employee does. But you have to set a standard, particularly with the IRS, to be squeaky clean.”

Josh Hicks and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

More articles about Congressman Kyrsten Sinema

And just for fun here are some other articles 1 2 3