By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press
WASHINGTON

The House voted on Wednesday to cut food stamps by $2 billion a year as part of a wide-ranging farm bill.

The chamber rejected 234-188 a Democratic amendment to the five-year, half-trillion-dollar farm legislation that would have maintained current spending on food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The overall bill cuts the $80 billion-a-year program by about 3 percent and makes it harder for some people to qualify.

The food stamp cuts have complicated passage of the bill and its farm-state supporters were working to secure votes Wednesday. Many conservatives have said the food stamp cuts do not go far enough since the program has doubled in cost in the last five years and now feeds 1 in 7 Americans. Liberals have argued against any reductions, contending the House plan could take as many as 2 million needy recipients off the rolls. The White House has threatened a veto over the food stamp cuts.

The amendment by Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and other Democrats would have eliminated the SNAP cuts and taken the money from farm subsidies instead.

“It’s too big, it’s too harsh and it’s going to hurt so many people,” McGovern said of the food aid cuts.

Also complicating passage is growing Republican opposition to farm subsidies, some of which are expanded under the bill. Republicans have proposed amendments that would cut back dairy and sugar supports that could turn lawmakers from certain regions of the country against the bill if they were to succeed.

The House is scheduled to continue voting on 103 amendments to the bill Thursday with a vote on passage possibly next week. As of Wednesday, it was unclear if Republicans had enough votes.

In an effort to push the legislation through, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last week that he would vote for it, while making it clear that he did not really like it. He said he wants to get the bill to House and Senate negotiators for a potential deal, and that passing the bill was better than doing nothing.

The legislation would cut around $4 billion a year in overall spending on farm and nutrition programs. The Senate passed its version of the farm bill last week, with about $2.4 billion a year in overall cuts and a $400 million annual decrease in the SNAP program – about a fifth of the amount of the House food stamp cuts.

Democratic leaders have said they will wait to see how the House votes on the many amendments, but have so far signaled opposition to the measure. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California argued against the food stamp cuts on the floor Wednesday and was a “likely no” on the bill, according to an aide. No. 2 House Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland called the food stamp cuts “irresponsible.”

The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., told colleagues that a robust farm policy was necessary to avoid farm crises like those in the 1930s and 1980s.

“I will work with all of you to improve this draft,” he said Tuesday. “I ask you to work with me.”

The legislation would achieve some of the food stamp cuts by partially eliminating what is called categorical eligibility, or giving people automatic food stamp benefits when they sign up for certain other programs. The bill would end a practice in some states of giving low-income people as little as $1 a year in home heating assistance, even when they don’t have heating bills, in order to make them eligible for increased food stamp benefits.

Lucas said the cuts would still allow people who qualify to apply for food stamps, they just wouldn’t automatically get them.

The Oklahoma Republican has called the overall legislation the “most reform-minded bill in decades.” He said it would make needed cuts to food stamps and eliminate $5 billion a year in direct payments, subsidies that are paid to farmers whether they grow or not. The bill would expand crop insurance and makes it easier for rice and peanut farmers to collect subsidies.

It has been more than five years since the House passed a farm bill. Since then, Republicans took control of the House and more than 200 new members have been elected; many are conservatives who replaced rural Democrats.

The politics of farm and food aid have also changed since then. The food stamp program’s costs have ballooned through the economic downturn, and farm country is enjoying record-high prices. With agriculture one of the most profitable sectors of the economy, many lawmakers have questioned why farmers still receive more than $15 billion a year in subsidies.

http://www.breitbart.com

After 12 years of war, the US and the Taliban have announced that they will seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan. The announcement came after the Taliban opened a political office in Qatar.

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday called the negotiations an “important first step toward reconciliation” in Afghanistan, while cautioning that “there would be bumps along the road.”

“An Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process is the best way to end the violence and to ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and the region,” Obama said, after meeting with French President Francois Hollande on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

“I want to repeat that we don’t anticipate this process will be easy or quick, but we must pursue [it] in parallel with our military approach,” the US president continued.

The announcement of peace talks coincided with the official transfer of security responsibilities from the NATO-led military coalition to the Afghan government on Tuesday. The international coalition is preparing to withdraw all combat troops by the end of 2014, transitioning to a smaller training and advisory mission.

Some 48 nations currently have around 100,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, with approximately 66,000 from the US. Afghan security forces number around 352,000, up from 40,000 six years ago. But there are concerns about their morale and readiness.

‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’

Meanwhile, the Afghan Taliban opened a political office in the Gulf state of Qatar on Tuesday. The Islamist militia said the office would represent the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” in talks with Washington.

“It’s good news – we are very pleased with what’s taking place,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said of the steps taken toward negotiations.

The Taliban met a key US pre-condition for the talks, vowing to not allow attacks to come from Afghan soil. Washington originally drove the Taliban out of Kabul in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. At the time, the Islamist militia refused to comply with an American ultimatum to hand over al Qaeda’s top leadership.

The Taliban still has not officially renounced ties with the Sunni terrorist group. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the severing of ties between the Taliban and al Qaeda was an “end goal of the process.”

US officials said that the Taliban would also negotiate directly with the Afghan government. But the Taliban said on the Tuesday that they “do not recognize the Afghan government” and “the talks will be with the Americans only in Doha under the patronage of Qatar.”

“We support a political and peaceful solution that ends Afghanistan’s occupation and guarantees the Islamic system and nationwide security,” the Taliban said.

Read more at http://www.dw.de/us-to-hold-peace-talks-with-afghan-taliban-in-doha/a-16893061

by LittleTboca

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”– Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

What does it take to get Congress to come to their senses? Obama makes plans to send heavy weapons and arms to the rebels in Syria – you can bet your booties that the rebels fighting to remove Bashar Al-Assad are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama and John McCain will deny that statement vehemently, but ole John doesn’t appear to be too nervous over the atrocities against the Christians in Egypt. McCain probably should step back and stay out of this mix because he’s aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood (and at the same time helping Obama in his quest to place America under Sharia Law.)

Ghassan Hitto was elected by the rebels this spring to be in charge of the interim Asyrian Government for the rebels. Hitto has sort of been hiding in the shadows working as an IT manager and Islamic Activist. Back in the early 2000s, he served as VP of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations.) CAIR is yet one more example of “Stealth Jihad” and is kissin’ cousins with the Muslim Brotherhood.

CAIR isn’t exactly your friendly neighborhood girl or boy scout group. Buyer beware: what you see isn’t what you get!

Per the Modern Tokyo Times:

In 2002, U.S. media identified Mr. Hitto as the Vice-President of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas Fort-Worth Chapter (see Note 1). A Hudson Institute report identifies CAIR as part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas support infrastructure in the U.S.”

“According to the Texas Secretary of State, Mr. Hitto is a director of the Muslim American Society (MAS) Youth Center of Dallas. He has also been listed in the past as the contact person for the Dallas chapter of the MAS. The Hudson Institute report also identifies the MAS as part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and close to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

In June 2012, there were five brave Patriots (Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Rooney, Michele Bachmann, Louis Gohmert, and Trent Franks) who dared question the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood in our Government.

They sent letters to the Inspector Generals of Homeland Security, Defense, DOJ, and State, and one to the Director of National Security asking for an investigation concerning the Muslim Brotherhood influence in each of these agencies.

Of course, the Obama Administration, the Liberal News Media, and the remainder of our Congressional representatives basically tarred and feathered the five, which demonstrates the secure position the Muslim Brotherhood has in our Government. Remember that their objective has always been to destroy our Nation from the inside out. Ironically, the Sec. of State and John McCain condemned the five brave Americans. McCain has his fingers in everyone’s pot it seems – wonder if he’s thinking about or maybe already has been converted by the Muslims.

George Bush was blindsided by the Muslim Brotherhood during the 9/11 terrorist attacks – the brotherhood assured him that this was merely a small sector of Muslims gone bad.

America, in 2009, we placed a Muslim Brotherhood lover in our White House as our Commander in Chief. He has led Congress around by their noses, strategically placing more members of the brotherhood in his cabinet and encouraging the Arab Spring (which was an “Islamic Wake Up Call.”)

The Arab Spring was Obama’s way of signaling to the Muslim Brotherhood that it was time to start their takeover of the Middle East. Now he’s ready to take Bashar Al-Assad down with America’s money, arms, ammo, and heavy artillery. He will ship Muslims into our Country by the shipload between now and 2016. He will put our military in harm’s way if necessary; for Sharia Law is on the horizon.

Nothing will stop him unless Congress comes to their senses and Americans stand up and fight for their Country. The sad thing about all of this is: (1) Our FBI, Homeland security, the CIA, and Sec. of State know exactly what Obama is doing, and (2) Republicans, Democrats, and the Obama Administration are aware of what this dictator (Obama) is doing.

Could these people be on America’s Most Wanted List in the near future?

Arif Alikhan – Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mohammed Elibiary – Homeland Security Adviser.

Rashad Hussain – Special Envoy to the (OIC) Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Salam al-Marayati – Obama Adviser, founder of Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director.

Imam Mohamed Magid – Obama’s Sharia Czar, Islamic Society of North America.

Eboo Patel – Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships

May God Bless America

As Always,

Little Tboca

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-assists-the-muslim-brotherhood-one-more-time/

by Billy Hallowell

A woman who described herself as a teacher of the Constitution was caught on video clashing with members of a controversial Christian organization. Bradlee Dean, a figure TheBlaze has covered in the past, founded “You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International,” a ministry that delivers assemblies and speeches in public schools. Members of this organization recently engaged a woman in a contentious conversation — one that led her to physically attack the Christian activists.

The incident, which was captured on video and later released by the group, shows the volatile exchange that unfolded at a 7-11 gas station in Florida. The debate erupted as Dean’s ministry was apparently trying to nab support for the Bible and Christian values in public schools.

A press release that the organization distributed following the incident explains what happened in detail (strictly from its own perspective, of course):

The woman verbally and physically attacked two ministry workers Elizabeth Ilse and Chase Schomberg. “Ilse was standing behind one of her ministry’s tables while distributing Christian literature to those visiting the gas station. She simply said, ‘Hello,’ to the woman, but after approaching and reading the sign on the ministry’s table that said, ‘Support Christianity in Public Schools, The Constitution, and Honoring Soldiers,’ the woman viciously attacked the cause by screaming ‘shame on you for wanting Christianity in schools,’ calling Miss Ilse a ‘bigot,’ and [she] stated that ‘Christians are the problem.’”

She threatens to call police, then yelled, “I’ll tell police you are not just harassing, but are assaulting me.” Then she blasts the cameraman with her bag.

She speeds off, but returns a short time later to talk with police. She doesn’t approach the ministry table again, but the police asked the ministry workers if they wanted to press charges against her. The ministry and Dean have not decided whether to press charges as of yet.

In a short, edited video, the woman can be seen and heard telling Dean’s staffers, “I know what’s in our Constitution and you don’t.” Then, she claims that she teaches the Constitution, charging that the nation’s most central document advocates for the “separation of church and state.”

From there, the clash between the two parties intensifies with the aforementioned details coming to fruition.

Watch the clip, below:

Now, it should be noted that it’s unclear how the debate between the two parties commenced. TheBlaze called Dean staffer Jake MacAulay to ask for a more complete and unedited clip. Following the call, he sent us a link to five minutes of footage that provides a bit more context.

The longer clip shows the woman demanding that the ministry workers move away from both her and her vehicle. While she repeatedly asked the individual filming the incident to stop, the footage continued to be captured and these pleas were ignored. While not excusing her actions, it does help explain them.

After apparently hitting the cameraman with her bag, she screamed, “Get away from my car!”

Watch the more complete video, below:

As the release notes, the ministry has not decided whether or not to press charges against the woman.

theblaze.com

Read more at http://patdollard.com/2013/06/report-2-state-department-officials-lied-under-oath-to-protect-hillary-in-lawsuit-brought-against-her/

by Mara Zebest

Liberal schools who routinely produce “F” students for “Failure” have decided to continue choices to reinforce mediocrity by naming one of their schools after Michelle Obama.

Some questions to ask the Board Members responsible for this decision: Will the Michelle Obama school teach their students how the Obama administration is destroying the first amendment by targeting the free speech of journalists?

Additionally, will the Michelle Obama school teach the students how the Obama administration is destroying the second amendment? Or will the Michelle Obama school teach students how the Obama Administration is destroying the fourth amendment with the NSA spying on American citizens—while mosques (the real source of terrorism) are off limits? Will the Michelle Obama school teach their students how Noam Chomsky—a far Left Liberal, thus not subject to a “right” bias—recently was interviewed and made the following statement:

“In a wide-ranging interview with GRITtv host Laura Flanders, MIT professor and author Noam Chomsky plainly stated that President Barack Obama’s administration is “dedicated to increasing terrorism” all around the world.”

And will the Michelle Obama school also instruct the students that the above Chomsky quote is further supported by Obama’s recent talks with notorious Jihadist Haqqani network, also funding al-Qaeda Syrian rebels, and sending arms to be used against Christians and Americans?

If you would like to voice your opinions, these questions, or any of your own questions on this decision, contact Nury Martinez or any of the board members.

Local CBS news reports on the board decision as follows:

School board members have approved a plan to rename a San Fernando Valley elementary school after First Lady Michelle Obama.

Los Angeles Unified board members voted unanimously Tuesday to name Valley Region Elementary School No. 13 after Mrs. Obama.

The campus, which was opened last August to relieve overcrowding at nearby elementary schools, focuses on healthy eating for students, a cause championed by Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign.

The First Lady was in Germany on Wednesday as President Obama meets with Prime Minister Angela Merkel and other leaders.

Read more at http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

Since she became First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama’s fashion choices have been closely scrutinized and debated. But while we’ve argued the merits of mixed prints, kitten heels and other style minutiae, we never once doubted that First Lady Michelle Obama looked the part.

But in an interview last month, conducted at the American Legion’s annual meeting in Indianapolis, Virginia voter Bobbie Lussier expressed her concerns to NPR’s Ari Shapiro with the Obamas — specifically, Mrs. O’s appearance:

I just — I don’t like him. Can’t stand to look at him. I don’t like his wife. She’s far from the first lady. It’s about time we get a first lady in there that acts like a first lady, and looks like a first lady.

Shapiro happened to run into Lussier just yesterday at another Romney event, this time in Springfield, Virginia, allowing Lussier to clarify her previous comments. Shapiro probed Lussier, saying that last time “you said she doesn’t look like a first lady. …”

Lussier: “No, she doesn’t. She doesn’t look or act. I mean, can you imagine you know, Kennedys or the Bushes or anybody doing pushups on the floor? I mean you know. That’s just not a first lady.”

Shapiro: “A lot of people wondered if there was a racial undertone to your comments.”

Lussier: “No, it’s not. I don’t care what color she is. It’s just she just doesn’t act and look like a first lady. I mean she’s more about showing her arms off. … I think that’s very inappropriate for a lot of functions that she goes to.”

Shapiro: “So do you mean it’s an issue of modesty?”

Lussier: “Yeah. It’s respect and … for being in the White House.”

Shapiro:”Fewer sleeveless dresses, fewer pushups …”

Lussier: “They talk about more like her dresses and how she looks and stuff and her arms and whatever. [...] You see her walking around in shorts, and you know, just real casual wear. And to me … I mean when I go to functions I kind of dress up other than today, but you just gotta look the part.”

Whether you detect racial undertones or not (as many NPR listeners did), Lussier is circling back on the well-tread debate over whether Michelle Obama’s bare arms, bared thighs and occasionally laidback demeanor are befitting of a first lady. The public debated Michelle’s lack of sleeves in 2009, when the new first lady wore a sleeveless Narciso Rodriguez dress at the President’s address to Congress, in her formal White House portrait and on the cover of People, among other places. The conclusion? No sleeves, no problem. First Ladies and their staffs have been going sleeveless for decades (“We wore sleeveless dresses all the time,” Letitia Baldridge, Jacqueline Kennedy’s social secretary, told Bonnie Fuller.) Case closed.

As for the shorts, the first lady had a few tongues wagging when she was spotted on vacation in Arizona in 2010 wearing chino shorts that reached her mid-thigh. The “Today” show ran a segment titled, “First lady’s fashions pushing the envelope?” And yet Michelle’s vacation wardrobe, chosen to accomodate the intense heat of the Grand Canyon, was ultimately accepted (we polled HuffPost Style readers, 58.57 percent of whom thought the shorts were no big deal). After all, she was on vacation — she’s got plenty of skirts, dresses and pants for every other occasion and she knows when to wear them.

And as for the pushups? We’re pretty sure it’s acceptable for first ladies to exercise (as long as you don’t drop and give your trainer 20 during the State of the Union address or start Dougie-ing during a state dinner).

Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/michelle-obama-look-like-a-first-lady-bobbie-lussier_n_1922236.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

If you want to start a fight with a room full of liberals, insist that Barack Obama is the worst president in recent history. The blowback about George W. Bush and Iraq will drown you out, but here’s a way to quiet the crowd: Insist that Obama’s second term is the worst term in recent presidential history.

There can be no argument there.

Each week hits a new low point, and the only debate is about which moment was the worst. Last week featured the massive security breach by Edward Snowden and Obama’s pathetic Hamlet act over Syria.

We don’t yet know which caused more harm to American interests and eroded more trust in government. Either way, the president is lost in a fog of his own making.

Read more at http://redflagnews.com/headlines/op-ed-if-you-want-to-start-a-fight-with-a-room-full-of-liberals-insist-that-barack-obama-is-the-worst-president-in-recent-history

By Kyle Becker

Whether or not one supports comprehensive immigration reform, politicians should not say simply anything to the public in order to get support, while voting against those things one claims to support.

Senator Rubio is totally invested in “comprehensive immigration reform.” And as such, he knows that the American public overwhelmingly favors establishing more border security before granting a pathway to citizenship.

The contrast between what Marco Rubio has said and how he just voted in the Senate cannot be more stark. As Matthew Boyle of Breitbart reported, Senator Rubio voted against an amendment offered by Jon Thune to complete the double-tiered border security fence, as was already enacted into law.

This is how Rubio explained himself in a statement:

“I support Senator Thune’s efforts to require completion of double layered border fencing. Properly deployed, these fences have proven highly effective in limiting illegal crossings. That is why the current bill requires $1.5 billion be spent specifically on a border fence plan.

Read more at www.ijreview.com/2013/06/60270-rubio-kills-amendment-for-more-border-security/c

By Kyle Becker

The Gang of Eight is pushing a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill that will add 46 million immigrants to the nation by 2033, according to the CBO.

Neil Munro of the Daily Caller reports on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate:

The Senate’s pending immigration bill will pave the way for the arrival of 46 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, increase the federal debt in the same time period and shrink Americans’ average wage, according Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Session’s critical reading of two new reports on the pending immigration reform bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The Congressional Budget Office takes a bit of the rosy glow off its earlier estimate that the immigration bill will actually be positive for the growing national debt, because it will lead to increased productivity and tax coffers stuffed to the rafters.

The CBO also estimated that even if the “comprehensive reform” bill passed, illegal immigration levels would still continue at 75% of the current influx each year.

Read more at http://www.ijreview.com/2013/06/60403-cbo-senate-immigration-bill-translates-to-46-million-immigrants-by-2033/