[http://my.barackobama.com/100daysVideo]
Respectfully posted by,
NS
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Fair Elections... Supreme Court Justice... News and Views... Activism... Via Links... Opportunities
["Sam Waterston on ABC News On-Line on Fair Elections Now Act"; as submitted to You Tube by publicampaign on April 08, 2009; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYQ8i2HOKI]
Re. the "Fair Elections Now Act" [Passing This On...]
"Groups accept Obama rules - for 1 night" (By KENNETH P. VOGEL & CHRIS FRATES | 4/20/09 7:24 PM EDT):
"The DCCC and DSCC agree to forego lobbyist and PAC cash in order to land Obama as the keynote speaker... The two major Democratic congressional fundraising committees agreed to forego lobbyist and political action committee cash at a June fundraiser in order to land President Barack Obama as the keynote speaker...
During the campaign, Obama used his pledge to assert he wasn’t beholden to the special interests he derided as controlling Washington... And sources involved in setting up the arrangement between the White House and the DSCC and DCCC said the groups decided not accept money from lobbyists and PACs anytime Obama is involved in a fundraising effort out of deference to his campaign trail pledge.
'Our understanding is that the president's restrictions will apply to any of his direct fundraising,' said a Democratic aide familiar with the arrangement... That’s in contrast to the arrangement Obama dictated to the Democratic National Committee, which will not accept lobbyist or PAC contributions as long as Obama’s at the helm of the party.
Nonetheless, the one-night restriction could turn out to be a big concession for the DCCC and the DSCC. They typically reap lots of money from lobbyists and PACs seeking to cozy up to sitting members of Congress, who control the fate of legislation upon which their livelihoods and those of their clients often depend.
In January and February, the period covered by their most recent electronically available filings, the DCCC raised $990,000 from PACs and $4.8 million from individuals – a tally that includes contributions from lobbyists. The DSCC, meanwhile, had raised $2.6 million from PACs and $2.7 million from individuals.
One Democratic Party source said the White House had dictated the conditions of Obama’s appearance at the joint congressional fundraiser in June. And a Democratic operative familiar with the pre-conditions predicted the restrictions wouldn’t impact the haul at the event.
Whether it affects the groups’ bottom line or not, the arrangement is just window dressing, asserted Ken Spain, spokesman for the DCCC’s rival, the National Republican Congressional Committee.
'It’s a one night conversion. It is the height of hypocrisy for President Obama to headline a dinner for the very same campaign committees that oppose his position of refusing lobbyist donations,' Spain said. 'This was a lose-lose situation for them. Both the DCCC and the DSCC were forced to decide between incurring a major P.R. hit and undercutting the president’s anti-lobbyist platform or cutting off a significant money source.'
Obama has been consistent on the issue, said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse.
'If he’s going to be involved in a fundraiser, he’s going to maintain the restrictions that he had for his own campaign and that he has for the DNC – that he not raise PAC or lobbyist money,' Woodhouse said.
Obama in February rejected an invitation to headline a fundraiser thrown by the Democratic Governors Association, which - as a so-called 527 organization –is outside the reach of many federal election laws, allowing it to reap huge donations exceeding federal limits from not only PACs and lobbyists, but also from corporations, which are barred from contributing to federal campaigns" ["Groups accept Obama rules - for 1 night"; Kenneth P. Vogel and Chris Frates; POLITICO.com; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21478.html]
The Options Presented On Site Include: Email... Recommend... Share...
-------------------------------------------------------
From Today's Emails:
1. "Honoring the Ban"
"During his campaign, President Obama set a standard of not accepting donations from registered lobbyists or Political Action Committees (PACs). While somewhat symbolic, he did so to let the public know he was serious about tackling the undue influence of money in politics. 'I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs...They do not fund my campaign...And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States,' Obama said in June of 2008.
Upon becoming the Democratic nominee, Obama convinced the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to follow his lead and not take donations from PACs and registered lobbyists as well... The two other Democratic fundraising committees, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), did not take that same pledge until now, but only for the one night when President Obama will appear at a gala fundraising event on June 18th.
In a recent letter to the Democratic campaign committees, Change Congress asks these groups to keep the ban in place without exception:
'For 364 days a year, your rules would allow members of Congress to leave a hearing about regulating Wall Street and then walk straight to the DSCC and DCCC offices to ‘dial for dollars’ from Wall Street lobbyists who want more bailout money and less accountability to taxpayers. Most Americans would find that conflict of interest repulsive.
'We call on you to ban PAC and lobbyist contributions 365 days a year, just as President Obama did.'
The letter is signed by a number of activists and bloggers, including Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign; David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch; and Lisa Gilbert, democracy advocate at US PIRG.
The letter has made a splash in the media. A number of news outlets, including The Huffington Post and Politico, have covered this letter. The New York Times blog rightly points out, 'Part of the goal here is to restore and expand public campaign financing in elections.'" [This was sent by Nick Nyhart of the Public Campaign Action Fund]
To sign the letter go to (Copy and Paste): http://www.stopfakereform.com
2.
