http://kylewingfield.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/26/when-all-else-fails-bring-up-the-klan/

When all else fails, bring up the Klan

Not content with labeling religious-liberty advocates as tantamount to homophobes and child abusers, Georgia Equality now says they would aid and abet the Ku Klux Klan. In the South, especially, hardly any accusation is more severe.

In this case, it is also absurd.

The accusation came on the letterhead of Michael Bowers, the former state attorney general hired by Georgia Equality to issue an opinion on the bill. It was billed as news that the man who once defended Georgia’s sodomy law had flipped sides, but wouldn’t the surprise have been if he’d contradicted his client?

Either way, Bowers’ letter outlining his opinion is a dog’s breakfast of mismatched legal references in search of a coherent theory, spiced with a few hyperbolic claims in search of headlines.

Bowers’ letter manages both to state the legal test the bill would establish — that government actions which violate a person’s free exercise of religion must serve a “compelling government interest” via the “least restrictive means” — and to imply the bill offers a get-out-of-jail-free card to anyone claiming religion as a defense anytime. He both acknowledges the language of the bill is “virtually identical” to that of a 22-year-old federal law and claims the effects of such language in Georgia are unknowable.

He both waxes eloquently about the rule of law and ignores that the bill establishes a clear legal test for courts of law to use in settling free-exercise disputes. He both warns the bill could be used to justify parents’ refusal to vaccinate their children and fails to observe the state’s vaccination law has long included a religious exemption.

Most notably, and like other critics before him, Bowers both raises the prospect of rampant discrimination and fails to offer a single example of discrimination upheld by a court since the bill’s language was adopted by the federal government and a majority of states. Perhaps that’s why he resorted to wild-eyed speculation about the Klan.

“(I)t is no exaggeration that the proposed (bill) could be used to justify putting hoods back on the Ku Klux Klan,” Bowers writes, citing the state Anti-Mask Act that effectively outlawed the hoods.

In fact, in 1990 the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the Anti-Mask Act as serving a “compelling state interest” via a “de minimis” restriction on a Klansman’s freedom of expression. Bowers ought to remember that one; he was attorney general when that case was argued.

By definition, nothing can be less restrictive than that which is “de minimis.” It is ridiculous to think the law would be thrown out in a free-exercise case when essentially the same standard was met in a free-expression case.

But harping on the legal arguments, such as they are, takes away from the real problem with raising the specter of hooded terrorists returning to Georgia. It is plainly an attempt to shut down debate altogether.

Not every critic of the bill has been so implacable. And maybe Bowers doesn’t care what legislators think of him. After all, a good lawyer simply advocates his client’s position.

But legislators should remember who his client was when deciding which advocacy groups they can work with in the future.

See More Posts

Sent from my iPhone

https://medium.com/mercatus-scholar-commentary/five-myths-about-net-neutrality-9886d5639bcc

Five Myths about Net Neutrality

In view of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) vote on February 26 to regulate the Internet under Title II of the New Deal–era Communications Act, it is critical to understand what these “net neutrality” rules will and will not do.

Columbia Business School professor Eli Noam says net neutrality has “at least seven different related but distinctive meanings….” The consensus is, however, that net neutrality is a principle for how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or wireless carrier treats Internet traffic on “last mile” access — the connection between an ISP and its customer. Purists believe net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all last-mile Internet traffic the same. The FCC will not enforce that radical notion because networks are becoming more “intelligent” every year and, as a Cisco network engineer recently put it, equal treatment for all data packets “would be setting the industry back 20 years.”

Nevertheless, because similar rules were twice struck down in federal court, the FCC is crafting new net neutrality rules for ISPs and technology companies. Many of these Title II provisions reined in the old Bell telephone monopoly and are the most intrusive rules available to the FCC. The net neutrality rules are garnering increased public scrutiny because they will apply to one of the few bright spots in the US economy — the technology and communications sector.

As with many complex concepts, there are many myths about net neutrality. Five of the most widespread ones are dispelled below.

