Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Congress?’ Category

>Obama Says America Is Handing Off To NATO – And Our Role Should Be Limited In Libya…Unless He lies Again

>

President Obama didn’t bother to talk to Congress 
or get anyone’s approval
 for this war with Libya, except the United Nations. 
You can decide for yourself 
if he should have gone to Congress or is this just a 
little “Police Action” that is 
within the purview of an American President? If 
Congress doesn’t stand up and 
object, we can expect more of these exciting, 
expensive show of force 
extravaganzas.
Good morning,
I’m writing today with an update on the situation in Libya,
including the actions we’ve taken with allies and partners to
protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Moammar
Qaddafi. For further details, please take a moment to watch
this morning’s Weekly Address:
Watch the Video
Sending our brave men and women in uniform into harm’s way
is not a decision I make lightly. But when someone like Qaddafi
threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region,
it is in our national interest to act.  In fact, it’s our responsibility.
Our mission in Libya is clear and focused — and we are succeeding.
Along with our allies and partners, we are enforcing the
 mandate of theUnited Nations Security Council.  Working
with other countries, we have put in place a no-fly zone and
 other measures that will help prevent further violence and
brutality. Qaddafi’s air defenses have been taken out, and his
forces are no longer advancing across Libya.
As a consequence of our quick action, the lives of countless
 innocent civilians have been saved, and a humanitarian
catastrophe has been avoided.
The role of American forces in this mission is limited.
After providing unique capabilities at the beginning,
we are now handing over control of the no-fly zone to

our NATO allies and partners, including Arab partners
 like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The United States has also joined with the
international community to deliver urgent
humanitarian assistance.  We’re offering support
to the Libyan opposition and have frozen tens of
 billions of dollars of Qaddafi’s assets.
Our message to Qaddafi is clear: attacks against
innocent civilians must end, his forces must be
pulled back, humanitarian aid must reach Libyans
in need, and those responsible for the violence in
Libya must be held accountable.
The progress we’ve made over the past seven days
demonstrates how the international community
should work, with many nations, not just the United
 States, bearing the responsibility and cost of
upholding international law.
Every American can be proud of the service of
our men and women in uniform who have once again
 stood up for our interests and ideals.  And as we move
forward, I will continue to keep each of you fully
informed on our progress.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
President of the United States
P.S. On Monday evening at 7:30 p.m. EDT, I will deliver
an address at theNational Defense University in Washington,
 DC on the situation in Libya. You can watch the speech live at WhiteHouse.gov/live.

Thanks for coming. Please leave a comment. Your opinion is as valuable
as mine or anyone’s. Let’s create an active dialog. Let’s stand up for what
we want, what we think and believe America should be like. Fight for your
rights – and I don’t mean take to the street with guns. Do your fighting with
the pen and conversation – friendly persuasion. Remember, we’re Americans
living in the greatest nation on earth. Act like it. Don White

Advertisements

>Maybe We Should Ship These 150,000 American Abortion Lovers To Haiti

>

So What If 150,000 Americans Believe In Abortion!
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
A renewed – and heated – debate about abortion is underway one month into a congressional session that largely has devoted its energy to tackling economic issues.

At the core of the discussion this week are two House Republican proposals that would expand restrictions on federal abortion funding.
One, H.R. 3 – also known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” – would eliminate tax breaks for abortions and permanently prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions in all federal programs by codifying the Hyde Amendment, which typically is renewed annually. It also would reinstate a ban on abortion funding in the District, a move that some have contended would infringe on the city’s right to self-government. The measure was sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.).
The other, H.R. 358 – known as the “Protect Life Act” – would prohibit federal funding for abortions under the new national health-care law and also would prevent funding from being withheld from institutions that are opposed to providing abortions. It is sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.).
ad_icon

Abortion rights advocates contend that the proposals would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions in cases where the woman’s life is threatened. They also argue that the bills go too far in prohibiting women from using their own money to obtain insurance that covers a range of reproductive care.

In addition, the Smith bill sparked controversy through its use of the term “forcible rape,” which women’s rights groups charged was an attempt to change the definition of rape. The term was dropped from the bill last week.
The heated emotions surrounding the abortion debate were on display Tuesday as lawmakers sparred ahead of – and during – a hearing on the bill by the House Judiciary Committee’s Constitution subcommittee.
As the subcommittee hearing began, about a dozen activists from the organization DC Vote staged a silent protest against the reinstatement of the ban on D.C. abortion funding. Wearing red bandanas over their mouths, the protesters stood among the 70 or so people in the packed committee room for several minutes until they were silently escorted from the room by Capitol Police officers.
Testifying at Tuesday’s subcommittee hearing were Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy and chairman of the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services; and Family Research Council senior fellow Cathy Ruse.
Kellie Fiedorek, a staff attorney for the antiabortion organization Americans United for Life, was among those attending Tuesday’s hearing. She said that she believes the current debate over abortion funding is in tune with the debate over jobs and the economy.
“I think it’s completely in line with the desire to focus on jobs, because we are in a financial crisis, so this ensures that federal taxpayer funds are going to things that are important to the American people and not to something like abortion,” Fiedorek said.
Just before the hearing, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and representatives from several abortion rights groups held a news conference at which they denounced the Smith bill as an “unacceptable attack on a woman’s right to choose and a distraction from the economic relief that Americans expect from Congress.”
About a dozen activists from MoveOn.org attended the event and presented a petition that they said contains more than 150,000 signatures from Americans opposed to the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.”
At a separate news conference before the hearing, Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and other Senate Democrats took aim at the GOP proposals as “extreme” and charged that they are a distraction from Congress’s top priority of kick-starting the economy.
Lautenberg said the Smith bill “sounds like a Third World country that’s requiring women to wear head shawls, cover their faces, even if they don’t want to do it.”
On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health is slated to hold a hearing on the “Protect Life Act.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters Tuesday that, so far, neither measure has been scheduled for a vote in the House, but that both “are obviously very important in terms of the priorities we set out initially in our Pledge to America.
“These are bills which have to do with the expenditure of government funds, taxpayer dollars for abortion, something that most Americans feel we should do without,” Cantor said.

>Drill, Drill, Drill: Judge Invalidates Obama Ban

>

Judge halts Obama’s oil-drilling ban

** FILE ** Vessels operate near the Q4000 drilling rig at the site of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday, June 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)** FILE ** Vessels operate near the Q4000 drilling rig at the site of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico on Sunday, June 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

A federal judge in New Orleans halted President Obama’s deepwater drilling moratorium on Tuesday, saying the government never justified the ban and appeared to mislead the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, saying that the moratorium will hurt drilling-rig operators and suppliers and that the government has not proved an outright ban is needed, rather than a more limited moratorium.
He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don’t support the blanket ban.
“Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the summary also states that ‘the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.’ As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading,” Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration will appeal the decision, and said Mr. Obama believes the government must figure out what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon rig before deepwater drilling goes forward. Still, the ruling is another setback as Mr. Obama seeks to show he’s in control of the 2-month-old spill.
Democrats and Republicans from the Gulf states have called on the president to end the blanket moratorium, saying it is hurting the region.
Oil company executives told Congress last week they would have to move their rigs to other countries because they lose up to $1 million a day per idle rig, and said there are opportunities elsewhere.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

>Let’s Help Progressive And Illegal Aliens Pack!

>

Let Us Help Ya Pack!!!!

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:38 AM

>Conservatives Come to Townhalls In Numbers

>

Welcome to RightMarch.com
Leading the Virtual March from the Right

ShareThis
Congressional Town Halls Near You Are EXPLODING — Click Below to Tell Congress to REJECT Obama’s Socialized Health Care:
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_obamacare2/?a=8

Click Here To Find A Town Hall Near You!
Violence Erupts As Leftist Goons Attack Patriots Protesting Socialized Healthcare!


Patriots Are Protesting “ObamaCare” At Town Halls Across America!






>Americans Fed Up With Dumb Lawmakers Vote For Term Limits, Empty Congress

>

Geithner Vows to Recoup AIG Bonuses as Lawmakers Express Fury

It’s Not With AIG That Americans Are Fed Up — We’re Fed Up With Congress! Why Don’t Lawmakers Get It?

Americans arise! Let’s Get a Term Limits petition going and throw out the entire Congress!

THE STORY: March 18 — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders the U.S. will recoup executive bonuses paid by American International Group Inc. as outraged lawmakers raced to take back such payments from all companies getting federal bailouts.
Geithner, who has come under fire from Congress over the AIG payments, said in a letter to lawmakers last night the government will recover the money by requiring it be repaid from company operations and deducting the amount from the next $30 billion in aid being provided to the insurer.

DON WHITE: In selectively reducing the AIG bailout by the amounts of the bonuses, the question arises: If the complete $170 billion was needed — as said by AIG and as approved by Congress (if you can believe Congress did their oversight job and due diligence) — then why would you want to slow the come-back of the economy by the amount of the bonuses? It makes no sense. We have heard reports that those who got the bonuses have already left AIG, so in essence the bonuses do no good for the future. We know all the brohaha over bonuses will make it harder for AIG to hire top people because any new guys won’t get the lavish bonuses, but AIG’s competition, CityBank and others, still give those kinds of bonuses. The best people, naturally, will gravitate to the most money, which isn’t AIG, now 80% owned by Uncle Sam.

THE STORY: The senior members of the Senate Finance Committee from both parties proposed taxes totaling 70 percent on bonuses at AIG and other companies getting federal money during the U.S. financial meltdown. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi directed committees there to draft several alternatives and said her chamber may consider a bill as early as this week. Other lawmakers introduced their own plans.

DON WHITE: All of this 70% tax effort is self-defeating. Who’s going to want to work for AIG in the future? Lawmakers who have this mentality are sealing the doom for AIG, the company we, the people, own. Shouldn’t we be making it easier for AIG to get the top people to compete with Bank of America and other financial firms which still give big bonuses and whose bonuses are not subject to this kind of balony pile-on tax treatment? Second, these lawmakers who actually think once in a while are stupid. They are dreaming up ways to help AIG fail, which is wrongheaded. Better that lawmakers don’t think at all than to dream up fantasies for the private enterprise system, about which they know absolutely nothing.

THE STORY: “Millions lost their jobs; it’s an outrage that the people who somewhat caused this problem are now paying themselves bonuses,” Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said yesterday in Washington. He and ranking Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa also proposed limiting some forms of deferred compensation to $1 million at companies getting bailout funds.

DON WHITE: Better still, why don’t we, the people, limit our lawmakers? Wlhy don’t we shout to them: NO MORE BAILOUTS PERIOD! Americans are angry and upset with AIG, but they should be more upset with Congress. We should pass term limits — get a petition going and bypass Congress — and get rid of all members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are all incompetent frauds and don’t deserve to be in Washington. The above about Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley is off center. We shouldn’t be writing bills that limit bonuses at all. More importantly, such talk seems to be setting the stage for further bailouts.

STOP THAT NOTION NOW! DOESN’T CONGRESS GET IT? AMERICA ISN’T FED UP WITH AIG IT’S FED UP WITH CONGRESS. This angst against AIG is all a smoke screen. Baucus and Grassley — and all Democrats and Republicans — are all wrong. BAILOUTS BE GONE is my mantra. NO MORE BAILOUTS, PERIOD! LET’S HAVE TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS! LET’S STOP THE STUPIDITY THAT STARTS WITH THE CURRENT CROP OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

>Why Congress Doesn’t Get It, But Cartoonists and Writers Do?

>