Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts

Monday, April 16, 2012

Carl Venters Jr. shares insight into Obama's cavalier treatment of Keystone XL pipeline.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / April 16, 2012

Carl V. Venters, Jr.

Carl V. Venters, Jr.Carl Venters was born in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and grew up in Jacksonville, North Carolina.  He graduated from UNC Chapel Hill and served four years as a Marine Corps officer.  After leaving the Marines, Venters went to work at WUNC-TV as program director.  He left that position to buy his first radio station in Pitt County, and from there he managed and owned radio and televisions stations in North and South Carolina.
In addition to serving on the UNC-TV Board of Trustees, he is a member of the board of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication Foundation of North Carolina and chairman of the North Carolina State Emergency Communications Committee.

   
Carl Venters Jr.
   

   

   


FW: Valero Oil Memo to employees

From:
   

carl venters, jr <venterscv@hotmail.com>
vernestrickland@aol.comMon, Apr 16, 2012 2:08 pm

Subject: FW: FW: Valero Oil Memo to employees
From: Carl Venters, Jr., Wilmington, NCFW:       Valero Oil Memo to employee
From:    carl venters, jr <venterscv@hotmail.com>
   
Bcc:      vernestrickland@aol.com
Date:    Mon, Apr 16, 2012 2:08 pm

 Sent: 4/13/2012 4:24:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
 Subj: FW: Valero Oil Memo to employees


        For those of you unfamiliar with Valero, it is an independent oil company based in San Antonio , TX . It owns 2 refineries, but no oil fields - it buys all the oil it refines and processes via contract or on the open market.

        Its origin was as a public utility providing natural gas to the city of San Antonio , but it has grown to be a significant gasoline retailer in a good portion of the southeast and southwest, as well as a purveyor of natural gas.

         It is a significant economic force in Texas , even in light of the other majors (Shell, Exxon Mobil, etc.) based in the state. This memo to employees is a realistic insight into the economic importance of the proposed XL pipeline.

        Date: January 24, 2012

        To: Valero Employees

        From: Bill Klesse

        Subject: Keystone XL Pipeline Statement

As you know, the Obama administration decided last week to deny TransCanada's application to ship crude oil via the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast . Valero has planned to be a shipper and purchaser of that oil since 2008, and obviously we were disappointed in the decision.

We issued a statement in response to questions from the media, and I wanted to share it with you in case you get questions from friends or business partners, and so that you would know why Valero supports the Keystone XL pipeline. This is the statement:

Despite the uncertainty and political fighting over the Keystone XL pipeline, Valero has continued to invest in its U.S. refining operation. In 2011 we spent nearly $3 billion on projects, and for 2012 our capital expenditure budget is over $3 billion. These expenditures are keeping our employees on the job and putting additional people to work.

To reference two of our refineries, at Port Arthur , Texas , we have 1,600 contractors working on an expansion project, and at St. Charles Parish, Louisiana , we have another 1,000 contractors working on a separate project. We need this kind of economic activity to accelerate to help all Americans.

This illustrates why President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline is so absurd. There are pipelines in every neighborhood all across America . The administration's decision was not about pipelines, it was about the misguided beliefs that Canadian oil sands development should be stopped and that fossil fuel prices should increase to make alternative energy more attractive. Instead, we should be impressed with how well the oil sands engineering and recovery technology has advanced, and the economic benefits this development brings. 
Having more oil available in the marketplace has the potential to lower prices for consumers. As an independent refiner, Valero buys all of the oil we process. Due to the administrations misguided policies, refiners like Valero will have to buy more oil from other sources outside the U.S. and Canada . Consumers will bear the additional shipping cost, not to mention the additional greenhouse gas emissions and political risks.

With all the issues facing our country, it is absolutely unbelievable our federal government says no to a company like TransCanada that is willing to spend over $7 billion and put Americans to work on a pipeline. The administrations decision throws dirt into the face of our closest ally and largest trading partner.
The point above is that it is not about pipelines as many pipelines cross the Ogallala Aquifer, in the Great Plains region, and, in fact, there is already significant oil and gas production in the area covered by the aquifer. This is politics at its worst.

        Thank you for your support

VS: We are grateful to our friend Carl Venters Jr. for sharing this with USA DOT COM.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

GOP RAMS PAYROLL TAX CUTS EXTENSION, KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE THROUGH HOUSE



Published December 13, 2011
| Associated Press

Boehner With GOP leaders

December 13, 2011: House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, 
center, accompanied by fellow Republican leaders, meets with 
reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)
 
Defiant Republicans pushed legislation through the House Tuesday night that would keep alive Social Security payroll tax cuts for some 160 million Americans at President Barack Obama's request -- but also would require construction of a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline that has sparked a White House veto threat.
Passage, on a largely party-line vote of 234-193, sent the measure toward its certain demise in the Democratic-controlled Senate, triggering the final partisan showdown of a remarkably quarrelsome year of divided government.
The legislation "extends the payroll tax relief, extends and reforms unemployment insurance and protects Social Security -- without job-killing tax hikes," Republican House Speaker John Boehner declared after the measure had cleared.
Referring to the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline, he added, "Our bill includes sensible, bipartisan measures to help the private sector create jobs."
On a long day of finger pointing, however, House Democrats accused Republicans of protecting "millionaires and billionaires, `' and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., derided the GOP-backed pipeline provision as "ideological candy" for the tea party-set.
After the House vote, the White House urged Congress on in finishing work on extending the tax cuts and jobless aid. Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that didn't mention the pipeline but renewed Obama's insistence that the legislation be paid for, at least in part, by "asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share" in higher tax levies.
Lawmakers "cannot go on vacation before agreeing to prevent a tax hike on 160 million Americans and extending unemployment insurance," he said.
 
