Thursday, February 28, 2013

House passes Violence Against Women Act
Article Photo

an ok on something a year and a half late just to avoid further devaluing of your brand is disingenuous. they did this under duress and not because it's right no points given.
WASHINGTON (CNN) —Struggling again with an issue important to women and minority groups, House Republicans on Thursday failed to pass their version of a new Violence Against Women Act and then split over a Senate version that won approval with unanimous Democratic suppoThe measure now goes to President Barack Obama, who said in a statement that it was "an important step towards making sure no one in America is forced to live in fear."
Thursday's votes reflected an emerging political reality in the GOP-led House, with a minority of Republicans joining Democrats to pass legislation supported by the public, including increasingly influential demographics such as Hispanic Americans.
By a vote of 166-257, the GOP version of the Violence Against Women Act failed to win a majority after almost 90 minutes of debate. The House then voted 286-138 to pass the Senate version, with 87 Republicans joining all 199 Democrats to provide majority support.
Originally passed in 1994 and reauthorized since, the act provides support for organizations that serve domestic violence victims. Criminal prosecutions of abusers are generally the responsibility of local authorities, but the act stiffened sentences for stalking under federal law.
Last year, the House and Senate were unable to compromise on another extension of the act, with Republicans opposing Democratic attempts to specify inclusion of native Americans, undocumented immigrants and lesbian, transgender and bisexual women.
after all the dissing and name calling and demonization do they think if will be forgotten they hurt these people and gave less then gnat crap about whether they are abused or not, that law would allow those who would abuse a rubber stamp to stomp. they should never be given public responsibilities again and the females that voted with them. 2014 end it.
However, exit polling showed Obama won strong support among women and Latino voters in the November election that also strengthened the Democratic majority in the Senate and weakened the Republican majority in the House.
Republicans then changed their stance and agreed to bring up the measure in the new Congress as long as they could offer their own version.
you and the women in your life were denied again, then to add insult to ingury they let some be covered but not those they hated on who they now want toembrace and all is forgiven, kumbaya.

Conservatives Regret Taking Woodward's 'Threat' Story Seriously

Article PhotoNow that the correspondence between Bob Woodward and the White House has been revealedas tame and cordial, conservative commentators are reacting with disappointment to the veteran journalist's claim that he was threatened over his sequestration reporting
Politico on Thursday posted the emails between Woodward and White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, who told Woodward, "as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."
"Looks like we were played," The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis wrote Thursday morning. 
RedState editor Erick Erickson was also surprised after reading the emails:
surprise surprise the republicans owning up to their naivete in their desire to get something anything on this Admin.
the more they look to capitalize on a dirt story the dirtier they get, if they keep this up when thy fall down we won't know they'll blend with the dirt.

Economic Official Sperling Warned Woodward The meaning of the word “regret.”

Article Photo
The White House official whom Bob Woodward charged had crosssed a line by saying he would "regret" printing his version of a set of Washington negotiations was Gene Sperling, the director of the White House Economic Council, a source familiar with the exchange told BuzzFeed Wednesday.
The email from Sperling to Woodward, which Woodward read to Politico Wednesday, has transfixed Washington, with Republicans and some in the press charging that it embodies a White House lording it over a cowed press corps.
Woodward, Politico reported, called the top official — identified to BuzzFeed as Sperling — to tell him that he would question Obama's account of negotiations leading to the "sequester" — automatic cuts set to take effect next month.
The aide "yelled at me for about a half hour," Woodward said, and then sent a follow-up email that read, in part: "You're focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim."
Sperling didn't respond to an email inquiry about the exchange; a White House spokesman declined to comment on the authorship of the email to Woodward.  

so far no emails produced  or confirmation, not saying it's not true but saying hmmmmm.

Bob Woodward: 'Very Senior' White House Official Told Me I'd 'Regret' Sequester Comments

