For more than 200 years before LOST was adopted in 1982 and for 30 years since then, the U.S. Navy has successfully protected America’s maritime interests regardless of the fact that the United States has not signed on to the treaty. The United States’ navigational rights and freedoms have been secure, and they are best guaranteed by a strong Navy.

LOST is not without consequences, either. One of the more nefarious and insidious of its provisions is Article 82, which requires the United States to forfeit royalties generated from oil and gas development on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles – an area known as the “extended continental shelf.” That money, which one estimate says could be worth many billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the International Seabed Authority, a new international bureaucracy created by the treaty and based in Jamaica. Heritage’s Steven Groves explains that from there, America’s money could be shipped to the Middle East, Africa, China, and even state sponsors of terror:

LOST directs that the revenue be distributed to “developing States” (such as Somalia, Burma … you get the picture) and “peoples who have not attained full independence” (such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization … hey, don’t they sponsor terrorism?). The assembly – the “supreme organ” of the International Seabed Authority in which the United States has a single vote to cast – has the final say regarding the distribution of America’s transmogrified “international” royalties.

The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, China or Zimbabwe – all members of LOST. Perhaps those dollars will go to regimes that are merely corrupt; 13 of the world’s 20 most corrupt nations, according to Transparency International, are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state sponsors of terrorism, could receive dollars fresh from the U.S. Treasury.

In addition to shipping America’s money overseas to unsavory recipients, LOST could have other negative consequences, as well, by exposing U.S. industry and manufacturing to baseless international lawsuits. In fact, environmental activists and international legal academics are actively exploring the potential of using international litigation against the United States to advance their agendas. And for those who say LOST is a tool for mediating international disputes, take a look at the Philippines, which signed on to the treaty and yet today is finding itself browbeaten by China and its claims in the South China Sea.  (U.S. Navy Photo: Mass Communications Specialist Third Class Amanda Kilpatrick)

If America truly wants to preserve its rights on the sea, then it needs to bolster the one tool that has guaranteed those rights throughout history — a strong U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, under President Obama’s watch, the United States is seeing its fleet diminished in size and ability. A lone piece of paper will not defend America’s interests on the sea, and neither will transferring billions of dollars to an international authority in Jamaica for redistribution the world over. LOST should not be ratified and signed, and instead Washington should turn its attention to ensuring that the U.S. Navy has the resources it needs to protect America’s interests on the high seas.

Mike Brownfield is Assistant Director of Strategic Communications at The Heritage Foundation. He serves as editor of The Foundry, Heritage's public policy news blog, as well as the "Morning Bell," one of Washington’s most widely read and influential e-newsletters. Mike hails from Southeast Michigan and practiced law in Chicago, Illinois.

Check out this list of organizations joining·amicus briefs in the Judicial Watch’s litigation: ·Bloomberg, L.P., CBS Broadcast, Inc., Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Gannett, Co., Inc., The McClatchy Company, The National Association of Broadcasters, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Public Radio, The Newspaper Guild, The Radio Television Digital News Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The Washington Post, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Openthegovernment.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Project on Government Oversight.

Certainly there is no way the Obama gang can chalk up JW’s lawsuit to yet another “vast right wing conspiracy.” Especially when you read the unambiguous language from these briefs in support of Judicial Watch.

For example, according to the May 8, 2012·amicus curiae brief filed by·Bloomberg, et. al., the Obama administration is attempting to “evade the congressional mandate of FOIA:”

The Media Amici are particularly concerned that reversal of the decision below may encourage federal agencies to seek to place millions of documents outside of FOIA’s ambit based on no more than their say-so, even in the face of express statutes and judicial orders directly to the contrary. Permitting such an end-run around FOIA would significantly reduce the quantity and quality of information available to the media and, consequently, to the public at large, severely undermining the goal of an informed public that sits at the core of our democracy…

…Media Amici respectfully urge this Court to affirm the District Court’s ruling…and reject the Secret Service’s repeated efforts to evade the congressional mandate of FOIA. Any other decision risks inviting a degradation of the rights of the media and the public to access government information, ultimately reducing confidence in governmental institutions.

The Media Amici group also asserts that the Obama administration’s position “would effect a complete end-run around FOIA.”

According to the May 8, 2012,·amicus curiae brief filed by CREW, et. al., the Obama administration’s position on the White House visitor logs is “radical” and will render FOIA a “dead letter.”

Pursuant to a·lawsuit filed on December 7, 2009, Judicial Watch has asked the court to order the release of Secret Service logs of White House visitors from January 20, 2009, to August, 10, 2009.

The Obama administration has made the erroneous claim that the visitor logs “are not agency records subject to the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act].” As Judicial Watch noted in its complaint filed on December 7, 2009, this claim “has been litigated and rejected repeatedly.” Despite White House misinformation to the contrary, tens of thousands of visitor logs are being withheld from disclosure by the Obama administration.

According to·Judge Howell’s ruling, the records should now be subject to disclosure under FOIA: “…the proper course of action by the Secret Service is duly to process [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request, disclose all segregable, nonexempt records, and then assert specific FOIA exemptions for all records it seeks to withhold.” Currently, the White House releases visitor information at its own discretion, the timing and specifics of which, it insisted, was not subject to court review.

We are grateful so many reputable media institutions and open government organizations are joining our legal campaign against the Obama administration to uphold our nation’s FOIA transparency law and force the release of White House visitor logs. The Obama administration has a sham policy of voluntarily releasing selected White House visitor logs, while shielding hundreds of thousands remaining logs from public view. President Obama has made a mockery of his transparency promises to the American people. And no one, not even presumed “friendlies” in the press are on his side.

SOURCE: Judicial Watch

President Obama promised to cut the deficit at least six times. He also promised a “net spending cut.” These promises were swiftly broken. In 2009, the president broke them in a big way with his very first proposed budget. It mandated such large increases in spending that budget deficits would rise by $4.8 trillion under it to $9.3 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

He has broken at least ten other campaign promises, including seven promises in signing the $800 billion stimulus package (which will shrink the economy in the “long run”), and one promise in signing the Lilly Ledbetter law and the SCHIP tax increase.

On the other hand, President Obama kept his pledge to federalize hate crimes, which were already prohibited by state laws, by signing into law a broad federal hate crimes law in 2009. (Obama promised to “place the weight of (his) administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to (federally) outlaw hate crimes.”) Since violent crimes were already prohibited by state law, and most states already had laws increasing penalties for crimes motivated by race or sexual orientation, the principal effect of the 2009 federal hate crimes law was to allow federal prosecutors to reprosecute people had previously been acquitted and found not guilty of a crime in state court, or were never prosecuted in state court because state prosecutors viewed the evidence against them as weak.

And, indeed, one of the purposes of the federal hate crimes law was to take advantage of a loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, constitutional protections against double jeopardy prevent a state from reprosecuting a person who has been found not guilty in state court, but do not, owing to the loophole, prevent federal prosecutors from reprosecuting someone after they have been found innocent of the same crime in state court. This loophole is known as the “dual sovereignty” doctrine. The Obama administration may make use of this loophole in a recent high-profile, racially-charged case in Florida. The specter of such reprosecutions led the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and civil-libertarians like Nat Hentoff to oppose the federal hate-crimes law.

SOURCE: CEI Open Market Blog

Hans Bader

Senior Attorney and Counsel for Special Projects

CEI's Counsel for Special Projects is Hans Bader. Coming to CEI in 2003, Hans's prior casework has included suits involving the First Amendment, federalism, and civil rights issues. He graduated from the University of Virginia with a B.A. in economics and history, and later earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School. Just before joining CEI, Hans was Senior Counsel at the Center for Individual Rights.

Remember the fallen, from Normandy to Pearl and all the many wars and battles that have kept our country free.

The following prayer is offered by James Simpson:

This is the day we remember those who have fallen in battle, thereby making the supreme sacrifice in service to our great nation. Too many of us don't fully recognize what this day symbolizes. So I am offering a Memorial Day prayer, both to give my thanks and hopefully help us all be a little more appreciative. Here it is:

Dear God:

I pray for the fallen, those brave souls who gave their all for this country, never flinching from their duty, whatever they were called to do, and whether the leadership decisions that brought them to their last mission were well considered or not. They have given all they had, without question.

But I pray especially for the fathers and sons, mothers and daughters of these fallen princes, for they have to live on without, and doubtless would have taken their place without question, even if only to save themselves from such unbearable pain. Nothing can compare to the suffering endured by a mother who loses her child, or a child who loses his mother or father before their time. The fallen sacrifice their lives; the family sacrifices the rest of their lives. They will never see what their beloved’s life could have become, will no more share life’s trials and triumphs with them, never again see their smile or share their warmth on a cold winter’s night. They live in a sea of grief and will carry that wound for eternity. So, please God, bestow Your Tenderness and Grace especially on these families, whose loss can never be repaid.

But God, I pray also for the rest of us, for we lose too. We lose what could have been, from among the most selfless, principled, promising souls of our living generations. I would gladly exchange any ten Harvard graduates for one serviceman who willingly walks at the knifepoint. He has more guts, more integrity, more fortitude and likely more resourcefulness than the lot of them combined.

So, God, please let not their ultimate sacrifice be in vain. See to it that the objectives they were deployed to obtain are achieved. See to it that we have the satisfaction of realizing their missions successfully concluded. God, preserve this country for which they gave their lives, and give us all the wisdom, humility, and virtue to fully comprehend and gratefully acknowledge their sacrifices for what they are; for "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).

Amen

Originally posted at Truth & Consequences on Memorial Day, 2008

One possible approach to resolving this dispute is to ask whether the federal government has done an effective job of protecting its own networks and cyberdata. To the extent that it has, it might be deemed an appropriate source of private-sector standards; to the extent it has not, a contrary opinion might be formed. It is, thus, worth considering the extent of cyber-attacks on, and breaches within, the federal government since 2004.[1] To be sure, the significance of certain attacks and breaches lies in the eye of the beholder—the compilerof any list necessarily exercises judgment in making the determination. And, without a doubt, a comparable list of significant attacks on, and breaches within, the private sector would be far more extensive. Nevertheless, the substantial number of significant, successful attacks on federal systems should play a role in determining whether to entrust DHS with a regulatory role in the private-sector cyberdomain. The list is alphabetical by agency.[2]

Central Intelligence Agency

1. CIA Official Website—June 2011. The CIA’shomepage was shut down by a cyber-attack by LulzSec, an anonymoushacker group believed to hack websites simply for fun.[3]

U.S. Congress

2. Senate—June 2011. The Sergeant at Arms confirmed that the Senate website had been hacked after files from the website were posted online, indicating that Lulz Sec had broken into the Senate’s computer network.[4]

3. Office of Senator Bill Nelson (D–FL)—March 2009. Senator Nelson confirmed that his personal office computers had been subject to three separate attacks byChina-based hackers.[5]

4. Offices of Representative Frank Wolf (R–VA) and the House Foreign Affairs Committee—August 2006. Representative Wolf announced that the computers at his personal office, a number of unnamed Representatives’ offices, and the office of the House Foreign Affairs Committee had been hacked by China-based hackers.[6]

U.S. Department of Agriculture

5. Washington, D.C., Headquarters—June 2006. The Department of Agriculture was subject to a cyber-attack by an unknown entity, during which the names, Social Security numbers, and photographs of 26,000 employees were stolen.[7]

U.S. Department of Commerce

6. Economic Development Administration—February 2012. The Department of Commerce had to disconnect its computers from the Internet because unknown intruders injected a virus into the Economic Development Administration’s computer network.[8]

7. Commerce Department Website—December 2009. The Commerce Department accidentally posted personally identifiable information and Social Security numbers on its website, and did not notify employees until seven weeks after the fact.[9]

8. Secretary of Commerce—December 2007. Spying software was found on the electronic devices of the Commerce Secretary following a trip to China with the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.[10]

9. Bureau of Industry and Security—October 2006. The Department of Commerce had to take the Bureau of Industry and Security’s networks offline for several months and replace hundreds of computers because its networks were hacked by unknown foreign intruders. The bureau reviews confidential information on high-tech exports.[11]

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

10. F-35 Fighter-Plane Development—February 2012. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security announced that delays and high costs for the development of the F-35 stemmed from addressing cybersecurity after China-based hackers stole classified information discussing the technology.[12]

11. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Afghanistan—December 2011. An RQ-170 stealth drone went missing and apparently crashed near the Iranian border. Iran claimed to have downed the drone through a cyber-attack.[13]

12. Defense Department Contractor—July 2011. In a speech unveiling the Defense Department’s cyberstrategy, the Deputy Secretary of Defense mentioned that a defense contractor’s computer was hacked, and 24,000 files relating to sensitive systems being developed were stolen by unidentified hackers.[14]

13. National Guard—December 2010. A computer containing the personal information on 650 soldiers was stolen from Santa Fe, New Mexico, headquarters by an unknown entity.[15] 

14. The Army—April 2010. The Army lost personal data of reservists through unknown means and has warned affected reservists to “check credit bureau reports and be aware of the possibilities of identity theft.”[16] 

15. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Feeds—December 2009. Downlinks from U.S. UAVs were hacked by Iraqi insurgents using inexpensive file-sharing software, allowing them to see what the UAVs had viewed.[17]

16. U.S. Central Command—November 2008. Classified networks at the Defense Department and Central Command relating to U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan were subject to a cyber-attack thought to have originated in Russia.[18]

17. Secretary of Defense’s E-Mail Account—June 2007. The Secretary of Defense’s unclassified e-mail account was hacked by unknown foreign intruders.[19]

18. National Defense University—May 2007. Spyware on the university’s computer system left the university’s e-mail vulnerable to attacks; the university ultimately had to take its systems offline due to intrusions by unknown foreign hackers.[20]

19. Naval War College—November 2006. The Naval War College in Rhode Island had to shut down its computer systems for two weeks following a cyber-attack. The Naval War College develops strategies for naval warfare, as well as for cybersecurity and cyberwarfare.[21]

20. Non-Classified Internet Provider Router Network—August 2006. A senior Air Force officer announced that “China has downloaded 10 to 20 terabytes of data from the NIPRNet.”[22]

U.S. Department of Education

21. Computer Theft—August 2006. Computers containing personal information of grant reviewers were stolen by unknown thieves.[23]

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

22. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)—October 2011. A report issued by the Energy Department disclosed that the NNSA had been hit by recent successful cyber-attacks perpetrated by unknown attackers.[24]

23. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)—July 2011. PNNL shut down access to its networks after learning it was subject to a highly sophisticated cyber-attack by an unknown entity.[25]

24. Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF)—July 2011. Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory shut down access to its networks after learning it was subject to a highly sophisticated cyber-attack by an unknown entity.[26]

25. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)—April 2011. ORNL, home to powerful supercomputers, shut down access to the Internet after employees received e-mails with a link that allowed the unknown attackers to siphon off data. ORNL reported that a “few megabytes” of data were stolen.[27]

26. Oak Ridge National Laboratory—October 2007. Over a thousand staffers at ORNL received an e-mail with an attachment that, when opened, provided unknown intruders with access to the lab’s databases.[28]

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

27. DHS Website—February 2012. The DHS website was taken down due to a cyber-attack, attributed to the hacker group Anonymous.[29]

28. Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN)—May 2009. HSIN was hacked by unknown intruders, who gained access to state and federal information. The HSIN is intended to be a secure portal for information sharing among federal, state, and industry partners.[30]

29. DHS Washington, D.C., Headquarters—September 2007. Dozens of DHS computers and servers were hacked—the cyber break-ins were traced to a Chinese-language website, through which an unknown amount of sensitive information was stolen. The contractor hired to protect DHS computers tried to hide the incident from DHS, citing the fact that DHS had stopped paying for security monitoring services.[31]

30. DHS Washington, D.C., Headquarters—June 2007. DHS officials acknowledged that two internal DHS servers were infected with computer malware designed to steal passwords and other sensitive data.[32]

31. DHS Washington, D.C., Headquarters—2005–2006. A 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office cited 884 cyber-attacks on DHS during 2005 and 2006.[33]

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)

32. National Business Center, Denver, CO—May 2010. The center reported that it had lost a computer disk containing the personal information of 7,500 employees.

