Is US ignoring crisis in Venezuela?

Venezuela's Maduro wants talks with Obama

CNN.com

By Karl Penhaul, Esprit Smith and Chelsea J. Carter

Caracas, Venezuela (CNN) -- Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called Friday on the United States to exchange ambassadors just days after expelling three American diplomats from the country.

The request came during an hours-long news conference aired on state-run TV, where Maduro called on President Barack Obama to begin talks, even as he repeatedly accused the United States of interfering in Venezuelan internal affairs and stoking sometimes violent anti-government protests in recent days.

"I call for a dialogue with you, Obama," Maduro said. "You can designate (U.S. Secretary of State John) Kerry or whoever you want to come to this dialogue and I will send my foreign minister ... for this high-level meeting."

At the same time, Maduro accused Obama of failing to live up to a commitment not to "interfere with Venezuelan affairs."

"What you have said has not been carried out," he said.

The United States and Venezuela have not had resident ambassadors since 2010, although they have maintained diplomatic missions and active embassies.

Maduro's call to exchange ambassadors comes after his government accused American diplomats of using a visa program as cover to meet with with youth organizers at private universities "for training, financing and creating youth organizations through which violence is promoted in Venezuela."

The expulsion, which President Nicolas Maduro first announced Sunday, comes after the State Department expressed concerns about rising tensions in Venezuela.

Maduro's news conference comes amid questions of whether he can hold onto control of the country amid rising demonstrations.

Venezuela's western state of Tachira became a flashpoint Friday between anti-government protesters and security forces.

Protesters blocked off some of the main roads in the capital, San Cristobal, public transportation was paralyzed, and few businesses were open.

Maduro's government has responded strongly to protests in Tachira as he faces the largest demonstrations since coming to power almost a year ago.

The country's interior minister, Miguel Rodriguez Torres, has announced a new plan to restore order in Tachira, which, he said, may include sending a battalion of paratroopers there.

"This battalion will reinforce the units that find themselves on the major roadways that converge in this city," Rodriguez said Thursday.

The military is necessary because the government believes that people from across the border in Colombia are crossing into Tachira to make trouble, Rodriguez said.

CNN cams taken at gunpoint in Venezuela

Meanwhile, the government on Friday said that eight people have died in the violence related to the protests and clashes.

Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz said another 137 have been injured.

Four people were killed in Caracas, two in Carabobo state, one in Sucre state and one in Lara state, he said.

The government and the opposition blame each other for the deaths.

Maduro singled out one opposition leader, Leopoldo Lopez, as responsible for calling for the protests.

Lopez turned himself in to authorities this week, and he was charged Thursday with arson and conspiracy. More serious charges of murder and terrorism were dropped.

If convicted, Lopez could face up to 10 years in prison.

The unrest

During the demonstrations, supporters of the country's socialist government and anti-government protesters have flooded social media with reports of violence, making drastically different claims about who's behind it.

Since February 13, more than 2,000 stories from Venezuela have been uploaded to iReport, CNN's user-generated platform. Many of the videos and photos depict violent scenes between demonstrators and government forces.

He also called out called out CNN, Fox and other U.S.-based media, claiming that they are encouraging opposition forces against the government

Alejandro Camacho Beomont told iReport that students Wednesday blocked streets and burned debris in San Cristobal, from where he sent photos -- and he said he didn't blame them.

"Even though I am always looking for peace to make a better place to live, I think people have the right to express themselves in the ways they can, and it is not easy to express yourself in this country now," he said. "I support the protesters. There have been more than 15 years that the majority of the Venezuelan citizens are going through tough times. There are so many problems we have to face every day, and there seems to be not a sincere attitude from the high government officials to rectify (them)."

In a nationally televised broadcast Wednesday night, Maduro described bullet wounds sustained by government forces during protests and showed videos that he said depicted opposition protesters throwing stones and setting buses ablaze.

"You think this is a novel? This is the reality that you with your hatred have created," he said. "If you don't like Venezuela, leave."

Lawless: Obamacare and the Imperial Government

breitbart

By Ben Shapiro 

www.thecuttingedgenews.com

On Monday, the Obama administration announced that it would be delaying one of the key components of Obamacare yet again. This time, the Treasury Department stated that mid-sized employers – businesses with between 50 and 99 employees – would be able to avoid paying for employee insurance without a fine until 2016. Larger companies could still avoid a fine so long as they pay for the insurance of 70 percent of their full-time workers.

