he Secret Wars: The CIA’s covert mission to combat terrorism

On the Radar

It’s common knowledge that the United States embarked on two wars following September 11: Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, can you name a third?
That’s the premise of Mark Mazzetti’s new book The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth.
“There is war going on that really still is not acknowledged by the U.S., or the details certainly are not acknowledged by the US,” Mark Mazzetti tells on the Radar, referring to the CIA’s use of drones to kill individuals the U.S. government deems terrorists in places like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.
Mazzetti refers to the CIA’s drone program as the “wars away from the big wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and the most concentrated theatre of that war is believed to be Pakistan, where just yesterday a suspected US drone strike killed four people in the northwest region of the country--an attack that the Pakistani government has condemned as an unauthorized unilateral action by the United States.
Despite Pakistan's condemnation of yesterday's attack, Mazzetti explains that the Pakistani government gave the U.S. permission to conduct secret strikes in 2004.
“The agreement was that the U.S. could start doing drone strikes in the tribal regions of Pakistan, but on the condition that either Pakistan takes credit for it or nobody talks about it,” Mazzetti says, going on to tell the story of former Pakistani president Perez Musharraf’s approving the use of drones.
“President Musharraf, at the time, said he didn't think it'd be a problem keeping up the ruse because his line was ‘things fall out of the sky all the time in Pakistan’,” Mazzetti recalls.
The drone war in Pakistan has become an open secret over the last several years, Mazzetti says there’s a lot the government has yet to be transparent about.
”There's been a lot of operations that have gone badly that have never been acknowledged,” says the author.
“A lot of this is still being done on the fly in terms of the procedures, the targeting rules, the lists of people, who get marked for death and whether the president has to sign off on them,” Mazzetti says.
To hear more about what Mazzetti uncovered about the CIA’s secret war, including how it has fundamentally altered the agency’s primary focus from spying to manhunting, check out this episode of On the Radar.

Read More

Republicans get into the permanent campaign business

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus (Getty Images)

LOS ANGELES—Since the early days of President Barack Obama's first term, Republicans have disparaged him for engaging in a "permanent campaign," saying he is placing his own personal interests ahead of the nation's. But after Obama won re-election with more than 300 electoral college votes, GOP leaders are starting to think that he might actually be on to something.
National Republican Committee members huddled for a strategy session here last week, where they broke ground on their own rebranding effort, one that will continue whether it's an election year or not.
Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee released a detailed report called The Growth & Opportunity Project that outlined the party's failures in last year's national election and offered 219 recommendations to reform the way the party operates. In March, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus unveiled a plan based on the report that includes overhauling the Republican Party's digital operations and spending $10 million in 2013 alone—an incredible investment in an off-election year—on a nationwide effort to embed hundreds of paid party organizers in states and neighborhoods currently considered unfriendly to Republicans to coordinate outreach programs.
Some might even call this "a permanent campaign."
"I think that's what you have to have to be successful," RNC Co-chair Sharon Day told Yahoo News in a recent interview about the GOP's new plan. "That's what we saw with Obama. He never stopped campaigning. And that's the reality. We know and we've learned that we have to stop doing two-year cycles and one-year election cycles, and try to grow a strong foundation for our party."
At the meeting in Hollywood, party activists from around the country hashed out the details for implementing many of the plan's ideas in their own states. During strategy sessions at the Loew's Hollywood Hotel, state-based GOP activists sat in on crash sessions about the party's big data-sharing program, new fundraising techniques and old-fashioned convention planning. On Thursday, they attended breakout sessions on minority outreach, where they got training from Hispanic, black and Asian media specialists on how to present the Republican message to minority communities.
It's not a short-term strategy. Interviews with several RNC members suggested that they have no expectations they'll convince, say, urban blacks, into becoming hardcore Republicans any time soon. Or even any year soon. But they know that they need to try.
"This isn't a one-year project," Henry Barbour, an RNC committee member from Mississippi who co-authored the GOP report, told Yahoo News. "It's not even a project we're going to finish in 2016. This is a long-term thing that the party has to tackle."
Even the location of the meeting, for example, was no accident. Holding a major Republican get-together in one of the most liberal enclaves in the country is a symbolic part of that same offensive meant to encourage conservatives to spend time in territory they might consider hostile.
But let's be honest: The location had its perks. The hotel hosting the Dennis Haskins. (Getty Images)gathering was just steps from the star-studded Hollywood Walk of Fame, which allowed for plenty of only-in-Hollyweird moments.
Party members got a taste of movie magic their very first night in Tinseltown, when the new blockbuster sci-fi flick "Oblivion" premiered at the TCL Chinese Theatre next to the hotel. Unable to resist the opportunity to catch a glimpse of its stars, Tom Cruise and (Obama super PAC mega-donor) Morgan Freeman, some ditched the night's GOP reception to stake out a place near the red carpet.
On Friday, during a dinner at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, RNC members rubbed shoulders with actress Stacey Dash beneath Reagan's Air Force One jet. (For Republicans, Dash is a triple threat: She's a Hollywood actress, an African American and a conservative. Go ahead, try to name another one.)
Whey they returned to Hollywood after the Reagan Library dinner, a high-speech car chase culminated directly in front of the RNC members' hotel. The sound of a low-flying police helicopter filled the night air while a floodlight flashed onto the streets below. Officers on the ground surrounded the car with their guns drawn and arrested the driver while RNC members watched from across the street and snapped photos.
Later that night in Burbank, RNC members were singing karaoke in a bar when actor Dennis Haskins—you know him as "Mr. Belding" from the '90s show "Saved by the Bell"—walked through the door. After he sang on stage and posed for pictures, an RNC guest implored Haskins to recite his television catchphrase for the group. Displaying perhaps the least enthusiasm a human being has ever devoted to completing a sentence out loud, Haskins complied.

Read More

Obama phones Boston mayor, Mass. governor to offer aid after blasts

President Barack Obama on the phone with FBI Director Robert Mueller to receive an update on the explosions that …President Barack Obama telephoned Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to express concern for those wounded in a pair of explosions that ripped through the crowd near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday. Obama also offered Washington's help in the investigation and response to the incident. Boston police said two people were killed and 23 injured, amid news reports that the blasts were bomb attacks.

“Shortly after being notified of the incident around 3 p.m. EDT, the president received a briefing from Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco and other members of his senior White House staff in the Oval Office," a White House official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "The president called Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to express his concern for those who were injured and to make clear that his administration is ready to provide needed support as they respond to the incident.”
Obama received briefings from FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, an aide said.
Vice President Joe Biden, speaking on a conference call with gun control advocates, reacted to television images of blood and panic on the streets of Boston, saying "apparently there has been a bombing."
"I don’t know any of the details," Biden said in a shocked voice. "Our prayers are with those people in Boston who have suffered injury. I don’t know how many there are."
The vice president was reacting solely to the images on television and his comments did not reflect an official finding of the causes of the carnage in Boston, an aide said.
"The president has been notified of the incident in Boston," a White House official said earlier on condition of anonymity. "His administration is in contact with state and local authorities. He directed his administration to provide whatever assistance is necessary in the investigation and response."
At the White House, authorities used yellow police tape to block off Pennsylvania Avenue that runs right outside the White House gates. Secret Service moved to secure the expanded perimeter, while credentialed pass holders were directed to exit through the adjacent Eisenhower Executive Office Building gates, not the usual White House gates.
"Out of an abundance of caution, we have expanded our security perimeter at the White House complex. It is not unusual to expand or contract these security perimeters," U.S. Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan said.

Read More

Obama on Boston attacks: Those responsible will feel ‘weight of justice’

President Barack Obama talks about the explosions at the Boston Marathon at the White House, April 15, 2013. (Larry …President Barack Obama vowed Monday to bring the "full weight of justice" down on those behind the apparent bombing attacks in Boston. Obama, speaking at the White House, stopped short of explicitly blaming terrorists for the dramatic blasts that ripped through a crowd near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. But a White House official told reporters the incident would be treated as "an act of terror."

“We still do not know who did this, or why, and people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts," Obama said in brief prepared remarks delivered in the briefing room. "But make no mistake: We will get to the bottom of this. And we will find out who did this, we'll find out why they did this."
"Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice," Obama emphasized.
"The American people will say a prayer for Boston tonight. And Michelle and I send our deepest thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims in the wake of this senseless loss," he said. Officials said the attack left at least two dead and some 80 injured.
Earlier, the president spoke by telephone with Republican House Speaker John Boehner, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
"We reaffirmed that, on days like this, there are no Republicans or Democrats: We are Americans united in concern for our fellow citizens," Obama said.
The president also received briefings on the crisis from FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and telephoned Boston Mayor Tom Menino and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick to express concern. He also offered Washington's help in the investigation and response to the incident.
“We’re continuing to monitor and respond to the situation as it unfolds, and I’ve directed the full resources of the federal government to help state and local authorities protect our people, increase security around the United States as necessary, and investigate what happened,” Obama said.
A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters by email that “any event with multiple explosive devices—as this appears to be—is clearly an act of terror, and will be approached as an act of terror.”
“However, we don’t yet know who carried out this attack, and a thorough investigation will have to determine whether it was planned and carried out by a terrorist group, foreign or domestic,” the official said.
Vice President Joe Biden, speaking earlier on a conference call with gun control advocates, reacted to television images of blood and panic on the streets of Boston, saying "apparently there has been a bombing."
"I don’t know any of the details," Biden said in a shocked voice. "Our prayers are with those people in Boston who have suffered injury. I don’t know how many there are."
The vice president was reacting solely to the images on television and his comments did not reflect an official finding of the causes of the carnage in Boston, an aide said.
"The president has been notified of the incident in Boston," a White House official said earlier on condition of anonymity. "His administration is in contact with state and local authorities. He directed his administration to provide whatever assistance is necessary in the investigation and response."
At the White House, authorities used yellow police tape to block off Pennsylvania Avenue that runs right outside the White House gates. Secret Service moved to secure the expanded perimeter, while credentialed pass holders were directed to exit through the adjacent Eisenhower Executive Office Building gates, not the usual White House gates.
"Out of an abundance of caution, we have expanded our security perimeter at the White House complex. It is not unusual to expand or contract these security perimeters," U.S. Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan said.

Read More

Senators unveil bipartisan immigration bill

Reuters/Reuters - The U.S. Capitol dome and U.S. Senate (R) in Washington, August 2, 2011. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Richard Cowan and Rachelle Younglai

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday unveiled long-awaited landmark legislation to remove the threat of deportation for millions of illegal immigrants and give them an opportunity to eventually become U.S. citizens.
Under the proposal, undocumented immigrants who came to America before December 31, 2011 and stayed continuously could apply for "provisional" legal status as soon as six months after the bill is signed by the president.
But beyond that, they would have to wait a decade or more without receiving federal benefits, while the government meets a host of tough conditions for securing U.S. borders and enforcing current immigration law.
The bill's sponsors - four Democrats and four Republicans - felt such conditions and enforcement "triggers" to be necessary in order to help it succeed where similar measures have failed, mostly because of opposition to what opponents see as "amnesty" for law-breakers.
Even with the many caveats, the proposal faces months of debate, scores of amendments and potentially significant opposition, particularly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Indeed, much of the legislation was designed to make the bill palatable to Republicans.
Billions of dollars in new money would be funneled into additional border security to discourage people from avoiding detection as they crossed Mexico's border with the United States.
The measure would focus on tightening porous zones in "high-risk" areas like parts of Arizona, where law enforcement has had less success in sealing the border, in part because of a more difficult terrain.
The bill sets a goal of stopping 90 percent of illegal crossings at the riskiest sections of the southern border with Mexico, either by catching people or forcing them to go back to their country.
The proposal would expand access to both low- and high-skilled labor for American businesses, attempting to keep organized labor happy with provisions designed to keep companies from hiring cheap foreign labor or filling jobs with immigrants when Americans are available.
For the U.S. technology sector, it increases the number of visas available for educated workers filling specialized jobs, though it imposes new pay requirements designed to keep the hiring from depressing wages for U.S. technology workers.
Heavy lobbying, which could complicate passage, is already underway on the visa provisions, with the construction industry, for example, unhappy with a cap placed on the number of foreigners available for construction jobs.
Still, one immigration expert who had been briefed on details of the measure before the outline was provided to reporters called it "a very smart, strategic and forward-looking bill."
For all the bill's emphasis on border control and visas, the "pathway to citizenship" remained at its heart, even though the phrase was not used in the outline made available to reporters.
Within six months from enactment, during which time the Department of Homeland Security would set forth its border security plan, the threat of deportation could end for most illegal immigrants, who would allowed to work legally in the United States after they pay an initial $500 penalty, back taxes and demonstrate that they have not been convicted of serious crime in the United States.
After 10 years - provided the government achieves control of the borders - the immigrants could apply for a "green card" or permanent resident status through an expanded merit-based immigration system.
The green card would not be automatic. A Senate aide said the majority of the 11 million illegal immigrants would likely get a green card via the merit-based visa and the total amount of penalties paid would amount to $2,000.
After that point, it could take an additional three years, after the 10-year wait for a green card, to win U.S. citizenship.
The bill was crafted by four Democratic senators: Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado; and Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida.
While Republican concerns have been muted somewhat by the clout demonstrated in the 2012 presidential election by Latino voters, the party is by no means united on immigration. Indeed, Rubio is thought to be jeopardizing any chance of one day being tapped by his party to run for president by supporting immigration reform.
The citizenship provisions have long been a goal of Democrats in Congress as well as of President Barack Obama, who has said he will submit his own immigration reform proposal should he find sufficient fault with the work of Congress.
Prospects for immigration reform were boosted immediately following the November 6, 2012 presidential elections, when Democrats held onto the White House and picked up seats in Congress.
Political analysts widely credited Hispanic Americans for some of the Democrats' success, delivering a wakeup call to Republicans who did not manage to even capture one-third of the Latino vote.
Nonetheless, plenty of Republicans will demand a tough review of the Senate bill, as well as a House bill that also is expected to be unveiled soon. Some Republicans are arguing for a piecemeal approach to immigration reform that Democrats have rejected.

Read More

Margaret Thatcher's Arch-Nemesis Responded To The News Of Her Death With A Brutally Blunt Text Message

Arthur Scargill in 1984

When the news of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's death broke on Monday, Ken Capstick, the Treasurer of the Socialist Labour Party (a more left wing off-shoot of the mainstream Labour Party) sent a text message to his friend and party leader Arthur Scargill.

According to ITV News, the text message read "Thatcher Dead".

Capstick got a response almost instantly.

It said simply: "SCARGILL ALIVE !"

To understand Scargill's enthusiastic response, you have to understand that the biggest battle of Thatcher's career wasn't against Argentina during the Falklands War, or even with her political opponents, the-then moribund Labour Party.

It was against Britain's unions.

These unions had brought the nation to a standstill several times in the 1970s with industrial action, and Thatcher made it clear from the outset of her time in office that she meant to crush their power.

The biggest battle during the 1984-1985 miners' strike, which took place after Thatcher announced that many of the country's uneconomical mines, at that point nationalized, would be shut down, killing 20,000 jobs.

Scargill had been the president of the National Union of Mineworkers since 1981, and had already become a vocal opponent of Thatcher. He called a strike without a ballot — still a controversial move — and became the figurehead for the media during the frequently violent conflict.

Thatcher eventually wore down the miners, and the strike ended on on March 3 1985. Since that point, unions have become a much smaller force in British public life. Membership fell from a peak of 12 million in the late '70s to almost half that by the late '80s. It has never recovered. Scargill became a fringe figure on the left.

Scargill's victorious text is therefore a hollow victory. As Lord Young, one of Thatcher's closest allies during the strikes, told ITV news today "Scargills's won no war...The only thing he has done is to outlive her."

Read More

Five Fiscal Secrets Buried In Barack Obama's Budget

President Obama submitted a 244-page budget proposal on Wednesday for next year—a tome that met with instant criticism before anyone could read it.
Obama largely delivered on what he promised during his re-election campaign last year. He raises taxes on millionaires, insulates Medicare from a dramatic overhaul, and keeps the national debt at a little more than 70 percent share of the economy.
The Fiscal Times dug through the summary tables, listened to lawmakers and lobbyists vent, and found five critical—but easily overlooked—takeaways:

• Obama’s Deficit Spending Means No Grand Bargain – The Obama administration does not share the GOP goal of a balanced budget—and that’s why House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said a “grand bargain” and chances for a balance budget are nil.

After ten years, the White House proposal lowers the trajectory of a deficit that would approach $1 trillion in 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Instead, the government would rack up a $439 billion deficit in 2023, with the all-important debt-to-Gross Domestic Product ratio being 73 percent.

But this is a far cry from what House Republicans tried to engineer with their plan—a surplus by 2023, and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 54.8 percent.

Obama’s continued deficits take the notion of a grand bargain off the table, Wisconsin Congressman Ryan told reporters on Wednesday. This means that any negotiations will be geared toward small steps for reducing the deficit, but not elimination.
“A grand bargain implies that you can fix the problem. We’re so far from that with what the Senate has passed and the president has put out,” said Ryan, adding that Republicans “should rationalize our expectations to putting a down payment on the problem.”

• The cost of Servicing the National Debt Will Eclipse Defense Spending – A curious trend starts in 2020 under the Obama budget. The Pentagon would receive $601 billion to protect the country, while the sum needed to pay interest on the national debt would be $609 billion. That’s $8 billion more in interest payments than the price for funding the world’s military powerhouse.

By 2023, the government would devote $763 billion to debt service and $631 billion--$132 billion less—for the Defense Department.
It’s not just the military that will be less important than the government’s financing charges. Discretionary spending on government departments and agencies, personnel and programs would be about $647 billion in 2023 under Obama’s budget plan, $116 billion less than the interest payments.

• Obama’s “North Star” of Protecting the Middle Class Collapses Like a Supernova – The president said when introducing his budget that creating more jobs for the middle class “must be the North Star that guides our efforts.” But in a budget that aspires to be fiscally responsive while juicing up a slumping economy, the rhetoric far exceeds the commitment.
• According to White House budget documents, spending on surface transportation projects, job creation initiatives, and early childhood education investments -- the heart of his new economic initiatives -- would total only $105 billion over the next four years.

That is slightly less than the annual cost of the payroll tax holiday that expired last year. It is little more than one seventh of the $825 billion in federal stimulus spending over a four-year period beginning in 2009 – at the depths of the Great Recession.
Even assuming that the Obama initiatives would amount to as much as $243 billion when projected over the next ten years--that is still the proverbial drop in the bucket compared with the overall economy and the perceived need.
The AFL-CIO acknowledged these projects, but focused its “moral” outrage on Obama’s plans to cut Medicare and Social Security. Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce blasted the budget as a misguided effort to boost the economy.
“Unfortunately, the president’s budget expands the government at the expense of American workers, families, and businesses,” said Martin Regalia, the chamber’s chief economist.

• Chained CPI More Trouble than It’s Worth - It’s an old saw of politics that entitlement programs are the third rail of politics – touch them and you die. And President Obama set off sparks yesterday with his budget proposal to reduce the future cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other benefit programs.

As expected, Obama was seeking a compromise with Republicans by replacing the current measure of inflation for Social Security with “chained CPI,” which assumes that consumers respond to higher prices by buying cheaper substitutes. The metric is guided by the idea that a family eats more hamburgers when steak becomes too expensive.
His budget tables indicate that moving to the chained CPI would save $130 billion over the next 10 years.  This is 0.27 percent of all federal spending during the same period. It is less than the $216 billion in reduced spending on Social Security, Medicare and other benefits projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
The negative reaction from Democrats, labor leaders and seniors groups on the left was intense, while the positive response from conservatives on the right was so underwhelming.
“I would feel awful to think that people would spend 40 or even 50 years working and contributing into the system and then when it’s their turn, we say to them, ‘[expletive] out of luck,’”  said Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., an outspoken liberal who is circulating his objection in a letter signed by 35 of his colleagues.
As for the Republican response, House Budget Committee Ryan considers the offer to be small potatoes: “Is chained CPI a symbolic step? Yes. Is it entitlement reform? No.”

• Another Nasty Hurricane Spoils The Budget Projections – Climate change has contributed to more natural disasters striking the United States, imposing new costs on the government such as the $50.5 billion in emergency aid approved this year to cover the cost of damage caused by Super Storm Sandy.

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms,” Obama said in his second inaugural address.
So the new White House budget proposal includes $88 billion—or an average of $8.8 billion a year—in “adjustments for disaster costs.” A footnote explains, “These amounts represent a placeholder for major disasters requiring Federal assistance for relief and reconstruction.”
But that $88 billion would not cover the damage inflicted by Sandy and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, events that occurred within seven years of each other and stuck taxpayers with a $170 billion in emergency expenses.
To be fair, these potential costs were not factored into the House Republican budget tables at all.

Read More

USS Cole Commander: Rand Paul Is Dramatically Changing Republican Leadership On Defense

Kirk Lippold has seen national defense first hand – 12 and a half years ago, he was the commander of the USS Cole when she was attacked by al-Qaida. Looking at national security today, he says, Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s approach is the more realistic way to move forward, and the Sen. John McCain’s of the world are being left behind.

Lippold’s book, “Frontburner: Al Qaeda’s Attack on the USS Cole,” comes out in paperback Thursday, and focuses on Oct. 12, 2000 — the day the USS Cole was attacked and how the crew dealt with it in the moment — and the immediate aftermath.

“Looking back on it now,” he said, “it’s very apparent that we missed a clear signal as a nation because before 9/11, there was 10/12,” Lippold told The Daily Caller in a phone interview. “When you attack buildings and embassies, those are things that while they house and represent you as an interest, attacking a warship is fundamentally different because a warship defends our citizens and our interests around the world. And when you try to take away a nations ability to defend itself, it truly was an act of war … the nation paid a very tragic price because we did not react to that attack.”

Nowadays, Lippold said, national defense should be more aligned with the thinking of Sen. Paul.

“When it comes to defense, I think Rand Paul is representing a new form of Republican leadership that is basically looking at what are — that really asks — the hard question: What are our national security interests in getting engaged in any nation, and what is the best way to go about doing it?” Lippold said.

“I think that John McCain, while he had some good opinions about things in the past, I think that these days the world is evolving and changing. And the fact that Rand Paul, for example, stood up and made the nation ask some very hard question regarding drones and drone usage was a fundamental shift in how the Republicans view the defense of the nation both here at home and abroad,” Lippold went on.

“Because this president, in my opinion, has fundamentally undermined our ability to defend this nation by killing terrorists rather than capturing them and taking them to an intelligence facility like Guantanamo Bay and learning how these groups operate,” Lippold added. “And while the program appears on the face to have had great success, I think ultimately the drone program is setting us up for failure because for each high-level terrorist you kill, that is a high-level intelligence asset that is no longer available to exploit.”

Read More

US Says North Korea Has Learned How To Fit A Nuke On A Missile

A new report by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded, with “moderate confidence,” that North Korea (DPRK) has learned how to make a "low reliability" nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile, Eli Lake of the Daily Beast reports.
It is the first time that the U.S. has reached that assessment.
The executive summary of the Defense Intelligence Agency report, which is titled “Dynamic Threat Assessment 8099: North Korea Nuclear Weapons Program," says:
D.I.A. assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles; however the reliability will be low.
The New York Times reports that the reliability may refer to the difficulty of developing accurate missiles or "the huge technical challenges of designing a warhead that can survive the rigors of flight and detonate on a specific target."
North Korea currently has multiple medium-range Musudan ballistic missiles set up on it's east coast and on Wednesday South Korea’s foreign minister warned that DPRK could launch its “any time from now.”
The untested Musudan has a potential range of 1,550 miles to 2,500 miles, meaning it could reach Japan, South Korea, and almost as far as U.S. island territory of Guam.
The assessment informs America's decision to deploy a THAAD anti-ballistic missile defense system and B-1 Lancer long-range bombers (nicknamed "Bones") to Guam in addition to moving F-22 Raptor stealth fighters in South Korea. Japan has deployed three Patriot missile-defense systems.
Lake notes that the executive summary was read aloud on Thursday by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
The Times notes that the DIA — which primarily monitors the missile capabilities of adversary nations —  was among the agencies that insisted Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
On Wednesday Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Congressional hearing that DPRK leader Kim Jong-un's endgame appears to be "to somehow elicit recognition from ... the United States [that]  North Korea ... [is] a nuclear power, and that that entitles him to negotiation and to accommodation, and presumably for aid.”

Read More

Since Rand Paul's Historic Filibuster, There Has Been A Dramatic Shift In Public Opinion On Drone Strikes

AP

In the month that has passed since Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul's historic filibuster over drone strikes on American soil, polling has shown a dramatic shift in U.S. public opinion of the issue.

Overall, polling on drone strikes remains somewhat scarce, but a review and comparison of polls before and after the filibuster suggests that it had a profound effect. 

The most obvious reflection of the change comes in looking at a  released two days before the filibuster and comparing it to a Gallup poll conducted in late March, three weeks after the filibuster took place.

In a Fox News poll released four days before the filibuster, pollsters used a set of four questions to ask whether respondents approved of using drones for the following:

Killing a suspected terrorist in a foreign country.

Killing suspected terrorist in a foreign country if the suspect is a U.S. citizen.

Killing a suspected foreign terrorist on U.S. soil.

Killing a suspected terrorist who is a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

The only one of those four topics that did not earn a majority support was killing a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. Using drones to kill an American citizen who is a suspected terrorist overseas garnered 60 percent approval.

Results were consistent with a February 2012 Washington Post poll, which found that about eight in 10 Americans approved of the administration's use of drones.

The results of a Gallup poll released in late March, after Paul's filibuster, show a clear shift. That poll only found that 41 percent of respondents favor drone strikes abroad on American citizens:

Read More

Here's What Obama's Budget Message Really Looked Like

Wikimedia Commons

While politicos and pundits, analysts and experts continue to pore over President Obama’s 2014 budget blueprint for its policy nuances, tax implications and more, we thought an instant visual picture of what the president emphasized (or not) in his latest budget message would be worth a thousand words.
Using the text of President Obama’s budget message from yesterday, we created a word cloud, which emphasizes the words most often used.
It’s no surprise that creating new jobs, fixing the economy, and attempting to shrink the deficit appear in big type here.
But you’ll be hard pressed to find the word “tax,” though the president is proposing the “Buffett rule,” a minimum tax on incomes of a million dollars or more named for investor Warren Buffett.
Obama’s budget also renews a proposal to cap tax deductions at 28 percent for households makings roughly $250,000 or more. It would limit the value of all deductions determining taxable income, including the charitable contributions, mortgage interest, health care expenses, and the exemption for municipal bond interest.
Also noteworthy: Can you find the words “long term” in here anywhere? (They’re in the tiniest of type.) That’s because the president is primarily proposing short-term economic stimulus through a $50 billion infrastructure program.
What you won’t find at all here, unlike in Paul Ryan’s House GOP budget: the words “balanced budget.”

Read More

U.S. approves final-year funding for Lockheed Martin missile system

WASHINGTON | Tue Apr 9, 2013 11:32pm EDT

(Reuters) - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has told his German and Italian counterparts the Pentagon plans to spend about $310 million to help fund the final year of development of Lockheed Martin's MEADS missile defense system, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday.
The funding, included in the 2013 defense appropriation passed by Congress last month, aims to help bring the program to a close and collect the information learned so it can be used in the future, Pentagon spokesman Maureen Schumann said.

 

The final year's development work includes an intercept flight test against a ballistic missile target in late 2013.
"Funding for MEADS allows us to fulfill our commitment with our allied participants, the German and Italian ministers of defense, to bring the MEADS development program to a sound and orderly conclusion," she said in a statement.
U.S. lawmakers initially blocked final U.S. funding for MEADS when they passed a bill authorizing temporary military spending late last year, arguing that they did not want to pay any more for a program the Pentagon has decided not to use.
Top U.S. defense officials and their counterparts in Germany and Italy had warned Congress that cutting off funding for the program could cause problems between Washington and its allies, who have spent a combined $4 billion on the program to date, and would have triggered steep termination fees.
The funding was approved last year when Congress passed a full-year bill to fund the government. The legislation included $348 million for the Medium Extended Air and Missile Defense System, or MEADS, designed as a successor to the Patriot missile defense system.
It also included $32.8 million for the Pentagon office running the program, funding that will allow storing data from the development and test program so participants will have a database of design and performance information that can be used in the future.
The funding is subject to a 10 percent cut because, under a U.S. law aimed at curbing the government's deficit spending, the Pentagon will actually provide about $310 billion for the final year of development, officials said.
It also is not guaranteed. The Senate on Tuesday began the process of bringing a bill to the floor that would withdraw funding for the MEADS system.
Lockheed plans to keep working with Italy and Germany on the three-nation missile defense program even after the United States stops participating.
Lockheed says MEADS is significantly cheaper to operate than the Patriot system built by its rival Raytheon Co, and would provide significantly larger coverage areas.
Raytheon has continued to upgrade and modernize the Patriot missile defense system, arguing that the changes have made the system more efficient and less-labor intensive to use.

Read More

Senate negotiators close in on immigration deal

By Charles Abbott and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON | Tue Apr 9, 2013 6:50pm EDT

(Reuters) - Senate negotiators on Tuesday were putting the finishing touches on a bipartisan immigration bill as labor and agriculture groups argued about restrictions on immigrant farmworkers and their pay, lawmakers and officials involved in the negotiations said.
"We're making progress. We're trying to get it done this week," Senator John McCain told reporters.

 

The Arizona Republican is one of eight Democrats and Republicans in the Senate trying to cobble together a complicated bill that would update immigration laws for the first time since 1986.
In recent weeks, labor unions and the Chamber of Commerce reached tentative agreement on the handling of low-skilled workers from foreign countries who would work as construction laborers, maids and waiters.
That left one big unresolved matter: the rules for bringing foreign farmworkers into the United States to harvest crops, milk cows and work on poultry and cattle operations.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently estimated that of the 1.1 million workers in agriculture, 500,000-700,000 are undocumented.
At a speech this week to agriculture journalists, Vilsack said that assuring a strong labor supply is a matter of importing workers versus importing food. "We risk the possibility of some of the work we do in this country moving to other nations," he said.
The agriculture industry and farmworker groups have been haggling over the cap that would be set under the Senate bill for foreign farm labor, whether those already in the United States would be allowed to stay and pay levels for the temporary workers.
"We want to make sure farmworkers are making at least as much money as they are today, not less," Diana Tellefson Torres, a United Farm Workers vice president, told the North American Agricultural Journalists meeting.
Craig Regelbrugge, co-chair of an agriculture industry coalition, said labor can account for one-third of the cost of production of fruits and vegetables, so wage rates are important. Noting the need for a high cap on farmworker visas compared to other sectors, he said, "what's different about agriculture is it's the nation's food supply."
But some labor groups fear that too many foreign workers would depress U.S. wages or kill some American jobs.
Regelbrugge said there are discussions of a new visa that would run more than 12 months so immigrant laborers do not have to routinely exit the U.S. for brief periods, leaving farms short-handed. While some growers need help only at harvest, dairies and livestock feeders need workers all year.
FAST-TRACK IN SENATE
The linchpin of the immigration bill would end deportation fears for most of the approximately 11 million people who are living in the United States illegally, many from Central America and Asia. The legislation would eventually put many of them on a path to citizenship, if further progress was made in securing the southwestern border with Mexico.
The eight senators outlined their proposal in late January and have been struggling to fill in the details of a bill that could move quickly through the Senate once it is unveiled.
If a bill is introduced by Monday, Senate aides said it could be debated, and possibly amended, in the Senate Judiciary Committee by April 18, with a committee vote by April 25, just before the start of a week-long Senate recess.
Under this accelerated timetable, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would try to schedule a full Senate debate in May.
However, delays are possible at any point in the process.
Republicans, who have opposed any moves to grant citizenship to undocumented residents, began taking an active interest in immigration changes after Hispanic-Americans voted against them in droves in the November 2012 election.
With the 2014 congressional elections around the corner, immigration reform advocates are hoping Congress can handle this issue in 2013, before campaign rhetoric heats up and possibly spoils chances for a bipartisan deal.
Supporters also want a strong, bipartisan showing in the Senate for legislation, which they think will propel it through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where there are more conservatives lawmakers who could reject a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented.
The House might try to pass immigration bills in a piecemeal fashion that could be merged with a Senate-passed bill. Some aides have said the House bill might require a longer wait time than the Senate bill for undocumented residents to earn citizenship - as long as 15 years, versus 10 to 13 years in the Senate bill.

Read More

Arkansas Senate aims to cut off state funds to abortion providers

By Suzi Parker

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas | Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:04am EDT

(Reuters) - The Republican-led Arkansas Senate, in the latest statehouse swipe at abortion providers around the country, approved a bill on Tuesday that sponsors said was aimed at cutting off the last vestiges of state funding to groups such as Planned Parenthood.
While it does not explicitly name Planned Parenthood or any other organization, the bill would bar all Arkansas state funds from going to any entity that provides abortions, refers patients to abortion providers or contracts with any group that does so.

 

The measure cleared the state Senate on a mostly party-line 19-11 vote, and now moves to the Republican-controlled House, where it is expected to gain final passage.
Governor Mike Beebe, a Democrat, has not said whether he would sign the bill. But the Arkansas legislature last month overrode his veto of two previous bills placing new restrictions on abortions, including one to ban most abortions from being performed after the 12th week of pregnancy.
"The hardworking taxpayers of Arkansas should not have to see their money sent to organizations that perform abortions," said David Ray, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Arkansas. "Surely with all of our nation's pressing problems in education, transportation and rampant government overspending, we can find something more responsible to do with these funds."
Abortion rights advocates say the latest bill could effectively cut off funding for domestic violence shelters or rape crisis centers that also happen to offer abortion referrals.
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which operates in Arkansas, does not currently receive any state dollars for its abortion or other family planning services, which are funded from other sources.
But if the bill becomes law, the organization stands to lose two state grants for HIV and syphilis prevention programs that it administers in Arkansas public high schools and reach about 2,000 women, men and teenagers, according to Planned Parenthood.
"Today's vote is extremely disappointing for the thousands of teens who count on us for life-saving prevention programs," said Jill June, the group's president and CEO.
Bills similar to the latest measure in Arkansas have passed in other states, including Indiana, New Jersey and Texas, according to the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group in Washington, D.C.
In the most restrictive anti-abortion action to date, North Dakota's lawmakers approved legislation to ban most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, though legal scholars have questioned whether that measure or a post-12-week ban would survive likely court challenges.
Efforts to clamp down on abortion and abortion providers in Arkansas were made after Republicans won control of both chambers of the state legislature for the first time since the Reconstruction era following the Civil War.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arkansas, the national ACLU and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights plan to sue the state in federal court over the 12-week ban before it becomes law this summer.

Read More

Prostitution policy splits NGOs in top court AIDS case

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON | Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:41am EDT

(Reuters) - A Supreme Court case that challenges a law requiring anti-prostitution policies for HIV/AIDS programs seeking federal money has generated a split among nonprofit groups that counsel sex workers overseas.
The case involves a 2003 law that bars funding for groups that work on HIV/AIDS prevention but do not have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.
It has pitted two non-governmental organizations that operate programs overseas, backed by umbrella organizations representing others like them, against 46 organizations that have sided with the federal government in defending the law.
"The split is about whether you support the sex industry," Norma Ramos, executive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, one of the groups siding with the government.
"Prostitution is the end point of sex trafficking" and cannot be separated out from efforts to fight public health problems, including the spread of HIV/AIDS, she said.
The organizations challenging the provision on First Amendment grounds do not want to take a stand on prostitution. They say the law interferes with their work providing advice and counseling to prostitutes about the risks of HIV infection.
The court on April 22 will consider whether the requirement, which has not been enforced since a 2006 injunction, is valid under the U.S. Constitution.
The 2003 law outlined a plan to fight the spread of the HIV virus that causes AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, part of which would involve providing funding for non-governmental organizations. Congress so far has provided $63 billion. Some entities that receive funding, including the World Health Organization, were exempted from the provision.
The Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International - NGOs that receive funding for overseas HIV/AIDS prevention - sued in 2005, citing the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
The two groups have since been joined in the litigation by the Global Health Council and InterAction, two sizable alliances of NGOs that work in developing countries. InterAction has almost 200 member organizations that, between them, receive more than $1 billion a year in funding from the U.S. government, according to court papers.
But when the justices review the court papers, they will see that Ramos' group and 45 others have filed a brief in support of the government. Many of the groups focus on women's rights, especially in the context of prostitution, violence and sex trafficking.
DIFFERENT VIEWS
In response to their criticism, Punima Mane, the president and CEO of Pathfinder, said it would be a "gross misinterpretation" to suggest her group was somehow supportive of the sex industry or sex trafficking.
She said Pathfinder would likely not have a problem if the policy related only to sex trafficking. The reference to prostitution raises obstacles because of the work the organization does with sex workers, she said. Pathfinder runs programs that, among other things, have taught sex workers how to avoid HIV infections.
"We would not want to condemn the groups we work with and for," Mane said. Such a move would threaten her organization's ability to provide "life-saving health services" to a vulnerable population, she added.
The main United Nations body that coordinates anti-HIV/AIDS action, known as the UNAIDS Secretariat, supports the groups challenging the law. It has filed a brief echoing Mane's sentiments, noting that programs "work best when they involve, and do not stigmatize, the affected populations."
Outside the courtroom, a group representing sex workers started a petition to reverse the policy, saying it has "resulted in the reduction or complete elimination of HIV prevention and treatment services for sex workers in numerous countries."
The U.S. government "is preventing the delivery of successful health programs and important resources to sex workers worldwide," according the petition, which has been endorsed by around 150 nonprofit groups including some representing sex workers.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
So far, Pathfinder and its allies have had success in pursuing the argument that the law violates the First Amendment.
A federal judge ruled in 2006 that under First Amendment precedents, the law was infringing on private speech because it compelled the groups to accept the government's policy position on prostitution. The restriction applies across all programs an NGO operates, even those not funded by the federal government.
The judge imposed a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the provision, which remains in effect.
The George W. Bush administration tried to circumvent the issue by issuing guidelines, updated by the Obama administration in 2010, that allow groups to set up affiliates that are not bound by the anti-prostitution policy.
But in July 2011, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the injunction.
In court papers, the Obama administration maintained there was no First Amendment violation because groups "have been given a voluntary choice" of whether to participate in the program.
"Offering private entities that type of choice does not violate the First Amendment," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote. He said Congress has "wide latitude to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds."
Justice Elena Kagan is recused, most likely due to her previous role as solicitor general, meaning only eight justices will hear the case.
The case is U.S. AID v. Alliance for Open Society International, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-10.
For petitioners: Donald Verrilli, solicitor general, Department of Justice.
For respondents: David Bowker, WilmerHale.

Read More

Louisiana lawmakers weigh options on eliminating income tax

By Stephanie Grace

NEW ORLEANS | Tue Apr 9, 2013 11:27pm EDT

(Reuters) - Louisiana lawmakers on Tuesday questioned the wisdom of eliminating the state's income tax without raising sales taxes, one day after Governor Bobby Jindal said he would delay his plan to scrap the income tax.
Jindal, a possible 2016 Republican presidential candidate, shelved his package on the two-month legislative session's opening day on Monday, acknowledging that widespread public discomfort doomed its chances.

 

Instead he called on lawmakers to pass their own plan and "send me a bill to get rid of these taxes."
His plan would have eliminated all state personal and corporate income taxes. It also called for a 56 percent increase in the state sales tax, a much higher cigarette tax, and the elimination of some tax loopholes to make up the $3 billion shortfall from abolishing the income taxes.
The question of whether to cut income taxes without raising the sales tax dominated the legislative debate on Tuesday. Another idea being floated was getting rid of the taxes over time instead of all at once.
At a Senate hearing, Republican Senator Robert Adley asked Department of Revenue Executive Counsel Tim Barfield whether an income tax repeal would still need to be revenue-neutral to pass muster with the governor.
"I think that would be the ultimate desire," Barfield said. "But I think if you look at a long-term phase-out of that (income tax), I think you have a lot more leeway."
Jindal's package, designed to make Louisiana more competitive with nearby income tax-free states such as Florida and Texas, would have seen the sales tax top 11 percent in some localities, the highest in the nation, when combined with local taxes.
Simply eliminating the income tax could be an easier sell than pursuing tax hikes to make up for the lost revenue. For one thing, it would not require a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the legislature.
But watchdog groups warned lawmakers against going ahead with a big tax cut on the fly.
"Pursuing a 10-year phase-out of the income tax while trying to find offsets that even the governor couldn't find would be a daunting task at best and of great potential risk to the state at worst," the Council for a Better Louisiana said in a statement. "And simply phasing out the income tax without offsets would be irresponsible."
Representative Joel Robideaux, the Republican Ways and Means chairman who was the sponsor of Jindal's plan, also has weighed in on the side of finding offsets.
House Democratic Caucus Chair John Bel Edwards accused Jindal of being more worried about building a record for a possible presidential run than addressing Louisiana's needs.
"The governor is looking to court folks outside of Louisiana instead of addressing the concerns we have here," Edwards said. "Until we can adequately fund our priorities, we should not even begin to discuss dismantling our tax system."

Read More

Obama on Thatcher: ‘A true friend’ of U.S., example for women

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher meets with President Ronald Reagan at the White House in 1985. …

President Barack Obama on Monday mourned the passing of British former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, saying in a statement, “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend.

"As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered."
He added, “Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history—we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will."
Obama led a chorus of American politicians—mostly conservatives, but several notable Democrats—expressing sorrow at the death of the “Iron Lady.” Republican House Speaker John Boehner offered condolences on behalf of the House of Representatives: Thatcher “stared down elites, union bosses, and communists to win three consecutive elections, establish conservative principles in Western Europe, and bring down the Iron Curtain."
“There was no secret to her values—hard work and personal responsibility—and no nonsense at all in her leadership,” Boehner said in a statement.
Thatcher “reshaped Britain from the state of economic and social turmoil in which she found it to a place of opportunity and promise during three terms in office,” Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
The Kentucky lawmaker also praised Thatcher as “an iconic symbol of the transformative power of conservative ideas,” a “trusted partner” of Reagan and someone who “never hesitated to remind Americans of their own obligations to the cause of freedom and of the need for political courage and confidence in the face of long odds." She “set a standard of leadership that will be hard to replicate, but which will forever stand as a model for those who wish to change society for the better,” McConnell said.
Thatcher’s critics on the left often accused her of dismantling the social safety net even as she privatized previously state-run industry. But top Democrats muted those complaints and delivered sunny tributes to Britain's first woman prime minister.
“Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was a commanding political figure, a leader of uncompromising strength, and a public servant who never failed to break down barriers," Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. "As the first woman—and longest-serving—British prime minister, she possessed a singular resilience that commanded the respect of her colleagues, the attention of a nation, and the awe of women and men across the world."
Pelosi praised Thatcher as "a relentless force and a steady hand" in the Cold War and someone who "led her country with poise, grace, and an unmistakable iron will that will forever stand as a true testament to her unwavering commitment to public service."
Former President Bill Clinton, who was famously close to the Labour Party's Tony Blair when they were both in office, said in a statement that he was "saddened" by the Conservative leader's death. She was "an iconic stateswoman, and a fearless leader," he said, and "the United States has lost one of its dearest friends and most valued allies."
Clinton added, "Like so many others, I respected the conviction and self-determination she displayed throughout her remarkable life as she broke barriers, defied expectations, and led her country. Hillary, Chelsea, and I extend our condolences to her family and to the people of the United Kingdom."
Here is Obama’s full statement:

With the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend. As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered. As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best. And as an unapologetic supporter of our transatlantic alliance, she knew that with strength and resolve we could win the Cold War and extend freedom’s promise.
Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history—we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will. Michelle and I send our thoughts to the Thatcher family and all the British people as we carry on the work to which she dedicated her life—free peoples standing together, determined to write our own destiny.

Read More

Obama says he's 'determined as ever' for gun bill

• 
  Associated Press/Susan Walsh - President Barack Obama looks at Nicole Hockley and her husband Ian, right, after she introduced him at the University of Hartford in Hartford, Conn., Monday, April 8, 2013. The …more 

Related Content

• President Barack Obama hugs Connecticut …
• President Barack Obama, followed …

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — With time running out on the chance to pass gun control legislation, President Barack Obama on Monday warned Congress not to use delaying tactics against tighter regulations and told families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims that he's "determined as ever" to honor their children with tougher laws.

Obama's gun control proposals have run into resistance on Capitol Hill, leaving their fate in doubt. Efforts by Senate Democrats to reach compromise with Republicans over expanding required federal background checks have yet to yield an agreement, and conservatives were promising to try blocking the Senate from even beginning debate on gun control legislation.

"The day Newtown happened was the toughest day of my presidency," Obama said in an emotional speech from Connecticut's capital, an hour's drive from Newtown. "But I've got to tell you, if we don't respond to this, that'll be a tough day for me too."

Some of the Sandy Hook families are making an attempt to push through the bill. Obama met with them privately before his speech at the University of Hartford Monday evening, then brought 12 family members back to Air Force One for the trip back to Washington. The relatives want to meet with senators who've yet to back the legislation to encourage their support in memory of their loved ones.

"Nothing's going to be more important in making sure that the Congress moves forward this week than hearing from them," Obama said. His eyes teared as he described Nicole Hockley, who lost her 6-year-old son, Dylan, saying how she asks him every night to come to her in her dreams so she can see him again.
"If there's even one thing we can do to prevent a father from having to bury his child, isn't that worth fighting for?" Obama asked.
Obama's speech was interrupted repeatedly by standing ovations from the packed gymnasium. At one point, the room erupted with chants of "We want a vote!" Audience members, many wearing green ribbons in support of the victims, were stomping their feet on the bleachers and clapping their hands in unison with the chant.
"This is not about me. This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here who have been torn apart by gun violence," Obama said, his voice rising with emotion as he shook his finger in the air.
Obama argued that lawmakers have an obligation to the children killed and other victims of gun violence to allow an up-or-down vote in the Senate. That would require 50 votes to pass, rather than a procedural maneuver some Republican senators are threatening to require 60 votes, potentially sinking the legislation.
"Some back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms. Think about that. They're not just saying they'll vote no on ideas that almost all Americans support. They're saying they'll do everything they can to even prevent any votes on these provisions. They're saying your opinion doesn't matter. And that's not right.
Obama rode to the speech with Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who signed sweeping gun control legislation into law Thursday with the Sandy Hook families standing behind him. But legislation in Washington faces a tougher challenge, as the nation's memories of the shooting fade with time and the National Rifle Association wages a formidable campaign against Obama's proposals.
Majority Leader Harry Reid brought gun control legislation to the Senate floor on Monday, though actual debate did not begin. He took the step after receiving a letter from 13 conservative Republican senators including Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, saying they would use delaying tactics to try preventing lawmakers from beginning to consider the measure. Such a move takes 60 votes to overcome, a difficult hurdle in the 100-member chamber.
The conservatives said the Democratic measure would violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, citing "history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries."
Further underscoring the tough road ahead for the Obama-backed legislation, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that the Kentucky Republican would join the filibuster if Reid tries to bring the measure to the floor.
Obama said the vote shouldn't be about his legacy, but about the families in Newtown who haven't moved on to other matters.
"Newtown, we want you to know that we're here with you," Obama said. "We will not walk away from the promises we've made. We are as determined as ever to do what must be done. In fact, I'm here to ask you to help me show that we can get it done. We're not forgetting."
A group of Sandy Hook families originally planned to travel to Washington earlier on Monday, but the White House offered to give the families a ride so they could also attend Obama's speech before their lobbying push. The White House lit up the steps of Air Force One with flood lights so photographers and television cameras could capture the image of Obama climbing the plane's steps with the families at dusk.
Nelba Marquez-Greene, whose 6-year-old daughter Ana was among the victims at Sandy Hook, held up a sign that said "Love Wins" as she walked toward the steps of Air Force One.
The families' lobbying trip was organized by Sandy Hook Promise, a nonprofit started by community members in the wake of the shooting. "The group is encouraging senators to come together around legislative proposals that will both save lives and respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans," the group said in a statement.

With time running out on negotiations, the White House is making an all-hands-on-deck push this week. Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder planned to promote their plan at the White House on Tuesday with law enforcement officials. First lady Michelle Obama planned to wade into the debate Wednesday with a speech on youth violence in her hometown of Chicago. And on Thursday, Biden was taking part in a discussion on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" with people who have different views on gun control.

Organizing for Action, the grassroots group being formed out of Obama's re-election campaign to support his agenda, said it was launching online ads Monday asking the public to urge their senators to support background checks. The ads will target 11 senators — all Republicans — through Facebook and search engines. An OFA spokesman said the group was not disclosing the cost of the ad campaign.

Gun control is divisive in Newtown, Conn., as in the rest of the country. Not all Sandy Hook families support gun control, and even those involved with the lobbying push organized by Sandy Hook Promise are not backing the assault weapons ban. But those families are asking lawmakers to expand background checks, increase penalties for gun trafficking and limit the size of magazines.

Read More