Click here to view this email as a web page
Insider Report from Newsmax.com
Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Romney’s Grilling on Contraceptives Called a ‘Setup’
2. Obama Seeks to Skirt Ban on UNESCO Funding
3. Chavez Opponent Victim of Anti-Semitism
4. Most Expensive ZIP Is in New Jersey
5. Rand Paul Calls for Cutoff of Aid to Egypt
6. We Heard: Donald Trump, Chris Christie
1. Romney’s Grilling on Contraception Called a ‘Setup’
During a Republican presidential debate in January, moderator George Stephanopoulos peppered Mitt Romney with questions about contraception that seemed totally out of the blue at the time.
But in the wake of President Barack Obama’s move to mandate health insurance companies’ coverage of contraception, the motivation for the ABC newsman’s grilling of Romney has become clear, according to political pundit Dick Morris: It’s part of a plan to convince voters that Republicans will ban contraception.
Rush Limbaugh discussed Morris’ theory on his radio show on Monday.
“I want to move on to this Dick Morris business and the attack on the Catholic Church last week by Obama,” Rush said. “I want to ask you, if you remember back in January there was a presidential debate, a Republican debate in Manchester. George Stephanopoulos kept hounding Romney on contraception. It had not come up, nobody had said anything about it, and we were all confused, as was Romney, what the deal was.
“Well, it is Dick Morris' theorem that that was a setup that led to what happened last week.”
Stephanopoulos asked Romney: “Do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”
Romney responded that it was an “unusual topic” to be questioned about, and said he would “completely oppose” any effort to ban contraception. Stephanopoulos repeated his question, and Romney acknowledged he didn’t know if a state had a right to ban contraception but referred to the question as “silly.”
Appearing on Sean Hannity’s show on the Fox News Channel on Monday, Morris said: “I think that the conservatives are missing the point about this. Obama did not make a mistake in this mandate. It's a deliberately calculated move on his part. The Democrats realized that abortion is no longer a winner for them. So what they're trying to do now is replace it with contraception.
“They want to create the impression that the Republicans will ban contraception.”
Limbaugh opined that Stephanopoulos — who Morris referred to as a “paid Democratic hit man” — was trying to get Romney to agree that states had the right to ban contraception, but “they failed in getting their sound bite. If Romney had said, ‘Well, theoretically yeah, states could,’ that would have been the ad” to use against him.
Editor's Note:
Special: Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan: The Lost Picture. See It Here!
2. Obama Seeks to Skirt Ban on UNESCO Funding
The United States cut off all American funding for UNESCO in November, as required by law, after the United Nations agency voted to approve the Palestinian Authority for full membership.
Now the Obama administration is seeking to circumvent the law by requesting funds for UNESCO (U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). vIn its fiscal 2013 budget request released on Monday, the State Department included $79 million for UNESCO. vAt a briefing, the State Department’s deputy secretary for management and resources, Thomas Nides, said Obama wanted waiver authority that would allow the U.S. to continue funding UNESCO in the future.
“We have put the money in the budget, realizing that we’re not going to be able to spend the money unless we get the waiver — and we have made it clear to the Congress we’d like a waiver,” he said.
Elsewhere in the budget request, a further $40.5 million is listed under the heading of “contingent requirements.”
A footnote to that entry states, “The Department of State intends to work with Congress to seek legislation that would provide authority to waive restrictions on paying the U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO. Should the Congress pass this legislation, this funding is sufficient to cover the FY 2013 UNESCO assessment and the balance of the FY 2012 assessment.”
But Public Law 101-246, which the Democratic-controlled Congress passed in 1990, states that “no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.”
And Public Law 103-236 Title IV, passed in 1994, prohibits “voluntary or assessed contribution to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”
Before the United States cut off funding, UNESCO received 22 percent of its operating budget from the United States, about $80 million a year.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, castigated the administration for the budget requests.
“The Palestinian leadership’s dangerous statehood scheme at the U.N. was dealt a significant blow last year after the U.S. cut off funding to UNESCO due to its admission of ‘Palestine,’” she said in a statement on Wednesday.
“Resuming U.S. funding would give a green light for other U.N. bodies to follow in UNESCO’s footsteps and support the Palestinian statehood push.
“Any effort to walk back this funding cutoff will pave the way for the Palestinian leadership’s unilateral statehood scheme to drive on, and sends a disastrous message that the U.S. will fund U.N. bodies no matter what irresponsible decisions they make.”
UNESCO is a global development agency whose missions include promoting literacy, clean water and education, and designating world heritage sites.
During the 1980s, the United States and Britain withdrew from UNESCO, accusing the agency of mismanagement and an anti-Western political agenda. Britain returned in 1997 and President George W. Bush restored the U.S. relationship in 2002, citing wide
Sent from my iPad
No comments:
Post a Comment