Reality: Prioritization has been built into Internet protocols for years. MIT computer scientist and early Internet developer David Clark colorfully dismissed this first myth as “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” and pointed out that “[t]he network is not neutral and never has been.” Experts such as tech entrepreneur and investor Mark Cuban and President Obama’s former chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra have observed that the need for prioritization of some traffic increases as Internet services grow more diverse. People speaking face-to-face online with doctors through new telemedicine video applications, for instance, should not be disrupted by once-a-day data backups. ISPs and tech companies should be free to experiment with new broadband services without time-consuming regulatory approval from the FCC. John Oliver, The Oatmeal, and net neutrality activists, therefore, are simply wrong about the nature of the Internet.

Reality: Even while lightly regulated, the Internet will remain open because consumers demand an open Internet. Recent Rasmussen polling indicates the vast majority of Americans enjoy the open Internet they currently receive and rate their Internet service as good or excellent. (Only a small fraction, 5 percent, says their Internet quality is “poor.”) It is in ISPs’ interest to provide high-quality Internet just as it is in smartphone companies’ interest to provide great phones and automakers’ interest to build reliable cars. Additionally, it is false when high-profile scholars and activists say there is no “cop on the beat” overseeing Internet companies. As Federal Trade Commissioner Joshua Wright testified to Congress, existing federal competition laws and consumer protection laws — and strict penalties — protect Americans from harmful ISP behavior.

Reality: The FCC’s net neutrality rules are not an effective way to improve broadband competition. Net neutrality is a principle for ISP treatment of Internet traffic on the “last mile” — the connection between an ISP and a consumer. The principle says nothing about broadband competition and will not increase the number of broadband choices for consumers. On the contrary, net neutrality as a policy goal was created because many scholars did not believe more broadband choices could ensure a “neutral” Internet. Further, Supreme Court decisions lead scholars to conclude that “as prescriptive regulation of a field waxes, antitrust enforcement must wane.” Therefore, the FCC’s net neutrality rules would actually impede antitrust agencies from protecting consumers.

Reality: Intelligent management of Internet traffic and prioritization provide useful services to consumers. Net neutrality proponents call zero-rating — which is when carriers allow Internet services that don’t subtract from a monthly data allotment — and similar practices “dangerous,” “malignant,” and rights violations. This hyperbole arises from dogma, not facts. The real-world use of prioritization and zero-rating is encouraging and pro-consumer. Studies show that zero-rated applications are used by millions of people around the globe, including in the United States, and they are popular. In one instance, poor South African high school students petitioned their carriers for free — zero-rated — Wikipedia access because accessing Wikipedia frequently for homework was expensive. Upon hearing the students’ plight, Wikipedia and South African carriers happily obliged. Net neutrality rules like Title II would prohibit popular services like zero-rating and intelligent network management that makes more services available.

Reality: First, the FCC’s rules will make broadband more expensive, not cheaper. The rules regulate Internet companies much like telephone companies and therefore federal and state telephone fees will eventually apply to Internet bills. According to preliminary estimates, millions of Americans will drop or never subscribe to an Internet connection because of these price hikes. Second, the FCC’s rules will not make Netflix and webpages faster. The FCC rules do not require ISPs to increase the capacity or speed of customers’ connections. Capacity upgrades require competition and ISP investment, which may be harmed by the FCC’s onerous new rules.

To see more from Mercatus scholars on net neutrality, visit mercatus.org/netneutrality.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/01/dr-ben-carson-warns-we-might-not-even-have-elections-in-2016/

Dr. Ben Carson Warns: We Might Not Even HAVE Elections in 2016

Many Americans are rooting for a Dr. Ben Carson candidacy in 2016. The no-nonsense surgeon who has been a vocal opponent of Obamacare and a supporter of a return to a government by, of and for the people has been cagey and tight-lipped about whether or not he will run for president in 2016.

 

Still, according to Dr. Carson, considering all the turbulence in America today, there may not even be a presidential election.

