Posts with the tag Senate

Intelligent Assessment of this Wall Street Bailout

Liz — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:54:15 EDT

If you go to

There you will see what I believe is the most intelligent, clear and concise assessment of what the Bush administration, Wall Street, the rich, and yes even our Senate are trying to do to the American people. It is a video by economis Dean Baker.

It is time for us to stand up to our elected official and say: Once again you are wrong. You've been wrong the past two years in continuing the failed war in Iraq, in continuing to say yes to the Bush Administration and the rich. And you are wrong in this too.

Will you listen to the voice of the majority, or will you continue to arrogantly claim your omnipotence. We elected you to represent OUR voices--not YOUR voice.

Two Words on Senate Vote: Self-Serving and Wrong

Liz — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:22:35 EDT

QUEENS COMMENTS-taken from Michael Moore on the topic

I’m disgusted and extremely disappointed. I can only hope that members of the House of Representatives have enough guts to not let their arms be twisted by the Senators. From this point forward, my comments are taken from an email that I received from Michael Moore. I have selected those points with which I agree the most as I could not say it better:

"The biggest robbery in the history of this country has taken place. Though no guns are being used, 300 million hostages are being taken. [That would be ordinary Americans.] After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years, after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years, Bush and his cronies — who must soon vacate the White House — are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door.

No matter what they say, no matter how many scare words they use, they are up to their old tricks of creating fear and confusion in order to make and keep themselves and the upper one percent filthy rich. Just read the first four paragraphs of the lead story in last Monday’s New York Times and you can see what the real deal is:

US Senate passes bailout, 74-25

Mike W, Tulsa+ — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:18:46 EDT

The US Senate just now passed a bailout package by an announced vote of 74-25.

Yes votes included Obama, Biden, and McCain.

Mike W
Tulsa+
Who was listening to the vote to post the results ASAP

Call your senators and send emails now

Liz — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:58:13 EDT

The Senante is supposed to vote on the Bailout today.

I was able to get an email out to Cornyn this morning, but Hutchison's is broken.

I don't know where you stand on this Bailout of Wall Street and yes it is a bailout regardless what euphemism they come up with to call it next. I am against it. Yes, we will have a recession. Fact is we will a recession regardless whether they bailout or not. You can expect that recession to last throughout 2009--regardless the action taken by Congress. Many ordinary Americans are going to lose their homes.

What the Paulson-Bernake Plan Really Means to Americans
This plan will enable banks to sell off the homes of five million home mortgage debtors faced with default or foreclosure this year. Home-owners will lose their homes but the Fed will pump enough credit into the mortgage-lending agencies to enable new buyers to go deeply enough into debt to take the jumk mortgages off the hands of the gamblers who presently own them. If this sounds like a shell game, that’s because it is a shell game. AND IT IS A SHELL GAME TO BENEFIT WALL STREET. Where is the meat for the American people? It is not there. Increase of FDIC insurance to $250,000? When it the last time an ordinary American had $250,000 in the bank?

We are asked to allow the same group of crooks who warned the country about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to be the ones to move the shells on the table. How many times do the American people have to be asked to bend over by the Republicans before we say no?

ABOUT THE JUDGMENT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION AND ITS FINANCIAL EXPERTISE–EXTREMELY LACKING
Remember when Bush and Alan Greenspan informed the American people that there was no money left to pay Social Ssecurity (and Medicare) because at some future date the system might run a deficits of a trillion dollars spread over many many ears. Their “sound advice” was that if we can’t figure out how to pay, let’s plow the progam under right now.

Bush and Greenspan actually suggested that the Treasury could turn Social Security and medical insurance money over to Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and other financial corporations to invests at the “magic of compound interest.”

Just think where Social Security would be today if we had listened to their advice. Then ask: Why the H is anyone in their right mind taking any suggestion from George Bush or Paulson or Bernanke with even a gram of consideration? Are you nuts?

I say that we send Wall Street to Gamblers Anonymous–and McCain with them. We need a lot more consideration before acting on this bail-out and yes it is a bail-out. The problem is that it is bailing out the wrong people.

Amendments Cannot alter or repeal...

Gene Madison — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:57:48 EDT

It seems to me that every case as it pertains to corporations, and a violation of a state to interfere in the obligations of contracts seem to always mention 2 other action along with 'amend'. Altogether, they are "alter", "amend", or "repeal", which leads me to believe that a simple amendment is (as by definition implies) to add or clarify. No place in our constitution does it provide for such alteration.

United States Supreme Court Reports By United States Supreme Court, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company

Green Alert! Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act

Liz — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:47:35 EDT

Tell your Senators to support renewable energy development by cutting oil industry handouts!

Recently the House passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act. This bill is a great first step towards improving our environment, creating clean energy jobs and gaining energy independence.

This would be done by cutting government subsidies to the oil and gas industry and shifting them to renewable energy development. The oil and gas industry will get by -- ExxonMobil recently reported the largest quarterly profit for any corporation in American history.

These corporate giants are not in need of any more government handouts. This bill would allow renewable sources such as solar and wind power to get the funding they need and incentives would also be provided for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that would help clean up pollution in our transportation sector.

Please tell your Senators that this bill needs to be passed. Our environment is too important to be ignored.

GO HERE FOR AN EASY TO COMPLETE FORM:
http://action.citizen.org/t/1153/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23335&track=actionMain

ALSO GO HERE FOR MORE DETAIL ON THIS BILL

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5351/show

Quick! Someone Check! Are the rivers running backwards?

Liz — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:51:13 EDT

I just read in the Huffington Post that the White House does not want to participate in the GOP's protest to keep Congress in session this August!.

Of course, I may be too optimistic here. It might be simply because George thinks he might have to stay in DC and not go on down to Crawford for the month.

SOURCE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/white-house-says-no-to-he_n_116827.html

More on the Senate and Its Republicans

Liz — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:49:39 EDT

I just read a news story that exemplifies what I mean when I say that that Democrats may have a majority in the Senate, but they most certainly do not have control.

GOP Senators filibuster Defense bill for their oil company benefactors.

"Just when you think the GOP Senate obstructionists can't sink any lower, they do. The Senate Republicans voted against the troops.

Mitch McCopnnell and his fellow Republicans have been filibustering every bill until the oil companies get what they want.

Correction Regarding Senate Vote Requirements

Liz — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:37:09 EDT

The Democrats do not have enough members to control the Senate. In order to do that, we would need 60 Democratic Senators. This is the important fact for us to remember when supporting Democrats in the fall. Just because we have control of the gavel, does not mean that we have control of the Senate.

There are 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans and two independents. But because both of the independents caucus with the Democrats, the Democrats have a 51 to 49 majority and thus Democrats control the gavel with Harry Reid. However if you will consider that one of those Democrats is Lieberman who votes often with the Republicans, and if you will consider how rarely Republicans cross party lines in the Senate, you can see what a struggle it is for Democrats to pass legislation in the Senate—when it does happen it is only with many amendments to the legislation.

A post in regard to the vote I recently posted was incorrect in regard to the 2/3s majority required for every vote. This is not true. I apologize for posting this misinformation. The 2/3’s rule is required only in certain cases. Among them include ratification of treaties. But, as I said, only 2/3’s majority of a quorum present is required to impeach, not 2/3’s of the Senate. That is important to remember because it is easier to impeach than we may have been led to believe.

The MYTH that Democrats Control Congress

Liz — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:54:11 EDT

Let's put an end, if we can, to the myth that Democrats Control Congress.

Those of you who think they do, please try to wrap your brains around this and stop blaming Democrats. This is a Republican tactic to discredit the Democrats.

The Democrats have a MAJORITY in both Houses. That part is correct. However, the part to say that they have CONTROL of Congress is incorrect. To pass legislation requires the approval of BOTH houses.

To have CONTROL over the Senate, the Democrats would need 60 Democrats in the Senate as all bills require 2/3's approval of all members (expect for impeachment which requires only the simple majority of a quorum).

Currently the Democrats have 49 in the Senate and the Republicans have 49 in the Senate. There are two independents Bernie Sanders of VT and Joe Lieberman of CT both of whom caucus with Democrats. This makes for the 51 to 49 majority for the Democrats.

BUT DEMOCRATS ARE AT LEAST 9 SENATORS SHORT OF CONTROL. YOU COULD EVEN ARGUE THAT SINCE PART OF THEIR MAJORITY IS DUE TO TWO INDEPENDENTS, THEY NEED 11 MORE DEMOCRATS TO BE IN CONTROL.

So please stop writing that Democrats are "in control" of Congress. We are not. That is why it is so important that we get as many as possible elected to Congress in the fall.

The Republicans can and do block every piece of legislation that they can--except for those few pieces such as Medicare legislation that they know will lose them votes this fall.

Economic Bipartisanship is what the USA Needs

Liz — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:06:55 EDT

I've said it again and again and again and I'll say it again.

One of the ways that the neocon newspeak churned out by the neocon owned mainstream media control the masses (that would be you and me) is by creating red herrings (distractions to divert our attention from the real issues).

Frankly, I sometimes think that most of the members of our Congress are nothing but red herrings themselves, another show to distract us and make us think that things are being done, when in fact nothing is happening except that they are conniving as to how they can put more of our tax dollars into their pockets.

The Republicans and the Democrats sometimes remind me of those fake wrestlers on television who put on these great shows--throwing each other about and head-banging one another (and then laughing about their show together afterwards in the dressing room).

Look at them! I'll bet if you did a financial survery of their assets that you would find that an overwhelming majority of those in Congress have assets in excess of a million dollars.

YES 49 Elephants in the Senate are Indeed blocking progress

Liz — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:49:21 EDT

Below is an old cartoon that looks like it might hail from Franklin Roosevelt's day, if not even earlier in our history as a nation. Interesting isn't it? The elephant is crashing through the planks of his own platform (inflation, repudiation, etc.) and falling into the abyss. (and to note: the donkey is barely escaping himself).

Following on the extended post is detail for all five of those bills and amendments that I listed previously and suggested that 49 Republicans are blocking the democratic agenda every step of the way. I still hold to that belief and you can see for yourself. Only on one out of five did they vote for the people, but then their president vetoed that one.

However as Betty Lou rightly pointed out, Ron Paul does consistenly vote on the side of the people and with the Democrats more often than not. AND the House of Representatives is the more democratic AND bipartisan body of our Congress. They often pass good legislation that gets hammered by the elitist Senate. And yes the ones who ruin it for the rest of us ARE by and large the Republicans. Although there are sometimes a few stray Democrats who cross over, it is overwhelmingly the Republicans who block the decent legislation. So remember that this fall.

SENATE OVERTURNED BUSH'S MEDICARE VETO

Liz — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:24:31 EDT

YEA FOR THE SENATORS: Dick Durbin D Illinois Majority Whip. whooo hoo

YEA FOR Byron Dorgan D North Dakota

BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE! DANCE IN THE STREETS!

the House voted 383-41 earlier today to override the veto

The Senate voted 70 to 26 to override the veto!

Harry Reid has shown great leadership on the last two big votes: FISA and now Medicare. He has been on the right side.

This bill is paid for in parts by cuts to private healthcare insurers YEA!

EVEN CORNYN VOTED FOR TO OVERRIDE THE VETO!!!!! Now that is a miracle! and Kay Bailey Hutchison also voted to override the Veto andother miracle. BOTH OF THE SENATORS FROM TEXAS VOTED TO OVERRIDE THE VETO!!!! If you are a Texan, please call and thank them. We want to reinforce this kind of behavior!

Hillary voted, of course to override the veto.
Even Lieberman voted to override the veto.

Hagel voted no on it.

as far as I could tell McCain and Obama were no shows. I could have missed them somehow, but I don't think so.

Reports of Mosque Surveillance Concerns Muslims

funkfresh01 — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:55:45 EDT

http://religion.info/english/articles/article_385.shtml

Source: Religioscope
Author: Richard Cimino

While there have been allegations in the past of government investigation of mosques on issues relating to terrorism, the recent report, first featured in the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, is said to be the first confirmation that surveillance is taking place.

An article in the Los Angeles Times (May 29) reports that information about the alleged spying surfaced in a case about classified files concerning terrorism that were stolen from a secure office used by military and civilian law enforcement officials at Camp Pendleton. Some of these classified records referred to the surveillance of Muslim communities in Southern California, specifically, the Islamic Center of San Diego. The records alleged that the mosque had been monitored as part of a federal surveillance program targeting Muslim groups, according to the Union-Tribune article.

The FBI's Plan to ‘Profile’ Muslims

funkfresh01 — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:28:30 EDT

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/10/muslim_profiling/index.html

Source: Salon
Author: Juan Cole

The U.S. Justice Department is considering a change in the grounds on which the FBI can investigate citizens and legal residents of the United States. Till now, DOJ guidelines have required the FBI to have some evidence of wrongdoing before it opens an investigation. The impending new rules, which would be implemented later this summer, allow bureau agents to establish a terrorist profile or pattern of behavior and attributes and, on the basis of that profile, start investigating an individual or group. Agents would be permitted to ask "open-ended questions" concerning the activities of Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans. A person's travel and occupation, as well as race or ethnicity, could be grounds for opening a national security investigation.

The rumored changes have provoked protests from Muslim American and Arab-American groups. The Council on American Islamic Relations, among the more effective lobbies for Muslim Americans' civil liberties, immediately denounced the plan, as did James Zogby, the president of the Arab-American Institute. Said Zogby, "There are millions of Americans who, under the reported new parameters, could become subject to arbitrary and subjective ethnic and religious profiling." Zogby, who noted that the Bush administration's history with profiling is not reassuring, warned that all Americans would suffer from a weakening of civil liberties.

Update from the NATION regarding FISA Law Suit

Liz — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:14:34 EDT

here is an update that I received from the NATION yesterday regarding the lawsuit that the Nation joined with the ACLU in filing regarding the constitutionality of the FISA Amendment Act of 2008.

Dear EmailNation Subscriber,

The Nation has joined with the ACLU in a lawsuit filed in the US District Court of New York challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Read Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel's Editor's Cut to find out why the magazine is suing the government on behalf of itself, our staff and two of our contributing writers--Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein.

Check out the ACLU site for how you can support this legal challenge.

And please join The Nation's campaign to stop Big Media.

Finally, please visit http://www.thenation.com to read new Nation blogs, to view newsfeed links updated each day, to see when Nation writers are appearing on TV and radio, to get info on nationwide activist campaigns, and to read exclusive online reports and special weekly selections from The Nation magazine!

Best Regards,
Peter Rothberg
The Nation

Obama and Hillary Stood up for Democracy Today

Liz — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:01:01 EDT

The Senate has just adjourned for lunch. They will return at 2 Eastern time to vote on the FISA bill.

Our two Democratic leaders: Barack and Hillary stood up for the Constitution and the American people.

Both of our stars voted aye for all three amendments to FISA.

None of the amendments, however, had enough votes to win.

Thus, this afternoon, at 2 PM Eastern time the Senate will vote on the FISA as is with the telecom immunity section intact.

It is expected that it will pass [MAY I SUGGEST THAT YOU ALL CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO]

The question for me remains: How will Obama and Clinton vote on this bill?

FISA Vote Today at 11:15 A.M. EST and Obama's Stance

Liz — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:15:14 EDT

The FISA vote is a huge big deal. Yesterday I watched the Senate debates on C-Span for four hours. Senators Dodd, Leahy, Specter, Whitehouse, and Reid eloquently protested passing the bill with title two (the telecom immunity clause) left intact. It was their consensus that doing so tramples on the fourth amendment rights (search and seizure without a warrant) of our Constitution and once again leaves the Bush Administration unaccountable for their illegal deeds against the citizens and against our Constitution. We already know what Bush thinks of our Constitution as he has been quoted as calling it no more than a GD piece of paper.

I just read this morning on the Washington Post an article by Jose Vargas titled "Obama Responds to Online FISA critics. In recent days, Obama has been targeted by suporters on his own social networking site. According to this article, one backer on the site has formed a group named "Senator Obama Please vote NO on Telecom Immunity--Get FISA Right"

That group has grown to more than 16,000 members making it the single largest group on Obama's site.

In response to the group and a growing online controversy over his FISA stance, Obama took to his blog yesterday afternoon to address concerns about his support for the intelligence surveillance bill.

Here is the link to the Washington Post article:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/03/obama_responds_to_online_fisa.html?hpid=topnews

Update on FISA debate now in Progress in Senate

Liz — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:05:23 EDT

I just finished watching Senator Patrick Leahy's brilliant presentation of his support of the Dodd Feingold amendment to FISA.

As usual and typical of Leahy, he went right to the heart.

If FISA is passed "as is", then it removes all accountability from the White House and the Bush Administration for what they did. It means that Congress can never pursue the answer to the central question: Who in the White House went to the Telecoms and told them to break the law?

Also Leahy pointed out that if they had not been caught breaking the law and had lawsuits brought against them by citizens that none of these illegal activities would have ever come to light.

FISA as it is, means there will be no accountability for this Administration and what it has done in its warrantless wire-tapping and spying on US citizens.

Proponents say that these lawsuits can't be brought up because it might cost the Telecoms too much in lawsuits--well if there is such a risk, then that would say that citizen's rights were violated. Are they to not have any compensation for that?

it will be interesting when they finally vote on this--probably a few hours from now, but perhaps not until tomorrow.

USA and Israeli saber rattling is driving the US Economy into the Dust

Liz — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:22:40 EDT

As if the Bush administration has not already done enough to bring our country and its people to our economic knees, they continue to do their damage. And as each day passes, I grow angrier and angrier at the members of the House of Representatives for not beginning the impeachment proceedings against George Bush and Dick Cheney.

In addition to the horrible implications of nuclear war (bought about by Pakistan, who do have nuclear bombs and who could possibly retaliate in defense of Iran); there is a more immediate effect of the Bush administration along with Congress’s support of continued badgering of Iran: the price of oil.

World oil prices have risen by nearly 50% since the beginning of 2008. Many believe that among the contributing factors, the uncertainty about Iran is another issue that keeps oil prices high. It is reported that oil market still believes that there is at least a 50% chance that either Israel or the USA will attack Iran before the end of Bush’s term. Some experts predict the price per barrel for oil could rise as high as $200 a barrel before fall.

One way to take that speculation away is to remove Bush and his administration from the equation by impeaching Bush and Cheney.

We learned from the article published in the New Yorker last week by Seymour Hersh that the Bush administration is sponsoring a $400 million covert action program against Iran to destabilize its government. We know that if Cheney had his way that Iran and likely half the Middle East would lay in smoldering ruins. We know now with a degree of some certainty that Cheney and Bush would like nothing better than to initiate a shoot-out at the Iranian OK Corral.

And members of our Congress continue to vote YEA on amendments like the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment and H.Con.Res. 362 that are nothing more than bully threats against Iran that increase instability in the Middle East and drive up the price of oil for Americans.

Isn’t it time to tell them NO. and to demand that they begin impeachment proceedings against this administration now while we still have a country and a world left?

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer