Bookeemonster: a voracious appetite for books, mostly crime fiction.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Current Events - March 4, 2013
Independent Women’s Forum Reports on the Corruption of VAWA
A comprehensive policy report
published by the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) details problems with
the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed on Thursday.
House Republicans offered a substitute amendment
in an attempt to overcome legitimate flaws with VAWA before voting on
the bill. It was defeated by a coalition of Democrats and 60 Republicans.
The Senate version of the legislation passed on a vote of 286 to 138,
with 199 Democrats joining 87 Republicans to push the reauthorization.
“The latest version of VAWA, passed by the House and Senate,
perpetuates a one-sided view of violence, fails to address wasteful and
fraudulent spending, and continues programs based on ideology rather
than evidence of effectiveness,” Christina Villegas, a fellow IWF and
author of the IWF policy report, told Townhall.
“The reauthorization process provided a great opportunity to
implement necessary reform,” she said. “Unfortunately, proponents used
demagoguery to stifle open and honest debate, and the bill passed by
Congress will not effectively or efficiently protect victims of domestic
and sexual abuse.”
The report first points out that “VAWA programs lack evidence of
effectiveness.” Proponents of VAWA attribute the now-expired 2011 law
with sharply reducing the number of lives lost to domestic violence
since it was first passed in 1994. Yet VAWA programs, which will receive
$650 million annually, have never undergone evaluation to ensure they
are achieving their intended results.
The IWF report addresses how VAWA programs and grants have been a source of waste, fraud, and abuse
of taxpayer resources. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO)
indicates that a significant amount of funds allocated by the VAWA
programs has not being spent
on servicing victims. Nearly all of the grants audited by the Inspector
General between 1998 and 2010 had violated grant requirements. Some
grantees were found to have questionable expenditures for a large
majority of the funding they received. The Department of Justice also
uncovered several cases of outright fraud and embezzlement in 2012.
In addition to funding ambiguities, IWF claims that VAWA is a thinly
veiled means of promoting feminist ideology. Although men are victims of
domestic violence, the law provides virtually no services for male
victims. VAWA’s local service providers are primarily feminist
ideologues who require grant recipients to embrace the feminist
understanding that violence is caused by men’s desire for power and
control.
The reauthorized law surrenders the rights of non–Indians, accused of
assault and domestic violence on Indian lands, to racially exclusive
tribal courts. This violates the Constitution, as noted by the Heritage Foundation,
and is problematic, according to IWF, because tribal governments have a
history of disregarding constitutional rights of the accused.
All attempts to assess VAWA’s effectiveness have been problematic because Democrats demonize
those who question their approach and claim those who seek to reform
the law are indifferent to women’s suffering. Democrats hammered
Republicans for months over the bill and the GOP proposal to reform
VAWA allowed the Left an opportunity to substantiate their claim the GOP
is waging a ‘war on women' by not reauthorizing the act.
The Republicans who voted against this flawed bill did so not
because they “hate” women, but because they are concerned about the
costs of the bill, which will add several billion dollars to the
deficit. It will increase costs by duplicating grant programs that are
already in the original Violence Against Women Act.
The measure now goes to President Barack Obama, who said in a
statement that it was “an important step towards making sure no one in
America is forced to live in fear.”
“I look forward to signing it into law as soon as it hits my desk,” Obama said.
Using federal agencies and grant programs to fund the routine
activities of state and local government programs continues the federal
government’s march toward fiscal insolvency.
More to the point; why isn't anyone in Congress asking? You
see a story like this - and the one about a billion bullets bought by
the government - and you wonder why no one in Congress has bothered to
look into it. I am totally unconvinced there are any dark designs by DHS
on American citizens or our democracy. But this seems a colossal waste
of money - if true - and isn't ferreting out waste like this what we are paying those jamokes on Capitol Hill for? Jim Hoft:
The Department of Homeland Security
(through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of
these 'Mine Resistant Protected' vehicles for service on the streets of
the United States.
