Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Obama says Republicans must end 'threats' on fiscal impasse

Obama says Republicans must end 'threats' on fiscal impasse


Video
REFILE - CORRECTING YEAR U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about the continuing government shutdown from the White House Briefing Room in Washington, October 8, 2013. REUTERS-Kevin Lamarque
U.S. President Barack Obama pauses while speaking about the continuing government shutdown during a news conference in the White House Briefing Room in Washington, October 8, 2013. REUTERS-Kevin Lamarque
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) watches as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) addresses the press following a House Republican party meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 8, 2013. REUTERS-Jason Reed
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 8, 2013 9:10pm EDT
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama refused to give ground in a fiscal confrontation with Republicans on Tuesday, saying he would negotiate on budget issues only if they agree to re-open the federal government and raise the debt limit with no conditions.
At a news conference, an unbending Obama said he would not hold talks on ways to end the fiscal impasse while under threat from conservative Republicans, but agreed to discuss anything, including his healthcare plan, if they restore government funding and raise the debt limit.
"If reasonable Republicans want to talk about these things again, I'm ready to head up to the Hill and try," Obama told reporters.
"But I'm not gonna do it until the more extreme parts of the Republican Party stop forcing (House Speaker) John Boehner to issue threats about our economy. We can't make extortion routine as part of our democracy."
 
 
Obama's comments followed an earlier phone call to Boehner, who had adopted a slightly more conciliatory tone in comments to reporters after a meeting with House of Representatives' Republicans.
Boehner had said there were "no boundaries" in potential talks, and made no mention of recent Republican demands to delay parts of Obama's healthcare law in return for approving funds to end the government shutdown.
But speaking to reporters after Obama's news conference, Boehner said he was "disappointed" by the president's approach.
"What the president said today was 'if there is unconditional surrender by Republicans, he'll sit down and talk to us.' That's not the way our government works," Boehner said.
The public give-and-take between Obama and Boehner was the most direct exchange between the two leaders since a White House meeting last week, but neither side has come up with a path to resolving the bitter fiscal stalemate.
The spending and budget impasse has shut down the federal government for eight days and threatens to prevent the raising of the country's $16.7 trillion borrowing limit before an October 17 deadline identified by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
Investors are exhibiting increasing anxiety as the deadline for raising the debt ceiling approaches.
Interest rates on one-month U.S. government debt hit a 5-year peak on Tuesday and the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index closed down 1.23 percent.
"Until you see some progress, things will likely get worse," said Eric Green, global head of rates, currency and commodity research and strategy at TD Securities in New York.
On Tuesday, House Republicans proposed the creation of a bipartisan committee to work on the issue, which was rejected by Democrats. Senate Democrats also introduced a bill to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions through 2014, but included none of the deficit reductions that Republicans have demanded.
House Republicans emerged from a morning meeting saying they would insist on deficit-reduction talks with Obama as a condition for raising the federal debt limit, but some signaled they might pass short-term legislation to avert a default in exchange for immediate talks.
"If we have a negotiation and a framework set up, we can probably reach a way to raise the debt ceiling while the negotiation is in progress. But nobody is going to raise it before there is a negotiation," Republican Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma said.
'A RECESSION OR WORSE'
The impasse sparked a rising tide of warnings about the potential global economic chaos of a U.S. default, with foreign creditors and the International Monetary Fund's chief economist warning of the potential consequences.
"I think what could be said is if there was a problem lifting the debt ceiling, it could well be that what is now a recovery would turn into a recession or even worse," IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard said.
Japan's finance minister said a failure by the United States to quickly resolve its political deadlock over government finances could damage the global economy.
"The U.S. must avoid a situation where it cannot pay (for its debt) and its triple-A ranking plunges all of a sudden," Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso told reporters after a cabinet meeting.
"The U.S. must be fully aware that if that happens, the U.S. would fall into fiscal crisis," he said in the latest sign that Japan and China, the biggest foreign creditors to the United States, are worried the impasse could harm their trillions of dollars of investments in U.S. Treasury bonds.
Obama said he did not think the crisis would create lasting international damage, saying "folks around the world will attribute this to the usual messy process of American democracy."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a traditional supporter of pro-business Republicans, also warned about further delays in reopening the federal government and raising the debt limit.
"The debt ceiling specifically must pass on a timely basis to avoid inflicting substantial and enduring damage on the U.S. economy," said Bruce Josten, the group's executive vice president.
Polls show growing public concern over the impasse, with Republicans getting slightly more of the blame.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Tuesday found the percentage of Americans concerned about the shutdown rose to 75 percent from 66 percent last week. Blame for Republicans grew to 30 percent from 26 percent, with the level of blame for Obama and Democrats at 19 percent, up from 18 percent.
Plenty of obstacles remain to settling the issue. In the Senate, Democrats introduced a bill on Tuesday to raise the government's borrowing authority by enough to last through 2014.
A Democratic aide said they were hopeful they could get the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the 100-member Senate and pass the debt ceiling bill with no strings attached, even though the measure includes no deficit reduction.
But Republican Senator John McCain, who some Democrats had hoped might support getting the "clean" debt ceiling bill to a vote, declined to back it when asked by reporters. "The answer to this is negotiations," said McCain from Arizona.
In the House, Republican leaders unveiled a proposal for a 20-member committee to make recommendations on a debt limit increase and look at ways to rein in the country's deficits, but Democrats quickly rejected the idea.
Under the legislation, the Republican House would name 10 members to the panel while the Democratic-led Senate would name the other 10. The panel would also make recommendations on a measure to fund the government for the 2014 fiscal year, ending the shutdown.
The plan is reminiscent of a failed 2011 "supercommittee" of Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate that was asked to find trillions of new budget savings.
The White House said Obama would veto a bill for the new deficit-reduction panel if it reached his desk as it did nothing to solve the immediate obligation for Congress to open the government and pay its bills.
The special committee measure passed the House in a 224-197 vote on Tuesday evening with the support of just two Democrats and opposed by five Republicans. It seemed unlikely to be taken up in the Senate.
Despite widespread warnings about failing to raise the debt limit, some House Republicans dismissed the prospect of a first-ever default.
"There's no way to default. There is enough money coming into the Treasury to pay interest and roll over principal," said Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a favorite of the smaller-government Tea Party wing of the Republican Party.
Asked about warnings of catastrophic consequences if the debt limit is not increased, Amash told reporters: "I say it's patently not true what they are saying."
(Additional reporting by David Lawder, Richard Cowan, Caren Bohan, Jeff Mason, Matt Spetalnick and Mark Felsenthal; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Tim Dobbyn