"The Fair Elections Now Act is gaining traction. Since the introduction of the legislation a month ago, a slew of new co-sponsors from the House of Representatives have signed onto the bill. In total there are now 22 House sponsors and co-sponsors. We are encouraged by this progress, but we still need your help... Please take a few moments to call and ask your member, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, at (202) 225-6335, to join the list of sponsors of the Fair Elections Now Act!" [This was sent by Nick Nyhart of the Public Campaign Action Fund]
["Reaction: Who should fill Souter's seat?"; as submitted to You Tube by UPIVideo on May 01, 2009; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpSePWyuoxw]
From Today's Emails:
"President Obama will soon nominate a new Supreme Court justice now that Justice David Souter has announced his retirement from the Court... Please [sign our petition] urging him to name another woman like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is a proven advocate for equality and fair treatment under the Constitution... Ginsburg said she can't help but wonder what people think when they visit the Court and see only one woman out of the nine justices. 'There I am all alone, and it doesn't look right,' said Ginsburg, noting that women bring a life experience to the court that men can't... Please help balance the scales of justice by nominating a woman who stands for equality and justice to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Encourage your friends to sign, too -- NOW will hand deliver every 10,000 signatures to the White House." [This was sent by the National Organization for Women Action Center]
To Sign the Petition Go (Copy and Paste) To:
http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/supreme/woman_justice.html#form?str=gxJoUx6a
Note: These e-mail notices / activism opportunities (via noted links) have been minimized and modified for inclusion here.
--------------------------------------------------
Peace, Love, Equality and Humane Justice,
NS
Re. the "Fair Elections Now Act" [Passing This On...]
"Groups accept Obama rules - for 1 night" (By KENNETH P. VOGEL & CHRIS FRATES | 4/20/09 7:24 PM EDT):
"The DCCC and DSCC agree to forego lobbyist and PAC cash in order to land Obama as the keynote speaker... The two major Democratic congressional fundraising committees agreed to forego lobbyist and political action committee cash at a June fundraiser in order to land President Barack Obama as the keynote speaker...
During the campaign, Obama used his pledge to assert he wasn’t beholden to the special interests he derided as controlling Washington... And sources involved in setting up the arrangement between the White House and the DSCC and DCCC said the groups decided not accept money from lobbyists and PACs anytime Obama is involved in a fundraising effort out of deference to his campaign trail pledge.
'Our understanding is that the president's restrictions will apply to any of his direct fundraising,' said a Democratic aide familiar with the arrangement... That’s in contrast to the arrangement Obama dictated to the Democratic National Committee, which will not accept lobbyist or PAC contributions as long as Obama’s at the helm of the party.
Nonetheless, the one-night restriction could turn out to be a big concession for the DCCC and the DSCC. They typically reap lots of money from lobbyists and PACs seeking to cozy up to sitting members of Congress, who control the fate of legislation upon which their livelihoods and those of their clients often depend.
In January and February, the period covered by their most recent electronically available filings, the DCCC raised $990,000 from PACs and $4.8 million from individuals – a tally that includes contributions from lobbyists. The DSCC, meanwhile, had raised $2.6 million from PACs and $2.7 million from individuals.
One Democratic Party source said the White House had dictated the conditions of Obama’s appearance at the joint congressional fundraiser in June. And a Democratic operative familiar with the pre-conditions predicted the restrictions wouldn’t impact the haul at the event.
Whether it affects the groups’ bottom line or not, the arrangement is just window dressing, asserted Ken Spain, spokesman for the DCCC’s rival, the National Republican Congressional Committee.
'It’s a one night conversion. It is the height of hypocrisy for President Obama to headline a dinner for the very same campaign committees that oppose his position of refusing lobbyist donations,' Spain said. 'This was a lose-lose situation for them. Both the DCCC and the DSCC were forced to decide between incurring a major P.R. hit and undercutting the president’s anti-lobbyist platform or cutting off a significant money source.'
Obama has been consistent on the issue, said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse.
'If he’s going to be involved in a fundraiser, he’s going to maintain the restrictions that he had for his own campaign and that he has for the DNC – that he not raise PAC or lobbyist money,' Woodhouse said.
Obama in February rejected an invitation to headline a fundraiser thrown by the Democratic Governors Association, which - as a so-called 527 organization –is outside the reach of many federal election laws, allowing it to reap huge donations exceeding federal limits from not only PACs and lobbyists, but also from corporations, which are barred from contributing to federal campaigns" ["Groups accept Obama rules - for 1 night"; Kenneth P. Vogel and Chris Frates; POLITICO.com; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21478.html]
The Options Presented On Site Include: Email... Recommend... Share...
-------------------------------------------------------
From Today's Emails:
1. "Honoring the Ban"
"During his campaign, President Obama set a standard of not accepting donations from registered lobbyists or Political Action Committees (PACs). While somewhat symbolic, he did so to let the public know he was serious about tackling the undue influence of money in politics. 'I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs...They do not fund my campaign...And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States,' Obama said in June of 2008.
