Rick Santorum is charging into the Louisiana primary Saturday holding onto a healthy lead in the polls as he looks to shake off his latest losses to Mitt Romney — though the underdog presidential candidate was still running into problems over his own campaign trail rhetoric.

By Catherine Herridge

Published March 23, 2012

| FoxNews.com

Pilots packing heat may soon be a relic of the 9/11  aftermath, as the White  House seeks to cut the $25 million budget in half for the federal flight  deck officers training program known as the FFDO.

“The Obama  administration has had an institutional hostility towards the concept of arming  pilots, and especially the FFDO program, since the beginning,” Lt. Col. Al  Aitken, a retired Marine and now with the Airline Security Consulting Group,  claimed at a panel hosted by the conservative Heritage  Foundation on Friday.

The panel brought together advocates for the  voluntary program that trains pilots, co-pilots and navigators to handle and  carry handguns, including Minnesota Republican Rep. Chip Craavack. He said the  program was cost effective – in fact, it was cheaper to arm a pilot than check a  single suitcase.

“According to the estimates by the Airlines Pilots  Association, FFDOs only cost $15 per flight segment. Let me say that again: To  protect an aircraft and possibly the potential of thousands of people, the FFDO  costs $15 per flight.

Capt. Tracy W. Price, a commercial airline pilot, warned that history might repeat itself — he recalled that pilots carried handguns in the 80s and 90s, but the program  was shuttered the summer before 9/11.

“We had a really bad cockpit breach, four of them.  We lost 3,000 Americans. We learned that day that this is a horrible, horrible  experiment,” Price said.

Homeland  security officials argue the department’s multi-layered approach to airline  security that relies on 100 percent passenger and cargo screening, intelligence  data and reinforced cockpit doors is more effective. It focuses on high-risk  attacks with the greatest consequence.

Testifying on the hill last month, Homeland Security  Secretary Janet  Napolitano stood behind the proposed cuts.

“I think the reduction for the Federal Flight Deck Officer program is predicated on the fact  that the program is not risk-based,” she said. “We are moving, in the TSA (Transportation  Security Administration), to risk-based systems, and those are the ones that  we’re going to put money into.”

Asked for further comment, the Homeland Security  Department directed Fox News to the 2013 budget that says the TSA will focus on  programs that “mitigate the highest amount of risk at the lowest cost” — and  apparently arming pilots does not meet the threshold.

by Mike Opelka - The Blaze

What is Agenda 21?  If you do not know about it, you should.

Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you from the United Nations. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.

‘Sustainable Development’ sounds like a nice idea, right?  It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world.

At risk from Agenda 21;

• Private Property ownership
• Single-Family homes
• Private car ownership and individual travel choices
• Privately owned farms

The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property.  For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land;

Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

Source: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I),Vancouver, BC, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Preamble to Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report.

There are two more, very good reasons to be wary of Agenda 21 and the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) that supports it: George Soros and the United Nations. Soros money has been tracked to funding parts of ICLEI ;

In 1997, George Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project

As regards the UN, that organization‘s problems with America’s appreciation of freedom and self-determination is one that needs no explanation.

Currently in California, Agenda 21 is working to implement plans to create plans for sustainable management of ‘open spaces.‘ The definition of what is to be considered an ’open space’ has sparked some heated exchanges between those directing the planning meetings and citizens who want private property rights to be respected and protected. (The East Bay Tea Party video featuring a Liberal Democrat arguing against ICLEI can be seen at the end of this article.)

This type of global plan could not be implemented without a large and well-funded group pushing through its priorities. For that, Agenda 21 has the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). And ICLEI is deeply entrenched in America;

ICLEI USA was launched in 1995 and has grown from a handful of local governments participating in a pilot project to a solid network of more than 600 cities, towns and counties actively striving to achieve tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and create more sustainable communities. ICLEI USA is the domestic leader on climate protection and adaptation, and sustainable development at the local government level.

