Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 825)

harry reid

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, speaks to the media following a meeting with U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden at the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, Aug. 1, 2011.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-.Nev., announced Friday in a YouTube video he will retire from the Senate at the end of his term. The former majority leader lost his majority in a historic midterm defeat in 2014.

Appearing with bruises on his face from a recent at-home exercising accident, Reid said the injury has caused him and his family to have a “little down-time,” giving him time to think.

“We’ve got to be more concerned about the country, the Senate, the state of Nevada than us. And as a result of that, I’m not going to run for reelection,” the senator said in the video. “My friend, Senator McConnell, don’t be too elated. I’m going to be here for twenty-two months.”

Though Reid has managed to survive reelection, he only won by a solid margin once. In 2016, the race began as a Toss-Up on PPD’s 2016 Senate Elections Map, but if Gov. Brian Sandoval chose to run against Reid the minority leader would have fallen to the decided underdog.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-.Nev., announced

utah-firing-squad-ronnie-lee-gardner

Convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner, who was put to death on June 18, 2010, was the third man to die by firing squad since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.

We should have seen this coming, I suppose.

We are, after all, the can-do country. Nobody is going to tell us what we can and cannot do, even as they make it impossible for us to do what we used to do before they said we couldn’t do it anymore. If this sounds a bit muddled, welcome to the desperate illogic behind our devotion to capital punishment.

It turns out the collective conscience of the civilized world does not share our affection for government-sanctioned murder. We don’t call it that, of course. We refer to it as the “death penalty,” as if calling murder something other than murder makes it all right when we do unto others precisely what we’ve insisted they shouldn’t have done to someone else.

For many years, our weapon of choice has been lethal injection, a deadly cocktail of paralytic and anesthetic drugs, combined with potassium chloride. The idea is to make death look peaceful so that no one involved in the process has to go home feeling like he or she just killed somebody.

Over time, prisons have to come to depend on third-party providers for their lethal injections. Until recently, that is, when suppliers announced they would no longer provide the primary anesthetic for executions. So now, here we are, facing a nationwide shortage of drugs needed to do the deadly deed.

Here comes Utah, where the state legislature has just received the governor’s blessing to bring back firing squads if lethal drugs aren’t available.

A modern-day firing squad is not the stuff of old movies, where the condemned man stood spur-to-spur and ramrod straight, puffing on a last cigarette dangling from his lips. Associated Press reporter Brady McCombs describes with horrifying detail just how these executions unfold in Utah.

The prisoner is strapped to a chair with a target pinned over his heart.

Let’s all take a moment and imagine that.

About 25 feet away, five shooters hide behind a wall and slide their .30-caliber rifles through slots. The gunmen are volunteers. As McCombs reported, so many gunmen volunteer that priority goes to those from the area where the crime was committed. Sort of like squatter’s rights, with ammo.

One of the guns is loaded with a blank. This apparently is meant to protect any shooter later seized by conscience over his eagerness to volunteer to kill an unarmed man strapped to a chair with a target pinned over his heart. Nothing shoos away a dark moment of the soul like the reassurance that we will never know for sure if our bullet blew up the heart of a fellow human.

Utah State Rep. Ray Paul sponsored the bill to bring back the firing squad. He assured the Associated Press last year that this isn’t nearly as awful as it sounds to those whose own hearts fibrillate at the thought of a person strapped to a chair with a target over his heart. Here, in the United States of America.

Paul’s advice: Settle down, all of you.

“The prisoner dies instantly,” he said. “It sounds draconian. It sounds really bad, but the minute the bullet hits your heart, you’re dead. There’s no suffering.”

Lest he sound callous, he added this: “There’s no easy way to put somebody to death, but you need to be efficient and effective about it. This is certainly one way to do that.”

(Psst, Team Paul: You really need to work on messaging.)

There’s a glimmer of hope for those who oppose this barbaric practice.

It’s called tourism.

Consider the following sample of headlines on Wednesday, March 25.

The Salt Lake Tribune: “Does firing squad law tarnish Utah’s image?”

ABC News: “Critics worry firing squad law will tarnish Utah’s image.”

U.S. News and World Report: “Critics worry decision to bring back firing squad as execution backup will hurt Utah’s image.”

Dare I suggest a theme here?

Could it be that people who like to swoop down glistening ski slopes and explore the cavernous wonders of nature aren’t keen on states with firing squads manned by an overabundance of volunteer gunmen?

