|
Norquist sides with Khalid Mohammed and against New Yorkers!!!! See the whole "Be Nice To Terrorists Club" document: Click Here and Click Here See what they are defending here: Religion of Peace? |
 Graham eyes anchor babies"They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave" By ANDY BARR, Politico Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States. Currently, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born within the United States. But with 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, Graham said it may be time to restrict the ability of immigrants to have children who become citizens just because they are born within the country. Asked how intent Graham is on introducing the amendment, the South Carolina Republican responded: “I got to.” “People come here to have babies,” he said. “They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave." To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.” “I want to be fair. I want to be humane. We need immigration policy, but it should be on our terms, not someone else's. I don't know how to fix it all. But I do know what makes people mad, that 12 million people came here and there seems to be no system to deal with stopping 20 million 20 years from now.” Death-Benefit Accounts Seem to Slight Survivors By BLOOMBERG NEWS, New York Times The package arrived at Cindy Lohman’s home in Great Mills, Md., just two weeks after she learned that her son, Ryan, a 24-year-old Army sergeant, had been killed by a bomb in Afghanistan. It was a thick envelope from Prudential Financial Inc., which handles life insurance for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Inside was a letter about her son’s $400,000 policy. And there was something else, which looked like a checkbook. The letter told Ms. Lohman that the full amount of her payout would be placed in a convenient interest-bearing account, allowing her time to decide how to use the benefit. In tiny print, in a disclaimer that Ms. Lohman said she did not notice, Prudential disclosed that what it called its Alliance Account was not guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, according to a report in Bloomberg Markets magazine. Ms. Lohman, 52, left the money untouched for six months after her son’s death in August 2008. As time went on, she said, she tried to use one of the checks to buy a bed, and the salesman rejected it. That happened again this year, she said, when she went to buy a camera. Ms. Lohman, a public health nurse, said she had always believed that her son’s life insurance money was in a bank insured by the F.D.I.C. That money — like $28 billion in one million death-benefit accounts managed by insurers — was not actually sitting in a bank. It was being held in Prudential’s general corporate account, earning investment income. Prudential paid survivors like Ms. Lohman 1 percent interest in 2008 on their Alliance Accounts, while it earned a 4.8 percent return on its corporate funds, according to regulatory filings.
At the White House: It’s hardly unusual for corporations to shy away from spending after a recession By Ian Swanson, The Hill A strong corporate-earnings season is dimming worries of a double-dip recession, but is unlikely to lead to a swing in employment that will help Democrats this fall. Dozens of corporations, including Dupont, FedEx, Apple and IBM, have reported earnings that exceeded expectations for the second quarter, boosting confidence in the U.S. economy. The problem for both the economy and Democrats headed into an election where jobs will be the No. 1 issue is that, so far, corporate America is not reinvesting those profits into its businesses and workers. The 9.5 percent unemployment rate is expected to rise a week from Friday when the Labor Department releases its July report on job figures. An estimated $2 trillion has been stockpiled by corporate executive officers, who so far are holding onto that cash out of fear the economy will enter a double-dip recession Companies are still focused more on reducing debts than hiring new workers or expanding their businesses, said Frederick Cannon, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. “I think it’s reflective of a low-inflation, show-growth environment where people feel there’s not a lot of confidence incomes will grow,” he said. Financial reform bill signed by President Obama gives SEC 'free pass' Critics blasted the new veil of secrecy in the wake of an economic meltdown and ensuing bailouts By Oren Yaniv, New York Daily News The massive financial reform bill signed by President Obama has a little-known provision that suddenly exempts the Securities and Exchange Commission from the Freedom of Information Act. The agency, which is under fire for not doing enough to protect investors ahead of the national economic meltdown, invoked the shield when a judge ordered it to turn over documents related to the probe of convicted Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff. "Congress has given a free pass to the SEC," said Steven Mintz, a lawyer for Fox Business Network, who sued the agency for the Madoff documents. "It's a gift to them but a detriment to the American public and the media." The law exempts the SEC from providing info derived from "surveillance, risk assessments or other regulatory and oversight activities" - which covers most of its activities, Mintz said. SEC spokesman John Nester said the agency is expanding its surveillance efforts and the new provision ensures cooperation from parties who "insist on confidential treatment of their documents." Critics blasted the new veil of secrecy in the wake of an economic meltdown and ensuing bailouts. On Capitol Hill:  Rangel's deal-breaker"He feels, I think very strongly, that he has not done anything that was wrong" By GEOFF EARLE and CARL CAMPANILE, New York Post The key sticking point in Rep. Charles Rangel's negotiations last night with the House Ethics Committee over his scandals was his refusal to admit wrongdoing in making improper solicitations for a center named after him at CCNY, The Post has learned. The deal-breaker emerged as Rangel was playing a high-stakes game of chicken with attorneys for the panel over the terms of a settlement that would allow him to avoid the potentially damaging trial in the House, which is due to start today at 1 p.m. "He feels, I think very strongly, that he has not done anything that was wrong," said a Democratic member of the House in Rangel's camp. The supporter said Rangel was drawing a line in the sand on the matter of his solicitations of big-bucks contributions from corporations for the Charles Rangel Center for Public Affairs at CCNY. Such an admission -- particularly if investigators conclude that Rangel provided a legislative favor to a corporate donor, as has been reported -- could also leave Rangel open to potential criminal prosecution. Rangel, a 40-year lawmaker and Korean War vet who values his reputation, bristles at the idea of admitting something so grave. Rangel is prepared to say -- and the Ethics Committee may be will ing to accept -- that at least some of the other ethical violations of which he's accused were inadvertent oversights. Those might include his failure for years to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in income and assets on his financial-disclosure forms. But the ethics panel, which consists of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, is insisting that Rangel must make some type of admission of intentional wrongdoing following its two-year investigation.  Charles Rangel to Democrats: Drop me if you mustBy JONATHAN ALLEN & JOHN BRESNAHAN, Politico A subdued Charles Rangel started to tell colleagues Wednesday that he expects them to be with him only as long as they can. It’s a favorite phrase of the ethics-embattled New York Democrat that means one politician shouldn’t sink his or her own political fortunes to help another. “I know you love me,” Rangel quipped to one junior Democrat. “But love yourself more.” Not even his colleagues know what Rangel will do Thursday, when the House ethics committee reveals what is expected to be a scathing slate of allegations of wrongdoing to open the congressional version of a trial. Rangel declined to comment on the specifics of his case, but his remarks suggest that he knows more calls for his resignation may be coming. Despite that possibility, he was prepared for a fight, according to some fellow black Democrats. Rep. Rangel digs in for a fight ahead of Thursday ethics trial By Susan Crabtree and Jared Allen, The Hill Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is ready to lay out his case to the public and thinks he can win, barring a last-minute deal in his showdown with the House ethics committee. “[Thursday] is D-Day and he’s digging in for a fight,” a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) said. “He has 40 years invested in this place, and he’s not about to go out this way if he can help it.” Rangel said as much himself this week as his lawyers negotiated with ethics committee aides over a settlement that could allow him and his party to avoid a high-profile public trail. Rangel has called the ethics committee action against him a “public lynching” and insisted he would rather tell his side of the story than admit guilt. After delivering a defiant but upbeat lunchtime speech to the Urban League on Wednesday, Rangel told a throng of reporters trailing his every move that it would be a relief to finally tell his side of the story. “Believe me, as pleasant as it may be tomorrow … there is some sense of relief that at long last I can talk about it,” Rangel said. Rangel is well-aware that the timing of a public trial — which would likely begin right after his Sept. 14 primary — could play to his advantage. The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s three-day Annual Legislative Conference begins Sept. 15 and could draw thousands of longtime Rangel supporters who could swarm Capitol Hill, pack the hearing room and even hold a rally to support him, one CBC member said.  Dems' anger grows as Charles Rangel refuses to go quietly over ethics chargesPelosi wants him to cop a plea By Kenneth R. Bazinet, Richard Sisk and Michael Mcauliff, New York Daily News Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel dragged out negotiations over his pending ethics "trial" to the bitter end yesterday - leaving many Democratic colleagues irate. With a dramatic ethics panel meeting set to air charges against Rangel at 1 p.m. today, he was still trying to find a way last night to admit he did wrong, without saying he did it on purpose, sources said. Rangel's mindset was so far removed from his increasingly worried colleagues' perspective that until recently he even dreamed of recapturing the Ways and Means Committee chairmanship he was forced to give up last spring. "If he were to be cleared, then it might have been possible, even in a lame duck session after the elections, to get it back," a source said, noting that Rangel always said giving up his gavel was temporary. First in his mind is demonstrating that he did not deliberately avoid paying taxes, hide assets or trade legislative favors for donations to City College's planned Rangel Center, the source said. Sources also say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still in Rangel's corner emotionally, but wants him to cop a plea. One New York House Democrat grumbled that Rangel has spent more than $1.5million on legal fees in a protracted battle that might fizzle out with an apology and a reprimand. "A million-and-a-half just to say 'I'm sorry?' C'mon, I would've said I'm sorry two years ago," the member said with a laugh. Campaign and election news: $100,000 will get meetings with Boehner By JONATHAN MARTIN, Politico To the House minority leader, “Speaker” Boehner seems to have a nice ring to it. So much so that months before any midterm votes are cast, John Boehner of Ohio is putting his own face on the GOP’s drive to take back the House by quietly launching a “Boehner for Speaker” committee that aims to boost the party’s lagging fundraising, in part by introducing him as a “regular guy” from Ohio. But while the effort plays up Boehner’s modest roots, the going rate to participate is pricey: According to materials distributed by Boehner’s camp and obtained by POLITICO, lobbyists and other major donors across the country who give the maximum or help raise $100,000 will get meetings with Boehner, calls from senior aides with updates on the campaign and “VIP access to all events, including roundtables, briefings, breakout discussions and interactive panel discussions.” Boehner convened a meeting of top Republican lobbyists at the National Republican Congressional Committee last Thursday to enlist them in the cause and armed them with slick, presidential-level brochures and fundraising materials making the case for putting him in the speaker’s chair. GOP says Arizona ruling will hurt Dems Democrats also criticize the administration’s lawsuit By SCOTT WONG, Politico Republicans decried a federal judge’s decision Wednesday to block key provisions of Arizona’s new immigration law, saying the ruling highlights the Obama administration’s failure to secure the border and will exacerbate Democratic losses in November. Most Democrats hailed the decision, saying Arizona’s SB 1070 was “un-American and unconstitutional” because it would have required police to arrest people based on their appearance and detain them until their immigration status was determined. But Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), who has criticized the administration’s lawsuit, said the ruling marked just the beginning of months of costly courtroom battles in a case that is widely expected to end up at the Supreme Court. “There are no winners here. No matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars, and our borders will still not be secure,” Kirkpatrick said. “The administration needs to stop pursuing this distraction and start working with us to get the border region under control and develop a national immigration strategy.” Kurt Davis, an Arizona GOP political consultant, sounded what is likely to be a Republican theme. “The big hand of the federal government, in this case a Clinton-appointed judge, has once again interfered with a state trying to secure its porous border,” he said. “This ruling will ensure this issue is discussed the entire election cycle and that the negative impact on Democrats, from the president on down, will be significant.” Around the nation: Her support for a sales tax increase had alienated her from her party By ANDY BARR, Politico Three months ago, Arizona GOP Gov. Jan Brewer was in a fight for her political life. Her support for a sales tax increase had alienated her from her party, her approval ratings were in the dumps and she faced a handful of primary opponents looking to deny her nomination to a full term in office. Today, however, Brewer’s star is on the rise. Her primary challengers have dropped out, she leads comfortably in the polls and her endorsement is highly sought after outside Arizona’s borders, where her stature is growing among conservatives. It’s a remarkable reversal of fortune, and it’s one largely due to one thing — her signing of the state’s controversial new immigration law, a measure that she didn’t even publicly embrace until after its April passage. “This is similar to a Sarah Palin-type rise in stature nationally,” said Republican Chuck Gray, the state Senate majority leader. “Prior to the signing of [Senate Bill] 1070, [Brewer] had no more notoriety than any other governor in the country.” Brewer’s national backers aren’t concerned about what point she jumped on the bandwagon. They just know her as the face of Arizona’s illegal immigration resistance. As she prepared to run for a full term in 2010, Brewer’s poll ratings reflected her bruising year. In March, a Rasmussen Reports poll showed the governor trailing Attorney General Terry Goddard, the likely Democratic nominee for governor, by 9 percentage points. Her approval rating was an anemic 37 percent. In the most recent Rasmussen survey, however, Brewer’s rocket ride through the news cycle left her with a muscular 63 percent approval rating and a 19-point advantage over Goddard. |
A shameless charade on disclosure By Debra J. Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle The Senate Democrats' "Disclose" Act represents perhaps the baldest, if failed, power grab attempted this year. But you wouldn't guess it from reading news stories about the bill. So ... it's the Republicans' fault if there are attack ads in November? The leads to these stories have one thing right. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., failed to garner a single Republican supporter and hence failed to reach the 60-vote mark needed to bring it to a floor vote. It died with 57 votes in favor and 41 against. But don't let the first paragraphs fool you. The bill isn't simply a spending disclosure reform. Other special interests fared better. Both the House and Senate bills exempted powerful special-interest groups, including the National Rifle Association and Sierra Club, from their disclosure rules. Perhaps the most naked provision in the bills was language that would have made the Disclose Act federal law within 30 days of President Obama's promised signature. Clearly the Dems were trying to skew the rules before the November elections. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, hit it when she said, "We have not had hearings, no vetting, no attempt, I think, to bring people together to work on an issue that responds to the Supreme Court's decision." The Democrats tried to sneak this so-called reform onto the books like a midnight pay raise. President Obama and the U.S. focus on triviality, not real issues like the Afghanistan war By Michael Daly, New York Daily News The death of the two Marines received little public notice, which is not surprising, for most of us walk around as if there were no war. The leaking of 91,000 secret documents about the conflict in Afghanistan was met with yawns by people who did not even bother to ascertain whether there was anything really new. A ripple of interest did accompany one document that suggested the Taliban had at least once used portable heat-seeking missiles such as we once supplied the Afghans in their successful fight against the Russians. But the military discounted that report, and most folks did not seem to much care anyway. A military draft would be one way to counter such indifference, particularly among the better-off if there were no college deferments. Imagine if those parents had to sweat not whether their kid gets into Harvard but whether he or she ends up in Helmand. You can be sure they would have been asking yesterday why Obama was not focused on the war, why he was instead making another visit to a working-class eatery and then choppering into New York to tape an appearance on "The View" and attend a couple of fund-raisers. |
Sacramento Update
|| Washington
D.C. Update ||
Columnists & Editorials
***
