Could it be true? Those we believe are protecting us from the heartless Republicans are themselves selling us out?

Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

NDAA detention provision would turn America into a “battlefield”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, November 28, 2011

The Senate is set to vote on a bill today that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

“The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

“I would also point out that these provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech last week. One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.”

dems

Harry 'We lost in Iraq' Reid: Negro Dialects

CALLING Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ... where for art thou ...

Now just imagine if some Retardican had said the same thing!!!




Reid apologizes for 'no Negro dialect' comment


January 09, 2010 14:44 EST
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is apologizing for a comment he made about Barack Obama's race during the 2008 campaign.

In a book set to be published Monday, Reid is quoted as describing Obama as "light skinned" and speaking "with no Negro dialect."

Excerpts from the book "Game Change," by Time Magazine's Mark Halperin and New York magazine's John Heilemann, were reported on the Web site of The Atlantic.

In a statement released today, Reid calls the comments "a poor choice of words" that he deeply regrets. He offers apologies to "any and all Americans, especially African-Americans."

Reid is facing a tough re-election campaign this year. A Las Vegas Review Journal survey out today shows him trailing former state Republican party chairwoman Sue Lowden by 10 points, 50 percent to 40 percent. More than half of those polled said they had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, while just a third held a favorable opinion.




He is sinking faster than the Titanic.







 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reid

Kennedy: Changing laws to Suit His Needs

Kennedy should resign


By Jeff Jacoby
Boston Globe
Globe Columnist
August 23, 2009

RUNNING for reelection in 1982, Senator Ted Kennedy aired a series of sentimental television ads in which longtime supporters spoke of him as an empathetic human being who was no stranger to suffering and sorrow. One of those supporters was 83-year-old Frank Manning, founder of the Massachusetts Association of Older Americans. “He’s not a plaster saint, he’s not without his faults,’’ Manning said in the ad. “But we wouldn’t want a plaster saint.’’

I didn’t vote for Kennedy in 1982 or any other year, and I have certainly never thought of him as a saint, plaster or otherwise. Play-to-win politics, not piety, has been the essence of his long career in the Senate. He has a gift for the poignant gesture; there is no denying he is a deft hand at evoking the affection of his many admirers. But beneath the tug at the heartstrings, there is always shrewd political calculation.

Today Kennedy is gravely ill with brain cancer, but his political instincts are as sharp as ever. Given his condition, the letter he sent to Massachusetts political leaders last week could not help but generate a fresh wave of sympathy. “I am now writing to you,’’ it reads, “about an issue that concerns me deeply - the continuity of representation for Massachusetts, should a vacancy occur.’’ As a human being, Kennedy is surely grateful for that sympathy. As a canny political navigator, he reckons it may provide the cover needed to change Massachusetts law to benefit his party.

Kennedy wants the Legislature to upend the succession law it passed in 2004, when - at his urging - it stripped away the governor’s longstanding power to temporarily fill a Senate vacancy. Back then, John Kerry was a presidential candidate and Republican Mitt Romney was governor; Kennedy lobbied state Democrats to change the law so that Romney couldn’t name Kerry’s successor.

They followed his advice with gusto. When the final vote took place, the Boston Globe reported, “hooting and hollering broke out on the usually staid House floor,’’ and House Speaker Thomas Finneran acknowledged candidly: “It’s a political deal. It’s very raw politics.’’

It still is. Now that Massachusetts has a Democratic governor, Kennedy is lobbying to restore the gubernatorial power to name an interim appointee. That would guarantee Democrats in Washington two reliable Senate votes from Massachusetts, even if Kennedy isn’t there to cast one of them.

Needless to say, Kennedy’s letter says nothing about raw politics. No, it’s all lofty principle and good government. “It is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election,’’ he writes.

If Kennedy is sincere - if his chief concern is that Massachusetts not be left for months without the services of a full-time senator - then he should do the right thing right now: He should resign.

For well over a year, Massachusetts has not had the “two voices . . . and two votes in the Senate’’ that Kennedy says its voters are entitled to. Sickness has kept him away from Capitol Hill for most of the last 15 months. He has missed all but a handful of the 270 roll-calls taken in the Senate so far this year. Through no fault of his own, he is unable to carry out the job he was reelected to in 2006. As a matter of integrity, he should bow out and allow his constituents to choose a replacement.

“Democrats are keenly feeling the absence of Ted Kennedy,’’ reported The Politico from Washington last week. “Senate Democratic insiders . . . say there’s been little contact with the Massachusetts Democrat recently.’’ Though his staff tries to keep up appearances, it is clear that Kennedy is no longer an active participant in Senate business. Few things are harder for those accustomed to power than letting it go. But there is no honor in clinging to office till the bitter end.