Might they might even take their billions of tourism dollars elsewhere?

David Corsun is director of the University of Denver’s Fritz Knoebel School of Hospitality Management. He told AP — go AP, by the way — that large organizations tend to avoid states that are drawing flak for recently passed laws. I may enjoy a little too much his conclusion about Utah’s post-firing squad tourism prospects: “Unless it’s Smith and Wesson,” he said, “I don’t think they are going to be racing to that controversy.”

So, maybe-just-maybe, the one thing that can stop Utah’s firing squads before they start is the almighty dollar.

As motives go, not particularly inspiring, but let’s commiserate another day.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and an essayist for Parade magazine. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and an essayist for Parade magazine. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate.

Schultz: Here comes Utah, where the state

bowe-bergdahl-fox

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was charged with desertion and misbehavior in front of the enemy. (Photo: FOX News)

Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit to obtain records related to the “initial report” of the U.S. Army’s review of the disappearance of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. The lawsuit, which was filed on February 11, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, charges the Department of Defense (DOD) failed to comply with a FOIA request submitted on October 22, 2014.

The Army announced earlier this week that Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban after deserting his post in Afghanistan and then freed five years later in a controversial trade for five Guantanamo detainees, was charged with “Desertion with Intent to Shirk Important or Hazardous Duty” and “Misbehavior Before The Enemy by Endangering the Safety of a Command, Unit or Place.”

However, the results of the Army’s initial investigation was withheld from the public.

“The Obama administration lied and violated the law in releasing five terrorist leaders from captivity in exchange for Bergdahl, and is violating the federal open records law to cover its tracks,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The untoward delay of justice by the Obama Pentagon is unseemly at best, and – as the decision was conveniently delayed well past the November elections – one must wonder if politics trumped military discipline and order among the Pentagon leadership who should know better.”

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, an internal government watchdog agency, said in August 2014 that the administration’s failure to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange, was a clear violation of the law. The executive branch is prohibited under law from releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees without first giving the aforementioned notice and receiving congressional approval.

“Given [the latest] announcement, we now know why the Obama gang would keep a nearly five-year-old report secret about Bergdahl’s desertion,” Fitton said.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:15-cv-00212)) requests “any and all records of communications, including by not limited to, emails and text messages, from or to (as either a direct recipient, “Cc” or Bcc”) Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and the following members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Military Service Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps; and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, regarding, concerning, or related to the ‘initial report’ of the Army’s review of the disappearance of Bowe Bergdahl from his post and his subsequent capture by Taliban forces.”

The time frame of the records requested is from September 1, 2014 to October 28, 2014, which would cover reveal whether Hagel truly felt the president had made the decision based on intelligence suggesting the Bergdahl’s health was deteriorating, as he previously claimed. The narrative, which was pushed after National Security Advisor Susan Rice erroneously claimed Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction,” failed to hold up to further scrutiny.

Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman, said in an interview on Bloomberg that there was no “credible threat” against Bergdahl’s life that could have motivated the White House to keep its prisoner exchange plan a secret from Congress. House Speaker Boehner reenforced Fienstein’s claim, saying the Obama administration’s claim “just isn’t true.”

Meanwhile, of the “Taliban Five” — Mohammad Fazl, the former Taliban army chief of staff; Khairullah Khairkhwa, a Taliban intelligence official; Abdul Haq Wasiq, a former Taliban government official; and Norullah Noori and Mohammad Nabi Omari — at least three have attempted to reconnect with their old Islamic terrorist brothers.

Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit to

 

food-stamp-map-by-state

As shown by this graphic, why are so many people in Maine taking advantage of the food stamp program? As shown by this map, why does Oregon have such a high level of food stamp dependency?

These are just rhetorical questions since I don’t have the answers. But if we can come up with good answers, that could lead to better public policy.

After all, if we want a self-reliant citizenry, it would be better if people were more like those in Nevada and less like the folks in Vermont, at least based on the infamous Moocher Index.

But one thing we can say with certainty is that the food stamp program has morphed into a very expensive form of dependency.

Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal opines on the importance of reforming this costly entitlement.

Officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the food-stamp program has become the country’s fastest-growing means-tested social-welfare program. …Between 2000 and 2013, SNAP caseloads grew to 47.6 million from 17.2 million, and spending grew to $80 billion from $20.6 billion… SNAP participation fell slightly last year, to 46.5 million individuals, as the economy improved, but that still leaves a population the size of Spain’s living in the U.S. on food stamps. …The unprecedented jump in food-stamp use over the past six years has mostly been driven by manufactured demand. The Obama administration has attempted to turn SNAP into a middle-class entitlement by easing eligibility rules and recruiting new food-stamp recipients. …Democrats tend to consider greater government dependence an achievement and use handouts to increase voter support. The president considers European-style welfare states a model for America.

Making America more like Greece, however, is not good news for taxpayers.

But the program also has negative effects on recipients. Contrary to the left’s narrative, we don’t have millions of starving people in America.

…it now operates more like an open-ended income-supplement program that discourages work. Some 56% of SNAP users are in the program for longer than five years, which suggests that the assistance is being used by most recipients as a permanent source of income, not as a temporary safety net. …“Today, instead of hunger, the central nutritional problem facing the poor, indeed all Americans, is not too little food but rather too much—or at least too many calories,” Douglas Besharov, who teaches courses on poverty alleviation at the University of Maryland, told the House Agriculture Committee last month. “Despite this massive increase in overweight and obesity among the poor, federal feeding programs still operate under their nearly half-century-old objective of increasing food consumption.

So why don’t we try to help both taxpayers and low-income Americans by reforming the program, specifically by “block-granting” it to the states?

Uncle Sam picks up almost all of the bill. That means states have little incentive to control costs. Republicans argue that shifting to block grants would not only save money but also encourage states to increase the labor-participation rate of low-income populations. A state that has only so much money to work with is more likely to promote self-sufficiency in the form of employment, job-search and job-training requirements for able-bodied adults on the dole.

Decentralization, Riley explains, worked very well in the 1990s with welfare reform.

…1996 reforms…imposed more stringent time limits and work requirements on welfare recipients enrolled in programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. Welfare rolls subsequently plunged. By 2004, caseloads had fallen by 60% overall and by at least 30% in nearly every state. Child poverty, black child poverty and child hunger also decreased, while employment among single mothers rose. This was a welcome outcome for taxpayers, poor people and everyone else—except those politicians with a vested interest in putting government dependence ahead of self-sufficiency to get elected and re-elected.

So kudos to Republicans on Capitol Hill for proposing to put the states in charge of food stamps.

Just like they also deserve applause for working to block-grant the Medicaid program.

This is something that should happen to all mean-tested programs. Once they’re all back at the state level, we’ll get innovation, experimentation, and diversity, all of which will help teach policy makers which approaches are genuinely in the best interests of both taxpayers and poor people (at least the ones seeking to escape dependency).

Though I can’t resist adding one caveat. The ultimate goal should be to phase out the block grants so that states are responsible for both raising and spending the money.

a-f-branco-bear-necessities

Bear Necessities – A.F. Branco

Let’s close with a few real-world horror stories of what we’re getting in exchange for the tens of billions of dollars that are being spent each year for food stamps.

With stories like this, I’m surprised my head didn’t explode during this debate I did on Larry Kudlow’s show.

P.S. Shifting to another example of government waste, let’s look at the latest example of overspending and mismanagement by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Nothing, of course, can compare with the horrible outrage of bureaucrats awarding themselves bonuses after putting veterans on secret waiting lists and denying them care.

But having taxpayers pay nearly $300,000 just so a bureaucrat can move from one highly paid job in DC to another highly paid job in Philadelphia should get every American upset. Here are some of the sordid details from a local news report.

Rep. Jeff Miller (R., Fla.), who chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee, has also raised questions about the salary and “relocation payments” to the new director of the Philadelphia office, Diana Rubens. Rubens, who was a senior executive in the D.C. office when she was tapped in June to take over the troubled Philadelphia branch, received more than $288,000 in relocation expenses. “The government shouldn’t be in the business of doling out hundreds of thousands in cash to extremely well-compensated executives just to move less than three hours down the road,” Miller said. …Under federal regulations, an agency can pay a variety of costs associated with reassigning an employee, including moving, closing costs, and a per-diem allowance for meals and temporary lodging for the employee’s household.

I’m baffled at how somebody could run up such a big bill. Did she use the space shuttle as a moving van?

Did she have to stay six months at a 5-star resort while waiting for her new house to be ready?

Does a per-diem allowance allow three meals a day at the most expensive restaurant in town?

This is either a case of fraud, which is outrageous, or it’s legal, which means it’s an outrageous example of government run amok.

Regardless, it underscores what I wrote back in 2011.

I will never relent in my opposition to tax increases so long as the crowd in Washington is spending money on things that are not appropriate functions of the federal government. …I will also be dogmatic in my fight against higher taxes so long as there is massive waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs.

Not to mention that we should never allow tax hikes when it’s so simple to balance the budget with modest spending restraint.

State-by state, why are so many people

National and State Mortgage Risk Indices

National and State Mortgage Risk Indices are tracked and released by AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

The composite National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for Agency purchase loans, a gauge of housing market risk, hit a new series high for the 3rd straight month. The NMRI stood at 11.93 percent in the month of February, up 0.1 percentage point from the average for the prior 3 months and 0.8 percent from a year earlier. 

Within the composite, the risk indices for Fannie/Freddie, the FHA, and the VA all hit series highs in February, also marking the 3rd consecutive month the subindexes have shattered their previous highs. According to analysts, the marked shift in market share from large banks to nonbanks accounts for much of the sector’s upward risk trend, as non-bank lending is substantially riskier than the large bank business it replacing due to looser lending practices in the name of redistribution.

“The migration of mortgage lending away from large banks is an important story,” said Stephen Oliner, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. “Lightly regulated nonbank lenders have been more than willing to make risky loans, with taxpayers ultimately on the hook if defaults mount.”

The NMRI results are based on nearly the universe of home purchase loans with a government guarantee. In February, data from the NMRI index was comprised of 204,000 such purchase loans, up from 186,000 loans a year earlier. With the addition of these loans, the total number of loans that have been risk rated in the NMRI since November 2012 has increased to 5.7 million.

Notable takeaways from the February NMRI include the following via AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk:

  • The QM regulation has not restrained the volume of high DTI loans.
  • FHA is not compensating for the riskiness of its high DTI loans, while Fannie and Freddie have been doing so only to a limited extent.  In addition, Fannie and Freddie are not compensating for the riskiness of high CLTV loans.
  • FHA’s NMRI stood at 24.48% in February, up 0.2 percentage point from the average for the prior three months and 1.6 percentage points from a year earlier.  The current level implies that nearly one-quarter of FHA’s recently guaranteed home purchase loans would be projected to default under severely stressed conditions akin to the 2007-08 financial crisis.

“Our data confirm the push by regulators to loosen lending standards is heavily reliant on layering of, not compensating for, risks,” said Edward Pinto, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. “This is true for both low downpayment and high debt-to-income lending.”

The composite National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI)

Weekly jobless claims fell more than markets anticipated last week to a seasonally adjusted 282,000, according to a Labor Department report Thursday. Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 9,000 for the week ended March 21, which the lowest level since mid-February.

Claims for the prior week, which were higher than expected, were unrevised.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims dipping to 290,000 last week, and Labor Department analyst said there was nothing unusual in the state-level data.

The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, fell 7,750 to 297,000 last week. It was the first time in three straight weeks the four-week average came in below the 300,000 threshold.

Thursday’s claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid fell 6,000 to 2.42 million in the week ended March 14, a positive sign considering the small number of eligible Americans who have yet to quick on the labor force.

So-called continuing claims covered the period during which the government surveyed households for March’s unemployment rate. Continuing claims rose 12,000 between the February and March survey periods, suggesting little change in the jobless rate.

The unemployment rate fell to a more than 6-1/2-year low of 5.5 percent in February, but abysmally low labor force participation continued to push the artificial rate down.

Weekly jobless claims fell more than markets

john-boehner

Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, listens to a question during a press conference on Capitol Hill December 11, 2014 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

Last week, I applauded the Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees for proposing budgets that complied with my Golden Rule, which means the burden of government would grow slower than the private sector.

But my praise was limited because neither budget is ideal from the perspective of libertarians and small-government conservatives.

Even though the two proposals satisfy my Golden Rule, that’s simply a minimum threshold. In reality, there’s far too much spending in both plans, and neither Chairman proposes to get rid of a single Department. Not HUD, not Education, not Transportation, and not Agriculture.

Heck, the budgets don’t even go after low-hanging fruit such as the Small Business Administration, National Endowment for the Arts, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or Legal Services Corporation.

And it turns out that there’s another reason to be semi-disappointed with the GOP budgets.

