BOUNTY Put Out From BRITISH Parliament Member for Obama and Bush

British Lord Nazir Ahmed put a £10 million ($16 million) bounty on both President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush Friday, according to The Express Tribune, an English language Pakistani newspaper.

Nazir, who is of Pakistani heritage and a member of the British House of Lords, reportedly made the comments while at a reception in Haripur, a Pakistani city 4o miles north of Islamabad. Nazir told the audience that he was putting the bounty out for the capture of the American leaders in response to the bounty placed on Hafiz Muhammad Saeed by the United States.

“If the U.S. can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of 10 million pounds on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush,” Nazir reportedly said.

Saeed is widely believed to be the head of the Pakistani based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India that killed more than 160 innocents including six Americans. After the 2008 attacks, Saeed denied being connected to the terrorist group. In April, the U.S. government announced a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture in connection to the attacks.

According to The Express Tribune, Nazir said the bounty on Saeed was a grave insult to all Muslims and that he would sell his house if necessary to obtain the funds necessary to pay the bounty he placed on Obama and Bush.

The Pakistani report was brought to the attention of The Daily Caller by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Follow Jamie on Twitter


Join the conversation on The Daily Caller

SEO ToolsSubmit Express

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Report: British Member of Parliament puts $16 million bounty on Obama, George W. Bush

Investment adviser: Economic terrorism can bring down the U.S. economy [VIDEO]

David Axelrod DESTROYS President Obama on the economy

SNL bids farewell to GOP presidential contenders with Green Day parody

Ron Paul’s Campaign Raised $3.3 Million in February

By Jason M. Volack

Ron Paul’s inability to win a single state through this election season is now affecting his ability to raise money.

February fundraising figures show Paul raised about $3.3 million for the month, less than the $4.5 million in January and beginning March with $1.6 million on hand.
The Texas congressman’s campaign filed the report with the Federal Election Commission tonight, four days before the March 20 deadline.

Paul had been a prolific fundraiser. By the end of January he had raised $31 million, placing his second to Mitt Romney among his GOP rivals.

The bulk of the money coming from small-dollar donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research group dedicated to tracking money in U.S. politics.

Paul’s campaign does not have “bundlers,” people assigned to raise large amounts of money for the campaign.

Politico reported earlier this month that Endorse Liberty, one of the large Super PAC’s supporting Paul was reassessing its heavy financial support.

Endorse Liberty has tried to use online advertisements to broaden Paul’s appeal. But the Super PAC too is running thin on available cash. Through January, it reported less than $61,000 on hand.

Listen, and Understand!

My Music can be downloaded at my ReverbNation Site

HOW SANTORUM REJECTS THE CONSTITUTION

More than anything else, the U.S. Constitution is an outline of the concept of federalism. Federalism is the very basis, or is supposed to be the very basis, of American government. This doesn’t register one bit with Rick Santorum. Writes Ann Coulter:

Even when I agree with Rick Santorum, listening to him argue the point almost makes me change my mind.

I also wonder why he’s running for president, rather than governor, when the issues closest to his heart are family-oriented matters about which the federal government can, and should, do very little.

It’s strange that Santorum doesn’t seem to understand the crucial state-federal divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban contraception.

Of course they can. States could outlaw purple hats or Gummi bears under our Constitution!

State constitutions, laws, judicial rulings or the people themselves, voting democratically, tend to prevent such silly state bans from arising. But the Constitution written by James Madison, et al, does not prevent a state’s elected representatives from enacting them.

The Constitution mostly places limits on what the federal government can do. Only in a few instances does it restrict what states can do.

A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people’s right to bear arms or to engage in the free exercise of religion. A state can’t send a senator to the U.S. Congress if he is under 30 years old. But with rare exceptions, the Constitution leaves states free to govern themselves as they see fit.

