NEIL GORSUCH: DEMS STOP THE BULL & GIVE UP-OR-DOWN VOTE:
GORSUCH IS NOT ROBERT BORK.
GORSUCH IS BALANCED, QUALIFIED AND FIRMLY UPHOLDS US CONSTITUTION.
Sources: CBS News, CNN, The Hill, YouTube
***** McConnell Says "Give Gorsuch An Up-Or-Down Vote"
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling for Democrats to give President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, an up-or-down vote.
In a piece published Monday in Politico, McConnell called Gorsuch an "exceptional nominee." He said Gorsuch is recognized as "an accomplished, principled and fair jurist," adding that when he was nominated to his current seat on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, "no one cast a single negative vote against his nomination."
"Now, Schumer says he has such 'serious concerns' about Gorsuch that he’s threatening to filibuster his nomination and leave open the seat indefinitely," McConnell said.
"What changed?"
Gorsuch hasn't changed, McConnell said.
"So why would Democrats contemplate doing something so radical and out of the mainstream now — against a superbly qualified judge Democrats didn’t raise objections to before, a man Democrats have praised many times since?" he asked.
"Turns out, much of the opposition we’re seeing from far left groups and Democratic senators isn’t really about Judge Gorsuch at all. It’s about President Donald Trump."
McConnell went on to blast the Democrats for vowing to fight whomever the president tapped for the Supreme Court before Trump even named his nominee.
The Senate majority leader acknowledged the Democrats are having a "rough time coming to grips with the election results."
"I realize that Leader Schumer in particular is under immense pressure from the radical fringes of our politics," he wrote.
"But he and his party can’t allow themselves to be led around by the far left."
McConnell said he's been consistent in his belief that the next president should select the next Supreme Court justice.
He said he maintained that opinion — even when many believed former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would be elected.
"But now the election season is over, and we have a new president who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate to fill that ninth seat," he said.
"Democrats now have a choice. They can tear our country apart further, or they can stand up and lead. I invite Leader Schumer and his party, who repeatedly declared how necessary it was to have nine justices on the court, to now follow through on their refrain of 'we need nine' by giving this tremendously well-qualified nominee fair consideration and an up-or-down vote."
You know who's really mad at Washington? Corporate America.
Led by Howard Schultz of Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500), more than 100 CEOs have signed a pledge to halt all political campaign contributions until lawmakers, as Schultz puts it, "stop the partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C."
Last week, he mounted a one-man bull rush against a political culture that has "chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well being of the people."
Schultz said he was going to stop writing checks, and he asked other CEOs to join him.
They have.
AOL's (AOL) Tim Armstrong, Frontier Communications' (FTR)Maggie Wilderotter, Zipcar's (ZIP) Scott Griffith, Whole Foods' (WFM) Walter Robb and Intuit's (INTU) Bill Campbell have all signed up.
The goal is to hit lawmakers right where it hurts: the pocketbook.
"All it seems people are interested in is re-election," Schultz told CNNMoney last week. "And that re-election -- the lifeblood of it is fundraising."
Schultz's own political donations, as chronicled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, skew heavily Democratic. Out of a total $183,650 in donations, only $1,000 went to Republican candidates.
Schultz has said his breaking point was the contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling -- and the failure to reach a long-term solution to lower deficits.
"[Lawmakers] have stirred up fears about our economic prospects without doing anything to truly address those fears," Schultz wrote in a letter sent to his fellow CEOs.
He said politicians can still make it right by coming together and reaching a compromise deal that would lift the cloud of uncertainty that has hamstrung the economy.
"It means reaching a deal on debt, revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall," the letter said. "It means considering all options, from entitlement programs to taxes."
The amount of money spent to influence elections has been steadily climbing.
During the 2008 election cycle, more than $5.2 billion was spent by candidates, political parties and interest groups, according to data compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics
In 2010 -- a year that did not include a presidential election -- $3.6 billion was spent. Of course, 2012 has the potential to break all records.
It's unclear exactly how much of an impact -- if any -- Schultz's CEO pledge might have. But a relatively small number of Americans do wield an outsized influence when it comes to political donations.
Only 0.04% of Americans give in excess of $200 to candidates, parties or political action committees -- and those donations account for 64.8% of all contributions.
House Republicans last week insisted on passing their radical “cut, cap, and balance” plan, which would allow the federal debt ceiling to be raised only if a balanced budget amendment (complete with a federal spending cap and a super majority requirement for tax increases) is approved by Congress and sent to the states. The Senate tabled the bill by a vote of 51-46.
Despite their plan failing to receive even a majority in the Senate — far less than the two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment — Republicans have continued to demand, as they have for months, that a balanced budget amendment be a part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling. And the GOP is framing its BBA push as some kind of favor for the next generation. For instance, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who chairs the House Republican Conference, said today that the balanced budget amendment is “not about the next election. It’s about the next generation.”
However, when the Republicans held both chambers of Congress from 2003 to 2006, and had a Republican in the White House, they not only didn’t approve a balanced budget amendment, they never even held a vote on it. In fact, the last vote on a BBA was in 1997, when Bill Clinton was president; the Senate defeated it by a single vote.
As we’ve extensively discussed, a balanced budget amendment is one of the worst ideas in Washington. It would force the government to make economic downturns worse by actively slashing spending in the face of falling revenue. Republicans are now claiming, in the name of the next generation of Americans, that enacting a balanced budget amendment is the price of averting economic catastrophe, but their utter indifference to the idea when they actually had the power to advance it shows that it’s nothing more than a political ploy.
That may sound like a schoolyard taunt, but it also captures what is going down in Washington as the clock ticks inexorably toward a self-imposed crisis—a government default in three days.
Rather than muting the partisanship and hammering out a compromise so the wealthiest country on earth can keep paying its bills, the two sides seem farther apart than a week ago. It’s getting harder to envision an agreement by the midnight Tuesday deadline, but like an unsupervised schoolyard game, the players can always change the rules and stop the clock for a couple of days if a deal is at hand.
The House got its latest licks in on Saturday, voting down a debt measure sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 246 to 173, in a nose-thumbing exercise by John Boehner’s Republican troops. The debate was marked by boos and catcalls. And yet there was no reason for the House to vote because Reid hasn’t even been able to get his bill through the Senate, where it remains stalled by a filibuster threat.
Then again, this may have been payback for the Senate’s move in voting down Boehner’s budget bill Friday night shortly after the House speaker had muscled it through his chamber.
“We need Republicans to work with us,” Reid said as the House vote was winding down. “But I haven’t heard anything from the Republican leaders…We’ve done a lot that they wanted.”
Each legislative body has now demonstrated that it can blow up the other’s preferred alternative. What neither has shown is the ability to craft a bill that could actually gain enough support from both parties to break the gridlock.
Ladies and gentlemen, your democracy in action.
The result is that soldiers in Afghanistan told Joints Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen on Saturday that they’re worried about getting paid. The stock markets, after six straight losing sessions, are getting rattled. China’s state-run news agency is lecturing the U.S. for “irresponsible” behavior.
The working assumption until this weekend has been that this was typical Beltway gamesmanship and that the two sides would agree to a last-minute deal because the alternative was unthinkable. Now that’s far from certain. The sheer mechanics of getting complex legislation through both chambers, a House-Senate conference committee and to the president’s desk mean that time is running exceedingly short.
Reid had envisioned his measure as a last-train-leaving-the-station compromise—and to be sure, it goes a considerable distance toward meeting Republican demands. The bill would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion—or slightly less, depending on budgetary assumptions—without raising taxes. Three months ago, that would have been seen as a total capitulation to the GOP. Even such conservative stalwarts as the Wall Street Journal editorial page are urging the Republicans to declare victory and make a deal. So what exactly are they fighting over?
Reid’s budget-cutting sword would fall twice, slicing $1.2 trillion in spending each time. But rather than relying on an unpleasant “trigger” to push Congress to raise the debt limit a second time, Reid borrows a technique from his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell. The Nevada Democrat would largely give President Obama unilateral power to boost the debt ceiling. Congress could block the move only by passing a resolution of disapproval. The Boehner bill, by contrast, would force a second vote on the debt limit during the 2012 campaign.
If the Senate operated by majority rule, the Reid measure would already have passed. But the Democrats need to get 60 votes to avoid having the bill talked to death, and McConnell has sent Reid a letter with 43 of the chamber’s 47 Republicans vowing to vote no. (The exceptions are Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe.)
Everyone knows Washington is a laughingstock right now. Many lawmakers, including the leaders of both parties, want desperately to resolve the crisis before a default rocks the fragile economy. But the two sides are dug into their respective trenches, with Boehner squeezed by his hell-no Tea Party faction and Reid limited by the Senate’s sclerotic rules. Obama, who according to the polls has public opinion on his side, has seemingly been unable to move any votes, asking the public instead to email and tweet its displeasure.
In the end, some ugly compromise will be reached, though it may come after significant damage has been done to the economy. But that will pale compared to the damaged reputations of members of Congress who, even at this late hour, seem more interested in scoring political points than in legislating.
It was hard to imagine that the House bill to raise the debt limit, and slash and burn the economy, could get any worse. But on Friday it did.
The bill, which narrowly passed the House with 218 Republican votes and none from Democrats, would allow the government to keep borrowing only until November or December and then require both the Senate and the House to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the limit could be raised again.
That’s right, in a bid to win over his recalcitrant caucus, Speaker John Boehner agreed to go through all of this again in just a few months — and then hold the country hostage to passing an amendment that will never get the two-thirds of each chamber that it would need. The bill was, as it should have been, promptly dismissed by the Senate.
Now the only hope left for avoiding default on Tuesday is for the Senate to piece together a compromise that can pass with bipartisan majorities in both chambers. It will undoubtedly cut far too much, at a time when the economy can’t afford it. It will contain no needed revenue increases and could still trigger a downgrade. But it would eliminate the imminent threat of financial chaos.
For six months, House leaders catered to their Tea Party members, perhaps hoping that they could turn them to a reasonable path, or at least count on their votes in a clinch. That wish crumbled on Thursday night. At least two dozen Republicans, mostly freshmen, adamantly refused Mr. Boehner’s pleas to support his bill — his last shot at keeping the House’s positions relevant.
Instead of worsening the bill, Mr. Boehner could have negotiated with Democrats to construct one with a chance of resolving the standoff and passing in the Senate. But concerned largely with preserving his position, he gave in to the very lawmakers who have been insisting for weeks that the Obama administration is lying about the coming default. That argument alone should have given him pause about giving in to their demands.
The Senate quickly tabled the revised House bill. The legislation being prepared by Harry Reid, the majority leader, would raise the debt ceiling through March 2013. That avoids another showdown, and potential meltdown, in the middle of the crucial retail shopping period and at the start of the presidential campaign cycle, when Washington will be even less open to rational compromise.
The bill would cut the deficit by about $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Unlike the House bill, it spares Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from benefit cuts, and counts the drawdown of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as part of its savings, easing the burden on domestic programs. Unfortunately, it surrenders to the unrealistic Republican demand of no new revenues, cutting too much spending at a time when the economy is still in serious need of government help.
Mr. Reid is negotiating with Republicans on their demands for an enforcement mechanism to make sure the deficit cuts take place in the later years of the deal. Both parties envision a bipartisan panel that could recommend cuts; if those are not adopted, some kind of automatic cuts would go into effect. This automatic knife can be dangerous, arbitrarily cutting without regard to economic circumstances. Democrats should insist that taxes and revenues are not ruled out as a way to lower the deficit.
The House planned a deliberately obstructionist vote on Saturday against the Reid bill, but some Senate Republicans are signaling they are willing to agree to this more reasonable framework. If enough of them can join the Democrats and ignore the bleats of the Tea Party, it may still be possible to avert calamity.
During Today's Press Conference Pres. Obama Made It Crystal Clear To House GOP Leaders If They Allow Our Country's Debt Ceiling To Default For The FIRST Time In History, He Vowed To Remind Voters Which Party Is Responsible.
He's Also Reminding Voters Which Party Is Filibustering Several Jobs Programs Bills Currently Sitting In The House.
Ex: Pres. Obama's Infrastructure Jobs Bank Bill Which Would Put More Than 2 Million Construction Workers Back On The Job Immediately.
What A Shame GOP Leaders Seem To Care More About Protecting Billionaires & Millionaires Than They Do Mainstreet!
President Obama on Friday reiterated his desire to reach a grand bargain that would deal with the nation’s long-term debt problems even as leaders in Washington take action to avoid a financial default by the government.
Mr. Obama said that he was encouraged by comments from lawmakers in both parties signaling an understanding of the need to increase the nation’s debt ceiling in the next two weeks.
“The American people expect more than that. They expect that we try to solve our problem,” Mr. Obama said. “We have a chance to stabilize America’s finances for a decade, for 15 years or 20 years, if we are willing to seize the moment.”
Asked whether he continues to have hope for a broader deal that could raise the debt ceiling and deal meaningfully with the nation’s burgeoning debt, Mr. Obama smiled broadly.
“I always have hope. Don’t you remember my campaign?” he said. “Even after two-and-a-half years, I continue to have hope.”
The 35-minute news conference gave Mr. Obama an opportunity to summarize his position after a week of news accounts of his sometimes contentious closed-door meetings with Republican lawmakers.
The president said those reports were overblown, suggesting they were part of a “reality TV” obsession with whose feelings get hurt during high-stakes political negotiations.
“This notion that things got ugly is just not true,” he said. “We have had very constructive conversations.”
But Mr. Obama did not appear to view the news conference as a fresh opportunity to persuade Republican lawmakers to agree to a specific deal.
Rather, the president appeared to be preparing for the ongoing debate on the issues of the debt, spending and taxes in next year’s presidential election.
“What the American people are paying attention to is who seems to be trying to get something done,” he told reporters.
That message is certain to be a key part of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign as he presents himself as the adult in a room full of squabbling children. Aides hope his efforts to reach a deal during the debt debate — even if unsuccessful — will reinforce that image.
“There may be some movement, some possibility, some interest, to just get something more than just the bare minimum,” Mr. Obama said. “We have enough time to do a big deal. But in order to do that, we have got to get started now.”
Even before Mr. Obama’s news conference, Republican House leaders told reporters that they planned a vote next week on a plan that would increase the debt ceiling in exchange for $2.4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and the passage of a balanced budget amendment.
After gathering privately with his Republican members, House Speaker John A. Boehner reiterated his belief that no plan that includes any tax increase could pass the House.
Mr. Obama dismissed the House Republican plan, saying cuts of that magnitude would adversely affect needed programs for the middle class and would be unfair without asking millionaires to pay more in higher taxes.
“I have not seen a credible plan that would allow you to get to $2.4 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks,” he said. “That doesn’t seem like a serious plan to me.”
Mr. Obama also said a balanced budget amendment was not necessary if “we do our jobs.”
“We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs,” he said. “The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs.”
The president insisted that the public supports efforts to cut spending and raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporate interests. And he blamed Republican lawmakers for refusing to bend.
“You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach,” he said. “The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically. They boxed themselves in with previous statements.”
Mr. Obama told lawmakers Thursday night that it was time for the talking to end and urged Congress to formalize a plan that could avert the first default on the nation’s obligations.
Senators from both parties are beginning to do just that as they begin closed-door debate on the details of a plan first suggested by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.
Under the broad outlines of the plan, Congress would cede its authority over the debt ceiling to Mr. Obama, but would require that he increase it in several increments. The plan also would reportedly include a new commission to deal with broader tax reform.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, is working with Mr. McConnell to turn the idea into legislation. But it remains unclear whether the plan could win the support of conservatives in the House, who have demanded trillions of dollars in spending cuts.
Who was that combative president? The guy who came out swinging against tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, for big oil companies, for hedge fund managers, for corporate jet owners?
The Barack Obama we saw at an East Room news conference on Wednesday—drawing sharp distinctions and demanding concessions from Republicans—is the kind of partisan fighter that liberals have craved for the last two-and-a-half years. Gone was the conciliator-in-chief patiently trying to see all sides; in his place was an amped-up leader determined to pressure his opponents.
The transformation, however brief, was undoubtedly born of necessity. Obama is looking at a looming debt-ceiling deadline August 2, the budget talks are going nowhere fast, and there is a great sense of drift in Washington. It’s no coincidence that Obama, who began his administration with a string of prime-time pressers but soured on the format, chose this moment to hold his first full-dress session with reporters in nearly four months.
Obama had sort of receded into the background, allowing Vice President Biden to take the lead on the budget talks until Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican, bailed out. Now the president seems to have concluded that he has to use his rusty bully pulpit to take his case to the public—something he has done only sparingly since taking office.
His argument: The two parties have agreed to more than $1 trillion in spending cuts, but that’s not enough and revenue is needed as well. It makes no sense, he contends, to endlessly whack away at the 12 percent of the budget that pays for education, weather forecasting, and food inspections.
Instead, the president strafed some of the Democratic Party’s favorite targets: wealthy people, oil conglomerates, and Wall Street. They should sacrifice a bit before we ask seniors to pay more for health care, Obama said: “I don’t think that’s real radical.” And in case anyone missed the point, he chided congressional leaders for a “selfish” approach.
Obama positioned himself as a teller of hard truths, denigrating Republicans who insist on no new taxes as people trying “to satisfy their base or get on cable news”—then expressing hope that they could “rise to the occasion.” He even took a swipe at Congress taking frequent recesses while he has been working nonstop on the economy and war and Osama bin Laden.
Even while ratcheting up his rhetoric against the GOP, Obama also engaged in a bit of Clintonian triangulation. “Democrats have to accept some painful spending cuts that hurt some of our constituents,” he cautioned, even if it causes his liberal base to “give me a hard time.” The country “will have to tackle entitlements”—meaning reductions in Medicare (and possibly Social Security) that his party has been denouncing with its withering attacks on the Paul Ryan voucher plan. Democrats on the Hill won’t want to cede that 2012 issue so easily.
But the little two-step enabled the president to cast himself as requiring adult behavior from both sides. “If everyone else is willing to take on their sacred cows,” he said, the Republicans can’t very well refuse to do a deal while defending tax breaks for Big Oil and corporate jets.
And he hammered home the importance of the August 2 date, saying the impact of even a technical default “will be significant and unpredictable” and that the Treasury can’t pick and choose whether to pay for, say, Social Security checks or other expenses. And the market reaction could mean higher interest rates for everyone.
One made-for-TV sound bite that is likely to be replayed is Obama’s reference to Sasha and Malia finishing their homework a day in advance rather than pulling all-nighters—again, a belittling of congressional leaders for “playing games” with the budget.
The president has done this before: made headlines with a bold burst of rhetoric or soaring speech, only to let the moment pass and defer yet again to squabbling congressional leaders. This time, he has a powerful incentive to keep up the pressure: the very real possibility that in little more than a month America will be unable to pay some of its bills.
President Barack Obama called on lawmakers Wednesday to overcome the "selfish" norms of politics and "do their job" in order to strike a deal on raising the federal government's current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by the start of August.
People shouldn't get "spooked," but "the yellow light (is) flashing," he warned. "This is urgent."
Top economic analysts have warned of potentially catastrophic repercussions if the ceiling is not raised by August 2, including skyrocketing interest rates and a plummeting U.S. dollar.
The president blasted congressional Republicans for refusing to consider raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans as part of any deal. Congress needs to be willing to "take on their sacred cows and do tough things" while moving away from "maximalist positions," he said.
He said Congress should cancel upcoming summer vacations if a deal isn't struck by the end of the week.
"I want everybody to understand that this is a jobs issue. This is not an abstraction," he said. "If the United States government, for the first time, cannot pay its bills -- if it defaults -- then the consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable. And that is not a good thing."
Obama made his remarks during a wide-ranging news conference covering the state of the economy, the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, and hot-button social issues such as same-sex marriage. It came at a time of rising questions over Obama's ability to maintain control of the political narrative and boost public confidence in his stewardship in the run-up to next year's presidential election.
GOP leaders have shown no signs of yielding in their opposition to higher taxes as part of any grand bargain with the White House. Recent bipartisan talks led by Vice President Joe Biden collapsed over the tax disagreement.
"The president is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the (Republican-controlled) House," Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after Obama's news conference.
"A debt-limit increase can only pass the House if it includes spending cuts larger than the debt limit increase; includes reforms to hold down spending in the future; and is free from tax hikes," Boehner added. "The longer the president denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, insisted earlier in the day that Republicans will "refuse to let the taxpayers take the hit when it comes to reducing the debt."
The debate is "about holding Washington accountable for a change," McConnell said. "It's about refusing to subsidize the Democrats' irresponsible spending habits another day."
For his part, the president ripped Republicans for protecting "millionaires and billionaires," oil companies, hedge fund managers, and owners of corporate jets.
The wealthy, he said, can afford to pay higher taxes.
"You can still ride on your corporate jet. You're just going to pay a little more," Obama said.
At the same time, the president pushed Congress to act on a series of pending measures to help strengthen the economy faster, including easing the ability of entrepreneurs to get patents, providing loans to private companies for infrastructure development, and approving free trade agreements.
Obama noted that America's economy has gone through a series of major structural changes.
As a result, the country's economic problems are "not going to be solved overnight," he stressed.
Turning his attention overseas, Obama dismissed criticism that his administration failed to obtain clear congressional approval before committing U.S. military forces to the NATO-led campaign in Libya.
Some representatives and senators on both sides of the aisle argue the White House has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives a president 60 days to get congressional approval for sending U.S. forces to war, followed by a 30-day extension to end hostilities.
The combined 90-day period ended last week.
Obama insisted that the War Powers Resolution does not apply in the case of Libya.
The law was intended to avoid a repeat of a Vietnam-style war, he said. In contrast, "this operation is limited in time and in scope."
"We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world," the president said. "A lot of this fuss" over the U.S. intervention in Libya "is politics."
It's become a "cause celebre for some folks in Congress," he asserted.
"We have done exactly what I said we would do" in Libya, Obama argued. America's allies "have carried a big load when it comes to these NATO operations" while "we've sent reams of information" to Capitol Hill.
"The noose is tightening" around longtime Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, he asserted.
The president reiterated the administration's stance that Gadhafi's removal from power is "the primary way that we can assure that the overall mission in Libya of people being protected" is successful.
Obama's claims regarding the War Powers Resolution echoed those made Tuesday by Harold Koh, a top State Department legal adviser, who argued before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the law does not apply to American forces in Libya because the U.S. mission is limited in terms of its scope, means, exposure of forces, and chances of escalation.
In short, administration officials believe the U.S. role in Libya does not meet the law's definition of hostilities.
Obama, however, overruled contrary legal opinions put forward by both the Pentagon and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in declining to seek congressional authorization, according to the New York Times.
On Afghanistan, Obama insisted that the United States and its allies "can be successful in our mission, which is narrowly drawn."
The president, who recently announced the withdrawal of 33,000 American "surge" troops by next summer, declined to use the word "victory" in reference to winding down the Afghan military mission. He instead stressed the success of U.S. forces in dismantling al Qaeda and preparing Afghan forces to assume responsibility for the country's security.
Noting this week's bombing of Kabul's Inter-Continental Hotel, he warned that the violence in Afghanistan will likely continue for "some time."
Turning to the debate over same-sex marriage, Obama refused to provide new specifics about his personal opinion. A supporter of civil unions, he has indicated in the past that his views on the matter are "evolving."
He noted, however, that his administration has stopped defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges.
Obama argued it is up to states to determine if they will legalize same-sex marriage, as New York recently did.
"The president, I've discovered since I've been in office, can't dictate precisely how this process moves," the president said.
The nation is "moving toward greater equality," Obama added. "I think that's a good thing."
Except Today He Sounded Like A Bold U.S. President Who Knows Exactly Where He's Headed & Knows Exactly What To Do!
This Morning's White House Press Conference Also Proved That Unlike Most GOP Congressional Leaders & Some Democrats, Pres. Obama REALLY Does Care About The American People NOT Just Winning Another Campaign.
Obama Proved He's Sincere & NOT An Opportunist!
Attention GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill:
The Ball Is Now In Your Court!
But Beware Because American Voters Are NOT Stupid!
We Are Watching & Waiting.
If GOP Leaders Continue To Protect Billionaires & Millionaires By Playing Around With The American Economy & Continue To Filibuster Badly Needed Jobs Bills, They Will Pay Big Time In November 2012!
President Obama said Wednesday that he believed Republicans would concede to tax increases as part of a deficit reduction package in time to avoid a default on the nation’s debt, and voiced exasperation at the lack of progress in negotiations between the administration and Congressional leaders.
“Call me naïve,” he told reporters at a midday news conference in the East Room of the White House. “But my expectation is that leaders are going to lead.
He accused the Republicans, who last week dropped out of negotiations on the budget, of avoiding tough decisions and said they were playing a dangerous game that could significantly affect the nation’s struggling economy and capital markets and slow down private efforts to create jobs.
Mr. Obama repeatedly mocked tax breaks that he said were for “millionaires and billionaires, oil companies and corporate jet owners,” saying that voters would not look kindly on Republican lawmakers who defended such breaks at the cost of cuts in popular programs like health care, education and food safety.
But he did not explicitly say that he would reject a deal that did not eliminate such breaks, saying that he believed his adversaries would eventually agree to what Democrats have called a “balanced approach” that included trillions of dollars in spending cuts along with tax increases.
“If you are a wealthy C.E.O. or hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They are lower than they have been since the 1950s. And they can afford it,” Mr. Obama said. “You can still ride on your corporate jet. You’re just going to have to pay a little more.”
Questions about the looming debt deadline dominated the early part of the news conference, the first in several months for the president. But Mr. Obama was also asked about a series of other domestic and foreign policy issues.
On the American intervention in Libya, Mr. Obama defended his administration’s actions against Congressional critics who say the military activities there violate the War Powers Act, which requires Congress to give its formal approval.
On the issue of same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama declined to say whether he had changed his mind about his personal opposition. But he said New York’s decision to legalize same sex marriage was a “good thing.”
“That’s exactly how things should work,” he said, noting that different communities will come to different conclusions on the issue. “I think we are moving in a direction of greater equality, and I think that’s a good thing.”
Mr. Obama said his administration had done more than all of his predecessors combined to advance the rights of gay men and lesbians in America. Mr. Obama is scheduled to host a gay pride event at the White House on Wednesday afternoon.
But his remarks are likely to disappoint gay activists, who were hoping that Mr. Obama would say that his personal opposition to gay marriage had ended. In the past, the president has said his position is “evolving.”
On the economy, Mr. Obama sounded dire warnings about the consequences of delaying a resolution on the debt negotiations, and expressed exasperation with Republicans in Congress, saying they needed to “do their job” instead of blaming him for a lack of leadership.
In a remarkable display of frustration, Mr. Obama said he was “amused” by Republican comments that he had not offered a clear direction in the effort to cut the budget and increase the nation’s debt ceiling.
“They are in one week, they are out one week,” the president said, in a week that the House is out of session. “You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and Bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done. All right, I think you know my feelings about that.”
Mr. Obama compared the lack of resolution in the debt talks to his daughters’ ability to get their homework done a day early.
“They’re not waiting til the night before. They are not pulling all-nighters,” Mr. Obama said. “They need to do their job. They need to go ahead and make the tough choices.”
Mr. Obama also mocked Republicans in Congress who have questioned whether the Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department for a default on the debt has been hyped for political reasons. He said the people making those claims would force the government to pick and choose who they would pay and who they would leave hanging.
“This is not a situation where Congress is going to say we won’t buy this car or we won’t take the vacation. They took the vacation. They bought the car. And now they are saying, maybe we don’t have to pay,” Mr. Obama said. “If the United States government, for the first time, cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, then the consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable. And that is not a good thing.”
In his opening statement, Mr. Obama said his administration was making efforts to spur job creation, but challenged Congress to pass bills that would help private companies add to their payrolls. He cited bills that would make it easier to get patents on inventions, expand loans to private businesses for hiring and pass long-delayed trade deals. “I urge Congress to act on these ideas right now,” he said.
On the debt talks, Mr. Obama said he was open to extending payroll tax cuts and other tax breaks that would help spur economic growth in the short term. “I think that it makes perfect sense for us to take a look at can we extend the payroll tax cut another year?” the president told reporters. “What we need to do is to restore business confidence and the confidence of the American people that we are on track.”
The president declined to comment on a controversial decision by the National Labor Relations Board to go to court to contest a decision by Boeing to build a nonunion plant in South Carolina. The decision by the independent agency has been criticized by Republicans as an infringement on right-to-work states and on the right of corporate managers to decide where to do business. The case is before a judge in Seattle.
But the president acknowledged the political sensitivities of the issue at a time when people are clamoring for the kinds of jobs that the Boeing plant would create. “If they are choosing to relocate here in the U.S., that’s a good thing,” Mr. Obama said. “What defies common sense is the notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can’t come to an agreement.”
Asked about concern in the military that the policy on how to handle terrorist suspects captured abroad was unclear, Mr. Obama said that his “top priority” was “to make sure that we are apprehending those who would attack the United States, and that we are getting all the intelligence that we can.”
But he said that “frankly, there are going to be different dispositions of the case depending on the situation.”
Pressed a second time on his personal views of same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama declined to elaborate, saying, “I’m not going to make news on that today” and telling the reporter who asked, Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal, “Good try, though.”
Later, Mr. Obama added: “I’ll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one. And that won’t be today.”
Remember Senator Mitch McConnell's 2010 Pledge To Make Pres. Obama A "One Term President"?
Well Folks McConnell Along With Grover Norquist, Is Working Diligently To Make This Pledge A Reality!
Once Again It Looks As If Grover Norquist's GOP Anti-Tax Increase Strategy Continues To Rule The 2011 Federal Debt Ceiling Debate.
And Once Again GOP Leaders Are Afraid To Tell Him To But Out!
What Better Time For Pres. Obama, Democrat Leaders On Capitol Hill & Independents To Take Step Up!
Pres. Obama Let's Face It Dude Your Bi-Partisan Plan Doesn't Appear To Be Working!
When Democrats Controlled Both Chambers You Went Off On This Bi-Partisan Adventure Until It Took Down The House.
Now The GOP Has You, The Democrats & Independents By The Balls!
We're Stuck! Held Hostage By The GOP's Anti-Jobs Filibuster Strategy.
Pres. Obama To Say I'm Ticked Off Would Be An Understatement But I'm Still With You.
However Something Needs To Be Done Quickly!
By Now GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill Have Made It No Secret They Are Intentionally Holding The U.S. Economy Hostage For The Sake Of Winning In 2012.
The GOP's Field Of Presidential Hopefuls Are Weak & Boring, Thus They're ONLY Hope Of Winning Back The White House Is To INTENTIONALLY Crash The Economy.
Why Do You Think GOP Leaders & Most GOP Governors Are INTENTIONALLY Fighting Any & All Jobs Programs Proposals?
Even WPA Type Jobs Program Proposals. i.e., Rebuilding Infrastructure Jobs!
How Anyone In God's Name Can Be So Cold-Hearted & Evil Is Beyond Me, But That Is What The Republican Party Is Doing.
By The Way Aren't Most Republicans Supposed To Be God-Fearing, God-Loving Christians??
I'd Say More Like HYPOCRITES!!!
You See Most Republicans Hate The Idea Of Having A BLACK President So Much, They're Willing To Crash The U.S. Economy To Get Rid Of Pres. Obama.
It Even Appears As If They're Hoping He Will Just Pull Out Of The 2012 Race Via Guilt Over The Economy.
Pres. Obama Don't Give In To Their Evil, Devious Plans!
Don't Give In To Their Political Pressure!
We Are Praying For You & For This Nation!
There Is Still Time To Negotiate A Workable, Reasonable Deal To Raise The Debt Ceiling.
However If Democrats & Independents Don't Rally Behind Pres. Obama, Help Him Get Re-elected & Win Back The U.S. House, There Will Be Hell To Pay For EVERYONE!
Especially The Unemployed, College Students, Senior Citizens, Veterans, etc.,
With only weeks to go before the country hits the debt ceiling, bipartisan negotiations were on the verge of collapsing as one of two Congressional Republicans walked away from the talks, and the other was unclear about future discussions.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor withdrew from the negotiations Thursday, saying they had reached an impasse with Democrats over tax issues and it was time for President Obama to get involved to broker a deal that would pave the way for a vote to raise the debt ceiling this summer. Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl said that it would be difficult to continue negotiations with only one Republican at the table.
Talks planned for Thursday afternoon were scrapped after Vice President Joe Biden decided not to attend in light of Cantor’s announcement.
Cantor, who represented the House GOP in the discussions, said "there is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don’t believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue."
Cantor called on President Barack Obama to step in. “I believe it is time for the President to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue," he said.
An aide to Kyl told CNN that he also feels that the talks have gone as far as they can go with the players involved and the President now needs to personally get involved.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, one of the House Democrats involved in the meetings, said there was no indication at yesterday’s session that the Republicans would stop participating.
Van Hollen said he learned the news as he was leaving a meeting with the President Thursday morning and was “disappointed.”
“They had been proceeding well although there is no doubt that there were some very difficult issues that needed to be decided,“ Van Hollen told reporters.
The bipartisan group, led by Vice President Biden, has been meeting for weeks behind closed doors to discuss various proposals to cut spending, from both discretionary programs and entitlement programs, such as Medicare. They have released very few details about areas of agreement, but Cantor said the group made significant progress agreeing to trillions in spending cuts, and noted “we have established a blueprint that could institute the fiscal reforms needed to start getting our fiscal house in order.” They had originally hoped to reach some sort of tentative agreement by July 1.
The group was working toward an agreement that would raise the debt ceiling by more than $2 trillion with an equivalent amount of spending cuts over the next ten years. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he expects the country to reach the debt ceiling by August 2, effectively halting the nation’s ability to borrow money and forcing the government into default on its obligations.
Multiple Democratic sources claim Cantor backed out of the talks because he doesn't want his fingerprints on an agreement that could face opposition from many House Republicans.
Several sources familiar with the bipartisan meeting on Wednesday said that it was incredibly tense and difficult.
Democrats involved in the negotiations have repeatedly said increasing tax revenues, from proposals such as ending subsidies for big oil companies, or companies producing ethanol, should be considered as part of the deal. Van Hollen said there was no justification for opposing those items “if you are serious about reducing the deficit.”
But the Democratic source—who would not speak on the record about the closed talks–said the Republicans in the negotiations have refused to accept any proposals that end any subsidies. "They're not willing to accept a dime of tax increases, we call it closing tax loopholes"
A Republican leadership, who also asked not to be identified, said it was the Democrats holding up progress because they refused to accept major changes to entitlement programs.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell went to the Senate floor and echoed Cantor’s message.
"Either someone on the other side has forgotten that there is strong bipartisan, bipartisan, opposition in Congress to raising taxes or someone is acting in bad faith. We’ve known for some time that tax hikes would be a poison pill to any deficit reduction proposal,” McConnell said.
As Republicans were stressing their position to keep taxes off the table, the Democratic source maintained the GOP was continuing to push for major cuts to programs that they knew Democrats would oppose.
"Republicans want to cut Medicare, Medicaid and education and want deep cuts because they’re unwilling to cut tax loopholes that benefit special interests,” the source said.
Van Hollen warned that those conservative Republicans who were opposing any deal to raise the debt limit were endangering the economy. “One thing that would take a fragile economy and break it would be for the United States to default on its obligations so nobody should be playing a game of political chicken with this issue.”
Senate Democrats on Wednesday began circulating a legislative framework for immigration reform that advocates hope will attract a Republican sponsor to replace Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ease the way for action on both immigration and energy reform this year.
The effort is an attempt by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get around the roadblock caused when Graham, the lone Republican sponsor on both bills, threatened to withdraw his support from both measures unless Reid agreed to table immigration this year.
“Senate Democrats were not prepared to give him that promise and they are still not,” said one senior Democratic aide.
At the same time, they have not given up hope on persuading Graham to rejoin Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) as a sponsor of the energy bill, and are urging President Barack Obama to do more to reunite the co-sponsors and move the bill to the floor. Graham’s office declined to comment.
Reid, who has been under tremendous pressure to settle the dispute, tried to calm the waters Wednesday.
“This is not going to be like the soap opera, ‘As the World Turns,’ that my mother watched,” he said. “I am going to move energy first and the bill’s ready. I don’t see why we can’t do that.”
The legislation is now undergoing review at the Environmental Protection Agency, a process that is likely to take about a month. That is expected to allow time for adjustments to the measure’s final language, including the inclusion of energy efficiencies passed in another bill by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Reid said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would spearhead the distribution and crafting of the framework for the immigration legislation. “It’s an outline, but they can put it in legislative language,” said Reid. “For anyone saying that we shouldn’t do immigration this year, especially Republicans, that takes a lot of gall and a lot of being very unreasonable and illogical,” he added.
Immigration reform supporters want the White House to “turbo charge” that legislative effort by using the bully pulpit and White House meetings to bring lawmakers together, said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice.
Traveling in the Midwest Wednesday, Obama urged passage of both bills. “The administration has been in close touch with senators and staff to offer any needed assistance as the negotiations continue to find a path forward for the legislation,” said Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman on energy.
Still, neither Obama nor Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who sees Graham as a key component of the administration’s legislative strategy, has contacted the South Carolina Republican since he issued the weekend threats that could derail both bills.
“There comes a time in any major legislative initiative when the president can help bridge institutional differences in the Congress, and it’s time now for everyone to come to the table and have a level-headed conversation about next steps,” said Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defense Fund.
A dispute over the timing of the immigration reform legislation began brewing weeks ago as advocates and some Democrats became convinced Graham was trying to delay a debate and vote this year that could damage Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), his long-time friend and ally. McCain is facing a tough primary fight in a state where immigration has become a hot-button issue since the legislature passed a law that gives police extraordinary leeway to detain people suspected of being illegal immigrants.
Graham denied that this week, saying he knows plenty of Democrats who also don’t want to address the issue in the run up to the midterms. His concern, he said, was that moving the legislation too quickly would doom its outcome.
Reid, however, vowed to Hispanic supporters at a Nevada campaign rally that he’d move legislation to the Senate floor this year. And when rumors began spreading that he may schedule immigration before energy, despite months of efforts by Graham, Kerry and Lieberman to draft legislation a bill acceptable to both industry and environmentalists, Graham issued his ultimatum.
The framework released to immigration advocates by Schumer on Wednesday and obtained by POLITICO contains many of the elements already negotiated with Graham.
It includes provisions aimed at tightening the borders, a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country that requires registration but not that they return home, and the issuance of Social Security cards with biometric identifiers, an idea attacked by some as a national ID card.
But immigrant advocates are hoping the more detailed document will give them a better platform to engage other Republicans and convince them to support a bill. Their targets include Sen. Judd Gregg, (R-N.H.), Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), all of whom voted for immigration reform in the past.
“Now, we need to see if Republicans are going to be serious about solving the problem,” said Clarissa Martinez, the director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza.
Sharry said advocates may not press for a full Senate vote if no Republicans are willing to co-sponsor the immigration measure. But Martinez and others noted that the pressure for Congress to act will only grow now that other states, including Texas, are considering passing legislation similar to one passed by Arizona last week.
“We aren’t interested in a partisan game. We aren’t in this to mobilize voters. We don’t want a kamikaze mission to the floor. We are in it to win it,” said Sharrey.
“What’s driving this debate is 11 million people in mixed status families, living increasingly in fear of being separates, of being fired, and with kids who have committed suicide because their father lost his job,” he added.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who has been pressing the White House for action on immigration, called on his Senate colleagues to move forward. “We cannot allow people like Sen. Lindsey Graham to unilaterally and singly veto a whole movement for justice and for fairness for immigrants in this country.”
For weeks, the White House strategy on Financial Regulatory Reform remained an open question: Would President Barack Obama water down his bill just to get something passed — the way he did on health care?
A Palinesque “Hell no!” was the answer coming from the White House on Wednesday as the president, his senior aides and his allies on Capitol Hill issued an ultimatum to Republicans fighting Democrats’ plans to overhaul financial oversight.
“For the president, you have to be willing to accept a strong bill,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, after Obama emerged from a contentious meeting with GOP congressional leaders.
“If the effort to get this close is simply to take steps to weaken that legislation, that’s not what the president is interested in.”
Democrats are so emboldened that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is prepared to bring the Banking Committee bill to the floor with no major concessions to Republicans and essentially dare them to vote against the measure, senior leadership aides said.
At a time when Wall Street is as reviled as government, Democrats are willing to gamble that at least one Republican — and maybe as many as a half-dozen — will break ranks. At the same time, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is betting he can hold his caucus together to deny Democrats even a single vote.
“It’s been two and a half years since this crisis started, more than a year since we first laid out a comprehensive set of reforms,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said during a rare appearance at the White House daily briefing alongside Gibbs.
“I think we know what we need to know. ... It’s just time to decide and time to move,” he added.
The hard-line, limited-compromise approach reflects a belief among Democrats, buoyed by recent polls, that they enjoy huge advantages on regulatory reform that eluded them on health care.
Unless the GOP can succeed in painting the reform effort as a path to new bailouts — and Senate Republicans are trying to do just that — the politics of the issue seem to be almost entirely on the Democrats’ side.
But before they take on the minority, Senate Democrats are trying to smooth over internal conflicts. For weeks, White House officials have been quietly working with Senate leaders, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), on the list of amendments liberals plan to introduce when the measure comes to the floor.
The goal, according to several people close to the situation, is to green-light those amendments that force Republicans to take tough votes, while minimizing votes that divide the Democrats’ left and right wings.
In the meantime, McConnell has settled into his accustomed role as spoiler, trying to persuade the 41 members of the Republican conference to stick together in opposition to Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s bill as it is currently written.
McConnell circulated a letter Wednesday that he hoped every Republican would sign, sending the message — as they did during the health care debate — that Republicans are united in opposition. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a potential swing vote, said he signed the letter, which asked Democrats to reopen negotiations.
“It appears the bipartisan talks have broken down,” McConnell said, after meeting for less than an hour with Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“The strings were kind of pulled by the Democratic leaders,” said McConnell, who added that Democrats “are trying to jam us” for political gain.
A seething Reid, squinting in the bright sunlight of the West Wing driveway, called McConnell’s claim that Democrats had abandoned talks a “figment of his imagination” and vowed to pass the overhaul quickly.
The standoff defined the parameters for what has turned into a sharply partisan debate as Obama pushes the Senate to deliver another major legislative achievement before Memorial Day. Democrats believe they can make Republicans fold, and Republicans expect to hold firm or risk losing any leverage they have left to change the bill.
“If we can get 41 votes, they’ll have to deal with us,” said Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee.
Three Republicans who have been targeted as potential swing votes — Brown, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and Maine Sen. Susan Collins — suggested they have no plans, at this point, to provide Democrats the crucial 60th vote.
“Why would we do that when we are not in the room?” Gregg asked.
Shelby and Dodd resumed their negotiations Wednesday night, but both faced increasing pressure from their respective parties to go only so far in compromising.
Earlier in the day, Dodd threatened to end the talks with Republicans if they continued to lead what he called a misinformation campaign based on Wall Street talking points.
“My patience is running out,” Dodd said. “I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort.”
Dodd lashed out on the Senate floor as Obama led the tense meeting at the White House with congressional leaders.
Some Democratic senators say the template should be the legislative strategy that led to passage earlier this year of a $15 billion jobs bill. Reid infuriated Republicans by scuttling a bi-partisan compromise, betting that most wouldn’t have voted for it anyway. He pushed forward a narrowly tailored bill that at least a few Republicans decided they couldn’t vote against.
“We have to, on one hand, keep opening ourselves and keep offering our hands to Republicans,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
“But as a prudential matter we also have to be prepared, once again, to have that hand knocked away and to be able to go to a well-crafted Democratic bill — which will frankly be a stronger and better bill than if it is watered down with Republican amendments — and then let the chips fall where they may. I think that has to remain a backup strategy.”
With the public relations damage wrought by GOP talk of “death panels” fresh in Democratic memory, Team Obama launched a coordinated counteroffensive to rebut McConnell’s claim that the bank-financed “risk” fund included in the bill would pave the way for bottomless bank bailouts.
Geithner dismissed the idea that such a fund would lead to a bailout, saying, “Any risks the government takes are going to be borne by large financial institutions.”
Later, an administration official said Geithner has expressed willingness to negotiate with Republicans about the mechanics — but not the basic structure — of such a fund.
While Geithner and White House officials tried to project confidence that a strong, undiluted bill could be passed in weeks, they also cautioned that the toughest and most arcane work remained ahead of them.
Before leaving Wednesday’s briefing, Geithner delivered what he described as an “exhortation,” an unusual request for the press to guard the administration — and the American people — against GOP, lobbyists and banking interests.
“The stuff ahead of us now is derivatives, it’s ‘too big to fail,’ it’s complicated stuff — OK?” he said. “Make sure that you bring the same level of exposure and the spotlight on the choices ahead, because we — I think we all have an interest in resisting the efforts that are going to be made — and they’re going to come still, to weaken, to exempt, to carve people out of those basic protections.”
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
