Tag Archives: congress

GOP Candidate: Bike Sharing Threatens Our Personal Freedoms

Photo via UberGizmo I’ve always been amazed how much opposition simple ideas like promoting bicycling in urban areas receives. After all, what on earth could be wrong with a program that allows residents to rent bikes at multiple locations around a city as a means to conveniently get around — and get some exercise in the process? Evidently, more than you and I could possibly imagine. The GOP candidate for governor in Colorado has recently attacked the mayor of Denver for instating a successful bike-sharing program, saying that it’s part of a nefarious plot t… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Original post:
GOP Candidate: Bike Sharing Threatens Our Personal Freedoms

Matt Taibbi–Wall Street’s Big Win

Matt Taibbi's latest article in Rolling Stone giving a good analysis and criticism of Congress' “historical” financial reform legislation. Here's a snippet: “But Dodd-Frank was neither an FDR-style, paradigm-shifting reform, nor a historic assault on free enterprise. What it was, ultimately, was a cop-out, a Band-Aid on a severed artery. If it marks the end of anything at all, it represents the end of the best opportunity we had to do something real about the criminal hijacking of America's financial-services industry. During the yearlong legislative battle that forged this bill, Congress took a long, hard look at the shape of the modern American economy – and then decided that it didn't have the stones to wipe out our country's one

Is It August 2010 or 2009? The State of International Climate Negotiations Offer Little Clue

photo: Ben and Kaz Askins via flickr Maybe the summer heat is going to my head, because a quick review of the state of global climate talks prior to COP16, now about four and half months away, just evokes a feeling deja vu : From island nations worried about their future saying no enough is being done, to delegates saying they have to pick up the pace to enact anything meaningful, to the US saying it’s committed to cutting greenhouse gases yet Congress utterly failing to do, well, anything. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Here is the original post:
Is It August 2010 or 2009? The State of International Climate Negotiations Offer Little Clue

Iraq Withdrawal? Don’t Believe Obama’s Hype

If you’re feeling skeptical after hearing President Obama’s latest speech on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, you’re not alone. It’s hard to know what to make of a President and an administration that brings over 90,000 troops home while ordering 50,000 soldiers along with 75,000 military contractors to remain. Over 150,000 personnel are still stationed in Iraq and the US is supposed to be completely out of the country by 2011. That’s next year. Bringing home thousands by the end of this August is a good step, but we really need to step on it. Obama’s speech strikes me as an exercise in Orwellian double-think: the US is simultaneously withdrawing and expanding its military presence in Iraq. So which is it? And, importantly, how does the peace movement communicate with people who think the war is effectively over at the end of August? Jeremy Scahill has written recently in The Nation that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is presiding over what is shaping up to be a radical expansion of a private, US-funded paramilitary force that will operate in Iraq for the foreseeable future…”. Unfortunately, the State Department is dragging its heels as much as the Pentagon and has requested funds from Congress to hire 6,000 – 7,000 more “security contractors” and train them like soldiers. While working under the auspices of the State Department, these new personnel would have the status of “diplomats.” But who ever heard of a diplomat trained like a soldier and armed with a gun? MORE AT LINK: http://bit.ly/obamasiraqhype added by: pinkpanther

President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III’s first (SONA) State of the Nation Address

Ang Unang SONA ni Pangulong Aquino, Watch Video First SONA of President Aquino. You can watch video of first SONA of President Aquino. You may watch President Aquino Sona video… First SONA of President Aquino Video, SONA of President Aquino Video, Watch Video SONA of President Aquino. To watch video of SONA, just simple access this link . The delivery by the President of the Philippines of the State of the Nation Address (abbreviated as SONA) is a yearly tradition wherein the President reports on the status of the nation. In it, he may also propose to Congress, before which the address is delivered, certain proposals for legislation that he believes is necessary. Article VII, Section 23 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that “the President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session.” The SONA as an annual practice began during the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The 1935 Constitution, as amended, states in Article VII, Section 5 that “thehe President shall from time to time give to the Congress information on the state of the Nation, and recommend to its consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III’s first (SONA) State of the Nation Address is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

Schultz Says Breitbart ‘Nutjob, Makes Me Sick’ But Whines Won’t Come On Show

Hey, it’s been a long day with all this Sherrod stuff.  So let’s kick back and enjoy some—unintentional—humor, courtesy Ed Schultz.  On his MSNBC show this evening, Ed advised Dems not to go on Fox News because they’ll “beat you up.”  Schultz then unleashed a torrent of venom on Andrew Breitbart, saying among—many—other things that Breitbart is a “nutjob” who “makes me sick.” But Schultz began the show by whining because—ready?—Breitbart wouldn’t come on Ed’s show. Sit back and enjoy the video as Ed twists himself into a logical pretzel. ED SCHULTZ: I want to know why any Democrat in the Congress, any Democrat in the Senate, any Democrat anywhere: why do you even go on those shows over there [at Fox News].  They won’t tell the truth. They beat you up. What do you gain? . . . Andrew Breitbart, right-wing nut job. Well this guy makes me sick.  He’s an absolute pro at hatchet jobs. But here’s Ed during the show-opener . . . SCHULTZ: This Breitbart is a master at trying to destroy people professionally.  He’s a right=winger, he has an agenda, no doubt about it.  I saw him today in the hallway today at MSNBC, asked him to be on this program tonight.  He’s too tired. And he doesn’t know about tomorrow. This is how hate merchants operate. 

ABC Skips Label for Liberal Media Matters During Shootout With ‘Conservative’ Andrew Breitbart

Conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart and Eric Boehlert of the liberal organization Media Matters debated each other on Wednesday’s Good Morning America, but ABC only identified the ideology of the right-leaning guest. Boehlert was simply the ” senior fellow with the watchdog group Media Matters for America .” [MP3 audio here. ] Yet, Breitbart’s website was described in a previous segment as “conservative.” In a follow-up piece, news anchor Juju Chang labeled him “a conservative blogger.” Breitbart and Boehlert were appearing to discuss the firing of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, following the posting of a tape of her on Breitbart’s website. A number of topics not usually highlighted on network television were discussed. Host George Stephanopoulos actually allowed Breitbart to raise the 2008 case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, a story previously ignored on GMA. He also explained how the mainstream media ignored factual challenges to the assertion that African American congressmen were called the N-word during protests in Washington. After pointing out that videos of the day’s events don’t back up the Democrats’ claim, Breitbart challenged, “When I showed four exculpatory videos that it did not happen, the mainstream media would not show it, because the lie is so massive, it was meant to hurt the Tea Party.” An odd moment at the end of the segment occurred when Stephanopoulos turned to Boehlert and wondered, ” Why not show the four videos he’s talking about? ” Boehlert simply replied, “You can show them.” George Stephanopoulos hosts a two hour, daily program on a major network. If he was interested in the subject, he certainly could have shown the videos at some point in the past. A transcript of the July 21 segment, which aired at 7:33am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And joining us now to debate all this fallout, Andrew Breitbart, publisher of BigGovernment.com, which started this firestorm by posting that video of Shirley Sherrod. Also, Eric Boehlert, senior fellow with the watchdog group Media Matters for America . You guys are on different sides, obviously, of this issue. But, Andrew, let me begin with you. After seeing the whole tape, White House calls Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. He’s now reconsidering this firing. Any second thoughts for you? ANDREW BREITBART: I have no second thoughts regarding the course that Vilsack took. I have no idea why a video that was posted to draw attention between the conflict of the Tea Party and- the Tea Party- and the Democratic party, are trying to attack- STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there. Because, your original column said that the video lays out, in stark detail, that her, Shirley Sherrod’s federal duties, are managed through the prism of race and class distinction. When you see the whole video, that’s clearly not true. BREITBART: No, she does talk about race and class distinctions in it. But this was always- STEPHANOPOULOS: But, not in the context of her job as a federally appointed executive bureaucrat, which is what you say in the column. BREITBART: What this video clearly shows is a standard that the Tea Party has not been held to. The NAACP shows people in the audience there, applauding her when she discriminates against a white farmer. That was the point that I was trying to make. Because what the NAACP is arguing about the Tea Party is that there are people in- STEPHANOPOULOS: But, you said she did this as a federally appointed bureaucrat. BREITBART: Let me finish my point. There are people in the crowds of tea parties. And they’re rebuking the tea party on that behalf. And I’m telling you, that this is a standard. If you want to talk about people clapping racist behavior, that’s exactly what you see in the video. STEPHANOPOULOS: Eric? ERIC BOEHLERT: Well, Andrew had no idea what the context of the comments were. But that didn’t stop him from launching the smear campaign. That’s what Andrew Breitbart and Fox News and the right-wing media does. And they’ve been doing it for a long time. And it’s sort of ugly and contemptible. If he had decency, he would apologize to Shirley Sherrod. And he would also stop with the race-bating that we’ve seen all summer. BREITBART: He talked about race-baiting here. The context is laid out here by an icon within the civil rights movement. Mary Francis Berry, who was appointed by both Clinton- STEPHANOPOULOS: Former head of the Civil Rights Commission- BREITBART: Civil Rights Commission- said this. Appointed by Clinton and Carter said this: “Tainting the Tea Party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There’s no evidence that Tea Party adherents are any more racist than any other Republicans and, indeed, many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponents rebut charges of racism, is far better than discussing joblessness.” An ally as you described, Think Progress, has been at the forefront of pushing out false videos, which you didn’t show here, in which they take infiltrators of the Tea Party, who put up artificial racist signs, to improperly taint the racist- STEPHANOPOULOS: False videos? BREITBART: Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? BOEHLERT: Andrew gets very excited about this charge of racism. I think he knows Mark Williams. Mark Williams is a national spokesperson for the Tea Party, who was expelled for making racist comments. The NAACP called out the Tea Party for racist elements. There are clearly racist elements. If you look at the Tea Party media, Glenn Beck is saying Barack Obama is orchestrating a race war. Rush Limbaugh is saying Obama is keeping unemployment artificially high to exact revenge on white America. There’s elements that the race-baiting is out of control. And Andrew’s smear on Shirley Sherrod is- BREITBART: This was never about Shirley Sherrod. BOEHLERT: So, apologize to her. BREITBART: This was not about Shirley Sherrod. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you did say- BREITBART: This was not about the Tea Party. This was not about Shirley Sherrod. It’s about the smears that have gone about the Tea Party. Including the primary one that led the charge that got reinstigated by the NAACP, condemning the Tea Party by saying the N-words were hurled at congressmen Carson, Lewis and Eldridge Cleaver. That did not happen. When I showed four exculpatory videos that it did not happen, the mainstream media would not show it, because the lie is so massive, it was meant to hurt the Tea Party. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s get into this. Because, this was during the health care debate. BREITBART: Yes. The day before. STEPHANOPOULOS: And you say that you have videos of the members of Congress showing that they were not- BREITBART: They were walking down the steps. They said- Congressman Carson said as he was walking down the steps that the N-word was said 15 times by 15 different people. 400 People gathered around him. He thought there would be rocks being thrown at him. The police finally interceded. When they isolated that it happened on those steps, we found four videos that show them walking down briskly. Cleaver, who says that he was with them, is not in the video. But Congressman John Shadegg from Arizona, is walking behind them. And you can hear, “kill the bill. Kill the bill” and “you arrogant bastards.” But, there was no N-word. And it became the basis- STEPHANOPOULOS: So, what’s your response? BOEHLERT: My response is this is sort of a he said/he said, between Andrew and John Lewis. I’ll take John Lewis any day over Andrew Breitbart. John Lewis is an American icon. Andrew Breitbart is a propagandist. BREITBART: Four videos that nobody would show. Four videos tell the story. And the thing is, once they were out there, camera-hogging, saying the event happened, the second we said we had four videos and we offered $100,000 to try and show that this was- this was concocted, the people hogging the cameras wouldn’t take response, even from Associated Press. Jesse Washington from the Associated Press, could not get responses from Carson, Lewis or Cleaver. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the broader point- BREITBART: This is the basis of the smear against the Tea Party movement. It’s a massive smear. If we can prove that three Congressmen were participants in a hoax of that proportion, that’s why we’re here today. And I was trying to make a huge point here. If they’re going to create a false argument against the Tea Party-

NYT: WH Defending Health Ins. Penalties As ‘Taxes’ In Court Despite Obama’s Vehement 2009 Denial

The truth comes out. Okay, it was always out there. It’s just that the Barack Obama and the folks in his administration were denying it. The issue in question is whether the individual mandate and penalties for not purchasing health insurance in the statist health care legislation commonly known as ObamaCare should rightly be considered taxes, or if they are something else. In a report dated Friday that appeared in the paper’s print edition at Page A14 on Sunday , Robert Pear at the New York Times noted that in legal proceedings, in response to litigation brought by state attorneys general, the administration is now characterizing the mandate and penalties as taxes. Note the subtle water-down that occurred between the web page’s title bar and the published article’s headline: When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.” And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations. Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums. In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce. While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax. “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.” Now that the legislation has passed, Team Obama has clearly changed its tune. What a surprise (not). As a refresher, what follows is the excerpt from the Obama-Stephanopoulos “spirited exchange” to which Pear referred that I posted last year (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ). In his annual exercise in legitimate journalism (the one that preceded it was when he moderated an April 2008 Democratic presidential debate and gave then-candidate Obama grief about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright), Stephanopoulos maneuvers an arrogant President into a de facto assertion that Barack Obama’s take on a word’s meaning is more important than the one found in the dictionary: STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax? …. OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs. STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy… OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any… …. STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.” OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what… …. STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase. OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but… STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase? OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion. At time, I reacted by writing: “If you don’t think we have a problem of Orwellian proportions with Barack Obama, I’d suggest you re-read the excerpt. He thinks he’s above the dictionary, that words mean only what he says they mean.” It turns out that I understated the extent of the Orwellian problem. Not only does Team Obama want words only to mean what they say they mean, they want to be able to change the meaning of words at will to suit their purposes. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post here:
NYT: WH Defending Health Ins. Penalties As ‘Taxes’ In Court Despite Obama’s Vehement 2009 Denial

Meet the New 4-Part Climate Bill

Photo via a Green Living It looks like Senate Democrats are indeed going to make one last push for energy reform before the November election circus takes the main stage. The legislation, which hasn’t been entirely hammered out yet, will have four main parts, Politico reports — including a part specifically designed to address the BP Gulf Spill and offshore drilling. Here’s a quick look at those parts: … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Continue reading here:
Meet the New 4-Part Climate Bill

GOP Privately Embarrased about Michele Bachman’s Tea Party Caucus

By E.J. Dionne I don’t think Rep. Michele Bachmann, the very right-wing Republican from Minnesota, is doing her party any favors by creating a Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives. In fact, I imagine that this is the first thing Bachmann has done in a long time that will make Democrats happy. Not surprisingly, Bachmann declared herself chair of the caucus, for which she filed paperwork on Thursday. “This caucus will espouse the timeless principles of our founding, principles that all Members of Congress have sworn to uphold,” she declared. “The American people are doing their part and making their voices heard and this caucus will prove that there are some here in Washington willing to listen.” That last part, about proving that “there are some here in Washington willing to listen,” is what I suspect will make many Republicans nervous. This will put a lot of people on the line, and force some into an unappetizing choice. A lot of Republicans would like the Tea Party to rally as many right-of-center voters to the polls as possible but not have to take any responsibility for the movement’s more radical stands or the unseemly rhetoric that issues from some of its supporters. (That now-infamous billboard in Iowa made even some Tea Party people unhappy.) Bachmann’s move will make it harder for them to avoid the question of whether they are with the Tea party or against it. Those Republicans who do sign up could turn off more moderate voters. Those who don’t might have to worry about future primaries supported by the Tea Party. We’ve already seen how even very conservative Republicans — Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah is Exhibit No. 1 – can be declared not-right-enough by these folks. Bennett himself issued a warning to his fellow Republicans about the Tea Party in an interview with the Associated Press. “With the tea party creating the mischief that it is in Colorado, we may not win that seat,” he said. “My sources in Nevada say with Sharon Angle there's no way Harry Reid loses in Nevada,” he said about the Tea Party Republican challenging the Senate’s Democratic majority leader. He added that Rand Paul, another Tea Party favorite, could lose the Republicans what had looked like a safe seat in Kentucky. But Bennett credited Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with “pulling [Paul] back from some of his more dangerous statements.” The clearest sign of Tea Party damage to the G.O.P. was a Mason-Dixon poll for the Las Vegas Review-Journal released today. It lends support to what Bennett’s sources in Nevada have told him. As Laura Myers reported for the paper: The Mason-Dixon poll showed that if the general election were held now, Reid would win 44 percent to 37 percent for Angle. Ten percent were undecided, 5 percent would choose “none of these candidates,” and the remaining 4 percent would pick another candidate on the ballot. That is the best Reid has done against Angle this year in a series of Mason-Dixon polls. Previously, the two had been locked in a statistical dead heat with Angle finishing just ahead of Reid in February, 44 percent to 42 percent, and in June, 44 percent to 41 percent, and Reid finishing just ahead of Angle in May, 42 percent to 39 percent. The phone survey, taken Monday through Wednesday of 625 likely voters in Nevada, is the first in which Reid has finished ahead of Angle outside the margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. By the way, “none of these candidates” is actually an option on the Nevada ballot, which could help Reid by draining off protest votes. So at the very moment many Republicans are trying to figure out how to finesse the Tea Party, Bachmann is setting out to make the finesse a little bit harder. You wonder if some in her party will try to talk her out of forming her new caucus. Very quietly, of course. added by: jubal