Carson claimed in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace that there may not even be an election in 2016, saying, “I hope that that is not going to be the case. But certainly there is the potential.” When Wallace asked if he believed that, the famed neurosurgeon replied that he did, 

“[B]ecause you have to recognize we have a rapidly increasing national debt, a very unstable financial foundation, and you have all of these things going on, like the ISIS crisis, that could very rapidly change things that are going on in our nation. And unless we begin to deal with these things in a comprehensive way and a logical way, there’s no telling what could happen in just a matter of a couple of years, and particularly in a situation where we have a Senate and a Senate leader who has over 300 bills sitting on his desk, [who] will not bring them to the floor for a vote.” 

Carson’s analysis would appear to be far-fetched if the policy of the Democrat Party was not dedicated to the promotion of lawlessness.

We take for granted that there will always be a peaceful transition of power in America; however, we have also taken for granted many other things that most thought were irrevocable and are currently under attack.

The Democrat-controlled Senate simply refuses to do their job as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to bring bills to the floor.

The Obama DOJ routinely engages in activism and refuses to defend laws that the Obama regime does not favor while interjecting federal presence in state matters.

The uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms is routinely challenged by the Obama Administration.

And perhaps most shockingly of all, the president is firmly committed to unbridled lawlessness. Making trades with terrorists, refusing to secure the border from invaders, unilaterally issuing executive orders to mandate his will like an absolutist monarch- all of these things have happened recently.

Is it really too hard to believe that the transition of power may not go smoothly in these dark times for our republic?

Please share on Facebook and Twitter if you are concerned that the Obama regime might make trouble for Americans in 2016. 

A former contributor for The Oregon Commentator, a conservative journal of opinion, Greg is the Chief Political Analyst and Correspondent for The Tea Party News Network and a regular contributor for RightWing News. Greg is an unapologetic defender of Constitutional principles and the free-market system. His area of expertise is firearm and Second Amendment-related issues. He lives in Nevada with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.

Sent from my iPhone

s America Becoming Exactly What President Eisenhower Warned Against?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/26/is-america-becoming-exactly-what-president-eisenhower-warned-against/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons

Is America Becoming Exactly What President Eisenhower Warned Against?

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the nation about the risks of the “acquisition of unwarranted influence” by the “military industrial complex,” and Glenn Beck said Thursday that America is becoming exactly what Eisenhower warned against.

“Military gear and military interrogation tactics are leaving the battlefield, hear me America, and are now being unleashed on American citizens,” Beck said on his television program. “How long before suspects are going to get waterboarded? Gosh this sounds crazy! It is hard to fathom that a facility such as Homan Square even exists. But what is harder to fathom is that we as a society are not outraged by any of it.”

The Guardian this week revealed the location of a secret interrogation facility in Chicago’s Homan Square where suspects are illegally “disappeared.” They are reportedly kept off official databases and denied access to legal representation for 12 to 24 hours while undergoing beatings and other interrogation techniques. One suspect was only 15 years old, and another was reportedly pronounced dead after being found unresponsive in an interrogation room.

“The militarization of the American police continues to march on, and this one is a huge milestone,” Beck said. “This is an unprecedented assault on individual liberty. All Americans can and must stand up. But it seems like all we can do is say, ‘Eh.’”

Glenn Beck speaks about President Dwight D. Eisenhower on his television program Feb. 26, 2015. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)

“I warn you with everything in me: we are going to become the darkest of dark nations if we don’t wake up soon and we don’t stand together, left and right,” Beck continued. “This is something that both sides should be able to agree on.”

Beck said when a nation combines a militarized police with a surveillance state it is “over.”

“But this isn’t something that has just snuck up on us. This has been a steady progression long before the Boston bombings, long before the Department of Homeland Security, long before 9/11,” Beck said. “The fears of a potential shift towards a militarized police state go all the way back to 1961 and President Dwight D. Eisenhower.”

Beck said Eisenhower saw the military build-up in World War II, and he saw what the Germans had done to their own people. The president warned the nation in the strongest of terms that it “must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

“We are now witnessing his worst fears playing out before our very eyes,” Beck said. “How many freedoms are you willing to trade in the name of security? Do you remember what life was like in America before Osama bin Laden? What has happened to us?”

