NRA Ad Calls Obama 'Elitist Hypocrite'

Jan 16, 2013 12:04am

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

As the White House prepares to unveil a sweeping plan aimed at curbing gun violence, the National Rifle Association has launched a preemptive, personal attack on President Obama, calling him an “elitist hypocrite” who, the group claims, is putting American children at risk.

In 35-second video posted online Tuesday night, the NRA criticizes Obama for accepting armed Secret Service protection for his daughters, Sasha and Malia, at their private Washington, D.C., school while questioning the placement of similar security at other schools.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” the narrator says.

“Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security,” it continues. “Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.”

The immediate family members of U.S. presidents – generally considered potential targets – have long received Secret Service protection.

The ad appeared on a new website for a NRA advocacy campaign – “NRA Stand and Fight” — that the gun-rights group appears poised to launch in response to Obama’s package of gun control proposals that will be announced today.

It’s unclear whether the video will air on TV or only on the web. The NRA did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.  The domain for the website is registered to Ackerman McQueen, the NRA’s long-standing public relations firm.

The White House had no comment on the NRA ad.

In the wake of last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Obama administration has met with a cross-section of advocacy groups on all sides of the gun debate to formulate new policy proposals.

The NRA, which met with Vice President Joe Biden last week, has opposed any new legislative gun restrictions, including expanded background checks and limits on the sale of assault-style weapons, instead calling for armed guards at all American schools.

Obama publicly questioned that approach in an interview with “Meet the Press” earlier this month, saying, “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

Still, the White House has been considering a call for increased funding for police officers at public schools and the proposal could be part of a broader Obama gun policy package.

Fifty-five percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they support adding armed guards at schools across the country.

“The issue is, are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can’t walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid fashion.  And surely, we can do something about that,” Obama said at a news conference on Monday.

“Responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don’t have anything to worry about,” he said.

ABC News’ Mary Bruce and Jay Shaylor contributed reporting. 

SHOWS: Good Morning America World News

Read More..

Annotating Obama’s 2006 speech against boosting the debt limit

(Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

“I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult, and budgets in this town are always difficult.”

— President Obama, news conference, Jan. 14, 2013

 “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

— Then-Sen. Barack Obama, floor speech in the Senate, March 16, 2006

As the saying goes, “where you stand depends on where you sit.” This is certainly true of the votes to boost the national debt limit, where almost by tradition, the party not holding the presidency refused to support an increase in the debt limit. (One big exception, as we have noted, is in 1953 during the Eisenhower presidency.)

 The president has acknowledged that his previous vote against the debt limit was “a political vote.” On Monday, at a news conference, he urged lawmakers to boost the debt limit without conditions: “We’re going to have to make sure that people are looking at this in a responsible way, rather than just through the lens of politics.”  (In other words, don’t do what I did back when I was a lawmaker.)

 In making his case, Obama noted: “The debt ceiling is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to.”  He added that he was willing to have a “conversation” about reducing the deficit, but the debt limit was not the right vehicle.

 With that in mind, we were curious to look back at Obama’s 2006 speech and examine the case he made at the time for not supporting a boost in the debt limit. Below is the entire speech. At key points, we will offer commentary or further explanation.

Obama’s 2006 speech on the debt limit

 “Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills.”

Here, Obama is sounding a bit Tea Partyish.

 

“It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is  ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers.”

Obama’s language is remarkably similar to charges made by the Mitt Romney campaign against Obama during the 2012 election, though Romney mostly focused on the debt held by China. (Japan was ignored.) When Obama took office in the midst of the Great Recession, the total national debt was $10.6 trillion; it is now $16.4 trillion.

“And over the next five years, between now and 2011, the president’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.”

 

It actually increased $5 trillion by the start of fiscal 2011.

“Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the federal government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

“That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America. And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget.”

Despite the increase in the debt the past seven years, interest costs actually have dropped, to about $200 billion a year, because interest rates have fallen so much during the economic slowdown. But if interest rates go up again, interest expense will soar.

“This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health-care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

“Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”

“But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues.

“Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next five years. That is why I will once again co-sponsor the pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.”

 

The rules were restored in 2010.

“Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just five years.”

This is also similar to another line used by Romney against Obama during the 2012 campaign.

“Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Reading the speech seven years later, Obama is correct that it was a political vote. He never really explains what he would do differently or how he would provide leadership on reducing the deficit. He just decries the rising debt, though he hints at possibly supporting tax increases, since he complains that tax cuts have been deficit-financed.

 After Obama finished speaking, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) rose to rebut his comments.

 “Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of final passage. Raising the debt limit is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

“We cannot as a Congress pass spending bills and tax bills and then refuse to pay our bills. Refusing to raise the debt limit is like refusing to pay your credit card bill — after you’ve used your credit card.

“The time to control the deficits and debt is when we are voting on the spending bills and the tax bills that create it. Raising the debt limit is about meeting the obligations we have already incurred. We must meet our obligations. Vote for this bill.”

Here, Grassley has found his inner President Obama. The increase in the debt limit passed on a vote of 52 to 48, with a handful of Republicans joining all Democrats (including then-Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton) in opposition.

The Pinocchio Test

This is why many Americans hate politics.

The young senator from Illinois presumably did not want to buck the rest of his party establishment in voting for increasing the debt limit — not when there were just enough Republicans willing to support a president from their own party. But Obama would be on much more solid ground today if he had given a speech back in 2006 that sounded more like his news conference in 2013.

 For making an argument that the president now decries as politics, he earns the upside-down Pinocchio, signifying a major-league flip-flop. (We have rarely given this ruling, but are eager for other examples from readers.)

(About our rating scale)

Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook
.

Read More..

S'pore scientists identify genes for central corneal thickness

SINGAPORE: Singapore scientists have identified genes for central corneal thickness (CCT) that may cause potentially blinding eye conditions. These eye conditions include glaucoma, as well as the progressive thinning of the cornea, which may eventually lead to a need for corneal transplantation.

The team is from the Singapore Eye Research Institute and the Genome Institute of Singapore, which is an institute of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).

A*STAR has described the findings as a world first. It said they show that Singapore is well placed globally in eye and genetics research in finding causes for sight threatening conditions.

Eye doctors can use genetic analysis to better manage such patients and prevent their condition from getting worse.

The team studied 55 hospitals and research centres around the world and analysed more than 20,000 individuals in European and Asian populations.

CCT is linked to potentially blinding eye conditions such as keratoconus, a condition where the cornea progressively thins and takes on a more conical shape that may eventually require transplantation.

A*STAR said the Singapore team has had remarkable success identifying the most CCT-associated loci to date.

It identified six distinct genetic loci in two papers published in 2011 and 2012 via samples collected from Singaporean Chinese, Indians, and Malays, as well as Chinese in Beijing. However, none was found to be associated with common eye diseases like this study has now shown.

Overall, this new study identified a total of 27 associated loci, including six for the keratoconus. These observations suggest that most of the CCT-associated loci identified from populations of European descent are shared with Asian populations.

-CNA/ac

Read More..

Left, Right join hands against FDI in retail

NEW DELHI: BJP, CPI and JD(U) on Tuesday come together to launch a national campaign against FDI in retail and sought support from the people to make the movement against the government's "anti-people" policy a success.

"This is a fight against UPA's FDI decision and it is the anti-people policy of the government that we are opposing," JD(U) leader and NDA convenor Sharad Yadav said here.

Blaming the government for its failure on the economic front, Yadav said industrial production and employment generation has slowed down in the country.

He said, "Indian market is expanding for years and we are not opposed to the expansion of market.

"Now to revive the market, government is punishing people through FDI decision. It is taxing common man by raising rail fares," JD(U) leader said.

He further said that retail shops are the second largest employment generating business in the country and by bringing in retail FDI it will create unemployment in the country.

Comparing the situation with that in China, Yadav said "China's position was equal to India's in economic terms in 1980. But China strengthened its internal position first before doing any business outside."

Criticising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Yadav said, "the Prime Minister has taken two strong steps till date. One on nuclear issue and the second time on FDI."

Supporting the agitation against the FDI decision, BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi said the struggle will continue till it is withdrawn and promised that NDA will scrap the decision if it comes to power in the next elections.

"All NDA allies, Left Front and regional parties have opposed FDI. We will scrap the decision when we come to power," Joshi said. He did not agree with the government's view that this will boost the economy.

"Wherever FDI in retail has come, it has ruined the economy of that country," Joshi said, charging that "in India they (US) are trying to come through bribery."

"Bribery amount of Rs 125 crore was reportedly paid in the name of lobbying," Joshi charged.

Reiterating his party's resolve to fight the decision, Joshi said, "We will take the agitation to the village level and make the March 7 rally on it a success."

CPI leader AB Bardhan said Government has not won the fight yet.

"They may have technically won it in Parliament but the battle is not yet over," Bardhan said.

Defending his presence on the same dais with the BJP, the CPI veteran said, "This is a fight for the common man. We may have different ideology but on this issue we are united to fight together."

Cautioning the people against the danger in bringing FDI in retail, he said monopoly price will prevail in the market and consumers will not benefit.

"Consumers may benfit in the beginning but in the longer run, they will be losers. Instead of generating jobs, it will take away jobs," CPI leader said.

He said the FDI decision is going to affect 20 crore people in the country and the market will be flooded with Chinese products.

Spelling out the future agitational plan, Bardhan said, "We will demonstrate in front of the Walmart shop and wherever they will acquire land in the country."

Bardhan further said all trade unions like AITUC, INTUC, BMS are opposing the FDI decision.

Read More..

"Fantastic" New Flying Frog Found—Has Flappy Forearms

Scientists have stumbled across a new species of flying frog—on the ground.

While hiking a lowland forest in 2009, not far from Ho Chi Minh City (map), Vietnam, "we came across a huge green frog, sitting on a log," said Jodi Rowley, an amphibian biologist at the Australian Museum in Sydney and lead author of a new study on the frog.

Rowley later discovered that the 3.5-inch-long (9-centimeter-long) creature is a relatively large new type of flying frog, a group known for its ability to "parachute" from tree to tree thanks to special aerodynamic adaptations, such as webbed feet, Rowley said. (Also see "'Vampire Flying Frog' Found; Tadpoles Have Black Fangs.")

Rowley dubbed the new species Helen's flying frog, in honor of her mother, Helen Rowley, "who has steadfastly supported her only child trekking through the forests of Southeast Asia in search of frogs," according to a statement.

The newfound species—there are 80 types of flying frogs—is also "one of the most flying frogs of the flying frogs," Rowley said, "in that it's got huge hands and feet that are webbed all the way to the toepad."

"Females even have flappy skin on their forearms to glide," added Rowley, who has received funding from the National Geographic Committee on Research and Exploration. (National Geographic News is part of the National Geographic Society.) "The females are larger and heavier than males, so the little extra flaps probably don't make much of a difference," she said.

As Rowley wrote on her blog, "At first it may seem strange that such a fantastic and obvious frog could escape discovery until now—less than 100 kilometers [60 miles] from an urban centre with over nine million people."

Yet these tree dwellers can easily escape notice—they spend most of their time in the canopy, she said.

Flying Frog On the Edge

Even so, Helen's flying frog won't be able to hide from development near Ho Chi Minh City, which may encroach on its existing habitats.

So far, only five individuals have been found in two patches of lowland forest hemmed in by rice paddies in southern Vietnam, Rowley said. The animals can probably tolerate a little bit of disturbance as long as they have large trees and temporary pools, she added.

But lowland forests are among the most threatened habitats in the world, mostly because they're so accessible to people, and thus chosen for logging and development. (Get the facts on deforestation.)

"While Helen's flying frog has only just been discovered by biologists," Rowley wrote, "unfortunately this species, like many others, is under great threat from ongoing habitat loss and degradation."

The new flying frog study was published in December 2012 in the Journal of Herpetology.

Read More..

Armstrong Admits Doping in Tour, Sources Say

Lance Armstrong today admitted to Oprah Winfrey that he used performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, sources told ABC News.

A government source tells ABC News that Armstrong is now talking with authorities about paying back some of the US Postal Service money from sponsoring his team. He is also talking to authorities about confessing and naming names, giving up others involved in illegal doping. This could result in a reduction of his lifetime ban, according to the source, if Armstrong provides substantial and meaningful information.

Armstrong made the admission in what sources describe as an emotional interview with Winfrey to air on "Oprah's Next Chapter" on Jan. 17.

The 90-minute interview at his home in Austin, Texas, was Armstrong's first since officials stripped him of his world cycling titles in response to doping allegations.

Word of Armstrong's admission comes after a Livestrong official said that Armstrong apologized today to the foundation's staff ahead of his interview.

The disgraced cyclist gathered with about 100 Livestrong Foundation staffers at their Austin headquarters for a meeting that included social workers who deal directly with patients as part of the group's mission to support cancer victims.

Armstrong's "sincere and heartfelt apology" generated lots of tears, spokeswoman Katherine McLane said, adding that he "took responsibility" for the trouble he has caused the foundation.

Riccardo S. Savi/Getty Images|Ray Tamarra/Getty Images

Lance Armstrong Stripped of Tour de France Titles Watch Video

Lance Armstrong Doping Charges: Secret Tapes Watch Video

McLane declined to say whether Armstrong's comments included an admission of doping, just that the cyclist wanted the staff to hear from him in person rather than rely on second-hand accounts.

Armstrong then took questions from the staff.

Armstrong's story has never changed. In front of cameras, microphones, fans, sponsors, cancer survivors -- even under oath -- Lance Armstrong hasn't just denied ever using performance enhancing drugs, he has done so in an indignant, even threatening way.

Armstrong, 41, was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from the sport for life by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in October 2012, after allegations that he benefited from years of systematic doping, using banned substances and receiving illicit blood transfusions.

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, said at a news conference in Switzerland announcing the decision. "This is a landmark day for cycling."

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued a 200-page report Oct. 10 after a wide-scale investigation into Armstrong's alleged use of performance-enhancing substances.

Armstrong won the Tour de France from 1999 to 2005.

According to a source, speaking to ABC News, a representative of Armstrong's once offered to make a donation estimated around $250,000 to the agency, as "60 Minutes Sports" on Showtime first reported.

Lance Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman denied it. "No truth to that story," Herman said. "First Lance heard of it was today. He never made any such contribution or suggestion."

Armstrong, who himself recovered from testicular cancer, created the Lance Armstrong Foundation (now known as the LIVESTRONG Foundation) to help people with cancer cope, as well as foster a community for cancer awareness. Armstrong resigned late last year as chairman of the LIVESTRONG Foundation, which raised millions of dollars in the fight against cancer.

Read More..

History lesson: Why did Congress create a national debt limit?

(Jay Mallin/Bloomberg)

Now that the Treasury Department has nixed the odd idea of issuing a platinum coin to get around the federal debt limit, Congress once again will be forced to decide whether to raise the debt limit.

When this issue last loomed in 2011, we looked deeply at the question of whether the United States had ever defaulted before. (Answer: It is not entirely unprecedented. There are three instances when the United States could be seen to have defaulted on its obligations — in 1790, in 1933 and in 1971.)

The debt limit covers both publicly-held debt and debts the United States owes to itself (bonds to Social Security and Medicare for future obligations) so no matter what happens, the debt limit will have to be raised, one way or the other.

But for readers who have been wondering, here’s a history lesson why the United States has a debt limit in the first place. Essentially, Congress was trying to make life easier for itself.

It started with a war.

In the early decades of the Republic, Congress preferred to issue debt for specific purposes, such as issuing bonds to build the Panama Canal. During the Spanish-American War of 1898, Congress authorized the Treasury Secretary to issue short-term debt and some longer-term debt with specific limits on maturities.

But World War I was a conflict with unknowable costs, making targeted legislation difficult. At first Congress established a $5 billion limit on new issues of bonds, along with the immediate issuance of $2 billion in one-year certificates of indebtedness, in the First Liberty Loan Act of 1917.

But very quickly another law was needed-- the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917—in which Congress set a general limit on borrowing--$9.5 billion in Treasury bonds and $4 billion in one-year certificates. This freed the Treasury Secretary to begin to figure out the best mix of securities to issue, without nearly as much congressional oversight as before.

By the end of World War I, the limit on Treasury obligations had been raised to $43 billion, which was considerably more than the $25 billion in outstanding public debt in 1919. For decades, future increases in the national debt were simply amendments to the Second Liberty Bond Act. But it was not in 1939—on the eve of the World War II—that Congress eliminated all of the different limits on types of bonds, thus creating an overall aggregate limit on the national debt.

We learned much of this from an interesting 1954 history of the debt limit, published in the Journal of Finance, by H.J. Cooke and M. Katzen, which was posted on the Monkey Cage blog. The article notes that the debt limit generally was raised without controversy until a White House request to raise the limit in 1953 was sidetracked in the Senate, “where the ceiling was viewed as an instrument for forcing economy on the executive branch of the government.”

Hmm, that sounds familiar.

But in that case, it was a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who faced a roadblock from a Democratic senator, Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, who then chaired the Senate Finance Committee.

Eisenhower wanted to build the national highway system, which he considered an important investment in the future, but Byrd was concerned that national debt built up during World War II and the Great Depression was becoming a permanent feature of the U.S. government. Eisenhower asserted that he had “moved promptly and vigorously” to cut spending but still needed the debt limit raised in order to pay outstanding bills.

But Byrd was not satisfied and he so demanded more cuts in exchange for a debt limit increase. For a while, Byrd held the upper hand, forcing Treasury to take emergency measures to avoid default, but eventually Eisenhower got the debt ceiling raised in 1954, though not as much as he had hoped.

“An essential part of this preparedness [for national security] is a debt limit high enough to permit the Treasury, if necessary, to borrow the funds required to carry out the Government’s obligations under the Constitution and under the laws of the Congress,” Eisenhower said when he signed the bill establishing the new debt limit.

In other words, there are no original ideas in politics. The debt limit was originally conceived as a way to make things easier for Congress, because lawmakers were tired of having to issue bonds for specific purposes. (Congress, after all, had already decided to spend the money.) But then Congress often finds a way to make the easy stuff harder.

Indeed, when he was a senator, President Obama also refused to approve a debt limit increase in 2006 without a plan to reduce the deficit. The president now acknowledges that was a “political vote, as opposed to doing what was important for the country—which he regrets.

(About our rating scale)

Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook
.

Read More..

Asian stocks up, Shanghai jumps on regulator comments

HONG KONG: Asian shares were mostly higher on Monday, led by a surge on the Shanghai index after the securities regulator raised hopes for increased foreign investment in China's stock market.

The euro made further gains after upbeat comments last week by the European Central Bank chief, and the yen slid again after reports that the Bank of Japan and government were poised to set a two-per cent inflation target.

Shanghai surged 3.06 per cent, or 68.74 points, to 2,311.74 after the head of China's securities regulator, Guo Shuqing, said the investment quota for foreigners in the domestic equity market could be increased 10-fold.

Hong Kong rose 0.64 per cent, or 149.19 points, to 23,413.26, Seoul added 0.52 per cent, or 10.37 points, to 2,007.04 and Sydney closed up 0.22 per cent, or 10.2 points, at 4,719.7.

But Singapore slipped 0.31 per cent, or 9.91 points, to 3,206.59, pulled down by property stocks after the government introduced new measures at the weekend to cool the local market.

Tokyo was closed for a public holiday.

At a Hong Kong conference on Monday, Guo said at present investment by foreign institutions -- individuals are barred -- accounts for "just 1.5 or 1.6 per cent" of China's A-share market, stock denominated in the domestic yuan currency.

He said the quota could be increased 10-fold in an effort to boost the stock market, without elaborating.

There was no clear lead from Wall Street, where stocks closed in mixed territory on Friday.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 0.13 per cent, the broad-based S&P 500 was flat, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite rose 0.12 per cent.

Investors were looking ahead to a speech by US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke later on Monday.

Minutes from the December meeting of Fed policymakers showed they were divided over how long the central bank should continue asset purchases.

But dealers thought Bernanke was likely to put an end to speculation that US policymakers may end the quantitative-easing programme, with expectations about his comments pushing down the dollar.

"I'd be shocked if he said anything other than they're buying bonds for the long haul," said Davis Scutt, a currency trader at Arab Bank in Sydney.

After tumbling on Friday when the Japanese government unveiled a stimulus package, the yen slid further as reports said the Bank of Japan and the government would jointly set a two-per cent inflation target following pressure from new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The two sides are to finalise a joint statement on monetary measures in time for the central bank's policy meeting on January 21-22, the Asahi Shimbun reported.

A weaker yen helps the country's many exporters, as it makes their products cheaper abroad.

The euro has been surging since Thursday when ECB chief Mario Draghi said there was "a significant improvement in financial market conditions" in the single currency bloc.

On foreign exchange markets in Asian afternoon trade, the euro was at $1.3387, compared to $1.3341 in the US late Friday. The dollar was at 89.61 yen from 89.18 yen, and the euro traded at 119.96 yen from 119.00 yen.

Oil was up. New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in February, rose 69 cents to $94.25 a barrel in the afternoon, and Brent North Sea crude for February delivery gained 43 cents to $111.07.

Gold was at 1,669.90 at 0935 GMT compared with $1,669.80 late Friday.

In other markets:

-- Wellington rose 0.54 per cent, or 22.16 points to 4,153.92.

Fletcher Building added 1.61 per cent to NZ$8.86, Telecom Corp rose 1.08 per cent to NZ$2.335 and The Warehouse gained 0.66 per cent to NZ$3.07.

-- Taipei was flat, edging up 4.82 points to 7,823.97.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co gained 1.0 per cent at NT$102.0 while leading smartphone maker HTC climbed 5.1 per cent to NT$291.0.

-- Manila advanced 0.70 per cent, or 42.15 points, to 6,093.90.

Top-traded Bloomberry Resorts Corp. gained 1.54 per cent to 13.16 pesos while BDO Unibank rose 2.46 per cent to 77 pesos.

- AFP/xq

Read More..

Killing of jawans: India lodges protest with Pak at flag meet

JAMMU: Indian Army on Monday lodged a strong protest with Pakistan army over the killing of two of its jawans, one of whom was beheaded, and continued ceasefire violations along the LoC in Poonch sector of Jammu and Kashmir.

"The flag meeting between brigade commanders of India and Pakistan started around 1300 hours and ended at 1332 hours at Chakan-Da-Bagh Crossing-Point in Poonch sector", a senior Army officer said.

The Indian team was led by 10th Bridage (Krishnaghati Brigade) commander Brig T S Sandhu in the meeting with the Pakistan brigade commander at Chakan-da-Bagh crossing point along the Line of Control (LoC) in Poonch district.

The officer said further details were awaited as the team was returning from the forward area.

Army had lodged a strong protest with Pakistan army over the brutal, barbaric and inhuman killing of two Army jawans after intrusion in Poonch sector on January 8 and also continued ceasefire violations by Pakistani troops.

The Indian Army had sent a hotline message to Pakistan army on January 11 and called for a brigade commander-level flag meeting to discuss the issues of brutal killing of two jawans after major intrusion by Pakistani troops of 29 Baloch Regiment and increasing incidents of firing and ceasefire violations in Poonch sector.

Pakistan had on Sunday responded to the request for flag meeting through hot-line, he said, adding that "we had sought flag meeting of the two brigade commanders".

Pakistan's high commissioner Salman Bashir was earlier summoned in Delhi by foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai, who had lodged a strong protest over Pakistani army action in which the two soldiers were killed and their bodies were subjected to "barbaric and inhuman mutilation".

Pakistan has suspended cross-LoC trade and travel at Chakan-Da-Bagh crossing point in Poonch sector since Thursday and Friday respectively.

Read More..

How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby

In gun lore it’s known as the Revolt at Cincinnati. On May 21, 1977, and into the morning of May 22, a rump caucus of gun rights radicals took over the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association.

The rebels wore orange-blaze hunting caps. They spoke on walkie-talkies as they worked the floor of the sweltering convention hall. They suspected that the NRA leaders had turned off the air-conditioning in hopes that the rabble-rousers would lose enthusiasm.

The Old Guard was caught by surprise. The NRA officers sat up front, on a dais, observing their demise. The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely. But the world had changed, and everything was more political now. The rebels saw the NRA leaders as elites who lacked the heart and conviction to fight against gun-control legislation.

And these leaders were about to cut and run: They had plans to relocate the headquarters from Washington to Colorado.

“Before Cincinnati, you had a bunch of people who wanted to turn the NRA into a sports publishing organization and get rid of guns,” recalls one of the rebels, John D. Aquilino, speaking by phone from the border city of Brownsville, Tex.

What unfolded that hot night in Cincinnati forever reoriented the NRA. And this was an event with broader national reverberations. The NRA didn’t get swept up in the culture wars of the past century so much as it helped invent them — and kept inflaming them. In the process, the NRA overcame tremendous internal tumult and existential crises, developed an astonishing grass-roots operation and became closely aligned with the Republican Party.

Today it is arguably the most powerful lobbying organization in the nation’s capital and certainly one of the most feared. There is no single secret to its success, but what liberals loathe about the NRA is a key part of its power. These are the people who say no.

They are absolutist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA learned that controversy isn’t a problem but rather, in many cases, a solution, a motivator, a recruitment tool, an inspiration.

Gun-control legislation is the NRA’s best friend: The organization claims an influx of 100,000 new members in recent weeks in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. The NRA, already with about 4 million members, hopes that the new push by Democrats in the White House and Congress to curb gun violence will bring the membership to 5 million.

The group has learned the virtues of being a single-issue organization with a very simple take on that issue. The NRA keeps close track of friends and enemies, takes names and makes lists. In the halls of power, it works quietly behind the scenes. It uses fear when necessary to motivate supporters. The ultimate goal of gun-control advocates, the NRA claims, is confiscation and then total disarmament, leading to government tyranny.

“We must declare that there are no shades of gray in American freedom. It’s black and white, all or nothing,” Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said at an NRA annual meeting in 2002, a message that the organization has reiterated at almost every opportunity since.

Read More..