Article PhotoThe Washington Post's Bob Woodward said on Wednesday that a "very senior" White House official threatened him over his continued public disagreements with the Obama administration. BuzzFeed later reported that the official was Gene Sperling, who heads President Obama's White House Economic Council.
Woodward has repeatedly accused the White House of "moving the goal posts" in the fight over the looming budget sequester. He has been challenged on the facts of his assertions many times, but has not strayed from his claims.
UPDATE: Sean Hannity will interview Woodward on Fox News tomorrow night, according to a tweet from Politico's Dylan Byers.
we all know why he's going to a Fox foot soldier they will softball him and ask questions that favor his position with their own leading him to answer to help support their own spend.
Speaking to Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, Woodward described a tense series of exchanges he had with the White House.
"Well, they're not happy at all, and some people kind of, you know, said, look, we don't see eye to eye on this," Woodward said. "They've said that this is factually wrong, and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top --"
"What was said?" Blitzer prodded. "It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this," Woodward said.
"Who sent that e-mail to you?" Blitzer asked. "Well, I'm not going to say," Woodward said.
"Was it a senior person at the White House?" Blitzer asked.
"A very senior person," Woodward said. "It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in."
all the right wing accusations seem to come from questionable people who admit no proof (Cruz) or in his case he's not going to say, where's that deep throat when you need him, he should know better than to come out empty handed and headed,
to sample Cruz, "he could have given a speech at a right wing event and the payed him to spread the lie, we don't know", if that's the case they need to get more credible people but therein lies the problem any person of good reputation wouldn't touch their fabrications with a 20 ft. Pole.  ps if the snitch was so senior the accolades he would get would give him 30 mins instead of 15, what fame chaser would bite on that?

 update Bob Woodward Says He Was Threatened By White House Official Gene Sperling

White House says it didn't approve release of illegal immigrants

 The White House on Wednesday said it did not approve the release this week of hundreds of illegal immigrants being held in detention centers, as Republicans turned up the heat on the budget-cutting move ahead of the sequester.
White House spokesman Jay Carney and a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official said the decision by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not signed off on by the administration, but was made by career officials.
“This was a decision made by career officials at ICE, without any input from the White House, as a result of fiscal uncertainty over the continuing resolution, as well as possible sequester,” said Carney at Wednesday’s press briefing.

Republicans have begun hammering the administration for answers as to why earlier this week ICE released “several hundred” illegal immigrants into a supervised monitoring program.
when you have no substanc to your legitamacy you set about trying to prove the other side has none either.  that only works when that other side is as ill equipt as the former, millions of dollars and misinformation and out right lies, and attempts to deprive almost half of the progressive voters of their constitutional right to vote.
 Voting rights in the United States
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout the country's history. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both federal and state law. Currently, only citizens can vote in U.S. elections (although this has not always been the case). Who is (or who can become) a citizen is governed on a national basis by federal law. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional amendment, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction.
When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied white men, women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.[1]
and still they came up short not once but twice by let's jusy say all the names and lies you've heard about  the first African American President, progressives 2 republicans goose egg.
An ICE spokeswoman said the move, which targeted only illegal immigrants deemed to be a low public safety risk, was in preparation for the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts, widely expected to go into effect on Friday, which would limit the number of detainees ICE could pay to house.
A DHS official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told The Hill on Wednesday that career detention facility administrators release low-risk illegal immigrants into a less costly supervision program on a nearly daily basis. Administrators make the call based on their budgetary and infrastructure constraints, without the need for sign-off approval from administration officials, the official said.
But House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and other top Republicans want more answers on the move, which Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called “outrageous.”
allowing for their faux outrage, all the witch hunts and inquisitions they have yet to find guilt and they are still not looking in the right places.  their continual surge is just trying to make some connection to what they name as outrageous and not American to the Pres.  how much of our money have they spent trying to find complicity not answers as much as Rove on 2012 300 million or slightly less?

Sequester cuts are here to stay
The sequester is here to stay — at least for a while.
Lawmakers and aides say they do not expect Congress to turn off budget sequestration before April and that negotiations to freeze the automatic spending cuts could drag into May or beyond.
Over the last few weeks, there has been increased speculation that the sequester would go into effect Friday but be addressed in a March deal to keep the government funded.
 Don’t bet on it.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), a member of the Finance Committee, predicted sequestration would last through the end of the yea
to what end, the people are against them and blames them more for these grade school playground antics, and they have the nerve to talk about adult and serious, must be with their voter fraud and WMD's they keep looking for in all the wrong places when they know where they are, page 3 of their playbook on "how to wreck the economy while trying to make the Pres. look bad"
President Obama has invited congressional leaders to meet at the White House on Friday, the same day $85 billion in automatic cuts are due to begin. However, congressional sources do not anticipate a deal at that gathering or any time soon.
“It’s going to be one last attempt at trying to convince Republicans of the need for a balanced approach to sequester before the deadline,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide.
i remember the invites they just totally dissed the Pres. and didn't show while i'm sure snickering in the background like a teenage girl who just gave a guy the wrong phone number.