Over six hundred cities,towns and counties in America are members of ICLEI? Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and regulations set up by a UN-based organization that wants private property transferred to government control? If you would like to see if your community is a member of ICLEI, you can visit their website.

Austin, Texas is one city that seems to have fallen for the ICLEI/Agenda 21 and was heavily consuming the ‘Communitariasm’ Kool-aid. A local group called Texans For Accountable Government saw what was happening and attempted to stop the Austin City Council from adopting some Agenda 21-friendly initiatives. One of TAG’s members, John Bush, delivered a succinct presentation on ICLEI and Agenda 21 that was virtually ignored. Watch his short argument against the proposed local law immediately followed by the lopsided vote adopting the plan.

 

In the world of business Agenda 21 is not a free market friend, preferring PPPs or Private Public Partnerships where the government decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay in business. In light of this realization, the cozy relationship between the current administration and GE (a company that paid no tax in 2010) should raise eyebrows. And the WH efforts to tell Boeing in which state they can operate seems to further bolster the belief that Agenda 21 ideals are already making headway in America.

The seeds for Agenda 21 were planted back in 1987 when the writings of Gro Harlem Brundtland (a woman who was first Vice-President of the Socialist International) caught the eye of the UN.  Dr. Brundtland wrote a report for the UN called, ‘Our Common Future’ eventually got into the business of environmentalism as a tool to control all the people of the world and establish a global government. The growth of ICLEI and the framework being put in place by supporters of Agenda 21 appear to be bringing Dr. Brundtland’s ideas closer to reality

In recent months, citizen groups across the country have organized and become involved in the removal of towns and cities from membership in ICLEI. The Roanoke, VA Tea Party is holding a rally this week in an effort to have ICLEI removed from their local government.

For a better understanding of Agenda 21 and ICLEI we suggest: The American Policy Center offers a one-page primer on Agenda 21.

From the Bay Area Tea Party we offer a long-form video covering Agenda 21;

The featured speaker at the Tea Party meeting, Rosa Koire, is a liberal Democrat who understands that Agenda 21 will destroy America as we know it. Rosa’s website, DemocratsAgainstAgenda21.com is also worth a visit.

H/T to the tireless members of the SFBAY 9-12 organization for all of their information sharing on the topics of ICLEI and Agenda 21.

You may not have heard of PSD-10 because it has received no significant coverage from the major media. Yet, President Obama issued “Presidential Study Directive 10” last August 4, 2011, and posted it on the White House website. It amounts to a new and potentially far-reaching exercise of American military power cloaked in humanitarian language and conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

Under this new “Obama doctrine,” U.S. troops can be deployed to arrest or even terminate individuals wanted by the International Criminal Court, which is based on a treaty that has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and isn’t even up for Senate consideration.

This “Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities,” another name for PSD-10, declares that “Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” This is at sharp variance with the traditional role of the U.S. military—self-defense and protection of the homeland. Toward this end, an “Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board” is being formed to develop and implement this new Obama doctrine. However, it is apparent that the doctrine is already going forward.

Members of the public haven’t heard of PSD-10, but they may have heard of a decision Obama made on October 14, 2011, when he informed Congress that he had authorized “a small number of combat equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield.”

Kony, a Ugandan warlord who runs the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), is better known than most foreigners, since he is the subject of the viral “Kony 2012” video about the more than 30,000 “invisible children” he has allegedly murdered or abducted. His whereabouts are unknown, although it is believed he is no longer in Uganda.

Despite the name of his group, Kony is not a Christian and instead receives backing from the Islamic regime in northern Sudan. Although he poses no direct threat to the United States and has not carried out terrorist attacks on the U.S. or killed any American citizens, the Department of Treasury has designated him as a “global terrorist” under Executive Order 13224, a measure signed into law by President Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Kony, Lord’s Resistance Army

In regard to seeking Kony’s “removal,” Obama told Congress, “I have directed this deployment, which is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

Obama noted that Congress, in passing the “Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009,” had “expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.” But it did not authorize deployment of combat forces. What’s more, a statement from Obama after signing the law did not give any indication any would be sent.

One of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA), has subsequently introduced “Rewards for Justice” legislation (H.R. 4077) that would allow the State Department to offer a reward for the apprehension of Kony.

Obama is basically deploying the U.S. Armed Forces on behalf of the International Criminal Court

For his part, Obama is basically deploying the U.S. Armed Forces on behalf of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which indicted Kony for war crimes in 2005 and issued an arrest warrant for him. However, not only has the U.S. Senate not ratified the ICC treaty, Congress has never authorized the use of U.S. troops to carry out the ICC’s edicts. So where does Obama get the power to deploy U.S. troops in this manner?

The question is made more relevant because Obama has such an expansive view of his own executive power to wage war. He claims the power to kill American citizens overseas, on the grounds that they collaborate with foreign terrorist groups, and FBI Director Robert Mueller has told Congress that he is not sure whether the president also has the power to kill American citizens on American soil, inside the United States. Mueller testified, “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not.”

In the case of Kony, Obama seems to be taking his cue from the ICC. Its prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, appears in the “Kony 2012” video, noting that Kony was the first person ever indicted by the court. The video also celebrates Obama’s decision to use U.S. troops to try to apprehend Kony. It does not take a big exercise in connecting the dots to arrive at the conclusion that Obama is using U.S. troops to carry out the orders of the ICC. But rather than seek ratification of the ICC and then obtain the approval of Congress to apprehend Kony, and perhaps even to kill him, Obama simply issues orders to U.S. troops and bypasses the Congress.

Last October Jake Tapper of ABC News asked Obama about the decision to deploy troops “to help eliminate Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army.” Obama replied:

“Well none of these decisions are easy, but those who are familiar with the Lord’s Resistance Army and their leader, Mr. Kony, know that these are some of the most vicious killers. They terrorize villages, they take children into custody and turn them into child soldiers, they engage in rape and slaughter in villages they go through. They have been a scourge on Uganda and that entire region, eastern Africa. So there has been strong bi-partisan support and a coalition, everything from evangelical Christians to folks on the left and human rights organizations who have said it is an international obligation for us to try to take them on. And so given that bipartisan support across the board belief that we have to do something about this, what we’ve done is we’ve provided these advisors. They are not going to be in a situation where they are called upon to hunt down the Lord’s Resistance Army or actively fire on them, but they will be in a position to protect themselves. What they can do is provide the logistical support that is needed, the advice, the training and the logistical support that hopefully will allow this kind of stuff to stop.”

Notice the use of the term “international obligation.” That is not the same as a declaration of war or resolution on the use of force from Congress.

Obama Administration: Seek authorization for military action against foreign regimes or individuals from the U.N. or NATO, but not from Congress

Indeed, the Obama Administration seems to have the view that it has to seek authorization for military action against foreign regimes or individuals from the U.N. or NATO, but not from Congress. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently told a Senate committee that the U.S. military would have to seek “international permission” before intervening in Syria. Senator Jeff Sessions responded, “I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

On top of this announcement, we now learn, also from Tapper, that “according to a senior administration official, President Obama first heard about the [Kony 2012] video the same way so many people have: from one of his children. In this case, it was from Malia, 13.”

Some liberals are now complaining that the “Kony 2012” video has become a “pretext for military intervention.” If so, it is after the fact. They fear the intervention may not really be designed to find Kony. Still, it is not too late for liberals and conservatives alike to question whether Obama has superseded his constitutional and legal authority. It is certainly time for the major media to examine what Obama is getting the United States into in Africa—and on what legal basis, if any, he is doing it.

While Obama had ordered U.S. troops to apprehend Kony, he has been careful not to order them to arrest and detain Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, a patron of Kony’s who has also been indicted by the ICC on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Sudan is a member in good standing of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The crimes of Al-Bashir dwarf those of Kony.

It should be apparent what is happening here. The Obama Administration has what the United Nations Association calls an “evolving policy” of “positive engagement” toward the ICC. It doesn’t seem to matter that the administration isn’t seeking ratification of the ICC, also known as the Rome Statute, and has no plans to do so.

The policy is an open secret. Rosemary A. DiCarlo, the U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, has said, “Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, over the past several years we have sent observer delegations to the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) sessions and the Review Conference in Kampala. In December, we cosponsored a high-level panel at the ASP to highlight the importance of ensuring protection for witnesses and judicial officers. We have engaged with the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registrar to consider ways to support specific prosecutions already underway, and we have responded positively to a number of informal requests for assistance.”

The “fundamental transformation” of the United States is now underway at the Department of Defense

She spoke of the need for “transnational justice,” saying that the review undertaken as part of implementing Presidential Study Directive-10 would focus on “how we can work with our international partners to more effectively prevent and respond to atrocities. We look forward to working with our partners to strengthen the international community’s capabilities in this area.”

So while the Pentagon prepares for across-the-board cuts in national security and defense programs, plans are underway by the Obama Administration to use some of what’s left of our military to operate on behalf of the United Nations and the ICC. The “fundamental transformation” of the United States is now underway at the Department of Defense.

CARSON CITY – State Engineer Jason King has ruled that the Southern Nevada Water Authority can pump 83,988 acre feet of water a year from four rural counties to supply Las Vegas — less than the amount the agency had requested.

King said the water would allow the Las Vegas Valley to continue to grow while not turning the rural valleys in Lincoln and White Pine counties into a dust bowl, as opponents claimed. He said the ruling will not prove detrimental to the public interest or the environment.

The ruling follows six weeks of hearings last year and testimony from 84 witnesses. King said the water authority justified its need for the water while demonstrating its willingess to conserve. The water authority reduced its annual water consumption by 21 billion gallons despite a growth of 400,000 residents. Growth in the Las Vegas Valley will not be limited with the added water, he said.

The authority had initially asked for 125,976 acre feet but lowered its request to 104,856 acre feet from Spring Valley, Cave Valley, Dry Lake Valley and Delamar Valley in Eastern Nevada. An acre foot is 325,851 gallons.

Ranchers, environmentalists and businesses filed more than 2,000 protests against the application. The opponents labeled the agency’s request a “water grab” and some suggested the water authority should instead desalinize and pump water from the Pacific Ocean to Las Vegas.

Scott Huntley of the water authority called the ruling “reasonable and conservative.” The decision “is driven by science and law and we’re pleased with that,” he said.

An ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, said taking the water will dry up springs, creeks and upland plant communities in rural Nevada. The winner in the ruling “is mindless Las Vegas growth,” ecologist Rob Mrowka said.

There was no immediate comment from the Great Basin Network, one of the main opponents. A spokesman said they had not had time to read the decision of more than 200 pages.

King said four water applications were denied in Spring Valley due to potential impacts to existing water rights. The Spring Valley will only be permitted to be pumped in stages. Approvals will not conflict with existing rights or protectable interests in domestic wells, he said.

The state engineer allowed the water authority to draw 61,127 acre feet a year from Spring Valley. But the ruling permits only 38,000 acre feet over the first eight years. Then an additional 12,000 acre feet will be permitted during the next eight years and the remainder can be pumped later depending on biological and hydrological data gathered in two year periods.

In addition, there will be studies of the groundwater flow and mitigation in each basin before any pumping begins.

The ruling granted the water authority permission to pump 5,235 acre-feet annually from Cave Valley; 11,584 acre feet from Dry Lake Valley and 6,042 acre feet a year from Delamar Valley

The initial cost for construction of the proposed 263 mile pipeline to carry water from rural Nevada to Las Vegas is estimated at $3.5 billion, but could climb as high as $7.3 billion with inflation and up to $15.4 billion to cover financing costs.