“It is our duty as citizens to speak out against the injustice now while someone can still hear us — whether you’re on the Internet or on television or in your own home,” Beck concluded. “They are regulating all of it. Speak before you’re just a lonely voice in an empty warehouse.”

Complimentary Clip from TheBlaze TV

The full episode of The Glenn Beck Program, along with many other live-streaming shows and thousands of hours of on-demand content, is available on just about any digital device. Click here to watch every Glenn Beck episode from the past 30 days for just $1!

Sent from my iPhone

http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/26/loretta-lynchs-confirmation-moves-forward-despite-lingering-questions-hsbc-scandal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf02262015LorettaLynch

Lynch’s Confirmation Moves Forward Despite HSBC Scandal

Despite criticism for her decision not to jail the perpetrators of a controversial white-collar crime, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Loretta Lynch this morning to be the next U.S. attorney general, clearing the way for a full Senate vote.

In a 12-8 vote, Lynch received unanimous support from the nine Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and objection from all but three Republicans—Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin Hatch of Utah, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Those who opposed her nomination primarily did so over concerns that Lynch would defend President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which would grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants protection from deportation and grant them work permits.

“We shouldn’t confirm anyone who supports the legality of the president’s executive amnesty,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a member of the committee who voted no.

But that wasn’t the only reason some Republicans chose to oppose Lynch as Attorney General Eric Holder’s replacement.

Earlier this month, The Daily Signal reported on an investigation into Lynch’s decision while serving as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York to not bring criminal charges against banking giant HSBC for an alleged tax evasion scheme.

The bank also faced accusations that its employees funneled millions of dollars to the Iranian government, Middle Eastern terrorists and Mexican drug cartels.

>>> Read More: Senator to Loretta Lynch: Why Did No One Go to Jail for Laundering Money to Terrorists?

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., a member of the Judiciary Committee, has been leading the probe into her decisions not to jail any HSBC employees for allegedly laundering more than $200 million through its U.S. branches and helping wealthy clients avoid paying taxes.

Headquartered in London, HSBC is one of the world’s largest banking and financial services organizations serving some 51 million customers.

Photo: Joe Giddens/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Instead of criminally prosecuting individuals responsible for the money laundering scandal, Lynch helped negotiate a $1.92 billion dollar settlement with HSBC in December 2012.

As for the tax evasion scheme, nearly five years after the Justice Department became aware of the violation, it is still not publically known whether the government has criminally charged HSBC.

Meanwhile, Swiss prosecutors raided the bank’s Geneva headquarters last week over reports that HSBC’s Swiss bank allowed clients to dodge taxes.

“Ms. Lynch has made it clear that she will not stand up to President Obama’s lawlessness, or even egregious cases of white collar crime like HSBC’s money laundering and tax evasion,” said Vitter today in a prepared statement.

During her confirmation hearing for attorney general last month, Lynch said she has been “very aggressive” in pursuing white-collar crime.

Lynch’s Response to the HSBC Investigation

Earlier this week, Lynch responded to inquires from Vitter about her decision to settle the terrorist case with HSBC—and more importantly—the Justice Department’s decision not to go after the bank for its hand in an alleged tax evasion scheme.

Responding to media reports that HSBC shielded clients from their tax liabilities, Lynch said she “does not recall reviewing or being aware” of such information.

>>> Read More: Senator Raises More Questions Over HSBC Money Laundering Scandal

Vitter alleges that the Justice Department was aware of such allegations “at least as early as April 2010,” which was well before the December 2012 money laundering settlement was reached.

(Photos: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Joe Giddens/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Pete Marovich/UPI/Newscom)

“[A]pparently this widely-available information never trickled-down to Ms. Lynch during her negotiations with HSBC for a deferred prosecution agreement,” Vitter said.

Lynch maintains that the settlement with HSBC in the money laundering case—which was negotiated by prosecutors in her former office—does not restrict the Justice Department from pursuing future legal action for the alleged tax evasion scheme.

She would neither confirm nor deny the existence of any pending lawsuit.

“I am not in the position to comment … or even to confirm or deny any particular investigation,” said Lynch in an official response to Vitter’s inquiries. “[B]ut if I am confirmed as Attorney General, I look forward to learning more about the Department’s enforcement efforts in this area.”

The American people “cannot wait for Ms. Lynch’s on-the-job training,” said Vitter in response to her statement, adding:

[T]hey need to know that crimes by banks—no matter how big—will be prosecuted in a timely manner so that their nest eggs are safe and our economy is protected from systemic financial catastrophe. Confirmation of Ms. Lynch would not inspire this much needed confidence.

Lynch said the punishment forced upon HSBC in the money laundering case was “appropriate to address the compliance failures and sanctions violations.”

The terms of the settlement, she said, are “perhaps the most stringent ever imposed on a financial institution,” within the scope the Justice Department was able to pursue.

Loretta Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination to be U.S. attorney general on Jan. 28, 2015. (Photo: Pete Marovich/UPI/Newscom)

Lynch’s Long Resume

Lynch, if confirmed by the Senate, would be the first African-American woman to be the nation’s top law enforcement official.

Supporters praise Lynch for her role in prosecuting terrorism, civil rights and political corruption over a decorated prosecuting career.

“There is good reason to believe that Ms. Lynch will be more independent than the current attorney general and make strides toward recommitting the department to the rule of law,” said Hatch, a Republican who voted yes this morning.

Hatch said that Lynch’s record “does not include anything sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of confirmation.”

The Senate is expected to decide Lynch’s fate in the next two weeks, in what is expected to be a contentious vote.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.redstate.com/diary/govwalker/2015/02/26/im-signing-wisconsins-freedom-work-legislation/

Why I’m Signing Wisconsin’s Freedom to Work Legislation

Why I’m Signing Wisconsin’s Freedom to Work Legislation  

From the diaries. Welcome Governor Scott Walker to the front page of RedState.

When I took office as governor of Wisconsin in 2011, I called together our new Republican majority in the legislature and told them it was time to “put up or shut up.” As the elected leaders of our state, we owed it to our fellow Wisconsinites to follow through with our promises and to tackle the big issues head on.

Our first order of business was reclaiming power for the people of our state. For too long, the big government union bosses had called the shots in our state capital.

At the time, Wisconsin faced a $3.6 billion budget shortfall. We needed to reduce spending, yet collective bargaining by public employees had limited the ability of taxpayers and local governments to control that spending. Taxpayers picked up the tab for all pension contributions and most health insurance contribution. The unions even had a virtual monopoly on schools’ health insurance business by having negotiated requirements to use a union-owned insurance company. Unions didn’t even have to collect their own dues—taxpayers footed the bill for that too.

To change all this, we enacted legislation that became known as Act 10.This is the bill that prompted all the protests in our capitol building and even in front of my personal home. But for all the attention, it was really pretty commonsense legislation.

With Act 10, we reformed the collective bargaining laws so that public employees now make modest contributions to their healthcare and pensions—much like private sector employees. Public employees can now decide for themselves whether to join a union. And while unions can still collectively bargain for wages, they can’t bargain over things like the size of bulletin boards or getting paid time off for union business.

Act 10 also allowed local governments and districts to pay employees based on merit and not just seniority. Teachers can get raises and promotions for a doing a good job—not just being there the longest. Taxpayers get a better deal because local governments can shop around for the most affordable employee insurance plans.

Because Act 10 freed up funds for school districts, fewer have had to lay off teachers. In fact, the three districts with the most teacher layoffs following Act 10 were ones that did not adopt the reforms.

In short, Act 10 ensured that the state government treated taxpayers fairly and spent tax dollars more effectively. While the D.C.-based special interests have attacked us for it, the people of Wisconsin like what they see. We have been re-elected three times in four years.

Now we are once again presented with another chance at big and bold reform—taking on the special interests a second time. Yesterday, the Wisconsin state Senate passed Freedom to Work legislation, which will mean no Wisconsin worker can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. I will sign the bill into law.

I've supported Freedom to Work for years, dating back to my time in the state legislature when I co-sponsored it. And now the people of Wisconsin have voiced their support through their state Senators and representatives. According to polling, 69 percent of Wisconsinites support the policy, and a majority of union households—51 percent—also support the law.

Here's why I’m signing Freedom to Work in Wisconsin: it is good for economic growth. In the last decade, forced unionization states have had about half the rate of wage growth, job growth and manufacturing growth as Right to Work states. Adjusted for cost of living, employees in forced unionization states have almost $2,000 less disposable income. Bottom line, this reform is pro-freedom and pro-work for Wisconsin.

Sent from my iPhone

MEET KELVIN COCHRAN: FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM TO KEEP HIS JOB

https://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/page/chief-cochran

Meet Kelvin Cochran

Kelvin Cochran dedicated over 30 years of his life to fighting fires and protecting the communities in which he's lived and worked. After being born into extreme poverty in Shreveport, Louisiana, Kelvin knew he wanted more out of life. At the age of five he watched firemen fight a fire that had started in his neighbor’s house and determined that he wanted to be a firefighter. He got his start in his hometown and worked his way up the ranks, being appointed Fire Chief for the City of Atlanta in 2008. His exemplary service record drew the attention of President Obama, who in 2009 appointed Kelvin as the U.S. Fire Administrator for the United States Fire Administration, the highest office in the profession. After the city “begged” him to return, Kelvin resumed his post as Atlanta Fire Chief in 2010.

Kelvin is actively involved at Elizabeth Baptist Church, where he is a deacon and leads a men's Bible study. Inspired by his faith, Chief Cochran wrote “Who Told You That You Were Naked?" a book which details the state of man since the fall of Adam in the Book of Genesis. The takeaway of his book is that only in Christ can men be rescued from their fallen condition and fulfill their purpose as husbands and fathers.

 

Case Overview

Chief Cochran’s book, "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" briefly discusses the clear biblical teaching that sex is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. The mere statement of this well-known Christian belief, in a book written for men’s Bible study in his off-time, drew the ire of people seeking to redefine marriage who claim that Kelvin, in his official capacity as fire chief, shouldn’t be able to keep his job because his thoughts and beliefs don’t conform to theirs.

The City of Atlanta initially suspended Chief Cochran for 30 days without pay and ordered that he undergo sensitivity training. An investigation revealed that he had not discriminated against anyone, but at the end of his suspension he was fired. Through their actions, the City of Atlanta is saying that Chief Cochran's biblical values and speech are not only less important than those of people who disagree with the Bible on the topic of sex and marriage, they are punishable by termination.

Alliance Defending Freedom represents Chief Cochran in a suit filed against the City of Atlanta in federal court to vindicate his rights, including his rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

Sent from my iPhone

DHS FUNDING: PUNT FOR THREE WEEKS, KICK THE CAN

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/house-republicans-prepare-dhs-gambit-with-little-margin-of-error/?dcz=

House GOP Faces Another Whip Test on DHS Punt

By Matt Fuller and Emma DumainPosted at 9:34 p.m. on Feb. 26

(Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

When in doubt, punt. That’s the latest plan from House Republicans, but even trying to pass a tried-and-true congressional maneuver might be a tall order for the GOP’s fractured conference.

They met again in the Capitol basement Thursday night and settled on a game plan: a three-week continuing resolution stripped of all provisions blocking President Barack Obama’s immigration action, as well as a separate motion to go to conference with the Senate.

It’s not a plan for victory, per se, but it keeps the game going — and it’s a chance to save face somewhere down the line.

But with House Democratic leaders planning to whip against it, Republican leaders will have to get their team to march in the same direction, and that’s never been an easy feat.

In a sudden, but expected shift from his long-stated opinion, Speaker John A. Boehner advocated for the short-term plan, telling his House colleagues that with the Texas court injunction in place blocking the president’s executive action, legislation wasn’t needed to stop it.