The GOP's Cynical Slog Strategy

Article PhotoWhatever happens as this week ends, it establishes a pattern you’d better get used to. In legislative terms, this year is going to consist pretty entirely of one deadline following another in this long national slog. It’s going to happen this way, yes, because the two sides can’t agree on the big questions. But at bottom it’s going to happen because the Republicans are perfectly happy to let it happen this way. Stalemate and the appearance of incompetence suit them. They don’t even on some level really want a deal, even one that’s more than half on their terms. And you know what? Sadly, they’re probably right to think all this. One of these days, sometime this year, Barack Obama is going to have to rip the curtain open and expose their strategy for what it is and force the Great Showdown. 
Here’s where we are. We have the March 1 sequester deadline, which we’re probably going to pass. Next up comes March 28, when the agencies of government run out of money and Congress has to pass new continuing resolutions to fund them. Then, by April 15, when most Americans think about their tax deadline, Congress has to pass a budget resolution, or they don’t get their paychecks. Something tells us they’ll find a way to meet that one, but with some of these people, who knows? Then, on or about May 19, we’ll hit the debt ceiling again, and it will need to be raised. 
do you see a pattern here, they have no solutions so they intend to tie up everything that has a deadline, i hope this helps those who oppose to see who is doing the real opposing.
as far as them not getting payed for failure to get a budget, will republican claim they already did two and as they keep trumpeting Dms have not, with all the total denial and obstruction do you really think the right will pass anything from the other side.
Get the idea? The legislative branch can invent deadline after deadline after deadline. And with each new one that is hit, two things happen. One, the public gets more and more disgusted with the appearance of incompetence. And two, and somewhat though not completely at odds with this, the public pays a little less attention each time. We’re already seeing in polls that people are paying less attention to the sequester than they did to the fiscal cliff, and this seems likely to continue.
All this will hurt Republicans. They know this. But as long as it hurts Obama too, they don’t care. Bear in mind here the words of Mike Lofgren, the former GOP congressional staffer who left his party in disgust in 2011. At the time, he wrote a big Goodbye to All That piece (from which I quoted), where he said the following: “A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.”
kamikaze congress is not a "certainty" they claim is missing and is holding up the return of the economy, i submit if there is any holding up it's by those who make the claim.  remember they do the dirt than try and kick it under the Pres. rug.  isn't it a felony to kidnap and hold hostage?

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Reason for mass release of illegal immigrants "hard to believe," Boehner says

Article Photo

did you know they the republicans are planning another recess on Fri. the deadline sequester day?  unless they plan another 11th hour deal that is dereliction of duty a fireable offense 2014.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Tuesday in an interview with CBS News blasted the "outrageous" move by federal immigration officials to OK the release of hundreds of illegal immigrants as a way to save money ahead of Friday's fast-approaching sequestration.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) earlier today announced it had released on probation "a number of detained aliens" around the country "in order to make the best use of our limited detention resources in the current fiscal climate, and to manage our detention population under current congressionally mandate levels."
The deep and across-the-board sequester cuts that will go into effect barring an 11th hour act of compromise on Capitol Hill would mean fewer border security agents and less money to house detained illegal immigrants.
bet $I0,000  they didn't see that one coming, they can stop it with a few rich people loopholes and they won't so reap the benefits of your arrogance, and when that eventual citizenship comes in they will remember all you have said and will say from this point on, and if you revert openly to yourselves you will continue to lose their vote, rock and a right wing place damned if you do and still damned if you don't they will still vote progressive, party of stupid, yes you are
"This is very hard for me to believe, that they can't find cuts elsewhere in their agency," Boehner told "CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley. "I frankly think this is outrageous."
 Boehner's indignation has been matched throughout the day by fellow Republicans who have called it a political gambit by the White House administration. President Obama has been touring the country sounding the alarm on the dramatic impact of the cuts and calling on Congress to pass an alternative before the March 1 deadline that combines spending cuts with additional revenue by way of tax increases.
 "I'm looking for more facts," Boehner continued, "but I can't believe that they can't find the kind of savings they need out of that department short of letting criminals go free."
just like voter fraud and WMD's they need to look in their own backyard,   if they keep looking in ours they will only find earthworms.