33. DOI Audit—November 2009. The DOI failed a cybersecurity audit conducted by the DOI Inspector General, which stated that the agency falls short of security requirements.[34]

34. DOI Washington, D.C., Headquarters—February 2002. The DOI was forced, under court order, to disconnectall computers from the Internet until it could prove that it had fixed major security problems,which turned out to take two months.[35]

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

35. DOJ Websites—January 2012. The hacker group Anonymous claimed responsibility for taking down the DOJ websites usdoj.gov and justice.gov in a cyber-attack to protest the FBI shutting down Megaupload.com, one of the largest file-sharing websites in the world.[36]

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

36. FBI–Scotland Yard Conference Call Discussing the Hacker Group Anonymous—February 2012. Members of Anonymous intercepted and posted a recording of the conference call online.[37]

37. FBI Website—January 2012. Anonymous claimed credit for taking down the FBI website, FBI.gov, in a cyber-attack to protest the FBI shutting down Megaupload.com.[38]

38. FBI Phone Network—June 2011. The FBI’s phone network was taken down due to a cyber-attack by LulzSec.[39]

U.S. Department of State

39. Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs—June 2006. The State Department confirmed that its networks at its headquarters and offices dealing with Asia were subject to an attack that began at U.S. embassies in the East Asia–Pacific region. Unknown foreign intruders downloaded sensitive information and passwords.[40]

40. Washington, D.C., Headquarters—2005–2008. A State Department employee illegally accessed a State Department database that contained more than 60 passport application files.[41]

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

41. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)—June 2010.Canadian bloggers discovered that the NHTSA was inadvertently posting sensitive personal information on its website.[42]

42. DOT Website—July 2009. The DOT website was shut down by a cyber-attack perpetrated by unknown hackers that was part of a larger effort to shut down websites in the United States and South Korea.[43]

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

43. FAA Computer Networks—May 2009. A report released by the Department of Transportation acknowledged that the FAA administrative networks that manage air-traffic flow and electric power were subject to cyber-attacks by unknown hackers whogained access to data used to manage the network.[44]

U.S. Department of the Treasury

44. Treasury Department Website—July 2009. The Treasury website was shut down by the same cyber-attack that affected the DOT the same month, which was part of a larger effort to bring down websites in the United States and South Korea.[45]

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

45. VA Employee Robbed—May 2009. Thieves stole electronic records, containing information on 26.5 million people, from the residence of a VA employee who had not been authorized to take the electronic equipment home.[46]

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

46. FTC Online-Security Website—January 2012. The website run by the FTC dedicated to cybersecurity education, OnGuardOnline.gov, was taken down and defaced by a cyber-attack perpetrated by a hacker group known as AntiSec.[47]

47. FTC Main Website—July 2009. The FTC website was shut down by a cyber-attack that was part of a larger effort to bring down websites in the United States and South Korea.[48]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

48. Various NASA Servers—2010–2011. NASA was subject to 5,400 security incidents in 2010 and 2011, during which unknown hackers gained “full functional control” of important systems 13 times.[49]

49. NASA Satellite—November 2011. The U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission announced that suspected Chinese hackers, through malicious cyber-activity, took control of two NASA satellites for more than 11 minutes over the course of 2007 and 2008.[50]

50. Jet Propulsion Laboratory—May 2011. The laboratory’s website was compromised due to a cyber-attack by unknown hackers.[51]

51. Goddard Earth Observing System—May 2011. A Romanian hacker known as “Tinkode” gained access to information contained on servers for the satellite-based Earth-observation system.[52]

52. International Space Station—March 2011. A laptop containing the codes to control the International Space Station was stolen; 48 other NASA mobile computing devices were stolen or lost between April 2009 and April 2011 that contained sensitive information, including Social Security numbers.[53]

53. Jet Propulsion Laboratory—2009. The Office of the Inspector General reported that various hackers had compromised one of NASA’s key mission networks, making thousands of unauthorized connections to the network and stealing export-restricted data from NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory systems.[54]

54. NASA Washington, D.C., Headquarters—December 2006. NASA blocked all e-mails with attachments before shuttle launches for fear its network would be hacked by unknown foreign intruders.[55]

55. Various NASA Servers—2004. Suspected Chinese hackers, code-named Titan Rain by the FBI, stole a significant amount of information from sensitive networks at NASA and military labs.[56]

56. Ames Research Center—2004. A cyber-attack by an unknown hacker on the Ames Research Center forced the agency to disconnect its supercomputers from the Internet in order to limit the loss of secure data.[57]

57. X-Ray Satellite and Goddard Space Flight Center—September 1998. NASA investigators reported that the failure of an x-ray satellite was due to a cyber-attack on the Goddard Space Flight Center.[58]

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

58. NARA Washington, D.C., Headquarters—April 2009. A hard drive containing Social Security numbers of more than 100,000 people who had visited or worked in the White House during the Clinton Administration was lost.[59]

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

59. USAJOBS.gov—January 2009. The Office of Personnel Management website and database for USAJOBS.gov, the federal government’s employment website, allowed unknown perpetrators to gain access to private information on the site’s millions of users.[60]

U.S. Copyright Office

60. Main Website—January 2012. Hacker group Anonymous claimed credit for taking down the Copyright Office website, copyright.gov, in a cyber-attack to protest the FBI shutting down Megaupload.com.[61]

Unspecified Government Agencies

61. Six Federal Agencies—August 2011. A five-year hacker endeavor called Operation Shady RAT collected data from six unknown government agencies.[62]

62. State Department Cable—April–October 2008. A State Department cable published by WikiLeaks reported that hackers stole “50 megabytes of e-mail messages and attached documents, as well as a complete list of usernames and passwords from an unspecified [U.S. government] agency.”[63]

Government-Centric Approach Is Wrong

The list above is certainly grounds to be skeptical of a cybersecurity approach that gives government regulators a significant role in developing baseline security standards. The government and the private sector both have a great deal to contribute to the country’s cybersecurity, and a new, expansive regulatory burden would undermine, not enhance, public-private cooperation. Instead of adding regulations, Congress should:

• Promote Information Sharing. The government has a great deal of cybersecurity-threat information that could help the private sector prevent similar attacks and breaches. Many private-sector entities have cybersecurity information of their own that could help other private entities as well as the government. By implementing voluntary information sharing with adequate liability and privacy protections, cybersecurity can be improved.
• Reject Onerous Regulations. Though it is tempting to think that government officials can mandate cybersecurity improvements for the private sector, such efforts will likely impose massive costs on the private sector, while harming innovation as entities eschew potentially superior security for mere compliance with government regulations. Indeed, most standards that the government adopts will be rendered obsolete by constantly improving technology before they can even be implemented. Americans do not need a “Cyber SarbOx” approach to this multidimensional domain.
• Secure Government Data. Congress and the Administration should strengthen government’s cybersecurity systems. Migrating the computer networks of certain agencies to the cloud would help the government take advantage of private-sector security innovations, while also reducing costs. Other options, such as “air gapping,” unplugging critical networks from the Internet altogether, should be considered. Education efforts to stop phishing and other attacks directed at government personnel should also be expanded. Once again, improving information sharing could help improve cybersecurity across the government.

Enhancing U.S. Cybersecurity Through Cooperation

The federal government’s record on cybersecurity does not inspire confidence that it can provide a solution to the cybersecurity threats faced by the private sector. Cybersecurity should be a cooperative effort between the private sector and the government, with each contributing in its own way. The government is in a position to collect and share important cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information, while the private sector can innovate and share information as well.

Paul Rosenzweig is a Visiting Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

=================================

To date, the iPhone version of the app has been downloaded more than 121,000 times.

- Download the Android app on Google Play
- Download the iPhone app on iTunes
- More on the Child ID App

The Top FBI Stories of the Week, Ending May 26th, 2012

1. Houston: Man Sentenced for Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Qaeda

   Barry Walter Bujol, Jr. was sentenced to serve 20 years in federal prison for attempting to deliver public access restricted military manuals, GPS receivers, and other items to al Qaeda. Full Story

2. San Antonio: AWOL Soldier Guilty in Connection with Bomb Plot

   Naser Jason Abdo was convicted of attempting to create and detonate a bomb to kill members of the U.S. military and to shoot survivors of the detonation. Full Story

3. Boston: Chinese National Charged with Illegal Export of Sensitive Technology
   
   Qiang Hu, aka Johnson Hu, allegedly caused millions of dollars worth of MKS pressure transducers, which are used to produce weapons-grade uranium, to be exported from the United States and delivered to unauthorized end-users in China. Full Story

4. Newark: West New York Mayor, Son Arrested for Hacking and Disabling Website
   

   Mayor Felix Roque and his son were charged in relation to a scheme to take down a website associated with a movement to recall the mayor. Full Story

5. San Diego: Lead Defendant in Operation Luz Verde Extradited from Mexico

   Armando Villareal Heredia, aka Gordo Villareal, was brought back to the United States to face federal racketeering and drug charges as part of a 43-defendant prosecution against the Fernando Sanchez-Arellano Organization. Full Story

6. New York: Yahoo Executive and Hedge Fund Portfolio Manager Plead Guilty to Insider Trading

   Robert Kwok provided non-public information concerning Yahoo!’s quarterly earnings and potential business transactions to Reema Shah Kwok, who then executed trades based on the inside information. Full Story

7. Charlotte: Ponzi Scheme Mastermind Sentenced

   Keith Franklin Simmons was sentenced to 50 years in prison in connection with a $40 million Ponzi scheme that victimized 400 people nationwide. Full Story

8. Buffalo: Former Teacher Sentenced for Production and Possession of Child Pornography

   Timothy Bek was sentenced to 30 years in prison for posing as a female teenager on a social networking website to make contact with underage victims, some of whom were students in the schools where he taught, and persuading them to take explicit photos and videos of themselves. Full Story

9. Philadelphia: Long Prison Terms for Convicted Drug Traffickers

   Tony Granado and Richard Moquete were sentenced to 30 and 27 years in prison, respectively, for their roles in an operation that brought at least 1,500 kilograms of cocaine to the streets of Philadelphia. Full Story

10. Cleveland: Eighteen People Indicted for Schemes Involving Seven IHOP Restaurants
    
    The defendants were charged in a series of criminal schemes, including money laundering, identity theft, alien harboring, and arson that resulted in losses of more than $3 million. Full Story

ENLARGED SCREEN SHOT: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QrzPeWouM5U/T8BgSjha_WI/AAAAAAAADZ4/YryiCEV1mtQ/s1600/Hannity+he+knows+RADICAL+Islam.png

As you can see he made sure he capitalized the word “RADICAL”. So right off the bat Hannity is showing that he is either unformed on Islam itself, or does not have the courage to name the enemy. We proceeded to argue over whether Islam itself was the problem. At that point I sent him some Koran verse numbers to prove that Islam itself is the problem. That Islam calls for the dominance over non-Muslims whether we like it or not. On top of him defending Islam, he is also a Zuhdi (I’m selling America a bridge) Jasser supporter. I also sent him links proving that what Jasser is selling is not Islam. But Hannity took the easy way out and pretty much ignored them. Personally I think his ego is too overblown to ever admit he is wrong.

Koran 9:29 | 

Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam.

Koran 9:33 | 

The Florida Secretary of State has discovered 53,000 dead voters registered to vote. The Secretary of State has also flagged thousands of potential non-citizens who are also registered to vote. This discovery is indicative of a wider national problem with dead and ineligible voters on the rolls heading into the Presidential election.

And this courtesy of a reporter from the·Richmond Times Dispatch:

State Police Find Evidence of Voter Fraud in Virginia

Results of an ongoing Virginia State Police investigation of voter registration irregularities from the 2008 general election may signal a more significant voter fraud issue than some state lawmakers realized.

As Virginia legislators hotly debated a voter ID bill that narrowly passed the General Assembly, many were unaware of a state police investigation that, so far, has resulted in charges against 38 people statewide for voter fraud. Warrants have been obtained for a 39th person who can’t be located.

A majority of those cases already have resulted in convictions, and 26 additional cases are still being actively investigated nearly 3-and-a-half years after the state Board of Elections forwarded more than 400 voter and election fraud allegations from 62 cities and counties to Virginia State Police for individual investigation.

(Importantly, investigators believe fraud may have actually occurred at polling places on Election Day 2008 in this critical battleground state.)

Then there was this from·FoxNews.com:

Voter Fraud Allegations in Mayoral Election Rock New Mexico City

There is perhaps no other city in the country like Sunland Park, N.M.· The dusty border town minutes from El Paso, Texas, has been called “a city in chaos” by the state auditor, because a slew of public officials are facing felony charges that they ran City Hall like a personal piggy bank, tried to steal an election in order to remain in power and ruled the 14,000 residents through intimidation and fear.

The explosive case even involves Mexican prostitutes, strippers and an undercover video of a mayoral candidate getting a lap dance from a topless woman. The video allegedly was used to try to force him to drop out of the race. Authorities say the extortion investigation has revealed widespread voter fraud and public corruption in the small city just south of the Rio Grande.

These, of course, are just a few of many examples of rampant voter registration fraud just months before the nation will go to the polls. If you’ve been reading this space for some time, you know that Judicial Watch does not support or endorse candidates. We just want to make sure the 2012 elections are free, fair, and clean.

And that’s why we started our·2012 Election Integrity Project. Of course, one of the key components of this campaign is to clean up dirty registration rolls.

Judicial Watch’s team analyzed voter registration data to determine which states have the dirtiest voter registration lists. According to this investigation, the worst offenders are Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, California, and Colorado.

Judicial Watch has put election officials on notice in these states that if they fail to clean up voter rolls in accordance with the law, Judicial Watch lawyers are preparing to file lawsuits to force them to do it.

There is no question that lawsuits are going to be necessary. But it is also true that sometimes the threat of a lawsuit can get action.

Take West Virginia as an example.

As noted by the·West Virginia Lincoln Journal: “The Lincoln County Commission…took steps in response to the threat of a lawsuit from the Washington D.C.-based organization Judicial Watch, regarding voter rolls in Lincoln County. Meeting last Thursday, March 15, 2012, the commissioners adopted a resolution supporting the county clerk’s efforts to resolve the situation.”

I believe the Obama machine is prepared to steal, if necessary, the elections this November.· As evidence from the news reports from across the country, this is a fight that will have to be fought county by county and state by state.

In the meantime, I wish you the best for the upcoming Memorial Day holiday.· We should remember to strive every day to make sure that our nation’s public life honors the ultimate sacrifice of those heroes we honor next week.· I leave you with·a link to a wonderful photo, courtesy of the Library of Congress, of a 1920 ceremony honoring our war dead at·Suresnes· American Cemetery and Memorial in France.

-------------------------

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

Jurors convicted Abdo's Thursday of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder after hearing and seeing the answer on video.

"The reason is religion, Mom."

He had to act in response to American military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a Muslim, he considered those affected by such actions to be family. "When bad things are happening," he said, "you have to do something about it."

His mother couldn't comprehend her son's logic, to which he explained, "it may seem crazy from the outside, but it's not."

Abdo's reasoning echoes the justification offered by a series of attempted homegrown jihadists. If America is killing Muslims, the logic goes, Muslims must do whatever they can to stop it.

Abdo chose Fort Hood as a target because that's where Army psychologist Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire a year earlier, killing 13 people. Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akhbar" as he opened fire, and had built a disturbing record of justifying suicide bombings and endorsing other radical ideas during his time in the service.

Hasan had been in direct contact with American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki before the attack. Abdo carried copies of al-Qaida's English-language magazine, Inspire, which included articles from Awlaki invoking theology in urging Muslims in America to wage attacks at home.

"We as Muslims should seek the wealth of the disbelievers as a form of jihad in the path of Allah," Awlaki wrote in one issue. "That would necessitate that we spend the money on the cause of jihad and not on ourselves."

Despite the self-professed motives, Islamist advocates argue that radical religious interpretations should not be discussed in assessing terrorist plots by Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) even conspired with a political scientist in 2010 to gin up sales of the professor's book, which claimed that religious extremism was a minimal factor in suicide bombings.

The group tries to pressure people out of discussing Islamic radicalism in general.

In the wake of Hasan's Fort Hood shooting spree, CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a radio interviewer that Hasan's religious beliefs shouldn't be considered as a factor. "He could have just snapped from some kind of stress. The thing is when these things happen and the guy's name is John Smith nobody says well what about his religious beliefs? But when it is a Muslim sounding name that automatically comes into it."

A week after the massacre, when Hasan's beliefs and contacts with Awlaki were well established, CAIR issued a press release arguing that those who did discuss religion were exploiting the tragedy to "promote hatred and intolerance."

And military leaders have shied away from the issue, omitting any reference to it in a report on Hasan's Fort Hood attack. That drew a strong rebuke last year in a report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

"We are concerned that [Defense Department's] failure to address violent Islamist extremism by its name signals to the bureaucracy as a whole that the subject is taboo," the report said, "and raises the potential that DoD's actions to confront radicalization to violent Islamist extremism will be inefficient and ineffective."

It is just as odd to see the Obama administration take pains to avoid even uttering the phrase "radical Islam," opting instead for a generic "violent extremism."

Examples of homegrown terror conspirators invoking Islam as a justification include:

· Daniel Patrick Boyd, who was recorded scouting the U.S. Marine Corps Base at Quantico, Va., after failing in several attempts to wage jihad abroad. "The American troops even occupy the place of our two holy sites, Mecca and Medina," he said in a recording by an informant. "This isn't some fantasy, this is a reality. They are there and they are helping the Jews be in our third holy site, Aqsa. That would be our deen [religion]. This was forbidden by the Prophet on his death bed, he forbid that they can be in Mecca and Medina and there they are."

· Faisal Shahzad, whose car bomb parked near Times Square failed to detonate in May 2010. "This time it's the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah," Shahzad said at his sentencing. "So let's see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never do. Therefore, the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah [God willing], which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order."

· Farooque Ahmed, who scouted subway stations along the Washington, D.C. Metro line in hopes of aiding a bombing plot. "There's an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam," Ahmed's lawyer said at sentencing, "that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action … that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don't do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith."

· Jesse Morton, a founder of the radical website Revolution Muslim, pleaded guilty to charges stemming from threats made against the producers of the animated comedy "South Park," after the show featured a character supposed to be the prophet Muhammad fully shrouded in a bear suit. In a speech posted online, "Morton asserted that Islam's position is that those that insult the Prophet may be killed under Shariah law just as if they were fighting with a weapon," a statement of facts that accompanied his guilty plea said. "Morton exhorted his listeners to fight the 'disbelievers near you.'"

Add Abdo to the list. He had all the components to make a bomb in his hotel room when police arrested him. He had divine inspiration.

None of that would have happened had he not felt a religious duty to kill his fellow soldiers. The sooner the government is willing to acknowledge this ideology, the sooner concrete steps can be taken to produce an effective program to neutralize the radical message.

Why so much attention?

According to the records, the Obama Defense Department granted the Hollywood filmmakers unprecedented access to a “planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six,” who was responsible for the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, to assist Bigelow prepare her upcoming feature film.

The records, obtained pursuant to court order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed on January 21, 2012, include 153 pages of records from the DOD and 113 pages of records from the CIA.

To limit the damage, the Obama administration released them to Judicial Watch late on Friday, May 18. (Obviously this strategy did not work.) Here are a few of the highlights:

• A transcript of a July 14, 2011 meeting between DOD officials, including Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers, Bigelow and Boal indicates that Boal met directly with White House officials on at least two occasions regarding the film: “I took your guidance and spoke to the WH and had a good meeting with Brennan and McDonough and I plan to follow up with them; and they were forward leaning and interested in sharing their point of view; command and control; so that was great, thank you,” Boal said according to the transcript.

Vickers asks if the meeting was a follow-up, to which Boal responds, “Yes correct; this was a follow-up.” The documents seemingly reference John O. Brennan, Chief Counterterrorism Advisor to President Obama and Denis McDonough, who serves as President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor.

• The July 14, 2011, meeting transcript also reveals that DOD provided the filmmakers with the identity of a “planner, Operator and Commander of SEAL Team Six.”  (The name is blacked out in the document.)  In proposing the arrangement, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers said:  “The only thing we ask is that you not reveal his name in any way as a consultant because . . . he shouldn’t be talking out of school.” Vickers went on to say during the meeting at the Pentagon:  “This at least, this gives him one step removed and he knows what he can and can’t say, but this way at least he can be as open as he can with you and it ought to meet your needs.” Boal later responds, “You delivered.”

• A July 13, 2011, internal CIA email indicates that Bigelow and Boal were granted access to “the Vault,” which is described the CIA building where some of the tactical planning for the bin Laden raid took place:  “I was given your name as the POC in [redacted] who could determine the feasibility of having a potential walk-through of…the Vault in the [redacted] building that was used for some of the tactical planning in the Bin Laden Raid [sic]. In consultation with the Office of Public Affairs and as part of the larger chronicling of the Bin Laden raid, OPA will be hosting some visitors sanctioned by ODCIA this Friday afternoon.”  (The name of the sender is blacked out.)  “Of course this is doable,” an official responds.

• DOD Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Douglas Wilson told colleagues in a June 13, 2011, email to limit media access and that he would follow up with the White House:  “I think this looks very good as a way forward, and agree particularly that we need to be careful here so we don’t open the media floodgates on this. I’m going to check with WH to update them on status, and will report back.”  A day later, he wrote Department of Defense communications staffers, saying: “Ok to set up the second session with Vickers. I am getting additional guidance from WH.”

• Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers told Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Douglas Wilson and two other DOD communications staffers in a June 13, 2011, email that “[DOD] would like to shape the story to prevent any gross inaccuracies, but do not want to make it look like the commanders think it’s okay to talk to the media.” The email went on to say:  “For the intelligence case, they are basically using the WH-approved talking points we used the night of the operation.”  The talking points called the raid “a ‘Gutsy Decision’ by the POTUS,” adding that “WH involvement was critical.”

• A June 9, 2011, email from Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations, to Vickers and other DOD staff summarizes a meeting with Boal and notes the release date for the film:  “Release date set for 4th Qtr 2012…”

• A July 13, 2011, email to Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations, indicates that Sarah Zukowski, an associate for The Glover Park Group, arranged the July 14, 2011 visit by Bigelow and Boal to the DOD and the CIA. The Glover Park Group is described by Politico as a “Democratic-leaning advocacy firm.”

• A June 27, 2011, email to an official at the Office of the Secretary of Defense suggests that the request from Bigelow and Boal to meet with Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers came via the White House press office. A June 22, 2011, email to Commander Bob Mehal, Public Affairs Officer for Defense Press Operations, notes “The White House does want to engage with Mark but it probably won’t be for a few more weeks.  We should provide them a read-out of the session you do with Vickers.”  The name of the White House official who forwarded the request is blacked out.

As I mentioned, Judicial Watch’s discovery exploded in the press. And when that happens, attention from Congress is a foregone conclusion.

As Congressional Quarterly put it, “Try as both candidates really might, this presidential election will never be exclusively about economic growth and job creation. Not so long as outside groups retain their ever-more-outsized role in framing the debate. And one of the masters of the form, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, is out with another shape-shifter — which Republicans pounced on today as buttressing their passionately held view that Obama is more suited to being celebrity in chief than commander in chief.”

One such Republican, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Chairman took the lead in responding to the Judicial Watch disclosures:

“Filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal may have set out to tell a blockbuster, election-year story about one of the most highly classified operations in American history, but through these emails they’ve ended up telling a damning story of extremely close, unprecedented, and potentially dangerous collaboration with top officials at the CIA, DoD, and the White House and a top Democratic lobbying firm.”

“After reviewing these emails, I am even more concerned about the possible exposure of classified information to these filmmakers, who as far as I know, do not possess security clearances. The email messages indicate that the filmmakers were allowed an unprecedented visit to a classified facility so secret that its name is redacted in the released email. If this facility is so secret that the name cannot even be seen by the public, then why in the world would the Obama Administration allow filmmakers to tour it? The emails also tell of these filmmakers being allowed to tour the CIA’s vaults, which is absolutely shocking to those of us who know the sensitive nature of materials kept there.

“Also troubling is the fact that the Democratic lobbying firm Glover Park Group was so intimately involved in brokering these filmmakers’ access to clandestine officers and potentially special operators only weeks after the mission and when details were otherwise still very closely guarded, and one of Glover Park’s primary contacts within the Administration, CIA spokeswoman Marie Harf, left shortly thereafter to join President Obama’s reelection campaign in Chicago.

“This is a very serious issue. We simply cannot forget what then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said a week after the raid: ‘Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day.’”

King sent letters to the agencies demanding more information about the “potentially dangerous collaboration.”

Judicial Watch launched its investigation of Bigelow’s meetings with the Obama administration following press reports suggesting the Obama administration may have leaked classified information to the director as source material for Bigelow’s film.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the information leak was designed to help the Obama 2012 presidential reelection campaign:  “The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual.  The…film by the Oscar-winning pair who made ‘The Hurt Locker’ will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.”

In addition to Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden film records, the organization continues to fight in court for the release of the bin Laden post-mortem photos and video.  The Obama administration continues to withhold these records citing national security concerns.

These documents, which took nine months and a federal lawsuit to disgorge from the Obama administration, show that politically-connected filmmakers were given extraordinary and secret access to bin Laden raid information, including the identity of a Seal Team Six leader.

It is both ironic and hypocritical that the Obama administration stonewalled Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden death photos, citing national security concerns, yet seemed willing to share intimate details regarding the raid to help Hollywood filmmakers release a movie perfectly timed to give a “home-stretch boost” to the Obama campaign.

By the way, Ms. Bigelow gave a small donation to the Obama campaign in November, 2011 and previously supported Democratic causes.  I have the details on my twitter feed here.

Our work forced reactions, mostly disingenuous, from the Obama White House, CIA and Pentagon.  But even liberals weren’t buying the White House line.  Liberal commentator  Sam Stein said on MSNBC, “If Bush had done this with 9/11 and brought in a Hollywood producer, conservative filmmaker and say, ‘I want to talk to you about where I was the morning of and how great and grand we were’ — I just think there would have been a popular outcry. And I think if you’re going to be consistent you have to apply those standards to Obama as well.”

Judicial Watch is consistent.  And persistent.  The CIA continues to withhold information about the film meetings and our lawyers are considering next steps to obtain the additional information.

Please join me in giving kudos to our staff who investigated, litigated and successfully exposed this major government accountability story. You and other Judicial Watch supporters can see the tremendous impact of your financial and other support.

America suffered a little known shock to its economy on September 15, 2008, just a month and a half shy of Election Day, when around 11 AM the Federal Reserve noted a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the nation to the tune of $550 billion dollars in just over an hour or so. The decision was made to close the accounts. Had they not done that, the Reserve estimated that by 2 PM the entire economy of the nation would have collapsed. Within 24 hours, the world economy would have followed.

The financial crisis this triggered was put off by letting the investment house of Lehman Brothers fail and by getting Congress to agree to a $700 billion program to bail out other investment firms and the insurance firm, AIG. Simply put, without a banking system, you do not have an economy.

Americans are in for another shock to the system on January 1, 2013 when nearly a half trillion in higher taxes will become the law of the land. Taxmageddon would be the largest tax hike in the history of the nation.

The taxes pose such a threat to the anemic “recovery” the economy is said to be having that a think tank called the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has been urging the CEOs of corporations and financial institutions to meet with members of Congress to bring pressure to resolve the gridlock that has brought the nation to the precipice of yet another financial crisis.

How bad is the prospect of January 1, 2013? A May 11th Heritage Foundation analysis listed the following:

# Income tax rates shoot up,

# the child credit rate is cut in half,

# the marriage penalty roars back to life,

# the capital gains tax rate goes up,

# the dividend tax rate soars,

# the payroll tax rate jumps two percentage points,

# the death tax is restored to its punitive past,

# the Alternative Minimum Tax relief expires, and

# a uniquely pernicious additional payroll tax hike from Obamacare takes effect unless the Supreme Court strikes down the law as unconstitutional.

These tax hikes are a combination of expiring tax cuts, particularly the Bush era cuts that President Obama decried, along with newer taxes he advocated. To put it another way, in 2011 Americans had to work 111 days to earn enough money to pay for federal, state and local taxes before they could begin to pay all their other expenses. Unless “Taxmageddon” is repealed, it will take eleven more days in 2012.

The Obama administration ignored the deficit-reduction findings and recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission it initiated to address the nation’s financial problems. It imposed Obamacare which will control one sixth of the nation’s economy and which is replete with all kinds of more tax provisions.

Congress put together a “super committee” to address the government’s enormous spending, the threats to the Social Security and Medicare programs, and to recommend tax reforms. It failed and, instead, imposed an across the board “sequestration” program of spending cuts so dangerous to the national security that even Obama’s Secretary of Defense called it catastrophic.

The hope now is that, after the November election, in the interim period before the next President is sworn into office and a new Congress convenes, the increases in taxes can be avoided. That is what the CEOs are belatedly pushing for.

Suffice to say, until power was returned to the Republicans in the House in 2010, a Tea Party movement success, Congress had been on a spending spree and, of course, every measure the House has been forth since then has been spurned by the Democrats, particularly in the Democrat-controlled Senate which has set a record for not producing a budget for the past three years.

Unless voters return power in the Senate to Republicans and defeat President Obama’s reelection, life in America is going to worsen and the nation faces another round of credit rating reductions that will affect its ability to borrow to meet its current debt obligations.

A great nation will have been reduced to pauper status by a profligate Congress whose only “solution” has been to raise the debt ceiling.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Ronald Reagan and Tax Reform

If there is a single reform Ronald Reagan is identified with, it is tax reform. He persuaded America, Republicans and Democrats both, that lowering rates across the board, reducing the number of brackets, and eliminating deductions and loopholes were essential to restarting America’s engine of economic growth.

And he was right. President Reagan’s major tax reforms, enacted with bipartisan support, proved to be a cornerstone of the unprecedented economic boom that occurred in the decade during his presidency and continued in the decade that followed.

Ronald Reagan and Free Enterprise

What Ronald Reagan understood is that the case for free enterprise is not just a material argument, but a moral truth.

Concentrating power in a distant central government consistently leads to worse outcomes for the poor, because it displaces those core institutions through which we really do look out for one another: community, faith and family. It stifles their vitality and substitutes federal power in their place.

The Idea of America

America is the only country in history founded on an Idea – the Idea that all of us are endowed by our creator with the freedom to pursue our happiness, not someone else’s vision of what’s best for us.

We want government to create the conditions in which we can flourish – pursue a dream, provide for our families, earn our own success, and live the American vision of the good life.

Our Present Need for Leadership

Only with the right leadership in place can we move forward with ideas that renew the American promise of leaving our children a stronger nation than the one our parents left us.

We can do this. In talking with Americans across the country, I have been inspired by the spirit and energy of those hungry for a new direction – that restless desire to break through the barriers holding them back, to get back to work, to raise their families, and to build a greater legacy for the next generation.

Paul Ryan's Speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library

Thank you, Fred, for your very kind introduction. I am honored to be here today. Mrs. Reagan, thank you so much for inviting me to speak.  There is a spirit that pervades the Reagan Library. You can’t help but feel uplifted being here. It’s a spirit of optimism, a sense that things will turn out right, if only we make the effort.

In good times and bad, Ronald Reagan embodied optimism. This is so true that I don’t even have to tell his favorite joke, I only need to repeat the punchline: “There must be a pony in here somewhere!”

His optimism – together with his brilliant mind, determined will, and Nancy’s love and support – were the keys to Ronald Reagan’s greatness as an American leader. His temperament was sunny by nature, but I believe his optimism for the future just kept growing the more he talked with people from all walks of life.

President Reagan liked to talk about his experiences touring GE plants around the country. He addressed maybe a quarter of a million people over those years, and he would stay after to talk with the workers.

As he listened to their concerns, he came to realize how worried they were by the bureaucrats, not only within their own company, but also by bureaucratic interventions from Washington, which were making their jobs more difficult.

In my own travels across this country, and especially at my town halls in southern Wisconsin, I’ve heard a lot of the same concerns.

Americans today are uncertain and worried about their future. Many are suffering from lost jobs and shrinking incomes in ways they never suffered before.

We look around us and see problems – rising health care costs, rising energy and food prices, rising college tuition, rising debt, and stagnant wages. And government just doesn’t seem to have any answers.

And we start to understand that Ronald Reagan’s famous diagnosis applies again today: In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

Look, Americans don’t want to get rid of government. We like limited, effective government just fine. But that’s not what we’re getting. We’re getting big, dysfunctional government.

In the face of enormous challenges, the President and his party leaders have steadily increased government’s power, promised wonderful things, and consistently delivered awful results.

And they show no signs of changing course.

It’s up to us to get America back on track.

America is the only country in history founded on an Idea – the Idea that all of us are endowed by our creator with the freedom to pursue our happiness, not someone else’s vision of what’s best for us.

We want government to create the conditions in which we can flourish – pursue a dream, provide for our families, earn our own success, and live the American vision of the good life.

Instead, we have a government in place that is determined to redefine that vision, so that less of our success is earned, and more of it owed, to the wise providence of a handful of special assistants to the deputy undersecretary of some federal department that thinks they know better than us.

Too many in Washington think that you and I and our families and friends can’t succeed on our own anymore. Sure, we face barriers to success in America – but government isn’t removing those barriers from our lives. Instead, those in power are taking the view that we’re all just stuck in our current stations in life, and government’s job is to help us cope with it.

Whatever you call that, that’s not the American Idea.

That’s how a problem like the high cost of health care gets a response like the new health care law. This $1.6 trillion monstrosity is already creating big problems for American businesses and families, without addressing the problems it was intended to solve.

The good news is this: Americans are rejecting this approach.

We know there’s a better way forward. And more important, we know we can choose this better way. Why? Because we’ve done it before.

That’s why the parallels between 1980 and today are so striking. Now, as then, we face not just a failed President, but a failed ideology. We face a pessimistic mood in the nation's capital – a belief that our best days are over and the only thing left to do is manage the nation’s decline.

But we have the same opportunity today, to reject this defeatist attitude and embrace a positive reform agenda capable of kick-starting a new era of prosperity.

We know this story has a happy ending. We know our country will not choose a path to decline. But we still have a lot of work to do if we want to get there.

Let me explain why I’m so confident that America will choose the right path.

Americans have always rejected those with nothing to offer but cynicism and the politics of division.

And right now, that’s all they’re getting from the President.

During his last campaign, he promised to help us, quote, “rediscover our bonds to each other and get out of this constant, petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.”

Sadly, he has broken this promise, and become just another Washington politician.

He does not seem to understand that he can’t promote the common good by setting class against class, or group against group.

The divisive politics of the last three years have not only undermined social solidarity, they have brought progress and reform to a standstill at the very time when America was desperate for solutions to a devastating financial crisis.

To be clear, President Obama did not cause this crisis. Years of empty promises from both political parties brought us to this moment.

But regrettably, this President was unwilling to advance credible solutions to the problem.

In response to the financial crisis, we needed policies to strengthen the foundations of our free market economy.

What we got was the opposite.

We needed a single-minded focus on restoring economic growth: After the immediate panic in late 2008 subsided, we needed to restore real accountability in the financial sector and just clean up the mess.

We needed to restore the principle that those who seek to reap the gains in our economy also bear the full risk of the losses.

We needed policies to control our debt trajectory so that families and businesses could confidently invest in our future.

Instead, the White House and the last Congress enacted an agenda that made matters worse.

They misspent hundreds of billions of dollars on politically connected boondoggles.

Then, when the country’s number one priority remained getting the economy back on track, the White House and the last Congress made their number one priority a massive, unwanted expansion of the government’s role in health care.

They even tried to impose a costly increase in energy prices in the middle of a recession.

And their idea of Wall Street reform? A blank check for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, plus a new law giving more protection and preferential treatment to the big banks, and more power to the same regulators who failed to see the last crisis coming.

The administration and the last Congress tried to exploit a financial crisis to transform a free-enterprise society into a government-centered society – a massively expanded role for the federal government, higher spending to support this expanded role, and higher taxes to support the higher spending.

Higher borrowing, too. In three and a half years, debt held by the public grew by roughly $4.5 trillion – that’s a 70 percent increase.

Our debt is projected to get much worse, spiraling out of control in the years ahead.

This bleak outlook is paralyzing economic growth today. Investors, businesses and families look at the size of the debt and they hold back, for fear that America is headed for a diminished future.

Today, we face a fundamental challenge to the American way of life – a gathering storm, whose primary manifestation is the shadow of our ever-growing national debt… and whose most troubling consequence is ever-shrinking opportunity for Americans young and old.

This shadow hangs over young people, who face a struggling economy and the likelihood of greater turmoil ahead. More than half of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed in this economy. Half!

The shadow hangs over senior citizens, who have been lied to about their retirement security.

And it hangs over parents. We wonder if we will be the first generation in American history to leave our children with fewer opportunities and a less prosperous nation than the one we inherited.

This storm has already hit Europe – where millions are enduring the painful consequences of empty promises turning into broken promises.

We must avoid European-style austerity – harsh benefit cuts for current retirees and tax increases that slow the economy to a crawl.

But too many in Washington are repeating Europe’s mistakes instead of learning from them.

If we stay on this path, then bond markets in a state of panic will turn on us, threatening to end the American Idea.

Forced austerity would put an end to that most fundamental of American aspirations… that in this land we are responsible for our own destiny… that on this continent we might forever be free from foreign powers who would impose their limits on our dreams for ourselves and our children.

If our generation fails to meet its defining challenge, we would see America surrender her independence… not to a foreign army, but to the army of foreign creditors who already own roughly half of our public debt.

The policies in place today would guarantee that outcome, unless we turn this around… soon.

There must be a pony in here somewhere, right? And the good news is, there is.

If you hear me say one thing today, hear this: This will not be our destiny.

Americans will never accept this shrunken vision of our future.

That’s not who we are.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan explained perfectly why Americans would never accept this mindset, quote: “They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.”

What Ronald Reagan understood is that the case for free enterprise is not just a material argument, but a moral truth.

And next January, our government will renew its dedication to this moral truth: the American Idea of an opportunity society.

Government’s role is not to rig the rules and aim for equal outcomes, but – in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln – “to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all,” so that all may have an equal opportunity to rise and freely pursue their happiness.

The budget passed by the House of Representatives this year drew the pattern for government under new management in 2013. It is a plan to lift the debt and free the nation from the constraints of ever-expanding government.

This budget will promote economic growth and opportunity on the first day it is enacted, with bold reforms to the tax code and a credible, principled plan to stop the debt crisis from ever happening.

President Obama’s government-centered policies take from hard-working Americans and give to politically connected companies and privileged special interests.

Our budget calls this what it is – it’s corporate welfare. And we propose to end it.

As we end welfare for those who don’t need it, we will strengthen welfare programs for those who do.

Government safety-net programs have been stretched to the breaking point in recent years, failing the very citizens who need help the most.

Look, we pride ourselves on looking out for one another – and government has an important role to play in that. But relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just hasn’t worked.

Concentrating power in a distant central government consistently leads to worse outcomes for the poor, because it displaces those core institutions through which we really do look out for one another: community, faith and family. It stifles their vitality and substitutes federal power in their place.

Too many in Washington spend too much time trying to measure compassion for those in need by measuring inputs. How much are we spending? How much are we increasing spending? How many new programs are we creating?

But we’re not measuring outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty? Shouldn’t that be our goal?

Look at the results of the government-centered approach to the war on poverty. One in six Americans are in poverty today – the highest rate in a generation. In this war on poverty, poverty is winning.

The intentions may have been good – but the outcomes were anything but fair.

It is anything but fair to keep people trapped in programs that hinder their upward mobility.

It is anything but fair to allow the debt to weigh on job creation today, closing off the most promising avenues for the poor to rise.

And it is anything but fair to close off even more opportunities by further weakening the economy with permanently higher taxes.

Fairness means empowering citizens with policies that promote growth and opportunity. Fairness means maintaining strong, but not limitless, safety-net programs for society’s most vulnerable. And fairness means fiercely protecting the God-given right of every human being to flourish by his or her own efforts.

Our budget builds on the historic welfare reforms of the 1990s – reforms proven to work. We aim to empower state and local governments, communities, and individuals – those closest to the problem. And we aim to promote opportunity and upward mobility by strengthening job training programs, to help those who have fallen on hard times.

Our budget lifts the debt, fosters economic growth, and ensures that government keeps the promises it is making to Americans.

Instead of letting our critical health and retirement programs go bankrupt, our first budget next year will save and strengthen them so they can fulfill their missions in the 21st Century.

The President likes to talk about Medicare. We welcome the debate. We need this debate.

What the President won’t tell you is that he’s already changed Medicare forever. His health care law puts a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of cutting Medicare.

We should never agree to turn the fate of our parents and grandparents over to an unaccountable board and let it make decisions that could deny them access to their care.

The new President and Congress will reverse this change immediately. Our budget next year will keep the protections that have made Medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years. And it will make no changes for those in or near retirement.

In order to save Medicare for future generations, we propose to put 50 million seniors, not 15 unaccountable bureaucrats, in charge of their personal health care decisions.

The President also likes to talk about taxes. We welcome the debate. We need this debate.

If there is a single reform Ronald Reagan is identified with, it is tax reform. He persuaded America, Republicans and Democrats both, that lowering rates across the board, reducing the number of brackets, and eliminating deductions and loopholes were essential to restarting America’s engine of economic growth.

And he was right. President Reagan’s major tax reforms, enacted with bipartisan support, proved to be a cornerstone of the unprecedented economic boom that occurred in the decade during his presidency and continued in the decade that followed.

But as the years went by, credits, carve-outs and lobbyist loopholes grew on the code like weeds.

And President Obama wants to take us further in the wrong direction. He remains committed to taking more and more from the paychecks of hard-working Americans – not even to pay down the debt, but to chase ever-higher government spending.

We propose a total overhaul of the tax code, to make it fair, simple, and competitive.

We lower rates across the board. But revenue would go up every year under our budget, because the economy grows, and because we propose to close those special-interest loopholes that go primarily to the well-connected and the well-off.

When we lower tax rates by closing special-interest loopholes, we’re saying Washington shouldn’t micromanage people’s decisions through the tax code.

Let people keep more of their hard-earned money. Let them decide how to spend it.

We need this kind of tax reform to get our economy moving again. In the last four years, millions of Americans have stopped looking for work.

If the labor force participation rate were the same as it was when President Obama took office, then the unemployment rate would be 11 percent today.

We are heading toward a “new normal” of European unemployment levels because the administration’s ideas for job growth have failed.

We will never accept that here in America – and we don’t need to. The reforms we will put in place next year will make our economy the engine of job creation it was in the 1980s, giving millions of workers – who had given up hope for a job – a new shot at success.

The principles and proposals I have been describing today are not exclusive to one political party. The patient-centered Medicare reforms we advanced in the House this year have a long history of bipartisan support.

And tax reforms based on lowering rates and closing loopholes go back to President Reagan’s 1986 reform, when Democrats served as the congressional co-sponsors of the landmark law.

It makes sense that these ideas have attracted leaders in both parties. Patient-centered Medicare offers the only guarantee that Medicare can keep its promise to seniors for generations to come.

And pro-growth tax reform, by lowering rates for all Americans while closing loopholes that primarily benefit the well off, can eliminate unfairness in the tax code and ensure a level playing field for all.

This is just a glimpse of what we can accomplish next year. Now for the hard part: Progress will require the removal of certain partisan roadblocks: a flawed health care law that must be replaced, and the insistence from some in Washington on tax hikes and tax gimmicks instead of tax reform.

Only with the right leadership in place can we move forward with ideas that renew the American promise of leaving our children a stronger nation than the one our parents left us.

We can do this. In talking with Americans across the country, I have been inspired by the spirit and energy of those hungry for a new direction – that restless desire to break through the barriers holding them back, to get back to work, to raise their families, and to build a greater legacy for the next generation.

People understand the moment we are in, and they are way ahead of the political class on this.

They know that the times call for leaders who understand the depth of the problems we face, and who offer far-reaching reforms equal to the challenges.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan offered supply-side economics at home and a rollback of Soviet Communism abroad.

The challenges this time? They’re different. But the moment calls for the same kind of boldness.

I believe boldness and clarity of the kind that Ronald Reagan displayed in 1980 offer us the greatest opportunity to create a winning coalition in 2012. We will not only win the next election – we have a unique opportunity to sweep and remake the political landscape.

Of course we will highlight the President’s failed agenda. But Americans deserve to choose an alternative – one that aligns with our needs. One we can rally behind. One our Founders would be proud of.

A bold reform agenda is our moral obligation. We have an obligation to provide the American people with a clear path that gets our country back on track.

If we make the case effectively and win this November, then we will have the moral authority to enact the kind of fundamental reforms America has not seen since Ronald Reagan’s first year.

Look, it is rare in American politics to arrive at a moment in which the election revolves around the fundamental nature of American democracy and the social contract. But that is exactly where we are today.

The defenders of the status quo would give more power to unelected bureaucrats, take more from hard-working taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government, and commit our nation to a future of debt and decline.

This approach has proven unworkable – in Congress, in our courts, and in our communities.

We who advocate the American Idea in the 21st century want to build a better path, consistent with the timeless principles of our nation’s founding.

We put our trust in people… in citizens, not nameless government officials, to determine what is in their best interests, and to make the right choices about their future.

In this country, we still have the ability, and the dignity, and the right, to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

We are Americans. Nothing can keep us down.

Thank you… and thank you again, Mrs. Reagan, for inviting me, and for all that you and your husband did to keep this country great.

Return to news

The government would be able to bombard us with propaganda messages on television, on the radio, in our newspapers and on the Internet and there would not even be a requirement that those messages be true.  In fact, just as happens so often overseas, it would likely be inevitable that the government would purposely disseminate misinformation to the American public for the sake of "national security".  That is why it is imperative that this bill not become law.

As an article posted on LegalInsurrection.com correctly noted, this bill has already been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives....

Their bill was included as amendment 114 to the Defense Authorization Act and passed out of the House on Friday, May 18. It would amend two existing acts: the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (1987).

Fortunately, it looks like this amendment might run into some trouble in the U.S. Senate.  But during an election year, not many politicians want to appear "soft" when it comes to national security, so it is definitely not a sure thing that the Senate will reject this amendment.

This amendment has been kind of "flying under the radar", so now would be a good time to contact your U.S. Senators and let them know exactly how you feel about this.

So precisely what would this new amendment do?

A recent article by Michael Hastings of Buzzfeed.com did a good job of explaining how it would change things....

The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

Do you want the Obama administration to use mass media in the United States to push a particular political or social agenda?

Do you want the State Department and the Pentagon to conduct psychological operations targeted at you, your family and your friends?

Do you want to see and hear government propaganda everywhere you go?

In a previous article I detailed 25 ways that America is becoming more like Nazi Germany, and I suppose I now have another item to add to the list.

Sadly, the government is already "pushing the envelope" when it comes to using the media.  In his recent article, Michael Hastings detailed some examples of how the Pentagon is already attempting to shape public opinion in the United States....

In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.

According to U.S. Representative Mac Thornberry, one of the sponsors of the bill, current law "ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way."

Apparently we cannot think for ourselves and we need the government to help us to see things more clearly.

But when it comes to "psychological operations", the people that run them do not always play nice.

Just check out what happened recently to two USA Today reporters....

A USA TODAY reporter and editor investigating Pentagon propaganda contractors have themselves been subjected to a propaganda campaign of sorts, waged on the Internet through a series of bogus websites.

Fake Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments. Websites were registered in their names.

If this new bill becomes law, there will be very few limits on what the government can do.

And just like the two USA Today reporters, you could end up being a target.

If the government propaganda experts decide that they don't like you, it is quite likely that you could end up being the target of a massive misinformation campaign.

It could come down to the fact that they simply do not like your blog or what you are saying on Facebook.  They could decide that it is best to destroy your reputation for the sake of "national security".

These kinds of "Big Brother tactics" are absolutely disgusting, but they are becoming part of who we are as a nation.

According to one recent DHS report, if you revere "individual liberty" or if you "believe in conspiracy theories" you are a potential terrorist.  And if you are a potential terrorist, then it would only make sense to conduct psychological operations against you before you become an "active" threat.

Sadly, many Americans already act as if they have been brainwashed by propaganda.  Recently, ashocking video from North Carolina of a teacher yelling at a high school student and telling him that disrespect of Barack Obama is not permitted in the classroom went viral all over the Internet.

The teacher honestly seemed to believe that it was forbidden to "disrespect" Barack Obama.

That is frightening.

Our founders insisted on a limited federal government for a reason.

They greatly feared what might happen if the federal government became too large and too powerful.

At this point, not only is our freedom of speech under attack, but our freedom of thought is under assault as well.

If we are not very careful, America is going to be turned into a giant prison.

Those of us that still love freedom and liberty must be willing to speak out now before it is too late.

Once our freedoms and liberties are gone they will be incredibly hard to get back.

For the most part, the effort to “judicialize” the political realm of national defense has been confined to the disposition of enemy combatants, specifically the process due for detaining and trying them. On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that next term it will enter the fray of intelligence gathering. The justices will entertain the Lawyer Left’s predictable challenge to overseas surveillance, which now occurs under judicial auspices thanks to wrongheaded amendments enacted in 2008 to modify the ill-conceived 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as “FISA.” As is usual when the judges begin to flex their muscles in a new area, the first case is a camel’s nose in the tent: involving only the narrow question of “standing” — i.e., whether the plaintiff’s have a right to bring their suit — and not the merits of their claim that Fourth Amendment principles apply to searches targeting non-Americans outside the United States.

To protect the nation from hostile foreign forces is the principal responsibility of the federal government. Primarily, it is the responsibility of the Executive Branch. The federal courts have held both before and after FISA’s enactment that the president is endowed by the Constitution with the power to conduct surveillance — including electronic eavesdropping — against “foreign powers” (a term of art that includes operatives not only of foreign governments but of such sub-sovereign entities as foreign terrorist organizations). If the president has that power, it cannot be reduced by a statute — it is black-letter law that the Constitution cannot be trumped by a mere congressional enactment. The federal courts were intended to have no national security role, particularly when it comes to foreign threats, both because they lack institutional competence in intelligence matters and, more importantly, because they are not politically accountable to the American people — national defense decisions being the most significant that a body politic makes.

In FISA, Congress imposed the federal judiciary on the Executive Branch’s domain by creating a specialized court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) from which the FBI and Justice Department would thereafter seek permission before eavesdropping on an “agent of a foreign power.” Because such surveillance is primarily for national security intelligence gathering and not criminal evidence collection, the government need not show probable cause of a crime (the constitutional test for a traditional search warrant). The government must, however, satisfy the FISA judge that there is probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power.

This was a terrible idea.

Even the Carter administration, which (naturally) agreed to FISA, did so only with the caveat that national security is an executive responsibility and thus that the president maintained the authority to gather intelligence against foreign threats even if a judge refused to grant permission. Nevertheless, neither the Executive nor the Judicial Branch wanted to force a constitutional crisis, so FISA ostensibly worked: the Executive Branch complied by seeking permission with the unspoken reservation that it really did not have to seek permission; and the FISA Court granted virtually every application, ensuring that its dubious new supervisory role would not be questioned.

It is necessary to qualify the last sentence with the word “ostensibly,” because we now know the system really did not work — and that disastrous costs attended its malfunction.

For reasons too convoluted to burden this discussion with, the Justice Department and the FISA court ended up erecting the infamous “wall” between intelligence agents and criminal investigators. The wall prevented them from “connecting the dots” — i.e., from sharing information that, had it been competently processed, might have enabled the FBI to thwart the 9/11 attacks. (For readers interested in this subject, see “Terrorist Surveillance and the Constitution,” a white paper for the Federalist Society that I co-authored with David Rivkin and Lee Casey.)

FISA and its wall were a pre-9/11 culprit. The wall was dismantled by the Patriot Act and a subsequent ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review. But FISA returned to the spotlight when it emerged that President Bush had authorized a wartime warrantless surveillance program — directing the NSA, without obtaining a green-light from the FISA Court, to intercept communications (phone, email, etc.) that crossed national boundaries, including U.S. boundaries, whenever one interlocutor was outside the U.S. and suspected of working with the enemy.

This is the sort of thing wartime presidents have done since doing so has been technologically possible. And certainly, warrantless eavesdropping is less consequential than, say, President Obama’s warrantless killings of al-Qaeda operatives (including those who are American citizens). But because it was a Bush program, the Bush-deranged Left went bonkers. The controversy came to a head when judges began ruling that even overseas surveillance, involving foreign targets wholly outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, violated FISA (because, with the advent of modern telecom technology, a phone or email conversation between two foreigners — say, one in Pakistan and one in Yemen — will often be digitally routed through the U.S.).

The controversy brought into sharp relief the basic folly of FISA. Originally intended to protect Americans inside the U.S. from overzealous surveillance, and stuck in the antediluvian technology of the 1970s, the statute (and ravenous judicial interpretations thereof) were now threatening to dry up foreign intelligence reservoirs. Imperiled was access to information on which not only our intelligence agents rely upon to keep us safe, but which our troops also rely upon to succeed in battle. FISA should have been repealed. But cowed by progressives for whom transforming political prerogatives into judicial processes is a priority, Congress and the Bush administration opted to try to mend FISA. It was an effort that then-candidate Barack Obama supported after no small amount of hand-wringing.

The fix allows our overseas intelligence collection to proceed once the FISA court issues a sweeping authorization based on the Executive Branch’s certification that it is seeking foreign intelligence against non-American persons outside the United States. This is ludicrous. How the federal government interacts with foreigners outside the United States, particularly hostile aliens who endanger Americans, is not part of the courts’ concern. It is a political issue: if Americans come to believe their elected representatives are either overzealous or insufficiently concerned about threats to our security, we can exert political pressure on them (see, e.g., the protests against closing Gitmo and giving KSM a civilian trial in Manhattan) or replace them at the ballot box.

Moreover, when Americans travel abroad, they are subject to the laws, diktats, and excesses of foreign governments. They have no reasonable expectation of protection by U.S. laws and courts in places where neither has any application. Under the Lawyer Left’s conception of privacy, Americans who wish to interact with America’s enemies are subject to surveillance by the agents of every intelligence service in the world except America’s — the only one in business to protect American lives.

The case the Supreme Court has now agreed to hear is Clapper v. Amnesty International, et al. The plaintiffs are attorneys (of course), media organizations, and “human rights activists” — i.e., the Lawyer Left. They want to communicate with clients, sources, and other interesting (i.e., anti-American) characters outside the U.S. and fear that their sensitive international communications may be monitored. Thus, they explain, they must take costly and burdensome measures to protect the confidentiality of their contacts. That is to say: the plaintiffs have no idea whether they actually have been eavesdropped on, much less whether, assuming they have been intercepted, there was any legal impropriety.

As a foundational principle, the law wants public policy debates — “political questions” — resolved by Congress and the president, not the courts. Thus, a lawsuit will not be entertained unless the plaintiff can show a concrete, personal injury that has caused him actual damage — you don’t get to sue because you think, for example, that your taxes are too high or that the government’s counterterrorism policies are extreme. With this principle in mind, the case the Supreme Court will hear is not about the merits of the Lawyer Left’s speculative complaints regarding overseas intelligence-gathering activities — at least not yet. It is narrowly about standing to sue: Should Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association, and the Service Employees International Union, among others, be permitted to bring the suit in the first place?

A federal district judge in New York City said no. A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed him, however, allowing the suit to proceed. The government then sought review by the full Second Circuit, but the en banc court deadlocked 6-6, effectively affirming the panel ruling that the plaintiffs have standing. That is the ruling the Supreme Court will now tackle.

The Obama administration’s position is intriguing. If the Bush administration were still in power, many Obama administration lawyers would no doubt be spearheading the Lawyer Left’s assault on aggressive intelligence gathering, just as they led the charge against most of the Bush counterterrorism policies that have safeguarded the nation from a 9/11 reprise. Nevertheless, as president, Obama has adopted most of these policies that he campaigned against. Much of this 180-degree change owes to the fact that he is now politically accountable for the nation’s security. But in no small part, the Obama administration now champions effective national security because it requires secrecy. For all its pretensions about “transparency,” the Obama administration prefers to rule — not govern, but rule — behind closed doors, shielded from the sunshine of normal politics. When the power of the government to operate outside the watchful eyes of judges is at stake, the Obama administration checks its “rule of law” blather at the door.

It so happens that, like the proverbial broken clock, the administration is right this time: gor security you must have intelligence, and for intelligence you must have secrecy. But even as we give the president his due, we needn’t ignore that he is more interested in defending the expanse of executive secrecy than the imperative of good intelligence. Nor should we forget in this election season that, were Obama not occupying the Oval Office, he and his minions would be on the other side of this case.

Article printed from Ordered Liberty: http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/05/22/the-supreme-court-enters-the-surveillance-debate/

Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

The House passed Wednesday evening its version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA), H.R. 4970, in a close 222-205 vote. (Politico, May 17, 2012)  Unfortunately, with regard to immigration, the final bill marked a distinct retreat from the original version House members introduced.

As introduced, H.R. 4970 would have taken steps to make the U visa a true non-immigrant visa. First, the original bill would have removed a provision from federal law that allows U visa holders to obtain legal permanent residency after three years, per the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Second, it would have prevented U visa holders from extending the temporary four-year visa period by an additional four-year period, as is permitted under current law. (See H.R. 4970 § 806 as introduced)  (To read more about the U Visa, see FAIR’s Policy Statement)

While the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) passed this bill and sent it to the floor, House Leadership abruptly changed course.  According to news reports, the weekend before floor debate, House Leadership quietly invited outside groups — including the National Organization for Women and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence — to the Capitol last weekend to develop an amendment package that would win their support. (Politico, May 15, 2012)

As a result, less than 24 hours before the floor vote, the House Rules Committee adopted a manager’s amendment offered by Rep. Sandy Adams, the author of H.R. 4970, which weakened several of the key immigration provisions in the original bill. (See House Rules Committee Website)

As amended and passed on the floor, the bill now provides that U visa holders will receive a green card if the offenders are aliens, are convicted, and are deported to the visa holder’s home country. Moreover, the amended bill reinstates a provision allowing aliens under the U visa program to extend their visa while waiting for a green card.   The amendment also weakens safeguards in the original bill to protect against fraud by lowering the standard of evidence required to demonstrate that aliens were indeed victims of crime before the government can cancel their deportation orders and grant them green cards. (See H.R. 4970 §§ 801, 806 as passed)

Despite these changes to the bill, President Obama has threatened to veto the House bill due to its immigration-related provisions, as well as unrelated provisions affecting tribal authority and the LGBT community. (Statement of Administration Policy, May 15, 2012)

Adding to the fray, House Speaker John Boehner has raised concerns over a “blue slip problem” in the Senate-passed version, S. 1925. (CQ Today, May 18, 2012) Under the U.S. Constitution, all revenue raising legislation must originate in the House; however, the Senate bill raises visa fees to defray its cost of increasing the U visa. (See Art. I § 7)

It is now up to a House and Senate conference committee to draft a compromise of the chambers’ competing bills. However, it could be weeks before congressional leaders even name the conferees given the upcoming Memorial Day recess. Stay tuned to FAIR as details unfold…

Congress Passes Bill Cracking Down on Border Tunnels

Last week, Congress passed legislation that will expand existing laws to make it easier to prosecute people who facilitate and participate in illicit border tunnel activities.