Stephen Ohlemacher of the Associated Press has a story on the Republican plans and he looks at one of the GOP’s most prominent claims.

The new House and Senate Republican budgets make a big boast: They both balance the federal budget within 10 years, without raising taxes.

But there are two problems with this assertion.

First, the GOPers are assuming that certain “temporary” tax breaks will expire. And this means more money for the government.

…millions of American families and businesses would have to pay more in taxes to make the math work…current law assumes that more than 50 temporary tax breaks that expired at the start of the year will not be renewed. …All together, the tax breaks add up to $898 billion over the next decade, according to CBO. …Most Republicans in Congress have voted numerous times to temporarily extend them. And over the past year, the Republican-controlled House has voted to make some of the more popular ones permanent.

Second, Republicans say they want to repeal Obamacare, but they want to keep all the revenue currently associated with the Obamacare tax hikes.

…they rely on more than $1 trillion in tax revenue from the health law that would supposedly be repealed. …In 2012, CBO said repealing the president’s health law would reduce tax revenues by $1 trillion over the following decade. That number has certainly gone up as more of the law’s tax increases have come into effect. But despite calling for the health law to be repealed, both budget resolutions include all the revenue that would come from the law’s taxes.

Both of these criticisms are valid.

Regardless of what you think about temporary tax provisions (some of them are good and some are special interest junk), letting these “extenders” expire is a way to boost the long-run revenue haul of the federal government. In an ideal world, by contrast, the good provisions would be made permanent and the bad ones would be repealed and the money used to finance good tax changes.

Similarly, while Republicans say they want to repeal the specific Obamacare tax hikes, that they don’t plan on letting go of the money. Which is just a way of saying that they are letting Obamacare boost the long-run revenue stream going to Washington.

By the way, this doesn’t mean that the GOP budgets are bad compared to current law. It simply means that they could – and should – be better. Specifically, they could incorporate lower tax levels and lower spending levels.

Which brings me to the part of the AP article that rubs me the wrong way. The headline, at least the one picked by Business Insider, says that eliminating red ink without a higher tax burden is “probably not possible.” And the language in the report is similar.

Balancing the federal budget is hard. Doing it without more tax revenue is even harder.

So why am I irked by this passage? Well, balancing the budget without new money for DC may be “harder” in the sense that it would require more spending restraint. And someone might be correct if they predicted that achieving balance is “probably not possible” because politicians are reluctant to exercise fiscal discipline.

But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

Earlier this year, I shared this chart showing how modest spending restraint can quickly balance the budget. As you can see, it’s actually very simple to get rid of red ink if politicians simply exercise a modest bit of fiscal discipline.

But I’ll admit that I used the Congressional Budget Office’s January projections of revenue, which assumed (like the GOP budgets) that the government would get revenues from the Obamacare tax hikes, as well as revenues from expiring provisions.

So does that mean that it’s impractical to balance the budget without all this added money going to DC?

Nonsense.

Let’s look at the numbers (and we now have new revenue projections from CBO, but they haven’t changed much) and see what happens if you remove the $2 trillion of revenues (over 10 years) associated with Obamacare and the extenders.

Since the revenue numbers climb over time, let’s assume that this means revenues will be $250 billion lower in 2025.

Does that cripple any hope of balancing the budget?

Hardly. It simply means that spending over the next 10 years could grow only about 2.7 percent per year rather than (as assumed in the House and Senate budgets) 3.3 percent per year.

So the bottom line is that we don’t need more revenue in Washington. We simply need more spending restraint.

P.S. By the way, this video explains why our goal should be smaller government, not fiscal balance.

That being said, there’s overwhelming evidence from nations all over the world that spending restraint is the best way to quickly reduce red ink.

CATO Institute economist and senior fellow Daniel

obama_nsa_reform

Here is a short pop quiz.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress earlier this month about the parameters of the secret negotiations between the United States and Iran over nuclear weapons and economic sanctions, how did he know what the negotiators were considering? Israel is not a party to those negotiations, yet the prime minister presented them in detail.

When Hillary Clinton learned that a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives had subpoenaed her emails as secretary of state and she promptly destroyed half of them — about 33,000 — how did she know she could get away with it? Destruction of evidence, particularly government records, constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice.

When Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of both the CIA and the NSA in the George W. Bush administration and the architect of the government’s massive suspicionless spying program, was recently publicly challenged to deny that the feds have the ability to turn on your computer, cellphone or mobile device in your home and elsewhere, and use your own devices to spy on you, why did he remain silent? The audience at the venue where he was challenged rationally concluded that his silence was his consent.

And when two judges were recently confronted with transcripts of conversations between known drug dealers — transcripts obtained without search warrants — and they asked the police who obtained them to explain their sources, how is it that the cops could refuse to answer? The government has the same obligation to tell the truth in a courtroom as any litigant, and in a criminal case, the government must establish that its acquisition of all of its evidence was lawful.

The common themes here are government spying and lawlessness. We now know that the Israelis spied on Secretary of State John Kerry, and so Netanyahu knew of what he spoke. We know that the Clintons believe there is a set of laws for them and another for the rest of us, and so Mrs. Clinton could credibly believe that her deception and destruction would go unpunished.

We know that the NSA can listen to all we say if we are near enough to a device it can turn on. (Quick: How close are you as you read this to an electronic device that the NSA can access and use as a listening device?) And we also know that the feds gave secret roadside listening devices to about 50 local police departments, which acquired them generally without the public consent of elected officials in return for oaths not to reveal the source of the hardware. It came from the secret budget of the CIA, which is prohibited by law from spying in the U.S.

What’s going on here?

What’s going on here is government’s fixation on spying and lying. Think about it: The Israeli Mossad was spying on Kerry while the CIA was spying on the Mossad. Hillary Clinton thought she could destroy her emails just because she is Hillary Clinton, yet she forgot that the administration of which she was an integral part dispatched the NSA to spy on everyone, including her. And though it might not voluntarily release the emails she thought she destroyed, the NSA surely has them. The police have no hesitation about engaging in the same warrantless surveillance as the feds. And when Hayden revealed a cat-like smile on his face when challenged about the feds in our bedrooms, and the 10,000 folks in the audience did not reveal outrage, you know that government spying is so endemic today that it is almost the new normal.

Yet, government spying is not normal to the Constitution. Its essence — government fishing nets, the indiscriminate deployment of government resources to see what they can bring in, government interference with personal privacy without suspicion or probable cause — was rejected by the Framers and remains expressly rejected by the Fourth Amendment today.

For our liberty to survive in this fearful post-9/11 world, the government’s lawless behavior must be rejected not just by the words of dead people, but by the deeds of we the living. When the president violates the Constitution and the Congress and courts do nothing to stop him, we have effectively amended the Constitution with a wink and a nod — by consent, if you will. Its guarantees of liberty are only guarantees if the people in whose hands we repose it for safekeeping honor them as guarantees and believe and behave as such because the Constitution means what it says.

Where is the outrage? If you knew the feds were virtually present in your bedroom or your automobile, and your representatives in Congress did nothing about it, would you buy the nonsense that you should have nothing to hide? Would you send those weaklings back to Congress? Or would you say to a lawless government, as the Founders did to the British, “Thou shalt not enter here”? Does the Constitution mean what it says in bad times as well as in good times?

These are not academic questions. They address the most important issue of our day. For nothing will destroy our personal liberties more effectively than the government refusing to honor them and Americans sheepishly accepting that. And without freedom, what are we?

Judge Andrew Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty.

Judge Andrew Napolitano details how modern government

yemen-coup

A Houthi fighter fires at forces guarding the Presidential Palace during clashes in Sanaa January 19, 2015. (REUTERS/KHALED ABDULLAH)

Saudi Arabia began a bombing campaign against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, the country’s ambassador to the United States confirmed Wednesday.

Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir confirmed the Saudi airstikes began at 7 p.m. Eastern time against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, whose official slogan is “Death to Israel. Death to America.” The Shiite group seized control of the capital and forced the resignation of U.S.- and Saudi-backed former President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

It was a stunningly embarrassing development the White House struggled to explain, which came less than one year after President Obama cited the Arab world’s poorest country as the model for how he and his administration plan “to degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State (ISIS).

Ambassador al-Jubeir, who made the announcement at a rare news conference by the Sunni Kingdom, said the Houthis “have always chosen the path of violence,” but declined to say whether the Saudi campaign involved U.S. intelligence assistance.

He said the kingdom of Saudi Arabia “will do anything necessary” to protect the people of Yemen and “the legitimate government of Yemen.”

The loss of Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, an important and key ally in the war on terror, was a serious blow to American counterterrorism efforts in the region. The U.S. presence and anti-terror capabilities have continued to disintegrate since the administration was forced to announce the hasty and incompetent evacuation of the embassy.