Instead, the argument is that a three-week CR would be long enough so the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals could uphold the injunction, potentially allowing Congress to then vote on a long-term Homeland Security funding bill. The House and Senate could go then to conference on that longer-term bill.

The speaker’s idea, “and I think it’s the correct one,” Rep. Richard Nugent said, is the regular order is to go to conference.

“When you have two competing bills from both houses, the bicameral way to do it is by conference,” the Florida Republican said.

“Our concern,” Nugent continued, “is whether or not the Senate will sit down and do that.”

Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has warned there will be no conference, period.

And with a vote to go to conference requiring 60 votes in the Senate, there’s no reason to believe one would take place.

Still, as Nugent argued, if Senate Democrats refuse to go to conference, maybe they would be blamed for an eventual Department of Homeland Security shut down.

“If you’re not willing to be part of that process, then who’s fault is it?” Nugent asked.

Republicans generally seemed warm to the plan.

“We in the House are basically stuck with two options here,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart said Thursday night. “We either do nothing, in which case Homeland Security shuts down, or we extend it for three weeks.”

“Shutting down Homeland Security just isn’t a viable option,” he said.

Asked whether he thought a clean CR had the votes, Diaz-Balart said, “I don’t know. I have no idea. I would imagine so,” citing an imminent shutdown threat and a pending court ruling that could be in the GOP’s favor.

On Thursday night, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said the House intended to act on Friday. Seemingly, the plan is to send the Senate the three-week CR and leave town, sticking Senate Democrats with the rhetorical option of shutting down DHS over a disagreement over a duration of funding.

But that plan banks on a number of things going right, and perhaps the first problem is that Democrats seemed cold to the idea.

“The House Democratic leadership is whipping against this bill,” a House Democratic leadership aide said in a statement late Thursday. “If House Republicans want to end up with another manufactured crisis that risks our national security in a matter of days, they can do it with 218 votes of their own.”

If Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., truly locks down on her caucus, it will be difficult, though not impossible, for Republicans to send a three-week DHS bill over to the Senate.

Pelosi told reporters Thursday she wouldn’t support a short-term CR, so the opposition of House Democrats shouldn’t come as a surprise.

During the last full government shutdown in 2013, House Republicans engaged in an exercise where they put a series of bills on the floor to reopen parts of government that were non-controversial — the National Parks, for instance — and most Democrats rebuffed them, arguing that the GOP was holding other federal operations hostage. Still, over a dozen, more moderate Democrats in vulnerable districts consistently joined with Republicans in voting “yes” on those piecemeal government funding bills.

Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, told CQ Roll Call late Thursday night that he imagined between 10 to 15 Democrats would vote for the CR. “I wouldn’t count on any,” he said.

And yet he was optimistic that the bill could pass.

House Democrats are scheduled to meet behind closed doors Friday morning, which will give leadership a sense of whether members are prepared to stand together in opposition.

(One thing to watch for: Democrats voting yes only after Republicans show they have the votes).

Some conservatives seem unlikely to support any bill that doesn’t block Obama’s executive action, no matter how short it funds DHS and no matter how badly Republicans need them. GOP leaderships could need some Democrats to pass the bill, meaning Boehner might end up having to make a phone call to Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus were meeting Thursday night to discuss their response to the plan, while moderates in the GOP are frustrated by the prospect of keeping the drama alive.

“What’s the point?” asked Rep. Charlie Dent. The Pennsylvania Republican said he voiced his concerns in the GOP conference meeting. “Bad tactics yield bad outcomes,” he said. “Self-delusion yields self-destruction. We have been engaged to this point in tactical malpractice and at some point we are going to vote on the negotiated homeland security appropriations bill.”

“Some folks just have a harder time facing political reality than others,” Dent continued. “I just understand where this is heading. I think some people want to be able to save face, they want to get something from the Senate. But just like the government shutdown in 2013 … [Senate Democrats] are in a stronger political position.”

Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., was also frustrated with his conservative colleagues.

“It says a lot about the party,” King said. “It means trouble. How many times can we go over the cliff and survive?”

“I’ve had it with this self-righteous delusional wing of the party, which leads us over the cliff,” he said. “They’ve turned this into the Charge of the Light Brigade.”

Humberto Sanchez, Niels Lesniewski and Sarah Chacko contributed to this report.

The 114th: CQ Roll Call’s Guide to the New Congress

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call in your inbox or on your iPhone.

Sent from my iPhone

Glenn goes off on net neutrality supporters

http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/02/26/you-morons-you-useful-idiots-glenn-goes-off-on-net-neutrality-supporters/

“You morons! You useful idiots!” : Glenn goes off on net neutrality supporters

Just hours before the FCC approved net neutrality, Glenn delivered a passionate and frustrated plea for the people to wake up and recognize the dangers of growing government regulation of the internet.

“Because of the way net neutrality is going to go today, I’m not sure that the strategies that we have developed here at TheBlaze or anywhere else – and I don’t mean just us, I mean, Breitbart and everybody else, – I’m not convinced that any of this is going to work,” Glenn said.

Glenn fears that independent companies like TheBlaze will be left behind when the regulations are drafted. Big companies, on the other hand, will get a seat at the table. He compared it to when FDR set price controls.

“What happened was, the big three automakers came in and they set the price of cars. They set the price for labor. And they were brought into the table. The little guys weren’t brought in,” Glenn said.

He’s already seeing it happen. Here’s what Politico reported:

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has made some last-minute revisions to his net neutrality plan after Google and public interest groups pressed for the changes, according to sources at the commission.

Google, Free Press and New America’s Open Technology Institute last week asked the commission to revise language they said could unintentionally allow Internet service providers to charge websites for sending content to consumers. Such a scenario could open the door to an avalanche of new fees for Web companies and threaten their business models.

“Does that sound like net neutrality?  Does that sound like these big, evil corporations don’t have anything to do with anything?  I mean, it’s being written by the big evil corporations and special interest groups.  Your whole point is, ‘we don’t want special interest groups and we don’t want big, evil corporations to have special access’,” Glenn said.

“They just wrote it, you nincompoop.  You morons.  You useful idiots.  That’s all you are.  You’re a useful idiot,” Glenn said of Wheeler.

Sent from my iPhone

CLAPPER: Worst year for global terrorism? 2014

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/wrost-year-global-terrorism-2014-article-1.2130490#bmb=1

Worst year for global terrorism? 2014

Increased terror attacks in 2014 included the beheadings of journalists James Foley, left, and Steven Sotloff, right, by Islamic State jihadists.

Testifying on Capitol Hill, the country's top intelligence chief said 2014 was the worst year on record for global terrorism.

National Intelligence Director James Clapper told members of Congress that terror attacks reached their highest number since such records started being archived.

"When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years (since) such data has been compiled," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

His comments appeared to be in disagreement with remarks made Wednesday by Secretary of State John Kerry, who said "We are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally."

Clapper said in the first nine months of 2014, there were 13,000 terror acts that killed some 31,000 people," Fox News reported.

Ministry of Defence/AP 

Drone images show September British airstrike against an Islamic State armored carrier in Iraq. 

In all of 2013, the numbers were 1,500 terror strikes and about 22,000 fatalities.

The 2014 records showed the Islamic State terrorist group was responsible for most of the atrocities. About 50 percent of all the attacks occurred in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Clapper said.

Some of the group's most vile acts were to post videos of members chopping off the heads of journalists and aid workers from countries including the U.S., Britain, and Japan.

Clapper also told the committee that the U.S. had elevated its appraisal of cyber threats from Russia.

Lefteris Pitarakis/AP

After ISIS militants seized the the town of Kobani, in Syria, a U.S.-led coalition began airstrikes in the region, including the one seen here in October. 

"While I can't go into detail here, the Russian cyber threat is more severe than we had previously assessed," he said. He didn't elaborate.

But a written report that accompanied his testimony cited Russian "actors" developing ways to hack electric power grids, mass transit systems and fuel pipelines.

With News Wire Services

Sent from my iPhone