The Florida Constitution gives county governments the option to pass a gun show ordinance. Article VIII, Section 5 (b) allows counties to require background checks for private gun sales on “property to which the public has the right of access.” The language targets the large gun shows often held at fairgrounds and convention centers. Holders of concealed carry permits were exempted from the background checks.
According to Lee Williams from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, “For Guy Lemakos, owner of 2 Guys Gun Show Promotions, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri’s plan to enforce the seldom-used county ordinance requiring background checks for private sales was ‘much ado about very little’. No arrests were made either Saturday or Sunday at the 125-table Largo gun show, Lemakos said.”
The NRA and Florida gun owners were concerned that Sheriff Gualtieri was planning to infringe of the US Constitutional rights of gun owners.
The NRA in an email to Florida members stated:
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri has vowed to “start” enforcing a little known county ordinance that requires background checks at local gun shows for all sales — including all private sales between individuals.
We wish we could tell you how it’s going to work but we can’t. We don’t know.
How he plans to enforce the ordinance has not been made public, although Sheriff Gualtieri did admit that his monitoring and enforcement of the ordinance will also involve undercover operations.
As we told the press, the timing of Sheriff Gualtieri’s decision to begin enforcing the little known ordinance is curious.
Our big concern is entrapment. If Sheriff Gualtieri’s “plan” doesn’t include notifying attendees at gun shows of the change, there are no assurances innocent people will know he has a new enforcement agenda. When people don’t even know an ordinance exists, there is little chance they will know it’s going to be enforced.
Williams reports, “Maybe now Sheriff Gualtieri and the County Commission understand that their big attack on gun shows is viewed as political posturing,” said Florida NRA chief Marion Hammer. “Rather than being spun by a reporter, maybe Sheriff Gualtieri should have asked the Commission to suspend the ordinance until someone can prove it’s needed. Political eye-wash is expensive for taxpayers.”
It appears the plan was much ado about nothing. However, Florida gun owners are keeping a watchful eye on Gualtieri.
00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-30 07:11:002013-05-30 07:11:00Pinellas County Gun Show/Sheriff Gualtieri’s “Operation” falls flat
The growing national scandal surrounding the IRS targeting individuals and organizations with a certain political stand is endemic of big government. This large bureaucracy is fulfilling its role as the keeper of the big government keys. But how did America get to this point of a huge and intrusive government?
Social Security is perhaps the best example of how Americans become addicted to big government, especially tax giveaways and the enshrined systems that sustain them. America’s addiction to government control over its citizens has increased to the point that today many are dependent on federal handouts to maintain their health, happiness and well being.
Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.”
Today, “Big government is the opiate of the people.”
Let’s review a brief historical perspective on how America got here and then open up the much needed national discussion on the need for big government.
We the people began to embrace big government 104 years ago with the founding of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) in New York City on September 12, 1905 in Peck’s Restaurant. An organizational meeting was held and Jack London was elected President with Upton Sinclair as First Vice President. The ISS was established to, “throw light [in America] on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.” Their motto was “production for use, not for profit.”
Production for use, not for profit is the prime goal of big government.
So how could socialists begin selling big government and its redistribution of wealth ideology? First they had to gain unfettered control of production. On February 3, 1913 Congress passed and the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to our Constitution. Congress grabbed control of production via the federal income tax. America taxed its productivity by tapping every American’s wages. With the millions, then billions, and now trillions of dollars that Congress collected, they could entice or even force the strongest American to take the big government drug.
Then on April 8, 1913 Congress passed and the states ratified the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution which transferred U.S. Senator Selection from each state’s legislature to popular election by the people of each state. These two events made it much easier to collect and distribute big government as now Senators were no longer loyal to their state legislatures or primarily concerned with state sovereignty. Now U.S. Senators, along with U.S. Representatives, saw the value of spreading the big government drug amongst the people in return for votes.
During the Great Depression Congress created the first “opiate for the masses” and named it Social Security. It was to be a social insurance program run by government, in other words guaranteed government largesse for life. The Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt. He and Congress said this new drug would keep those unemployed, retirees and the poor financially secure. He called it the New Deal. All we needed to do was just pay in and all would be well.
In 1937 the United States Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Butler validated the Social Security Act and stated that, “Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money [collected from the income tax] for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country. The Court held that Congress has no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments.” All taxes went into the general fund.
Testifying before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives in 1952, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration said—“The present trust fund is not quite large enough to pay off the benefits of existing beneficiaries”—those already on the receiving end, in other words. In 1955 chief actuary believed that it would take $35 billion just to pay the people “now receiving benefits”.
In 1935 under the Social Security program the Congress included the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Act (AFDC). During the late 1950s many states realized that this act, while created to help widows with children, was being used to subsidize women having children with men they were not married to. Louisiana alone took 23,000 women off the AFDC act rolls based upon their immoral behavior.
Arthur S. Flemming, Department of Health and Human Services under President Dwight David Eisenhower
In 1960 Arthur S. Flemming, then head of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Dwight David Eisenhower and a key architect of Social Security, issued an administrative ruling that states could not deny eligibility for income assistance through the AFDC act on the grounds that a home was “unsuitable” because the woman’s children were illegitimate. In 1968, the United States Supreme Court’s “Man-in-the-House” rule struck down the practice of states declaring a home unsuitable (i.e., an immoral environment) if there was a man in the house not married to the mother. Thus, out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation were legitimized. In very short order, the number of women on welfare tripled and child poverty climbed dramatically. The assault on the family was on and Congress and the Supreme Court were co-pushers of this new government largesse drug called AFDC.
In effect big federal government became the pimp, the homes of single mothers became the brothels and the fathers became the Johns. The children begotten by these women became the next generation of big government addicts. Just as a baby born to a mother doing crack is addicted to cocaine, so too are these children born with a lifetime addiction to the onerous and destructive drug – big government.
Then Congress added a new ingredient to the powerful Social Security drug called Medicare on July 30, 1965.
Congress created Medicare as a single-payer health care system. Medicare was for those over 65 years old and was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. President Johnson called it part of his Great Society program. Congress immediately got more addicts to begin taking this drug. At the same time Congress added a second even more powerful ingredient to this drug called Medicaid. This new ingredient brought into being an entirely new distribution system – all of the states of the union. Even though this new program violates state sovereignty it was passed anyway, in no small part because Senators were no longer accountable to the State Legislatures but rather committed to pushing government largesse.
The states were now helping pay for and distribute this powerful and expensive big government designer drug. The drug was offered to low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Congress now had more people on the Social Security drug than ever before. Congress had turned a corner – addiction to government largesse was now imbedded in our society. But Congress was not finished for it kept looking for more clients until we now know that the estimated unfunded liabilities for these four drugs are:
• Social Security – $10.7 trillion
• Medicare Parts A and B – $68 trillion
• Medicare Part D – $17.2 trillion (created in just 3 years)
America’s addiction to big government will cost our children and grandchildren an estimated $95.9 trillion dollars. The gross domestic product of the entire world in 2007 was $61 trillion. Big government is the true opiate of the people. The following is a quote from a May 26, 1955 Herald-Tribune News Service article:
“Seven Amish bishops appealed to Congress today to exempt members of their church from receiving any benefits of the Social Security program. They are willing to continue paying Social Security taxes, however . . . . The bishops made it clear that no elder of the church would think, today, of applying for Social Security or any other government benefits. They want the law changed, they said, to ‘remove temptation’ from their children and grandchildren.”
The IRS scandal may be the straw that breaks the back of big government. It may even bring down the Sixteenth Amendment?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/big-government.jpg320600Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-26 18:19:432013-12-10 19:12:50How did we become addicted to big government?
The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) released the 2013 FCAT 2.0 test results on Thursday, May 23rd.
According Anastasia Dawson from the to the Tampa Tribune, “Statewide, only 17 percent of 23,182 students passed the retake of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test’s reading portion, while 21 percent of 8,143 students passed the math portion of the test. In Pinellas, 19 percent of the 781 that took the reading test passed, up from 18 percent last year, and 21 percent of the 216 that took the math test passed, up from 19 percent last year.”
“Students who don’t pass the FCAT retakes will not be eligible to receive their high school diplomas and instead will be given certificates of completion,” notes Dawson.
The statewide FCAT results for 3rd Grade students show no improvement in student reading performance. Only 57% of 3rd Graders achieved a satisfactory level of reading achievement. In 2013 43% of 3rd Graders are not reading at grade level. According to FDOE data 18% of 3rd Graders “demonstrated an inadequate level of success with the challenging content of the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards”. This is no change from reading scores in 2011 and 2012.
The FDOE reported FCAT writing scores, “In 2013, 2 percent of students in grades 4, 8 and 10 were performing at 1.0 on FCAT 2.0 Writing. This is an increase from 1 percent in 2012. In 2013, 82 percent of students in grades 4, 8 and 10 were performing at 3.0 and above on FCAT 2.0 Writing. There is no state required “passing” score for FCAT 2.0 Writing that is used for promotion. However, FCAT 2.0 Writing scores are used in the calculation of school grades.
Dawson reports, “Scores plummeted last year after the state introduced new requirements for the FCAT writing test that were stricter on grammar, spelling and logical arguments. In response, the state decreased the satisfactory score that schools are graded on from a 3.5 to a 3.0 to help cushion the impact. The highest possible score is a six.”
Governor Rick Scott just did a “pay raise victory tour” around the state touting his support for public school teachers. Perhaps he should have waited until the FCAT 2.0 scores were released?
Florida has transitioned from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test® (FCAT) to the FCAT 2.0 to align with new academic standards. The FCAT 2.0 measures student achievement of the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS), which specify the challenging content Florida students are expected to know.
During the next two years, Florida will transition to the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and mathematics. As part of this transition, Florida will replace the FCAT 2.0 and Florida End-of-Course Assessments currently being administered in writing, reading, and mathematics with new assessments that are aligned to the Common Core State Standards. FCAT 2.0 Reading and FCAT 2.0 Writing will be replaced by one assessment in English Language Arts.
Lower the standards for writing, increase public school teacher pay and get no change in student performance in reading and writing? Doing the same thing and expecting different results?
The Common Core is coming!
To learn more about FCAT 2.0 test results in Florida click here.
00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-24 11:07:132013-05-24 11:07:13Florida pours billions into public education with no change in student achievement
President Obama gave a one hour national security speech yesterday, May 23rd. He addressed the global threat against America. However, the President did not discuss the why of the threat. The President stated, “Now make no mistake: Our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth.” The President never mentioned the attack on Lee Rigby.
Here is the full unedited video of the attack on Lee Rigby:
But why are we still under a relentless attack?
Tom Trento, SW Florida radio talk show host on WNN AM 1490 answers the question: Why did Lee Rigby, the young soldier beheaded in London, have to die for Allah?
Trento notes, “Words fail to communicate the abject savagery of the attack by two Muslim jihadis on Lee Rigby, a 25 year old band member in the British Army. In part 1 of a two-part series the TrentoVision team digs deeply into the reason for the attack and why the West, in particular, the United States can and MUST make changes to stop Muslim immigration and seditious activity in Islamic mosques.”
PART I – Why Lee Rigby had to die for Allah:
PART II: Why Lee Rigby had to die for Allah:
Fellow soldiers described Lee Rigby as a larger-than-life personality who was liked and respected across the regiment. “Drummer Rigby, or ‘Riggers’ (he played the drum) as he was known within the platoon, was a cheeky and humorous man, always there with a joke to brighten the mood,” said Capt. Alan Williamson who was his platoon commander from 2010 to 2011.
Rigby’s family issued a brief and poignant tribute: “Lee was lovely,” the family said. “He would do anything for anybody, he always looked after his sisters and always protected them. He took a ‘big brother’ role with everyone.
“All he wanted to do from when he was a little boy, was be in the army,” the statement said. “He wanted to live life and enjoy himself. His family meant everything to him. He was a loving son, husband, father, brother and uncle, and a friend to many. We ask that our privacy be respected at this difficult time.”
Jerry Gordon, a WDW contributor notes, “The grisly Islamic slaughter perpetrated by British Nigerian converts to Islam on the streets of South East London of 26 year old British soldier Lee Rigby, an Afghan war vet who left a two year old child behind, has shocked all who have seen the video and read the news. However, the vapid unctuous comments by UK PM David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson about this heinous act not representing the real Islam or UK policy represent totally ignorance of the goals and totalitarian imperative of normative Islam. He is not alone among western politicians, save for Dutch MP Geert Wilders and a few others. Certainly, neither current President Obama, who received initial instruction in normative Islam while an impressionable child in Indonesia, and former President George W. Bush demur from this totally ignorant view of fundamentalist Islam. The mentor of the mujahideen murderer Michael Adebolajo, self-styled British Muslim Sheikh, Anjem Choudary, is totally truthful about Islam’s total lack of human rights for any non-Muslims under Sharia and doctrinal rejection of all Western civil and human rights.”
Anjem Choudary: “Let me be absolutely clear: As Muslims, we reject democracy, we reject secularism, and freedom, and human rights. We reject all of the things that you espouse as being ideals.” Other TV guest: “You reject human rights? I believe you.” Anjem Choudary: “There is nothing called a republic in Islam. When we talk about the shari’a, we are talking about only the shari’a. We are talking about rejecting the U.N., the IMF, and the World Bank.”
The Council on Foreign Relations reports, “President Barack Obama defended his administration’s efforts to fight terrorists overseas (ABCNews) as ‘proportional’ and ;just,’ but said he would seek to curtail drone use, limit presidential war powers, and work to close the Guantanamo prison as part of a gradual winding down of the fight against terrorism that began in 2001. Obama’s proposals were welcomed in the two countries most affected by drone strikes (AP), Pakistan and Yemen, although Pakistan says the strikes should stop completely.”
00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-24 08:02:422013-05-24 08:02:42Killing Lee Rigby for Allah
This column is courtesy of the Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry:
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill on Tuesday. It will go to the Senate floor after the Memorial Day recess. Heritage has pointed out the problems with this “comprehensive” approach — including the staggering costs of amnesty and a failure to secure the border.
Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.
00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-23 09:41:382013-05-23 09:41:38Immigration Reform in One Infographic
Gov. Rick Scott on Monday vetoed almost $368 million in state spending before signing the budget for next year, including $1 million for a violence prevention and mental health initiative sought by the Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw.
Florida Governor Rick Scott. Photo courtesy of BizPac Review.
Bradshaw’s program would have established a hotline for residents to call when they suspected an individual might be planning a violent act.
If a call were deemed cause for concern, that person might be visited by deputies trained to deal with mental health issues.
In interviews, he cited such incidents as the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Auroroa, Colo., as instances where a watchful eye and trained help might have prevented tragedy.
But the proposal drew fire from conservatives when a widespread quote from a Palm Beach Post story fueled fears of government taking action against people because of how they think, not how they’ve acted.
00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-21 07:18:142013-05-21 07:18:14Gov. Scott vetoes sheriff’s $1 million ‘snitch on your neighbor’ program
The national board of directors for the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) met on February 6, 2013 with intentions of voting on whether to allow homosexuals to have supervisory roles over boys. The board declined to make a decision at that time and decided to allow 1,400 scout officials around the country to make this important decision at the 2013 National Annual Meeting scheduled for May 22–24 in Grapevine, Texas.
The Boys Scouts of America will consider a compromise on May 22, 2013 that would drop the organization’s ban on admitting youth who are open or avowed homosexuals. National officials tentatively plans to keep the ban on homosexual scoutmasters. A Tampa BSA leader notes that delegates to the convention are required to vote in accordance with the position of their regional members. A recent poll of BSA members indicated that 61% are against this change in policy.
The Associated Baptist Press reports “The head of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission wrote Scout officials on May 15 to reiterate the denomination’s “strident opposition” to dropping the organization’s ban on admitting youth “who are open or avowed homosexuals.” Southern Baptist churches presently comprise a large number of the Scouting units chartered by the faith community. The Southern Baptist Convention holds that:
The proposed policy change is “a serious departure from the BSA’s moral foundation and traditional values.”
Including gays would be inconsistent with the Scout Oath “to keep myself … morally straight.”
By introducing homosexual identification into Scouting, the Boy Scouts would effectively require church-sponsored Scouting units to endorse that which they consider incompatible with Scripture.” Southern Baptists do not believe embracing same-sex orientation is biblically acceptable.
Allowing openly homosexual youth into Scouting would cause many Southern Baptist churches, as well as many churches from other denominations, to withdraw their sponsorship rather than compromise their convictions. Already, numerous churches have told us of their intent to do so.
According to the Florida Family Association, “Changing the policy to allow open homosexual scouts erroneously validates the lifestyle before millions of boys. Changing the policy in effect deletes the principle and oath commitment to ‘keep myself … morally straight’. It is inappropriate and irrational to change the Boy Scouts century old values and standards that millions of boys follow just to accommodate the very few who are demanding the change.”
00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-21 06:39:082013-05-21 06:39:08Southern Baptist Convention rejects the Boy Scout’s proposed compromise
Representative Tom Rooney (R – FL District 17) has now become the eleventh member of the Florida delegation to co-sponsor the Fair Tax Act (HR-25/S-13). Rep. Rooney represents South Central Florida including most of Hardee, Desoto, Highlands, Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties. He sits is on the House Appropriations committee. A full list of House sponsors may be viewed by clicking here. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is the sponsor of S-13 in the US Senate. Senate sponsors may be viewed here.
The IRS scandal has renewed interest in HR-25.
The Fair Tax Act is introduced, “To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.” The Fair Tax Act states:
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
2 (a) FINDINGS RELATING TO FEDERAL INCOME
3 TAX.—Congress finds the Federal income tax—
(1) retards economic growth and has reduced the standard of living of the American public;
(2) impedes the international competitiveness of 7 United States industry;
(3) reduces savings and investment in the United States by taxing income multiple times;
(4) slows the capital formation necessary for real wages to steadily increase;
(5) lowers productivity;
(6) imposes unacceptable and unnecessary administrative and compliance costs on individual and business taxpayers;
(7) is unfair and inequitable; (8) unnecessarily intrudes upon the privacy and civil rights of United States citizens;
(9) hides the true cost of government by embedding taxes in the costs of everything Americans buy;
(10) is not being complied with at satisfactory levels and therefore raises the tax burden on law abiding citizens; and
(11) impedes upward social mobility.
Members of both major political parties have stated that the IRS is a threat to freedom, fairness and economic opportunity. However, none have suggested the elimination of the 90,000 employee strong IRS. Many have voiced concerned that the IRS will expand its powers by being a key part of the implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, which is a national tax according to a recent US Supreme Court decision.
Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-District 13) addresses the Congressional investigation:
Rep. Buchanan sits on the House Ways and Means Committee. He has not signed on as a co-sponsor of HR-25.
Disclaimer: The author sits on the Board of Directors of Fair Tax – Florida.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/fair-tax-irs-closed-only-the-fairtax-does-this.png332540Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-18 06:54:082013-12-10 19:10:26Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-17) co-sponsors HR-25, the Fair Tax Act
Jon Feere, the Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, reviews an ad released by the “Gang of Eight” featuring Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). The ad is playing nationwide, including in Florida.
Feere states, “The minute-long advertisement calls the proposal ‘conservative immigration reform’ and attempts to make amnesty appealing to Republican voters. Partisan politics aside, the amnesty ad is misleading on a number of counts…”
The ad was produced by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who created FWD.us, an advocacy group aimed at promoting amnesty. One of the group’s offshoots is “Americans for a Conservative Direction“, which is cited at the end of the ad.
Americans for a Conservative Direction’s board members include: Haley Barbour: former Governor Haley Barbour served as the 62nd governor of Mississippi from 2004 to 2012 and served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the mid ’90s; Sally Bradshaw: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s Chief of Staff from 1999-2001, and served as a Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project; Joel Kaplan: currently Vice President of US Public Policy at Facebook, Joel also served as Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush; Dan Senor: former chief advisor to Representative Paul Ryan on the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign; Rob Jesmer: former Executive Director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2008 – 2012.
Below is the ad:
Here is Feere’s analysis of the ad phrase by phrase:
RUBIO: “Anyone who thinks what we have now in immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. What we have in place today is de facto amnesty.”
Very few Americans believe that we don’t have a serious problem with illegal immigration. It is true that this country is experiencing a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, and it is largely the result of the Obama administration refusing to enforce immigration laws on the books. The problem is that Rubio wants to turn this “de facto” amnesty into a formal amnesty, and grant millions of law-breakers work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, travel documents, and an unknown number of additional state-level benefits. Rubio is trying to help President Obama fulfill his campaign goal of keeping all illegal aliens in the country and giving them benefits reserved for legal residents. If Rubio was actually troubled by the de facto amnesty being advanced by the Obama administration, Rubio would side with the ICE officials who are suing the Obama administration over the president’s effort to prevent them from doing their jobs. Top-ranking ICE official Chris Crane explained the lawsuit to Fox News, here. Mr. Crane’s recent congressional testimony, available here, raises many troubling issues. ICE’s additional concern is that the amnesty bill would make permanent their inability to enforce the law by giving DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “virtually unlimited discretion” to waive all enforcement of immigration law. If an amnesty is passed, the Obama administration will likely continue to undermine any immigration enforcement provisions in the bill.
ANNOUNCER: “Conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.”
The so-called “Gang of Eight” senators who wrote the bill aren’t all “conservative leaders”, unless you consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to fit that description. True, the gang also includes Republican senators, but it is up for debate whether one considers Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to be conservative on immigration. Their immigration report card grades, from the pro-enforcement group NumbersUSA, are troubling: Graham has a “C”, McCain a “D”, and a Flake “C”. This is in contrast to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has an “A+” from NumbersUSA.
The voiceover in the ad also cites a newspaper article for the “toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States” language. This commercial carefully avoided some of the language in the article’s full sentence, particularly the part noting that this bill would allow previously deported illegal aliens to return to the country. The article’s full sentence reads:
The controversial proposal would grant most of the 11 million people here illegally a path to citizenship and give thousands of deported individuals a chance to return, but would also adopt some of the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.
No immigration bill in the history of the United States has ever permitted previously deported illegal aliens to return to the United States to receive citizenship, so it is difficult to see how this news organization concluded that the bill is the “toughest” our country has ever seen. Of course, the article is really claiming that the bill would “adopt some” tough enforcement measures, not that the bill itself is tough.
On closer inspection, many of these measures (noted below) are not as tough as they seem to be.
RUBIO: “They have to pass the background check, they have to be able to pay a registration fee, they have to pay a fine.”
Within six months of the bill’s passage, illegal immigrants would become immediately eligible for legal status, and many of the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to jump through to get such status do not amount to much. It is likely that any illegal immigrants who simply claim to be eligible will be able to avoid deportation, even if they’re already in detention. This is exactly what is already happening under President Obama’s deferred action program. ICE agents are being instructed to release any illegal aliens who claim to be eligible, even if they haven’t filled out an application form. The same situation will unfold under the large-scale amnesty bill. ICE will be virtually handcuffed and will not be able to carry out most enforcement.
To acquire the primary legal status offered under this bill, illegal immigrants would have to undergo a simple background check. But the bill would still grant legal status to illegal immigrants with a significant amount of criminality on their rap sheet. For example, crimes like ID theft and vandalism are not considered serious enough to deny a person status, despite the fact that such crimes create real victims. Specifically, two misdemeanors will not result in legal status being denied and under the bill multiple misdemeanors could be counted as “one” misdemeanor, provided they occur on the same day. Additionally, any problematic history an illegal immigrant has in his home country is unlikely to be uncovered; in a sense, our public safety would depend on the bookkeeping of police departments in the alien’s homeland, and there are many things that Americans consider criminal that are not criminal overseas.
Finally, the government’s capacity to conduct background checks on millions of illegal immigrants is questionable. ICE Union head Chris Crane explained in a video interview with the Daily Caller that there is “no such thing as a background check on a foreign national.” The 1986 amnesty also had background checks, but hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applicants were rubber-stamped. The amnesty granted legal status to someone who used his new status to freely travel to the Middle East to pick up terrorist training and helped lead the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Had we enforced our immigration laws, he would have been removed from the country and the attack might never have occurred.
The recent Boston Marathon bombing should also illustrate the government’s inability to carefully vet backgrounds. The FBI interviewed at least one of the terrorists, his family members, and his neighbors, in addition to analyzing his Internet usage. They apparently found nothing that would have raised a red flag. Despite the fact that DHS estimates there are many problematic foreign-born people living in the United States, the millions of illegal aliens applying for the amnesty will not have nearly as vigorous of a background check as the Boston bombers had, suggesting that some bad people will receive legal status through the bill. As written, the bill would allow known gang members to become U.S. citizens if they simply “renounce” their gang affiliation.
Rubio also claims that illegal aliens applying for the amnesty would have to pay a fee, but there are waivers and no specificity. The bill simply notes that illegal aliens aged 16 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount determined by [DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano]”. While it is unclear how much the fee would be, the bill says it should be enough to cover processing the applications. (See here for David North’s estimate of the size of the fee needed to process applicants properly.) But in the next section, the bill gives Napolitano the power to limit the fee and to exempt “classes of individuals” altogether. With such broad authority granted by Congress, it is unclear whether this fee would apply to most amnesty applicants.
It should also be noted that USCIS already offers waivers for those who cannot afford certain fees — in fact, the Obama administration created a form for such waivers in 2010 — and similar waivers may apply to any future amnesty. To obtain a fee waiver for some existing immigration benefits, an applicant simply must show that they are currently using a welfare program. Currently, 71 percent of illegal alien households with children make use of at least one form of welfare.
Rubio also claims that amnesty applicants would have to pay a fine. A fine is different from a fee and, by definition, a fine is meant to be a punishment for breaking a law. The bill puts the fine at $500 for the initial legal status — not much of a punishment considering the laws that have been broken. This initial status turns the illegal aliens into legal residents and grants them work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, and many other benefits. Applicants would have to pay another $500 over the next six years. If a person wants to upgrade from this provisional status to full green card status (and eventual U.S. citizenship), they would have to pay another $1,000 many years down the road. But there are many exceptions. For example, people of any age who claim to have entered before age 16 and have a high school degree or GED would not have to pay either of the $500 fines, nor would they have to pay the $1,000 fine for green card status. Also, all people under 21 years of age, regardless of when they entered and whether they have a high school degree, would be exempted from both of the $500 fines.
Furthermore, it is likely that some pro-amnesty groups will assist applicants in paying the fines — some of which will be using taxpayer-provided funds to do so. The bill would actually grant groups like La Raza $150 million of taxpayer dollars to help illegal aliens apply for the amnesty, and the bill grants them a lot of discretion to decide how to spend the money. In reality, the fine may not be much of a punishment at all — particularly if American taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.
Absent from Rubio’s list is the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. The reason he is no longer citing it is because that provision never made it into the bill. For months Rubio and other amnesty advocates sold the bill on the notion of requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes for the years they have worked off the books. But it was simply part of an attempt to mislead the public into thinking this bill is tougher than it really is. Only “assessed” taxes have to be paid, and if the IRS doesn’t audit illegal immigrants working off the books — which is won’t — then there will be no “assessed” taxes to pay.
ANNOUNCER: “Border security on steroids. Tough border triggers have no giveaways for law breakers.”
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Napolitano simply has to submit a plan for border security and a fencing plan within six months of the passage of this bill. As soon as she submits the plans, illegal aliens become eligible for work permits, Social Security accounts, driver’s licenses, travel documents, and countless state-level benefits. Past amnesties show that these benefits are mostly what illegal aliens are looking for; green card status and U.S. citizenship are not priorities for most illegal immigrants. No border security has to be in place for these benefits to be handed out. A proposed amendment to the bill that would have made border security come before these benefits are handed out was rejected by the Senate. Sen. Jeff Flake and Sen. Lindsey Graham, two of the alleged “conservative leaders” who helped authored this bill, voted against the amendment along with all of the Democrats.
The “triggers” — border security, an entirely new electronic verification system (to replace E-Verify), and an operational exit-tracking system — are required to be in effect before illegal immigrants can upgrade to a green card. But even this isn’t exactly true.
The bill does provide a significant amount of funding for border security, but it remains unclear how that money would be spent and whether the border would ever actually be secured. The bill requires an “effectiveness rate” of 90 percent and defines such a rate as “the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn-backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.” This equation requires some estimate of the number of missed illegal entries, but the metrics of border security have been up for debate for many years and it’s unclear how such an estimate would be reached. Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council asks, “How are they going to measure effectiveness?” He fears the bills language “will put pressure on Border Patrol management to fudge the number in order to fit political purposes.”
Rubio has said that if effective control of these sections of the border is not met within five years, “it goes to a border commission made up of people that live and have to deal with the border and they will take care of that problem.” But in the bill, the “Southern Border Security Commission” would be made up of six Washington-appointed members (two by the president and four by congressional leaders), plus one from each southern border state (appointed by the governor), and it could do nothing but issue recommendations. But it gets worse. The bill also says that if “litigation or a force majeure” prevents the border from being secured then Secretary Napolitano has the authority to go ahead and issue illegal aliens U.S. citizenship anyhow.
One member of the Gang of Eight has asserted that citizenship for illegal immigrants will not be conditioned on actually having a secure border. Sen. Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) explained, “We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. This [the trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country.”
In other words, there really aren’t any border security triggers at all.
RUBIO: “No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare, they have to prove that they’re gainfully employed.”
Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions. Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that. This bill would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.
We estimate that 71 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, but they, not the children, are collecting the benefits, which support the entire family. Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of welfare program. It is undeniable that if the amnesty bill becomes law, the legalized illegal immigrants will have greater access to the welfare state.
As for Obamacare, illegal immigrants who get green card status will have access to Obamacare, causing the aggregate annual deficit to soar to around $106 billion, finds the Heritage Foundation. Heritage also concludes that the amnesty applicants who receive green card status would also receive full eligibility for more than 80 means-tested welfare programs.
As to the “gainfully employed” requirement, Rubio is not being completely honest. The most important exemption comes toward the end of the bill, but it’s worth noting at the outset: All education and job requirements in the bill are waived if the immigrant is unable to work or go to school “due to circumstances outside the control of the alien”. The bill provides no explanation of what this might include, and one must ask whether high unemployment rates would count as something outside the control of the amnesty applicants.
Acquiring provisional status does not require evidence of employment. Renewing the status after six years does trigger an employment section of the bill. The section requires that the legalized immigrant fulfill one of two options. In the first option, the alien must prove that he “was regularly employed throughout the period of admission as a registered provisional immigrant, allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60 days” and “not likely to become a public charge”. But this means that the immigrant could be unemployed for a two-month period and still meet this requirement. Plus, the wording is such that it leaves some interpretation to the courts. What if the immigrant has two “brief periods” of unemployment “lasting not more than 60 days”? By some interpretations, the immigrant would still be able to meet this requirement. Can an immigrant have five such brief periods? Ten? If the bill were written to limit unemployment to 60 days, then it would read “allowing for brief periods of unemployment totaling not more than 60 days”. It is a simple wording change, but it leads to a significantly different outcome.
As an alternative, the alien can “demonstrate average income or resources that are not less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level” for the period he lived here as an alien legalized under the bill. If the alien is the only person in his household, this requirement means that he would have to be making at least $11,490 a year.
But standards are low here. Amnesty applicants can submit a number of different documents to prove they worked. This includes any paperwork from a day laborer hiring center or even sworn affidavits from an alien’s family member who is willing to claim that the alien was working.
On top of all this, the work requirements do not have to be met if an amnesty applicant is going to school. The bill defines the education requirement quite broadly.
Furthermore, the employment and educational requirements do not apply to anyone under age 21 at the time of applying for the amnesty’s provisional legal status, nor do they apply to people over age 60. Also exempted is anyone who is a “primary caretaker of a child or another person who requires supervision or is unable to care for himself or herself.”
ANNOUNCER: “Bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration.”
Considering all the exemptions and waivers already laid out above, it is difficult to conclude that this bill is bold with a “tough line” on immigration. The phrasing in this portion of the Rubio commercial is taken from quotes from pro-amnesty columnists in the media. The word “bold” was used by a Washington Post blogger who supports amnesty. The phrase “very conservative” is from the same writer; the full sentence is more illuminating:
In essence, if you accept that you have to start somewhere and we have no capability to uproot 11 million people, this is a very conservative-friendly plan.
So the writer called the bill “very conservative-friendly” and the ad shortened it to “very conservative.” One could certainly argue that these have different meanings. But the premise of the full quote is also worthy of debate. Does the United States have no capability to send 11 million people back home? Amnesty advocates constantly argue that the only alternative to mass amnesty is mass deportations. But in reality, both are unworkable. The only solution to the illegal immigration problem is the “attrition through enforcement” policy where we consistently enforce our immigration laws for a period of years and encourage illegal immigrants to go home in greater numbers than they already are. The Post blogger does not entertain this option and presents only a choice between amnesty and mass deportations, one embraced by Rubio.
The phrase “tough line on immigration” was taken from a pro-amnesty columnist from CNN. The same columnistcalled Arizona a “rogue state at war” for passing laws attempting to curb illegal immigration. That the pro-amnesty columnist opposed Jan Brewer’s efforts but embraces Rubio should raise flags about Rubio’s commitment to immigration enforcement.
RUBIO: “It puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world and it once and for all deals with the issue of those that are here illegally but does so in a way that’s fair and compassionate but does not encourage people to come illegally in the future and isn’t unfair to the people that have done it the right way.”
Rubio claims that this comprehensive amnesty will fix the illegal immigration problem “once and for all”. But the American people have been told this before. The 1986 comprehensive amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the public as a one-time plan that would not have to be repeated because the bill contained sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, and other enforcement provisions. But after IRCA legalized about three million illegal aliens, the enforcement provisions never materialized. Today, about 7.5 million illegal aliens are holding jobs and their employers are not being held accountable. Why would anyone believe that the enforcement provisions in yet another amnesty would ever be enforced? In fact, only a few years after IRCA passed, the National Council of La Raza issued a report calling for the end to workplace enforcement. Interestingly, the author of that report was Cecilia Munoz, who today is President Obama’s chief immigration advisor. Odds are high that she will be working to undermine the enforcement in Rubio’s bill the moment it becomes law. Just last week President Obama told a roomful of amnesty advocate groups that if the bill becomes law, he will “revisit” the enforcement provisions. In other words, Obama has pledged to administratively narrow the scope of enforcement as soon as 11 million illegal immigrants and their family members acquire legal status through the bill. This is why enforcement must come before any type of legal status. Rubio’s bill is backwards, and it’s clear he hasn’t learned from the mistakes of IRCA.
Rubio also claims that the bill “does not encourage people to come illegally” but he apparently hasn’t been listening to border officials in the field who have come to Washington to testify before Congress. Rubio didn’t see thisWashington Times article:
“We have seen an increase in attempted entries,” Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher told a Senate committee.
He said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.
This should not come as a surprise. Amnesties always encourage illegal immigration because they send the message that illegal entry is a feasible path to legal U.S. residence.
Rubio also claims that amnesty is not unfair to those who are attempting to come to the United States the legal way. The reality is that illegal aliens get to stay in the country the moment they apply for amnesty. If they pass the simple background check, they receive legal status and nearly all the benefits of citizenship, including a work permit, a Social Security account, travel documents, a driver’s license, and many additional state-level benefits. While green card status may be delayed for a period of years, it is undeniable that amnesty applicants are in a much better position compared to those overseas who have applied to come to the United States legally. The amnesty applicant is only in the “back of the line” in the sense that the green card — and eventual U.S. citizenship — would allegedly be delayed until after all existing green card applications are processed. But the fact is, the genuine back of the line is in the illegal alien’s home country.
ANNOUNCER: “Stand with Marco Rubio to end de facto amnesty, support Conservative Immigration Reform.”
Again, Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here. Rubio asks you to “stand” with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as “conservative” in any sense of the word.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/deception.jpg376600Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-16 06:37:502013-12-21 19:07:06Center for Immigration Studies calls Rubio’s amnesty ad “deceptive” (Video)
Rubio: “But the message is clear, and that is: ‘If we don’t like what you are saying or what you are doing, then we are going to use the apparatus of government to intimidate you and make you very uncomfortable.’ That is the story of the IRS, that is the story of the Justice Department via the AP issue, and that is the story with Benghazi.”
Excerpts from Interview with FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly
Senator Marco Rubio
May 14, 2013
Senator Marco Rubio: “I don’t know if the President did though. We don’t have evidence of that. I can tell you that what has become clearly apparent is a culture throughout the federal government, not just the IRS, but the Department of Justice, the State Department, etc. We have seen that now in three different incidents that basically use the government as an instrument of political activity to target your political opponents, to make life difficult for the people that are saying things that you don’t like, to make life difficult for whistle blowers that are saying things about the State Department that you don’t like, and I believe that all that comes from the top of any organization. So, I think that is where the questions are increasingly leading, and it is embarrassing for the country. These are things you typically see in the third world, from un-established republics and other places. You don’t see that here, and I think that is what is really troubling about the recent string of events.”
Rubio: “Right, so we have to be careful about that, but let me just say this. I don’t think that kind of environment can flourish unless there is created a space or an environment where it is encouraged. So, this is what we do know. We do know that donors to Mitt Romney and the Republican causes last year where targeted by Obama’s campaign apparatus, and the gentleman in Idaho that was targeted in his operation. We know others that complained about it. So, it is a general culture of the willingness to use the instruments of government to put what you consider to be your political opponents in a bad position, and you’ve seen that now on issue after issue. You have a whistle blower last week saying that in Benghazi that they felt threatened for their job. You have the AP now being targeted in a widespread effort to find out information about them, and you have this incident with the IRS.”
Rubio: “If this was just targeted at the leaks, that is a valid law enforcement endeavor. The problem is this is so widespread. If you look at what the request was and how widespread it was, what it basically feels like, and you’re seeing people in the press saying that. By the way, the curiosity in all this is how the press wanted to ignore Benghazi. They wanted to ignore all this other stuff. But when it touches them, now this thing is ‘the next Watergate.’ But back to the point about the AP, the request was so widespread; it wasn’t targeted. It was so widespread, it was like a fishing expedition.”
Rubio: “But the message is clear, and that is: ‘If we don’t like what you are saying or what you are doing, then we are going to use the apparatus of government to intimidate you and make you very uncomfortable.’ That is the story of the IRS, that is the story of the Justice Department via the AP issue, and that is the story with Benghazi.”
Rubio: “We did a hearing and Secretary Clinton came before us and answered questions and obviously as more information comes out, what she said at that hearing will have to be compared to what the facts are that are being uncovered, and I hope that they match up. And if they don’t, then obviously, there will be consequences for that. But look here is the bottom line: there are two separate issues to look at in Benghazi. One is were the talking points manipulated for political purposes? And number two, should we even have been there to begin with, in Benghazi, after a steady stream of intelligence reporting that told the State Department that it is a very dangerous environment to have been there? They should have closed it down, and if they were going to keep Benghazi open, they should have had an adequate security and an adequate plan to rescue those people, and they did not.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/target-e1387671009607.jpg399640Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-15 07:35:212013-12-21 19:10:21RUBIO: Federal government used to target political opponents
WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-FL, and the only member of the Florida delegation on the House Ways and Means Committee, today called on acting-IRS commissioner Steven Miller to immediately fire Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official who oversaw the intentional targeting of individuals because of their politics and criticism of the government.
“Heads need to roll today,” said Buchanan, Florida’s only member of the Ways & Means Committee which oversees the IRS. “Ms. Lois Lerner knew about this gross abuse of power as early as 2011 but continues to plead ignorance to this day. We don’t want apologies we want answers and accountability — and we can start by firing the person responsible for this gross abuse of power.”
On Friday, Lerner told reporters that she first learned of the IRS targeting of political groups from media reports. However, a draft report by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration confirms that Ms. Lerner was made aware that such political targeting had occurred on June 29, 2011. Ms. Lerner also tried to pin the blame on low-level workers. The Inspector General’s report confirms that senior IRS officials in Washington were made aware of the misconduct as early as August 2011.
“Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew their government was targeting individuals based on their political beliefs and criticism of the government,” said Buchanan. “The American people need to know they can be critical of their government without fear of retribution.”
Buchanan issued a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on Monday demanding a full accounting from top to bottom of those responsible for the IRS’s gross abuse of power and what action is being taken to restore the public trust. The Ways & Means Committee will hold its first hearing on Friday to further investigate the matter.
Congressman Buchanan sent the letter below to Treasury Secretary Lew:
May 13, 2013
The Honorable Jacob Lew Secretary of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Secretary Lew,
I share the outrage of millions of Americans at confirmed reports that the Internal Revenue Service has gone out of its way to intentionally target individuals and organizations whose politics are at odds with the Administration. The American people demand and deserve a full-accounting from top to bottom of those responsible for this gross abuse of power and what action is being taken to restore the public trust.
On March 22, 2012, as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee which oversees the IRS, we heard then-Commissioner Douglas Shulman clearly state that the IRS did not engage in the practices of which it is now accused saying “there is absolutely no targeting.” Yet, less than a year earlier, Commissioner Shulman’s own deputy, Lois Lerner, was made aware that such malpractice had indeed occurred. It became evident that groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names were extremely vulnerable to auditing harassment. Even nonprofit organizations that sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution were unfairly singled out for scrutiny.
The nation’s trust in government was betrayed by this unconscionable behavior.
On behalf of my constituents, your immediate response is not only warranted but essential to clearing up a matter that would have our founding fathers rolling in their graves.
Sincerely,
Vern Buchanan Member of Congress
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Buchanan-e1387671098127.jpg426640Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-14 15:16:472013-12-21 19:11:50Florida Rep. Buchanan: “Heads Need to Roll” at the IRS
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) today filed an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from abusing its powers to violate first amendment rights. Rubio will introduce identical legislation, the Taxpayer Nondiscrimination & Protection Act of 2013, in the Senate tomorrow. The legislation, introduced today in the House by Congressman Mike Turner (R-OH), provides for mandatory termination and criminal liability for Internal Revenue Service employees who willfully violate the constitutional rights of a taxpayer. The need for the legislation is demonstrated by current reports of the IRS deliberately targeting conservative organizations, and it expressly states that political speech and political expression are protected rights.
The legislation reads in part, “Whoever being an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, engages, during the performance of that employee’s official duties, in an act or omission described in section 1203(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 shall be fined under this 8 title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.’’
“A government organization like the IRS discriminating against political organizations is an outrageous abuse of power, and the American people have every right to demand answers and accountability,” said Rubio. “Those responsible individuals should face all appropriate punishment available under current law, and all organizations and individuals who engage in political speech and expression should be protected against this kind of discriminatory behavior in the future. I commend Congressman Turner for championing this legislation in the House and hope our colleagues will join us in providing protections to deter this kind of governmental abuse from happening again.”
Earlier, Rubio sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to demand the resignation of the current IRS Commissioner. “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.”
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
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/IRS.jpg426639Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-14 07:07:152013-12-24 17:23:15Rubio introduces legislation to limit powers of IRS
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
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/irs_logo.jpg480640Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-13 10:30:582014-01-25 21:47:41Rubio: IRS head must resign
The Internet sales tax passed the Senate, but a growing chorus is pointing out that it would hurt many to help the tax man.
The Senate passed the misleadingly named Marketplace Fairness Act last week by a vote of 69-27. But House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that he is unlikely to support it—and other House Members said they want to take a thorough look at it through the normal committee process.
“Moving this bill where you’ve got 50 different sales tax codes, it’s a mess out there,” Boehner said. “You’re going to make it much more difficult for online retailers to be able to comply.”
For a larger view click on the image
Not only would it charge a new sales tax to many consumers shopping online, but it fails to do what its proponents say—achieve “fairness” for stores.
The MFA is anything but fair, because instead of leveling the playing field, it would tilt it decidedly against online retailers, particularly small ones. Brick-and-mortar stores would still have to collect sales taxes only where they are physically present. Online retailers would have to collect sales taxes from the nearly 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions around the country where their customers live. That is not an equal burden.
For someone running—or thinking about starting—a small online business, trying to deal with tax codes for all of the states that charge sales tax is a huge deterrent.
Yet the Senate rushed this bill through. Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist said the rush itself was one of the reasons the Internet sales tax made it this far.
“It’s only passing the Senate because they took it out of regular order,” he said. “Why did they want to rush it through without amendments? Why did they do that? Because if people looked at it too long, it wouldn’t pass easily.”
The House is going to consider the bill through the normal committee channels, giving Members more time to review it and ask questions.
This also allows time for more facts to enter the debate and misconceptions to be exposed. Share this with your friends and family to spread the word.
Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.
00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-13 07:30:382013-05-13 07:30:38The Ugly Facts About the Internet Sales Tax
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. Newsarticle and a Fox Newsarticle 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.
00Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)2013-05-11 08:49:042013-05-11 08:49:04New Government Report Undercuts Anti-Gun Agenda