Pennsylvania Stalking Laws

 

Tuesday

Pennsylvania Stalking Laws

PENNSYLVANIA

18 Pa.C.S. @ 2709 Harassment and stalking. 1997.
(A) HARASSMENT.-- A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
(1) he strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects him to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
(2) he follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
(3) he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
(B) STALKING.-- A person commits the crime of stalking when he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either of the following:
(1) an intent to place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury; or
(2) an intent to cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
(C) GRADING.--
(1) An offense under subsection (a) shall constitute a summary offense.
(2) (i) An offense under subsection (b) shall constitute a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(ii) A second or subsequent offense under subsection (b) or a first offense under subsection (b) if the person has been previously convicted of any crime of violence involving this same victim, family or household members, including, but not limited to, a violation of section 2701 (relating to simple assault), 2702 (relating to aggravated assault), 2705 (relating to recklessly endangering another person), 2901 (relating to kidnapping), 3121 (relating to rape), 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) or 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), an order issued under section 4954 (relating to protective orders) or an order issued under 23 Pa.C.S. @ 6108 (relating to relief), shall constitute a felony of the third degree.
(D) FALSE REPORTS.-- A person who knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to implicate another under this section commits an offense under section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement authorities).
(E) APPLICATION OF SECTION.-- This section shall not apply to conduct by a party to a labor dispute as defined in the act of June 2, 1937 (P.L. 1198, No. 308), known as the Labor Anti-Injunction Act, or to any constitutionally protected activity.
(E.1) COURSE OF CONDUCT.-- Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
(F) DEFINITIONS.-- As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"COURSE OF CONDUCT." A pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct.

"EMOTIONAL DISTRESS." A temporary or permanent state of great physical or mental strain.

"FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER." Spouses or persons who have been spouses, persons living as spouses or who lived as spouses, parents and children, other persons related by consanguinity or affinity, current or former sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood.
 
 
 
 
 
 (a)  Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of stalking 
 
 when the person either:
            (1)  engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits
        acts toward another person, including following the person
        without proper authority, under circumstances which
        demonstrate either an intent to place such other person in
        reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial
        emotional distress to such other person; or
            (2)  engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly
        communicates to another person under circumstances which
        demonstrate or communicate either an intent to place such
        other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause
        substantial emotional distress to such other person.
        (b)  Venue.--
            (1)  An offense committed under this section may be
        deemed to have been committed at either the place at which
        the communication or communications were made or at the place
        where the communication or communications were received.
            (2)  Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in
        more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other
        jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a
        continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
        (c)  Grading.--
            (1)  Except as otherwise provided for in paragraph (2), a
        first offense under this section shall constitute a
        misdemeanor of the first degree.
            (2)  A second or subsequent offense under this section or
        a first offense under subsection (a) if the person has been
        previously convicted of a crime of violence involving the
        same victim, family or household member, including, but not
        limited to, a violation of section 2701 (relating to simple
        assault), 2702 (relating to aggravated assault), 2705
        (relating to recklessly endangering another person), 2901
        (relating to kidnapping), 3121 (relating to rape) or 3123
        (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse), an
        order issued under section 4954 (relating to protective
        orders) or an order issued under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108 (relating
        to relief) shall constitute a felony of the third degree.
        (d)  False reports.--A person who knowingly gives false
     information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to
     implicate another under this section commits an offense under
     section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement
     authorities).
        (e)  Application of section.--This section shall not apply to
     conduct by a party to a labor dispute as defined in the act of
     June 2, 1937 (P.L.1198, No.308), known as the Labor Anti-
     Injunction Act, or to any constitutionally protected activity.
        (f)  Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
     words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
     subsection:
        "Communicates."  To convey a message without intent of
     legitimate communication or address by oral, nonverbal, written
     or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail,
     Internet, facsimile, telex, wireless communication or similar
     transmission.
        "Course of conduct."  A pattern of actions composed of more
     than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a
     continuity of conduct. The term includes lewd, lascivious,
     threatening or obscene words, language, drawings, caricatures or
     actions, either in person or anonymously. Acts indicating a
     course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may
     be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as
     evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of
     conduct.
        "Emotional distress."  A temporary or permanent state of
     mental anguish.
        "Family or household member."  Spouses or persons who have
     been spouses, persons living as spouses or who lived as spouses,
     parents and children, other persons related by consanguinity or
     affinity, current or former sexual or intimate partners or
     persons who share biological parenthood.
     (Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1759, No.218, eff. 60 days)

        2002 Amendment.  Act 218 added section 2709.1. See sections 9
     and 10 of Act 218 in the appendix to this title for special
     provisions relating to references to section 2709 and references
     to section 5504.
        Cross References.  Section 2709.1 is referred to in sections
     2711, 4954, 4955, 5708, 6105 of this title; section 3304 of
     Title 5 (Athletics and Sports); sections 5329, 6108, 6344, 6702,
     6704, 6711 of Title 23 (Domestic Relations).

Eight Members of Congress Arrested During D.C. Immigration Rally Oct. 8, 2013 5:17pm Oliver Darcy 340 8.3K 11 7 219 Related: Politics, Video Eight members of Congress were arrested during a Tuesday immigration rally on Washington, D.C.’s National Mall. Several House Democrats sat in the middle of Independence Avenue and blocked rush hour traffic, according to the Star Tribune. The representatives, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rep. Al Green (D-TX), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Rep. Jan Schawkowsky (D-IL) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), were then arrested by U.S. Capitol Police, spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider confirmed to TheBlaze. The congressmen were charged with “crowding, obstructing, and incommoding” under D.C. Code 22-1307 and will be processed by the U.S. Capitol Police at 67 K Street, SW. Tuesday’s rally was organized by a group called Camino Americano and was aimed at urging Congress to pass immigration reform allowing individuals who are illegally in the U.S. to apply for citizenship. The demonstration took place on the “legally closed” National Mall, but was allowed by the National Parks Service because it was considered a rally guarded by the First Amendment. Here is a video of the arrests, posted to Rangel’s official Twitter account: Photos of the arrests: Follow Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) on Twitter Carousel image via AP – Other must read stories: Update: NPR Ditches Opera Show Over Host's Involvement With Occupy D.C. Do D.C. Police License Plate Readers Lead to a 'Surveillance Society'? 'Polite Robber' Arrested for Weekend Stick-Up The Conservative Plan for Immigration Reform (op-ed) Groupon acquires last-minute travel app rival Blink (smartplanet.com)

Eight Members of Congress Arrested During D.C. Immigration Rally

Eight members of Congress were arrested during a Tuesday immigration rally on Washington, D.C.’s National Mall.
Several House Democrats sat in the middle of Independence Avenue and blocked rush hour traffic, according to the Star Tribune.
The representatives, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rep. Al Green (D-TX), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Rep. Jan Schawkowsky (D-IL) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), were then arrested by U.S. Capitol Police, spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider confirmed to TheBlaze.
The congressmen were charged with “crowding, obstructing, and incommoding” under D.C. Code 22-1307 and will be processed by the U.S. Capitol Police at 67 K Street, SW.
Tuesday’s rally was organized by a group called Camino Americano and was aimed at urging Congress to pass immigration reform allowing individuals who are illegally in the U.S. to apply for citizenship. The demonstration took place on the “legally closed” National Mall, but was allowed by the National Parks Service because it was considered a rally guarded by the First Amendment.
Here is a video of the arrests, posted to Rangel’s official Twitter account:

Photos of the arrests:

Follow Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) on Twitter
Carousel image via AP

Members Of Congress Seen Partying, Drinking On Capitol Hill All Week During Shutdown

Members Of Congress Seen Partying, Drinking On Capitol Hill All Week During Shutdown

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Bartenders blow the whistle

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Oct 8, 2013
Bartenders close to the capitol have told local reporters that members of Congress are keeping themselves busy during the government shutdown by partying and drinking, and generally having a great big knees up.
“I don’t think the public would be happy to know that they are actually enjoying this time.” one bartender at Hawk and Dove bar on Pennsylvania Avenue told WUSA9 News.
The barman added that members of Congress have been “cutting loose” all week, and started off with a party on the first night of the shutdown.
“There was a private party upstairs with a few Congress people and senators here that night.” the bartender stated.

WUSA9 also spoke to another bartender from a separate establishment who verified that members of Congress had been dropping into his bar all week, including on the day of the shutdown.
The bar manager, who wished to remain anonymous, stated “There were congressmen, there were lobbyists and staffers…we stayed pretty busy. They were definitely eating and passing the time before the vote.”
The news station also published a photo (see screenshot above) of House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer posing for a picture with actress Selma Hayek in a bar on the second night of the shutdown.
Last week on the night of the shutdown, several reporters indicated that members of Congress were drinking before and after the vote.
Perhaps this is why congress has an approval rating lower than that of dog poop, hemorrhoids, witches, cockroaches, the IRS, toenail fungus and even the most evil disgusting thing of all… Wall Street.
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
This article was posted: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 12:49 pm

Police Arrest Veterans at NYC Memorial

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
“This is a sign of betrayal”
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 8, 2013
Police arrested numerous Vietnam veterans during a vigil at a war memorial in New York City last night after the protesters refused to adhere to a 10pm curfew.
The veterans had gathered at the Vietnam Memorial Plaza to protest the 12th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan by reading out the names of deceased US soldiers.
One video shows a man speaking about how veterans are committing suicide. “This is a sign of betrayal….it’s important you know that your government committed immense atrocities during the Vietnam war, we did it every day,” he states.
After the Park Service rejected the group’s application to hold a protest at the site, an all night vigil was planned. The group argued that its first amendment rights superseded the 10pm curfew.
Photographs show veterans being handcuffed and loaded into paddy wagons.
A live stream video recording of the event shows demonstrators chanting, “whose side are you on?” before police, after several verbal warnings, move in to make the arrests.
View more images and video from last night’s demonstration below.


Video streaming by Ustream





*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 4:51 am

Obama signs bill guaranteeing active duty military pay in event of shutdown

Obama signs bill guaranteeing active duty military pay in event of shutdown

In this Aug. 27, 2012 photo provided by the U.S. Army, U.S. soldiers from the 4th Brigade, 82nd Airborne arrive to turn in their vehicles and equipment as part of the drawdown at the Kandahar Air Field south of Kabul, Afghanistan.AP
Senate Democrats are vowing to reject House Republicans' last-minute bid to delay ObamaCare by attaching new amendments to a must-pass spending bill.
But the Senate has accepted one Republican idea -- a bill that would pay the military in the event of a shutdown. The Senate easily approved the bill late Monday afternoon and President Obama signed it into law a few hours later, as the government careened toward a shutdown.
The House unanimously passed that bill early Sunday morning. The bill would ensure that active-duty military -- as well as some civilians and Defense contractors -- get paid even if there's a shutdown.
Without such a bill, the military's 1.4 million active-duty personnel would still be expected to be on duty, but could see a delay in pay, if Congress misses a midnight deadline to avert a shutdown.  

Gov’t Shutdown Denies Military Families Money for Funerals

Gov’t Shutdown Denies Military Families Money for Funerals

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
DoD failed to notify Congress that they were refusing death benefits to military families
Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
Oct. 8, 2013
As if the public hasn’t suffered enough from the government “shutdown,” which was initiated by unnecessary political antics, now the families of fallen soldiers are literally paying the price in an unimaginable way.
militarymom
The Washington Times reports that at least five families, who have lost a family member in the never ending war on terror over the weekend, have been denied their death benefits.
Families of fallen soldiers typically receive a death gratuity of $100,000 within 36 hours of the soldier’s death. This government pay-out is meant to help families with funeral costs, transportation expenses and serves as a “transitional pay benefit” until the military’s survivor benefits kick in. It also allows the families to fly over the Del. Dover Air Force Base and view the coffins of their loved ones being unloaded.
This latest cut in spending has provoked outrage, causing the non-profit group “Family Communications and Logistics for Luke’s Wings,” which offers assistance to military families, to step up and take action.
The non-profit group announced they will dip into their savings to help pay for the families of fallen soldiers who wish to fly to Dover Air Force Base so that they may participate in the viewing of their loved ones’ caskets.
The non-profit organization’s manager, Jennifer Magerer, said the members of her group were “deeply saddened” by the government’s decision to cut funding for death benefits.
Last Monday Democrats actually agreed to agree with the Republicans on something when they signed a bill that guaranteed pay for active-duty military in the event of a government shutdown. However, somehow the Department of Defense (DoD) ignored this provision.
Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said in a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, that the DoD’s refusal to pay out death gratuity was a mistake based on “careless legal interpretation.” Instead of objecting the refusal to pay out military families, the DoD went about business as usual, failing to even notify Congress of the initiative.
Republicans claim they are drafting a bill that would immediately restore funds for death benefits, and hope to vote on the measure tomorrow.
The public, including military veterans, has already suffered enough at the hands of the corrupt US government  by denying them the right to visit public memorials and national parks paid for by their tax dollars.
As Paul Joseph Watson wrote, the Obama administration has been accused of “being spiteful in using the government shut down to punish Americans as part of a political ploy to shift the blame for the impasse onto Republicans.”

This article was posted: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 12:49 pm

"For the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row."

Dennis Ross on Monday, October 7th, 2013 in an op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times

Rep. Dennis Ross says U.S. spending has fallen two straight years for first time since Korean War

U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland, is one of a small group of Republicans calling for an end to the government shutdown.
After all, Republicans have succeeded in reining in government spending, Ross wrote in an op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times (the parent of PolitiFact), on Oct. 7, 2013.
"In the few years since I was elected to Congress in 2010, we have achieved huge savings and taken monumental steps. For the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row," Ross wrote, adding, "That is why I would support a continuing resolution that funds the government at sequestration levels for one year."
A reader asked us whether Ross was correct that, "for the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row." We thought the claim was interesting, and we decided to check it out.
By the most basic measure we found that Ross is right.
The Korean War was an active conflict through the signing of a truce on July 26, 1953, so we counted starting in 1953.
Between 1953 and 1955, federal spending fell each year, from $76.1 billion to $70.9 billion to $68.4 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. By 1956, spending had edged up again, to $70.6 billion.
After that, spending almost always went up every year, at least until recently. It fell for one year between 1964 and 1965, and then once again between 2009 and 2010.
But the only time it fell two years in a row was between 2011 and 2013. In 2011, federal outlays were $3.60 trillion. Outlays fell to $3.54 trillion in 2012, and the Congressional Budget Office projects the figure to fall to $3.46 trillion in 2013.
We should note that this is not the only way to measure a claim like this. Sometimes, raw dollars aren’t an especially useful measurement for analyzing long periods of history, especially when talking about things that are growing. Inflation, population growth and economic expansion almost inevitably make the most recent year the largest ever. However, in this case, we think that using raw dollars is an acceptable measurement. That’s because reductions in spending mean swimming against the tide of inflation and growth.
Our rating
Ross said that, "for the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row." Since the 1950s, spending fell one year between 1964 and 1965, and then once again between 2009 and 2010. But the only time it fell two years in a row was between 2011 and 2013. We rate the statement True.

Transcript: Testimony of Lt. Col. Andrew Wood at the House Oversight Committee hearing on the “Security Failures in Benghazi”

Transcript: Testimony of Lt. Col. Andrew Wood at the House Oversight Committee hearing on the “Security Failures in Benghazi”

Edited by Jenny Jiang
Transcript: Testimony of Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, Utah National Guard member and Department of Interior employee, before the House Oversight Committee on the “Security Failures in Benghazi” on Oct. 10, 2012:
I am Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood. I’m a member of the Utah National Guard with 24 years of service as a Special Forces soldier. I was mobilized for the Winter Olympics in 2002, Afghanistan from September of 2003 to May of 2004, and for counter-terrorism work in the Southern Philippines from August of 2007 to May of 2008.
Lt. Col. Andrew Wood at the House Oversight Committee hearing on the “Security Failures in Benghazi” on Oct. 10, 2012. SOURCE: House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform
I currently work for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as the Upper Colorado Regional Security Officer. I am responsible to Reclamation for the security program that oversees 58 high and significant hazard dams in 5 western States, one of which is Glen Canyon Dam, a national critical infrastructure facility.
Upon hearing of the death of Ambassador Stevens and later of the Congressional inquiry, I identified myself to my Congressional Representative’s staff as a person with intimate knowledge of the security situation prior to the attack. I was subsequently contacted and began a dialogue with staff investigators.
I made a personal decision to come forward with information and do not represent DoD or any government agency. I had unique access and placement to many government leaders and agencies working in Libya. I feel duty bound to come forward in order to inform and provide a portion of ground truth information. I feel a sense of honor for those individuals who have died in the service of their country.
I realize much of my work in Libya was entangled in sensitive government work and I must be careful not to betray the trust and confidences that have been placed in me.
The killing of a US Ambassador is a rare and extraordinary thing and requires our attention as a people.
As a citizen I made the determination that this out weighs all other interests and will risk whatever circumstances may result from my testimony.
I served as the Site Security Team (SST) Commander in Libya from 12 February to 14 August of this year, 2012. I was mobilized from the Utah National Guard into Title 10 status and reported to Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA) which serves directly under AFRICCOM.
I was detailed in Title 22 status to the Department of State and assumed command of the SST.
The SST element consisted of 16 members. It is my understanding that it was crafted by the National Security Council to meet the demanding security challenges facing the Department of State and their requirement to re-establish diplomatic relations with a post Gaddafi or Free Libya.
The SST loaned considerable support to the Department of State’s security posture in this uncertain and volatile environment. The SSTs mission was to support and answer to Chief of Mission in Libya.
I worked directly for the Regional Security Officer. We provided Security Support, Medical Support, Communications Support for every facet of security that covered the Embassy.
As the SST Commander I had a seat on the Country Team and I was closely involved with the operational planning and support to the RSO’s security objectives.
The Embassy staff lived and worked together at two locations in Tripoli and Embassy property in Benghazi. The SST supported security for movements of diplomatic officers in and around Tripoli and other parts of Libya as their work required.
On two occasions I sent SST members to Benghazi to support and bolster security at that location. The SST was closely integrated with regular diplomatic security agents working directly for the RSO as well as the Mobile Security Deployment teams.
I traveled to Benghazi on two occasions, once with the RSO to evaluate the security situation there and once to conduct some work for the Defense Attache’s office.
I was there the second time in June when the UK Ambassador’s convoy was attacked. I responded with DS security agents in order to help provide medical and security assistance to wounded UK security personnel. I conducted a post attack investigation of the ambush or assault.
I regularly met with and held frequent conversations with Ambassador Cretz and Stevens and other members of the security team.
In June when Eric Nordstrom rotated out, I was the senior member of the Country team with the exception of Ambassador Stevens. We lived and worked closely together in an atmosphere that is common to an expeditionary post.
Ambassador Stevens was an avid runner and played tennis as well. The SST was heavily involved in performing his security detail when he ran. I ran with him on several occasions.
The SST provided an important link for the country team to SOCAFRICA with its intelligence assets and resources. There was a good exchange of intelligence information between SOCAFRICA and the RSO. There was a great working relationship between SST and Diplomatic security agents and MSD members at the Embassy posts throughout Libya.
I reported 3 times a week through video teleconference to SOCAFRICA and sent daily Situation reports. I had the communications capability to provide a direct link to SOCAFRICA 24-7.
I no longer have access to email and documents that I worked with on a daily basis much of this was contained on AFRICOM servers and computers that I worked through.
My recollection of dates is mostly from memory and I will need to re- access that information in order to specify dates with great certainty.
State Department’s decision not to extend SST’s security work beyond August 5th terminated our work in this capacity. The military members of my team were in the process of changing status from Title 22 back to Title 10 shortly before my departure.
The situation on the ground was continuously updated with reports that I sent to my military chain and CC’ed the RSO on.
The RSO sent information on security and threats in a similar manner.
While the sound of gunfire in and around Tripoli subsided from February to April, the situation remained unstable. Libyans struggled with a Transitional government that hesitated to make decisions and was forced to rely upon local or tribal militias with varying degrees to loyalty.
In late spring, the police were allowed to return to work to help with traffic but were limited to that only. Fighting between militias was still common when I departed. Some militias appeared to be degenerating into organizations resembling freelance criminal operations. Targeted attacks against westerners were on the increase.
In June the Ambassador received a threat on Facebook with a public announcement that he liked to run around the Embassy compound in Tripoli.
When I arrived in February there were 3 MSD teams on the ground. Ambassador Cretz was confronted with having to lose one of these and requested an equal number of regular diplomatic security agents.
The Ambassador struggled with renewing the SST beyond April 5th. That’s Ambassador Stevens.
The second MSD team was withdrawn shortly after Ambassador Cretz’s departure, and the last MSD team was restricted from performing security work only and limited only training local guard force members in July. The remaining MSD was withdrawn at about the same time the SST security work was terminated.
The RSO’s struggled to maintain these losses with regular diplomatic security personnel.
The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there. The situation remained uncertain and reports from some Libyans indicated it was getting worse.
Diplomatic security remained weak. In April there was only one US diplomatic security agent stationed there. The RSO struggled to obtain additional personnel there but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with.
I hope the information I provide will be put together with ‘data points’ from others so an accurate picture can be obtained.
We need to be dedicated to understand the problems that surround this attack in order to find a solution. Our failure to do so will result in repeated instances that allow our adversaries to take an advantage over us.
My purpose in conveying this information is to prevent their ability to take the life of another Ambassador or kill another valuable and talented public servants working for the diplomatic service of their country.
###

Learn More:

The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack.

Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.

Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack.

A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it.

Wood, whose team arrived in February, says he and fellow security officials were very worried about the chaos on the ground. He says they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, D.C., but that the officials denied requests to enhance security. - See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/07/Bombshell-Obama-Administration-Withdrew-Special-Forces-Team-From-Libya-One-Month-Before-Attack#sthash.C84G6EBZ.dpuf

Obama Doctrine: Admin Withdrew Special Forces Team From Libya One Month Before Attack Back to Breitbart TV

Obama Doctrine: Admin Withdrew Special Forces Team From Libya One Month Before Attack
Back to Breitbart TV

Share This: The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack.

Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.

Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack.

A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it.

Wood, whose team arrived in February, says he and fellow security officials were very worried about the chaos on the ground. He says they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, D.C., but that the officials denied requests to enhance security." data-hashtags="" data-via="BreitbartNews" data-dnt="true" class="twitter-share-button">Tweet
PrintEmail



7 Oct 2012 14 post a comment
CBS News has learned that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya. Lt. Col. Andy Wood led a 16-member Special Forces site security team responsible for protecting U.S. personnel in Libya.

The subpoena compels Lt. Col. Wood to appear at a House Oversight Committee hearing next week that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 Muslim extremist terror assault on the U.S. compound at Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues were killed in the attack.

Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that's despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.

Wood says he met daily with Stevens and that security was a constant challenge. There were 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya in the six months leading up to the September 11 attack.

A senior State Department official told CBS News that half of the 13 incidents before September 11 were fairly minor or routine in nature, and that the Benghazi attack was so lethal and overwhelming, that a diplomatic post would not be able to repel it.

Wood, whose team arrived in February, says he and fellow security officials were very worried about the chaos on the ground. He says they tried to communicate the danger to State Department officials in Washington, D.C., but that the officials denied requests to enhance security. - See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/07/Bombshell-Obama-Administration-Withdrew-Special-Forces-Team-From-Libya-One-Month-Before-Attack#sthash.C84G6EBZ.dpuf

Confirmed: #Benghazi consulate denied military help, administration cover up collapsing