In a Feb. exclusive, sources told PPD President Obama and top State Department officials never believed they would have to evacuate the U.S. Embassy in Yemen. Sources at the State Department tell PPD that Obama administration officials believed they had successfully negotiated a deal with the Houthi rebels through Iran to keep the U.S. Embassy open in Sanaa.

Saudi Arabia began a bombing campaign against

Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange

Clockwise from top left: President Obama with the Berghdal family; Bowe Berghdal in Taliban’s prisoner exchange video; the Taliban Five; and, National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

In January 2015, PPD reported that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl would be charged with a watered down “leaving a post to avoid duty”desertion charge unless he took a plea deal and forfeited the $200,000 in back pay he received for the time in captivity.

Pentagon spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby denied the report, stating that the decision to file charges against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was not made.

However, the Army announced Wednesday that Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban after deserting his post in Afghanistan and then freed five years later in a controversial trade for five Guantanamo detainees, was charged with “Desertion with Intent to Shirk Important or Hazardous Duty” and “Misbehavior Before The Enemy by Endangering the Safety of a Command, Unit or Place.”

U.S. Army Forces Command announced the decision at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and said the case has been referred to an Article 32 preliminary hearing.

While the focus of Bergdahl’s actions have remained on desertion, the charge of “misbehavior before the enemy” carries a maximum sentence of up to life in prison. Meanwhile, desertion carries a maximum of five years.

“Sgt. Robert Bowdrie (“Bowe”) Bergdahl remains assigned to and physically located with U.S. Army North headquarters at Fort Sam Houston,” said Chief of Public Affairs Paul Boyce. “He is not in pretrial confinement or any form of arrest or restriction.”

The announcement from the U.S. Army comes a whopping 10 months after his May 2014 release, which initially was actually celebrated by the White House, who invited his parents to join President Obama in the Rose Garden. Bob Bergdahl, who had studied Islam during his son’s captivity, raised eyebrows and criticisms for appearing with a full beard and reading a Muslim prayer, while his wife embraced the president.

But while the Obama administration thought the exchange would increase the president’s approval ratings and earn the White House a badly needed political victory, the celebration was short-lived.

In an effort to answer mounting criticisms surrounding the circumstances of Bergdahl’s disappearance and revelations of six fellow-serviceman losing their lives in missions to recover the deserter, National Security Advisor said Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” That narrative was quickly shattered after several soldiers, who served in Bergdahl’s unit, gave multiple public interviews telling media that he was — unequivocally — a deserter.

Public opinion in the face of the facts inevitably sourced on Bergdahl and the commander-in-chief, who saw his approval ratings on foreign policy hit all-time lows. In fact, they never recovered. But that was not the end of the Bergdahl controversy, or the administration’s problems.

Further, the trade of hardened Taliban fighters detained at Guantanamo Bay for a deserter was met with charges from lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the administration broke the law by not consulting Congress. In response, the White House pivoted to a new narrative claiming they had made the decision based on intelligence suggesting the captive’s health was deteriorating. But that didn’t hold up to scrutiny, either.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in an interview on Bloomberg that there was no “credible threat” against Bergdahl’s life that could have motivated the White House to keep its prisoner exchange plan a secret from Congress. House Speaker Boehner reenforced Fienstein’s claim, stating Obama’s claim “just isn’t true.”

Then, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, an internal government watchdog agency, said in August 2014 that the administration’s failure to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange, was a clear violation of the law. The executive branch is prohibited under law from releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees without first giving the aforementioned notice and receiving congressional approval.

“This proves once again that the president’s political motivations for closing Guantanamo Bay are causing him to make reckless decisions and will put more American lives at risk,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Wednesday in a statement.

The case now goes to an Article 32 hearing to be held at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, where Bergdahl has been performing administrative duties as he awaits the conclusion of the case. That proceeding is similar to a grand jury. From there, it could be referred to a court-martial and go to trial.

A date for that hearing was not announced.

Meanwhile, of the “Taliban Five” — Mohammad Fazl, the former Taliban army chief of staff; Khairullah Khairkhwa, a Taliban intelligence official; Abdul Haq Wasiq, a former Taliban government official; and Norullah Noori and Mohammad Nabi Omari — at least three have attempted to reconnect with their old Islamic terrorist brothers.

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was charged with

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial