Report: Florida gets 36.9% of its revenue from federal government

/in , , , /by

The Tax Foundation has released a map showing the dependency of each state on federal aid. Florida  relies heavily on federal assistance with 36.9% of its revenue derived from the federal government. Florida ranks 23rd of all states taking federal money.

Has Florida become a “welfare state”?

Mississippi takes in more than any other state, with 49% of its total general revenue coming from federal aid. Close behind are Louisiana at 46.5% and Arizona at 45.7%. On the other end of the spectrum, Alaska relies on federal aid for only 24% of its general revenue, followed closely by Delaware at 25.9% and North Dakota at 26%.

No state receives less than 24% of federal aid.

Question: Are the states truly sovereign when they receive so much aid from Washington, D.C.?

Federal-aid-as-a-percentage-of-state-general-revenue-(large)_0

Click on the image for a larger view.

Map courtesy of the Tax Foundation.

Thomas R. Pickering: The Benghazi and Khost coverups

/in , , , , , /by

Darren J. LaBonte, former Army Ranger, FBI agent and CIA operations officer. Photo courtesy of the Huffington Post.

Since President Obama took office there have been a number of strategically successful attacks by radical Islamists against US special forces units, the CIA and Department of State. In each case, due to security failures, these attacks ended in the largest loss of life for our Navy Seals (Extortion 17), CIA field operators (Khost, Afghanistan) and the first loss of a US Ambassador (Benghazi, Libya) in over 30 years.

One name that comes up in two of these tragic incidents is Thomas R. Pickering (above photo courtesy of the AP). Thomas Reeve “Tom” Pickering, is a retired United States ambassador. Among his diplomatic appointments, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992.

Many have never heard of Khost, Afghanistan. However, Venice, Florida residents David and Camille LaBonte will never forget that name. Their son Darren James LaBonte, a former Army Ranger, FBI agent and CIA operations officer, was killed in Khost on December 30, 2009.

“Khost” is the short name for Chapman Airfield, a secret CIA operations base located near Khost, Afghanistan. It was on December 30, 2009 at Khost that the US suffered the loss of seven CIA operations officers, a Jordanian General Intelligence Department (GID or Mukhabarat) officer and two Blackwater security guards detailed to protect the base and its CIA personnel.

There was no formal investigation on the Khost incident by the US Congress. However, the CIA conducted an internal investigation ordered by then Director Leon Panetta, to look at what happened in Khost. According to Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times, “The internal investigation documents a litany of breakdowns leading to the Dec. 30 attack at the Khost base that killed seven C.I.A. employees, the deadliest day for the spy agency since the 1983 bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut. Besides the failure to pass on warnings about the bomber, Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, the C.I.A. investigation chronicled major security lapses at the base in Afghanistan, a lack of war zone experience among the agency’s personnel at the base, insufficient vetting of the alleged defector and a murky chain of command with different branches of the intelligence agency competing for control over the operation.” [Emphasis added]

“Some of these failures mirror other lapses that have bedeviled the sprawling intelligence and anti-terrorism community in the past several years, despite numerous efforts at reform,” notes Mazzetti.

Mazzetti states, “The report found that the breakdowns were partly the result of C.I.A. officers’ wanting to believe they had finally come across the thing that had eluded them for years: a golden source who could lead them to the terror network’s second highest figure, Ayman al-Zawahri.”

Fast forward to September 11, 2012 and Benghazi. It was Pickering who lead the internal investigation ordered by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Pickering Benghazi internal investigation found:

  1. The attacks in Benghazi were security-related, resulting in the deaths of four U.S. personnel after terrorists attacked two separate U.S. government facilities – the Special Mission compound (SMC) and the Annex.
  2. Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
  3. Notwithstanding the proper implementation of security systems and procedures and remarkable heroism shown by American personnel, those systems themselves and the Libyan response fell short in the face of a series of attacks that began with the sudden penetration of the Special Mission compound by dozens of armed attackers.
  4. The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community’s understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.
  5. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability.

These two internal investigations sound eerily similar. Were both accurate portrayals that led to changes or just reports to be filed and forgotten? The Pickering report on Benghazi quotes George Santayana who wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” First came Khost then came Benghazi. Did our national leaders forget the lessons of Khost and did they repeat the same mistakes in Benghazi two years later?

You be the judge.

“Fascism” is the best way to implement Seven50: SE Florida Prosperity Plan

/in , , , /by

June 19-21, 2013 there will be dueling Seven50 Summits at the Palm Beach Conference Center, West Palm Beach, Florida.

The Seven50 plan is an effort by the Southeast Florida Regional Partnership, funded by a grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), with the mission to,”[C]reate and implement the Seven50: SE Florida Prosperity Plan, a blueprint  for a vibrant and resilient economy; socially inclusive, sustainable, and affordable communities; and environmental sustainability.” View the SEFRP agenda here.

Mayor Craig Fletcher, City of Vero Beach, FL.

The City of Vero Beach, FL has pulled out of the plan.

Mayor Craig Fletcher attended a briefing given by proponents of Seven50 and reported that: city and county government would be less important, only “mega regions” are important as in the EU, the seven Florida counties that are part of the partnership “would have someone to control them”, they (the EU) are not going to put up with the American education system and “Fascism is the best form of government to implement these changes”.

Video remarks of Craig Fletcher, Mayor of the City of Vero Beach, FL at a City council meeting:

Proponents represented by the SE FL Regional Partnership (SEFRP) and opponents by The Liberty Caucus will be holding their respective summit in adjoining conference rooms at the Palm Beach Conference Center.

Why Seven50 now?

According to the SEFRP website, “The shifting nature of the global economy is changing the way business is done. Regions that can’t recognize and adapt to these changes will cease to be economically competitive. It’s time for Southeast Florida to move to the next level, to develop a regional mindset that focuses more on how to maximize the commonalities than accentuate the differences.” The agenda for the Seven50 Summit may be viewed here.

Opponents see this regionalization as an attack on local control, liberty and freedom.

The Liberty Caucus is a government watchdog organization that tracks local government in Fort Pierce, Port Saint Lucie and Saint Lucie County to “promote free markets and limit government intervention”.  St. Lucie County is one of the Seven50 partners.

Why stop Seven50?

According to the Liberty Caucus website, “The core of “sustainable development” is the notion of disciplining the consumption of consumers and producers. It consists of a self-appointed elite forcing needs and abilities of people against their will. But, needs and abilities cannot be determined arbitrarily by others; rather, it is derived by each individual according to their own unique, subjective valuation system. A central authority trying to determine the subjective valuation of other individuals consists of misallocation of resources (the same one’s we’re told to conserve) and market distortions (below market interest rates, industry specific stimulus) that inflate price bubbles (housing, commodity, stocks) causing an erosion of wealth.” The agenda for the anti-Seven50 Summit may be viewed here.

The Liberty Caucus notes:

Sustainability advocates tell us that:

  1. Resources are limited
  2. We are too inefficient for our own good
  3. Un-elected governing authority needs to decide what is the best allocation of our land, property and resources for us
  4. And thus lead everyone to prosperity with their ideas of sustainable development

Still unmentioned today, 26 years later, is:

  1. Who decides what is and is not sustainable
  2. On what logical basis sustainability is calculated
  3. Exactly whose ‘good’ is considered for benefit

Seven50 Consultant Andres Duany, from Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, speaks about the “hope for fascism in South Florida” and how Seven50 can take local communities and “tie them into nothing”:

Duany has been a consultant to counties and cities across the state of Florida on “sustainability and sustainable communities”.

The Government vs. YOU

/in , , , , , /by

The following column is from the Heritage Foundation:

Every day, more Americans get trapped by big government. In addition to groups targeted by the IRS, upstanding citizens going about their normal lives are suddenly targeted by law enforcement authorities and charged as criminals. Just a few examples:

The following are examples of Floridians caught up in this overreaching dragnet of criminalization:

These are only a few of the shocking incidents The Heritage Foundation chronicles in our new project, USA vs. YOU. Experts at Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies reveal the stories of 22 people from all backgrounds, races, and income levels victimized by carelessly written laws.

Get the FREE e-book USA vs. YOU now

When criminal laws are created to “solve” every problem, punish every mistake, and compel the “right” behaviors, this troubling trend is known as overcriminalization. Ultimately, it leads to injustice for honest, hard-working Americans at every level of society.

Public interest groups from across the political spectrum recognize how this flood of criminal laws violates our basic liberties. Diverse organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Right on Crime, among others, have joined with Heritage to reaffirm the true purpose of America’s justice system: to ensure public safety and protect the innocent.

When was the last time you saw the ACLU work together with a faith-based group like Justice Fellowship? With USA vs. YOU, the problem is grave enough to bring together unlikely allies. And we’re delivering this bipartisan message just as the House of Representatives has launched a task force aimed at correcting this issue.

This morning, Heritage Senior Legal Fellow John Malcolm will testify at the first hearing of the Overcriminalization Task Force—shining a spotlight on the scope and severity of this threat to our liberties. Ending the practice of trapping our citizens with unnecessary laws will be no easy task, with an estimated 4,500 criminal law offenses and 300,000 criminal regulations on the books.

Experience the stories of Americans like you treated unjustly – download the FREE e-book now

Over the next six months, Members of Congress from both parties will study this issue in depth, hold hearings, and—with the right encouragement—take steps to enact real reform.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

RELATED COLUMNS:

When “Zero-Tolerance” Makes “Zero-Sense”

Rubio on Univision: No immigration law unless border security measures are improved

/in , , , , , /by

Note: Excerpts of English and Spanish transcripts as published by Univision are below.

Excerpts of Interview on Univision’s “Al Punto” with Maria Elena Salinas. 

Senator Marco Rubio: “I am 100 percent committed to the immigration issue, immigration reform. Quite the opposite, I will continue to work to make sure that it doesn’t come to that. My point is that if we don’t have those—if we cannot secure the border, if we cannot take the necessary steps to earn our colleagues’ trust, this will never become law. We’re wasting our time. But I don’t think it will come to that. I simply think that if we can arrive at a reasonable measure— of course, it has to be something reasonable—to secure the border and prevent any sort of wave of illegal immigration in the future, that we’re going to have more than enough votes to be able to accomplish it.”

Maria Elena Salinas: “Let’s try to understand how to accomplish that. At this time, the border is more secure than ever. There are 21,000 border agents, a 651-mile wall, more than 300 watchtowers. And the bill that you helped to write has even more funds for border security. So, what are the measures that you consider key for the Senate to approve the reform? What else do the Republicans want?”

Rubio: “Well, the problem—, not just Republicans. There are four, five Democrats who are also asking for it in the Senate. And the point is the following: What they want are details on exactly where those resources are going to be used because, yes, there are sectors of the border that are much more secure, but there are others that aren’t. For example, the area of Tucson, Arizona. So what they’re asking is that it not be left to the discretion of the Administration or agencies, but that the law specifically says where and how those resources will be used so that there is no waste and that the—the errors of the past are not repeated.”

Senador Marco Rubio: “Yo estoy 100 por ciento comprometido al tema migratorio, la reforma migratoria. Al contrario, voy a seguir trabajando para asegurarnos que eso no sea el resultado. El punto mío es que si no tenemos esos–si no podemos asegurar la frontera, si no podemos tomar las medidas necesarias para ganar la confianza de nuestros colegas, esto nunca se va a convertir en ley. Estamos gastando el tiempo. Pero yo no creo que va llegar a eso. Yo simplemente pienso que si nosotros podemos llegar a una medida razonable, no, tiene que ser algo razonable. Pero una medida razonable para asegurar la frontera y prevenir cualquier tipo de otra ola de migración ilegal en el futuro que vamos a tener más de suficientes votos para poder lograrlo”.

Maria Elena Salinas: “Vamos a tratar de entender cómo lograr esto. En este momento, la frontera está más segura que nunca. Hay más de 21,000 agentes fronterizos, 651 millas de muro, más de 300 torres de vigilancia. Y el proyecto que usted ayudó a redactar tiene aún más fondos para seguridad en la frontera. Entonces, ¿cuáles son esas medidas que considera que son clave para que la reforma se apruebe en el Senado? ¿Qué más quieren los republicanos”?

Rubio: “Bueno, el problema–, no solamente son republicanos. Hay cuatro, cinco demócratas que lo están pidiendo también en el Senado. Y el punto es el siguiente: Ellos lo que quieren es detallar exactamente de dónde es que se van a utilizar esos recursos porque, sí, hay sectores de la frontera que están mucho más seguros pero quedan algunos sectores que no lo son. Por ejemplo, la área de Tucson en Arizona. Entonces ellos lo que están pidiendo es que no se le dejen a la discreción de la administración o de las agencias, sino que en la ley específicamente diga dónde y cómo se van a utilizar esos recursos para que no haya malgasto y no se repitan los–los errores del pasado”.

IRS favored HAMAS linked CAIR while targeting Iraq War Veteran who exposed them

/in , , , , , , /by

In a strange twist of fate, it appears that in 2009 the IRS targeted Iraq War veteran David Gaubatz who was involved in exposing the HAMAS front group Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Based upon Gaubatz’s book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret World that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., and other congressional leaders asked the IRS to investigate CAIR. Gaubatz’s book called attention to CAIR’s missing IRS filings and foreign donations.

World Net Daily reports, “At the same time the Internal Revenue Service delayed or denied requests for tax-exempt status from hundreds of conservative non-profit groups, it was quietly restoring the tax-exempt status of an Islamist front group accused of collaborating with terrorists. Last year, the politicized agency reinstated the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations’ tax-exempt status despite years of delinquent tax filings. CAIR officials had met with officials inside the White House before the decision was made.”

In an email to WDW Gaubatz states, “Once my book (Muslim Mafia) came out in 2009, I got a letter from the IRS for an audit. They wanted a copy of my book, info about the Center for Security Policy, World Net Daily, etc… and then slammed me with a $146,000 tax bill. I had always completed my taxes on time and paid what I owed. I had two accountants go through my tax info, and in actuality the IRS owed me, but I am too small to fight the govt. Now they take it out of my disability pension (from war in Iraq).”

Gaubatz notes, “Anna Prillaman (IRS Tax Compliance Officer from Richmond, VA office) was reviewing my book Muslim Mafia, and wanted to know exactly which mosques I visited in 2007 and 2008…The IRS insisted I list the individual mosques.” Prillaman gave Gaubatz 15 days to respond to the tax bill.

World Net Daily notes, “Though Democrat-connected CAIR did not officially endorse Obama, many of its staffers helped turn out the Muslim vote for his re-election. CAIR boasted that its own polling showed more than 85 percent of Muslim-Americans voted for Obama. In 2011, the IRS stripped the group’s national office of its nonprofit status for failure to file annual tax reports as required by federal law.”

“During the years CAIR failed to disclose its donors to the government, it solicited funds from Libya, Sudan and other terror-sponsoring foreign governments, according to ‘Muslim Mafia‘. CAIR is not registered as a foreign agent. CAIR repeatedly failed to file its annual disclosure report, IRS Form 990. CAIR blames a clerical error for the delinquency and claims to have completed the forms. However, several news organizations, including Politico.com and Gannett Co., have asked CAIR for the 2007-2010 documents, and CAIR has not been able to produce them,” states World Net Daily.

CAIR’s is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing case, this failure to comply with federal disclosure laws is all the more troubling,” U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, the co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, wrote the IRS in a separate request for investigation in 2011.

World Net Daily found:

CAIR’s terrorist ties run deep. The Justice Department lists it among U.S. front groups for Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization. And several CAIR officials have been convicted or deported on terrorism-related charges.

The FBI says that until suspicious ties between the leadership of CAIR and that of Hamas are resolved, it will no longer work with CAIR as a partner in counter-terrorism efforts.

Despite these red flags, the IRS in June 2012 sent CAIR-Foundation Inc. a letter stating the controversial nonprofit had regained its tax-exempt status as a 501(c)3. At the same time, the IRS demanded tea party and other patriot groups turn over donor rolls, membership lists and contacts with political figures, among other things, before the agency would consider granting tax-exempt status to them.

CAIR Foundation, which is listed at the same 453 New Jersey Ave. address as CAIR’s national headquarters in Washington, told the Washington Post that “all the paperwork issues have been resolved” concerning the organization.

However, WND has obtained CAIR-Foundation Inc.’s latest filing, and even this tax document is incomplete. It is a partial return for the calendar year 2011, covering only the period from Aug. 9, 2011, to Dec. 31, 2011. The final page of the return, in fact, requests an extension from the IRS.

“Additional time is required to obtain information necessary in filing a complete and accurate return,” states CAIR’s accountant Joey Musmar.

The filing says the organization solicited $3,964,990 in gifts, grants and other contributions that “were not tax deductible.” An annual fundraiser raised a net $106,879.

At the beginning of 2011, CAIR’s liabilities exceeded its assets by $940,279.

It also owed “CAIR Inc.” $722,261 for “charity consulting.” This amount is listed as a “loan.” CAIR Inc. is listed as a “C Corp.”

CAIR insists its tax returns for 2007-2010 exist. Yet it still won’t produce them, despite repeated requests. According to the IRS, nonprofits must make their tax returns available to the public upon request.

CAIR lists Todd Gallinger, director of chapter development, as its contact for such matters, at (202) 488-8787 and tgallinger@cair.com.

It’s not clear what, if anything, the IRS investigated concerning CAIR’s filings. The agency did not respond to requests for comment.

Florida’s counties have a mixed record on transparency

/in , , /by

How transparent is your county? Did you know that only 47 of 67 of Florida’s counties post their budget online? Less than half post current audit information on their website. Only three counties disclose if they belong to a government sector lobbying association.

Sunshine Review is dedicated to “bringing state and local government to light”. A government that is transparent is key to understanding how it functions and spends taxpayer money in the public good. Florida’s 67 counties have a mixed record.

Florida has 67 counties. In 1968, Florida voters adopted a constitutional amendment that grants local voters the power to adopt charters to govern their counties. Charters are formal written documents that confer powers, duties, or privileges on the county. They resemble state or federal constitutions and they must be approved by the county’s voters.

As of January 2009, 20 counties in Florida have adopted charter status. Taken together, these counties include more than 75 percent of Florida’s residents.

According to Sunshine Review:

  • 47 of the 67 counties posted their budgets online.
  • 60 counties include information on their websites about public government meetings.
  • 57 include information about the county’s elected officials.
  • 46 include information about the county’s administrative officials.
  • 52 counties give information about permits and zoning in the county.
  • 31 of the counties put information on their websites about audits that the county government has had performed.
  • 22 of the 67 counties give information about their contracts with county vendors.
  • 3 Counties (Duval, Palm Beach, Pinellas) disclose whether or not they belong to a government sector lobbying associations.
  • 8 counties (Calhoun, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Highlands, Orange, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam) provide information on how to request public records using the Florida Sunshine Law.
  • 54 county websites provide some information about county taxes.

Additionally, Ballotpedia evaluated Ballot measure information on Florida county websites.

See also

External links

True The Vote files suit against the IRS

/in , , , , /by

True the Vote (TTV), the nation’s leading voters’ rights organization, filed suit in federal court in Washington today against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), asking the Court to grant its long-awaited tax exempt status and seeking damages for the unlawful actions by the IRS in the processing of its application for exempt status. ActRight Legal Foundation, a 501(c)3 fundamental rights and public interest law firm represents True the Vote in the lawsuit.

“We’ve been waiting for three years to receive a decision from the IRS about our tax exempt status,” True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said. “After answering hundreds of questions and producing thousands of documents, we’re done waiting. The IRS does not have the power to pocket veto our application. Federal law empowers groups like True the Vote to force a decision in court – which is precisely what we aim to do.”

“True the Vote is dedicated solely to promoting election integrity in our Republic,” Engelbrecht said.  “Our mission is to educate Americans on all of the rights they enjoy as voters. We do not pick winners and losers, but instead fortify the voting process so that it is fair and free. If this goal is deserving of such scrutiny, then we have serious questions that we, as a nation, must face,” she added.

Cleta Mitchell, counsel to True the Vote and of counsel to ActRight Legal Foundation, stated, “We are not going to allow the IRS to claim, as it has been doing in the past week, that the targeting of conservative groups is over and ‘everything has been fixed.’   It is not yet fixed and this litigation is a vital step both to resolve True the Vote’s status and to learn exactly what happened inside the IRS.”

True the Vote‘s lawsuit consists of three counts:

Count One:  Seeks recognition of True the Vote as a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization pursuant to  26 USC § 7428.

Count Two:  Seeks damages and injunctive relief from the IRS and IRS employees and agents, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violation of True the Vote’s constitutional rights by virtue of the actions of the government in unlawfully targeting and delaying recognition of True the Vote’s exempt status.

Count Three:   Seeks damages and injunctive relief against the IRS and IRS employees, pursuant to 26 USC § 7431, for their unlawful intrusions into True the Vote’s activities by requiring the filing of voluminous materials with the IRS, then unlawfully inspecting and potentially disseminating the information.

“This is just the first of several cases ActRight Legal Foundation plans to file against the IRS and those within the agency who have violated the constitutional rights of these citizens’ organizations,” said Dr. John Eastman, Chairman of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and of Counsel to ActRight Legal Foundation.
To read the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, click here.

True The Vote 

(TTV) a nonpartisan, nonprofit grassroots organization focused on preserving election integrity is operated by citizens for citizens, to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of our electoral process. TTV empowers organizations and individuals across the nation to actively protect the rights of legitimate voters, regardless of their political party affiliation. For more information, please visit www.truethevote.org.

Voto Honesto 

(TTV) es una organización sin fines de lucro, no partidaria, enfocada en preservar la integridad en las elecciones y operada por ciudadanos para ciudadanos, ara inspirar y equipar a voluntarios para envolverse en cada una de las etapas del proceso electoral. TTT capacita a organizaciones e individuos a través de la nación para activamente proteger los derechos de los votantes legítimos, sin importar a que partido político perteneces. Para más información, por favor visite  www.votohonesto.org.

Is Gov. Rick Scott abusing his executive powers?

/in , , , /by

Republicans have been quick to point out that President Obama’s recess appointments bypass the US Senate’s constitutional role of advice and consent. Courts have ruled against President Obama calling some appointments “unconstitutional“. But what happens when a Republican does the same thing?

Governor Rick Scott is coming under fire for recent “recess” appointments.

Scott recently made 42 appointments to boards and commissions throughout the state. Among them was Dr. John Armstrong, State Surgeon General and Secretary of the Florida Department of Health, who Scott reappointed for a term beginning May 16, 2013, and ending at the pleasure of the Governor. Health News Florida reports, “Dr. John Armstrong will continue to lead the Department of Health, thanks to a reappointment by Gov. Rick Scott. As the Associated Press reports, Florida Senators, particularly state Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, wanted Armstrong out.”

Governor Scott can reappoint one time. If the Senate does not confirm them at the next session, they must vacate their positions.

Two other appointments have also drawn the ire of the Florida Senate. Katie Sanders from the Tampa Bay Times wrote, “Senators approved a slew of Gov. Rick Scott appointees on Thursday [May 2, 2013] and are slated to do more today. However, a few notable names will not make the cut. Unconfirmed appointments include state Surgeon General Dr. John Armstrong, Florida A&M trustee (and former Pinellas County school board member) Glenn Gilzean, and the entire Florida Polytechnic University Board of Trustees.”

“Armstrong fell out of favor with senators when he failed to show up for a confirmation hearing, Latvala said. ‘There were some issues with some members of the Legislature and the way he interacted with them. It’s a little behavior management’,” Sanders reports.

Is there a double standard when it comes to recess appointments?

Rubio: President’s “culture of political intimidation” (video)

/in , , /by

Senator Marco Rubio went on the Senate floor and described President Obama’s “culture of political intimidation” not unlike “the tactics of a Third World nation”.

Excerpts from U.S. Senate Floor Speech
Senator Marco Rubio
May 15, 2013

Full Speech: http://youtu.be/D8f9Lq71Jes

RUBIO: THESE ARE THE TACTICS OF THE THIRD WORLD

“So in the span of four days, [there were] three major revelations about the use of government power to intimidate those who are doing things that the government doesn’t like. These are the tactics of the third world. These are the tactics of places that don’t have the freedoms and the independence that we have here in this country. And it is shocking to Americans that this would come to light in the way that it has. I would submit to you, however, that none of this is new. That what we see emerging here is a pattern, a culture, a culture of intimidation, of hardball politics that we saw both on the campaign trail and now through the apparatus of government.”

RUBIO: OBAMA’S CULTURE OF INTIMIDATION LEADS TO THIS SCANDALOUS BEHAVIOR

“This is not just limited to the I.R.S. This is a culture of intimidation, a willingness to play hardball politics against your political opponents. Let’s not forget the case in South Carolina of Boeing, who decided to relocate, as any business has a right to do, in the United States of America. A business should have the right to locate its operations in any state it wants. Well, when Boeing decided to relocate from Washington state to South Carolina, the NLRB came after them in a complaint, which they claimed was on the merits, but it was very straightforward. They were going after them because the union in Washington state was upset about the move. And in fact, the case was dropped partially because of political pressure.  But interestingly enough, the effort was only abandoned after – after – they negotiated a contract deal with the union. Now listen, I can be up here all day and I intend to keep coming back to the floor and citing examples of this. But the point is, [what] we have going on now is a culture of hardball politics and intimidation which is unacceptable and should be chilling to every member of this body, Republican and Democrat. This is unacceptable behavior. But this is what you get with an administration, when an administration is all about politics. This administration is a 365-days-a-year, year-round political campaign. Every issue is a political campaign leading up to the election and even now, every issue is a wedge. Few times in the history of this country has anyone used this office to drive more wedges among the American people than this president and this administration. And so yes, this is the culture that has been created. ‘ They’re bad and we’re good. Our enemies are bad people. The people who disagree with us on policy are bad people. You don’t support us on guns, you don’t care about children and families. You don’t support some measure against religious liberty, you’re waging a war on women.’ On issue after issue, a deliberate attempt to divide the American people against each other for the purposes of winning an election. That is the culture that’s been created, and that culture leads to this kind of behavior. Whether it was directed or not, we don’t know that. I’m not saying someone picked up the phone in the White House and said do these audits, leak this information. I am saying that when you create a culture where what’s rewarded is political advantage, when you create a culture in your administration where everything is politics 24 hours, seven days a week, when you create a culture where every issue that comes before the Congress is used to divide people against each other, to see who can get to 51% in the next election, when you create a culture like that, it leads to this kind of behavior throughout your administration.”

RUBIO: OBAMA LABOR SECRETARY NOMINEE’S RECORD RIDDLED WITH GOVERNMENT INTIMIDATION AT ITS WORST

“And in the days to come, we’re going to be hearing more about this. We have a nominee right now to the Labor Department who has an admirable personal story which I admire and applaud but who has a history of using the government and his position in government to intimidate people to do what he wants them to do. I would submit to you that Mr. Perez’ nomination is bad for the country at any time, but in this administration, in this political culture after what we have learned in the last few days, even more so. And I hate to single him out, but that is one of the pending ones that are before us.”

RUBIO: SOON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS SAME IRS ENFORCING OBAMACARE

“This same IRS that was willing to do this, this same IRS that was willing to target groups because of their political leanings, this same IRS that audited Mr. VanderSloot after he happened to appear on the Obama enemy list, this same IRS will now have unfettered power to come after every American and ensure that either you’re buying insurance or you’re paying them a tax. Every American business. The front lines of enforcing ObamaCare falls to the IRS. That is what happens when you expand the scope and power of government. It’s always sold as a noble concept. It’s always offered up by government as, ‘We’re going to give the government more power so they can do good things for us.’ But the history of mankind proves that every time a government gets too much power, it almost always ends up using it in destructive ways against the personal liberties of individuals.”

RUBIO: THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED TO GUARD AGAINST THIS GOVERNMENT ABUSE

“And that’s why the framers of our Constitution were so wise to impose real constitutional limits on the power of our government, because they knew from history that this was the case. That’s why our Constitution says that unless government at the federal level is specifically given a power, it doesn’t have it. That’s why it says that. That’s why you see people stand up here on the floor and fight to protect the Constitution. That’s why these groups were formed around the country. Everyday Americans from all walks of life, people, some of whom had never been involved in politics before, who joined a Tea Party movement or a 912 movement because they feared the direction our country was going, and so they stood up and said, ‘This is wrong. This is why.’ This is why this adherence to the Constitution. Because the Constitution was based on the simple truth that if government has too much power, it almost always ends up destructive. Our framers knew better than to rely on good people being in government to take care of us. They understood that government’s power in order for us to have freedom and prosperity necessarily had to be limited, not because we’re anti-government. Of course we need a government. Who provides for our national defense?  Who is supposed to secure our borders when we’re having this immigration debate? These are important things our government needs to do. But if you give it too much power, it leads to these abuses. This is why the Constitution was so wise to limit the power of the federal government to its enumerated powers and leave to the government closest to the people most of the powers. And I think we should reexamine all these decisions that have been made that have expanded the scope and power of our government.”

RUBIO: THIS HAS A CHILLING EFFECT ON FREE SPEECH

“I don’t know how many people are aware of this, but early next year, every single one of you is going to have to buy insurance, health insurance that the government says is good enough. Maybe not the insurance you’re getting today that you’re happy with. And if you don’t buy that insurance, you are going to owe the IRS some money. That’s a tax to me. The same IRS that has shown a propensity to target people based on their political leanings. This is who we’ve empowered through ObamaCare. So this is what’s going on here. It’s not just one scandal at the IRS, it’s about a culture of hardball politics. I think in the days to come, we’re going to learn a lot more about it and we’re not going to like what we learn. For example, you think about some of our most precious freedoms, the First Amendment right to free speech. Think about if you’re a reporter at the Associated Press. Think about if you are a source unrelated to national security to the Associated Press. Think about if you’re really a whistle-blower, someone who is blowing the whistle on government activity because you work in the government and you think what the government is doing is wrong. Think about that for a second. Now all of a sudden, what are you afraid of? ‘I’m not calling that reporter back because their phone might be tapped. My number may show up on their records.’ Because the Justice Department has just shown that they’re willing to do that. Think about the chilling effect that that sends up and down the government. If there is wrongdoing somewhere in the government right now, people are probably afraid to blow the whistle because they’re afraid that they are being surveilled by the Justice Department or that the person they’re talking to is being surveilled. That’s how outrageous this is. Think about people that are thinking about getting involved in the political process, contributing to a group or speaking out, donating to a campaign or a candidate as they are allowed to do under the Constitution. They don’t want to be the next VanderSloot. They don’t want to be the next guy being targeted. They don’t want to be the next person being smeared on a website. This is unacceptable. This is an outrage. And every single member of this body should be outraged by this behavior – this culture of intimidation, these hardball politics tactics. We cannot stand for this. And I hope we will be united in condemning this and ensuring we get to the bottom of this with significant investigations and hearings from the committees in the Senate that have jurisdiction on the matter.”

Fraud Alert: More red light tickets coming if you live in Florida

/in , , , , /by

WDW did a column on red light cameras that are popping up all over the state of Florida. We reported on a study conducted by Barbara Langland-Orban, PhD, John T. Large, PhD, Etienne E. Pracht, PhD from the University of South Florida (USF) on red light cameras in 2008. They updated their study in 2011. Langland-Orban, et. al. found that red light cameras (RLC) increase the number of accidents at intersections by 28%.

The 2008 study found:

“Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. The effective remedy to red-light running uses engineering solutions to improve intersection safety, which is particularly important to Florida’s elderly drivers, the researchers recommend.

Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.”

Tampa Bay News Channel 10 did a report on red light cameras. According to 10 News:

“A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida’s rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red light camera fines.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state’s policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).”

10 News reports, “While yellow light times were reduced by mere fractions of a second, research indicates a half-second reduction in the interval can double the number of RLC citations — and the revenue they create.”

The 10 News investigation stemmed from a December discovery of a dangerously short yellow light in Hernando County. After the story aired, the county promised to re-time all of its intersections, and the 10 News Investigators promised to dig into yellow light timing all across Tampa Bay.”

“Red light cameras generated more than $100 million in revenue last year in approximately 70 Florida communities, with 52.5 percent of the revenue going to the state. The rest is divided by cities, counties, and the camera companies. In 2013, the cameras are on pace to generate $120 million,” notes 10 News.

Cities and counties install red light cameras as a “hidden tax” on motorists. RLCs are a new revenue stream for government and those companies that produce RLCs according to the USF study:

Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs.

Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major “research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras.

 The Florida legislature, during the 2013 session, considered HB 4011 which would repeal the use of red light cameras in the state. However, HB 4011 died in the House Appropriations Committee.

Rubio: IRS head must resign

/in , , , , , /by

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) today urged Treasury Secretary Jack Lew (pictured above) to demand the resignation of the current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner, in light of reports about the agency’s deliberate targeting of conservative organizations.

“[I]t is clear the IRS cannot operate with even a shred of the American people’s confidence under the current leadership,” said Rubio in a letter to Lew. “I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effectively immediately. No government agency that has behaved in such a manner can possibly instill any faith and respect from the American public.”

Rubio also called on Lew to ensure the Treasury Department’s full cooperation with all investigations regarding this scandal now known as “IRSgate”.

“The American people deserve answers about how such seemingly unconstitutional and potentially criminal behavior could occur, and who else was aware of it throughout the Administration,” Rubio wrote. “If investigations reveal that bureaucrats or political appointees engaged in unconstitutional or criminal targeting of conservative taxpayers, they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Below is the full text of the letter:

May 13, 2013
The Honorable Jack Lew
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Lew:

Recent revelations about the Internal Revenue Service’s selective and deliberate targeting of conservative organizations are outrageous and seriously concerning. This years-long abuse of government power is an assault on the free speech rights of all Americans. This direct assault on our Constitution further justifies the American people’s distrust in government and its ability to properly implement our laws.

The American people deserve answers about how such seemingly unconstitutional and potentially criminal behavior could occur, and who else was aware of it throughout the Administration. It is imperative that you, your predecessor, and other past and present high-ranking officials at the Department of Treasury and IRS immediately testify before Congress.

The public expects your complete cooperation with both congressional investigations and potential criminal inquiries. If investigations reveal that bureaucrats or political appointees engaged in unconstitutional or criminal targeting of conservative taxpayers, they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. At a bare minimum, those involved with this deeply offensive use of government power have committed a violation of the public trust that has already had a profoundly chilling effect on free speech. Such behavior cannot be excused with a simple apology.

Furthermore, it is clear the IRS cannot operate with even a shred of the American people’s confidence under the current leadership. Therefore, I strongly urge that you and President Obama demand the IRS Commissioner’s resignation, effectively immediately. No government agency that has behaved in such a manner can possibly instill any faith and respect from the American public.

Sincerely,

Marco Rubio

New Government Report Undercuts Anti-Gun Agenda

/in , , , , /by

A report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS-a component of the Justice Department) shows that firearm homicides in general, and violence at schools, have decreased substantially during the last two decades; the percentage of homicides committed with firearms has decreased; and only a tiny percentage of state prison inmates imprisoned for gun offenses obtain their guns from gun shows.

As the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin characterizes it, the report is “wonderful news for the country and rotten data for anti-gun advocates.” 

To make matters worse for anti-gun advocates, the story has been picked up by the national news media. In an article for U.S. News and NBCNews.com, veteran reporter Pete Williams points out that the BJS report shows that 40 percent of criminals get their guns from friends and family members, and another 37 percent get theirs from theft or other illegal sources. Lest gun control advocates accuse the BJS or Williams of having a pro-gun political agenda, Williams notes that “The report is strictly factual.”

In his article for the Washington Post, Jerry Markon says that while “gun shows were central” to the recent debate in the U.S. Senate over expanding background checks to cover private firearm transactions, “Less than 1 percent of state prison inmates who possessed a gun when they committed their offense obtained the firearm at a gun show,” according to the report. The figure reported by the BJS is 0.8 percent.

NRA members probably are not surprised at the gist of the BJS report.

In the NRA’s magazines and NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Alerts, we’ve been reporting the decline in violent crime, the relative safety of schools, and the relative rarity of criminal acquisition of firearms at gun shows, for nearly 20 years. But for the general public, the contents of the BJS report may come as a revelation, especially given the way that many in the media have reported on the gun control issue over the last few months.

As another U.S. News article and a Fox News article that covered the BJS report point out, a recent Pew Research Center poll found that while “The gun homicide rate in 2010 was the lowest it had been since [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] began publishing data in 1981,” 56 percent of respondents believe that gun crime is higher than it was two decades ago, against 12 percent who believe it is lower.

To be clear, 2010 is the most recent year for which the CDC has released homicide data. For the record, FBI data show that the murder rate dropped again in 2011, and again in the first half of 2012.

Rubio: IRS targeting of Conservative groups is reprehensible, must be investigated

/in , , , /by

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement regarding today’s admission by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it has deliberately targeted conservative groups:

“The IRS’s political targeting of select groups based on their political leanings is reprehensible, and it should trouble every American to know that a federal government agency could abuse its power so outrageously.  We need immediate congressional hearings to investigate these actions and determine who needs to be held accountable.  This is deplorable behavior by the IRS that threatens the very essence of our democracy and the First Amendment rights under our Constitution.”

One of 300 letters sent from the IRS was to the Waco Tea Party.

The IRS letter states, “We need more information before we can complete our consideration of your application for. exemption.  Please provide the information requested on the enclosed Information Request by the response due date shown above. Your response must be signed by an authorized person or an officer whose name is listed on your application.  Also, the information you submit should be accompanied by the following declaration: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this information, including accompanying documents, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, tile information contains all the relevant facts relating to the request for the information, and such facts are true, correct, and complete.” The Information Request demands in part the following:

1. Please provide copies of your current web pages, including your blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you.

2. Provide copies of the pages of your social networking sites.

10. List the community events, including rallies, you organized or took part in in the past, or plan to organize or participate in during the current election cycle. What are the dates on which they took place or will take place?

a. Describe the purpose of the event, and the issues that it addressed.

b. Provide copies of any materials disseminated to participants in the event.

c. If you permitted a candidate qua candidate to address the participants in any event, explain in detail.

20. Apart from your responses to the preceding,estimate the percentage of your time and what percentage of your resources you will devote to activities in the 2012 election cycle,in which you will explicitly or implicitly support or oppose a candidate, candidates or slates of candidates,for public office.

The IRS letter concludes with:

If we don’t hear from you by the response due date shown above,we will assume you no longer want us to consider your application for exemption and will close your case. As a result,the Internal Revenue Service will treat you as a taxable entity. If we receive the information after the response due date, we may ask you to send us a new application.

From the letter it appears that the IRS was seeking information beyond its role and responsibility.

The cost of amnesty

/in , , , , , , , /by

A new study by the Heritage Foundation on the cost of amnesty will reveal the following:

The immigration debate is about to get a lot more concrete.

Lawmakers need to be honest about the cost of their proposed immigration plans—and a new study due out today from The Heritage Foundation calculates the cost to taxpayers of granting amnesty to unlawful immigrants.

Yesterday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Heritage President Jim DeMint said:

The study you’ll see from Heritage this week presents the staggering costs of another amnesty in our country and the detrimental effects, long-term, that that will have. There’s no reason we can’t begin to fix our immigration system so that we won’t make this problem worse. But the bill that’s being presented is unfair to those who came here legally; it’ll cost Americans trillions of dollars; it’ll make our unlawful immigration system worse.

Watch Jim DeMint talk about the cost of amnesty on “This Week”

DeMint previewed the study, conducted by Heritage senior research fellow in domestic policy Robert Rector, who studied the cost of amnesty under a similar proposal in 2007. DeMint said:

The way that we calculated the cost, and I read the study over the weekend, I don’t think anyone can argue with it. If you consider all the factors related to the amnesty—and believe me, this is comprehensive, that it will have a negative long-term impact on our gross domestic product. We just want Congress for once to count the cost of a bill. They are notorious for underestimating the cost and not understanding the consequences.

Heritage’s Jason Richwine, the senior policy analyst in empirical studies, says the new report will be a “resounding rebuttal to the claim from amnesty supporters that a long waiting period between the initial amnesty and citizenship will eliminate any major costs to taxpayers.”

This window of ineligibility for many government services has led supporters to argue that an amnesty will not be costly. There are two problems with this argument. First, households headed by illegal immigrants today consume some government services and pay far less in taxes….The second problem with the view that amnesty would not be costly because of the waiting period is rather obvious: After the waiting period is over, lifetime costs will be substantial.

To make sure that costs are counted accurately, Richwine says, “The estimates for the final period in our research will be calculated beginning 14 years after the initial amnesty, which is the point at which recipients could become naturalized citizens.”

Heritage’s cost analysis is unique. DeMint dismissed the idea that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could be trusted with calculating the bill’s costs, because it is bound by the way that Congress asks it to add the numbers. He said:

CBO said Obamacare wouldn’t cost us anything—they’re basically puppets of the Congress and the assumptions that they put in the bill. Heritage is the only organization that has done an analysis of the cost. Unlawful immigrants make up about 2 percent of our GDP, and they consume most of that. If you consider all the factors of amnesty and unlawful immigration, the cost will be in the trillions of dollars over the lifetime of these unlawful immigrants.

DeMint said that Members of Congress must read the Gang of Eight immigration proposal to make sure they know what is on the table.

“I think if people read the bill, that it will be blocked,” he said. “Because once you get into it, just like Obamacare, it is not the way it’s being advertised.”

To read the full study click here.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.