None of this was in the original Affordable Care Act. But recognizing that employers were about to begin slashing employee hours to avoid having to pay for insurance, the Obama administration moved to mitigate the political impact in anticipation of the 2014 elections.

It’s no shock to see commentators like Charles Krauthammer condemning the president’s usurpation of constitutional authority; Krauthammer rightly called Obama’s actions “stuff you do in a banana republic.” It’s no surprise when the Wall Street Journal editorial board explains that terming the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” makes sense because “the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day.”

But even Ron Fournier of National Journal has now said he is “getting sick of defending Obamacare,” and added that it is “getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act.” The fact that Obama’s quasi-dictatorial actions only put his allies in the “slinking toward impossible” camp rather than the outright opposition only speaks to the depth of Obama worship that still predominates on the intellectually dishonest left.

But it is precisely the left’s intellectual dishonesty that has allowed Obamacare to move forward. Obamacare is easily the most lawless piece of legislation ever foisted on the American people. Manipulated and processed, chopped and reassembled, Obamacare has become a devil’s playground for arbitrary government – and it hasn’t even come into full force and effect.

The lawlessness began with the passage of Obamacare itself, which relied on a combination of bribery and election theft in order to gain the necessary votes. The bill originally included the so-called Cornhusker Kickback – a basic payoff to the state of Nebraska – in order to earn the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). While the Cornhusker Kickback was later repealed in committee, the damage had already been done: with Nelson on the record for the bill, he couldn’t politically backtrack. Similarly, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) originally handed over his Obamacare vote in return for avoiding cuts to Medicare Advantage in Florida, before that provision of the bill was killed in conference – the so-called Gator-Aid payoff. Then there was the Louisiana Purchase, in which Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) effectively sold her Obamacare vote in return for $4.3 billion in Medicaid funds.

Even so, the Democrats didn’t have 60 votes on Obamacare until Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) was cheated out of his seat with endless voting recounts. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) entered the Senate, putting the Democrats at 60 votes – even though the most liberal state in America, Massachusetts, had just elected a Republican to fill Teddy Kennedy’s seat largely on the basis of opposition to Obamacare. Obamacare was quickly passed without anyone reading the final bill – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) infamously said that we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) rammed through a vote on Obamacare just before Christmas 2009 to avoid blowback from the American people when Senators went home for the holidays. Both Pelosi and Reid used myriad procedural conjurings in order to pass the bill. And, of course, the Democrats lied to the public about the costs of the bill in order to avoid further public scrutiny, just as President Obama lied about being able to keep both your health insurance plan and your doctor.

The lawlessness extended to the Supreme Court, where Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued an opinion that ranks alongside Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and Roe v. Wade (1973) in the moral and legal lowlights of American jurisprudence. Justice Roberts somehow turned what was a fine for failure to purchase a health insurance plan – constitutionally impermissible – into a tax, which was constitutionally permissible. That despite the fact that Obamacare was pitched again and again as a non-tax by Democrats in order to pass the bill. Suddenly, the government mandating that you buy something simply because you’re breathing was legitimated under the lie that it constituted a tax.

Once the bill became law, the true lawlessness began. Recognizing the politically unpalatable nature of Obamacare early, even to his allies, President Obama quickly began issuing waivers to friends, particularly union cronies. In July 2013, he delayed the implementation of the Obamacare employer mandate until 2015 – quite illegally, as it turns out. In November 2013, after criticism of the administration arose due to mass cancellations of individual insurance plans, Obama unilaterally declared that insurance companies could keep selling plans that were not permitted under Obamacare. Then, in December 2013, he delayed the individual mandate for some thanks to the botched Obamacare rollout.

The growth of the imperial presidency with regard to Obamacare represents one of the ugliest blemishes on the face of our republic. In fact, it demonstrates that the checks and balances that once protected Americans’ rights have been stripped away by an executive branch hell-bent on power, a judicial branch hell-bent on passing the buck, and a legislative branch hell-bent on re-election via delegation of authority to the executive and the judicial. That spells doom for the concept of rule of law. If no one can be held to the standard of the Constitution, the Constitution is rendered meaningless. And if the Constitution is rendered meaningless, the rule of men replaces the rule of law.

The lawlessness of Obamacare continues unabated. A seven-foot-high stack of law and regulations can be twisted and turned to fit any perspective – or, if you’re President Obama, redlined post-facto in violation of the Constitution. The law itself is lawless; the implementation is lawless; the slicing and dicing is lawless. But the concept of the rule of law no longer applies in the world of big, arbitrary, all-encompassing government.

Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves

DAFRUSA

Obama Weekly Address: Whenever I Can 'Expand Opportunity' Without Congress, I Will

Read on breitbart >>

VIDEO: O'Reilly goes one-on-one with President Obama

READ THE TRANSCRIPT >>

Brainwashing: Tours changing American views of Cuba, US policy

AP News

www.voanews.com

By PETER ORSI 

HAVANA (AP) -- When President Barack Obama reinstated "people-to-people" travel to Cuba in 2011, the idea was that visiting Americans would act as cultural ambassadors for a U.S. constantly demonized in the island's official media.

Two and a half years later, a survey shared exclusively with The Associated Press suggests the trips are not only improving Cubans' views of Americans. They are also changing U.S. travelers' opinions of the Caribbean nation for the better, and dimming their view of Washington policies that have long sought to pressure Cuba's Communist leaders.

"I think U.S.-Cuban relations should be open. People should be talking to each other. People should be sharing," said Ellen Landsberger, a 62-year-old New York obstetrician who recently visited on a people-to-people tour.

"We have this tiny little island that is no threat to the U.S. that we're isolating from the world," she said. "It doesn't make sense."

There's surely significant self-selection among people-to-people travelers; supporters of a hard-line policy against Cuba are unlikely to consider such a tour. And the people who run the trips tend to be more or less sympathetic toward Cuba, or at least to the idea of easing or lifting the 52-year-old U.S. embargo, which could potentially be a boon to their business.

Still, the results of the multiple-choice survey by Friendly Planet Travel, a company based in suburban Philadelphia that promotes legal tours of Cuba, are eye-catching. Three-quarters said they were drawn by curiosity about life in a nation that has been off limits to most Americans for decades.

Before travel, the most prevalent view of Raul Castro's government was "a repressive Communist regime that stifles individuality and creativity," 48 percent of respondents said. That fell to 19 percent after their visits, and the new most-popular view, held by 30 percent of respondents, became the slightly more charitable "a failing government that is destined to fall."

Most striking, 88 percent said the experience made them more likely than before to support ending the embargo against Cuba.

Peggy Goldman, president of Friendly Planet Travel, said visitors are surprised at how hard it is to find many goods, even something as basic as an adhesive bandage.

Some leave Cuba blaming U.S. policy for the shortages - as the Cuban government does constantly, although analysts also point to a weak, inefficient and corruption-ridden economic system as a key cause of scarcity.

"In day-to-day life, it's so difficult for the average Cuban. When the travelers go and they see that, and they experience it themselves, it makes sense that they say (the embargo) doesn't make sense," Goldman said. "It hasn't toppled the government in all these years. We need to try a different way."

Goldman acknowledged that her informal poll, which surveyed 423 Americans who visited Cuba in December, was not scientific.

But others in the industry tell a similar story.

"Some people go back and say they want to write letters to their senators," said Jeff Philippe, a guide who has taken 34 groups to the island in just over a year for Insight Cuba, which puts on people-to-people tours for Americans. "I've had several people say to me, `I want to make this my personal mission to end the embargo.'"

That could provide ammunition to the harshest opponents of people-to-people travel, who have argued from the beginning that the tours, partially organized in concert with Cuban state-run entities, let the Communist government put its best face forward and hide its warts.

"It's hard to imagine anyone being exposed to Cuba's reality and walking away with a more favorable view of the Castro regime," said Sen. Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American Republican from Florida. "But it's not surprising to hear that's the case with these tourist trips to Cuba, since they are specifically designed to expose people only to what the regime wants them to see."

"It's clear these tourist trips do little more than help the regime's image, fund its repressive machine, and undermine the courageous work of Cuba's democracy fighters," Rubio said.

In general, the tours tend not to include much contact with Cuban dissidents.

In a written response to an AP request for comment, the U.S. State Department said people-to-people travel has successfully "contributed to a more realistic and therefore more positive view of Americans and the United States by the Cuban people." It called the visitors ambassadors of democratic values, free-market economics and freedom of expression.

"Being favorably disposed to Cuba and ordinary Cubans should not be confused with endorsing a totalitarian system of government," it said of the returnees. "The people of Cuba have a rich and powerful culture that is rightfully appreciated by visitors to the island."

Tour operators insist any talk of Potemkin villages is wrong. They argue they're supporting local organic farmers, performers, artists, musicians and entrepreneurs who run private restaurants, adding that the Cuban government's involvement in scheduling is minimal and agendas carefully comply with U.S. rules barring sun-and-sand tourism.