Senator Kerry told ABC the other day that his colleague “doesn’t believe that under any circumstances, now or ever, Massachusetts should have anything less than full representation in the United States Senate.’’ It has less than full representation - much less - right now. That is why, for the sake of the state and Senate he loves, Edward Kennedy should step down.












Kennedy

Boxer on Defense: Global Warming Must Be Defeated.

The end of the world as we know ... (now - answer me this - is it 18 months or 96 months?)



Boxer faces 'challenge of a lifetime' on climate change bill

Rob Hotakainen, Mcclatchy Newspapers
Sat Jul 11, 2009


WASHINGTON — If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

She says there's a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children.

Boxer is engaged in her biggest sales job ever. The stakes couldn't be higher as she faces one of the toughest high-profile acts of her lengthy career: getting Congress to sign off on historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

"For Barbara Boxer , it's both the opportunity and a challenge of a lifetime," said Frank O'Donnell , the president of Clean Air Watch .

As the Senate's top-ranked environmentalist, Boxer heads the influential committee that began hearings on the issue this week. She's aiming to get her panel to pass a bill by the end of September. For months now, she's been meeting with senators one on one and hosting a group of about 30 senators for "Tuesday at 12" meetings to develop a strategy to win 60 votes, enough to overcome a Republican filibuster. Which means she has heard / read everything Gore has said or written non the subject.

With a House of Representatives bill already approved, all eyes are on Boxer, who must overcome plenty of skepticism on Capitol Hill among her fellow Democrats.

"It's going to be a tough slog, but I'm excited about it. . . . I know that my Republican colleagues are going to try to do everything to stop it and distort it," Boxer said Friday in an interview.

Last year, Boxer's standalone climate-change bill fell to defeat, but there's a new strategy this year that will make it harder for senators to reject it. Six committees — Environment and Public Works, which Boxer heads, Finance, Commerce, Energy , Agriculture and Foreign Relations — will have jurisdiction over the bill. Those committee heads have been meeting for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada , who'll help combine their work into one massive bill this fall.

Boxer said the approach was unlike any she'd experienced since she joined the Senate in 1993, and she predicted that it will simplify passage.

"It's a different dynamic, and it will make it easier," she said in the interview. "There will be so much in this bill. There will be investments in transportation. There will be great opportunities for agriculture. There will be great incentives for energy efficiency. There will be so much in there. There will be help for areas that need flood control. It should have a broader appeal. Having said that, it's all difficult."

While vote counts vary, most observers say that the bill's fate will lie with 15 or so Democratic moderates, many of whom fear that a vote for climate-change legislation could hurt their re-election chances. Boxer is trying to round up some Republican votes to offset opposition from the likes of Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska .

Boxer has been telling audiences for years that Congress must act, and that it will. After years of battling with the Bush administration, Boxer figures she has the best odds ever of getting a bill signed into law.

It still won't be easy, however.

Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma , the top-ranked Republican on the environment committee, predicts that Boxer will fail. He said the public would see the legislation as a large tax increase once people understood that they'd ultimately bear the costs of any bill that forced companies to reduce global-warming emissions.

"Once the American public realizes what this legislation will do to their wallets, they will resoundly reject it," Inhofe said Tuesday at a hearing.

Boxer said the legislation wouldn't include any new taxes, and she's portraying Republican opponents as obstructionists.

"This is consistent with a pattern of 'No. No, we can't. No, we won't,' " Boxer said. "I believe that this committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect our president's attitude, which is 'Yes, we can, and yes, we will.' "

Aides say that Boxer, who's spent her political career focused on environmental issues, is keenly aware that this is her big moment, a chance to cement a legacy that would include passage of legislation with a worldwide impact. Three more committee hearings are set for next week, and a vote by the full Senate could come as early as October.

Boxer has been working closely with top White House aides and Reid, a close ally, to figure out a way to pass the bill. To reach out to farm-state and coal-state senators, she's enlisted a team of lieutenants: Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts , Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota , Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Thomas Carper of Delaware , among others.

While Boxer has yet to introduce specifics of her bill, it's expected to build on a House plan that was approved 219-212 last month, which would set the first enforceable limits on global warming pollution. The cap on emissions would reduce them by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Among other things, it also would require that the nation get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy in 2020 and set energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances and industries.

The Obama administration is expected to lobby hard on Boxer's behalf, as was evidenced by this week's hearings. The administration sent four of its top-level appointees to make the case for the bill: Energy Secretary Steven Chu , Interior Secretary Ken Salazar , Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Lisa Jackson , the head of the Environmental Protection Agency .