Pat Robertson: Goodwill Sweaters Could Have Demons, No Harm In Praying Over Them (VIDEO)
keep listening there are several clips with commercials sorry about that.
Article Photo

your friends and family shold tell you when it's time to sign off guest neither give a gnats crap about how big a fool he appears to be.
as the right wing tumbles so does the Evangelicals

More Than Half of Mass Shooters Used Rapid-Fire Weapons

The political fortunes of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 have looked dim from the start. But as Congress considers the new legislation put forth by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one thing is clear: If it were to pass, the bill would outlaw highly lethal firearms that dozens of mass shooters in the United States have used to unleash carnage.
More than half of the killers we studied in our investigation of 62 mass shootings over the last three decades possessed weapons that would be banned by Feinstein's bill, including various semiautomatic rifles, guns with military features, and handguns using magazines with more than 10 rounds. The damage these weapons can cause has been on grim display since last summer, from Aurora to Milwaukee to Minneapolis to Newtown, where attacks carried out with them left a total of 118 people injured and dead.
the hunting claim is BS, if you open up a 30 large clip on a deer you won't need the hood of your car to bring it home you can just take the two handfls left and put in your pocket.
Ultimately, "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" are political terms—there is no official or widely accepted definition for either, and different legislation has treated them differently. Feinstein's new bill seeks to improve upon the 1994 ban she authored, which expired in 2004; gun manufacturers easily sidestepped that law by making superficial modifications to their weapons.
The new legislation aims to outlaw weapons that let a shooter fire a large number of bullets quickly without having to reload. Law enforcement officials we consulted generally considered that to be a reasonable approach for distinguishing between firearms used for sport or self-defense and military-style weapons designed to maximize body counts.
if you call it something else because the name is telling you might be a republican and the new name stinks as much if not more than the original, you know like water boarding and extensive interrogation or republicans and you getting a job.
or you can just sell a refit kit and call it what you want, "MACHINE GUN"?

Police Chief Embarrasses Lindsey Graham At Gun Hearing
The police chief of the Milwaukee called out Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — an opponent of gun safety regulation — for echoing National Rifle Association talking points about the uselessness of expanding background checks for all gun purchases. The organization argues that the government should enforce existing laws instead.
During a heated exchange at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed assault weapons ban on Wednesday, Edward Flynn pointedly interrupted Graham’s claims that the federal government is failing to deter individuals from misrepresenting themselves in the background check process by failing to prosecute people who were rejected from purchasing a weapon as a result of their false claims. 
that would make a diffrence if those not intentionally included for what ever reason then NRA continues to profit if they do instigate pursuing the law to it's end profits drop along with already approval ratings.
Flynn argued that rather than embark on a “paper chase,” law enforcement officials are focused on preventing people from purchasing guns illegally, eliciting loud applause from the audience:
we already know a majority 'the criminals won't participate"of Americans gun clubbers too are for atleast background checks, but then republicans come in with the scare tactics first  "the gov't is just trying to put you on a list" big brother?  and we all shudder and crap our pants, truth is if you are not a criminal or have nothing to hide what the fuss, suppose one of yours is murdered do you just say oh well can't trace the gun or match bullets, ior do you thank God there is a law that may provide a way to bring them justice?

Smoking Gun

President Obama’s pick to head the CIA was involved in crafting controversial talking points about last year’s attack in Benghazi, Republicans said Tuesday after viewing intelligence documents.
Lawmakers had vowed to block John Brennan’s nomination unless they got to see internal communications about how to describe the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Several said the email chain of several pages, which they’d been seeking for months, doesn’t change how they plan to vote either way.
“Brennan was involved,” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said after the briefing. “It’s pretty obvious what happened.”
So now we have proof that Brennan was “involved”—probably too mild a word for complicity in this unparalleled crime: maybe “embroiled,” or just plain “guilty”—in the Great Benghazi Coverup, which is sort of like Teapot Dome, Watergate, and the Reichstag Fire all rolled up into one. 
 “It’s pretty obvious what happened.”
by virtue of the words it indicates predisposed prejudiced opinions, as well as they don't really know what happened if so why are they continuing the Inquisition?
A prediction comes to mind immediately: this “information” about Benghazi! will lead to Republican demands for more information. That’s the thing about a witch hunt; the monstrous truth that never seems to appear is viewed as barely eluding its pursuers time and time again. 
we already know how they jump the gun and spin in their favor that has not changed as anything else since the acknowledgement of a need to change not what they really need to change which is the entire party dtructure but how they spew their lies and innuendo.

Rep. Ellison explodes on Fox News, calls Sean Hannity 'worst excuse for a journalist'

Congessman Ellison called it as he saw it and served Mr. Hannity was called on his part in Fox news's spin on Pres. being disingenuous and again misleading the viewers.
then he makes a fool of himself (hannitty) by asking Ellison if he wanted to bet he was right are you ready for this 10,000 dollars.
i think Ellison should have held back a little and let Hannity hang himself with his own words, but it was good seeing one of the progessive's giving them a taste of their own medicine, ovrtalking and brow beating Hannity does it well when he is the agressor but a little girl "i know you are but what am i" when he's being served.

New Poll Shows Majority Of Americans Think The GOP Is ‘Out Of Touch’ And ‘Extreme’
Article Photo

smilin' faces

It looks like the rest of the country has caught up with us here at Addicting Info. According to a new Pew poll released on Tuesday, most of America has figured out that the Republican party has been taken over by the crazies. Sixty-two percent of adults (I guess they didn’t talk to any Congressional Republicans) say that the GOP is out of touch and 52% said they were too extreme. Compare that to 46% and 39% who think that, respectively, about the Democratic party.
In every category the pollsters asked about – out of touch, extreme, looking out for the country’s future, favorability and disapproval – the Republicans scored dismally. The only place they did better than Democrats was in the strength of their principles. That’s fair, I guess. When an entire political party is willing to let the country go to hell in a handbasket just to stick to their guns (literal and figurative), I guess they have strong convictions. Because they certainly have no honor.
The Pew poll spoke to 1,054 adults – 366 Republicans and 470 Democrats – by phone between Feb 15 and 18. Other polls show similar outcomes: HuffPo‘s pollster has the Republicans at an average 31% favorability. They also show that half of Republicans disapprove of their Congressional representatives and that a majority of all Americans say that the GOP has moved out of the mainstream.

were they ever in the mainstream?  they have always been the party of "no" to anything that included looking out for that part of America that was not them inclusive of their embassment "white trash"
Marco Rubio: Ah, the supposed savior of the GOP. They put him in the spotlight to deliver their response to the State of the Union address a few weeks ago, hoping he would improve their image in the sight of the country. Not. Though they were delivered by a newer face they were the same old failed ideas.
Rand Paul: Where to start with this guy? When he’s not insulting Cabinet members, he’s fomenting conspiracy theories. He has no idea what’s in bills he votes on. He’s the guy the Tea Party chose to give their response to the SOTU address. His logic does not resemble our earth logic.
The message: The last election should have been an eye-opener for the GOP but apparently they still have blinders on. They think that it’s the *way* they say it. Um, no. From their attitude about women to their policies on immigration to their stubborn clinging to the Defense of Marriage Act, the Republicans hold views that are so far out of step with the nation that it would be laughable if it weren’t so damaging to so many Americans. Frank Luntz can’t save you, guys. Not this time.
The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC): As if to prove how backwards they are, this yearly meeting of people who live in the past has invited all of the losers they know. From Sarah Palin to Karl Rove to Paul Ryan, the CPAC folks have invited the flaming stars bags of poop (in the sense of that tired and outdated doorstep prank) that have done so much to embolden ruin the conservative brand. But no invite for Chris Christie. He was a bad boy and does not salute the GOP flag (the one with a dunce cap on it) so he was snubbed this year.
they are writing their own epitaph "we were arrogant we wre entitled we will carry our guns to our graves along with our footnote of a legacy",  that will be written in stone.

Voting Rights Act: Supreme Court Considers Scrapping Section 5

Article PhotoThe Supreme Court hears arguments today on a case that may well lead to the dismantling of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires many states, cities, and counties, primarily in the South, to get preclearance from the Department of Justice before changing election laws in ways that could affect minority voting rights. 
The argument for doing away with the section is straightforward: The South has come a long way since 1965, and it is unfair to keep singling the region out for scrutiny. 
if they have evolved from the jim crow era then what harm is scrutiny, they are well aware of those hanger on's that can't wait to bring it back, the T-Pers "we want to take our country back"  what does that sound like?  back is when they had uncontested rule Mr. Jams Crow law of the land.
Dr. Brenda Williams begs to differ.
A family-practice internist in Sumter, South Carolina, she and her geriatrician husband, Joseph Williams, run a local nonprofit encouraging parents to marry, and back in 2007 they decided to also help townspeople register to vote. Brenda went to housing projects, the jail, anywhere she was likely to find disenfranchised people. She redoubled her efforts in the spring of 2011, when Governor Nikki Haley signed legislation requiring government-issued photo identification at the polls.
Williams began to help people secure photo IDs, and when she realized how arduous and costly that was for many residents—especially those who lacked birth certificates, or had their names misspelled on them—she shared her observations in multiple letters to Attorney General Eric Holder. Her efforts were vindicated two days before Christmas, when the Department of Justice denied preclearance of the law, sending the matter to the federal courts.
make no mistake there have been those who evolved those who tolerate and those hell bent on returning to days of old, they call themselves TEA PARTY.     there are those in the SCOTUS that still harbor those ideologies that the right wing has always espoused and now thy have the majority on that court, one good vote for "we the people" does not mean a sustained vote for all things progressive.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Senate GOP divided on own sequester plan