Republicans mocked Obama's objections to their version of the bill.
"Mr. President, we can't wait," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, employing a refrain the White House often uses to criticize Republicans for failing to take steps to improve an economy struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades.
Voting in favor of the legislation were 224 Republicans and 10 Democrats, while 179 Democrats and 14 Republicans opposed it.
At its core, the measure did include key parts of the jobs program that Obama asked Congress to approve in September.
The Social Security payroll tax cuts approved a year ago to help stimulate the economy would be extended through 2012, avoiding a loss of take-home income for wage-earners. An expiring program of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless would remain in place, although at reduced levels that the administration said would cut off aid for 3.3 million.
A third major component would avert a threatened 27 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients, a provision Republicans added to appeal to conservatives but one that the White House and Democrats embrace, too.
While the tax and unemployment provisions were less generous than Obama sought, he and Republicans clashed principally over steps to cover the estimated $180 billion cost of the measure, and on the proposed 1,700-mile Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada through environmentally sensitive terrain in Nebraska to the Texas Gulf Coast.
Obama recently delayed a decision on granting a permit for the pipeline until after the 2012 election.
The payroll tax legislation was one of three major bills that Congress was struggling to finish before adjourning for the year, and by far the most contentious.
A measure covering Pentagon spending was ready for passage, and, separately, negotiators said they were close to a deal on a $1 trillion measure to fund most government agencies through the end of the budget year.
That deal was in limbo, though, with Obama and congressional Democrats using it as leverage to keep House Republicans at the table negotiating a final compromise on the tax and unemployment measure.
It was the final showdown of a year that once brought the government to the brink of a shutdown and also pushed the Treasury to the cusp of a first-ever default.
Those confrontations produced last-minute compromises.This time, leaders in both parties stressed a desire to renew the unemployment tax cuts and jobless benefits that are at the core of Obama's jobs program.
Obama and most Democrats favor an income surtax on million-dollar earners to pay for extending the Social Security tax cut, but Republicans oppose that, saying it is a violation of their pledge not to raise taxes.
Republicans drew attention at every turn to the pipeline, which is backed by some lawmakers in the president's party as well as by the blue-collar unions representing plumbers, pipefitters, electricians, carpenters and construction workers.

Estimates of the jobs that would be produced by pipeline construction vary widely but are in the thousands in a time of high national unemployment. The State Department estimated the total at about 6,000; project manager TransCanada put it at 20,000 directly, and Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said in debate on the House floor it was more than 100,000.
Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, said he had an open mind about the pipeline but also said it had no legitimate role in the payroll tax bill. Republicans argued otherwise.
Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the pipeline's construction would allow Canada to send one million barrels of oil a day into the United States, lessening domestic reliance on imports.
He said Canadian development of a pipeline is a certainty, and lawmakers needed to decide whether they wanted it to end up in the United States or "someplace like China."

    Thursday, November 24, 2011

    ABA panel rejects many Obama judge picks as being 'not qualified'.

    Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 24, 2011

    New York Times

    Published Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011

    WASHINGTON – The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Barack Obama's potential judicial nominees "not qualified," slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships – and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of an ethnic minority group, according to interviews. 
    The White House has chosen not to nominate any person the bar association deemed unqualified, so the negative ratings have not been made public. But the association's judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.
    The number of Obama prospects deemed "not qualified" already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than 3 1/2 times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.
    That outcome has added a twist to a long-running friction in the politics of judicial nominations. During recent Republican administrations, conservatives have made political hay of accusing the ABA of bias against conservative potential judges.
    In 2001, Bush stopped sending the group names of prospects before he selected them, so the panel instead rated them after their nomination. In 2009, Obama restored the panel's role in the pre-nomination selection process, which dates to the Eisenhower administration.

    In discussions with bar panel leaders, administration officials have expressed growing frustrations with the ratings over the past year and a half, people familiar with those conversations said. In particular, they are said to have questioned whether the panelists – many of whom are litigators – place too much value on courtroom experience at the expense of lawyers who pursued career paths less likely to involve trials, like government lawyers and law professors.

    In response to questions about the ratings, Obama's White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, said in a statement that the administration "continues to have a strong working relationship with the A.B.A."
    But she also acknowledged disagreements with some of its ratings.

    "Although we may not agree with all of their ratings," Ruemmler said, "we respect and value their historical role in evaluating judicial candidates. The president remains committed to addressing the judicial vacancy crisis with urgency and with qualified candidates who bring a diverse range of experience to the bench."

    The chairman since August of the bar association's vetting committee, Allan J. Joseph, would not confirm any negative ratings but defended the panel's work as fair-minded and independent. Its members, he said, are all volunteers who, as a matter of public service, put in long hours reading candidates' writings and conducting confidential interviews about them with dozens of judges and lawyers.

    "We are not a rubber stamp," he said. "Our role is to provide the only peer review in the whole process, and we think that is valuable – particularly with a lifetime appointment under consideration."

    Obama has made it a policy goal to diversify the bench in terms of race, gender and life experiences, and the judges he has appointed have been more likely to be women or minorities than any previous president.

    Of the 14 people opposed by the panel, a person familiar with the ratings said, nine are women – five of whom are white, two black and two Latino. Of the five men, one is white, two are black and two are Latino.

    Wednesday, November 23, 2011

    WHAT DO THE RUSSIANS FIND SO OFFENSIVE ABOUT AMERICA'S DEFENSE?

    What do our friends, the Russians, to whom we have entrusted our missions to the stars, find so offensive about defense? Maybe they think we don't trust them? Could be they're right. 
    As for me, the only Russians I ever really trusted were Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Oh, you say that's only one? Well, I need a little more time. I'll get back to you on that.
    VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV   11/23/11 12:12 PM ET   AP Associated Press
    The tough statement reflected a growing strain in U.S.-Russian ties, despite President Barack Obama's campaign to "reset" American relations with the Kremlin, which were strained by years of tensions over U.S. foreign policy and the 2008 Russian-Georgian war.

    Medvedev said he still hopes for a deal on the U.S. missile shield, but he strongly accused the U.S. and its NATO allies of ignoring Russia's worries.

    The U.S. has repeatedly assured Russia that its proposed missile defense system wouldn't be directed against Russia's nuclear forces, but Moscow has demanded legally binding assurances, and Medvedev did that again on Wednesday.

    He warned that Russia will station missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad region and other areas, if the U.S. continues its plans without giving Russia firm legal guarantees that the shield isn't directed at its nuclear forces.

    The U.S. missile defense dispute has long tarnished ties between Moscow and Washington. The Obama administration says the shield is needed to fend off a potential threat from Iran, but Russia fears that it could erode the deterrent potential of its nuclear forces.