In New York City, they can have live sex clubs and abortion on demand, but no salt or smoking sections. In Tennessee, they can ban abortion, but have salt, creches and 80 mph highways. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

And yet when Santorum tried to explain why states could ban contraception to Bill O’Reilly back in January, not once did he use the words “Constitution,” “constitutionally,” “federalism,” their synonyms or derivatives. Lawyers who are well familiar with the Constitution had no idea what Santorum was talking about.


He genuinely does not seem to understand the Constitution’s federalist framework, except as a brief talking point on the way to saying states can ban contraception…

If he truly believed in the Constitution, Santorum wouldn’t be promoting big social programs out of the federal government, such as tripling the child tax credit exemption and voting for “No Child Left Behind.”

No federalist can support this man.

For those who claim to be “constitutional conservatives” supporting Santorum basically renders that label meaningless. Santorum has repeatedly attacked the 10th amendment, which most of the Founders considered the strongest emphasis possible of what the entire Constitution was really all about. I made this same point about Santorum, his ignorance of the Constitution and his rejection of federalism at The Daily Callerearlier this week.

FOX NEWS: 'we like to dismiss polls, that Ron Paul wins.'

Quote of The Day

"I Live Today for the best Possible Tomorrow, anybody who does, will reap the benefits of Life."

Great Quotes From Last Nights GOP Debate

RANKED TOP QUOTES

Ron Paul: "Planned Parenthood should get nothing"

Ron Paul: "The [birth control] pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society"

Newt Gingrich: "I am inclined to believe dictators"

Mitt Romney: "You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want"

Ron Paul: "Guns don't kill, criminals kill"

Rick Santorum: "Politics is a team sport folks!"

Rick Santorum: "America is Satan"

Ron Paul's New Ad: "Is This Dude Serious"

Keen on slashing the national debt? Ron Paul is your man

Ron Paul ranks as the one candidate among four whose announced policies would leave America with a lower national debt than it would have under a status quo course, according to a new analysis.

By Mark Trumbull | Christian Science Monitor – 2 hrs 20 mins ago

Ron Paul has touted himself as the strongest fiscal conservative running for the Republican presidential nomination, and according to one new analysis, he may be right.

The Texas congressman ranks as the one candidate among four whose announced policies would leave America with a lower national debt than it would have under a status quo course.

That's the tentative conclusion of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, in a report evaluating the tax and spending policies of Representative Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

It's some basic math that any cash-strapped household would understand: His cuts to federal spending would outweigh his proposed tax cuts. The other candidates so far haven't fleshed out spending-cut plans that equal or exceed their tax cuts, which reduce expected federal revenues. In all, Paul's proposals would leave the United States with a national debt equaling 76 percent of one year's gross domestic product in 2021. That would be slightly higher than the debt is today, but lower than it would be in a base-line scenario that represents current policies pursued by Congress.

Former Massachusetts Governor Romney would leave public debt at 86 percent of GDP in 2021. Former US Senator Santorum would leave debt at 104 percent of GDP. Former House Speaker Gingrich would leave it at 114 percent of GDP.

In the base-line case, debt reaches 85 percent of GDP. This assumes a continuation of Bush-era tax cuts, an ongoing "patch" to keep more Americans from being hit by the alternative minimum tax, and an annual "doc fix" for physician payments under Medicare. In this status quo scenario, the deficit would amount to more than $1 trillion in 2021.

In public opinion polls, Americans see reducing annual deficits and the nation's overall debt as a top priority (behind economic growth and job creation) for government. Many economists say the debt is already rising into a zone that could threaten the economy's stability. Paul's prescription is to tackle the problem in libertarian fashion, with a major downsizing of the federal government. His proposals, as gauged by CRFB, would reduce federal spending by some $7.5 trillion over a nine-year period. (For comparison, federal spending will total $3.6 trillion in the 2012 fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.)

Paul's cuts would span from the military to Medicaid and beyond.

In one TV ad, Paul's campaign has shown pictures depicting the Departments of Education, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development blowing up as federal spending is reined in. "Later, bureaucrats," the narrator says.

His plan also calls for significant reductions in taxes on personal income, estates, and corporate income – totaling $5.2 trillion over the nine-year period that CRFB analyzed.