Although I've seen and read several online blurbs about this vehicle of late, I decided to dig slightly deeper and discover more about the vehicle itself.
The
new DHS sanctioned 'Street Sweeper' (my own slang due to the gun
ports) is built by Navistar Defense (NavistarDefense.com), a division
within the Navistar organization. Under the Navistar umbrella are
several other companies including International Trucks, IC Bus (they
make school buses), Monaco RV (recreational vehicles), WorkHorse (they
make chassis), MaxxForce (diesel engines), and Navistar Financial (the money arm of the company).
DHS even released a video on their newly purchased MRAPs.
Put
down the tin foil hat and pick up your green eyeshades. Ask your
congressmen to find out first and foremost if this is true, and
secondly, to ask DHS what the hell they need 2700 armored cars for. And they better have a damn good reason to spend that kind of money when budgets are so tight.
Small
businesses are still having a tough time and new business startups are
at a record low. They are suffering from slow growth and a bad economic
cycle and they bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden.
Obamacare and a higher minimum wage have a more destructive impact on
the smaller businesses. Wall Street and the publicly-held companies have
wider access to capital, better administrative infrastructure to comply
with growing regulations, and more influence over regulations that will
benefit them over the private sector.
To
help with the burdens (often created by government) of the small
business owners, government has established various bureaucracies and
agencies funded by government grants
to provide assistance to small businesses. These may include tax credit
incentives to hire veterans and people on food stamps and other
well-intended programs.
But a businessman does not mortgage
his house and risk his capital to provide jobs for veterans (most would
gladly do this without government incentives) and the unemployed. He
takes this risk to better his own life and circumstances. Yes, he will
likely go beyond the call of duty to help employees and other
associates, but his ability to help others is contingent on his ability
to generate a profit to provide the means to help others.
Along the way, somewhat regardless of his profitability, he will generates millions of dollars of property tax, fuel tax, and ad valorem
tax that pays for schools and roads that everyone gets to use. He will
generate state sales tax that pays for courts and infrastructure. He
will pay millions in federal taxes of varying sorts that pays for
benefits for everyone.
Yet
the majority of these small business people will not make it. The few
that do will continue to fund the local, state, and federal functions,
and they will also fund health insurance for their employees and
retirement funds that will reduce their dependence on social security.
They
will also fund the expansion of their local hospital, the local
schools, the effort to build a new courthouse, the local Chamber of
Commerce, and various charities of their choice.
Their businesses will often provide opportunities for other businesses that also make similar contributions to their community.
Yet
it was not the drive to contribute to their community that initiates
this chain of events. Whenever those driven by "community" speak, it is
rarely to invoke fiscal responsibility; it is more often to support
greater extractions from the business community that is already funding a
large portion of the bill. And more often than not those calling for
contributing to the "community" are working for a nonprofit. The irony
is usually lost on them.
But
the larger cost is not the extraction from existing businesses. We can
measure businesses that are struggling and we can measure the businesses
that have closed or merged out of existence. But we cannot measure the
businesses that were never started because of a risk and regulatory
environment that discouraged a would-be entrepreneur. That is by far the
larger loss.
I
recoil when I hear a successful entrepreneur praised for "giving back
to the community". This offensive compliment insinuates that his
successes somehow "took" something from the community and totally
ignores the enormous contribution he has already made. This criticism is
not intended to discourage the charity and contributions these leaders
make to the community; it is intended to understand how these benefits
are generated so that we can reap more of them.
When
the first lady belittles those who go to work for "profit" she
belittles those who truly support the community. A community is only as
strong as the individuals and the businesses that are able to support
it. We do not create stronger communities by increasing the burden on
small local businesses and then recycling the increased taxes on a
shrinking base back to them through government agencies and grant driven
nonprofits designed to help them.
We create a stronger community by making those agencies unnecessary.
Media: Actually, This White House Threatens Us All The Time
But they know deep down that President Obama still loves them, and that it was kind of even their fault anyway. The New York Post's Maureen Callahanchronicles the abusive and intimidating tactics the current administration employs against the press:
This administration is more skilled and disciplined than any other in
controlling the narrative, using social media to circumnavigate the
press. On the flip side, our YouTube culture means even the slightest
gaffe can be devastating, and so you have an army of aides and staffers
helicoptering over reporters. Finally, this week, reporters are pushing
back. Even Jonathan Alter — who frequently appears on the Obama-friendly
MSNBC — came forward to say he, too, had been treated horribly by the
administration for writing something they didn’t like. “There is
a kind of threatening tone that, from time to time — not all the time —
comes out of these guys,” Alter said this week. During the 2008
campaign swing through Berlin, Alter said that future White House press
secretary Robert Gibbs disinvited him from a dinner between Obama and
the press corps over it. “I was told ‘Don’t come,’ in a fairly abusive
e-mail,” he said. “[It] made what Gene Sperling wrote [to
Woodward] look like patty-cake.” “I had a young reporter asking tough,
important questions of an Obama Cabinet secretary,” says one DC veteran.
“She was doing her job, and they were trying to bully her. In
an e-mail, they called her the vilest names — bitch, c--t, a--hole.” He
complained and was told the matter would be investigated: “They were
hemming and hawing, saying, ‘We’ll look into it.’ Nothing happened.”
He wound up confronting the author of the e-mail directly. “I said,
‘From now on, every e-mail you send this reporter will be on the record,
and you will be speaking on behalf of the president of the United
States.’ That shut it down.”
One correspondent says that when he inquired about a staging choice
for the president’s speech, he was steamrolled. “There was one specific
White House aide calling me up, yelling and screaming,” he says. “It was
condescending and abrasive: ‘Why is this a story? Why are you doing
this? This is of no consequence. You’re making a mountain out of a
molehill.’” This went on for two days. “All I wanted,” says the
reporter, “was an answer to a question. It’s not like I was looking to
do a 12-page exposé to take down an aide. It was unnecessary
vociferousness.” He eventually got his statement. Another White
House correspondent says that last week’s blowup over pool reporters’
access to the president’s golf game with Tiger Woods — which was none —
is indicative of a larger problem. “Today’s a perfect example,” he says.
“Jack Lew is sworn in” — as US Treasury secretary, on Thursday — “and
they didn’t even allow a photographer in there. A reporter asked [press
secretary] Jay Carney why, and his answer was, ‘It’s a family ceremony.’
No! This is a high-ranking government official whose salary is paid for
by taxpayers. No.” “This administration has tools to reach people on
their own,” CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante said this week. “They
don’t need us as much. And to the extent that they’re able to do that,
they’re undercutting the First Amendment, which guarantees a free press
through many voices. If they put out their own material, it’s state-run
media.”
So Team Obama isn't averse to punishing even overtly friendly media
figures who step out of line, and the president who pushed a "war on
women" meme in his re-election campaign employs high-level advisors who
call female journalists the C-word for asking inconvenient questions.
Hope and change. National Journal's Ron Fournier wrote last
week about an escalating series of emails he received from a senior
White House official, which eventually became so vitriolic that Fournier
decided to "ice" -- or cut off -- the source altogether. In justifying
both that decision and his choice to go public, Fournier cited the administration's successful bullying of younger reporters:
I changed the rules of our relationship, first, because it was a waste
of my time (and the official’s government-funded salary) to engage in
abusive conversations. Second, I didn’t want to condone behavior
that might intimidate less-experienced reporters, a reaction I
personally witnessed in journalists covering the Obama administration.
This was the same concern Bob Woodward raised when he initially told
CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the infamous "regret" email: "I've tangled
with lots of these people," he said. "But suppose there's a young
reporter who's only had a couple of years — or 10 years' — experience
and the White House is sending him an email saying, 'You're going to
regret this.' You know, tremble, tremble. I don't think it's the way to
operate." Though the context
of the email exchange between Woodward and Gene Sperling clearly
diminished the severity of the "threat" involved, subsequent anecdotes
and confessions from other journalists have vindicated Woodward's
critique of the White House press shop's culture and standard operating
procedures. This isn't about one controversial email; it's about a
pattern of behavior -- to say nothing of the Obama gang's subsequent
campaign to marginalize and malign Woodward's reputation. Allahpundit notices that even the media whistle-blowers exhibit a strange compulsion
to go out of their way to distance Obama himself from the sleazy
actions of his top staff: "[Fournier] ends, as did Woodward and as any
indictment of White House boorishness evidently must as a matter of
professional obligation, by noting that St. Barack would surely frown
upon such treatment — even though Obama chooses to surround himself with
people like Rahm Emanuel and Fournier’s source and he not-so-secretly
disdains the media despite their adulation of him." Yes, because surely
St. Barack would never condone such boorish and acerbic treatment of reporters, right? Ahem:
It's not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.
Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me
an a--hole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from
hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn't yet
hit local newsstands. It's the first time I ever heard him yell, and I'm trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.
Sixty-three
months ago Barack Obama officially declared his candidacy for
President. Only now are some among the so-called media and ruling
elites in America slowly awakening from their self-induced infatuation
and beginning to understand who he is. It has become difficult to
ignore the overt intimidation, demagoguery and deliberate falsehoods
spewed forth by Obama relative to sequestration -- a miniscule cut in
the growth of federal spending. However, any cursory examination of his past reveals that these tactics are second nature to the man who currently occupies the Oval Office.
Yet
there remains a stubborn unwillingness on the part of many to recognize
the essential Barack Obama. Perhaps it is unfathomable to them that
they could be wrong about someone who was the epitome of their
superficial ideal candidate. They are blinded to the danger by their
belief that this country, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the
history of mankind, could never be brought to its knees by anyone.
Barack Obama is a product of 1960's radicalism. His parents, grandparents, mentors, professors and, by his own admission,
circle of friends were all disciples of Marxist thought and the tactics
of societal revolution. Not only his formative years but virtually
his entire life has been an immersion in this mindset -- a mindset which
includes a deep seated animosity toward capitalism and individual
freedom. Virtually all the despots of the twentieth century had the
same philosophical convictions and intellectual backgrounds.
What
makes this belief system so popular among those who harbor
megalomaniacal tendencies is the core tenet that the end justifies the
means. With that simple phrase any tactic is permissible under the
rubric that the true believers are pre-ordained to govern the people.
Thus no lie is too egregious to tell, no strategy to destroy one's
political enemies is out of bounds, and the creation of false crises and
faux enemies is not only legitimate but essential. Any leader within
government or the national community at large who is captive to this
thinking, as Barack Obama has repeatedly revealed throughout his life
and political career, must by necessity be devoid of ethics, integrity
or morals.
Nearly
all the tyrants of the recent past had a unique capacity to mesmerize a
large swath of the populace through ability to deliver a speech and
create a cult of personality, aided and abetted by a media, if not state
sponsored, then one willingly intimidated into doing the bidding
of the exalted leader. This ability and extreme narcissism, which
Barack Obama has in abundance, is another pre-requisite for despotism.
Another
personality trait common to despots is a disregard for life and an
unrelenting willingness to use and discard people. While a member of
the Illinois Senate, Barack Obama was not only in favor of unfettered
abortion rights, he introduced a bill that would make legal the murder
of newly born children that miraculously survived an abortion.
Throughout his life he has used and manipulated the gullible into being
the foot soldiers for his personal ambitions -- whether an entire race
of people (African-Americans) by playing on his skin color or the elite
ruling establishment wallowing in "white guilt." The most overused
phrase describing Obama's actions since he entered the national stage
is: "thrown under the bus" and it has been for good reason as in the
case of Reverend Jeremiah Wright or many in the media and the
Democratic Party.
A
well worn tactic by those desirous of becoming autocrats and seizing an
ever increasing amount of political power is to keep the populace in a
constant state of agitation. As a community organizer and in elected
office Obama has a history of using these tactics. Since becoming
president he has promoted the escalation of vitriol aimed at inciting
retaliation against the tea party movement and conservatives. The
demonization of the wealthy has never been so sustained and blatant.
The incendiary charge of racism has become the default accusation
directed at anyone disagreeing with Barack Obama. As a result racial
animosity is approaching levels not seen since the 1960's. There is
open talk of curbing free speech, governing by presidential fiat in
order to bypass Congress, threatening to seize guns through legislation
and regulation, and promoting blanket amnesty for illegal aliens -- all
steps geared toward fomenting societal upheaval.
Barack
Obama is someone who would willingly inflict pain and suffering on the
American people in order to permanently destroy his political enemies
and accumulate near dictatorial power for the government he controls.
His megalomania does not allow him to care a whit for the citizenry or
the long-term future of the country he is pushing into bankruptcy or the nation's ability to survive in a hostile world.
During
the past century millions of people were thrown into a cauldron of
indescribable suffering which emanated from the inability of
sophisticated, albeit fractured, European societies to overcome economic
and societal hardships. They chose instead to be willingly
manipulated by prospective autocrats promising to solve their nation's
woes through their ill-conceived vision of utopia. A utopia that that
evolved into the near destruction of a continent and the death of untold
millions.
If
those currently in power in the United States succeed in eliminating
any opposition and continue to inexorably increase their control of the
government through their tyrannical tactics, aided and abetted by the
media, the sycophants in the ruling class and the entertainment complex,
there will inevitably be uncontrolled violence and upheaval within
America's borders. The nation's standard of living will drop
precipitously; there will be an irrevocable loss of freedom and
ultimately the imposition of foreign influence over a once proud nation.
The
sequestration tactics by Barack Obama are but the latest manifestation
of his mindset. In order to have a free hand to achieve his tyrannical
ambitions, he must make certain the Republican control of the House of
Representatives is overturned in the 2014 mid-term elections. This is
his current and only objective and he will stop at nothing to accomplish
that goal. After all this is who Barack Obama is.
Few realize that the “green movement” is about building large
personal fortunes for an elite few. As with all robber barons, it is
about the money. It is why President Barack Obama laid out his threat to
again bypass Congress and ignore the American people during his 2013
State of the Union address. Mr. Obama will attempt to force his
ill-conceived green energy plans into existence with the stroke of his
pen via Executive Orders:
“.I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions
we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our
communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the
transition to more sustainable sources of energy.” – President Barack Obama, February 12, 2013
Obama is determined to resurrect his green energy schemes by drying
up America’s access to oil and gas no matter the pain inflicted on
American families and businesses. Having put the coal industry on
life-support, his next target — restricting power plants that generate
electricity to homes and businesses.
What the President hides behind the curtain and does not reveal is
his alliance with international green elites, White House and Wall
Street cronies and energy regulatory czars who have orchestrated a CO2
carbon-taxing scheme that puts billions of dollars into their own hands.
It’s a money scheme. Three years ago, the global-warming money transfer
scam surfaced and named not only this president, but a former Democrat
president and vice-president as participants planning to accumulate vast
personal wealth as a result. One need only ask, why did Al Gore so
confidently tout that he was destined to become the “first
global-warming billionaire?”
Long in the designing, the elements were close to being in full play.
The plans were drawn, the carbon-credit trading exchange registered as
the Chicago Climate Exchange was formulated (New York Times – Click here // Trading symbol CCX – Click here.),
set to both transfer and stash cash, the green barons’ privately-owned
Chicago bank was on the ready and the right president was in office to
perpetrate the scam on the American people. That is, until the great
global-warming-climate-change fraud stopped the United
Nations-supported, elite cadre of well-connected political, banking and
Wall Street associates in their tracks. British Freedom quotes The Times
of India:
“Billionaire globalists like George Soros fund green
groups and seek to promote the globalist ‘climate change’ scam as a way
to enrich themselves and infiltrate developing nations in order to
financially exploit them and their natural resources for profit.”
The June 2009 Bloomberg article, Sandor Got Obama’s Nod for Chicago-Style Climate Law by Jim Efstathiou Jr.,
reported that a carbon-capping bill set to be imposed on American
businesses was the cornerstone of Obama’s environmental agenda.
Bloomberg quotes CCX founder Richard Sandor as saying that the bill
“…began way, way to the left with provisions to push U.S. utilities into
bankruptcy.” The article further reads: “Sandor launched the Chicago
Climate Exchange, or CCX, in 2003 after getting two research grants from
the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation. Obama was on the foundation that
gave us the grant, Sandor said. We know him well.” CCX reportedly now
operates under the auspices of Environmental Financial Products.
When “global-warming-climate-change” was exposed as a blatant fraud,
the American people and a Republican House refused to play ball. By
doing so, they stymied the global clique of politicians and socialist
ideologues who remain ready to bring America to its economic knees for
their own financial and ideological gains. Even so, Mr. Obama is making
another high-stakes play to push through his green agenda to fully
activate the global CCX exchange despite the high cost to even the
poorest of Americans.
While Obama is gearing up to invest billions of America’s tax dollars
into the green abyss, other countries are backing away. Never mind that
China and India refuse to put a dime into the scam. European nations
have already experienced a severe hit to their economies and negative
blow-back from their citizens. In the face of worldwide data to the
contrary, Obama claimed during his State of the Union address that:
“…the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last
15.” How an American President can make such an erroneous claim to the
American people in the face of existing facts reveals him as sorely
misstating or misinformed.
A February 27, 2013 news release by the Global Warming Policy
Foundation states that it has highlighted the global warming standstill
for many years against fervent denial by climate activists. Its
Chairman, Nigel Lawson, states: “…there has been no further recorded
global warming at all for at least the past 15 years.” Backing-up
Lawson’s findings are reported reversals by such global-warming
heavy-weights as the United Nation’s Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the
U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA’s James Hansen
who both reportedly now recognize that global temperatures have not
risen for more than a decade.
Europe is facing a green backlash.
“The BBC has backed down over Sir David Attenborough’s
widely contested claim that parts of the world have warmed by 3.5C over
the last two decades. …The comment was removed from Sunday night’s
repeat of the show.” — Harley Dixon, The Daily Telegraph, 11 Feb. 2013 “…long-term consequences of the Energy Bill will be horrible. It’s a recipe for deindustrialization.” — Professor Gordon Hughes, Mail on Sunday, 24 February, 2013 “Today energy policy is framed with only one factor in mind: satisfying the green lobby. It is, to be blunt, mad.” — Stephen Pollard, Daily Express, 20 February 2013 “Carbon emissions are no longer the driving factor setting UK energy policy. The new and dominant issue is cost.” — Nick Butler, Financial Times, 21 February, 2013
Scientific facts that Mr. Obama and his cronies prefer you not know
come from Edmund Contoski, an environmental consultant for more than 40
countries. In Liberty Unbound, Contoski writes: “The overwhelming
majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from
nature, not from man.” Based on scientific data, “Not only are worms
contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere,” Contoski further notes that,
“volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and
bacteria alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories
and automobiles in the world. Even natural wetlands emit more
greenhouse gases than all human activities combined.” Nature itself
foils the environmentalists as The U.S. Department of Energy admits that
once emitted that 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are again
absorbed by nature. Contosky then queries, “Termites emit ten time more
CO2 than humans, should we cap-and-tax them?”
The media neglect the real reason Barack Obama wants your dollars to
flow into his green machine that will swallow them up and then divvy
them up among an elite group that will reap financial gain as America
loses. The scheme is hidden in plain sight. Perhaps a great
investigative journalist like Bob Woodward will peel back the layers of
this political fraud. After all, he’s already endured one tongue-lashing
threat from the White House.
List of reported quotes from Green Globalists compiled by real-world-news, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment