Thought you'd like to see our elected officials who stood up for Americans on the job war.
50 Best Defenders of Jobless Americans
/PRNewswire/ -- In the best spirit of Labor Day, these 50 Members have spent the last two years standing up for the most vulnerable of all American workers - the unemployed. They not only resisted major pressures to increase the flow of foreign labor, they also attempted to reduce immigration quotas (75,000 working-age immigrants every MONTH). And they repeatedly tried to eliminate the job magnet for illegal immigration and to push the 7 million non-agricultural illegal workers out of their jobs to make room for some of the 22 million Americans who want a job but can't find one.
The non-partisan NumbersUSA rates every member on every committee and floor vote and every bill co-sponsorship that would either increase or reduce the foreign workers (legal and illegal) in the country. All actions and the computerized grading calculations are displayed on www.NumbersUSA.com. Those in Congress who do the most to protect American workers in terms of immigration policies receive an A+, while those doing the least receive an F-minus.
The 50 "Defenders" on this list:
-- received the highest grades for their actions during the last two
years
-- are asking voters to re-elect them to Congress this November
BEST DEFENDERS IN THE SENATE
----------------------------
Grassley, Charles (IA)
DeMint, Jim (SC)
BEST DEFENDERS IN THE HOUSE
---------------------------
Graded A+
King, Steve (IA - 05th)
Bilbray, Brian (CA - 50th)
Boozman, John (AR - 03rd)
Burton, Dan (IN - 05th)
Coffman, Mike (CO - 06th)
Gingrey, Phil (GA - 11th)
Heller, Dean (NV - 02nd)
Marchant, Kenny (TX - 24th)
Mica, John (FL - 07th)
Bartlett, Roscoe (MD - 06th)
Broun, Paul (GA - 10th)
Foxx, Virginia (NC - 05th)
Goodlatte, Robert (VA - 06th)
Linder, John (GA - 07th)
Wittman, Robert J. (VA - 01st)
Graded A
Alexander, Rodney (LA - 05th)
Chaffetz, Jason (UT - 03rd)
McCotter, Thaddeus (MI - 11th)
Myrick, Sue (NC - 09th)
Neugebauer, Randy (TX - 19th)
Price, Tom (GA - 06th)
Rohrabacher, Dana (CA - 46th)
Akin, Todd (MO - 02nd)
Kline, John (MN - 02nd)
Lamborn, Doug (CO - 05th)
Manzullo, Donald (IL - 16th)
Poe, Ted (TX - 02nd)
Smith, Lamar (TX - 21st)
Calvert, Ken (CA - 44th)
Conaway, Mike (TX - 11th)
Fortenberry, Jeff (NE - 01st)
Franks, Trent (AZ - 02nd)
Miller, Candice (MI - 10th)
Moran, Jerry (KS - 01st)
Platts, Todd (PA - 19th)
Bachus, Spencer (AL - 06th)
Bilirakis, Gus (FL - 09th)
Fleming, John (LA - 04th)
Hunter, Duncan D. (CA - 52nd)
Jones, Walter (NC - 03rd)
Posey, Bill (FL - 15th)
Roe, Phil (TN - 01st)
Graded A-minus
Taylor, Gene (MS - 04th)
Miller, Gary (CA - 42nd)
McClintock, Tom (CA - 04th)
Brown, Henry (SC - 01st)
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (MO - 09th)
Olson, Pete (TX - 22nd)
NumbersUSA also announced the "50 Worst Deserters of Jobless Americans."
NumbersUSA is a non-profit and non-partisan organization with more than one million activist members. It was formed in 1996 in part to carry out the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Barbara Jordan) which opposed immigration policies that depress wages and job prospects for the most vulnerable members of the national community.
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Friday, September 3, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
National Effort to Amend the Constitution Launched
Thought this interesting----
/PRNewswire/ -- A national effort to add ten specific amendments to the Constitution of the United States was launched this week when the nation's 7,300 state legislators received the book "10 Amendments for Freedom" along with information on how to convene a Constitutional Convention.
The effort is being spearheaded by 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc., a not-for-profit organization, to provide permanent restraints upon the federal government.
"The initial goal is to have the state legislatures vote to have Congress convene a Constitutional Convention to propose ten specific amendments be added to the Constitution," stated William H. Fruth, Founder and National Director. "After the amendments are proposed by the convention, they will need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states."
The proposed Constitutional amendments include the following topics:
1. Require the federal government to have a balanced budget and stop
incurring debt.
2. Repay the national debt over a 50-year period.
3. Force Congress to be more transparent regarding the legislative
process.
4. Enable the president to have "line-item veto" authority.
5. Limit the number of terms a person can serve in Congress.
6. Mandate Congress control illegal immigration.
7. Provide a legal framework to prevent becoming a bilingual nation.
8. Prevent foreign laws and courts from having authority over the American
people.
9. Restrain the growth of the federal government and prevent "socialism."
10. Allow for the presence of "God" in the public domain.
"The Constitutional Convention will be the most important political event held in 200 years," Fruth continued. "It will reaffirm the belief the American people have in individual liberty and freedom and that government is created to serve the people, not control their lives."
In order to amend the Constitution, an amendment must first be formally "proposed." There are two ways to propose an amendment.
Either Congress, by two-thirds of the vote of both the House and the Senate, or the delegates at a Constitutional Convention may propose amendments.
The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Each amendment was proposed by Congress.
"Since most of the amendments place limits on Congress, it is not likely Congress will propose them," Fruth continued. "As a result, a Constitutional Convention called by the states is needed."
Article V. of the Constitution states that upon the "application" of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, Congress shall convene a Constitutional Convention.
After the convention is convened, the delegates will decide if each of the amendments should be proposed for ratification.
If they are proposed, 38 states must then ratify them in order for an amendment to become part of the Constitution. The convention itself cannot change the Constitution.
Information regarding this effort and the text of the amendments is posted at http://www.10amendments.org/.
/PRNewswire/ -- A national effort to add ten specific amendments to the Constitution of the United States was launched this week when the nation's 7,300 state legislators received the book "10 Amendments for Freedom" along with information on how to convene a Constitutional Convention.
The effort is being spearheaded by 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc., a not-for-profit organization, to provide permanent restraints upon the federal government.
"The initial goal is to have the state legislatures vote to have Congress convene a Constitutional Convention to propose ten specific amendments be added to the Constitution," stated William H. Fruth, Founder and National Director. "After the amendments are proposed by the convention, they will need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states."
The proposed Constitutional amendments include the following topics:
1. Require the federal government to have a balanced budget and stop
incurring debt.
2. Repay the national debt over a 50-year period.
3. Force Congress to be more transparent regarding the legislative
process.
4. Enable the president to have "line-item veto" authority.
5. Limit the number of terms a person can serve in Congress.
6. Mandate Congress control illegal immigration.
7. Provide a legal framework to prevent becoming a bilingual nation.
8. Prevent foreign laws and courts from having authority over the American
people.
9. Restrain the growth of the federal government and prevent "socialism."
10. Allow for the presence of "God" in the public domain.
"The Constitutional Convention will be the most important political event held in 200 years," Fruth continued. "It will reaffirm the belief the American people have in individual liberty and freedom and that government is created to serve the people, not control their lives."
In order to amend the Constitution, an amendment must first be formally "proposed." There are two ways to propose an amendment.
Either Congress, by two-thirds of the vote of both the House and the Senate, or the delegates at a Constitutional Convention may propose amendments.
The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Each amendment was proposed by Congress.
"Since most of the amendments place limits on Congress, it is not likely Congress will propose them," Fruth continued. "As a result, a Constitutional Convention called by the states is needed."
Article V. of the Constitution states that upon the "application" of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, Congress shall convene a Constitutional Convention.
After the convention is convened, the delegates will decide if each of the amendments should be proposed for ratification.
If they are proposed, 38 states must then ratify them in order for an amendment to become part of the Constitution. The convention itself cannot change the Constitution.
Information regarding this effort and the text of the amendments is posted at http://www.10amendments.org/.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
We The People- New Hit Song by Ray Stevens
Love American values? Remember "The Streak"?
You are gonna love this awesome song on Obamacare by Ray Stevens!
You are gonna love this awesome song on Obamacare by Ray Stevens!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
White House Tells Congress to Back Off on Czars?
VWV Note: Oh reallllllyyyy? Ummm, do you think the White House has a strong gut feeling that the czars wouldn't pass muster even with a democratic controlled Congress? With all the allegations the Czars face when their pasts are delved into, I think I would be ashamed to have them looked at as well. But then, I never would have appointed them.
Just wondering...
Administration Pushes Dems to Oppose Reigning in Czars
Fox has learned, the White House has urged Senate Democrats not to support an amendment that would impose congressional oversight on "czars.....http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/24/administration-pressures-dems-to-oppose-reigning-in-czars/
Just wondering...
Administration Pushes Dems to Oppose Reigning in Czars
Fox has learned, the White House has urged Senate Democrats not to support an amendment that would impose congressional oversight on "czars.....http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/24/administration-pressures-dems-to-oppose-reigning-in-czars/
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Are You Listening? Support of Health Care Reform Bill Down- Again
VWV Note: All recent and new polls continue to show Americans do not want the current health care reform bill passed. Will Congress listen to those who elected them? The recent interest in town hall meetings and record numbers of Americans showing up in vain to try and get their questions answered demonstrates the passion of both sides of the debate. Some Congressmen won't even have public forums on the subject. The big question is "Of whom are they afraid?"
Why does the White House think they have to continue to sell the bill with more campaign-like strategies? If the health care bill is good, it will stand on its own two feet.
If not, revisit the drawing board and devise a health care reform bill that doesn't make the majority of Americans "sick" when they read it.
Support for Dems’ Government Takeover of Health Care Continues to Plummet
The more the American people learn about the Democrats’ proposed government takeover of health care that will increase costs, destroy jobs, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions instead of patients and doctors, the more they oppose it. No fewer than five polls released at the end of July showed increasing concern, if not outright, opposition to the Democrats’ government-run health care plan. A Quinnipiac University Poll last week also indicates that a majority disapprove (52) of the President’s handling of health care, while only 39 approve - a 10 percentage point jump in the last month alone.
Today, a new Rasmussen poll shows Americans’ opposition to the Dems’ government-run health care plan is still increasing:
“Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.”
“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.”
“More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.”
The American people support real health care reform – a plan that reduces costs and expands access to quality care. The Democrats’ proposal does neither, and that’s why they are seeing the mounting opposition firsthand back in their congressional districts. House Republicans have offered a better solution that addresses Americans’ concerns about out-of-control health care costs. The House GOP plan would make quality health care coverage more affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions. For example, the plan:
•Lets small businesses band together through associations and purchase health insurance for workers at a lower cost just like large corporations and unions do.
•Offers incentives to help Americans who do not have access to quality health care get the coverage they can afford.
•Make coverage more affordable for everyone by giving states new tools to design innovative health care programs.
•Reduce health care costs by reforming medical liability rules that cost families millions each year – millions that line the pockets of trial lawyers at the expense of patients and doctors.
•Reforms regulations so insurance companies compete for your business and you can shop around for the best coverage and price.
•Roots out health care waste, fraud, and abuse that cost taxpayers billions.
Isn’t it time for Democrats to scrap their costly plan and work with Republicans on a proposal that will make health care more affordable and accessible for the American people?
Source: http://republicanleader.house.gov/
Why does the White House think they have to continue to sell the bill with more campaign-like strategies? If the health care bill is good, it will stand on its own two feet.
If not, revisit the drawing board and devise a health care reform bill that doesn't make the majority of Americans "sick" when they read it.
Support for Dems’ Government Takeover of Health Care Continues to Plummet
The more the American people learn about the Democrats’ proposed government takeover of health care that will increase costs, destroy jobs, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions instead of patients and doctors, the more they oppose it. No fewer than five polls released at the end of July showed increasing concern, if not outright, opposition to the Democrats’ government-run health care plan. A Quinnipiac University Poll last week also indicates that a majority disapprove (52) of the President’s handling of health care, while only 39 approve - a 10 percentage point jump in the last month alone.
Today, a new Rasmussen poll shows Americans’ opposition to the Dems’ government-run health care plan is still increasing:
“Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.”
“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.”
“More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.”
The American people support real health care reform – a plan that reduces costs and expands access to quality care. The Democrats’ proposal does neither, and that’s why they are seeing the mounting opposition firsthand back in their congressional districts. House Republicans have offered a better solution that addresses Americans’ concerns about out-of-control health care costs. The House GOP plan would make quality health care coverage more affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions. For example, the plan:
•Lets small businesses band together through associations and purchase health insurance for workers at a lower cost just like large corporations and unions do.
•Offers incentives to help Americans who do not have access to quality health care get the coverage they can afford.
•Make coverage more affordable for everyone by giving states new tools to design innovative health care programs.
•Reduce health care costs by reforming medical liability rules that cost families millions each year – millions that line the pockets of trial lawyers at the expense of patients and doctors.
•Reforms regulations so insurance companies compete for your business and you can shop around for the best coverage and price.
•Roots out health care waste, fraud, and abuse that cost taxpayers billions.
Isn’t it time for Democrats to scrap their costly plan and work with Republicans on a proposal that will make health care more affordable and accessible for the American people?
Source: http://republicanleader.house.gov/
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Government to Censor Pastors Reading the Bible?
Included in the proposed hate crime bill in Washington is severe censorship of pastors preaching the Gospel of our Lord and on free speech. Let your representatives know your thoughts on free speech now.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Biden Admits Stimulus Not Working and Americans are being Scammed
So the biggest rush in history to spend the most money in history to create jobs is not working. Joe Biden admitted On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos over the weekend that people are being scammed with the stimulus.
Does this mean he thinks Democrats are scamming Americans?
Where are the jobs? Shouldn't everyone be asking that question to Congress and to the president? Shouldn't the stimulus package be scrapped now? Shouldn't Congress and the president be willing to listen to alternate points of view since theirs are falling miserably short?
Does this mean he thinks Democrats are scamming Americans?
Where are the jobs? Shouldn't everyone be asking that question to Congress and to the president? Shouldn't the stimulus package be scrapped now? Shouldn't Congress and the president be willing to listen to alternate points of view since theirs are falling miserably short?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Groups to Congress: Don't Sacrifice Patient Safety to Lower Health Costs
/PRNewswire/ -- Congress should not confuse lowering health care costs with limiting patient safety, said a letter from consumer and patient advocates sent to Congress today. The groups urged a focus on reducing medical errors in health reform legislation, not limits on liability for negligent medical providers, as a means to both save lives and lower the costs of medical mistakes.
State malpractice damage caps, and other limits on liability for negligent health care providers, have locked injured patients out of court, degraded the quality of health care and denied justice to too many families, said Consumer Watchdog.
"Those who wish to reduce the costs of medical malpractice liability should focus on stemming the epidemic of preventable medical errors," wrote the advocates, not "reduce accountability for wrongdoing and weaken patient safety. We urge you to reject any amendments to the legislation that will shift costs from poorly performing medical facilities and providers to struggling families."
"Shielding negligent parties from accountability is no way to cut costs or provide quality care. To the contrary, it is a recipe for increasing the nation's epidemic of preventable errors, at enormous human and financial cost. Instead of limiting liability, the Congress should focus on improving patient safety. This would save not only lives, but also billions of dollars in unnecessary medical cost," wrote the groups.
The state that is cited most frequently by proponents of malpractice liability limits as a success - California - has insurance regulation, not its malpractice damage cap, to thank for holding malpractice insurance rates down for health care providers. In the thirteen years after passage of a damage cap, medical malpractice insurance rates went up 450%. Over the next thirteen years, after Californians approved strong insurance oversight, medical malpractice insurance premiums went down 2%.
State malpractice damage caps, and other limits on liability for negligent health care providers, have locked injured patients out of court, degraded the quality of health care and denied justice to too many families, said Consumer Watchdog.
"Those who wish to reduce the costs of medical malpractice liability should focus on stemming the epidemic of preventable medical errors," wrote the advocates, not "reduce accountability for wrongdoing and weaken patient safety. We urge you to reject any amendments to the legislation that will shift costs from poorly performing medical facilities and providers to struggling families."
"Shielding negligent parties from accountability is no way to cut costs or provide quality care. To the contrary, it is a recipe for increasing the nation's epidemic of preventable errors, at enormous human and financial cost. Instead of limiting liability, the Congress should focus on improving patient safety. This would save not only lives, but also billions of dollars in unnecessary medical cost," wrote the groups.
The state that is cited most frequently by proponents of malpractice liability limits as a success - California - has insurance regulation, not its malpractice damage cap, to thank for holding malpractice insurance rates down for health care providers. In the thirteen years after passage of a damage cap, medical malpractice insurance rates went up 450%. Over the next thirteen years, after Californians approved strong insurance oversight, medical malpractice insurance premiums went down 2%.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Good Time To Read
Our Creator sure does work in mysterious ways. With all of the events going on in our country and with all of the changing of our lives, I find that now is just the perfect time to sit and read.
Today's reading was Matthew 23. Switch out Pharisees and just insert Congress and our leaders.
Interesting.
Maybe you've been feeling compelled to read more yourself? Try it. It's relaxing.
Today's reading was Matthew 23. Switch out Pharisees and just insert Congress and our leaders.
Interesting.
Maybe you've been feeling compelled to read more yourself? Try it. It's relaxing.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Obama and Company Now Want to Regulate Your Home Garden
There's a ton of stories on the potential problems with HR 875, which is also known as the Food Safety Modernization Bill of 2009. If it passes as is, chances are you can kiss your home garden goodbye. I just can't believe that the government would stoop so low as to make our gardens illegal. Stand up America and fight for your rights!
The End of Organic Farming? How HR875 Could Kill the Farmers Market
The US has several organizations which are responsible for the safety of food products including the USDA, the FDA,the CDC and the EPA. As is typical with most agencies they are underfunded, understaffed and don't communicate with each other....http://ezinearticles.com/?The-End-of-Organic-Farming?-How-HR875-Could-Kill-the-Farmers-Market&id=2088965
HR875: Your homegrown tomatoes are illegal
HR875 will require government-mandated licensing, chemical application and inspections for non-corporate grown food in the USA.
The End of Organic Farming? How HR875 Could Kill the Farmers Market
The US has several organizations which are responsible for the safety of food products including the USDA, the FDA,the CDC and the EPA. As is typical with most agencies they are underfunded, understaffed and don't communicate with each other....http://ezinearticles.com/?The-End-of-Organic-Farming?-How-HR875-Could-Kill-the-Farmers-Market&id=2088965
HR875: Your homegrown tomatoes are illegal
HR875 will require government-mandated licensing, chemical application and inspections for non-corporate grown food in the USA.
I am not kidding.
Not only will this destroy organic farming and your local farmer's market, the way the proposed resolution is written, even your homegrown tomatoes will be illegal!.....http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2009/03/17/hr875_your_homegrown_tomatoes_are_illegal
HR 875 Would Essentially Outlaw Family Farms In The United States
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tired of the Bash
The news and talk shows are interesting to listen to these days. Sometimes, there are some very valid points. And then there's...
Why is it that hard core Democrats place all the blame on President Bush when Congress was controlled by Democrats?
How is the economic stimulus plan really going to help the economy? Build a road to where? And how long will that job last?
Why not let those who take from the government give back?
Why does Geithner appoint a lobbyist?
Why does the White House and friends sound like sore winners?
Just a thought. Just want to hear constructive criticism by those whose voices are heard most often. Just tired of the bash.
Why is it that hard core Democrats place all the blame on President Bush when Congress was controlled by Democrats?
How is the economic stimulus plan really going to help the economy? Build a road to where? And how long will that job last?
Why not let those who take from the government give back?
Why does Geithner appoint a lobbyist?
Why does the White House and friends sound like sore winners?
Just a thought. Just want to hear constructive criticism by those whose voices are heard most often. Just tired of the bash.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Ethical, Honest, and Open Promises - Broken
Back in 2006, Pelosi said the Dems would have the most honest, ethical and open government. Earmark reform was a hot topic and senators would have to be be open about whose getting the money.
The question becomes have they? Watch the video by PBS on this subject.
Senators, shame on you for keeping the secrets on ethic reform from the public. Senators, shame on you for rewording the legislation to provide loopholes so you don't have to tell the public the truth.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/2009/01/mr-heath-goes-to-washington-pa.html
The question becomes have they? Watch the video by PBS on this subject.
Senators, shame on you for keeping the secrets on ethic reform from the public. Senators, shame on you for rewording the legislation to provide loopholes so you don't have to tell the public the truth.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/2009/01/mr-heath-goes-to-washington-pa.html
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Hustler's Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis Ask for Government Bailout of the Adult Entertainment Industry
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis
VWV Note: Thought this style of media mismanagement would be of interest:
"Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's (December 21) front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed. The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises."
- White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 12/21/08
The New York Times wrongly accuses President Bush and his Administration of disregarding signs of danger from Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and ignores the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises, arguing that "as early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming." (Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Stephen Labaton, "White House Philosophy Stoked On Mortgage Bonfire," New York Times, 12/21/08)
The New York Times completely ignores the fact that while the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
The New York Times notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, saying "in the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics."
The article neglects to acknowledge that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:
Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
The New York Times wrongly accuses the President of encouraging reckless lending in order to expand the Republican base: "For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters."
The facts show that, throughout his eight years, the President was actually encouraging careful and wise lending and emphasized the obligations and responsibilities that come with homeownership. "We've got to be wise about how we deal with the closing documents and all the regulations, but also wise about how we help people understand what it means to own their home and the obligations and the opportunities." (President George W. Bush, Remarks On Homeownership, Atlanta, GA, 6/17/02)
"Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's (December 21) front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed. The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises."
- White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 12/21/08
The New York Times wrongly accuses President Bush and his Administration of disregarding signs of danger from Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and ignores the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises, arguing that "as early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming." (Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Stephen Labaton, "White House Philosophy Stoked On Mortgage Bonfire," New York Times, 12/21/08)
The New York Times completely ignores the fact that while the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
The New York Times notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, saying "in the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics."
The article neglects to acknowledge that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:
Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
The New York Times wrongly accuses the President of encouraging reckless lending in order to expand the Republican base: "For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters."
The facts show that, throughout his eight years, the President was actually encouraging careful and wise lending and emphasized the obligations and responsibilities that come with homeownership. "We've got to be wise about how we deal with the closing documents and all the regulations, but also wise about how we help people understand what it means to own their home and the obligations and the opportunities." (President George W. Bush, Remarks On Homeownership, Atlanta, GA, 6/17/02)
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Where is Your Passport? All of them
I saw the article posted by the Read My Lipstick Network on the "others' take on the citizenship issue. I don't buy everything they say, but for the purposes of this post, let's assume I bite.
Ok- Obama is born in Hawaii in some hospital that won't admit it.
How did he go to school in Indonesia on an Indonesian passport? Since Indonesia doesn't recognize dual citizenship, wouldn't his American passport have been surrendered? Wouldn't he have had to renounce his American citizenship?
So, if we take the "others" argument to heart, doesn't renouncing citizenship to a country mean you are no longer a citizen? If this is true ( and to my knowledge, Indonesia has laid claim to his earlier citizenship of their country), then, at best, he is a naturalized citizen.
Still doesn't fit the qualifications as stated in the United States Constitution. And Congress still has their heads in the sand. Perhaps we should remember that at the next elections for your senators and congressmen.
Yep, change in America is here.
Ok- Obama is born in Hawaii in some hospital that won't admit it.
How did he go to school in Indonesia on an Indonesian passport? Since Indonesia doesn't recognize dual citizenship, wouldn't his American passport have been surrendered? Wouldn't he have had to renounce his American citizenship?
So, if we take the "others" argument to heart, doesn't renouncing citizenship to a country mean you are no longer a citizen? If this is true ( and to my knowledge, Indonesia has laid claim to his earlier citizenship of their country), then, at best, he is a naturalized citizen.
Still doesn't fit the qualifications as stated in the United States Constitution. And Congress still has their heads in the sand. Perhaps we should remember that at the next elections for your senators and congressmen.
Yep, change in America is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