"It's nothing like going to North Korea where you've got minders and there are only certain places you can go," Goldman said.

Most visitors report warm and seemingly open exchanges with Cubans from all walks of life. Some say they're aware that being shuttled around in air-conditioned buses and sleeping in luxury hotels differs greatly from most Cubans' reality.

"That part of it, you feel very separated. It's almost schizophrenic because you're treated very differently from the person who lives here," said Allan Kessler, a New York banker. "But, yes, we are meeting different types of people. We have no idea if everyone is pre-screened or not, but to our eye it seems rather candid."

He spoke on a recent morning after his Insight Cuba group visited a local youth dance troupe and a farmers market. Each traveler was given the equivalent of less than $1 in the local currency, about one-20th of the average monthly salary, to see how much they could buy. Afterward they discussed the experience.

"Overpriced," "very little protein," "it doesn't go very far" were among the comments. "Why are beans so expensive?"

Then it was off to lunch at an enormous outdoor state-run restaurant where just about every client orders the house specialty, roast chicken.

Estimates of how many Americans travel to Cuba legally on cultural exchanges range from around 70,000 to 100,000 a year.

Several Cubans interviewed by the AP said they've always been taught to separate people from politics, and valued the chance to meet Americans.

"We realize that they're just like us. They like to dance," said Glenda Quintana Carpio, a 20-year-old member of the dance troupe who coached visitors in basic steps after a performance in a Havana theater. "We're human beings from different countries with different idiosyncrasies."

EEUU: ¿Puede Barack Obama gobernar por decreto?

HACER Latin American News 

 

By Laguna Larga 

Una de las frases que más se ha repetido en los últimos días en Washington es esta del presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama: “Yo tengo un bolígrafo y tengo un teléfono”.

Obama la pronunció en su primera reunión del año con su gabinete para ejemplificar el mensaje que está presentando la Casa Blanca para 2014: un “año de acción” en el que el presidente firmará órdenes ejecutivas cuando no pueda trabajar con el Congreso y llamará a más personas en busca de apoyo.

En su discurso del Estado de la Unión, ayer, el mandatario volvió a reiterarlo: explicó que está “deseoso” de trabajar con el Congreso, pero que actuará “donde sea y cuando sea que pueda dar un paso sin legislación para ampliar las oportunidades de más familias que viven en Estados Unidos”.

Ese enfoque es una reacción clara tanto a sus fallas internas del año pasado como a la parálisis política que afectó su agenda en temas como el control de las armas o la reforma migratoria.

El gobierno, esencialmente, quiere que su desempeño no se mida por sus relaciones con el Congreso, pero la idea de gobernar a través de órdenes ejecutivas (como llaman a los decretos en Estados Unidos) ha generado una reacción negativa en el Partido Republicano.

El representante y ex candidato vicepresidencial Paul Ryan, por ejemplo, dijo que le suena a que Obama “quiere evadir la Constitución”. Y el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, John Boehner, explicó que su partido estará vigilando para asegurar que el gobierno no exceda su autoridad.

Poder “muy limitado”

El discurso de Obama ante el pleno del Congreso se enfocó en la lucha contra la desigualdad del país porque es precisamente un área en la que ya empezó a tomar decisiones ejecutivas que no necesitan la aprobación del Capitolio.

La Casa Blanca, por ejemplo, anunció que Obama ordenaría el aumento del salario mínimo (a US$10,10) para quienes trabajen para contratistas federales. Esto, según la versión oficial, beneficiará por ejemplo a porteros, trabajadores de la construcción, cajeros o quienes lavan los platos y la ropa. Boehner respondió poco después con el argumento de que la medida ayudará a muy pocas personas.

La orden es una versión limitada de su meta de elevar el salario mínimo general, que presentó en su discurso del Estado de la Unión del año pasado, pero que languideció en el Congreso como tantas otras de sus propuestas.

A su vez, es un ejemplo que explica el alcance de lo que puede lograr el gobierno con esta estrategia de la acción ejecutiva, que ha resultado novedosa más por la intensidad con que la ha defendido recientemente que por el hecho mismo de utilizarla.

Como todos sus predecesores, Obama ha recurrido a ellas y, como todos los presidentes anteriores, lo ha hecho con el objetivo de evitar el Congreso. El presidente, además, fue profesor de derecho constitucional, así que debe conocer muy bien sus alcances. Son acciones legalmente vinculantes, aunque pueden ser anuladas por la rama judicial.