The CRFB analysis is tentative for several reasons. The group highlights estimates from an "intermediate scenario" for each candidate, based on policies each has spelled out in some detail. Romney doesn't get credit, for example, for his currently vague call for capping federal spending at 20 percent of GDP.

The CRFB says it will update its report as candidates revise or flesh out their economic plans.

The report also shows an alternative "low-debt" scenario, which essentially takes candidate pledges at face value, even if the proposals currently lack in detail.

In this scenario, Paul also leads the Republican pack in fiscal discipline, with debt falling to 67 percent of GDP. Romney and Santorum (who has a goal to cut $5 trillion in federal spending in five years) would also leave the US with lower debt than under the status quo case. Another caveat to the CRFB analysis: Paul's proposal to end the Federal Reserve would have wide and uncertain impacts on the economy. The CRFB takes only a first glance at this issue. It emphasizes an "intermediate-debt" scenario in which shutting down the Fed would cost the nation $430 billion over the nine-year period. That's because the Fed would no longer be making annual payments of surpluses from its operations to the US Treasury.

In the "low-debt" scenario, the CRFB credits the Paul plan with saving some $1.2 trillion by shutting down the Fed. But the group calls his idea "incomplete," saying that he proposes what amounts to a default by the Fed on the reserves it now holds for private banks. Some budget experts say these numbers regarding the Federal Reserve show only one implication of Paul's proposal. The bigger issue would be this: How would the economy function if the nation had no central bank to manage monetary policy?

"The impact on the budget would likely be major," said Alice Rivlin, a former Fed official who spoke at a Thursday panel discussion at the New America Foundation in Washington, at which the CRFB report was presented.

She didn't elaborate on the potential consequences. Many economists, while having varying views on optimal Fed policy, argue that the central bank played a key role in preventing the financial crisis of 2008 from pitching the economy into a 1930s-style depression. Paul has argued that a return to the gold standard would allow the economy to function with a "sound money" alternative to the current inflation-prone currency.

RECOMMENDED: The roar of Ron Paul – five of his unorthodox views on the economy Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

Really, Why Not?? RON PAUL MAKES A GREAT POINT

Ron Paul Says Santorum Can't Beat Obama

By Alexandre Jaffe
Ron Paul said he doesn't think that Rick Santorum can defeat President Obama in a general election. "I don't see how that's possible," he said on Sunday on CNN's State of the Union.

Paul also jabbed at Santorum for his aim “to control peoples’ lives” and what he framed as Santorum’s hypocrisy on the birth control issue. Santorum admitted in a 2006 interview on Fox News that he supported Title X, a government program that provides funds for family planning services, including access to contraceptives. Santorum said he voted for it during his time as Pennsylvania Senator, and though he believes in access to contraceptives, he personally feels they’re harmful to women and that abstinence education is a "healthier" option.

"I don't see how anybody can get away with that inconsistency—pretending he's a conservative,” Paul said in reference to Santorum’s vote. Paul dismissed the recent debate over contraception entirely, saying that while the other candidates discuss birth control, he's concerned with "the undermining of our civil liberties, the constant wars going on" and the debt.

Paul said the focus on social issues is a fundamental problem and an unwise fight for the GOP.

"I think it's a losing position," he said. "I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how these problems are to be solved," on a state-specific level, he said.

Let's Give a round of Applause for the Politicians!!

The Dreadliest problem that many never get the chance to experience, is ordering a plate that will feed the next six generations, but its divided into six portions, so those who are on top stay on top.  I see it as a simple game of supply and command.  A game where there are no rules for conduct, because the few that are playing aren't taking their turn, so they stay put knowing that they're safe where they are at, and until they are found why chance it?

The rest of us wish life could stay motionless, at least for the moment before it takes off again.  Many like myself live a life that feels like a roller-coaster, but derailing, picking up the sled and getting it back on track and give it another go!  Why allow an opportunity like such to occur, if the probability relies soley upon oneself.  For example, don't think to far ahead, eliminate the possibility of ideas that may end up going bad.