DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz insisted to CNSNews.com yesterday that anyone can see that the economy is improving and sought to interpret what Pres. Obama really meant when he admitted Monday that Americans were not better off today than four years ago.
Well, what President Obama said was that certainly since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, that Americans are not better off, Wasserman Schultz told CNSNews.com. That was specifically the presidents comment. I thought. And I think anyone who looks at the economy knows we have come a long way.
We are certainly no longer dropping like a rock like we were in the months leading up to President Obama taking office, Wasserman Schultz continued. And now weve begun to turn the corner.
Anyone can see that weve turned the corner? Really?
Even the 115,730 people who lost their jobs last month (the most in more than two years), or the American Airlines workers faced with the danger that their employer is going to have to file for bankruptcy?
And, how about the person at the pump fretting over the cost of filling his gas tank, or the young couple trying to sell their home?
I guess these arent the anyones the DNC chair was referring to.
I think at this point they are just saying it is great and hope that enough people won't notice to skim by 2012 on this one. I'm surprised her entire outfit doesn't spontaneously combust on this lie.
Posted by: Barbara ||
10/05/2011 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
She lives in the DC Bubble where housing prices are still up and government employment still continues to expand in hirings. Their reelection coffers overflow from the cronies from K street. Of course the rest of the world lives in a different environment.
According to Judicial Watch, Rep. Edolphous Towns (D-NY) has introduced the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2011. That bill would do with Obamas presidential records what Obama has already done to his personal and collegiate records: Seal them up.
In an obvious effort to protect President Barack Obama, a group of congressional Democrats has introduced legislation to create an official process that will allow the commander-in-chief to keep presidential records secret after he leaves office.
Ironically, Obama revoked a similar George W. Bush order in one of his first official acts as president. In 2001 Bush penned an executive order severely limiting public access to his presidential records. Shortly after swearing in, Obama killed it as part of his much-ballyhooed commitment to government transparency. At the time, the new president claimed that he was giving the American people greater access to historic documents.
If the Democrats proposed measure (Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2011) becomes law, former presidents will be allowed to assert a new constitutionally based privilege against disclosing records of their liking. Here is how it would work; the Archivist of the United States would be required to notify the former president, as well as the incumbent, of intentions to make records public. Anything that either the former or current president claims should be kept private wont be released.
The veteran Brooklyn congressman (Edolphus Towns) who recently introduced the law in the U.S. House has yet to explain why its necessary.
This looks like a sign of surrender to me. Why seal up Obamas records now, if you think hes strong to get re-elected next year?
And, how many Solyndras and executive directives to punish various enemies may be lurking in those records?
Man, if they are pushing this crap this early in the election cycle even before a Republican candidate is chosen, they must think Obama is going down in flames or is going to pull an LBJ. Also, how much other damning evidence of the corruption and incompetence is in those files?
Posted by: Jan ||
10/05/2011 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#12
There's not a snowball's chance in hell of this piece of crap passing either house.
Posted by: Barbara ||
10/05/2011 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
That which can be sealed can be unsealed. The real question is how much is going to be shredded, burned and otherwise 'disappear' in any transition.
#14
Frankly, we might all be better off if this passed. That way many records would be retained rather than burned because people would believe they would be protected. But really, they would exist and the news would get out.
#15
Do they really think the Republicans won't overturn such a bill when they gain a majority? Be that the next election or whenever? A bill like this is just foolish and anyone involved in it should be tarred and feathered.
We've been pointing out a variety of attempts to push back on the First Amendment lately. One fertile ground for such attacks are local politicians carrying the "cyberbullying" banner, in various attempts to magically outlaw being a "jerk" online, usually by making it illegal to offend someone online. Of course, making someone's action illegal based on how someone else feels about it is all kinds of crazy. It also would seem to violate the very principles of the First Amendment, which bar Congress (and local governments) from passing any laws that take away one's right to free speech.
In the past, lawmakers pushing these laws have tended to simply ignore the First Amendment issue, and focus on screaming "protect the children!" as loudly as possible (never mind the fact that kids seem much less concerned about "bullying" than all these adults seem to think). However, it appears that some state Senators in NY are trying a new line of attack: going directly after the First Amendment and suggesting that current interpretations are way too broad, and it's not really meant to protect any sort of free speech right. In fact, it sounds as though they're trying to redefine the right to free speech into a privilege that can be taken away. Seriously:
Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.
Yes, that totally flips the First Amendment on its head. It is not a "more refined First Amendment." It's the anti-First Amendment. It suggests, by its very nature, that the government possesses the right to grant the "privilege" of free speech to citizens... and thus the right to revoke it. That's an astonishingly dangerous path, and one that should not be taken seriously. Of course, given their right to speak freely, state senators Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci and David Valesky have every right to put forth that argument -- but similarly, it allows others to point out their rather scary beliefs.
The assault on free speech never ends. Remember, in the future talking mean about a politician could be construed as cyberbullying.
#4
Ok if you go to the link there is a link to the full report (pdf).
Its from the Independent Democratic Conference comprising NY State Sens. Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci and David Valesky. ( you can guess the party).
Posted by: jack salami ||
10/05/2011 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Remind me, weren't the Tea Party people accused of cyperbullying [among other unnatural acts too viscous for mixed company]? I'm sure the excuse offered by the promoters to justify their actions didn't include the clear pattern of abuse of 'interpretation' of existing laws.
#8
Heck - according to their standard - [A conservative] telling someone that there statement is full is sh*t is hateful and violent and worthy of burning at the stake.
Of course it's perfectly alright and the highest form of patriotism if a liberal does it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz insisted to CNSNews.com yesterday that anyone can see that the economy is improving and sought to interpret what Pres. Obama really meant when he admitted Monday that Americans were not better off today than four years ago.
According to Judicial Watch, Rep. Edolphous Towns (D-NY) has introduced the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2011. That bill would do with Obamas presidential records what Obama has already done to his personal and collegiate records: Seal them up.
We've been pointing out a variety of attempts to push back on the First Amendment lately. One fertile ground for such attacks are local politicians carrying the "cyberbullying" banner, in various attempts to magically outlaw being a "jerk" online, usually by making it illegal to offend someone online. Of course, making someone's action illegal based on how someone else feels about it is all kinds of crazy. It also would seem to violate the very principles of the First Amendment, which bar Congress (and local governments) from passing any laws that take away one's right to free speech.