The Border Tunnel Prevention Act (H.R. 4119) introduced by Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), passed the House on Wednesday by a vote of 416-4, and passed the Senate on Thursday by unanimous consent.  (See H.R. 4119 Major Actions)

Existing law only prohibits the use, construction, or financing of underground tunnels that bypass U.S. international borders. (See 18 U.S.C. § 555) The newly-passed legislation will also make it a federal crime to attempt or conspire to do so. (See H.R. 4119 at § 3) Penalties for attempt and conspiracy will be the same as existing penalties for use, construction, and financing of border tunnels. (Id.)

The bill will also amend existing federal law to add activities “relating to construction or use of international border tunnels” to the list of offenses which can be investigated via wiretapping by federal agencies. (Id. at § 4; see also 18 U.S.C. § 2516)

The legislation now awaits President Obama’s signature.

Alabama Governor Signs Bill Strengthening HB 56

Late Friday, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed HB 658, a bill that overall strengthens the State’s immigration enforcement law, HB 56.

The version of HB 658 Governor Bentley signed was almost unrecognizable from the bill as originally introduced. In April, Representative Hammon, the House author of HB 56, introduced HB 658, which attempted to gut key provisions of HB 56 and, in particular, tried to scale back the law’s penalties for employers that hire illegal aliens. (Montgomery Advertiser, May 11, 2012) Strongly supported by the business lobby, Rep. Hammon’s bill passed the Alabama House by a vote of 64-34.

However, when HB 658 arrived in the Senate, Senator Scott Beason, co-author of HB 56, offered a substitute amendment that stripped roughly 95 percent of the House language and replaced it with new language.  That new language was essentially the original text of HB 56 with only technical changes made to help the bill stand up in court.  The Beason amendment also added a few new provisions. One new provision requires the Alabama Department of Homeland Security to report information on illegal aliens who are detained and subsequently appear in court for violations of state law. Another new section requires the state Department of Revenue to conduct record searches to find multiple tax returns filed under the same Social Security Number to help spot identity theft. A third new section requires the Attorney General to defend Alabama law enforcement officers against actions brought by the United States Department of Justice.

While the Beason amendment substantially improves HB 56, the Legislatures also scaled back some of HB 56’s original provisions.  One change to HB 56 provides that public contractors are now only subject to suspension of their business licenses if a court finds that the employer has a “policy or practice,” meaning repeated violations, of the state’s prohibition against hiring illegal aliens.  The Legislature also changed how individuals may seek to enforce HB 56’s anti-sanctuary provisions.  Under the new law a U.S. citizen or legal alien is no longer able to bring a direct action against a public official but instead must petition the Attorney General or district attorney to bring an action against the official who allegedly is not enforcing the law.  Lastly, HB 658 removes the authority given to the Alabama DHS to request or inspect employment records related to possible violations of the law’s E-Verify mandate.

The Senate passed HB 658, as amended, last Wednesday—the last legislative day of the regular legislative session – by a vote of 20-7.  (See History for HB 658) The House concurred with the Senate’s changes by a vote of 67-37, and sent the bill to the Governor for his signature. (See HB 658 as enrolled; CNN, May 17, 2012)

At first, Governor Bentley refused to sign HB 658, calling instead for changes to several provisions. (See Governor’s Proclamation, May 17, 2012) Alabama legislators, however, declined to make any additional changes to the law. The Governor thus decided to sign HB 658 late Friday, saying he did not want the immigration bill to distract from other issues the Legislature needed to address during the special session. (The New York Times, May 18, 2012)

Milwaukee, Seattle Consider Anti-Detainer Ordinances

Two more of the country’s largest cities are on the path to passing anti-detainer ordinances: Milwaukee, WI and Seattle, WA.

Last week, the Judiciary, Safety, and General Services Committee of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors voted to advance by a slim four-to-three margin an ordinance that would limit the Sheriff Office’s (MCSO) ability to honor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 10, 2012; see also Milwaukee County Website)

Specifically, the proposed ordinance #12-135, provides the MCSO shall only honor an ICE detainer IF the alien:

• Has been convicted of at least one felony or two misdemeanors;
• Has been convicted or charged with any domestic violence offense or violation of a protective order;
• Has been convicted or charged with intoxicated use of a vehicle;
• Is a defendant in a pending criminal case, has an outstanding criminal warrant, or is an identified gang member; or
• Is a possible match on the U.S. terrorist watch list.

If passed, this ordinance would allow the County of Milwaukee to release criminal aliens back onto the streets, rather than releasing them into ICE custody.

According to news reports, however, Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. opposes the proposed ordinance and has suggested he may not be bound by the policy. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 10, 2012)The ordinance now goes to the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors for adoption, although the agenda for its next meeting on May 24 has yet to be published. (See Milwaukee County Calendar)

Two thousand miles away, Seattle lawmakers are also coming under pressure from amnesty advocates to adopt an anti-detainer ordinance.  While the Kings County Council (where Seattle lies) has not yet taken up a bill, several of its pro-amnesty lawmakers are lobbying hard for an anti-detainer policy to supplement its 2003 sanctuary city ordinance.

Earlier this month, three of the council members sent a letter to County Executive Dow Constantine requesting a new policy against honoring ICE detainers on aliens who have not been convicted of a “serious” offense. (Seattle Times, May 8, 2012) Council members sending the letter included Council Chairman Larry Gossett, Larry Phillips, and Julia Patterson.

If Milwaukee and Seattle proceed to adopt anti-detainer policies, they will join the ranks of Cook County, IL; Santa Clara County, CA; San Francisco, CA; and New York City. (FAIR Legislative Update, Oct. 24, 2011)

Illegal Alien Discovered Working in Sensitive Areas of Major Airport

Federal authorities arrested an illegal alien last Monday after it was discovered he has worked at the Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey for the last 20 years. (CBS, May 15, 2012) Officials state that Bimbo Olumuyiwa Oyewole of Nigeria, who has lived in the country illegally since 1989, used fraudulent documents to get jobs that gave him access to sensitive areas of one of the busiest airports in the nation. (Id.)

Oyewole illegally purchased a birth certificate and social security number from a vendor dealing in document fraud in 1992. The documents were under the name of a now-deceased American citizen, Jerry Thomas, who had allegedly sold them to the vendor for cash. Oyewole’s fraudulent use of those documents allowed him to get credit cards, a New Jersey driver’s license, a state security guard license, and airport employee identification, all under Thomas’ name.  (Id.) Due to the fact that Jerry Thomas’ name did not carry any high-level criminal violations, Oyewole was even able to pass criminal history checks that required fingerprinting. (Id.)

Under Thomas’ name, Oyewole took several contract jobs within the Newark airport that allowed him access to the tarmac, passenger planes, and cargo. (Bloomberg Business Week, May 16, 2012) At the time of his arrest, Oyewole worked for a private security firm, FJC Security Services, where he supervised thirty other security guards. (Id.)

Specifically, the Subcommittee met on Wednesday to discuss a report issued by the Homeland Security Department’s Inspector General’s Office (OIG) on security breaches at Newark Liberty and other airports. (See Homeland Security OIG Report, May 2012)

According to the OIG report, TSA officials at Newark Liberty took corrective actions in less than half of the reported (42 percent) of the security breaches shown in its records. (Id. at p. 7)  The report also made several recommendations for TSA, including that TSA should revise its definition of “security breach” to ensure consistency and accuracy in reporting breaches, and that TSA should develop a comprehensive oversight program to report, analyze, and track breaches at all levels of government. (Id. at pp. 19-20)

Subcommittee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL) expressed that he was “extremely [troubled]” by such reports of unauthorized access and other airport security oversights. (Bloomberg Transcript, May 17, 2012)

Agreeing with the Chairman, John Sammon, an Assistant Administrator for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) testified that the system used to verify the identities and backgrounds of employees “still has gaps.” (Id.) Sammon explained that employees who have worked at Newark airport for a long time, like Oyewole, are considered “grandfathered,” meaning they have never had to resubmit to criminal background or immigration checks after their original hiring. (Id.; see also CBS, May 15, 2012)

A municipal court judge set Oyewole’s bail at $250,000. (Bloomberg Business Week, May 16, 2012)Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has also issued an immigration detainer for Oyewole. (Id.) His arraignment hearing is scheduled for June 18. (Id.)

SOURCE: FAIR

Malik Ali, described as a "hilarious hater" by a local newspaper, earned a reputation for "repeatedly cross[ing] the line from lambasting Israeli policy to promoting bizarre anti-Jewish conspiracy theories of the sort typically favored by neo-Nazis, as well as by giving voice to loathing for all Jews as a people."

The MSU, therefore, was well aware of what it was getting when it invited Malik Ali to speak, and he did not disappoint. He repeatedly dismissed Israel as an apartheid state, adding that any supporter of the Jewish state was inherently immoral. He derided what he saw as an American imperialism that is driven by racist power brokers and "Zionist Jews."

"The current financial crisis and collapse, the architects of it are Zionists," he told a crowd of more than 150 people. "Whether you're talking about [Alan] Greenspan or whether you're talking about [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner or whether you're talking about [former White House economic adviser Lawrence [Summers] or whether you're talking about [Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd] Blankfein, or whether you're talking about [JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie] Dimon – I'm saying Zionism corrupts you, Zionism corrupts you.

"These are not righteous Jews who are doing this. These are not righteous practitioners of the Jewish faith who are doing this," he said. In fact, not all those named are Jews. But Malik Ali said they drive animosity toward Muslims in order to divert attention from their bad deeds.

"These are them who would mix injustice with their religion. And so in order for the American people not to realize that, again Islam and Muslims must be vilified."

That vilification apparently extends to the heart of the war on terror, which Malik Ali argued is made up of whole cloth.

"There's no such thing as al-Qaida," he said. "That's another okeydokey – that's another deception. There is no such thing as al-Qaida. Like no such thing as al-Qaida. No, no such thing at all."

President Obama is a mere pawn doing the bidding of powerful, colonial interests, Malik Ali said. They need a black face in power to mask their true objectives.

"Barack Obama is already in brothers and sisters, because the next theater of operations is Africa. Black Africa. That's the next theater of operations. That's why the troops are coming out of Iraq. That's why the troops are coming out of Afghanistan," he said. American forces already have been used in Somalia and Libya, and a few have been sent to Uganda.

"And check this out. They cannot have a white man in the White House bombing black Africa. You can't do it. Because if you have a white man in the White House bombing black Africa, it's gonna wake black people up all over this world ... But if a black man is doing this, a black man with a Muslim name is doing it. And then they have the US-African command, which is designed to remilitarize and recolonize Africa. The head of the US-African command is an African-American general. Be very careful of just using color."

Malik Ali first warned people not to be excited about Obama within weeks of his election. The incoming president was "a very dangerous, dangerous deception" because Jews like Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod were key advisers.

America's first black president, Malik Ali said last week, has proven to be a tool for racists.

"The justification for empire has always been white supremacy. We have to do this to you. It's the white man's burden. How come they sit there in Iraq? They sit there in Iraq to teach the people how to govern themselves. Iraq has been here for like 5,000 years. But they have to teach the Iraqis how to govern themselves. It's the white man's burden. See the corrupting influence of empire at the root of it is the justification for empire. And that is white supremacy."

It would be easy to dismiss Malik Ali as a crackpot. In 2010, he endorsed terrorist groups Hamas and Hizballah. Speaking at San Francisco State University months after the 9/11 attacks, he insisted that Palestinian suicide bombers are not terrorists, but heroic martyrs who make their mothers proud. "And once you go up against a people who love death, more than you love life, you in trouble man! You in serious trouble!"

It is significant, though, that the MSU – considered among the most radical chapters of the national Muslim Students Association – continues to invite him to rant at its events, while still claiming to be a serious campus organization.

A California jury convicted 10 students from Irvine and UC, Riverside of misdemeanor charges stemming from an MSU plot to silence a 2010 speech on campus by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. Prosecutors argued that the group could not use free speech rights to deprive others of the right to speak. Internal MSU emails, obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, made it clear that the students did not want Oren to be able to complete his talk.

Its opposition to Oren's speech was rooted in a passionate opposition to Israeli actions, they say. But the consistent presence of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist like Malik Ali at MSU events calls that motivation into question.

Still, supposedly mainstream Islamist groups and their allies hailed the students as martyrs for free speech, prosecuted solely for their faith and political beliefs. In his remarks, Malik Ali praised the "beautiful brothers" involved in the plot, saying "that what the Irvine 11 did was right, what the Irvine 11 did was righteous, what the Irvine 11 did was good, and there was nothing wrong with what the Irvine 11 did especially in the respect of being in the United States of America."

But his commitment to free speech stops when Muslims are offended.

He compared reaction to a campus incident in which the university president cited an incident in which a swastika was drawn on a Jewish student's door as an act of intolerance. But nothing was said when other students posted images that were supposed to be of the prophet Muhammad.

"How come that [swastika] shouldn't be tolerated and that is injurious and not the pictures of the prophet, peace be upon him, that they show him being disrespected? How come that wasn't put on the list? How come that wasn't cited as an act of intolerance? Why not? But no, at that time I'm told that the students the MSU were simply told that it is their right to free speech. What? Right to free speech? They have a right to put that type of information out there that is inflammatory; they have a right to do that? Okay, I see."

Muslims are convenient scapegoats for racist, colonialist powers to usurp American civil liberties and kill enemies, he said, warning, "It's gonna go beyond us and it's gonna hit other Americans."

This is protected speech, and MSU is free to choose its speakers no matter how extreme their message. It also provides compelling evidence that the MSU's judgment is driven by a hatred, not just of Israeli policy, but of Jews and others who support the state.

The letter states that, "two key questions remain unanswered:  first, who on your leadership team was informed of the reckless tactics used in Fast & Furious prior to Agent Terry's murder; and, second, did your leadership team mislead or misinform Congress in response to a Congressional subpoena?"

Rep. Issa has been investigating "Fast and Furious" since early in 2011, but after 15 months the DOJ is still refusing to cooperate or reveal the truth about who in the agency knew about and approved the controversial gun-walking operation.

"The Terry family deserves to know the truth about the circumstances that led to Agent Terry's murder," the letter states.  "And, the American people deserve to know how such a fundamentally flawed operation could have continued for so long and have a full accounting of who knew of and approved an operation that placed weapons in the hands of drug cartels."

Holder continues to deny any knowledge of the tactics involved in the operation, which was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives out of its field office in Phoenix, Ariz.

Earlier this month--in response to Holder's stonewalling--Rep. Issa sent out a draft Contempt Order that would find Holder in contempt of Congress if he refuses to respond to an October 2011 subpoena for internal DOJ documents.  The letter makes clear that House Republican leaders are united in their desire for a full and unobstructed investigation.

"As co-equal branches of the U.S. Government, the relationship between the Legislative and Executive branches must be predicated on honest communications and cannot be clouded by allegations of obstruction.  If necessary, the House will act to fulfill our Constitutional obligations in the coming weeks." 

The lawmakers closed the letter by saying, "It is our hope that, with your cooperation, this sad chapter in the history of American law enforcement can be put behind us." 

We couldn't agree more.

To read the full text of the letter, please click here.

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Under recent Supreme Court law...we are compelled to conclude that, regardless of the legality of Padilla's detention and the wisdom of Yoo's judgments, at the time he acted the law was not "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violate[d]" the plaintiff's rights...We therefore hold that Yoo must be granted qualified immunity, and accordingly reverse the decision of the district court.

In light of Padilla's status as a designated enemy combatant...we cannot agree with the plaintiffs that he was just another detainee - or, that it would necessarily have been "apparent" to someone in Yoo's position that Padilla was entitled to the same constitutional protections as an ordinary convicted prisoner or accused criminal...Given the unique circumstances and purposes of Padilla's detention...an official could have had some reason to believe that Padilla's harsh detention fell within constitutional bounds.

Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals making this very point. At the same time, we also addressed the "weighty" separation of powers concerns.

Here's a squib from our brief, filed on November 28, 2009:

Judicial Watch's primary concern is that the District Court failed to consider adequately the weighty separation of powers concerns that arise whenever the Judicial Branch seeks to involve itself in the presidential decision-making process. These separation of powers concerns are all the more significant when the decision-making process involves national security and the exercise of the President's powers as Commander in Chief. If the decision is allowed to stand, it would represent an unprecedented expansion by the Judicial Branch into the President's ability to receive war-time advice from his advisors.

Here's the main point: If every presidential war-time decision had to be run through the courts, this would create utter chaos and would have a chilling effect on the president's ability to protect U.S. national security.

Do we really want nutty terrorists like the so-called "Dirty Bomber" dictating how the president takes advice and makes decisions? 

It's been almost ten years since Padilla was taken into custody by authorities, so here's a bit of background on him.

Padilla is an American citizen who moved to Egypt in 1998 and spent the next several years traveling throughout the Middle East. According to U.S. intelligence officials, he was introduced to senior Osama bin Laden Lieutenant Abu Zubaydah in 2001. He then received training from al-Qaida operatives, returning to the United States allegedly to conduct reconnaissance and to build and detonate a "radiological dispersal device" (also known as a "dirty bomb") within the United States, possibly in Washington, D.C. On May 8, 2002, authorities arrested Padilla at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. On June 9, 2002, President Bush designated Padilla an "enemy combatant" and transferred him to a military prison.

Specifically, President Bush determined that Padilla "posed a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States," and that "detention of Mr. Padilla is necessary to prevent him from aiding al-Qaida in its efforts to attack the United States or its armed forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens."

As the liberal jurists in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pointed out, Padilla is not "just another detainee." He's a terrorist. 

Yoo, by the way, rather than being defended by the Justice Department, was hung out to dry by Holder's politicized agency and defended himself using private counsel against this meritless lawsuit.  The lawsuit was pursued, shamefully, through Yale's law school.  I wonder how Yale alumni feel about their alma mater representation of Padilla? As Yoo recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

Advocacy groups are using Padilla as a platform to attack the nation's counterterrorism policies, which they believe should be limited to the tools used against common criminals. They advance their agenda by legally harassing officials, agents and soldiers, and so raise the costs of public service to anyone who does not hew to their extreme, unreasonable views.