Senate Republicans are deeply divided on a sequester replacement bill that would give President Obama more flexibility to manage the $85 billion in cuts.
Members of the Republican conference on Tuesday discussed a proposal from Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and supported by leadership that would give President Obama more leeway in carrying out sequestration.
Republicans had hoped to unify around a sequester bill ahead of votes in the Senate later this week, but the plan is being met with fierce resistance from some members of the conference.
Opponents complain the plan would cede Congress's power of the purse to the president. Others say it does nothing to address the sequester’s damaging cuts to defense and national security.
"I've never seen so much passion about something that is not going to pass," Corker said Tuesday after the party’s weekly lunch ended.
so the whole thing really is about who has the checkbook.  listen they are adnitting they have the control over what gets spent which also means that every cent of the 16 trillion debt has been authorized by congress, but they insist on blaming Pres. and refer to giving him a blank check which in reality they have to sign it in order for it to be cashed.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Sotomayor Condemns Prosecutor's Racially Insensitive Remark
Article PhotoSupreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor slammed the racially insensitive comments of a federal prosecutor in a Texas drug case Monday, calling his words "an affront to the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws," CNN reports
Sotomayor agreed with a majority on the court in declining to review the case, but still took the opportunity to issue a statement condemning the prosecutor's words as well as the Justice Department's reaction to them.
The prosecutor–whom Sotomayor refused to name–said during cross-examination of a drug conspiracy case: "You've got African-Americans, you've got Hispanics, you've got a bag full of money. Does that tell you–a light bulb doesn't go off in your head and say, This is a drug deal?" 
kudo's to hergood pick the human touch something sorely missing before Pres. appt.
"It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this basic tactic more than a decade into the 21st century," Sotomayor said. "We expect the government to seek justice, not fan the flames of fear and prejudice."
new speak from the minority side of the SCOTUS  sounds good to me.

Looking Forward In Angst: Sequester Journalism Is In Serious Need Of Adult Supervision

Article PhotoI don't know if last week's David Brooks column was the first time he'd ever contended that President Barack Obama lacked a plan to replace the looming sequester, but it's definitely going to be the last time he makes the contention. That's because numerous writers took to the Interneten masse to demonstrate how Brooks's claim was not only untrue, but debunkable within 15 seconds of Googling. 
The force of that wave of opprobrium was enough to cause Brooks to write a correction, of sorts, on his original item, blaming free-floating "frustration over the fiscal idiocy that is about to envelop the nation" for "getting the better of" him.
No, I don't know what happened to, "I was wrong and I'm sorry," either. And it's ironic, considering that the sort of weird, detached-from-reality claims that Brooks made are just what contribute to the frustration of readers. Nevertheless, it was something of an admission of guilt, and probably the best we're going to get.
are we now allowing old guy writers carte blanch in their columns has Fox law become the norm or is he like it said looking for the elusive Watergate thrill up his leg?
And it wouldn't be a bad thing if adult supervision spread to other news organizations. Over at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward has been riding high in the sequester news cycle, dining out on the fact that his book, The Price Of Politics, captures a scene in which then-White House chief of staff Jack Lew introduces the concept of the sequester to Harry Reid. This anthropological detail would be a trivial piece of the story were it not for the fact that the debate over the sequester has devolved into a blame-game snit over "who started it." It's an argument that has no winner, and none of it is good for the country, but it was good for Woodward.
Whether it was born from the desire to get another round of attention, or if he honestly thought he had a point to make, Woodward's next move was to get way, way out over his skis. In a Friday column, he contended that Obama, having asked for the sequester to be replaced with a deal that added revenues, was "moving the goalposts." In Woodward's odd construction, the sequester itself was an "all-cuts" deal, approved by Obama, and so asking for revenues was hypocritical. "That was not the deal he made," scolded Woodward. 
why is he and other's committed to such certainty like they were in the room and they know. if someone comes to you and hands you on a silver platter a story IMO that just make you the person the wrote someting you got at least second handed and don't reall deserve allthe hoopla, the guy that got it is the guy of the hour he just took credit, we all can look at something and write down what it says, glory theft? or just the media feeding it's own another helping of 15 mins.?