This is Christa Darlington- I am sending you a note because at sometime during the past election you expressed interest in supporting Obama, and I am writing you tonight after watching some old school Obama in Ohio - it was his opening speech of the re-election campaign. It was really nice to see him back with us, talking about why we need to keep moving forward. There is now doubt that his first four years were not as we all expected, the worse economic crisis since '29 was no easy task. But one thing I am sure of, is that Yes it Can... Get much Worse. Please consider what the Country might look like if the Republican party, with its fractions and extremism took charge in January. We need to make sure that does not happen. Please join me for our Placer County volunteer kick off in Granite bay on the evening ofTHURSDAY MAY 24 and find out how you can get involved. Even just a small amount of your time can make a big difference.
California will be relied upon to make a lot of phone calls this time around, and we need some folks to host phone banks and do data entry, and make calls. There may be some travel to swing states in October.
We have so much to fight for, I hope you will all stand with President Barack Obama this summer and fall, to make sure he can finish his job and ensure we don't lose the rights and progress on some issues that have been in place for decades. Just reply to this email of you can make to our kick off party, or want to get involved locally.
I don't like pot. I don't like the smell or the high, never did. But I had a come-to-Jesus moment lately when I had to take medication that made me horribly nauseated for ten straight days, and the Compazine my doctor proscribed to take the edge off wasn't much help. I found myself thinking that if marijuana would have made me feel normal again, I'd have been thrilled to have it. Why should anyone be denied a harmless medicinal herb that helps them? I'm still waiting for some rational explanation from the Obama administration as to why Eric Holder's Justice Department is going after marijuana providers - and users:
SAN FRANCISCO - April 27 - The San Francisco Democratic Party adopted a resolution yesterday demanding that President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag "cease all Federal actions in San Francisco immediately, respect State and local laws, and stop the closure of City-permitted medical cannabis facilities." The resolution was co-sponsored by 21 members of the party's Central Committee (DCCC) including: its author Gabriel Haaland, Assembly member Tom Ammiano, State Senator Leland Yee, Supervisor David Campos, Supervisor David Chiu, former State Senator Carole Migden, and former Supervisor Aaron Peskin.
The DCCC argues that, "the U. S. Attorneys in California are not targeting individuals and organizations that are operating outside of the law, but instead are aggressively persecuting a peaceful and regulated community, wasting Federal resources in using a series of threatening tactics to shut down regulated access to medical cannabis across the state of California." The DCCC also accuses the federal government of "depriving...the State of California much needed tax revenue."
This reminds me of the mostly toothless Rolling Stone interview with Obama conducted by Jann Wenner in the new issue. Wenner did manage to get in a question about pot, and Obama's evasions went unchallenged:
Let me ask you about the War on Drugs. You vowed in 2008, when you were running for election, that you would not "use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana." Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What's up with that?
Here's what's up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it's against federal law. I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, "Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books." What I can say is, "Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage." As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.
The only tension that's come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we're telling them, "This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way." That's not something we're going to do. I do think it's important and useful to have a broader debate about our drug laws. One of the things we've done over the past three years was to make a sensible change when it came to the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. We've had a discussion about how to focus on treatment, taking a public-health approach to drugs and lessening the overwhelming emphasis on criminal laws as a tool to deal with this issue. I think that's an appropriate debate that we should have.
Wenner's just so tickled to be interviewing Obama that his brains leaked out his shoes. Can't ask the Justice Department to "ignore completely a federal law that's on the books?" Puhleeze. Tell that to Wall Street! And there's not even a question that medical marijuana users are being prosecuted. How dumb is Wenner?
And elsewhere in the same article, Obama contends that in many cases, Wall Street was only "technically" wrong, not actually guilty of breaking laws.
I suppose this is why this administration is pushing hard for the state attorneys general deal that will indemnify banks and mortgage companies against criminal prosecution? Because they didn't do anything criminally wrong, only "technical" violations?
Wenner should have taken Taibbi with him. We might have gotten some real answers.
We interrupt tonight's regularly scheduled open thread to fundraise for our sister site, Newstalgia. This is urgent. Simply put, the Newstalgia archives will not be available to us if we do not raise money for storage and maintenance of the archival records. None of the Crooks and Liars family wants to see that happen. Please give specifically at the button below, and yes, even five bucks helps. Consider giving that much or more from your tax refund to save our sister site. Thank you.
Presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign is accusing President Barack Obama of dividing the country when his campaign talks about killing terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.
In a new web advertisement, President Bill Clinton says that Obama chose the "more honorable path" by ordering the 2011 attack that resulted in the death of bin Laden.
"Look, he knew what would happen," Clinton explains. "Suppose the Navy Seals had gone in there and it hadn't been bin Laden. Suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him, but he reasoned I cannot in good conscience do nothing."
The ad goes on to ask if Romney would have made the same decision.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul on Friday pushed back by saying the ad was being used to "divide" the country.
"The killing of Osama bin Laden was a momentous day for all Americans and the world, and Governor Romney congratulated the military, our intelligence agencies, and the President," Saul said in a statement.
"It's now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters' attention from the failures of his administration."
In a major speech on Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden recalled that Obama had “made one of the most courageous decisions” he had ever seen a president make by ordering the strike on Osama bin Laden.
“This guy has a got a backbone like a ramrod,” the vice president said. “For real. For real. On this gut issue, we know what President Obama did. We can’t say for certain what Governor Romney would have done.”
“Thanks to President Obama, bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive,” Biden continued. “You have to ask yourself had Governor Romney been president, could he have used the same slogan in reverse?”
The Associated Press quoted Romney in 2007 as saying that there would be only "a very insignificant increase in safety" if bin Laden were killed.
"It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney reportedly said.
But speaking to Fox News late last year, Romney insisted that "any president" would have given the order to take out the 9/11 mastermind.
"We’re delighted that he gave the order to take out Osama bin Laden," the former Massachusetts governor told host Chris Wallace. "Any president would have done that, but this one did, and that’s a good thing. I’m not going to say everything he’s done is wrong."
I guess John Boehner believes that whoever yells the loudest wins, because he decided to throw another temper tantrum on the floor of the House this Friday -- John Boeher On ‘War On Women’: ‘Give Me A Break’:
House Speaker John Boehner channelled his inner John Stossell Friday on the House floor when he sounded off on Democratic rhetoric pointing to the House GOP’s legislative agenda and finding a “war on women.”
“And now, now we are going to have a fight over women’s health,” Boehner said. “Give me a break. This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women. Entirely created, entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain.”
Steve Benen has more on what Boehner and the Republicans could do if they're really concerned about their problem with women voters -- Boehner can make this subject go away:
House Republicans this week said they would agree to keep student loan interest rates at their current level, but only if they're allowed to gut spending on preventive health care to finance the costs. The White House balked, but the GOP didn't care -- today, the Republican bill passed, 215 to 195, largely along party lines.
Several Democratic lawmakers noted the impact the GOP health care cuts would have on women's health, and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who's apparently grown a little sensitive to talk about the Republican "war on women," threw a bit of a tantrum on the House floor during the legislative debate.
I can appreciate why Boehner doesn't want to talk about the negative impact Republican policies are having on women, but I'd remind the Speaker that the quickest way to change the conversation is for Republicans to stop pursuing policies that have a negative impact on women.
In this case, rather than simply helping students because it would be good for them and the economy, Boehner's caucus decided to play a cheap little game -- they'll keep interest rates low only if they take funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which has nothing to do with student loans. [...]
Boehner can shout, point, and pound the podium to his heart's content, but if he doesn't want to be criticized for Republican measures that undermine women's health, he should change his party's agenda, not whine about Democrats shining a light on that agenda.
And as Steve noted, here's more from the White House on the real impact their demands would mean for women's health:
On July 1, unless Congress acts, interest rates will double for more than 7.4 million students with federal loans. Fortunately, even though they voted just weeks ago in lockstep to allow this increase, Republicans in Congress have come around on the issue since President Obama took it to the American people – claiming they’re ready to step up and stop the rate hike. Unfortunately, rather than work together to ensure interest rates on student loans don’t double, they have decided to re-fight old political battles, proposing to eliminate the health care law’s Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for this important reform. This proposal would put women’s health at risk. And fighting old political battles won’t protect students and young people from major rate hikes.
Eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund would have a devastating effect on women’s health and our work to prevent disease and illness. Eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund would mean:
Hundreds of thousands of women could lose access to vital cancer screenings. Prevention Fund resources are expected to help more than 300,000 women be screened for breast cancer in 2013 and more than 280,000 be screened for cervical cancer.
Programs that help to prevent congenital heart defects, prevent fetal alcohol syndrome, and promote early identification and intervention efforts for children with developmental delays and disabilities could be eliminated.
Tens of thousands children could lose access to immunizations.
These are just a few of the important ways the Prevention and Public Health Fund will help keep millions of Americans healthy. Keeping college affordable for America’s students should not come at the expense of putting women’s health at risk.
Heaven knows we can't have anyone raising taxes on the oil and gas companies to pay for the extension instead as the Democrats proposed to do. No, Boehner and his cohorts want to take it out on the backs of the poor and the working class and children and their access to health care.
On 1T day in New York City, hundreds of college students from around the city gathered at Union Square for a rally and then marched downtown to Wall Street. At Union Square, some students publicly burned their student loan debt documents. "1T" stands for 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) dollars, which is now the official amount of student loan debt owed to big banks by American college students.
Students in other cities around the country are also rising up in protest, many signing pledges refusing to pay back their loans.
Several hundred protesters, mostly college students wearing placards noting the size of their debt loads, rallied in New York City's Union Square park on Wednesday.
They set fire to student debt documents and held signs reading "Debt free degrees" and "Education in America: Don't bank on it."
Hadi Nassar, 31, whose eight years of undergraduate and dental school education has left him $186,000 in debt, said he was having to rethink his plan to work at a community health clinic.
"It makes me angry. It makes me not want to do what I set out to do - which was, help people, take care of people," said Nassar, a dental resident. "That type of job isn't going to give me enough income, monthly, to pay this off."
While both Democrats and Republicans agree that it is imperative to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling to 6.8 percent, as they are set to do on July 1st, they part ways as to how to cover the loss of revenue estimated at $5.9 billion.
Democrats would close a tax loophole they have dubbed the "Gingrich/Edwards Loophole," which allows millionaires to avoid paying Medicare taxes. Republicans want to eliminate the preventative health fund, which House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called a "slush fund" on Wednesday.
"Unfortunately, rather than finding common ground on a way to pay for this critical policy, H.R. 4628 includes an attempt to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, created to help prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become severe," the White House said in a statement on Friday.
"Women, in particular, will benefit from this Prevention Fund, which would provide for hundreds of thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer. This is a politically-motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves. If the President is presented with H.R. 4628, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
In response to the White House threat of a veto, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel issued the following statement, “The president is so desperate to fake a fight that he’s willing to veto a bill to help students over a slush fund that he advocated cutting in his own budget. It’s a simple as this: Republicans are acting to help college students and the president is now getting in the way."
An alternative resolution to the student debt crisis was introduced as Michigan Congressman Hansen Clarke made the case in April for "forgiving" student loan debt:
This month in the U.S. House, I have proposed H.R. 4170 -- The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 -- which would eliminate many of the awful consequences of educational indebtedness. In doing so, it would give Americans greater purchasing power, helping to jumpstart our economy and create jobs.
The bill provides full loan forgiveness for current borrowers who have paid the equivalent of 10 percent of their discretionary income for 10 years or who are able to do so over the coming years. It moreover caps interest rates on federal student loans at 3.4 percent and enables existing borrowers to break free from crushing fees by converting many private loans into federal loans.
Crucially, Americans who are behind on their payments due to a setback such as unemployment or illness would be eligible to enroll in the new program. The bill seeks to ensure that no one would be consigned to "indentured servitude" because of a stroke of bad luck.
To control costs and create prudent incentives for both students and institutions going forward, the bill allows future enrollees in the program to receive forgiveness up to a limit of $45,520 after paying up to 10 percent of discretionary income for 10 years. Under the bill, both current and future borrowers could still opt for the benefits of the existing income-based repayment program as an alternative.
If you would like to support this bill, you may do so by signing your name at HR4170.com. Rep. Clarke also suggests that you consider asking your Representative in Congress to sign on as a co-sponsor.
What a Hobson's choice. It's not easy being president, especially when the so-called "loyal opposition" so consistently holds the poor and powerless hostage. Sometimes I wonder how they got so screwed up that they put power and greed ahead of other human beings, because this is just plain amoral:
President Barack Obama threatened on Friday to veto a House Republican bill that would keep government-backed student loan interest rates at their current level because of a poison-pill amendment, even though his veto would play directly into an obvious trap laid by Republican political strategist Karl Rove.
President Obama has said repeatedly that student loan rates must not go up — which they will on July 1 without Congressional action — and the Interest Rate Reduction Act would indeed accomplish those ends. However, it would do so by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a key part of Obama’s health care reforms.
“This is a politically-motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves,” the administration said Friday in a policy statement (PDF), threatening a veto the bill if it lands on Obama’s desk.
The bill passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Friday afternoon by a margin of 215-195, with votes falling mostly along party lines.
That veto could be issued at hazard to the president, who’s facing a political Catch-22 thanks to a new strategy hatched by former Bush political adviser Karl Rove. Rove’s political action committee, American Crossroads, has a new ad out this week that makes a pitch for the youth vote by condemning Obama as a “cool” president who’s somehow causing students to struggle.
This lovely video and song comes to us from Taylor Ferrara.
I will be in Arizona tomorrow, driving through on my way to New York City. And I am "expecting" (get it?) to be legally pregnant for a couple of hours. When the law sees us as public incubators - adding a prequel to conception is the least of our worries. It means your body is not your own. If your body is not yours they can probe you, criminalize what you do with your own body and arbitrarily change the legal duration of your pregnancy. And it's already happening in Arizona: Make way for state-decided immaculate conceptions!
Earlier this week, Sen. Scott Brown made a consequential and costly decision for his campaign: to release his recent tax returns and to challenge Elizabeth Warren to do the same.
Talk about a major blunder.
First, it turns out Brown has a haircut problem. The Boston Herald reported that last year, Brown took a deduction of $1401 for hair, make up and grooming. Wow. This is something that will haunt Brown for the remainder of his campaign. Voters don’t much like career politicians who claim to be earnest everymen while spending so much money on their vanity and grooming.
Second, it turns out that Scott Brown and his wife made $2.5 million over the past six years, far more than the Brown campaign and the Massachusetts Republican Party have let on in all their vitriolic and over the top advertisements attacking Warren’s own income. What’s more, Brown’s income has skyrocketed since he entered public service — news that has caught the eye of pretty much every Massachusetts paper.
Earlier this year, Brown claimed his income was “not a heck of a lot. I mean, you know, I don’t make a heck of a lot.” He will have a tough time explaining that given the latest revelations about his income and the fact that he has a healthy place in the top 1 percent of American earners.
Brown’s latest problems were put on display with a new Web ad the Massachusetts Democratic Party posted early this morning, highlighting the enormous, $675 price tag for his famous barn jacket, the six properties he owns, and his newfound “A-list” stature in the Washington social circuit.
Brown is likely to find it difficult to put this toothpaste back in the tube.
This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now
So-called "pink slime" has taken hold of the popular imagination, but it isn't new -- or alone. Here's how it stacks up against two other mechanical processes.
A federal judge sentenced former New Orleans police officer Ronald Mitchell to 20 months in prison for lying about the circumstances of a fatal shooting that occurred in the tumultuous days after Hurricane Katrina.
TV stations have objected to an FCC proposal requiring them to put information about the political ads they broadcast online, and a commission vote on the issue is set for April 27.
ProPublica's Justin Elliott spoke to the Center for Investigative Reporting's G.W. Schulz about his reporting on the militarization of local police forces in the U.S.
Reader-recommended collection of watchdog reporting elsewhere. Submit stories via Twitter using the hashtag #MuckReads or e-mail muckreads@propublica.org.
You received this e-mail because you subscribe to ProPublica’s daily newsletter. Unsubscribe Was this email forwarded from a friend? Subscribe ProPublica, One Exchange Plaza, 55 Broadway, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10006