These advocacy groups are in court and in the media virtually every day advocating for terrorists and trying to destroy those, like Mr. Yoo, who faithfully tried to serve their country.  Judicial Watch is one of the few who oppose the views of these radical groups in court or in Gitmo (see our report from last week).   

Judicial Watch Sues Los Angeles Judges for Violating Constitutional Rights of Reporter

What happens when you express concerns about judicial corruption in Los Angeles? You get your rights trampled upon. Just ask Leslie Dutton and the American Association of Women. Ms. Dutton operates the Full Disclosure Network, which has published video reports about corrupt "double-dipping" LA judges and allegedly has had her constitutional rights violated in retaliation.

Judicial Watch successfully pursued a taxpayer lawsuit over individual Los Angeles County judges amassing nearly $47,000 annually in cash allowances from the county to pay for benefits and perks they are already receiving from the state. We won. Until the California legislature stepped in and instituted a "legislative fix." (You can read the background here.)

We've also represented Ms. Dutton in protecting her First Amendment right to report on corruption in the court system without fear of repercussion.

As part of this continuing effort, in March, we filed a lawsuit on Ms. Dutton's behalf to grant her network access to the Los Angeles Superior Court's Stanley Mosk Courthouse for the purpose of producing a video news segment on the incarceration of Richard Fine, an activist lawyer who was jailed for 18 months over contempt-of-court charges.  (Fine had also challenged the double-dipping by LA County's judges.) 

As we note in our complaint, the Los Angeles Superior Court "has a long-standing practice of making courtrooms available to members of the media for filming, including filming news reports about cases of public interest, when the courtrooms are not being used for public proceedings."  However, Ms. Dutton's request has been rejected without explanation on multiple occasions, even while an identical request for access was subsequently granted to CNN for the exact same purpose - to report on Mr. Fine's incarceration!

Judicial Watch's lawsuit names Superior Court Judges Lee Smalley Edmon and Ann I. Jones as well as D. Brett Bianco, Superior Court Court Counsel, the three who are responsible for denying Ms. Dutton access to the court. Their denials of Ms. Dutton's requests are "arbitrary and capricious," Judicial Watch notes in its complaint. And they serve to deny Ms. Dutton her First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of the press and her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law by preventing her from completing her documentary on Mr. Fine's incarceration.

As noted by a press release issued by Ms. Dutton's Full Disclosure Network: 

The Full Disclosure Network is being prevented from completing the final scenes of their documentary movie where it was planned to video record eye-witness accounts of Richard Fine's arrest in the public courthouse, Department 86, when it was empty.  

Fine was taken into custody on March 4, 2009 by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies and the witnesses are to give their account and read from the court transcript of that day. Los Angeles Superior Court officials have banned the producers any access to Los Angeles Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 86 court room under any circumstances.

The documentary movie is entitled, "The Cost of Courage" and features narrators Ed Asner and Richard Fine, among others.  (You can see a trailer here.)  The film is "based on a three-year television interview series covering California Court Corruption and the 18 month-long solitary 'coercive confinement' of Richard Fine in the County Central Men's Jail."

You don't need a jury trial to figure out what's going on here. The judges identified in our lawsuit evidently do not like what Ms. Dutton has to say about the corruption in the Los Angeles County Court system, and they seem to be punishing her for saying it.

But a jury trial is exactly what we want, so Ms. Dutton can have her day in court and have her constitutional rights restored.

JW Wins Award in Battle for Transparency in Phoenix

We don't fight the battle for government transparency to win awards. But it's nice when it happens!

In April, Judicial Watch received an award from The Valley of the Sun Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), Phoenix's "premiere journalism association." While we've been involved in a number of efforts in Phoenix, this specific award was for our legal campaign to force the release of documents pertaining to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon's security detail.

You may recall, we filed a FOIA request on December 11, 2009, seeking "all activity logs for Mayor Gordon's Security Detail." After the City of Phoenix stonewalled the request, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on May 17, 2010. 

We believed these records would, among other things, shed light on possible misuse of taxpayer resources to further a personal relationship between Mayor Gordon, scheduled to leave office on January 3, 2012, and his chief campaign fundraiser Elissa Mullaney. Gordon admitted in December 2009 to a romantic relationship with Mullaney. (Both Gordon and Mullaney were married but separated from their spouses.)

And we were right!

As reported by The Arizona Republic:

Records that Phoenix withheld from the public since 2010 show former Mayor Phil Gordon's security detail not only protected him when attending to official city matters, but outside of traditional business hours, taking him to the movies, the dry cleaners and his girlfriend's house.

An inside look at Gordon's activities both inside and outside of City Hall is available after Phoenix on Thursday released 476 pages of logs kept by Gordon's security detail from late December 2007 through 2009.

It's the first time the logs have been made available for public scrutiny since a conservative think tank, The Arizona Republic and other local media outlets initially requested the documents in late 2009.

We are that "conservative think tank." And we were the first to request the records.

Since 2005, Mullaney's company has received more than $340,000 in fees to raise funds for Gordon's campaigns and to work on other City initiatives. She received $200,000 of these funds after she and Gordon initiated their relationship. Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Thomas A. Zlaket, hired by Gordon to review the matter, cleared the Mayor of any wrongdoing in this specific instance, noting the state's conflict of interest law does not cover girlfriends, only family members.

But I don't think there's any question Mayor Gordon misused taxpayer resources in the deployment of his security detail.

As I told The Arizona Republic, "It's one thing to have police officers assigned to him at public events. It's another thing to have him shepherded around to dates and the dry cleaners."

Even though JW obtained the records, some of the pages were redacted and our investigations team continues to analyze them.  

Our thanks to our friends in Arizona, including our local counsel Greg Collins, who accepted the award on our behalf, for their assistance in achieving this victory for transparency.

Until next week

SOURCE: Judial Watch

Tom Fitton
President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation’s public life.

The White House’s reliable mouthpiece, Chuck Todd, of MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown,” said that the poll was “a callback survey, not a traditional poll.” This point was also made by Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, in an interview with Todd. She questioned the methodology. Yet this same poll matched its highest approval rating for Obama in more than two years, 50%, except for a bump he got after the death of Osama bin Laden in May of last year.

The irony is that this poll, like so many others, is skewed to favor Obama. Of those interviewed, 27% generally considered themselves Republican, 35% considered themselves Democrats, and 34% considered themselves independent. And most do not agree with Obama that the economy is getting better. In fact, 63% believe it’s getting worse or is not getting better, and only 36% believe it’s getting better, which is actually an improvement for Obama. By a 46% to 43% margin, they would vote for Romney over Obama if the election were held now. And this is a group in which 45% have a favorable opinion of Obama, while only 31% have the same feeling about Romney. It goes without saying that polls are a snapshot in time, and will certainly move in both directions in the months leading up to the election. And there are other polls showing Obama with a double-digit lead in the gender gap. But this is significant because it comes at a time when the Obama campaign has ramped up, and made a strong push to win over women voters. The media have clearly carried their message for them.

Obama’s Evolution Toward Gay Marriage

It has been obvious for a long time that Obama, despite his public statements to the contrary, did not oppose gay marriage. But now John Heilemann, the liberal columnist writing in New York magazine, has confirmed the extent of the duplicity. According to Heilemann, “Barack Obama knew the ludicrous pretense that his views on the issue were ‘evolving’ was living on borrowed time. Surely some reporter would ask soon enough if Obama would have signed the bill were he in Cuomo’s loafers. The president informed his senior advisers that the answer was yes (duh). And thus, the only question was whether to endorse gay marriage publicly before Election Day or try to stall until thereafter. After months of internal deliberations, Obama rendered his decision early this year. ‘He was clear,’ a top White House official tells me. ‘He said, ‘If I get the question, I’m gonna have to answer it, and if I don’t, we gotta figure out the best way to do it [before November 6].’”

As a matter of fact, when they were asked about it back in late March by Greg Sargent of The Washington Post, the answer from the administration was that “The President and the President alone will come to a decision.” He obviously didn’t feel the need at that time, as Heilemann suggested, to come clean.

So for the past year, Obama now claims, he has known he was going to make the announcement that his evolution on this issue was complete. But while saying he now supported same-sex marriage, he in fact endorsed a state’s right to decide, with no plan to push federal legislation, other than a tepid call for the repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. It was apparently a purely political calculation of when the time was right to make the announcement for maximum political gain. Frankly, that claim is not very credible. The more likely scenario is that he planned to announce it after the November election, but with Vice President Joe Biden’s gaffe, meaning that he inadvertently revealed his and the President’s position, Obama’s hand was forced.

So how to explain the President’s dwindling gender gap? “The answer isn’t all that complicated,” argues Jonathan Tobin of Commentary magazine. “Though some liberals may be convinced there is a GOP war on women, most aren’t buying it any more than they believe the president’s flip-flop on gays was a principled stand. Whatever their positions on social issues, most women seem to believe that the economy and the well-being of their families is their primary concern and on that score, Obama has lost their confidence. And it’s not clear that it can be won back by ginning up fake controversies that are transparent attempts to demonize Obama’s opponents.”

Obama’s Growing Credibility Gap

This credibility gap extends to many other areas as well. Does Obama really believe in the Afghanistan mission as it has been carried out, or was it another political calculation centered around Election Day 2012? At the time he announced the troop surge in Afghanistan, which fell significantly short of the numbers sought by his generals on the ground, he also announced a timetable for pulling out the troops. On top of that, during his public flip-flop on the gay marriage question, talking to ABC’s Robin Roberts, Obama stated that the troops are “out there fighting on my behalf,” rather than on the country’s behalf, again highlighting the Obama-as-narcissist theme.

Obama’s credibility was further damaged when it was discovered and publicized by the Heritage Foundation that he was inserting himself into the biographies on the White House website of nearly every president of the past century, with favorable comparisons. Specifically, at the end of the bio of every president since Calvin Coolidge, the Obama White House has added a comment under a section titled, “Did you know?” In each case it was an attempt to gain stature or political advantage for Obama by taking something that they had done as president, and bragged how he was building or expanding on it.

In the case of Ronald Reagan, Obama tried to make it seem that he would have endorsed Obama’s so called Buffett Rule that he is hoping to get passed. Here is what was added to Reagan’s biography: “In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.” Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), citing Reagan’s son Michael, called this “a bold-faced lie.” They wrote, “Rather than raising the capital-gains tax on successful investors or punishing wealthy people—which are Obama’s priorities—Reagan wanted full-bore pro-growth tax reform that would slash rates for everyone, simplify the tax system with only two brackets and eliminate tax shelters that allowed people to avoid paying any taxes at all.”

The White House attempted to explain this away through an anonymous source telling The New York Times that “We simply added links at the bottom of each page to related whitehouse.gov content, which is a commonly used best practice to encourage people to browse more pages on a site.” IBD saw it somewhat differently: “What we have here is an Orwellian rewriting of history akin to the fictional Winston Smith doing it on a daily basis for the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel 1984.”

It is an appalling example of narcissism and political gamesmanship, and just bad form. It is something you would expect from Hugo Chavez, or the former Dear Leader in North Korea. It is not fitting for a U.S. president to insinuate himself into other official presidential biographies for propaganda purposes when he has temporary control of the White House website. Especially when the added notations are provably false. While the liberal media are ignoring the story, the conservative media’s reaction ranges from amusement, to disbelief, to outrage.

Obama also has a credibility problem with regard to his position on Israel. As he and the State Department have evolved from supporting Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, to calling it a subject for final status negotiations; to releasing $147 million to the Palestinian Authority, overriding a congressional freeze on those funds; to making demands of Israel on borders and settlements that have never been made; to embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, which spawned Hamas and other terrorist groups, many have serious questions about whether Obama is as supportive of Israel as he sometimes claims, particularly when speaking to Jewish groups. Should we expect to see increased pressure on Israel if he is re-elected in November? We know what he told Dmitry Medvedev to pass along to Russian president Putin about cooperating with Russia on their concerns about our missile defense plans: “This is my last election,” Obama said while not aware there was a live mic nearby. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Based on how “flexible” Obama has already been with the election ahead of him, how flexible would he be if gets re-elected?

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media. He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.

Will one of these “innocent” promoters of the “Agenda 21 is meaningless” party line, please answer the following:

If it all means nothing, why does the UN spend millions of dollars to hold massive international meetings in which hundreds of leaders, potentates and high priests attend, along with thousands of non-governmental organizations of every description, plus the international news media, which reports every action in breathless anticipation of its impact on the world?

It if all means nothing, why do those same NGO representatives (which are all officially sanctioned by the UN in order to participate) spend months (sometimes years) debating, discussing, compiling, and drafting policy documents?

If it all means nothing, why do leaders representing nearly every nation in the world attend and, with great fanfare, sign these policy documents?

Time after time we witness these massive international meetings, we read the documents that result from them, and when we question their meaning or possible impact on our nation, we are met with a dismissive shrug and a comment of “oh, probably not much…”

Really? Then why? Why the waste of money, time, and human energy? Could it be that the only purpose is to simply give diplomats, bureaucrats, and NGOs a feeling of purpose in their meaningless lives, or perhaps a chance to branch out of their lonely apartments? Or could it really be that these meetings and the documents they produce are exactly as we say they are – a blueprint for policy, rules, regulations, perhaps even global governance that will affect the lives, fortunes, property and futures of every person on earth? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Why the fear of Agenda 21?

Those who simply read or quickly scan Agenda 21 are puzzled by our opposition to what they see as a harmless, non-controversial document which they read as voluntary suggestions for preserving natural resources and protecting the environment. Why the fear? What exactly bothers us so much?

The problem is, we who oppose Agenda 21 have read and studied much more than this one document and we’ve connected the dots. Many of us have attended those international meetings, rubbed elbows with the authors and leaders of the advocated policies, and overheard their insider (not for public distribution) comments about their real purpose.

Here are a few examples of those comments made by major leaders of this movement as to the true purpose of the policies coming out of these UN meetings:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Christine Stewart (former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

“Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

All three of these quotes (and we have many) indicate using lies and rhetoric to achieve their goals, and that those goals include the elimination of national sovereignty and the creation of a “seamless system” for global governance. Again, do these quotes have meaning and purpose – do they reveal the true thoughts of the promoters of these policies, or were they just joking?

For the past three decades through the United Nations infrastructure, there have been a series of meetings, each producing another document or lynchpin to lay the groundwork for a centralized global economy, judicial system, military, and communications system, leading to what can only be described as a global government. From our study of these events, we have come to the conclusion that Agenda 21 represents the culmination of all of those efforts, indeed representing the step by step blueprint for the full imposition of those goals. Here’s just a sample of these meetings and the documents they produced:

In 1980, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt chaired the Commission on International Development. The document, or report coming out of this effort, entitled “North-South: A program for Survival,” stated “World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure…not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equality…The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop global order.”

That same year Sean MacBride, a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, headed up a commission on international communications which issued a report entitled “Many Voices, One World: Towards a New, More Just and More Efficient World Information and Communication Order.” The Commission, which included the head of the Soviet news Agency, TASS, believed that a “New World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report was a blueprint for controlling the media, even to the point of suggesting that international journalists be licensed.

In 1982, Olof Palme, the man who single-handedly returned Socialism to Sweden, served as chairman of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. His report, entitled “Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival,” said: “All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control…” The report went on to call for money that is saved from disarmament to be used to pay for social programs. The Commission also proposed a strategic shift from “collective security” such as the alliances like NATO, to one of “common security” through the United Nations.

Finally, in 1987, came the granddaddy commission of them all, The Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. Headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the commission introduced the concept of “Sustainable Development.” For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report, “Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”

These four commissions laid the groundwork for an agenda of global control; A controlled media would dictate the flow of information and ideas and prevent dissent; control of international development manages and redistributes wealth; full disarmament would put the power structure into the hands of those with armaments; and tying environmentalism to poverty and economic development would bring the entire agenda to the level of an international emergency.

One world, one media, one authority for development, one source of wealth, one international army. The construction of a “just society” with political and social equality rather than a free society with the individual as the sole possessor of rights. The next step was to pull it altogether into a simple blueprint for implementation.

During the 1990s, the UN sponsored a series of summits and conferences dealing with such issues as human rights, the rights of the child, forced abortion and sterilization as solutions for population control, and plans for global taxation through the UN.

Throughout each of these summits, hundreds of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worked behind the scenes to write policy documents pertaining to each of these issues, detailing goals and a process to achieve them. These NGO’s are specifically sanctioned by the United Nations in order to participate in the process. The UN views them as “civil society, the non governmental representatives of the people. In short, in the eyes of the UN, the NGOs are the “people.”

Who are they? They include activist groups with private political agendas including the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the National Education Association, an d hundreds more. These groups all have specific political agendas which they desire to become law of the land. Through work in these international summits and conferences, their political wish lists become official government policy.

In fact, through the UN infrastructure the NGOs sit in equality to government officials from member nations including the United States. One of the most powerful UN operations is the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Created in 1973 by the UN General Assembly, the UNEP is the catalyst through which the global environmental agenda is implemented. Virtually all international environmental programs and policy changes that have occurred globally in the past three decades are a result of UNEP efforts. Sitting in on UNEP meetings, helping to write and implement policy, along with these powerful NGOs are government representatives, including U.S, federal agencies such as the Department of State, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

This, then, is a glimpse of the power structure behind the force that gathered in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for the UN-sponsored Earth Summit. Here, five major documents, written primarily by NGOs with the guidance and assistance of government agencies, were introduced to the world. In fact, these final documents had been first drafted and honed though the long, arduous series of international conferences previously mentioned. Now, at Rio, they were ready for adoption as a blueprint for what could only be described as the transformation of human society.

The five documents were: the “Convention on Climate Change,” the precursor to the coming Kyoto Climate Change Protocol, later adopted in 1997; the “Biodiversity Treaty,” which would declare that massive amounts of land should be off limits to human development; the third document was called the “Rio Declaration,” which called for the eradication of poverty throughout the world through the redistribution of wealth; the fourth document was the “Convention on Forest Principles,” calling for international management of the world’s forests, essentially shutting down or severely regulating the timber industry; and the fifth document was Agenda 21, which contained the full agenda for implementing worldwide Sustainable Development. The 300 page document contains 40 chapters that address virtually every facet of human life and contains great detail as to how the concept of Sustainable Development should be implemented through every level of government.

What did the United Nations believe that process entailed? In 1993, to help explain the far-reaching aspects of the plan, the UN published “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet.” Here’s how the UN described Agenda 21 in that document: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” I have never read a stronger, more powerful description of the use of government power.

However, critics of our efforts against Agenda 21 rush to point out that Agenda 21 is a “soft law” policy – not a treaty that must be ratified by the U.S. Senate to become law. So it is just a suggestion, nothing to be afraid of. To make such an argument means that these critics have failed to follow the bouncing ball of implementation.

Following the bouncing ball to implementation

It started when, at the Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush, along with 179 other heads of state signed agreement to Agenda 21. One year later, newly elected President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order # 12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The Council consisted of 12 cabinet secretaries, top executives from business, and executives from six major environmental organizations, including the Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, and the National Wildlife Federation. These were all players in the creation of Agenda 21 at the international level – now openly serving on the PCSD with the specific mission to implement Agenda 21 into American policy.

It is interesting to note that in the pages of the PCSD report entitled “Sustainable America: A new Consensus for the Future, it directly quotes the Brundtland Commission’s report “Our Common Future” for a definition of Sustainable Development. That is about as direct a tie to the UN as one can get. The PCSD brought the concept of Sustainable Development into the policy process of every agencies of the US federal government

A major tool for implementation was the enormous grant-making power of the federal government. Grant programs were created through literally every agency to entice states and local communities to accept Sustainable Development policy in local programs. In fact, the green groups serving on the PCSD, which also wrote Agenda 21 in the first place, knew full well what programs needed to be implemented to enforce Sustainable Development policy, and they helped create the grant programs, complete with specific actions that must be taken by communities to assure the money is properly spent to implement Sustainable Development policy. Those are the “strings” to which we opponents refer. Such tactics make the grants effective weapons to insure the policy is moving forward.

From that point, these same NGOs sent their members into the state legislatures to lobby for and encourage policy and additional state grant programs. They have lobbied for states to produce legislation requiring local communities to implement comprehensive development plans. Once that legislation was in place, the same NGOs (authors of Agenda 21) quickly moved into the local communities to “help” local governments comply with the state mandates. And they pledged to help by showing communities how to acquire the grant money to pay for it – with the above mentioned strings attached.

We’re told over and over again that such policies are local, state and national, with no conspiracy of ties to the UN. Really? Then how are we to explain this message, taken from the Federal Register, August 24, 1998, (Volume 63, Number 163) from a discussion on the EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program? It says, “The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program is also a step in Implementing ‘Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development,’ signed by the United Stats at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. All of these programs require broad community participation to identify and address environmental issues.”

Or consider this quote from a report by Phil Janik, Chief Operating Officer of the USDA – Forest Service, entitled “The USDA-Forest Service Commitment and Approach to Forest Sustainability” “In Our Common Future published in 1987, the Brundtland Commission explains that ‘the environment is where we all live; and development is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode.” In short, Janik was explaining to his audience (the Society of American Foresters) just where the Forest Service was getting its definition of Sustainable Development – the report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

Meanwhile, the NGOs began to “partner” with other governmental organizations like the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of County Administrators and more organizations to which elected representatives belong to, assuring a near that a near universal message of Sustainable Development comes from every level of government.

Another NGO group which helped write Agenda 21 for the UN Earth Summit was a group originally called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). It now calls itself ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. After the Earth Summit in 1992, ICLEI set its mission to move into the policy process of local governments around the world to impose Sustainable Development policy. It now operates in more than 1200 cities globally, including 600 American cities, all of which pay dues for the privilege of working with ICLEI. Like a cancer, ICLEI begins to infest the local government policy, training city employees to think only in terms of Sustainable Development, and replacing local guidelines with international codes, rules and regulations.

So it’s true, there are no UN blue helmeted troops occupying city halls in America, and yes, the UN itself does not have enforcement capability for this “:non-binding” document called Agenda 21. However, it does have its own storm troopers in the person of the Non-governmental Organizations which the UN officially sanctions to carry on its work. And that is how Agenda 21, a UN policy, has become a direct threat to local American communities.

Why we oppose Agenda 21

It’s important to note that we fight Agenda 21 because we oppose its policies and its process, not just its origins. Why do we see it as a threat? Isn’t it just a plan to protect the environment and stop uncontrolled development and sprawl?

As Henry Lamb of Freedom 21 puts it, “Comprehensive land use planning that delivers sustainable development to local communities transforms both the process through which decisions that govern citizens are made, and the market place where citizens must earn their livelihood. The fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process…the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the government controls.”

To enforce the policy, local government is being transformed by “stakeholder councils” created and enforced by the same NGO Agenda 21 authors. They are busy creating a matrix of non-elected boards, councils and regional governments that usurp the ability of citizens to have an impact on policy. It’s the demise of representative government. And the councils appear and grow almost overnight.

Sustainablists involve themselves in every aspect of society. Here are just a few of the programs and issues that can be found in the Agenda 21 blueprint and can be easily found in nearly every community’s “local” development plans: Wetlands, conservation easements, water sheds, view sheds, rails – to- trails, biosphere reserves, greenways, carbon footprints, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage areas and comprehensive planning. Every one of these programs leads to more government control, land grabs and restrictions on energy, water, and our own property. When we hear these terms we know that such policy originated on the pages of Agenda 21, regardless of the direct or indirect path it took to get to our community.

You’ll find Watershed Councils that regulate human action near every trickling stream, river, or lake. Meters are put on wells. Special “action” councils control home size, tree pruning, or removal, even the color you can paint your home or the height of your grass. Historic preservation councils control development in downtown areas, disallowing expansion and new building.

Regional governments are driven by NGOs and stakeholder councils with a few co-opted bureaucrats thrown in to look good. These are run by non-elected councils that don’t answer to the people. In short, elected officials become little more than a rubber stamp to provide official “approval” to the regional bureaucracy.

But the agenda outlined in Agenda 21 and by its proponents is a much bigger threat that just land use planning. They openly advocate massive reduction of human populations. Some actually call for as much as an 85% reduction in human populations in order to “save the planet.” David Brower of the Sierra Club said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” The UN’s Biodiversity Assessment says, “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.”

They also openly advocate the destruction of modern society as Maurice Strong, the head of the Earth Summit said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This issue then is not about simple environmental protection and modern planning. It is about a complete restructuring of our society, our values and our way of life. They use as their model an urgency based on global warming and climate change, claiming there is no need for discussion on these dire issues. Yet science is showing more and more proof that there is no man-made global warming. Are we to completely destroy our society based on such a shaky foundation?

And that is just what the proponents are rushing to do.

Barack Obama has issued a flurry of Executive Orders to bypass the Congressional process and dictate sustainable policy. In 2011 Obama issued EO # 13575 creating the White House Rural Council. It brings together 25 Cabinet Secretaries to enforce multi-jurisdictional enforcement of farming virtually controlling every decision for food production. It is a major assault on American farm production intended to enforce Sustainable farming practices. In truth it will only lead to food shortages and higher prices as farmers have no ability to make a decision without the approval of 25 government agencies, working at cross purposes and causing chaos in farm production.

On May1, 2012, Obama issued EO # 13609, dictating that the government must enforce coordination of international regulatory policy. Those international regulatory policies are UN-driven and the basic translation means enforcement of Sustainable Development policy.

But, again, skeptics of our fears of Agenda 21 continue to argue that it is all voluntary and if the US or local governments want to enforce it they are free to do so – nothing to fear but ourselves. Well, even if that were true, that’s all about to change. On June 15 – 23, international forces are again converging on Rio for Rio+20. The stated intention is to complete the work they began in 1992.

Specifically called for is a UN treaty on Sustainable Development. If passed by the Senate and signed by the Obama Administration, that will eliminate any ambiguity about where the policy is coming from. Moreover, documents produced so far for the summit call for a global council, new UN agencies, budgets and powers, and “genuine global actions” in every nation – to ensure “social justice,” poverty eradication, climate protection, biodiversity, “green growth,” and an end to “unsustainable patterns of consumption.” Again, thousands of NGOs, diplomats and world leaders will spend a lot of money and time in the Rio+20 effort. Is it all just for fun, or does it have a purpose with strong consequences for our way of life?

The fact is, we fight Agenda 21 because it is all-encompassing, designed to address literally every aspect of our lives. This is so because those promoting Agenda 21 believe we must modify our behavior, our way of doing everyday things, and even our belief system, in order to drastically transform human society into being “sustainable.”

We who oppose it don’t believe that the world is in such dire emergency environmentally that we must destroy the very human civilization that brought us from a life of nothing but survival against the elements into a world that gave us homes, health care, food, and even luxury. Sustainable Development advocates literally hope to roll back our civilization to the days of mere survival and we say NO. Why should we? We have found great deception in the promotion of the global warming argument. We believe in free markets and free societies where people make their own decisions, live and develop their own property. And we fully believe that the true path to a strong protection of the environment is through private property ownership and limited government. Those who promote Agenda 21 do not believe in those ideals. And so we will not agree on the path to the future. And our fight is just that – a clash of philosophy. There is very little room for middle ground.

The United States has never been part of a global village in which rules for life have been handed down by some self-appointed village elders. We are a nation of laws that were designed to protect our right to our property and our individual life choices while keeping government reined in. We oppose Agenda 21 precisely because it represents the exact opposite view of government.

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. Go to americanpolicy.org for more information

Hagel, Warner, and Lugar share an internationalist mindset: all three Senators supported “comprehensive immigration reform” (a.k.a. amnesty) bills that failed to pass Congress in 2006 and 2007. In support of LOST, they are joined by former Republican Senator Trent Lott, now a high-priced lobbyist who no longer answers to his former Mississippi constituents.

Americans today are in no mood for subordinating U.S. sovereignty, plus seven-tenths of the world’s surface area, to another entangling global bureaucracy, so advocates are using Orwellian talking points to pretend that LOST would do the opposite. Panetta’s statement is over the top: “Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty.”

The coalition for ratification includes three groups whose interests are rarely on the same side: the U.S. Navy, the big multinational oil companies led by Shell, and the radical environmentalist lawyers. That peculiar alliance should make you suspicious.

The Navy says we need LOST to preserve our freedom of transit in dangerous waters such as the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block, and the South China Sea, where China wants to be the dominant naval power. Panetta said, “How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven’t officially accepted those rules?”

In fact, freedom of navigation is recognized by centuries of international law, effectively policed by the British Navy for 400 years, and by our U.S. Navy since 1775. The United Nations has no navy of its own, so American sailors will still be expected to protect the world’s sea lanes and punish piracy.

Big Oil supports LOST because of its provision to extend jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond the current 200-mile limit. But LOST would require a royalty of 1 to 7 percent on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters to be paid to the International Seabed Authority based in Kingston, Jamaica.

There’s no need for a 181-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic.

Environmentalists, the third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST, are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member International Tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The Tribunal’s judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.

This tribunal, known as ITLOS (International Tribunal of LOST), has jurisdiction over “maritime disputes,” which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol which the U.S. properly declined to ratify.

A paper just published by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation lays out the roadmap for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: “With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.” Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its “Exclusive Economic Zone” extending 200 miles out into international waters.

The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated.

Further Reading:

• Law of the Sea

Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal.

Mrs. Schlafly's monthly newsletter called The Phyllis Schlafly Report is now in its 45th year. Her syndicated column appears in 100 newspapers, and on many conservative websites, her radio commentaries are heard daily on over 600 stations, and her radio talk show on education called "Eagle Forum Live" is heard weekly on 75 stations. Both can be heard on the internet.

This unequivocal victory for the Kansas law in the House and Senate is the latest vindication of a long-term national trend supporting constitutional protections for ALL Americans  against foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines that have found their way into our court systems.

• ALAC passed with broad bipartisan support in Kansas, just as it did previously in Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona.  The APPA has previously stated that their goal is to extend ALAC’s constitutional protections to all 50 states by 2020.

• ALAC was also passed by overwhelming margins in state Houses in Florida, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Missouri, the Indiana Senate, and the Judiciary Committees of Florida, Georgia and Alabama, only to be scuttled in last-minute interventions by special interests acting against the wishes of the vast majority of voters and legislators.

• The following statistics demonstrate the strong and growing support by majorities of legislators for ALAC across the United States:

  • Louisiana Senate Vote: 33-3
  • Louisiana House Vote: 94-0
  • Tennessee House Vote: 96-0
  • Tennessee Senate Vote: 32-0
  • Oklahoma House Vote: 76-3
  • Indiana Senate Vote: 50-0
  • Missouri House of Representatives Vote: 110-46
  • Florida House Vote: 92-24
  • Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee: 13-0
  • Florida House Judiciary Committee: 14-1
  • Florida Senate Judiciary Committee: 6-0
  • Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee: 9-0
  • Georgia House Judiciary Committee: 7-2

This comes despite well-funded efforts opposing the bill by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American Islamic Relations, as well as a $3 million national PR campaign to bring Shariah law to America, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).

“American Laws for American Courts is the primary 21^st Century civil rights initiative to ensure constitutional liberties for all Americans,” said Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney Jr. “It is needed especially to protect women and children, who have been identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.”

At the website Shariah Law and American State Courts, the Center for Security Policy has compiled fifty cases in 23 states  showing examples of a representative foreign legal system - Islamic Shariah Law - introduced into American courts, in conflict with the Constitution or state public policy in the particular cases.

SOURCE: Center for Secuirty Policy

DIRECTLY RELATED: Upholding the Law… American Law

Only American law should be used in American courts. Foreign law — especially foreign law that violates the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or state law — should not be considered when adjudicating cases under American jurisprudence.

This is a no-brainer. It shouldn’t be controversial, but it is.

It wasn’t significant until the specter of Shariah loomed over the judicial system of the United States. Then it became “discriminatory”, an “infringement on religious freedom under the First Amendment”, and — dare we say it? — “racism”.

A couple of days ago Kansas became the latest state whose legislature has officially affirmed “American Law for American Courts”. In the following video, David Yerushalmi, the General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy, discusses the issue with Ezra Levant.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this clip:

Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines, including Shariah law principles, are finding their way into US court cases.

Reviews of state laws provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines are introduced into US state court cases, including, notably, Islamic law known as Shariah, which is used in family courts and other courts in dozens of foreign Muslim-majority nations .

These foreign laws, frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, typically enter the American court system through:

• Comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system)
• Choice of law issues and
• Choice of forum or venue

Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.

Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.

The goal of the American Laws for American Courts Act is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic. American Laws for American Courts is needed especially to protect women and children, identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.

By promoting American Laws for American Courts, we are preserving individual liberties and freedoms which become eroded by the encroachment of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.

None of this should be an issue. It’s only common sense. Unfortunately, we live in a time in which common sense has been suspended, suppressed, distorted, and destroyed by political correctness.

American Laws for American Courts. What could be simpler?

When lawmakers and government officials spend public funds on new initiatives, they properly expose themselves to taxpayers’ approval or criticism. But, Crews explains, when federal agencies advance government goals by regulating the private sector, the costs of their activity are hidden from public view. Crews writes, “Rather than pay directly and book expenses for new initiatives, the federal government can require the private sector, as well as state and local governments, to pay for federal initiatives through compliance costs.”

While the exact cost of federal regulations can never be known, the Small Business Administration has estimated annual complaince costs of well over $1 trillion since the mid-2000s. The most recent evaluation, a controversial one based on data and information available in 2008, was $1.7 trillion.

Meanwhile, numbers of rules, pages in the Federal Register, and economically significant rules are rising under President Obama.

Below are highlights from the 2012 edition of Ten Thousand Commandments:

• • Estimated regulatory costs, while "off budget," are equivalent to over 48% the level of federal spending itself.
• • The 2011 Federal Register finished at 81,247 pages, just shy of 2010’s all-time record-high 81,405 pages.
• • Regulatory compliance costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $198 billion, and exceed individual income taxes and even pre-tax corporate profits.
• • Agencies issued 3,807 final rules in 2011, a 6.5 percent increase over 3,573 in 2010.
• • Of the 4,128 regulations in the works at year-end 2011, 212 were “economically significant,” meaning they generally wield at least $100 million in economic impact.
• • 822 of those 4,128 regulations in the works would affect small businesses.
• • The total number of economically significant rules finalized in 2011 was 79, down slightly from 2010 but up 92.7 percent over five years, and 108 percent over 10 years.
• • Recent costly federal agency initiatives include the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule and the Department of Transportation’s Fuel Economy Standards.

The report includes a spotlight feature on the Federal Communications Commission, further analysis of trends in the numbers of regulations, and an appendix of historical tables. Crews also proposes reforms that would improve regulatory transparency and restore accountability to Congress, who, Crews argues, should bear “direct responsibility for every dollar of new regulatory costs.”

Nicole W. Ciandella is a Media Coordinator in the Communications Department. She graduated from McGill University in 2009 with a B.A. in Cultural Studies and Philosophy.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. Our mission is to promote both freedom and fairness by making good policy good politics. We make the uncompromising case for economic freedom because we believe it is essential for entrepreneurship, innovation, and prosperity to flourish.

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday passed 17-15 the House’s version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA), H.R. 4970. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor indicated that the House intends to vote on the legislation this Wednesday, May 16. (The Hill, May 10, 2012; House Weekly Schedule)

H.R. 4970, introduced by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL), differs from the recently passed Senate version in several ways. First, the House version does not include an increase in U visas. The Senate version, S. 1925, includes a provision that increases the number of U visas granted annually from 10,000 (the current ceiling) to 15,000, until all unused U visas since 2006 are recaptured.  (S. 1925 at § 805; see also FAIR Legislative Update, May 1, 2012) The U visa to allows aliens who have suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a victim of domestic violence, rape, or certain other crimes to obtain temporary legal status if they help law enforcement prosecute those crimes. (INA § 101(a)(15)(U); see FAIR’s U Visa Policy Statement, Mar. 21, 2012) An alien can obtain a U visa regardless of legal status, remain in the country for four-years at a time, receive work authorization, and become eligible for a green card after three years. (INA § 214(p); USCIS Website on U visas)

Next, H.R. 4970 takes steps toward improving the U visa program. Under current law, an alien must only be likely to help federal, state, or local law authorities in investigating or prosecuting the perpetrator. H.R. 4970 would require the alien petitioning for a U visa to have already “provided” information that will assist law enforcement in identifying the perpetrator of the crime in order to qualify for the visa. (H.R. 4970 at § 2)

Finally, H.R. 4970 includes provisions to make the U visa a true temporary non-immigrant visa. (Id. at § 806) First, it removes a provision from federal law that allows aliens to obtain legal permanent residency simply by being in the country for three-years on a U visa if the DHS Secretary deems it is in the public interest, or necessary for humanitarian reasons or family unity, to grant them a green card. (See INA § 245(m)) Second, it amends current law to prevent aliens from extending the temporary four-year visa period by an additional four-years. (See INA § 214(p)(6))

The House Judiciary Committee also adopted several immigration-related amendments to H.R. 4970.  These include:

• Amendment by Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC): Effectively strikes the requirement that an alien seeking a U visa must report within 60 days the crime for which they claim to be a victim. Current law does not require aliens to report crimes within a certain period.
• Amendment #8 by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL): Requires Homeland Security to report to Congress the types and frequency of crimes resulting in the granting of U visas.
• Amendment #9 by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): Expands the types of evidence that DHS may consider when determining whether to deport an alien for committing a crime of violence.

The House is expected to pass H.R. 4970, leaving the battle over the Senate immigration provisions to conference committee, where members of both bodies will reconcile the House and Senate versions. Stay tuned to FAIR for updates…

House Passes Important Immigration Measures

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed several key immigration measures as part of broader bills.

Second, the house adopted another amendment to the CJS appropriations bill that strips certain funding from sanctuary cities. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), prohibits the Department of Justice from reimbursing sanctuary cities through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). SCAAP provides federal funding to state and locals to defray the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens. (See Bureau of Justice Assistance Website, May 13, 2012)

Finally, as a part of a House budget reconciliation package aimed at saving hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, the House passed language proposed by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) that would prevent illegal aliens from receiving of the additional child tax credit (ACTC). (See H.R. 5652 § 611; see also CQ Today, May 9, 2012) The ACTC is a refundable tax credit that allows individuals with three or more children to reduce their federal income tax by up to $1,000 for each child who meets certain criteria. (See TIGTA Report 2011-41-061, July 7, 2011)

Currently, illegal aliens are eligible for the ACTC because the IRS only requires applicants for the ACTC to provide an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), which it indiscriminately hands out to illegal aliens. Last year, the Inspector General for the U.S. Treasury Department released a report revealing that illegal aliens annually receive $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits, primarily through the ACTC. (Id.; see also FAIR Legislative Update, Sept. 6, 2011)

Having passed both the CJS and budget reconciliation bills on Thursday, both bills are headed to the Senate. President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the CJS appropriations bill because of various amendments made to the bill, and Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the Republican House’s budget reconciliation package. (Fox News, May 10, 2012; Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2012)

House Homeland Security Spending Bill Rejects President’s Proposed Budget

Last week, the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee passed legislation that rejects President Obama’s proposed budget.  As passed by the Subcommittee, the FY 2013 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations bill provides $39.1 billion in discretionary funding for DHS, $484 million below FY 2012 spending and $393 million below the President’s budget request.  (House DHS Appropriations bill, subcommittee version; House Appropriations Committee Release, May 8, 2012)

While the newly-unveiled House DHS appropriations bill cuts the Department’s overall budget, it still protects critical immigration enforcement programs. In particular, the bill rejects the Obama Administration’s proposal to cut Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by four percent and instead increases the agency’s funding by approximately $141 million (House Appropriations Committee Release, May 8, 2012; FAIR Legislative Update, Feb. 21, 2012) With regard to specific programs, the bill:

• Maintains the minimum number of Border Patrol agents at 21,370 (p.8);
• Maintains the minimum number of Customs and Border Protection agents at 21,186;
• Maintains funding for the 287(g) program at $68 million;
• Dedicates $138 million to complete the deployment of Secure Communities (p.13);
• Maintains the level of detention beds at 34,000 (p.13, 81); and
• Extends authorization for E-Verify for one year (current authorization ends on Sept. 30, 2012)(p.83)

In addition to protecting these immigration enforcement programs, the House DHS Appropriations budget sends a clear message to President Obama: “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure enforcement of immigration laws…”  (p.82)  This get-tough message is backed up by provisions that condition substantial amounts of funding on DHS actually delivering required reports to Congress on time.  For example, the bill provides that more than half of the funding for Secretary Janet Napolitano’s executive office shall be withheld until the Secretary submits to Congress “all statutorily required reports and plans” that are due with the submission of next year’s budget proposal. (p. 3) Subcommittee Chairman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) told journalists that he hoped these provisions would get Homeland Security’s attention.  (Politico, May 9, 2012) “The bottom line is, they not only should enforce the law but also comply with the law,” said Aderholt. (Id.)

The next stop for the House DHS Appropriations Bill will be a hearing in the full Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.  At that time, members are expected to offer amendments before sending the bill to the House floor.  (Id.)

CBP Releases New Strategic Plan

For the first time since 2004, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released a plan of action last week to increase border security. Despite the Obama Administration’s insistence that state and local governments have no right to aid the federal government in enforcing immigration law, the new CBP plan incorporates a “whole-of-government” approach that encourages cooperation between federal, state, and local governments and international agencies. (See CBP Border Patrol Strategic Plan, p. 18-20, 2012)

The new plan also integrates virtual security measures such as fixed tower monitoring systems, aerial surveillance, foot sensors, and other devices that will further the Obama Administration’s plan to reduce  boots on the ground. (Id. at p. 15;see also FAIR Legislative Update, Apr. 23, 2012)

The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security held a hearing on the new strategic plan Tuesday.  According to the testimony of U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, to secure the border the plan will apply a risk-based approach, rather than the previous resources-based approach.  (Bloomberg Transcript, May 9, 2012; see also CBP Border Patrol Strategic Plan, p. 4-7, 2012)

“Border Patrol must strategically apply intelligence to ensure that operations are focused and targeted against the greatest threats,” he explained to the Subcommittee, suggesting a prioritization that places a greater focus on terrorists and large organized crime groups. (Bloomberg Transcript, May 9, 2012; see also Homeland Security Today, May 9, 2012) The plan includes assurances that it will sustain the “apprehension of illegal crossings.” (See CBP Border Patrol Strategic Plan, p.28, 2012) However, despite these “assurances,” prioritization could result in instances of illegal border crossers slipping through the cracks if they are not deemed a high enough threat.

Chairman of the Subcommittee Candice Miller (R-MI) expressed concern over the new approach, noting the potential problem of border-crossers adapting to and countering border patrol patterns. She also pointed out an additional flaw: CBP’s plan “lacks a tangible way to measure” illegal border crossers. (Bloomberg Transcript, May 9, 2012) “[W]e hear terms like, ‘the border is more secure than ever,’ … but how do you measure that and by what?” she asked. (Id.)

According to Chief Fisher, CBP is still developing the implementation plan for the new strategy, making it unclear when the plan will officially take effect. (Bloomberg Transcript, May 9, 2012)

Alabama Legislature Still Deciding Whether to Gut HB 56

Last week, the Alabama Senate once again postponed debate on legislation that would significantly scale back the State’s immigration enforcement law, HB 56.  This delay is one of several that seem to be the result of diverging House and Senate strategies.

In April, the Alabama House introduced, debated and passed legislation that would substantially weaken HB 56.  The legislation, HB 658, proposed limiting the circumstances under which local law enforcement officers check immigration status, weakening the penalties for knowingly hiring illegal aliens, eliminating the prohibition on renting apartments to an individual a landlord knows is an illegal alien, eliminating the ability of citizens to bring an action against a law enforcement agency's sanctuary policy or practice, and eliminating the requirement that schools collect immigration data on their students for inclusion in state reports. (See HB 658 as engrossed; FAIR Legislative Update, Apr. 9, 2012; FAIRLegislative Update, May 1, 2012)

Senate leaders now seem to be debating behind closed doors whether to follow the House and gut HB 56, or to make only minor changes to the law.  Senator Scott Beason, who was the Senate author of HB 56, has supported the latter approach and introduced his own legislation (SB 541) that makes only small, technical changes to the law. Business organizations, however, are lobbying the state Senate hard to gut HB 56 and are particularly trying to scale back the law’s penalties for employers that hire illegal aliens.  (See Montgomery Advertiser, May 11, 2012) The Senate was scheduled to take up the issue yet again last Thursday, but Senate leaders postponed debate until next Wednesday, May 16.

Stay tuned for more information as events unfold …

DOJ Sets Sights on Maricopa County

In its latest effort to prevent state and local governments from assisting in the enforcement of immigration laws, President Obama’s Justice Department (DOJ) has filed an official complaint against Maricopa County, AZ; its Sheriff’s Department; and its Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, alleging various violations of the Constitution and federal law. (See Complaint, US v. Maricopa County, filed May 10, 2012; see also DOJ Press Release)

The complaint, filed Thursday, alleges the Defendants engaged in three different types of unlawful conduct in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments; the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Cmplt. at ¶ 7) These allegations of misconduct include: 1) a pattern or practice of discriminatory law enforcement actions against Latinos in Maricopa County; 2) discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency (LEP); and (3) a pattern or practice of retaliatory actions against perceived critics. (Id. at ¶ 6)

In the DOJ’s first allegation, that practices of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) unlawfully discriminates against Latinos, the DOJ relies on anecdotes and unnamed studies to claim that MCSO officers unlawfully rely on race, color, or national origin in their enforcement of traffic laws. (Cmplt. at § I) Amongst its various claims is that Latinos are more likely to be the target of a traffic stop than non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct and that such officers engage in pre-textual stops, that officers mistreat Latinos during traffic stops, and that the Criminal Employment Squad (CES) of the MCSO (an immigration enforcement unit) targets Latinos during worksite raids. (Id.) To back up its allegations, the DOJ claims that the MCSO’s decision to make immigration enforcement a top priority, the MCSO’s lack of extensive guidelines to protect against discriminatory police practices, and that statements made by Sheriff Arpaio, all provide evidence of discriminatory intent. (Id.)

The DOJ’s second allegation, that the MCSO unlawfully discriminates against non-English speaking Latinos, again relies on anecdotes. (Id. at § II) Among other things, the DOJ alleges that MCSO jail officials intentionally discriminate against non-English speaking prisoners by typically making announcements in English only, penalizing prisoners for not submitting forms in English, and failing to provide a written language assistance plan. (Id. at ¶¶ 130; 124; 131)

Finally, DOJ’s third allegation claims that the MCSO and Sheriff Joe have violated the First Amendment by filing “unsubstantiated complaints and lawsuits” against critics of their policies in an effort to retaliate for protected speech. (Id. at § III) Specifically, the DOJ claims that the former Chief Deputy of the MCSO filed complaints with the Arizona State Bar against five attorneys who spoke out against MCSO, and filed complaints with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct against four judges whom had made statements or ruled against MCSO. (Id. at ¶ 140-141) Because these complaints were ultimately dropped for a lack of facts or sufficient evidence, the DOJ claims the MCSO Chief Deputy must have acted in a retaliatory fashion by filing them. (Id. at ¶ 139-141) The DOJ also claims that MCSO would arrest protestors simply because they disagreed with its policies. (Id. at ¶ 149)

To prevail on the merits of its lawsuit, the DOJ must demonstrate that the policies of the Sheriff's office both had a “discriminatory effect” and were “motivated by a discriminatory purpose.”  (See U.S. v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996)) In determining whether there was a discriminatory purpose, courts generally evaluate several factors. These include whether the impact of the law bears more heavily on one race than another, the historical background of the policy, the sequence of events leading up to the policy, departures from normal procedure, and legislative history. (See Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Redev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-268 (1977)

The DOJ is seeking an injunction against the MCSO’s policies and a judgment to deny the office from receiving federal funds. (Id. at ¶ 163-164)

FAIR’s Annual Hold Their Feet to the Fire Engages Americans on True Immigration Reform

Last week, nearly 50 radio hosts from across the nation gathered in Washington, D.C. over two days to join FAIR’s annual “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” radio row event.

Each year, FAIR’s event provides radio talk hosts and their guests the chance to discuss immigration policy and reform openly, giving Americans around the country a chance to tune in and voice their opinions.

This year, FAIR was proud to host over 30 Members of Congress who sat down to talk about immigration on the airwaves. Also participating in the event were policy experts and law enforcement officers.

Dedicated grassroots activists from FAIR also took time to visit Congressional offices to discuss the need for true immigration reform.

FAIR’s “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” promotes a civil dialogue on the future of immigration policy and reforms that will restore legitimacy to our immigration system

Marayati warned that if U.S. law enforcement continues to use such "incorrect and divisive" literature, the "partnership" between Muslim Americans and law enforcement "will slowly disintegrate."

"Such baseless and inflammatory claims shall best be left to those few who share Al Qaeda's agenda," Marayati wrote. "In other words, the rhetoric of Al Qaeda and those law enforcement trainers are opposite sides of the same coin of hate."

But the concept of civilization-jihad is not something conjured up by a consultant as a pretext to oppress Muslims. During the 2008 Hamas-financing prosecution of five former officials of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), FBI Agent Lara Burns testified about a 1991 internal memorandum outlining the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood-connected "Palestine Committee" which was created to advance the Hamas agenda in the United States.

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means," the memo read. "The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The five HLF officials were convicted on all charges by a federal jury in Dallas and sentenced to long prison terms.

Despite its long record of attacking law enforcement efforts to protect the American people from jihadist violence, MPAC has gained influence within the Obama administration. The group's Washington office director, Haris Tarin, has frequently attended White House events, including its Iftar Dinner last Ramadan and President Obama's 9/11 Memorial at the Kennedy Center. In July, Obama personally telephoned Tarin to commend him for MPAC's work.

And in recent months, MPAC, working in tandem with other Islamist organizations, has repeatedly pushed in order to bend U.S. government policies to its will.

In February, MPAC joined the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and other groups in meeting with FBI Director Robert Mueller to discuss purportedly anti-Muslim materials in Bureau training manuals.

MPAC's website linked to an article which said the FBI had destroyed hundreds of terrorism documents in an effort to root out "Islamophobia." The purged materials included articles and PowerPoint presentations defining jihad as "holy war" and describing the Brotherhood's efforts to achieve world domination.

In April, MPAC and Muslim Advocates sprung into action after White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan expressed "his full confidence that the NYPD is doing things consistent with the law, and it's something that again has been responsible for keeping this city safe over the past decade."

MPAC responded to Brennan's statement with a call for "immediate public clarification" along with a threat. Much as Marayati did in the Los Angeles Times op-ed cited above, Tarin suggested Muslims would cease cooperating with law enforcement if surveillance policies were not changed to MPAC's satisfaction.

"There are plenty of robust partnership models that both communities and the government have invested in and those partnerships will be jeopardized if NYPD's current tactics are not halted, and its programs are not adjusted to more successful initiatives," Tarin warned.

Four days after MPAC laid down the law, the Obama administration caved and issued a clarification of Brennan's comments. The counterterrorism chief had "never approved of described press accounts of alleged NYPD surveillance," a White House official said.

In earlier comments praising the police department, Brennan "wasn't referring to the NYPD surveillance" that had come under attack from Islamist groups like MPAC and Muslim Advocates, the official added. "Rather, he was stating that everyone in the counterterrorism and law enforcement community must make sure we are doing things consistent with the law."

Non-Islamist Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are a top target of MPAC attacks.

A first-generation American Muslim whose parents fled Syria's Ba'athist dictatorship in the 1960s, Jasser served 11 years as a U.S. Navy medical officer. He believes that the jihadist terror threat cannot be addressed without addressing the role of "political Islam" as practiced by groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Jasser has called on Muslims to oppose people like Muslim Brotherhood-linked clericYusuf al-Qaradawi, who has said it is permissible to kill apostates, and Jamal Badawiof the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), who has said apostates should be "punished." According to Jasser, the jihadists won't be defeated until Muslims start to realize that they are on a "slippery slope" toward radicalism.

This kind of talk has earned Jasser the enmity of groups like MPAC, which sent out a March "action alert" urging supporters to protest his appointment to the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), calling it "an affront to all Muslims." The group directed its Twitter followers to a petition circulated by Islamist groups, copying its claim that "Zuhdi Jasser does not belong on the USCIRF."

While it treats fellow Muslim Americans like Jasser with contempt and works to marginalize them, MPAC is frequently deferential to rogue states and terrorists.

Last month, it reposted an article suggesting that convicted terrorist Tarek Mehanna was only exercising his freedom of speech when he translated and posted al-Qaida recruitment videos, and that Muslims have the right to kill American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The article, published in Britain's Guardian newspaper, was linked from MPAC's Twitter feed and Facebook page.

The writer, Marine veteran Ross Caputi, argues that Mehanna, "is being punished for his ideas, and the case against him stinks of a lynch-mob mentality." Describing Mehanna, now serving a 17-year prison term, as a "victim" of a " hysterical witch-hunt for 'radical' Muslims," Caputi agrees with the convicted terrorist "that much of what the US military has done in Iraq and Afghanistan can be characterized as terrorism, and I support Afghans and Iraqis who fight back against us."

In February, MPAC reposted on its Twitter and Facebook pages an article in which Iran's repressive regime gloated over the fact that an Iranian film won an Oscar, defeating an Israeli film in the same category.

In a Feb. 29 appearance on Russia Today's Cross Talk program, al-Marayati depicted Iran (which is flouting international law with its illicit nuclear-weapons program) as the victim in the current diplomatic crisis.

"With other countries, we utilize the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), we use multilateral instruments to deal with the nuclear problem," al-Marayati said. "In this case with Iran, there is no dialogue, there is (sic) no negotiations , it is all confrontational policies that is part of a war-mongering mentality here in the U.S. and they're just waiting for the tripwire and then the machinery of war will begin."

Al-Marayati also suggested that the United States was in trouble for doing "dirty work" for Israel.

"The other point here, which is very important historically, the United States has done a lot of dirty work that has served the interests of Israel," he said. "It destroyed Iraq. It supported the destruction and crippling of Egypt. It has crippled the Gulf. And now, it is looking to Iran as the next target for crippling and destroying. I think this is madness. Who is driving our foreign policy? President Obama or Prime Minister Netanyahu?"

MPAC officials have also appeared on Press TV, the Iranian regime's English-language propaganda outlet, at least six times since November 2010, always criticizing U.S. government policies or complaining about the plight of Muslims in the U.S.

MPAC has a history of excusing terrorist attacks against Americans and questioning U.S. government actions against terrorists and their financiers.

In a 1999 paper, it called Hizballah's bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, in which more than 280 American servicemen were killed as they slept, "a military operation, producing no civilian casualties – exactly the kind of attack that Americans might have lauded had it been directed against Washington's enemies." Other MPAC policy papers have criticized the presence of Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad on the U.S. list of terror groups.

MPAC questioned Washington's targeting of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida ideologue and facilitator of attacks against America. After Awlaki was killed in a Sept. 30 drone strike, MPAC rejected his message of violence while questioning his killing "without a trial and due process."

In 2001, MPAC blasted the Treasury Department for designating the HLF for its Hamas fundraising activities. It accused Washington of "taking food out of the mouths of Palestinian orphans" and "succumbing to politically-motivated smear campaigns by those who would perpetuate Israel's brutal occupation."

At a MPAC's December 2010 annual conference, senior MPAC official Maher Hathout portrayed critics of radical Islam as "Muslim bashers." Ignoring a slew of homegrown terror plots targeting the United States that year, Hathout tried to whitewash the connection between jihad and violence – even though terrorists themselves invoke Islam to justify their violent jihad.

"I am so protective of the word and concept of jihad," Hathout said. "We define what jihad is, not anyone else, and jihad has nothing to do with what they are talking about."

He made this comment shortly after Awlaki took to the pages of al-Qaida's Inspire magazine to argue that Western Muslims must wage violent jihad in order to topple non-believers.