Posted by: Phineas on May 6, 2013 at 2:40 pm
**Posted by Phineas
US Consulate, Benghazi
“No authority”
Via Sharyl Attkisson/CBS News, this is just disgusting:
The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.
The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”
No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.
The fact that a relief team was available in Libya and was ready to go is important, if one bears in mind the question of cross-border authority. That means presidential authorization wasn’t necessary: the Special Ops guys were ready to board the plane and, as Hicks states later in the article in a transcript of his testimony to congressional investigators, the Libyan government wanted us to intervene:
Q: So what would have been the risk of — do you think it would have been risky for us to send someone, do you think it would have been counterproductive for us to send a fighter pilot plane over Benghazi without that permission?
A: We would have certainly wanted to obtain that permission. I believe we would have gotten it if we had asked. I believe that the Libyans were hoping that we were going to come bail them out of this mess. And, you know, they were as surprised as we were that American — the military forces that did arrive only arrived on the evening of September 12. Yeah.
Remember, Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission, our “Number Two” at the embassy after the Ambassador. With Ambassador Stevens dead, he was in charge. He was in a position to know the Libyan government very well and, by his words, it looks like the Libyans would have been happy to green-light almost anything we wanted to do.
But someone in no uncertain terms told that relief team to stand down. Just who gave that order and why the administration lied about it are questions the House Oversight Committee should focus on this upcoming Wednesday.
There are other questions regarding available military aid that night: Hick asserts that, had we flown a couple of fighter jets over Benghazi, we would have scared the jihadis off:
“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them,” Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.
Attkisson points out that the Souda Bay Naval Air Station in Crete is only an hour away, while an earlier CBS article reported on available aid at Sigonella, Sicily, also an hour or so away. Yet, in an article at The Daily Beast, Eli Lake reports that Hicks says he was told the nearest fighter cover was at Aviano, Italy, too far away to help. That latter backs up then-Defense Secretary Panetta’s assertion to a Senate committee that no air assets would have been available quickly enough. But… no fighter assets at two nearby airbases, when we have a consulate that’s sitting in the middle of a jihadi recruiting ground? Forgive me if I’m skeptical, but, when I read in the same article…
[Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin] Dempsey said he could not have gotten troops on the ground within 13 to 15 hours.
Panetta was firm throughout his testimony that there were no “undue delays” in decision making and there was no denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders when the attack happened.
…and compare it to the testimony of the Deputy Chief of Mission who was there on the ground screaming for help with a team of Special Forces ready and anxious to go, well, forgive me if I think we’re being shoveled a load of horse manure.
In fact it’s plain to everyone, even Bob Schieffer (h/t The Jawa Report), that this administration has been lying through its teeth since the day this attack took place. They deliberately altered talking points (1) based on orders from “on high,” blaming a video no one had ever seen and vilifying the poor schmuck videographer, denying the attack had anything to do with al Qaeda, and then, when it couldn’t be denied any longer, hiding behind a whitewash of an “accountability report” that is itself now being investigated.
All this coverup and all these lies, and, near as anyone can figure out, it was all meant to protect Obama’s reelection and Hillary Clinton’s chances to succeed him.
Somewhere Richard Nixon nods in understanding.
Wednesday should be fascinating.
RELATED: The Weekly Standard with more on the stand-down order. Background on Gregory Hicks. The complete Benghazi timeline in spreadsheet format. Another whistle-blower reveals Secretary Clinton’s efforts to go around her department’s own counterterrorism bureau the night of Benghazi. Who the heck is Ben Rhodes, and why is a failed fiction writer making US national security decisions? (h/t Rick Moran)
Footnote:

WAKE UP AMERICA - Part 2: Three CIA TERRORIST TRAITORS to the FREE WORLD **NAMED**

Central Intelligence Agency Seal
Central Intelligence Agency Seal
Former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who told them on the record that he has intelligence that three former top CIA officials -- George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee -- knowingly withheld key information on the alleged hijackers from the White House, the FBI, Immigration and the State and Defense Departments!

CIA 911 guilt. Hear it for yourself.

"The CIA has issued legal threats against two film producers who have discovered intimate details of a cover up regarding the intelligence agency and two of the purported 9/11 hijackers."

Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, the producers of the popular 9/11 documentary '9/11 Press for Truth', were contacted by the CIA last week on September 8th, 2011 regarding extensive research, interviews and findings that have led them to discover the identities of two key CIA analysts who were instrumental in the conspiracy.

CIA THREATENS FILM MAKERS FOR THE TRUTH; SAUDI--CIA MADE IT HAPPEN

The film's producers initially only referred to the CIA analysts by their first names, but expressed their intention to later reveal their full identities in a forthcoming "investigative podcast", which seemingly prompted the agency to step in.


Read more at http://www.censorshipinamerica.com/2013/04/wake-up-america-part-2-three-cia-traitors-named.html#t1BoUMr2GrfUQ4V1.99

Email or Facebook or Tweet or IM or IRC Print & Post IT >>

"Become HERO Human AGAIN with (tm) #QuantumFluxNewsService(tm)FOLLOW @censorednewsnow RT"
then Ewe start tobecome YOU by following @censorednewsnow

Then click (tm) .;~) RETWEET **ALL** those in the timeline (so they will FOLLOW YOU *and YOU FOLLOW *ALL** of them: DONE! Catch latest >TOP FLUX: WORLD BANK #BlackEagleTrust DoD DUMPGENIE OIL? BUSH UK BENGHAZI 911 : #MASSARREST #CONDOLLEZZA RICE #WARCRIMINAL