Boxer has plenty of support from most environmental groups, but she's bound to feel the heat as she begins compromising to win votes. Greenpeace , for example, and others opposed the House bill, saying that it had been weakened too much to appease farm-state interests.
O'Donnell said that Boxer would face those same pressures.

"That is going to be one of the real challenges for Boxer," he said. "How do you ensure the integrity of the program while bringing along farm-state senators to your side?"













global warming

Reparations

Senate Backs Apology for Slavery. Resolution Specifies That It Cannot Be Used in Reparations Cases

By Krissah Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 19, 2009

The Senate unanimously passed a resolution yesterday apologizing for slavery, making way for a joint congressional resolution and the latest attempt by the federal government to take responsibility for 2 1/2 centuries of slavery.

"You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), lead sponsor of the resolution, said after the unanimous-consent vote. "It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."

The Senate's apology follows a similar apology passed last year by the House. One key difference is that the Senate version explicitly deals with the long-simmering issue of whether slavery descendants are entitled to reparations, saying that the resolution cannot be used in support of claims for restitution. The House is expected to revisit the issue next week to conform its resolution to the Senate version.

Harkin, who called the Senate's vote an "important and significant milestone," said he wanted the resolution passed yesterday to closely coincide with Juneteenth, a holiday first celebrated by former slaves to mark their emancipation.

This recent willingness to deal with the nation's difficult racial history has come about in part because of President Obama's election, said Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), who began pushing for an apology more than a decade ago when he was a state senator and pronounced himself "pleased" with the Senate vote.

Still, Cohen said, "there are going to be African Americans who think that [the apology] is not reparations, and it's not action, and there are going to be Caucasians who say, 'Get over it.' . . . I look at it as something that makes people think."

Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday's vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate's resolution "meaningless" since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.

"The Republican Party needed to do it," Swain said. "It would have shed that racist scab on the party."

Republicans, however, were supportive of the resolution. "It doesn't fix everything, but it does go a long way toward acknowledgment and moving us on to the next steps to building a more perfect union, doing the things that Martin Luther King would talk about, like building a colorblind society," said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).

As with all congressional apologies -- but especially this one -- concerns about liability for restitution were part of the political calculations, in this case because of the long-running debate about whether the descendants of slaves should be compensated.

Charles Ogletree, the Harvard law professor who has championed restitution, was consulted on the Senate's resolution and supports it, but he said it is not a substitute for reparations. "That battle will be prolonged," he said.

Randall Robinson, author of "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," said he sees the Senate's apology as a "confession" that should lead to a next step of reparations. "Much is owed, and it is very quantifiable," he said. "It is owed as one would owe for any labor that one has not paid for, and until steps are taken in that direction we haven't accomplished anything."

Cohen said he and Harkin worked closely with the NAACP and other civil rights groups on language that would not endorse or preclude any future claims to reparations. "It will not harm reparations but won't give any standing to it," Cohen said.









reparations

Alaska: Senator Stevens - Corruption Trial

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Friday praised Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' sense of honor at his trial on corruption charges, calling his reputation for honesty and integrity "sterling" in the quarter-century they've known each other. "As we say in the infantry, this is a guy you take on a long patrol," said the retired four-star Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.






Alaska



Corruption charges

Global Warming and Ship of State

US climate bill dies; hope for 2009
Fri Jun 6, 2008 1:05pm EDT

Interesting article from Reuters on the Global Warming Bill introduced by Senator Lieberman and defeated in the Senate.

If we leave business/industry alone, provide incentives to reduce emissions, provide the support for technology that will reduce emissions - we will cut emissions by at least 50% in the next fifteen years without extra costs or loss of jobs. We can do it. We, a nation that regularly sends ships into space, established the integral components for the space station - we who revitalized the industries of the world - we can do it, without a law mandating change.

The sentence (and paragraph since these news resources do not understand the structure of paragraphs - the sentence is a paragraph, incomplete though it is) I found most interesting, wholly unrelated to global warming, but useful ...


"In America change doesn't happen overnight, it takes time to turn the ship of state," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who shepherded the bill.


I will have to remember her statement when she next criticizes an American president for not moving faster or making changes quicker.

She is a hypocrite.










.

US SENATE 2004 and McCain

McCain faces accusations of hypocrisy
By Andrew Ward in Washington

Published: April 18 2008 19:36 Last updated: April 19 2008 00:29

John McCain on Friday faced accusations of hypocrisy for failing to disclose his wife’s tax records, despite his promise to bring greater transparency and accountability to government.

