Chris Christie On Sandy Aid: House Republicans Were 'Disappointing And Disgusting To Watch'

(CNN) -- The promise of $60 billion can do a lot to calm outrage.

That point was underscored Wednesday, when House leaders met with irate representatives from New York and New Jersey who felt they had been ignored by House Speaker John Boehner, when he scrapped a planned vote late Tuesday on the massive package to aid package for victims of Superstorm Sandy.

"We're getting what New York and New Jersey need, and that's all that counts," Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told reporters after emerging from a 20-minute meeting with Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. "We're all big boys; we understand that all that counts is the bottom line."

A vote on $9 billion on immediate aid is set for Friday, with the balance of $51 billion due for consideration January 15.

In a statement, Boehner and Cantor said "critical aid" to storm victims should be the first priority of the new Congress, which convenes Thursday.

The comity contrasted sharply with the outrage that exploded earlier in the day over Congress' inaction on the package, pitting even fellow Republicans against Boehner.

It was "disappointing and disgusting to watch," said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, blaming "the toxic internal politics of the House majority."

"New Jersey deserves better than the duplicity we saw on display," he said, adding, "shame on Congress."

Christie, a Republican, said he had tried to reach Boehner on Tuesday night after the latter surprised many by canceling a vote on the aid bill, which was already approved by the Senate. "He did not take my calls," said Christie.

In a news conference, Christie said he joined people of his state in feeling "betrayed," and added that the move summarize "why the American people hate Congress."

In a statement, Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo wrote, "This failure to come to the aid of Americans following a severe and devastating natural disaster is unprecedented. The fact that days continue to go by while people suffer, families are out of their homes, and men and women remain jobless and struggling during these harsh winter months is a dereliction of duty. "

Boehner did not make public remarks, and did not post about the issue on social media.

But civility was restored late in the afternoon. "As far as I'm concerned, that was a lifetime ago," King said. "I know it was last night, but the bottom line is we're going forward getting what we believe is necessary."

Earlier, King had slammed his own party. "The Republican Party has said it's the party of 'family values.' Last night, it turned its back on the most essential value of all, and that's to provide food, shelter, clothing and relief for people who have been hit by a natural disaster," King told CNN.

King told CNN he chased Boehner "all over the House last night" and that Boehner had said everything would be taken care of after the vote on the fiscal cliff. But Boehner left.

King called the House leadership's move a "knife in the back."

"Anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee should have their head examined," King said. It's very rare for a lawmaker to call on anyone not to support his own party.

A senior GOP leadership aide said Boehner will make a Sandy aid package "his first priority in the new Congress," which begins its term Thursday.

When a new Congress begins, both chambers have to begin from scratch with legislation, so the Senate's passage of a previous bill will be moot.

Michael Steel, Boehner's spokesman, said the speaker is "committed to getting this bill passed this month."

The House adjourned shortly after 12:30 p.m. Wednesday, and plans to return at 11 a.m. Thursday -- an hour before the new Congress begins.

"It seems an even sadder commentary on the state of our Congress than we've observed to date," said Paul Lurrie, who lives in Belle Harbor, New York, and had no heat or electricity for three weeks after the storm struck.

He accused Boehner of "petulance" for not bringing the package to a vote as expected.

Before the House adjourned Wednesday, President Barack Obama urged a vote.

"It has only been two months since Hurricane Sandy devastated communities across New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut as well as other Eastern states. Our citizens are still trying to put their lives back together," Obama said in a statement.

"When tragedy strikes, Americans come together to support those in need. I urge Republicans in the House of Representatives to do the same, bring this important request to a vote today, and pass it without delay for our fellow Americans," Obama said.

Some of the harshest comments came from King.

In stricken region, 'the money was needed yesterday'

King, speaking to CNN, had warned of political repercussions for his party. "There are a number of Republicans who maybe can kiss their seat goodbye ... because of what was done to them," he said, referring to GOP lawmakers in the region stricken by Sandy. "If you can't provide the most basic assistance for your district, who needs you in Congress?"

Scott Mandel, vice president of New York's Long Beach City Council, told CNN, "The money was needed yesterday and the fact that there's an obstacle in the way for whatever reason and a vote wasn't allowed to go forward was inexcusable."

The money would improve the city's ability to withstand damage from winter storms, Mandel said.

Carlo Scissura, president of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, said hundreds of businesses that have been unable to reopen are waiting for federal grants.

"I would love to give the speaker and the majority leader... a tour of these devastated areas then have them tell me we shouldn't be getting the money," Scissura said.

Fiscal cliff battle held up the measure

The tumultuous process of getting the fiscal cliff deal passed in the House held up the relief measure, and many conservative House Republicans opposed the size of the Senate bill.

"Leadership was all-consumed with the cliff procedure," Rogers told reporters off the House floor late Tuesday. "And they really have not had the time to devote to this because of that."

Sandy killed at least 113 people in the United States and left millions of people without power after running up the East Coast in late October. The storm hit hardest in New York and New Jersey.

Gov. Cuomo has put storm-related costs at $41.9 billion, while Gov. Christie has estimated a price tag of $36.8 billion.

The bill includes grant funding for owners of homes and businesses, as well as funding for public improvement projects on the electric grid, hospitals and transit systems to prevent damage from future storms.

John Stone, a resident of New York's Staten Island, owned two homes before the storm. One was destroyed; the other was so severely flooded that it remains unlivable.

But he expressed no anger over the House's decision. "They'll just have to do it all over again, I suppose. What can you say?"

"It's a lot of money," he said, adding "there's a lot of other things they've got to do."

He tends to vote Republican, and doesn't plan to turn away from the party, he said, although, he added, "I don't give them much money anyway."

He's been living with relatives in New Jersey.

Poll Shows Majority Harbor Prejudice Against Blacks

 

Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.

Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some people's more favorable views of blacks.
Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.
In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
"As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.
Most Americans expressed anti-Hispanic sentiments, too. In an AP survey done in 2011, 52 percent of non-Hispanic whites expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes. That figure rose to 57 percent in the implicit test. The survey on Hispanics had no past data for comparison.
The AP surveys were conducted with researchers from Stanford University, the University of Michigan and NORC at the University of Chicago.
Experts on race said they were not surprised by the findings.
"We have this false idea that there is uniformity in progress and that things change in one big step. That is not the way history has worked," said Jelani Cobb, professor of history and director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut. "When we've seen progress, we've also seen backlash."

Obama has tread cautiously on the subject of race, but many African-Americans have talked openly about perceived antagonism toward them since Obama took office. As evidence, they point to events involving police brutality or cite bumper stickers, cartoons and protest posters that mock the president as a lion or a monkey, or lynch him in effigy.
"Part of it is growing polarization within American society," said Fredrick Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University. "The last Democrat in the White House said we had to have a national discussion about race. There's been total silence around issues of race with this president. But, as you see, whether there is silence, or an elevation of the discussion of race, you still have polarization. It will take more generations, I suspect, before we eliminate these deep feelings."
Overall, the survey found that by virtue of racial prejudice, Obama could lose 5 percentage points off his share of the popular vote in his Nov. 6 contest against Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But Obama also stands to benefit from a 3 percentage point gain due to pro-black sentiment, researchers said. Overall, that means an estimated net loss of 2 percentage points due to anti-black attitudes.
The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one group of partisans. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties. That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).
Obama faced a similar situation in 2008, the survey then found.
The AP developed the surveys to measure sensitive racial views in several ways and repeated those studies several times between 2008 and 2012.
The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people. In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly," "hardworking," "violent" and "lazy," described blacks, whites and Hispanics.
The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.
Results from those questions were analyzed with poll takers' ages, partisan beliefs, views on Obama and Romney and other factors, which allowed researchers to predict the likelihood that people would vote for either Obama or Romney. Those models were then used to estimate the net impact of each factor on the candidates' support.
All the surveys were conducted online. Other research has shown that poll takers are more likely to share unpopular attitudes when they are filling out a survey using a computer rather than speaking with an interviewer. Respondents were randomly selected from a nationally representative panel maintained by GfK Custom Research.
Overall results from each survey have a margin of sampling error of approximately plus or minus 4 percentage points. The most recent poll, measuring anti-black views, was conducted Aug. 30 to Sept. 11.
Andra Gillespie, an Emory University political scientist who studies race-neutrality among black politicians, contrasted the situation to that faced by the first black mayors elected in major U.S. cities, the closest parallel to Obama's first-black situation. Those mayors, she said, typically won about 20 percent of the white vote in their first races, but when seeking reelection they enjoyed greater white support presumably because "the whites who stayed in the cities ... became more comfortable with a black executive."
"President Obama's election clearly didn't change those who appear to be sort of hard-wired folks with racial resentment," she said.
Negative racial attitudes can manifest in policy, noted Alan Jenkins, an assistant solicitor general during the Clinton administration and now executive director of the Opportunity Agenda think tank.
"That has very real circumstances in the way people are treated by police, the way kids are treated by teachers, the way home seekers are treated by landlords and real estate agents," Jenkins said.
Hakeem Jeffries, a New York state assemblyman and candidate for a congressional seat being vacated by a fellow black Democrat, called it troubling that more progress on racial attitudes had not been made. Jeffries has fought a New York City police program of "stop and frisk" that has affected mostly blacks and Latinos but which supporters contend is not racially focused.
"I do remain cautiously optimistic that the future of America bends toward the side of increased racial tolerance," Jeffries said. "We've come a long way, but clearly these results demonstrate there's a long way to go."

Credit : Associated Press

David Siegel Email To Workers Threatens Layoffs If Obama Is Reelected

The super-rich guy who claims he’s the one who got George W. Bush elected is doing everything he can to make sure Mitt Romney wins in November too.
David Siegel, the founder and CEO of giant timeshare company Westgate resorts, sent an opus-like email to his workers, railing against one-percent bashing and arguing that the president’s reelection would “threaten your job.” In the email, obtained by Gawker, Siegel goes on to write:

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company.

Siegel has a history of injecting himself in to critical political events. In the “The Queen of Versailles,” the documentary chronicling Siegel’s quest to obnoxiously build the biggest house in America, the Florida real estate mogul claims he was “personally responsible” for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential victory. He also goes on to say that his tactics for helping Bush win “may not necessarily have been legal.”
Siegel isn’t the first CEO to push his political preferences on his employees. Bob Murray, CEO of coal company Murray Energy, allegedly pressured his workers to donate money to the Romney campaign. Murray energy workers have also accused the company of forcing them to participate in a pro-Romney rally, give up a day’s worth of pay and face the possibility of getting fired if they didn’t.
And Richard Lacks, CEO of car parts manufacturer Lacks Enterprises, urged his employees to vote for Romney on the basis of the claim that four more years of Obama would mean a boost in taxes and a decrease in pay. Talk about rocking the vote.

UPDATE: After Gawker published its piece, they spoke to Siegel, who confirmed that he sent the email and that he based it off a chain email that went around before the 2008 elections. "It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls," he told Gawker.

Credit : Huffington Post

Cuban government authorizes citizens to buy, sell cars

Raul Castro is changing the way life works in Cuba, lentamente. According to Reuters, the island ruler sent several hundred reforms to the annual Commuist party congress, and one of them just approved now allows Cubans to buy and sell cars made after 1959. Previously, only cars that predated the island's Communist revolution could be commercially traded by anyone not specifically given permission by the government.

That gives the 11-million-strong populace access to other makes like the Lada, Nissan, Isuzu and Mercedes-Benz models that the well-connected have been able to drive in the intervening 52 years. However, even though the new law states that owners can act "without any prior authorization from any entity," it doesn't mean it's open season: there remain limits on things like importing and ownership of cars. Castro said the law will help ensure the survival of Cuban Communism.

Now they just need to address the fact that the average Cuban makes about $18 a month.

Politics : Why Trump would be a disaster

I
was going to append “as a candidate”, then “as President”, etc.  But I realized that “as a candidate” he’d never reach the presidency .  His mouth would never give him the opportunity.  And should he somehow (hey, Obama did it) reach the presidency, it would be an unmitigated disaster.  The fact that in some polls he is running a “strong second” among GOP supporters says more about the rest of the GOP presidential field than it does about the validity of a Trump candidacy.
Why would he be a disaster?  Because, for the most part, he’s an ignorant loudmouth who doesn’t think his way through anything. He blurts half formed ideas.  Here’s an example where he is talking about OPEC:

Trump: Look at what’s going on with your gasoline prices. They’re going to go to $5, $6, $7 and we don’t have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, "Fellas, it’s time.  It’s over.  You’re not going to do it anymore."  I don’t know if you saw yesterday, Saudi Arabia came out and said very strongly there’s plenty of oil.  "We’re going to cut back."  You know what cutting back means?  They’re going to drive up the price even further.
Stephanopoulos: So, what would you do to back up that threat?
Trump: Oh, it’s so easy George.  It’s so easy.  It’s all about the messenger.  They wouldn’t even be there if it wasn’t for us.  If it weren’t for us, they wouldn’t be there.  These 12 guys sit around a table and they say, "Let’s just screw the United States."  And frankly, the rest of the world.
…
Stephanopoulos: And so finish this sentence.  "If you don’t produce more oil…"
Trump: Look. I’m going to look ‘em in the eye and say, "Fellas, you’ve had your fun.  Your fun is over."

Wow.  That’ll have ‘em shivering in their boots.  Of course the fact that we import the vast majority of our oil and still haven’t taken the steps necessary to exploit our own resources is the real reason we’re in that shape and at the mercy of cartels like OPEC.  But he doesn’t address that.  Instead his idea is to be confrontational and threatening.
I think everyone who reads this blog realizes that there’s plenty of oil and natural gas out there to keep using it as fuel for the foreseeable future.  It’s about where it is, not how much there is anymore.   And as long as the majority of that oil remains in the control of the OPEC cartel, we can “look ‘em in the eye” till doomsday and it won’t accomplish a thing.   Not unless we’re willing to do the unthinkable and take over their oil fields.
Oh?  Well that would be perfectly fine with President Trump:

Trump: George, let me explain something to you.  We go into Iraq.  We have spent thus far, $1.5 trillion.  We could have rebuilt half of the United States.  $1.5 trillion.  And we’re going to then leave.  So, in the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils.  You go in.  You win the war and you take it.
…
Stephanopoulos: It would take hundreds of thousands of troops to secure the oil fields.
Trump: Excuse me.  No, it wouldn’t at all.
…
Stephanopoulos: So, we steal an oil field?
Trump: Excuse me.  You’re not stealing.  Excuse me.  You’re not stealing anything.  You’re taking– we’re reimbursing ourselves– at least, at a minimum, and I say more.  We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves.

We’re going to reimburse ourselves for doing something we chose to do?   Hey, would the same thing apply to Libya?  And how do we “reimburse” ourselves for Afghanistan – get in the opium trade?
This guy is entertaining as hell, and we all may appreciate and enjoy his willingness to say things out loud a lot of us think about certain issues and situations (like turning to the Ron Paul supporters at CPAC and saying, “you know your guy can’t win).    But he’s serious about this nonsense above and you have to understand that and understand what that means.  He’s as naïve about foreign affairs as is the present occupant in the White House.  The problem with Trump is he’s not only naïve, he’s confrontational by nature.   He’s the other side of the same coin as Obama when it comes to foreign affairs and we would find ourselves neck deep in conflict if the guy ever got within sniffing range of the Oval office.

No Accord in Budget Talks as Policy Fights Hamper Deal - Now What?

WASHINGTON — Another day of intense negotiations between the two parties failed to yield a budget deal on Thursday, leaving the federal government hours from a shutdown. 

After the third round of White House talks in 24 hours with Speaker John A. Boehner and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, President Obama said that they had made progress and that he hoped a compromise could be reached early Friday.

“I’m not yet prepared to express wild optimism, but I think we are further along today than yesterday,” Mr. Obama said during a late-night appearance in the White House briefing room.

The two sides appeared to be only a few billion dollars apart on the level of spending to be approved for the balance of this year, a relatively small gap in a $3.5 trillion budget. Negotiations appeared to be hung up mostly over Republican demands to tighten restrictions on financing for abortions and to limit environmental regulations, and by Mr. Boehner’s desire to squeeze every dollar in cuts out of the Democrats that he could.


Mr. Boehner and Mr. Reid issued their own joint statement after the meeting on Thursday night, saying that they and their advisers would “continue to work through the night to attempt to resolve our remaining differences.” Negotiators went to work in the Capitol, though top aides expressed pessimism about a quick conclusion.


After the meeting, Mr. Obama canceled a planned trip to Indiana on Friday to participate in the final push to get an agreement.

Throughout the day, members of both parties played a game of chicken, seeking to force the other to give in as the deadline of midnight Friday approached. Mr. Boehner in particular faced a tricky calculation about how much he could compromise without losing support not just from his large contingent of Tea Party-inspired fiscal conservatives, but also from social conservatives who were eager for a victory on abortion and other issues.

As Mr. Reid returned from the White House and briefly took the Senate floor, he said that the issues dividing the Senate and House were “extremely narrow,” but that it was far from certain they could be worked out in time.

“I am not really confident, but I am very, very hopeful,” he said.
Given the uncertainty and the short time remaining, federal agencies prepared to furlough employees and cut off most services. Workers, contractors and consumers scrambled to understand how a shutdown would affect them, and Democrats warned of harm to the economy. The two parties also maneuvered to assign blame to each other in the event that no deal could be reached, and neither side was certain that it could predict the political repercussions of a shutdown.

The policy disputes involved a handful of provisions. One would greatly limit financing for Planned Parenthood and other family-planning providers, in the United States and overseas, and prevent the District of Columbia from using its tax dollars to help poor women pay for abortions.


Also at issue were measures that would restrict the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, a favorite target of Republicans since they took over the House, by preventing the agency from enforcing significant portions of the Clean Air Act and regulating carbon emissions. 
The parties continued to spar over spending levels as well. According to Congressional officials, Mr. Boehner had proposed $39 billion in cuts to the current year’s budget on Wednesday after his bid for $40 billion was rejected. Democrats took the new offer under review.

Top budget staff, after working through the night, returned Thursday morning with a proposed $34.5 billion in cuts, with $3 billion of that to come from the Pentagon.

Democrats said Mr. Boehner insisted that any deal also include some of so-called policy riders, which they argued injected conservative ideology into what should be a numbers battle.

“This is no longer about the budget deficit,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “It’s about bumper stickers.”

Mr. Boehner rejected assertions by the top Democrats that the policy divide was all that was holding up a deal.

“There are a number of issues that are on the table, and any attempt to try to narrow this down to one or two just would not be accurate,” said Mr. Boehner.

He and others noted that attaching policy instructions to spending bills was a Congressional tradition embraced by both parties.

Despite Mr. Obama’s threat to veto the measure, the House passed a Republican plan that would keep federal agencies open another week, cut $12 billion in spending and provide the Pentagon with money through Sept. 30. Republicans hoped the legislation, which passed 247 to 181, would show that they had made a serious effort to avert a shutdown and leave Senate Democrats and the administration facing criticism for cutting off money to members of the military serving overseas.
“If you vote against this bill, you are voting against the troops who are engaged in three wars,” said Representative Harold Rogers, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the Appropriations Committee. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the No. 3 House Republican, said the veto threat was “shameful.”

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, dismissed the stopgap bill and said a bipartisan deal on funding the government for the rest of this fiscal year remained in reach.

“We have been negotiating in good faith, and we have closed the gap,” Mr. Carney said. “The people expect us to get the deal done.”

With the prospect that much of the government would cease to operate after midnight on Friday, preparations for a shutdown began in earnest.

Federal agencies and Congressional offices began telling workers who would be considered essential — and should come to work — and who should stay home. Lawmakers and top aides were briefed on the finer points of a shutdown, some shaking their heads in dismay as they left the meetings.
Tensions escalated in the Senate and House chambers. House members hooted at party leaders on the floor as they tried to make the case for where their opponents had gone wrong.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, objected to the one-week Republican financing bill and noted that Democrats had negotiated with former President George W. Bush rather than close the government when they split over spending on the Iraq war.
But Representative Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican and the majority leader, said Democrats were to blame for the crisis because they failed last year to pass a budget or the annual spending bills.
“We don’t accept the status quo,” said Mr. Cantor, who announced that the House — which had been scheduled to adjourn for the weekend on Thursday — would stay in session. “We don’t want to bankrupt this nation.”

In the Senate, Democrats indicated they did not intend to bring the House-passed budget extension to a vote, drawing outrage from Republicans.

“Funding our troops is not a distraction,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. “It’s a responsibility.”

Politics : Congressman Chris Lee Resigns Following Gawker Revelation

Three hours after his shirtless Craigslist antics appeared on this site, Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) announced his resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives. Moments ago his office sent the following press release to the media:

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, February 9, 2010

Statement from Congressman Chris Lee (NY-26):

"It has been a tremendous honor to serve the people of Western New York. I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents. I deeply and sincerely apologize to them all. I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness.

"The challenges we face in Western New York and across the country are too serious for me to allow this distraction to continue, and so I am announcing that I have resigned my seat in Congress effective immediately."

Video : Julian Assange Defends WikiLeaks, Manning and Free Press on '60 Minutes'

Last night, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sat down for a rare, extended interview with Steve Kroft of '60 Minutes.' In what CBS has called Assange's "most extensive television interview to date," the Australian national defended his organization's mission, discussed the roots of his own anti-authoritarian philosophy, and compared WikiLeaks' core principles to "those of the U.S. Revolution."

Assange, who is still fighting an extradition warrant to Sweden, has spent the last several weeks at a 600-acre English estate, where British authorities have placed him under house arrest. And, although he told Kroft that even this "gilded cage" has been cramping his nomadic style, Assange certainly seemed as sharp and preternaturally poised as he's ever been. He eloquently defended his free-speech activism, and confidently defended the legality of his actions.

Unlike fellow '60 Minutes' stalwart Lesley Stahl, who displayed a genuine, child-like fascination during her softball interview with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Kroft seemed determined to get a rise out of Assange. His interrogation was pointed. ("For somebody who abhors secrets, you run a pretty secret organization," Kroft accused.) His counterarguments were terse. ("There's a special set of rules in the United States for disclosing classified information.") And his disposition was largely frigid. During several cutaway shots, he looked as if he'd just bitten into a lemon.

Through it all, though, Assange remained calm and collected. He firmly reiterated his belief in WikiLeaks' pursuit of global transparency, and defined his brand of activism with laconic confidence. "We are free press activists," he said. "It's not about saving the whales. It's about giving people the information they need to support whaling or not support whaling." Only when Kroft pointed out that some Americans think of Army Private Bradley Manning as a "traitor" did Assange's eyes light up. "That's clearly not true," he quickly responded.

Assange also roundly denied accusations that his organization has an explicitly anti-American agenda. "We don't 'go after' a particular country," he explained. "We just stick to our promise of publishing material that is likely to have a significant impact." Doing his best Glenn Beck impersonation, Assange even likened his core libertarian principles to those of America's founding fathers. "Our founding values are those of the U.S. revolution," he argued. "They are those of the people like Jefferson and Madison. And we have a number of Americans in our organization. If you're a whistleblower and you have material that is important, we will accept it, we will defend you and we will publish it. You can't turn away material simply because it comes from the United States."

Photo : Here's What The Reagan X Obama Time Magazine Looks Like From The Back

Angle Two – What You Didn’t See Until Now

Politics : Diplomats Take to Twitter To Promote U.S. Around the Globe

The U.S. State Department seems to be embracing social media in a big way. While the American diplomatic agency isn't new to services like Twitter and Facebook, it has markedly stepped up its presence in recent weeks. Spokespeople from within the department have started directly addressing residents of foreign countries and leaders via Twitter to refute rumors and clarify U.S. policy. More specifically, department spokesman Philip J. Crowley has used Twitter to urge citizens of Haiti, Tunisia and Lebanon to remain calm while simultaneously pushing their leaders to implement government reforms.

Crowley even addressed the population of Haiti and former dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier before the press did. Crowley's tweet ("we are surprised by the timing of Duvalier's visit to Haiti, it adds unpredictability at an uncertain time in Haiti's election process,") was the first official comment on the situation. He also used the service to dismiss Julian Assange's suggestions that the U.S. would try to imprison him at Guantanamo Bay. By using Twitter, Crowley and the State Department are able to control the dialog more directly than they could by going through traditional channels like the press -- a trick that Sarah Palin figured out some time ago.

Obama to Take Questions on YouTube, Twitter, After State of the Union

This Thursday, President Obama will field questions submitted from the world of social media during a live-streamed YouTube interview. Any inquisitive Web surfer can send their questions to the President at youtube.com/askobama, or via Twitter, by using the #askobama hashtag. Obama will answer the top-rated questions when the interview kicks off at 2:30 p.m. EST, just two days after his State of the Union speech (which, incidentally, will also be live-streamed on YouTube).

If you're interested in picking the POTUS's brain, you'll have to send in your question by midnight, January 25th, and you'll have to be concise. The White House says each question "should be about 20 seconds long," so start truncating your list of earthly concerns.

Update : Suspect in Ariz. Shooting Faces Charges in Federal Court

PHOENIX —Jared L. Loughner, a troubled 22-year-old college dropout, appeared before a magistrate judge in Phoenix on Monday to face federal charges in connection with a shooting rampage that left six people dead and 14 wounded, including a member of Congress.

Mr. Loughner, dressed in a tan prison uniform, was returned to custoday after the hearing. He was assigned an attorney, Judy Clarke, a federal public defender who has handled the cases of Theodore J. Kaczynski, who was convicted in the Unabomber attacks, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the Al Qaeda operative.

The prosecutor in Pima County, where the rampage took place, vowed Monday to pursue state murder charges against Mr. Loughner as well.

“This is not just a professional matter for me but a personal one since I knew many of these victims,” Barbara LaWall, the Pima County attorney, said.

On Sunday, federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Loughner, accusing him of killing two federal employees and trying to kill three others, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was said to be his intended target.

Four bystanders were also killed and 11 others injured in the Saturday morning attack at a constituent event held by Ms. Giffords outside a supermarket, prompting Ms. LaWall to say that she would “definitely pursue charges on behalf of the nonfederal victims.”

County lawyers were still researching whether the state and federal cases could proceed concurrently or whether Ms. LaWall’s office would wait until federal prosecutors had finished their case. The state has no deadline to bring the matter before a grand jury because Mr. Loughner is in federal custody, not state.

Ms. Giffords remained in critical condition on Monday after surviving, against the odds, a single gunshot to the head fired at point-blank range. Doctors said they were increasingly optimistic because Ms. Giffords continued to be able to follow simple commands and there had been no additional swelling in her brain. Dr. G. Michael Lemole, chief of neurosurgery at University Medical Center at the University of Arizona, cautioned that swelling in cases like this could last days.

“At this stage in the game, no change is good,” Dr. Lemole said.

Doctors had removed nearly half of Ms. Giffords’ skull to prevent damage to her brain caused by swelling from the wound. While Ms. Giffords has remained under sedation, hospital officials corrected earlier statements that she had been placed in a medically induced coma.

An outpouring of grief has been on display around the country since the attack on Saturday. At a joint session of the state Legislature on Monday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona scrapped her planned state of the state address and appealed for unity following the shooting.

"Arizona is in pain, yes. Our grief is profound," Ms. Brewer said. "We are yet in the first hours of our sorrow, but we have not been brought down. We will never be brought down.”

In Washington Monday, President Obama stood somberly with his wife, their heads bowed, overlooking the South Lawn of the White House at 11 a.m. Eastern time, as a single bell tolled to honor the wounded and the dead. On the steps of the East Front of the Capitol, hundreds of Congressional aides gathered to mark the moment. Staff members attended an interfaith memorial service in the Cannon House office building, organized by the Congressional Jewish Staffers Association and the House and Senate chaplains. On the ground floor of the Cannon Rotunda, a table was set up with a book of condolences and a book of well wishes for people to sign and send messages to the wounded and the families of those killed.

.

Later at the White House, Mr. Obama said that the families of the shooting victims, and the nation as a whole, were still coming to grips with what happened and sorting out the lessons to be drawn, both heartbreaking and uplifting.

“Obviously all of us are still grieving and in shock from the tragedy that took place,” Mr. Obama said in the Oval Office where he was meeting on Monday with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. “Gabby Giffords and others are still fighting to recover. Families are still absorbing the enormity of their losses. We have a criminal investigation that is ongoing and charges that no doubt will be brought against the perpetrator of this heinous crime.”

Mr. Obama noted that there had been acts of heroism on Saturday.

“I think it’s important for us to also focus, though, on the extraordinary courage that was shown during the course of these events: a 20-year-old college student who ran into the line of fire to rescue his boss; a wounded woman who helped secure the ammunition that might have caused even more damage; the citizens who wrestled down the gunman,” he said. “Part of what I think that speaks to is the best of America, even in the face of such mindless violence.”

And Mr. Obama said he had been reaching out to the victims’ families. “In the coming days we’re going to have a lot of time to reflect,” he said. “Right now, the main thing we’re doing is to offer our thoughts and prayers to those who’ve been impacted, making sure that we’re joining together and pulling together as a country. And as President of the United States, but also as a father, obviously I’m spending a lot of time just thinking about the families and reaching out to them.”

Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., traveled to Tucson to oversee the shooting investigation at Mr. Obama’s request. He said on Sunday that agents were trying intensively to determine “why someone would commit such a heinous act and whether anyone else was involved.” Mr. Mueller added that discussions were under way to increase security for all members of Congress.

Capitol security agencies are planning to join the F.B.I. on Wednesday in a security briefing for members of Congress. Already, the United States Marshals Service has increased protection for federal judges in Arizona.

Investigators in Tucson focused their attention on Mr. Loughner, whom they accused of methodically planning the shootings, which occurred outside a supermarket.

Special Agent Tony M. Taylor Jr. of the F.B.I. said in an affidavit that an envelope found in a safe in Mr. Loughner’s home bore these handwritten words: “I planned ahead,” “My assassination” and “Giffords.”

The court documents said Mr. Loughner bought the semiautomatic Glock pistol used in the shooting at Sportsman’s Warehouse, which sells hunting and fishing gear, on Nov. 30 in Tucson.

The gun was legally purchased, officials said, prompting criticism of the state’s gun laws, which allow the carrying of concealed weapons. Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik of Pima County, a critic of what he calls loose gun restrictions, bluntly labeled Arizona “Tombstone.”

The documents also indicated that the suspect had previous contact with the congresswoman. Also found in the safe at Mr. Loughner’s home was a letter from Ms. Giffords thanking him for attending a 2007 “Congress on Your Corner” event, like the one she was holding Saturday morning when she was shot.

Along with being accused of trying to kill Ms. Giffords, Mr. Loughner was charged with the killing and attempted killing of four government employees: John M. Roll, the chief federal judge in Arizona, who was killed; Gabriel M. Zimmerman, a Congressional aide, who was also killed; and Pamela Simon and Ron Barber, aides who were wounded. Mr. Loughner could face the death penalty if convicted.

The indictment against Mr. Loughner indicated that the authorities had surveillance video, which was not released, that captured events outside the supermarket. Outside lawyers said the footage would probably be saved for court. The authorities did release 911 tapes of the minutes after the shooting, at 10:11 a.m. Saturday, in which caller after caller, many out of breath, dialed in to report shots fired, many shots, and people falling, too many to count.

Mr. Mueller said additional state charges might be filed, and he did not rule out the filing of terrorism charges.

Mr. Loughner has refused to cooperate with investigators and has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, the Pima County sheriff’s office said.

Early Sunday, the authorities released a photograph taken from the surveillance video of a possible accomplice in the shooting. But the man later contacted sheriff’s deputies, who determined that he was a taxi driver who had taken the suspect to the mall where the shooting took place and then entered the supermarket with him when he did not have change for the $14 fare.

Seasoned trauma surgeons, used to seeing patients in distress, were shaken by the scale of the shootings.

“I never thought I would experience something like this in my own backyard,” said Dr. Peter M. Rhee, chief of trauma surgery at the University Medical Center, who has experience on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq and who likened what happened in Tucson to the mass shootings in those places.

Doctors treating Ms. Giffords said she had been able to respond to simple commands, an encouraging sign.

At a news conference at the hospital on Sunday, surgeons said she was the only one of the victims to remain in critical care at the hospital. They said she was lucky to be alive but would not speculate about the degree of her recovery, which they said could take months or longer.

“Over all, this is about as good as it’s going to get,” Dr. Rhee said. “When you get shot in the head and a bullet goes through your brain, the chances of you living are very small, and the chances of you waking up and actually following commands is even much smaller than that.”

Dr. Lemole, who operated on Ms. Giffords, said the bullet traveled through the left side of her brain “from back to front.” It did not cross from one side of the brain to the other, he said, nor did it pass through some critical areas that would further diminish her chances of recovery.

Officials said the attack could have been even more devastating had several victims not overwhelmed the suspect as he tried to reload his gun. A bystander, Patricia Maisch, who was waiting to meet Ms. Giffords, grabbed the gun’s magazine as the gunman dropped it while trying to reload after firing 31 rounds, officials said. Two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, then overwhelmed the gunman, and another man, Joseph Zamudio, restrained his flailing legs.

In addition to Judge Roll, 63, and Mr. Zimmerman, 30, who was the director of community outreach for Ms. Giffords, the others who died were identified as Christina Green, 9; Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; and Phyllis Schneck, 79.

The new House speaker, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, denounced the attack in an early Sunday appearance in West Chester, his hometown, and said it was a reminder that public service “comes with a risk.”

Mr. Boehner urged people to pray for Ms. Giffords and the other victims and told his House colleagues to persevere in fulfilling their oath of office. “This inhuman act should not and will not deter us,” he said. “No act, no matter how heinous, must be allowed to stop us.”

He also said the normal business of the House for the coming week had been postponed “so that we can take necessary action regarding yesterday’s events.” That business had included a vote to repeal the health care overhaul.

Mr. Loughner had exhibited increasingly strange behavior in recent months, including ominous Internet postings — at least one showing a gun — and a series of videos in which he made disjointed statements on topics like the gold standard and mind control.

Pima Community College, which he had attended, said he had been suspended for conduct violations and withdrew in October after five instances of classroom or library disruptions that involved the campus police.

As the investigation intensified on Sunday, the police were still at the scene of the shooting, a suburban shopping center known as La Toscana Village. Investigators have described the evidence collection as a monumental task given the large number of bullets fired and victims hit.

All of the cars in the parking lot were scrutinized in search of a vehicle the gunman might have driven to the scene. Then the taxi driver stepped forward to help explain how the suspect had arrived.

Nobody knew for sure what compelled the gunman. Ms. Giffords, who represents the Eighth District, in the southeastern corner of Arizona, has been an outspoken critic of the state’s tough immigration law, which is focused on identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants, and she had come under criticism for her vote in favor of the health care law.

CIA Dubs WikiLeaks Task Force 'WTF,' Our Thoughts Exactly

The CIA has created a task force dedicated to investigating the impact of WikiLeaks, whose publication of diplomatic cables has resulted in an international controversy. The WikiLeaks Task Force, or W.T.F. (no, seriously, that's what it's called), is working to determine what effect, if any, the publication of secret documents has had on the agency's ability to recruit informants, and on the security of its agents. The incident involving the whistle-blower site will likely only reinforce the agency's reluctance to share information with other government and intelligence agencies. In the past, the CIA has even refused to make many of its intelligence reports available on SIPRNET, the secret network used by the Pentagon to share classified data.

The extent of the damage done to the CIA by the WikiLeaks fiasco is limited, mostly by virtue of the fact that the agency has been largely absent from the WikiLeaks dumps. Still, regardless of what the W.T.F. finds, so-called "Cablegate" will only offer more ammunition to the Luddites within the agency. As one former CIA officer told the Washington Post, "Nobody could carry out enough paper to do what WikiLeaks has done."

Paterson Fined Over Yankees Tickets

ALBANY—Gov. David Paterson contradicted his staff, the Yankees and common sense when he falsely claimed he always intended to pay for five tickets to the first game of the 2009 World Series at Yankee Stadium, a state commission said in assessing him a $62,125 fine.

In a report Monday, the Commission on Public Integrity said Mr. Paterson performed no ceremonial function at the game, which still wouldn't have entitled him to free tickets for his son and son's friend. The others were used by the governor and two staff members. He and two of his staff paid for four of the tickets a few days later.

"The moral and ethical tone of any organization is set at the top. Unfortunately, the governor set a totally inappropriate tone by his dishonest and unethical conduct," said commission Chairman Michael Cherkasky. "Such conduct cannot be tolerated by any New York State employee, particularly our governor."

The commission said the civil penalty consists of the $2,125 value of the tickets and $60,000 for three violations of the state's public officer's law.

Mr. Paterson had said it was his duty to attend the opening series game at the new Bronx stadium. A call to his lawyer Theodore Wells Jr. was not immediately returned.

In August, special counsel Judith Kaye said there was a question whether the governor gave "intentionally false testimony" about having written an $850 check in advance for two tickets.

However, Kaye said the perjury issue was "clouded" by the way Paterson's commission testimony was given, with the entries read aloud to the legally blind governor, instead of him personally examining a check that was not filled out in his own handwriting.

Wells said then that Paterson didn't lie, and he noted Kaye's report didn't recommend bringing charges.

However, she said the evidence warranted consideration of criminal charges.

Albany County District Attorney P. David Soares said in August the case was under consideration but they would have no comment until the review was complete.

Breaking News!! Senate Passes Controversial Tax Cut Deal

Washington (CNN) -- The Senate approved a controversial $858 billion tax cut package Wednesday, overwhelmingly voting to extend the Bush-era tax reductions despite a series of objections from both the left and the right.

The measure, which passed 81-19, now advances to the House of Representatives.

The House will take up the bill Thursday, according to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland.

The package includes a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire December 31. It also would extend unemployment benefits for 13 months, cut the payroll tax by 2 percentage points for a year, restore the estate tax at a lower level and continue a series of other tax breaks.

The estate tax -- currently scheduled to exempt inheritances up to $1 million and tax amounts above that at a rate of 55% -- would be reduced under the tax package to a rate of 35% on amounts above a $5 million individual exemption.

New bill has billions in new earmarks

The estate tax impact

Obama makes case for tax plan

The vote came hours after President Barack Obama urged lawmakers Wednesday to approve the deal, which the White House negotiated with Senate GOP leaders.

"I am absolutely convinced that this tax cut plan, while not perfect, will help our economy and create jobs in the private sector," Obama said. "It will help lift up middle-class families who will no longer have to worry about a New Year's Day tax hike."

House Democrats, however, have repeatedly warned that they may change the measure, particularly provisions dealing with the estate tax.

Conservatives argue that a full return of the estate tax would, among other things, make it nearly impossible for many family-owned small businesses to be passed down from one generation to the next. Liberals contend that a lower or nonexistent estate tax would merely benefit the wealthy while doing little to aid the economy.

A number of House Democrats want to change the estate tax to levels previously approved in a separate House bill that would exempt inheritances up to $3.5 million and tax amounts above that at a 45% rate.

However, more than two dozen moderate House Democrats submitted a letter to their House leadership Tuesday, calling for the tax package to be passed unchanged so it can go directly to Obama to be signed into law.

"This bipartisan compromise is by design a temporary measure and, with its passage, we must acknowledge that our work is not done," said the letter signed by 27 House Democrats as of Tuesday evening. "We must continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion -- with a sense of shared responsibility -- toward solutions that address our economic and fiscal challenges. It is time for us to put aside the partisan talking points and accomplish what the American people sent us here to do."

Republicans involved in the negotiations with the White House on the package have warned that any changes by the House could derail the entire proposal, causing tax rates to increase in 2011.

"If the House Democratic leadership decides to make partisan changes, they will ensure that every American taxpayer will see a job-killing tax hike on January 1st," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a statement Monday.

If the House passes a bill that differs from the Senate version, the revised package would need to return to the Senate for another vote. The Senate, in turn, could send back the original bill without any changes to the estate tax provision for a second House vote. Such a scenario, analysts note, would give House liberals unhappy with the president's plan a chance to say they tried to change it.

With the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, Obama and Democrats face a fast-approaching deadline to reach a deal. Republicans won control of the House and reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate in the new Congress convening in January, which would give Democrats less leverage to negotiate after the current lame-duck session.

House liberals are not the only ones objecting to the agreement. A number of conservatives, including likely 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, are challenging the deal because it doesn't permanently extend the Bush tax cuts and would add to the deficit.

Mexico is America’s Next Afghanistan

Like it or Not: Mexico is America’s Next Afghanistan

It's time to 'man up' and face a fact that most politicians know, but few care to admit.

With the exception of, perhaps, Texas governor Rick Perry, no public official wants to publicly admit an obvious fact: The United States of America will likely be forced to invade Mexico. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. The question then becomes: What to do with Mexico after we invade it and wipe out the drug cartels (as much as can be). Does the United States merely return Mexico to a nation state of corrupt politicians, failed economic policies, and lawlessness, or do we annex Mexico and turn it into the 51st state?

For many of us, there is a certain false security in believing that, since most of America’s streets are not filled with the murder and mayhem that is going on just South of our borders, we have nothing to worry about. The feeling that most Americans likely have is: Well, it’s their problem, not ours. However, that illusion of security is quickly being eroded with the stories of American police officers being threatened by Mexican drug cartels, of kidnappings and drug murders in Arizona and Texas, of control of certain parts of Arizona and forays into New Mexico and Colorado by drug cartels, of teenagers being turned into hitmen, and American tourists being kidnapped or killed while on vacation in Mexico.

Mexico, with its kidnappings and more than 28,000 murders in the last four years alone, is being terrorized. Now, instead of economic refugees coming across our borders in search of jobs and income, humanitarian refugees are fleeing Mexico in order to stay alive. However, despite all of that, if one thought that only certain parts of Mexico are under the control of the cartels, that illusion was shattered on Tuesday when this map (see upper right) was presented on a heart-breaking post on RedState that shows that almost all of Mexico has been taken over by drug cartels.

Mexican Authorities Are Impotent, Unable to Control the Chaos

One of the cables that the much-maligned Wikileaks exposed was the concern over whether or not the Mexican government is even capable of undertaking the cleaning up of its own nation.

Another embassy cable sent in October 2009 quotes a senior Mexican official as saying his government was worried it was losing control of some regions to the drug gangs.

“We have 18 months,” Geronimo Gutierrez, at the time Mexico’s under-secretary of the interior, is quoted as saying.

“And if we do not produce a tangible success that is recognisable to the Mexican people, it will be difficult to sustain this confrontation into the next administration.”

“It is damaging Mexico’s reputation, hurting foreign investment, and leading to a sense of government impotence.” [Emphasis added.]

That cable was 14 months ago and the violence is still raging. The Mexican government has, so far, been unable to curtail the violence and it is likely that, without intervention, the country will become far more deadly than Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Worse, Islamic terrorists have been long suspected of using Mexico as a gateway into the U.S.

While America’s national interests are certainly being threatened, not just by the flood of illegal immigrants, but by the violence that is beginning to spill across our borders, the Obama administration chooses to pander to special interests pushing amnesty, while ignoring repeated requests for troops along our Southern border. Moreoever, the administration claims about the level of deportations in 2010 have come under scrutiny, leaving many to wonder if the administration is even remotely serious about secure borders, or just playing games for the media.

Like it or not, Mexico’s problems are our problems. For decades, politicians in Washington have cowardly turned a bi-partisan blind eye to the economic refugees (i.e., illegal aliens) that have transgressed our borders until it has become an unbearable strain upon our economy. Then, rather than securing our border and addressing the problem, the immigrants are now being used as political pawns in order to create a huge pool of 8 million progressive voters.

The Politics at Play: A Humanitarian Request vs. ‘Just Do It’

Whether the Obama administration lacks the desire to keep the nation’s borders safe or is merely playing politics with people’s lives remains to be seen. In either case, though, it is highly unlikely there will be any stopping the violence on our borders between now and 2013 unless something catastrophic occurs on the U.S. side of the border, or violence ramps up significantly with many more Americans being kidnapped or killed. Further, even with something disastrous occurring, it is doubtful that the Obama administration would ever have the cojones political will to put troops into Mexico as unilateral action as it would alienate the Latino community his party has become reliant on for votes in the Southwestern states.

On the Mexico side, however, politics also come into play as Mexican authorities will be unlikely to ask for humanitarian assistance due to that country’s presidential election in 2012.

The PRI, which ruled Mexico for 71 years as a semi-dictatorship, has been in opposition for a decade after it lost power in an historic 2000 election to the PAN. It is gearing up for a comeback in 2012 with its young rising star, State of Mexico Governor Enrique Pena Nieto.

With a feeble economy and raging drug gang violence dogging Calderon’s ratings, many analysts are already putting their money on a PRI return, but Sunday’s results suggest many voters in Mexico are still skeptical of a party with a reputation of ruling with a mixture of corruption and authoritarianism.

The PAN and the PRD are unlikely to join forces again for the presidential race and either party on its own may have a hard time beating the PRI, which controls large blocks of voters from unions to farmer organizations in rural Mexico.

“The alliance was a successful bet, the results prove that,” Jose Gonzalez, the PAN’s deputy leader, told Reuters. “But for the presidency, frankly, it would be impossible.”

State-level voting in Mexico tends to focus on local, rather than national issues, yet the PRI is keen to capitalize on Calderon’s sinking popularity as a slow economic rebound and out-of-control drug killings weigh on morale. [Emphasis added.]

With the presidency of Mexico at stake in 2012, Calderon’s party is unlikely to ask for help as it would give the PRI a campaign issue to capitalize on ahead of Mexico’s election. As a result of the political ramp up to elections in both countries and using the number of killings in Mexico over the last four years as a predictor, another 10,000 to 14,000 Mexicans and an unknown number of Americans will die before either country takes decisive action.

In 2013 and beyond, though, all bets are off. If the Mexican government cannot contain the violence in that country, or more bloodshed occurs on the U.S. side of the border, either the Mexican government may request humanitarian aide, or the U.S. would be justified in acting unilaterally to go into Mexico to end the drug cartels’ brutal terrorism (it’s not like it hasn’t happened before). In fact, if the violence on the U.S. side of the border does not cease, or escalates further, whomever is sitting in the oval office will be hard pressed not to go into Mexico.

Nation Build or Annex Mexico?

The question then become what to do afterward. Is the U.S. ready for another protracted foray into nation building? Or, in the alternative, does Mexico enter the United States as the 51st state?

Now, this should not be considered an ‘endorsement’ of either idea (see note below). Rather, it is more of a cost-benefit analysis that requires much more study:

Rather than nation building, which would be much more costly to the U.S. treasury (which can ill afford it), a case can be made for statehood (albeit, not without controversy), given the amount of Mexico’s citizenry that is already residing in the U.S., as well as Mexico’s historically mis-managed economy and resources (i.e., oil, farmland, beaches, ports, etc.). Moreoever, as so many illegal immigrants work already in the U.S., but send their earnings back to Mexico, by having Mexico become the 51st state, the money exported would not leave the U.S. but would stay in “our economy” and could offset the costs of an invasion/humanitarian mission. Most importantly, by assimilating Mexico into the U.S., with the Constitution it would solve the the issue of immigration reform in one fell swoop.

Note: Being well aware of the tin-hat/NWO conspiracy theories, this is not a CFR/TC conceived idea. Instead it is an examination of current events caused by a bunch of narco-terrorists and illegal immigration, as well as an attempt to figure out what do we do about it?

Irrespective of what happens farther down the road, the violence that is occurring today in Mexico and spilling over into the U.S. is something that cannot continue to be ignored by the administration, regardless how weak it may be. If things do not change in Mexico (or if the President refuses to secure our borders), sooner or later, the U.S. will likely have to send a large amount of troops into that country to wipe out the drug cartels. Mexico, today, poses as significant (or more significant) threat to the United States than Afghanistan and, as a sovereign nation, America has the right to defend itself and its time the White House (and other politicians) get honest with the American people about what they intend to do about it.

In the meantime, the Obama administration should stop playing politics with people’s lives along the border, ‘man up’ and get Rick Perry and the other Republican governors the troops they need to keep Americans safe along the border.

Tax Cut Myths and Other Obama-Induced Fantasies

Tax Cut Myths and Other Obama-Induced Fantasies

Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 02:34 PM

By Karol Markowicz

• Enlarge

• It's A Free Country

  Read. Argue. Listen. Act.

  More

After Obama's compromise with the GOP on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for income above $250,000, which he had long opposed, at least there is finally one thing all sides can agree on: President Obama hasn't got a clue. Even those of us who support tax cuts across the board are flabbergasted. What, exactly, does our president believe? We don't know. He's not a socialist, as many on the right have taken to calling him. He's simply what he's always been: an empty suit. He'll say whatever he has to to get elected. He'll do whatever it takes to be liked. He has carried his record of voting "present" into the White House in a way few presidents have done before. He stands for nothing.

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post calls the deal a philosophical victory for Republicans, and that's exactly right. With this deal, the president has admitted that tax cuts do stimulate the economy. After trying all the liberal solutions—which include spending, spending, and more spending—the president is turning to the only thing that works to get our country moving again: letting people keep more of the money they earn.

The arguments against extending the tax cuts have ranged from ridiculous to even more ridiculous. Some popular ones:

• "We shouldn't be giving the rich more money."

Giving? It's their money in the first place! It's like your husband "giving" you a sweater for Christmas that he got out of your closet. It's not giving, it's simply not taking. The top 1% already pay over 40% of the total money collected in taxes. The language of tax increases needs to change and the demonization of the wealthy has to end. President Obama has long led the way of this demonization, calling a tax increase on those who make $250,000 a "millionaire's tax" many times over his campaign.

• "We can't afford to pay for these tax cuts."

Tax cuts are free. They're "cuts." They cost nothing. What people actually mean is that we can't afford to pay for the spending we've budgeted for by using tax increases which haven't happened yet. It's the equivalent of a small widget manufacturer hoping to get a deal to sell his product to Walmart and basing his yearly budget on the possibility that Walmart will buy from him. When Walmart decides to go with a different widget producer, is it Walmart's fault the manufacturer's business collapses? It's not. We shouldn't be spending money we don't have, and we certainly shouldn't be spending more money we don't have with the hopes that "the rich" will pay more than their share to make up for our reckless spending.

• "This is a great deal for Republicans."

This one is half-right. Again, it's a philosophical victory, and sure, all tax cuts are good tax cuts. And yes, in a political sense, anything that makes Barack Obama look bad, especially in such a capitulating fashion, is good for the Republican party. But ultimately, tax cuts are only one part of the good economy equation. We now have 161 weeks of unemployment benefits thanks to this "deal." This is a major drain on employers and will stifle growth.

Our spending habits need to change. The government can't keep saving failing businesses and propping up dying industries. There aren't enough "rich" people to pay for that kind of lunacy. It would be nice if the president understood this. It would be even nicer if he believed in something and had consistency in his beliefs.

I have made the tough decisions, always with an eye toward the bottom line. Perhaps it's time America was run like a business. #Trump

Did You Know?
The Planes The Japanese
Used To Attack
Pearl Harbor were
built by
Mitsubishi?

And now 7 quotes from the
Republicans

GO

Talk About a Debate
Now The Democrats have a
Word to Say

GO

The Top 10
Obama Officials Who Should
Be Nervous About Today's
Results

GO

The 8 Violent
Election Day Riots

GO

31 Pages of Jessica Alba

GO

20 Hottest Women
Born in November

GO

10 Most Offensive Slang terms
We've Learned From South Park

GO

7 Things Not To Say In Bed
(I agree with #7)

GO

Ah..The Ongoing Debate.
Prop 19
Well Here Are The Benefits (ahem)
of Marijuana

GO

If I Had A Dime For Every time
I Heard One of These Lies

GO

This Fact is Right Up My Alley
“Fart” means “speed” in several Scandinavian languages.

5 Testosterone Myths

GO

Download My Newest
DJ Set

GO