    "If our partners tackle the issue of taking our legitimate security interests into account in an honest and responsible way, I'm sure we will be able to come to an agreement," Medvedev said. "But if they offer us to `cooperate,' or, to say it honestly, work against our own interests, we won't be able to reach common ground."

    Moscow has agreed to consider a proposal NATO made last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should be operated. Russia has insisted that it should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.

    Medvedev also warned that Moscow may opt out of the New START arms control deal with the United States and halt other arms control talks, if the U.S. proceeds with the missile shield without meeting to Russia's demand.

    The Americans had hoped that the START treaty would stimulate progress in further ambitious arms control efforts, but such talks have stalled over tension on the missile plan.

    While the New START doesn't prevent the U.S. from building new missile defense systems, Russia has said it could withdraw from the treaty, if it feels threatened by such a system in future.

    Medvedev reaffirmed that warning Wednesday, saying that Russia may opt out of the treaty because of an "inalienable link strategic offensive and defensive weapons."

    The New START has been a key achievement of Obama's policy of improving U.S. relations with Moscow, which had suffered badly under George W. Bush administration.

    The U.S. plan calls for placing land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in European locations, including Romania and Poland, over the next decade and upgrading them over time.

    Medvedev said that Russia will carefully watch the development of the U.S. shield and take countermeasures, if Washington ignores Russia's concerns. He warned that Moscow would deploy short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, a Baltic Sea region bordering Poland, and place weapons in other areas in Russia's west and south to target U.S. missile defense sites.

    Medvedev added that such Russian strategic nuclear missiles also would be fitted with systems that would allow them to penetrate prospective missile defenses.

    He and other Russian leaders have made similar threats in the past, and the latest statement appears to be aimed at domestic audience ahead of Dec. 4 parliamentary elections.

    Medvedev, who is set to step down to allow Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to reclaim the presidency in March's elections, leads the ruling United Russia party list in the parliamentary vote. A stern warning to the U.S. and NATO issued by Medvedev seems to be directed at rallying nationalist votes in the polls.

    Regarding Russia's demands, Medvedev said: "When we propose to put in on paper in the form of precise and clear legal obligations, we hear a strong refusal. We won't agree to take part in a program, which in a comparatively short period – five, six or may be eight years – would be capable of weakening our deterrence potential."

    Medvedev's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said at a news conference that the Kremlin won't follow the example of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and take unwritten promises from the West.

    "The current political leadership can't act like Gorbachev, and it wants written obligations secured by ratification documents," Rogozin said.

    Medvedev's statement was intended to encourage the U.S. and NATO to take Russia seriously at the missile defense talks, Rogozin said.

    "We won't allow them to treat us like fools," he said. "Nuclear deterrent forces aren't a joke."
    _____

    Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report.

    http://news.yahoo.com/medvedev-russia-may-target-missile-defense-sites-123047622.html









































     


    VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV   11/23/11 12:12 PM ET   AP
    MOSCOW — If Washington continues to ignore Russia's demands about a proposed U.S. missile shield in Europe, Russia will deploy new missiles aimed at it and put arms control on hold, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday.
    The tough statement reflected a growing strain in U.S.-Russian ties, despite President Barack Obama's campaign to "reset" American relations with the Kremlin, which were strained by years of tensions over U.S. foreign policy and the 2008 Russian-Georgian war.
    Medvedev said he still hopes for a deal on the U.S. missile shield, but he strongly accused the U.S. and its NATO allies of ignoring Russia's worries.
    The U.S. has repeatedly assured Russia that its proposed missile defense system wouldn't be directed against Russia's nuclear forces, but Moscow has demanded legally binding assurances, and Medvedev did that again on Wednesday.
    He warned that Russia will station missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad region and other areas, if the U.S. continues its plans without giving Russia firm legal guarantees that the shield isn't directed at its nuclear forces.
    The U.S. missile defense dispute has long tarnished ties between Moscow and Washington. The Obama administration says the shield is needed to fend off a potential threat from Iran, but Russia fears that it could erode the deterrent potential of its nuclear forces.
    "If our partners tackle the issue of taking our legitimate security interests into account in an honest and responsible way, I'm sure we will be able to come to an agreement," Medvedev said. "But if they offer us to `cooperate,' or, to say it honestly, work against our own interests, we won't be able to reach common ground."
    Moscow has agreed to consider a proposal NATO made last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should be operated. Russia has insisted that it should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.
    Medvedev also warned that Moscow may opt out of the New START arms control deal with the United States and halt other arms control talks, if the U.S. proceeds with the missile shield without meeting to Russia's demand. The Americans had hoped that the START treaty would stimulate progress in further ambitious arms control efforts, but such talks have stalled over tension on the missile plan.
    While the New START doesn't prevent the U.S. from building new missile defense systems, Russia has said it could withdraw from the treaty, if it feels threatened by such a system in future.
    Medvedev reaffirmed that warning Wednesday, saying that Russia may opt out of the treaty because of an "inalienable link strategic offensive and defensive weapons."
    The New START has been a key achievement of Obama's policy of improving U.S. relations with Moscow, which had suffered badly under George W. Bush administration.
    The U.S. plan calls for placing land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in European locations, including Romania and Poland, over the next decade and upgrading them over time.
    Medvedev said that Russia will carefully watch the development of the U.S. shield and take countermeasures, if Washington ignores Russia's concerns. He warned that Moscow would deploy short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, a Baltic Sea region bordering Poland, and place weapons in other areas in Russia's west and south to target U.S. missile defense sites.
    Medvedev added that such Russian strategic nuclear missiles also would be fitted with systems that would allow them to penetrate prospective missile defenses.
    He and other Russian leaders have made similar threats in the past, and the latest statement appears to be aimed at domestic audience ahead of Dec. 4 parliamentary elections.
    Medvedev, who is set to step down to allow Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to reclaim the presidency in March's elections, leads the ruling United Russia party list in the parliamentary vote. A stern warning to the U.S. and NATO issued by Medvedev seems to be directed at rallying nationalist votes in the polls.
    Regarding Russia's demands, Medvedev said: "When we propose to put in on paper in the form of precise and clear legal obligations, we hear a strong refusal. We won't agree to take part in a program, which in a comparatively short period – five, six or may be eight years – would be capable of weakening our deterrence potential."
    Medvedev's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said at a news conference that the Kremlin won't follow the example of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and take unwritten promises from the West.
    "The current political leadership can't act like Gorbachev, and it wants written obligations secured by ratification documents," Rogozin said.
    Medvedev's statement was intended to encourage the U.S. and NATO to take Russia seriously at the missile defense talks, Rogozin said.
    "We won't allow them to treat us like fools," he said. "Nuclear deterrent forces aren't a joke."
    _____
    Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report.
    (This version CORRECTS New approach. Corrects spelling of "Dmitry" in the first paragraph.)
    Below, see photos of President Medvedev fishing with Vladimir Putin:

    Wednesday, October 26, 2011

    Liberty Counsel: Anti-Christian bigotry is on the rise!

    Verne Strickland Blogmaster, October 26, 2011


    Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman
    Liberty Counsel alert@libertyaction.org 

    Wed, Oct 26, 2011 7:12 pm






          Pro-homosexual vandals recently attacked an Illinois 
          Christian academy at which the pro-family group Americans 
          for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) was preparing to 
          hold a banquet to honor an evangelical Christian leader. 
    
          The pro-homosexual movement is not only getting more 
          aggressive in their physical actions, but also in 
          pushing ultraliberal legislation, bullying in the 
          judicial system, and infiltrating the nation's public 
          school systems. Please read my urgent update below - Mat.
    
    
    On October 15th, radical pro-homosexual activists threw 
    concrete bricks through the door and windows of the Christian 
    Liberty Academy in suburban Chicago because it was hosting a 
    fundraising banquet for Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.
    
          The bricks were accompanied by a note that threatened, 
          "This is just a sample of what we will do if you don't 
          shut down (pro-family advocate) Scott Lively and AFTAH." 
    
    Matt Barber, Vice President of our affiliate group, Liberty 
    Counsel Action, strongly denounced this criminal act in an 
    interview shortly after the news broke: 
    
          "This really amounts to an act of terrorism in that they  
          threatened more violence if Dr. Lively and his speech went  
          forward and if the Christian Liberty Academy did not  
          disassociate from Americans for Truth About Homosexuality."
    
    As I've said many times, it's the radicals who demand tolerance 
    who are the most intolerant of opposing viewpoints! They actually 
    called AFTAH a "hate" organization after throwing concrete bricks 
    inscribed with the message "Shut Down Lively" through the 
    Christian academy's windows! 
    
          I reiterate a comment Matt Barber made in his interview: 
    
          "We are going to speak God's truth in love without fear 
          of reprisal, or even in this case, without fear of violence. 
          So I have a message to the gay terrorists that perpetrated 
          this crime: Your terrorist tactics have failed, and you will 
          not succeed in silencing God's truth."  
    
    ++We will not be silenced!  
    
    Promoting the homosexual agenda while attempting to redefine 
    marriage and family by pro-homosexual activists is perhaps the 
    greatest "culture war" of our generation.  
    
    One recent example of the growing intensity of this battle is 
    seen in the refusal of certain liberal office holders to properly 
    enforce pro-marriage laws that have been passed by Congress.  
    
    The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as being 
    between one man and one woman for federal purposes. It also 
    declares that no state is required to recognize a same-sex 
    relationship that has been declared a "marriage" in another 
    state. 
    
          Yet, President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, 
          have acted as both judge and jury in declaring the DOMA 
          law to be "unconstitutional" and "indefensible." 
    
    I am calling on my Liberty Counsel team to rise up against this 
    anti-family activism!  DOMA is a law passed by the people's 
    representatives in the United States Congress, and it is the 
    duty of the Executive Branch to enforce the law!
    
    Further, we must STOP any momentum and traction pro-homosexual 
    groups hope to achieve by their attacks going unchallenged! 
     
          I urge you to take a moment and sign our Statement of 
          Support upholding the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 
     
    We insist that President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder 
    and the Department of Justice, congressional leaders, and 
    military leaders actively comply with and defend the Defense 
    of Marriage Act!  
    
    Click here to sign Statement of Support upholding DOMA:  
    
    <a href="http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=53614&RID=23068403"> 
    http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=53614&RID=23068403 </a> 
     
    
    <a href="http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=53614&RID=23068403"> 
    http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=53614&RID=23068403 </a>
    
    ++Liberty Counsel is aggressively fighting back!
    
    Recently, I also told you about a case involving two homosexual 
    males living in New York who were demanding that their adopted 
    child's birth certificate be "certified" that he was born to two 
    "fathers" in Louisiana. Apparently, the homosexual couple thought 
    it important to get the birth certificate changed to affirm facts 
    which are biologically impossible! They were handed a well-deserved
    defeat in federal court.  
    
          The details of this case illustrate the Pandora's Box of 
          disastrous consequences that emerge when we give legal 
          recognition to unnatural relationships. 
    
    The "two daddies on the birth certificate" case is one of many 
    that Liberty Counsel has been involved in over the years defending 
    the bedrock institutions of marriage and family - and the ripple 
    effects into adoption law. 
    
    But perhaps even more damaging than the foothold radicals are 
    gaining in the body of American law is the horrific deception 
    and disinformation they are spreading!  
    
          Their advance is being paved with outright lies about the 
          practice of homosexuality, misleading "facts" about their 
          movement, and fraudulent use of taxpayer funds obtained by 
          cynically presenting their cause as a "civil rights" movement!
    
    We must continue fighting and winning in both the courtroom and the
     court of public opinion, even given the flood 
    of new attacks!  
    
          You can obtain invaluable help in fighting this battle  
          from the pages of Only One Mommy - it is simply one of  
          the best books yet written about the homosexual movement's 
          horrific social impact, written by one of marriage's best  
          friends and most courageous defenders.  
    
    
    <a href="http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=53614&RID=23068403"> 
    http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=53614&RID=23068403 </a>
    
    This is perhaps the most significant "culture war" of our generation.  
    Thank you for standing with me in this battle! 
    
    May God bless you!
    
    Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
    Liberty Counsel
    
    P.S. We actively advance the position that marriage is a God-
    established union between a man and a woman. With your support, 
    Liberty Counsel will continue defending DOMA and the sanctity of
     marriage in courtrooms across America and in federal and state 
    legislatures as well. 
    
    Please go here to sign the Statement of Support: 
    
    <a href="http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=53614&RID=23068403"> 
    http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=53614&RID=23068403 </a>
    
    Thank you and God bless you!
    
    +   +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +  +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +  
    Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message.
    This e-mail address is not designed to receive your personal
    messages. To contact Liberty Counsel with comments, questions
    or to  change your status, see the link at the end of this e-mail.)
    +   +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +  +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +  
     
    + + Comments? Questions?
    
    <a href="http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=53613&CID=339&RID=23068403"> 
    http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=53613&CID=339&RID=23068403 </a>
    
    Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and 
    Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit litigation, education and
    policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom,
    the sanctity of human life and family. 
     
    Liberty Counsel . PO Box 540774 . Orlando, FL 32854 .800-671-1776
    
    
    
    
    

    Friday, October 7, 2011

    Democrats plan to inflict political pain on GOP for blocking Obama's jobs bill!

     Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 8, 2011

    Obama Stern
    First Posted: 10/7/11 05:08 PM ET Updated: 10/7/11 05:08 PM ET
    WASHINGTON / HuffPost -- If the White House is to win the debate over President Barack Obama's jobs bill, its victory won't be measured in congressional vote tallies, but rather in terms of the political discomfort inflicted on the opposition.

    No one expects the American Jobs Act to pass the Senate when it comes up for a vote next week. Even if the bill miraculously receives the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has said he won't bring it to the floor of the House of Representatives.

    And so, the White House and Democratic-allied groups have begun setting their sights on the next phase of the fight over jobs: what happens once the bill fails.

    "I'll tell you, if the Republicans take the current position and hold it, that they'll do nothing, I think they'll pay a price for it," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Bloomberg News Friday.

    Democrats have been dropping similar hints for days now, with even the president tipping his hand. In a press conference on Thursday, Obama conspicuously noted, "in Maine, there is a bridge that is in such bad shape that pieces of it were literally falling off the other day." Maine doesn't frequently make its way into the president's talking points, but with two of the Senate's most moderate Republicans hailing from there, it takes on additional import.

    Outside Democratic groups tell The Huffington Post that the administration plans to deploy a two-pronged strategy in the days ahead. The first and most immediate task is to ensure that as few Senate Democrats as possible defect when the jobs act comes to a vote.

    Already, union groups have been petitioning Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who generally votes with Democrats, to back the bill. Senate leadership, meanwhile, put aside a pay-for provision that would have closed tax breaks for oil and gas companies in order to win the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

    And Obama's reelection campaign launched the "Tweet for Jobs" movement this week, with the president, Democratic members of Congress, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and others urging voters to contact their members of Congress and push them to support the American Jobs Act.

    The more critical task, however, will comes once the vote has concluded. If lawmakers who oppose the president's jobs bill in its current form pay no political price for doing so, then there will be little incentive for them to lend their support when the bill is stripped down into individual parts.
    A DNC official said the committee will continue to run a series of television and radio advertisements in swing states and districts.

    "Democrats are going to take the jobs act directly to the American people so they can ask the Republicans in Congress and the Republican candidates for president why they refuse to support a plan that provides real economic growth right now," said DNC National Press Secretary Melanie Roussell. "Instead of playing politics with economic plans that economists say won’t make a dent in the problem, we want the American people to tell the Republicans to pass this bill."

    A spokesperson for the Obama-allied Americans United for Change said the group and others were planning in-state demonstrations not just in targeted Senate races "but across the country," focusing on schools and bridges that could use government assistance. A spokesman for the AFL-CIO, meanwhile, noted that the labor federation will continue an action campaign, America Wants to Work, that incorporates the jobs bill.

    As for the message Democrats will push, that depends on the Senate vote. But over recent weeks it's become clear that party leadership is done dealing with subtleties. During a Christian Science Monitor-hosted breakfast several weeks ago, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who chairs the Democratic Governors Association, plainly accused GOP leadership of trying to submarine Obama's jobs bill so that they could maintain control of the House and retake control of the Senate and the White House in the 2012 election.

    “They accomplish that one way and one way only. And that is to stop the jobs recovery, to put a halt to the jobs recovery and if possible to reverse the jobs recovery," he said.

    In an interview with The Huffington Post shortly thereafter, DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said she agreed with O'Malley.

    "I couldn't not agree with him more," she said. "I think that the Republicans are willing to leave the economy in bad shape for 14 months, do nothing to try and improve it, not work with the president so as not to give him a win, because they only care about one job -- President Obama's."

    Sunday, September 25, 2011

    Obama stumps hard for Jewish vote, says U.S. will veto any move in UN for Palestinian statehood.

    Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 25, 2011

    Published September 21, 2011 | FoxNews.com
    AP Photo
     

    In a meeting Wednesday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, President Obama said that the United States would veto any U.N. Security Council move to recognize Palestinian statehood.

    "We would oppose any action at the U.N. Security Council including, if necessary, vetoing," White House National Security Council Spokesman Ben Rhodes told Reuters.

    The president met after his address with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, followed by a meeting hours later with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The two foreign leaders, who have not agreed to meet with each other, are on a collision course at the United Nations, requiring U.S. officials to intervene in a bid to ratchet down the dispute. 

    President Obama said Wednesday there is no "shortcut" to Middle East peace, as he urged the Palestinians to abandon their push for a statehood vote before the United Nations. 

    Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly, the president restated his belief that the Palestinians deserve their own state but said a vote at the United Nations is not the way to achieve it. 

    "Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now," said Obama, who at the same forum a year ago called for an independent Palestine. He said the decades-old impasse will be resolved only by "negotiated settlement," something he said could not happen until "each side learns to stand in each other's shoes."

    Obama, while stating the vision of Palestinian statehood has been delayed for "too long," used his address to assure Israel that his administration empathizes with its concerns and will stand by the Jewish state. 

    "Let us be honest with ourselves. Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it," Obama said. While Palestinians must know the territorial basis for their state, he said, the Israelis have be assured of their security. 

    "Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them," Obama said. The speech was just one element of the administration's pressure campaign, in public and behind the scenes, to head off the vote on Palestinian statehood.  

    Abbas has threatened to bring his statehood push before the U.N. Security Council. The U.S. plans to veto the measure but would rather not get to that point, as the veto could further hurt U.S. standing in the Middle East. Still, Abbas could take the proposal straight to the General Assembly, where the Palestinians are seen as having the support to win what amounts to a symbolic recognition of statehood and slightly elevated status within the United Nations. 

    The White House, and the Israelis, maintain that the Palestinians cannot achieve statehood in any practical sense through a U.N. vote in New York. They say statehood can only be achieved through direct negotiations. 

    But Obama's efforts to once again revive those negotiations have fizzled over the past year.

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011

    Obama's Jobs Act tour to NC more about politics than policy -- Congresswoman Renee Ellmers

     Verne Strickland Blogmaster / 

    'Time to Pass Real Jobs Legislation' by Congresswoman Renee Ellmers

    Today the President brought his American Jobs Act tour to North Carolina. Unfortunately the President’s long-awaited plan (and promotional tour) are more about politics than policy.  Not only is the President late with his jobs proposal, but he is pursuing an approach that will do nothing to create an environment for job creation.  The President’s plan is a repackaged version of the failed “stimulus” strategy that has resulted in sustained unemployment of over 9 percent.  To make matters worse, he wants to pay for this $447 billion spending bill with tax increases, many of which will likely result in higher energy costs to American consumers.

    The people of North Carolina understand that the government inserting itself into the free market is never going to be the answer to this jobs crisis.  Instead we need to remove excessive government regulation that is hampering job growth.

    According to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually—enough money for businesses to provide 17.5 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $100,000. House Republicans have worked since January to reduce the regulatory burdens that have kept businesses from hiring, but Harry Reid is standing in the way of prosperity and job creation in this country because he refuses to take up the jobs legislation the House has passed.

    New reports out this week brought more bad news on the jobs front, highlighting just how critical the situation is.  The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) optimism index showed confidence in the future of the economy down to 88.1 – the weakest number since July 2010 and the sixth month of decline in a row from 89.9 in July. The number of small-business owners saying they expected the economy will improve six months from now fell to the lowest level since 1980.
    A report released this week from the Census Bureau shows the national poverty rate hit 15.1 percent in 2010 – the highest level since 1993 – with 46.2 million Americans living in poverty. This is the largest number of people living in poverty since the census began tracking poverty figures in 1959.  With this many people in such dire circumstances, there is no time to waste on failed policies and political stunts.

    When the President spoke in Raleigh today he said it was time to “finally get Washington to act.”  He said Americans “need action now.” What he did not say is that House Republicans have been in action, working on the issue of jobs since taking office in January. 

    House Republicans have a plan for job creation that focuses on creating jobs in the private sector. House Republicans have passed at least a dozen jobs bills since January.  Eleven of those bills have been and still are waiting for Senate action.  (Track the progress of this legislation at http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/).

    The President said it is time to act now.  Actually it is past time to act.  But this is not the time to engage in class warfare pitting Americans against each other and it is definitely not the time to pass another round of so-called “stimulus” spending that has already failed so miserably.




    Follow this link to read more blog posts.


    Thursday, August 18, 2011

    When Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted "You lie!" at President Obama -- Joe wasn't lying!

    Verne Strickland Blogmaster / August 17, 2011





    By Justin Sink - 08/17/11 03:19 PM ET

    Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) on Wednesday said his infamous cry of “You lie!” at President Obama has been vindicated.

    Wilson said an Obama administration decision on healthcare centers proves the president wasn’t telling the truth during a 2009 address to a joint session of Congress.


    In that address, the president pledged that the healthcare reform law would not cover illegal immigrants, prompting Wilson to shout, “You lie!”

    Wilson said Wednesday that a recent award of $28.8 million to 67 community healthcare centers around the country would inevitably end up benefiting illegal immigrants, contrary to Obama’s pledge.

    Of that $28.8 million, $8.5 million is earmarked to target migrant and seasonal farm workers — a group that Wilson claims is comprised of illegal immigrants.


    "It is clearly providing money -- that should be going to American citizens -- to illegal immigrants," Wilson said on Fox News's "America Live." "It's even worse than I thought, they won't even ask for status."

    The clinics will provide discounted health services to all residents of their target areas, and are aimed at providing services to those who cannot afford other primary care.

    The Department of Health and Human Services said the healthcare centers are operating as they always have.

    “The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status, rather, it simply states that health centers are required to provide primary health care to all residents of the health center’s service area without regard for ability to pay," Health Resources and Services Administration spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. "Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center.”

    Nor will the more substantive aspects of the law — including the “affordability credits” designed to allow the purchase of healthcare plans by those who cannot afford them — be open to illegal immigrants, according to HHS.

    Still, Wilson believes that healthcare dollars will inevitably help people who are in the country illegally.

    “This is just more doublespeak from Washington," he asserted.

    Wednesday, August 17, 2011

    Black Caucus: Tired of making excuses for Obama. (Ahem -- Would you please repeat that?)


    August 17, 2011 1:39pm 
    By Byron York


    Follow on Twitter:


    During a sometimes-raucous session of what's being called the "For the People" Jobs Initiative tour, a key member of the Congressional Black Caucus told an audience in Detroit Tuesday that the CBC doesn't put pressure on President Obama because he is loved by black voters.

    But at the same time, Rep. Maxine Waters said, members of the CBC are becoming increasingly tired and frustrated by Obama's performance on the issue of jobs. Even as she expressed support for the president, Waters virtually invited the crowd to "unleash us" to pressure Obama for action.

    "We don't put pressure on the president," Waters told the audience at Wayne County Community College.  "Let me tell you why. We don't put pressure on the president because ya'll love the president. You love the president. You're very proud to have a black man -- first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you're going after us."

    The problem, Waters said, is that Obama is not paying enough attention to the problems of some black Americans.  The unemployment rate for African-Americans nationally is a little over 16 percent, and almost twice that in Detroit.  And yet, Waters said, the president is on a jobs-promotion trip through the Midwest that does not include any stops in black communities.

    "The Congressional Black Caucus loves the president too," Waters said.  "We're supportive of the president, but we're getting tired, ya'll.  We're getting tired. And so, what we want to do is, we want to give the president every opportunity to show what he can do and what he's prepared to lead on. We want to give him every opportunity, but our people are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don't know what the strategy is. We don't know why on this trip that he's in the United States now, he's not in any black community.  We don't know that."

    As she discussed her dilemma -- frustrated with the president but hesitant to criticize him lest black supporters turn on her -- Waters asked the crowd for its permission to have a "conversation" with the president.

    "When you tell us it's alright and you unleash us and you tell us you're ready for us to have this conversation, we're ready to have the conversation," she said.  Some members of the crowd immediately voiced their approval.

    "All I'm saying to you is, we're politicians," Waters continued.  "We're elected officials.  We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we'll let go."

    "Let go!" some in the audience yelled.

    Wednesday, August 10, 2011

    Exasperated House liberals back Pelosi, point finger at President Obama

    Verne Strickland Blogmaster / August 10, 2011  

    YOU CAN'T TELL THE PLAYERS WITHOUT A PROGRAM -- AND AS USUAL, YOU CAN'T TELL THE PLAYERS ANYTHING!

    By Mike Lillis / 08/09/11 08:15 PM ET / THE HILL
     
    Frustrated liberals are standing behind House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), even though she has not attempted to torpedo bills that they strongly opposed.

    Dozens of House Republicans have defected this year on high-profile bills on funding the government and raising the debt limit, ostensibly giving Pelosi and her liberal-leaning caucus leverage.


    But that perceived sway has proven largely meaningless, as Pelosi’s allegiance to the administration has left her in the awkward position of tacitly endorsing policies she dislikes.

    In short, as long as President Obama and GOP leaders are forging bipartisan deals, the leverage of House Democrats will go only as far as their willingness to buck their own president — something they’ve so far been disinclined to do.

    Indeed, amid the year’s most contentious and partisan budget battles, House Democratic leaders have prioritized the appearance of party unity over the policy concerns of their caucus.

    Liberal Democrats, for instance, objected to the nearly $40 billion in spending cuts included in the 2011 continuing resolution (CR) enacted in April. More recently, they howled in opposition to the debt-limit package bursting with domestic spending cuts but entirely absent any tax-revenue increases.

    Although Pelosi voted against the CR, she did so quietly, without announcing her intentions beforehand or whipping fellow Democrats to join her in opposition. She even suggested she would vote yes if her support were needed to pass the bill.
    Pelosi supported the debt-limit bill while conceding it was a raw deal for Democrats. Although most observers predicted House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would need Democratic votes to pass the proposal, Pelosi afterward said she thought the Republicans could secure the votes on their own.

    “I’m unhappy about the fact that this was developed with a premise that the Republicans would have the 218 [votes needed to pass the debt-ceiling bill],” she told reporters last week, according to Talking Points Memo. “Since they didn’t, we should’ve had more influence.”

    Half of the House Democratic Caucus rejected the final deal, while 73 percent of House Republicans voted for it.

    The bipartisan deals on the CR and the debt have complicated Pelosi’s effort to win back the House because it is difficult to criticize Republicans for backing deals that Obama signed into law. Moreover, the presidential race will be center stage next year, and House Democrats have grumbled that Obama’s actions in 2011 clearly illustrate that winning back the House is not among his top priorities.

    A growing number of liberal Democrats and policy groups say the White House has left Pelosi little choice through the budget debates. They’re blaming Obama’s deal-making style for undermining most of the leverage held by Pelosi and other House Democrats.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/176191-exasperated-house-liberals-back-pelosi-point-finger-at-president

    Friday, July 29, 2011

    Senate slaps down House bill -- clock ticks on compromise. Yikes!

    Verne Strickland Blogmaster / July 29, 2011

    ABC News -- House Republicans Friday evening narrowly passed a proposal to raise the debt ceiling by $900 billion, cut spending by about that much and require another debt ceiling vote in about six months -- only to have Democrats in the Senate scuttle it.

    As expected, the Senate voted down -- tabled -- the House Republican bill written by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. The vote was 59-41.

    Passage of Boehner’s bill could, however, strengthen the Republicans’ position, showing their unity as they enter negotiations with the Senate on what kind of compromise can ultimately pass both chambers of Congress and raise the debt ceiling before Aug. 2, when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said the government will start to default on its debt.

    That drama will play out over the weekend and into next week as senators begin consideration of their own bill backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., which would raise the debt ceiling through the coming general election and into 2013. The specifics of what language senators will consider are not yet set.

    Democrats have noted their lack of input on the Boehner plan and say Republicans have refused to negotiate with them in recent days on a deficit reduction deal.

    Republicans have pointed out that the Boehner plan and the earlier Cut, Cap and Balance Act are the only deficit reduction plans to pass a congressional vote in recent days.

    A spokesman for Speaker Boehner reacted to the Senate's vote in a written statement.

    “For the second time, the House has passed a reasonable, common-sense plan to raise the debt limit and cut spending," Boehner press secretary Michael Steel said, "and, for the second time, Sen. Reid has tabled it.  The responsibility to end this crisis is now entirely in the hands of Sen. Reid and President Obama.”

    So it appeared the game of "Debt Default Chicken" continued.  The House, following the Senate, is preparing a statement vote of its own. Each side's vote is intended to prove to the other that their debt-ceiling bills can’t pass.

    Here’s the plan:

    With the 59-41 vote against the Boehner bill behind the Senate, Reid is expected to move to begin debate in the Senate on his own bill to raise the nation's debt ceiling and reduce the deficit. But . . .

    At 1 p.m. Saturday, the House of Representatives will have a vote on that Reid debt ceiling bill.  The Republican-controlled House almost certainly will vote it down. Of course, none of this means much.  The real question is when the two sides will negotiate a compromise that can actually pass.

    Those negotiations have quietly begun, but it's hard for many observers to see how they can have a deal passed and signed by Aug. 2 if they have not agreed to a compromise deal by midnight Saturday.

    If they do have a deal by then, they could have a final Senate vote by Monday morning, setting up House vote late Monday, averting the economic catastrophe they have all been predicting would result from inaction.

    But the temperature on Capitol Hill doesn't appear conducive to compromise.

    As the Senate voted to table the Boehner bill, a testy exchange played out on the Senate floor as the senators battled over procedure, highlighting the divide that still remains between Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

    Knowing that Reid at this time does not have the votes to pass his own proposal, McConnell took to the floor and offered to vote on cloture immediately on the Reid measure.

    McConnell noted the irony of the House likely voting on the Reid plan before the Senate.

    “We would be happy to have that vote tonight, and I would also mention to my friend, the House of Representatives intends to vote on the Reid amendment tomorrow afternoon at 1 p.m.,” McConnell said.

    “We would be more than happy to accommodate the majority and have a vote on the Reid budget tonight. The markets are waiting for us to act."


    It appeared to be a move to embarrass Reid, who apparently couldn’t hold a vote on cloture -- and win at the 60 vote threshold -- on his bill tonight.

    Reid shot back, referencing days of delays in the House vote on Boehner's plan: “Let’s hope they’re more timely in their 1 o'clock vote tomorrow than they have been in the last few days.”

    Reid said they would be happy to have a “simple majority vote,” on the proposal. A simple majority vote only needs 50 votes to pass. But McConnell obviously objected to a simple majority. He wanted it voted approved by 60 votes.

    “This is almost an out-of-body experience to have someone suggest that we have a 50-vote threshold on a matter of this magnitude here in the United State Senate,” McConnell said. “I’m genuinely perplexed,
    genuinely perplexed that my friend the majority leader doesn’t want to vote on his proposal.”

    A frustrated Reid exclaimed, “We’ve been negotiating with ourselves,” and then left the podium.
    Earlier this evening, after a night and day of uncertainty, cajoling and tweaking, the Boehner bill passed the House by a 218-210 vote.

    Like their Senate colleagues, however, Democrats in the House held the line. Not a single one supported Boehner’s proposal. Twenty-two Republicans also opposed their party leadership’s self-described imperfect legislation.

    Boehner delivered a fiery speech before the vote began, accusing the White House and President Obama of not offering their own proposal in months of negotiations.

    “I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the president of the United States,” Boehner said, pointing out that until last week he was ready to accept some increased tax revenues to achieve a larger deficit reduction bargain.

    “Put something on the table,” he yelled. “Tell this country where you are.”

    Until last week, Boehner and President Obama were engaged in closed-door negotiations on a “grand bargain” to raise the debt ceiling while also trying to fix the problem of the debt by enacting sweeping reforms to Medicare and Social Security and overhauling the tax code. But Boehner abandoned those negotiations a week ago when he said Democrats demanded too many tax revenues to offset spending cuts.

    The plan that passed Friday, also known as the Budget Control Act of 2011, was revised to ensure that a balanced budget amendment is passed by both Houses of Congress before a second tranche of debt limit increase authority is granted to the president in about six months.

    The measure would find $917 billion in savings over 10 years, while the debt limit would be increased by $900 billion. The second stage of the plan would create a select joint committee on deficit reduction before the debt limit is increased again.

    As Boehner left a meeting with Republicans Friday morning, he announced, "we have a deal," and noted that he was smiling.

    He was not smiling Thursday night, when Republicans failed to even vote on an earlier version of the bill that lacked that balanced budget amendment provision. Boehner could only afford to lose support from 24 of his Republican colleagues, but when it became clear he didn’t have the votes Thursday evening after 5 p.m., the planned vote on the bill was delayed.

    Including the balanced budget requirement effectively bought more votes Friday, particularly among freshman Tea Party members who came to Congress in 2010 promising to change Washington and rein in spending. To them, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is key.

    Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La., was previously a ‘no’ and announced on Friday he was a solid ‘yea.’

    “Votes on the debt ceiling should be a thing of the past. This mess is not about the debt ceiling; it’s about Washington’s addiction to spending,” Landry said in a statement shortly after the meeting. “My fellow freshmen and I are committed to finding a long-term solution to our nation’s debt. A balanced budget amendment will prevent an immediate downgrade of our credit rating and ensure that we’re not right back at this point next year.”

    That sentiment was echoed by other rank-and-file Republicans who have decided to drop their opposition to the plan now that there is a mechanism for long-term reform in the legislation.

    Senate Democrats now will start the arduous process of bringing up their own bill for consideration. At the end of a days-long process, Reid’s will have to find support from a handful of Republicans to pass his proposal through the Senate.

    Republicans have said that many of the cost savings in Reid’s proposal are “phony” -- he counts, for instance, $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even though those wars are already winding down. He would raise the debt ceiling for much longer, too. Both proposals create a new Congressional committee on deficit reduction.

    It is now up to Congressional leaders to find that deal that can pass both houses of Congress.

    ABC News’ Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl), John R. Parkinson (@jrpabcdc), Sunlen Miller, Michael S. James and Z. Byron Wolf (@zbyronwolf) contributed to this report.

    Tuesday, July 26, 2011

    New polls confirm Barack Obama's Democratic base is crumbling.

    Verne Strickland Blogmaster / July 27, 2011 

    Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm      

    Los Angeles Times

    the White House during obama's debt remarks 7-25-11

    With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders said:
    "I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."
    This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid's Democratic posse.
    But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders' mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don't want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.Vermont's independent senator Bernie Sanders
    Closely read the transcript of Obama's Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner's response is right here.
    An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach
    Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn't congressional Republicans -- or Democrats, for that matter.
    The nation's top talker uttered 2,264* words in those remarks. He said "balanced approach" seven times, three times in a single paragraph.
    That's the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent's strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. "Balanced approach" is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.
    Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples' priority.
    Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor's offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November's midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.John Boehner Obama Harry Reid enjoy ongoing Deficit Talks 7-23-11
    Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we've had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama's fading job approval, especially on the economy.
    Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama's liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:
    Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor."
    Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?
    A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they're falling behind financially. That's up 6 points since February.
    A significant majority (54%) says they've been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times -- and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.Button Hillary I Told U So 2012
    To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.
    But here's the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn't running for anything but exercise.
    "More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among  his base," the Post reports.
    Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama's jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president's measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.
    Obama's overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html