Y, como le explica a BBC Mundo Elaine Kamarck, experta en políticas públicas de la Facultad de Gobierno de la Universidad de Harvard, tienen un poder “muy limitado”.

“Cualquier cosa significativa no puede hacerse por una orden ejecutiva a menos que lo consienta el Congreso -dice-. No hay nada nuevo en las órdenes ejecutivas, pero lo que no se valora de manera suficiente es que no pueden llevarse muy lejos porque las cortes las tumbarán”.

La reforma migratoria

Una de esas áreas en las que no está previsto que el gobierno utilice una orden ejecutiva es la reforma migratoria, que fue mencionada en el discurso de ayer pero no ocupó un lugar central.

Obama reiteró que quiere que el tema se solucione este año y explicó que “si hablamos en serio sobre el crecimiento económico, es hora de responder al llamado de nuestros líderes empresariales, líderes laborales, líderes espirituales y de cumplimiento del orden público para arreglar nuestro sistema de inmigración que no funciona”.

El proyecto de reforma fue aprobado en junio del año pasado en el Senado, de mayoría demócrata, pero está estancado en la Cámara de Representantes, que controla el Partido Republicano. En 2012, el presidente utilizó su poder para suspender las deportaciones de ciertos jóvenes inmigrantes indocumentados y abrirles el camino para la solicitud de permisos de trabajo.

Un funcionario de alto rango de la Casa Blanca, que pidió que no se revelara su nombre, le explicó a BBC Mundo que el presidente ha dejado “muy claro que el camino para arreglar lo que está dañado de nuestro sistema migratorio pasa de lleno por el Congreso de Estados Unidos”.

“Este es el momento para que la Cámara determine cómo quiere actuar y la buena noticia es que hay indicios de que está buscando tomar esa decisión”, agregó el mismo funcionario.

El gobierno considera que el presidente no tiene las herramientas administrativas para solucionar, sin recurrir al Congreso, el complejo tema de 11 millones de indocumentados que se cree viven en el país. La Casa Blanca, además, ha insistido en que busca una reforma “completa”.

En ese sentido, el aumento parcial del salario mínimo y la reforma migratoria representan dos lados del debate sobre las órdenes ejecutivas.

Mientras el primero es un ejemplo de las decisiones limitadas que puede tomar el gobierno por cuenta propia, el segundo es una muestra de que Obama, por más que lo intente, no podrá lograr todos sus objetivos sin lo que decidan los legisladores en los corredores del Capitolio.

La respuesta republicana

La respuesta oficial del Partido Republicano al discurso del Estado de la Unión estuvo a cargo de la representante Cathy McMorris Rodgers, la mujer de más alto rango en la Cámara.

McMorris Rodgers explicó que “demasiadas personas están quedándose más relegadas porque, ahora, las políticas del presidente están haciendo más difícil la vida de las personas”.

En su discurso, la congresista presentó una “visión republicana más esperanzadora” que defiende el libre mercado y “confía en que las personas tomen sus propias decisiones, no un gobierno que decide por ellas”.

También dijo que “es hora de honrar nuestra historia de inmigración legal” y explicó que su partido está trabajando en una solución “paso a paso” para reformar el tema.

A diferencia de lo que dicta la tradición, según la cual el partido opositor escoge una sola voz para su respuesta al discurso presidencial, en este caso los republicanos presentaron también mensajes de los senadores Rand Paul y Mike Lee, este último en nombre del movimiento del Tea Party.

La respuesta en español estuvo a cargo de la representante Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Fuente: La Nación (Argentina)

Obama, Biden Presidents’ Day Weekend Vacations Cost Taxpayers Nearly $300K

breitbart

By Tom Fitton 

The Obama administration has mastered inventing bogus new exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law. There is the infamous “spiking the football” exemption (AKA the “offending the terrorists” exemption) that I referenced recently that was used to keep the bin Laden death images secret. Unfortunately, the courts bought that one.

Then there is the embarrassment exemption. We’ve seen this one employed on too many occasions to count. Any records that might cause damage to the image of the president and his administration are held under lock and key.

That’s why Judicial Watch has had to fight so hard to obtain the administration’s vacation travel records. Thanks to our investigations team, we’ve been extremely successful in breaking through the Obama stonewall in order to tally the cost to the American taxpayer of these personal trips. We recently did it again.

JW released U.S. Secret Service records from the Department of Homeland Security detailing expenditures of $295,437.04 by President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden during separate luxury vacations over the 2013 Presidents’ Day Weekend. A separate group of documents shows that taxpayers paid more than $1,000,000 for Michelle Obama’s controversial 2011 trip to South Africa and Botswana.

President Obama spent the Presidents’ Day Weekend (February 15-18) on a golf trip in West Palm Beach, Florida. First Lady Michelle Obama and her daughters spent the same holiday weekend on a ski trip in Aspen, Colorado. Vice President Biden and his family spent that weekend skiing in Aspen.

Once again, we had to sue for these records, filing a FOIA lawsuit on June 21, 2013, against the U.S. Secret Service. According to the billing records, here’s the bang you got for your taxpayer buck:

Transportation and lodging costs for the President’s trip totaled $98,135.79. This includes $32,406.50 for the flights, $16,466.25 for rental cars, and $48,490 for hotel rooms.

The vacation costs for First Lady Michelle Obama totaled $81,523.64, including $13,221.30 in flights, $3,925 in rental cars, and $64,377.34 in lodging.

The expenses for Vice President Biden’s weekend in Aspen totaled $115,777.61, including $5,315 in flights, $92,596 in accommodations, and $17,866.61 in rental cars.

Additionally, even though we filed our lawsuit back on October 4, 2011, we are just now getting records detailing the full costs of the June 21-27, 2011 trip taken by Michelle Obama, her family, and her staff to South Africa and Botswana.

According to this most recent batch of records obtained from the United States Air Force, during the six-day trip the First Lady and her entourage spent $668,702.01, including hotel and lodging costs of $430,614.18. The trip ended with a private family safari at a South African game reserve.

This $668,702.01 expenditure was in addition to the $424,142 taxpayers were billed for the cost of the flight and crew, according to earlier documents obtained by Judicial Watch, bringing the total cost of the trip over $1 million.

After all of our litigating and investigating these travel records, this much is clear: The Obamas and Vice President Biden do not seem to care a whit about sticking taxpayers with the bill for their vacation travel. However, they care very much about keeping these costs secret. The stonewalling over releasing these travel numbers suggests that the Obama administration is embarrassed by the personal travel of President Obama and Vice President Biden. And rightly so.

Embarrassment is not a valid reason to exempt documents from disclosure. In fact, quite the opposite. Often the most embarrassing documents shed light on the most egregious abuses of the public trust. This is the very reason for FOIA law: to allow the American people to know the government’s business so that corrupt and abusive activities can be exposed and discouraged.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton is author of the NY Times best-seller “The Corruption Chronicles” and executive producer of the documentary “District of Corruption.”

Civil war in Washington D.C. - O'Reilly

O'Reilly: President Obama and me

Obama & pot

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

WASHINGTON.- El presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, opinó que fumar marihuana no es más peligroso que beber alcohol, pero reparó que de todas maneras es "una mala idea". Además, apoyó la legalización, aunque consideró que no es "la panacea".

"Como se ha documentado ampliamente, fumé marihuana de chico y lo considero un mal hábito y un vicio, no muy distinto a los cigarrillos que fumé de joven y durante buena parte de mi vida adulta", dijo en una entrevista a la revista New Yorker publicada ayer, que será difundida íntegramente en la edición del 27 de enero.

"No creo que [la marihuana] sea más peligrosa que el alcohol", agregó el presidente, que dijo que la ve menos peligrosa "en cuanto a su impacto en el consumidor individual".

"No es algo que anime a hacer y ya les he dicho a mis hijas [Sasha y Malia] que es una mala idea, una pérdida de tiempo, no muy saludable", señaló.

Asimismo, Obama denunció la desproporción en el arresto de jóvenes afroamericanos y latinos por cargos de posesión de marihuana.

"Los niños de clase media no van a prisión por fumar marihuana, pero los niños pobres sí. Y los niños afroamericanos y los niños latinos tienen más probabilidades de ser pobres y son menos propensos a disponer de recursos y apoyos como para evitar penas excesivamente duras", denunció.

"No deberíamos llevar a prisión mucho tiempo a jóvenes o consumidores individuales por algo que probablemente han hecho también los que escriben las leyes", completó.

Obama apoyó además la reciente legalización de la marihuana en los estados de Colorado y Washington. "Para una sociedad es importante evitar una situación en la que gran parte de la población haya en un momento determinado violado la ley y sólo una pequeña porción de ella sea castigada", consideró.