Water authority officials said, however, that under the worst-case scenario, the average user’s water bill would rise $30 per month.

King said if there are unanticipated impacts to existing water rights, the water authority will be required to take any and all measures, including the curtailment of pumping to solve the problems.

This is the second time the state has issued a ruling on the water authority’s applications. The Nevada Supreme Court in 2010 ordered the prior applications be re-heard by the state engineer.

Leo Drozdoff, director of the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which oversees King’s division, said there was greater data collection and use of enhanced scientific techniques by both sides in this hearing.

But in the end Drozdoff said the findings are very similar to those in prior years, “which reinforces the sound nature of the state engineer’s conclusion to date about these valleys.”

One heckler at President Obama’s speech to Ohio State University today may have just redefined the phrase “throw the book at him.” For while no actual throwing occurred, the man may as well have done so, he was so persistent in insisting the President take his book that the President had to personally ask him to be quiet.

“Sir, I’m here to speak to these folks,” President Obama said. “You can hold your own rally. You’re being rude…I’m trying to talk to these people.”

“I’ll be happy to read your book. If you want to give me your book, I‘ll be happy to read it but don’t interrupt my conversation with these folks. Show me some courtesy,” the president said, telling secret service agents to get the man’s book.

“I’ll be happy to take your book, but don’t interrupt everybody else. Alright?”

See the president get heckled via Politico:

“Activists organized a protest Thursday outside the university, criticizing the president for throwing his support behind the southern portion of the Keystone Xl oil pipeline,” The Hill reports.

However, according to The Hill, the heckler may not have been associated with the Keystone protest.

“We didn’t tell people to interrupt the President, but clearly there is a lot of emotion around this issue, so I’m not surprised someone blurted that out during the talk,” said Jamie Henn, spokesman for one of the anti-Keystone protest groups.

This picture is actually a picture of a North Korea forced labor camp.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has been among the vocal voices weighing in on calls for justice for Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old who was gunned down last month while walking home in Sanford, Florida. On Wednesday, a march was held in New York City in support of the teen’s family, as federal and local authorities launch investigations into how the incident unfolded and why the state’s “stand your ground” law applied to the shooter in this case.

On Twitter yesterday and today, Farrakhan sent some curious tweets regarding peace, justice and retaliation that could be interpreted as a veiled threat.

“Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon the law of retaliation may very well be applied,” Farrakhan wrote, including the hashtag #Trayvon to clarify the subject of his angst. “Let us see what kind of justice will come for his bereaved family and our bereaved community,” he said in the previous social media message:

The text of his “justice” and “peace” tweet raises eyebrows. While one cannot know whether he is merely commenting generally on social responses to injustice or whether he is calling for the “law of retaliation,” the lack of clarity in his messaging raises questions.

In follow-up tweets throughout the day on Wednesday and Thursday, he had more to say regarding the tragedy and injustice more generally:

“The fruit of justice is peace. But justice is a principle of fair dealing,” he writes in another tweet. “When we fail to do justice, we literally set up conditions that destroy peace.” And in his most recent tweet, Farrakhan writes, “Think. Reflect. Then get up and do something for self or suffer the consequences.”

These messages follow a tweet that Farrakhan sent referencing text from a 2007 sermon. This same article is referenced on the front page of the Nation of Islam’s media outlet, The Final Call, as well. In the article, entitled, “Justifiable Homicide: Black Youth In Peril – Pt. 1,“ the minister claims that ”there has been a great display of anti-Black hatred in the United States of America” of late.

(Related: Nation of Islam Newspaper Attacks ‘Minion of the Synagogue of Satan’ Glenn Beck for Farrakhan Comments: ‘We Will Not Allow Such Vicious Assaults’)

Additionally, he laments discriminatory actions against African Americans and claims that Black youths have not been informed of the price that their forefathers payed to give them their current lifestyles. Farrakhan uses the words “the enemy” to describe those educating Black youths and says that African Americans have suffered at the hands of “a wicked oppressor.” He writes:

I recently had a conversation with the legendary Harry Belafonte, who many young people probably don’t even know. Brother Harry was lecturing at Howard University, and he said the thing that hurt him was that our young people did not even know the recent struggle in the Civil Rights Movement. And that is why a movie could come out called Barber Shop, and Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. could be made light of, shocking the older people in the audience while the younger people laughed. It is not their fault; the youth have not been informed. The sad thing is that we expect the enemy to inform them when it is our duty and our responsibility to, but we are so busy chasing a dollar. We are so fascinated by the material strength of America that we have failed to sit down with our children and teach them the horror of what Black people have suffered in America and throughout the world at the hands of a wicked oppressor. [...]

I do not want you to think that I am trying to teach hatred; that is beneath the dignity of a Muslim, or a Christian or a believer in God. But to teach the truth that might produce hatred, that is not my fault. If the truth of something makes you dislike it, then that is not “teaching hate”—that is teaching truth.

In addition to recapping his historical vision of the horrific atrocities that were waged against African Americans in America and abroad, Farrakhan takes aim at police officers with some startling claims.

“I want Black youth to hear this message, because police authorities are the same today as they were during slavery,” he alleges. “In fact, this is how policing began. Police were formed to catch runaway slaves, bring them back to their masters and make examples of them to throw fear into other slaves. It’s the same today.”

Earlier this month, Glenn Beck also discussed the threats that The Nation recently published against him. The Blaze’s Tiffany Gabbay recapped Beck’s description:

You haven‘t lived until you’ve been threatened by the Nation of Islam…and sometimes, you don’t live after the Nation of Islam threaten’s your life.”

Those were the opening remarks of a segment on Tuesday evening’s episode of the Glenn Beck Program in which Glenn revealed how he was threatened by none other than rabid Antisemite Louis Farrakhan — or at least by his henchmen at The Nation.

The NOI official newspaper wrote over the weekend that Glenn Beck “is a minion of the Synagogue of Satan and as such represents the thinking of those used as their low-level pawns.”

The author continued: “The Holy Qur’an teaches Muslims to never be the aggressor in word or deed, but if attacked, we fight with those who fight with us.”

You can read the rest of Farrakhan’s commentary here.

This story has been updated.

 

Published March 04, 2012 | Associated Press

MOSCOW –  Vladimir Putin claimed victory in Russia’s presidential election  before tens of thousands of cheering supporters Sunday, even as the opposition  and independent observers insisted the vote had been marred by widespread  fraud.

At a massive rally just outside the Kremlin, Putin  thanked his supporters for helping foil plots aimed at destroying Russia,  sounding a nationalistic theme that has resonated with the prime minister’s core  supporters amid a wave of unprecedented protests.

“I have promised that we would win and we have won!”  he shouted to the flag-waving crowd, which responded with shouts of support. “We  have won in an open and honest struggle.”

He said the vote showed the majority of Russians has  rejected “political provocations” by his opponents aimed at “destroying Russia’s  statehood and usurping power.”

Putin tallied 58-59 percent of the vote, according  to exit polls cited by state television.

Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov received  about 18 percent, according to the surveys, and the others — nationalist  Vladimir Zhirinovsky, socialist Sergei Mironov and billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov — were in single digits.

Official vote results from the far eastern regions  and Siberia where the count was already completed seemed to confirm the poll  data. With about 60 percent of all precincts counted, Putin was leading the  field with 65 percent of the vote, the Central Election Commission said.

If thousands of claims of violations made by  independent observers and Putin’s foes are confirmed, they would undermine the  legitimacy of his victory and fuel further protests by Russians exasperated with  corruption, rising social inequality and tight controls over political life.

The opposition is gearing up for a massive rally in  downtown Moscow on Monday.

“These elections are not free … that’s why we’ll  have protests tomorrow. We will not recognize the president as legitimate,” said  Mikhail Kasyanov, who was Putin’s first prime minister before going into  opposition.

Golos, Russia’s leading independent elections  watchdog, said it received numerous reports of “carousel voting,” in which  busloads of voters are driven around to cast ballots multiple times.

Alexei Navalny, one of the opposition’s most  charismatic leaders, said observers trained by his organization also reported  seeing extensive use of the practice.

Putin’s campaign chief, Stanislav Govorukhin,  rejected the claims of violations, calling them “ridiculous.”

Evidence of widespread vote fraud in December’s  parliamentary election drew tens of thousands to protest against Putin, who was  president in 2000-2008 before moving into the prime minister’s office because of  term limits. They were the largest outburst of public anger in post-Soviet  Russia.

Putin has dismissed the protesters’ demands, casting  them as a coddled minority of urban elites working at Western behest to weaken  Russia. His claims the U.S. was behind the opposition protests appealed to his  base of blue-collar workers, farmers and state employees, who are suspicious of  Western intentions after years of state propaganda.

“Putin is a brave and persistent man who can resist  the U.S. and EU pressure,” said Anastasia Lushnikova, a 20-year-old student who  voted for Putin in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don. Putin played the same  polarizing tune Sunday, thanking his supporters at a tank factory in the Ural  Mountains city of Nizhny Tagil for voicing support for him amid opposition  protests in December, saying that “a man of labor is head above any loafer and  windbag.”

Authorities gave permission to Putin’s supporters to  gather just outside the Kremlin walls, and tens of thousands flooded the big  square immediately after the vote ended. Some participants in the demonstration,  including employees of state organizations, said they were forced by management  to attend it under the threat of punishment.

The authorities denied the opposition’s bid to hold  the rally at the same place Monday, but allowed them to gather at a nearby  square.

An honest election would have seen Putin failing to  score an outright victory and facing a runoff, said Sergei Udaltsov, one of the  organizers of Monday’s protest, saying its participants will protest the  outcome. “Dirty technologies have been applied, and they have become more  subtle,” he said.

A first-round victory was politically important for  Putin, serving as a proof of majority support in the face of opposition  protests.

“They decided that a second round is bad, unreliable  and shows weakness,” said Navalny, a leading figure in the protests. “That’s why  they went to unprecedented violations and falsified the elections, and they  couldn’t even conduct the vote counts honestly.”

Putin has given generous social promises during his  campaign and also initiated limited political reforms in a bid to assuage public  anger. His spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Putin will seek to modernize the  nation’s political and economic system, but firmly ruled out any  “Gorbachev-style liberal spasms.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet  Union, has become increasingly critical of Putin’s rule. “These are not going to  be honest elections, but we must not relent,” he said after casting his  ballot.

Putin has promised the vote would be fair, and  authorities apparently have sought to take the steam out of the protest movement  by allowing more observers to monitor the vote. Tens of thousands of Russians,  most of them politically active for the first time, had volunteered to be  election observers, receiving training on how to recognize vote-rigging, and  record and report violations.

Golos said monitors have recorded fewer obvious  violations than during the December election, but they still believe that  violations were extensive. This time, election officials are using more  complicated and subtle methods, Golos deputy director Grigory Melkonyants  said.

According to data based on official figures from  polling stations attended by Golos observers, Putin still garnered about 55  percent of the vote, while Zyuganov won about 19 percent.

Zyuganov told reporters after the polls closed that  he will not recognize the vote, calling it “illegitimate, unfair and  intransparent.”

His campaign chief, Ivan Melnikov, claimed  authorities set up numerous additional polling stations and alleged that  hundreds of thousands of voters cast ballots at the ones in Moscow alone in an  apparent attempt to rig the vote.

Prokhorov said on Channel One television after the  vote that authorities kept his observers away from some polling stations and  were beaten on two occasions.

Oksana Dmitriyeva, a Duma deputy from Just Russia  party, tweeted that they were witnessing “numerous cases of observers being  expelled from polling stations” across St. Petersburg just before the vote  count.

Unlike Moscow and other big cities, where  independent observers showed up en masse, election officials in Russia’s North  Caucasus and other regions were largely left to their own devices. The  opposition said those regions have seen the most blatant examples of vote  rigging in the past.

A webcam at a polling station in Dagestan, a  Caucasus province near Chechnya, registered unidentified people tossing ballot  after ballot into boxes. The Central Election Commission quickly responded to  the video, which was posted on the Internet, saying the results from the station  will be invalidated.

Web cameras were installed in Russia’s more than  90,000 polling stations, a move initiated by Putin in response to complaints of  ballot stuffing and fraudulent counts in December’s parliamentary elections.

Opinion polls before the vote had shown Putin  positioned to win easily. He presided over significant economic growth and gave  Russians a sense of stability that contrasted with the disorder and anxiety of  the 1990s, when Boris Yeltsin led Russia’s emergence from the wreckage of the  Soviet Union.

“Under Boris Nikolayevich, life was simply a  nightmare, but, you know, now it’s OK. Now it’s good, I’m happy with the current  situation,” said 51-year-old Alexander Pshennikov, who cast his ballot for Putin  at a Moscow polling station.

The police presence was heavy throughout Moscow and  other Russian cities Sunday. There were no immediate reports of trouble,  although police arrested three young women who stripped to the waist at the  polling station where Putin cast his ballot; one of them had the word “thief”  written on her bare body.

In the province of Dagestan where attacks by Islamic  militants occur on daily basis, gunmen raided a polling station, killing three  police officers. One of the assailants was also killed, according to the local  police.

WASHINGTON — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), in town for the National Governors Association conference, will skip a White House dinner Sunday honoring the nation’s governors, telling staff she does not want to participate in a “social” event.

The dinner, an annual event hosted by President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, is one of the conference’s highlights. Brewer’s decision comes a month after she dramatically confronted the president at a Phoenix area airport over his response to her portrayal of him in her book.

“I’m not,” Brewer told The Huffington Post when asked whether she would attend the dinner.

The Huffington Post overheard Brewer telling gubernatorial staffers prior to Saturday’s opening NGA session that she would skip the dinner because it was a “social” function, but that she would attend Monday’s White House meeting between governors and Obama because it was a “policy” event.

When asked about her plans for Sunday night and her reasons for skipping the dinner, Brewer was ushered away by an aide. Her spokesman, Matthew Benson, stepped in to answer questions on her behalf.

“We have other plans now,” Benson said, without elaborating on what Brewer would be doing Sunday night.

Benson did confirm that Brewer would attend the Monday White House meeting.

Brewer and Obama have had a turbulent relationship since they both took office in 2009, exacerbated by Obama’s decision to sue Arizona over the state’s controversial immigration law and Brewer’s heated rhetoric toward the Obama administration. During their confrontation at the airport last month, Brewer waved her finger at Obama.

Earlier this week, Brewer declined an invitation by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to testify before the Senate regarding the immigration law, which is pending before the Supreme Court. Brewer, a former Arizona secretary of state, did veto a “birther” bill in Arizona last year, which would have required Obama and future presidential candidates to prove their natural-born citizenship.

While four Republican governors — Rick Scott of Florida, Rick Perry of Texas, Butch Otter of Idaho and John Kasich of Ohio — do not belong to the NGA, at least one will be coming to Washington for the dinner and not the conference. Scott indicated Friday that he and his wife, Ann, will have dinner at the White House Sunday.

Brewer is expected to attend all other events that make up this weekend’s NGA conference, which is dedicated to economic issues.