The Arizona senator declared income of $419,731 in 2007 – a fraction of the multi-million dollar earnings reported by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rivals.

But the disclosure excluded the income of his wife, Cindy, the heiress to a large Arizona beer distribution company, whose wealth is estimated at more than $100m (€63.5m, £50.2m).

Mrs Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, this month reported joint income of $20.4m for 2007, while Mr Obama and his wife, Michelle, declared $4.2m.

Presidential candidates are under no obligation to release tax records but it has become customary to do so as a signal of transparency.

This year’s disclosures have come at a sensitive moment. Amid a sharp slowdown in the US economy, the candidates are out to prove who is most attuned to the concerns of voters.
Mr McCain and Mrs Clinton have both sought to portray Mr Obama as an “elitist” since his remarks about “bitter” small-town voters.

Mr McCain is considered one of the wealthiest members of Congress because of his wife’s fortune. The McCain campaign said the couple had kept separate finances throughout their 27-year marriage, and that Mrs McCain would not release her tax records in order to protect their children’s privacy.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, described the excuse as a “red herring” and said presidential candidates and their families must accept close scrutiny.

“McCain has been the most outspoken about ethics so he is held to a particularly high standard of transparency,” she said, predicting that Mrs McCain would eventually be forced to disclose her records.

In 2004, John Kerry, the then-Democratic presidential nominee, initially refused to make public the tax returns of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, heir to a $500m fortune, until three weeks before the election.

Mr McCain’s income included a Senate salary of $161,708 and $176,508 in book royalties. The 71-year-old, who would be the oldest first-term president if elected, also received a navy pension of $58,358 and Social Security income of $23,157.

Mr Obama’s household income jumped from $991,296 to $4.2m last year – most of it from book sales – as he launched his bid for the presidency.

The Clintons’ disclosure showed that they earned $109m over the past eight years – mostly from Mr Clinton’s books and speeches – representing a sharp turnround from the heavy debts and legal bills they faced after leaving the White House.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008


*******************************************************************

Ward has a few issues in his article I will not point out directly, but will let the details below highlight.

Senate millionaires as of 2004 with update on Clintons. These figures are all approximate and within the correct range. A few of these people have retired, been defeated, or gone on to more rewarding, err ... more gratifying positions:

John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399 (Including Spouse: ~$1 billion)
The FT article claims Heinz's estate is worth $500 million. If this is true, it has lost close to $350 million since 2004. I believe it is more likely that Ward was unable to add that high and chose the lower figure.

Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016 (Family worth $250 million)
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018 (Family worth $200 million)
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Left to do more gratifying work in the State of NJ

Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109 (Family worth $40 million)
Her estimated value has gone up nearly 12% from the figures above.

Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018 (Family worth $45 million)
Bought his seat a few times. NJ politics.

Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
Good for nothing Senate leader who should never have been elected

John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
This is just not accurate. Johnny boy got himself a percent interest out of the company he works for (they have a percent interest and he receives a percent of that) and one recent venture may turn in to a billion dollars or so - the sunken galleon filled with gold that is in dispute with the Spanish government and the private company raising the ship (which John hs a stake in). His value and worth will jump rather much if it works out, as it inevitably will.


Hillary Clinton, D-New York: ~ $10 million upward. Family worth ~ $130 million
The Clinton's have not released their full 2007 returns, just an estimated which does not include the last 6 months. You might wonder why, BUT for the fact we have all been enlighted as to the $109 million they have made since 2001!!!! Hmmm. Could it be that Bill has made between $8-10 million and they would just as soon not include that amount yet. Plus home, plus any other property and financial investments and I think the total value will be between $115-130 million.

Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009 (Family worth $35 million)
Who knows what this family is worth. There are so many of them. They do not lose money, they only increase their wealth.

Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015

Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052

Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012

Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011

Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010
Another useless Republican who should not be rehired ... I think he is retiring.

Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018

Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037
Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007
Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037
James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026
John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043
John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas: $1,513,046
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013
Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999
Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024

*These figures are base estimates provided by senators on their financial disclosure forms.


We should also be clear that if these men and women/husbands/wives are in their mid to late 50s and have lived in their home for 10-20 years, it is quite likely worth $500,000 to $1 million. It is also quite likely they have inherited through their family or spouse, some amount of money. They have invested in stocks or mutual funds, have some retirement funds from some job before politics and have paid off most if not all their loans. That would make their net value worth well over $1.5 million without any help, the sort we find in NJ. Therefore, anyone under $1.6 million should be excluded from the list because the only people who are worth less are younger with loans and debt and or are not bright enough to know how to invest in mutual funds.