Pese a defender las nuevas medidas en esos estados, señaló que "aquellos que afirman que legalizar la marihuana es la panacea y que ello va a resolver todos los problemas sociales, probablemente exageran".

El uso de la marihuana con fines medicinales ha sido autorizado en 19 estados de Estados Unidos.

O'Reilly: President Obama and race

'I'VE GOT A PEN': Obama's executive actions rankle Congress

foxnews

By Mike Emanuel

With his newly announced overhaul of National Security Agency surveillance activities, President Obama has once again hit a nerve with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. 

The president, as he often does when facing a nettlesome problem, used his executive powers to implement changes. In his address on Friday, Obama said he's approved a "new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad." 

The directive, Obama said, would strengthen oversight of intelligence and ensure trade and investment relationships are taken into account when spying. The president also went on to order a transition away from the bulk data collection program in its current form -- and restrict the ability of analysts to access that database during the transition. 

Some House Democrats said executive actions alone were not enough. 

"It is now time for Congress to take the next step by enacting legislation to appropriately limit these programs," Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said in a statement, adding that Congress must "trust but codify" when it comes to the president's promises. 

"Executive Branch overreach in the name of national security did not start -- and will not end -- with this administration," New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler said in a written statement. "The balance of powers enumerated in the Constitution must be respected for generations to come, regardless of who occupies the White House." 

But Republican lawmakers, who long have warned about the White House circumventing Congress, said this is only the tip of the iceberg -- citing the Affordable Care Act as the battleground for executive actions. 

"In high school government class, we were told that it is the Executive Branch that enforces the law, but it is Congress, the legislative branch, that enacts the law," Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran told Fox News. 

"Here we have an administration that one more time, without consulting Congress, without legislative changes, is altering their signature piece of legislation, ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act," Moran said. 

Lawmakers point to the delay of the so-called employer mandate -- implemented unilaterally last year -- and other changes. Some are trying to use the power of Congress to stop the president from "overreaching." 

Rep. Tom Rice, R-S.C., has proposed a resolution, called the Stop This Overreaching Presidency (STOP), that would authorize the House to challenge multiple presidential workarounds in court. "If it passes a majority of the House, it will start the lawsuit," Rice told Fox News. 

Obama signaled at a recent Cabinet meeting, though, that more executive actions are likely ahead. 

"I've got a pen and I've got a phone -- and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward," Obama said. He suggested he could use his phone to try and bring people together. 

"Well let me tell you, he may have a pen and telephone, but we have the Constitution," Rice countered.

U.S. Seven Devastating Economic Facts

breitbart

By Wynton Hall 

U.S. economic conditions in 2014 continue to languish, as millions of Americans remain jobless. Seven economic facts underscore America’s increasingly dire economic outlook.

1. A Record 91.8 Million Americans Are No Longer in the Workforce

The latest Labor Department figures reveal that a record 91.8 million Americans are no longer in the U.S. labor force. To be included in the Labor Department's calculations for this statistic, a person must be 16 years or older, a civilian, not in an institution (such as prison), and someone who has not looked for a job in the last four weeks.

Minorities have been hit especially hard. As Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted to PBS, last month’s jobs report also saw “the lowest rate of labor force participation among African-American men since we have kept that count. So that was really striking.”

According to the U.S. Census, 317 million people live in the United States.

2. Since Jan. 2009, the Number of Jobless Working-Age Americans Has Risen 9.6 Million People

As Michael Snyder notes:

The number of working age Americans that do not have a job has increased by nearly 10 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House. In January 2009, the number of "officially unemployed" workers plus the number of Americans "not in the labor force" was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million. That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office.

3.  47.4 Million Americans Now Rely on Food Stamps

The Department of Agriculture, which oversees the food stamp program, says that 47,415,895 Americans – roughly one out of every six Americans – now receives food stamps. Indeed, for the last fifteen consecutive months, the number of individuals has consistently stayed above 47 million, a first in U.S. history.

Food stamp enrollments, which are considered an indicator of economic distress, have skyrocketed in recent years as the Obama administration has loosened eligibility requirements and aggressively promoted enrollments. In January 2009, 31.9 million people received food stamps.

4. A Record 10.98 Million Americans Now Receive Disability Checks

Social Security data reveal that a record 10,988,269 Americans now receive a monthly check for an average $1,146.43. Several recent studies and investigations have revealed that the nation’s disability program is rife with fraud and abuse.

When health care for disabled workers is included, U.S. taxpayers now spend $260 billion a year funding the disability program – a figure that exceeds the amount spent on food stamps and welfare combined.

5.  Nearly One in Three Americans Fell into Poverty Between 2009-2011

A new Census Bureau report released last week found that 31.6% of Americans fell beneath the federal poverty line for at least two months between 2009 to 2011, a 4.5% increase over the 2005 to 2007 period.

6.  42% of Americans Believe Themselves Worse Off Financially than a Year Ago

Gallup on Wednesday released its latest “Mood of the Nation” poll that found that 42% of Americans say they are worse off financially than they were a year ago, a number that has grown over the last two years.

7. U.S. Debt Now Stands at over $17.3 Trillion

America’s federal debt explosion continues unabated. In Jan. 2009, the national debt was $10.626 trillion. Today, America’s national debt stands at over $17,300,000,000,000.

Robert Gates addresses claims made in 'Duty'

O'Reilly: Big government and you

Iran Celebrates American 'Surrender'; Obama Says 'Give Peace a Chance'

breitbart

By Joel B. Pollak 

Our relationship w/ the world is based on Iranian nation's interests. In #Geneva agreement world powers surrendered to Iranian nation's will
— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) enero 14, 2014

Iran's "moderate" president, Hassan Rouhani, tweeted this morning that "world powers," including the U.S., had "surrendered" to the "Iranian nation's will" in confirming a six-month interim nuclear deal that will allow the Iranian regime to continue its advanced centrifuge program and develop a new nuclear facility at Arak. President Barack Obama, meanwhile, implored Americans to "give peace a chance" with the Iran deal.

Though the Obama administration claims that the interim deal--which includes a secret side deal--will lead Iran to give up any ambitions of becoming a nuclear power, the regime has publicly declared that the agreement reached in Geneva last November is the first step in removing all sanctions, and that it virtually recognizes Iran's "right" to enrich uranium. All agree that it contradicts a decade of UN Security Council resolutions banning such enrichment.

Obama has threatened to veto new sanctions currently under consideration by Congress as a risk to the nuclear deal, even though the sanctions would not take effect until after the interim deal is over, and are designed to act as a deterrent against Iranian efforts to cheat on the agreement. The sanctions enjoy bipartisan support, though most support comes from Republicans: it enjoys 59 co-sponsors in the Senate, near a veto-proof majority.

Fraternal Order of Police: Obama DOJ Nominee Is Cop-Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal Supporter

HereNewsComes

breitbart

By Brandon Darby 

President Barack Obama has drawn harsh criticism from law enforcement representatives by nominating Debo Adegbile to head the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as Assistant U.S. Attorney General. 

The 330,000-member Fraternal Order of Police slammed the nomination, referring to Adegbile as a volunteer supporter and defender of convicted Black Panther and cop-killer Wesley Cook—better known as Mumia Abu-Jamal, the world’s most notorious unrepentant cop-killer.

Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury penned a January 6, 2014 letter to the President that reads:

Debo Adegbile/ www.latimes.com

As word of this nomination spreads through the law enforcement community, reactions range from anger to incredulity. Under this nominee’s leadership, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People volunteered their services to represent Wesley Cook, better known to the world as Mumia Abu-Jamal — our country’s most notorious cop-killer. There is no disputing that Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner was murdered by this thug. His just sentence — death — was undone by your nominee and others like him who turned the justice system on its head with unfounded and unproven allegations of racism.

The Fraternal Order of Police did not stop there. Its scathing critique of President Obama’s nominee and its effort to defend the honor of slain police offer Daniel Faulkner continued:

We are aware of the tried and true shield behind which activists of Adegbile’s ilk are wont to hide — that everyone is entitled to a defense; but surely you would agree that a defense should not be based on falsely disparaging and savaging the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer. Certainly any legal scholar can see the injustice and absence of ethics in this cynical race-baiting approach to our legal system.

The Fraternal Order of Police also claimed in its letter to President Obama that he did not consult any known law enforcement organization about his decision to nominate Adegbile as an assistant U.S. attorney general.

The widow of slain Officer Daniel Faulkner operates a website as part of her fight to defend the honor of her husband. Multiple witnesses from the hospital where Cook was treated after he killed the young Officer Faulkner, both white and black, testified in court that Cook stated, “I shot the motherf**ker and I hope the motherf**ker dies.”

O'Reilly: President Obama and war