Upon becoming the Democratic nominee, Obama convinced the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to follow his lead and not take donations from PACs and registered lobbyists as well... The two other Democratic fundraising committees, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), did not take that same pledge until now, but only for the one night when President Obama will appear at a gala fundraising event on June 18th.
In a recent letter to the Democratic campaign committees, Change Congress asks these groups to keep the ban in place without exception:
'For 364 days a year, your rules would allow members of Congress to leave a hearing about regulating Wall Street and then walk straight to the DSCC and DCCC offices to ‘dial for dollars’ from Wall Street lobbyists who want more bailout money and less accountability to taxpayers. Most Americans would find that conflict of interest repulsive.
'We call on you to ban PAC and lobbyist contributions 365 days a year, just as President Obama did.'
The letter is signed by a number of activists and bloggers, including Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign; David Donnelly, national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch; and Lisa Gilbert, democracy advocate at US PIRG.
The letter has made a splash in the media. A number of news outlets, including The Huffington Post and Politico, have covered this letter. The New York Times blog rightly points out, 'Part of the goal here is to restore and expand public campaign financing in elections.'" [This was sent by Nick Nyhart of the Public Campaign Action Fund]
To sign the letter go to (Copy and Paste): http://www.stopfakereform.com
2.
"The Fair Elections Now Act is gaining traction. Since the introduction of the legislation a month ago, a slew of new co-sponsors from the House of Representatives have signed onto the bill. In total there are now 22 House sponsors and co-sponsors. We are encouraged by this progress, but we still need your help... Please take a few moments to call and ask your member, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, at (202) 225-6335, to join the list of sponsors of the Fair Elections Now Act!" [This was sent by Nick Nyhart of the Public Campaign Action Fund]
["Reaction: Who should fill Souter's seat?"; as submitted to You Tube by UPIVideo on May 01, 2009; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpSePWyuoxw]
From Today's Emails:
"President Obama will soon nominate a new Supreme Court justice now that Justice David Souter has announced his retirement from the Court... Please [sign our petition] urging him to name another woman like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is a proven advocate for equality and fair treatment under the Constitution... Ginsburg said she can't help but wonder what people think when they visit the Court and see only one woman out of the nine justices. 'There I am all alone, and it doesn't look right,' said Ginsburg, noting that women bring a life experience to the court that men can't... Please help balance the scales of justice by nominating a woman who stands for equality and justice to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Encourage your friends to sign, too -- NOW will hand deliver every 10,000 signatures to the White House." [This was sent by the National Organization for Women Action Center]
To Sign the Petition Go (Copy and Paste) To:
http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/supreme/woman_justice.html#form?str=gxJoUx6a
Note: These e-mail notices / activism opportunities (via noted links) have been minimized and modified for inclusion here.
--------------------------------------------------
Peace, Love, Equality and Humane Justice,
NS
Friday, May 1, 2009
Interesting Survey Results.... From CNN Reporter Jack Cafferty's Blog
"FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
As the debate about torture rages on in Washington — with calls for investigations of the Bush administration — here’s a perhaps surprising nugget about how Americans view torture of suspected terrorists.
Turns out the more often people go to church, the more likely they are to support torture — that’s according to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
The poll finds that of more than half of Americans who attend church services at least once a week, 54 percent say the use of torture is often or sometimes justified.
Only 42 percent of people who seldom or never go to church agree…
Evangelical Protestants are the religious group most likely to agree; while people unaffiliated with any religious group are least likely to support torture.
Of course evangelicals were a major voting bloc courted by President Bush both times he ran for office; and former Bush officials continue to speak out now about how the harsh techniques yielded critical information that helped keep this country safe. But it’s ironic that the faithful are more supportive of torture, isn’t it?
Overall, Pew found 49 percent of Americans say torture is at least “sometimes” justified; while 47 percent say it rarely or never is. Republicans are more likely to support the actions than Democrats; while a majority of Independents believe that torture is sometimes justified.
Here’s my question to you: Why is it that the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support torture of suspected terrorists?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?"
Go to CNNPolitics.com's "Cafferty File" at: http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/01/why-are-frequent-churchgoers-more-likely-to-support-torture/#more-5638
As the debate about torture rages on in Washington — with calls for investigations of the Bush administration — here’s a perhaps surprising nugget about how Americans view torture of suspected terrorists.
Turns out the more often people go to church, the more likely they are to support torture — that’s according to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
The poll finds that of more than half of Americans who attend church services at least once a week, 54 percent say the use of torture is often or sometimes justified.
Only 42 percent of people who seldom or never go to church agree…
Evangelical Protestants are the religious group most likely to agree; while people unaffiliated with any religious group are least likely to support torture.
Of course evangelicals were a major voting bloc courted by President Bush both times he ran for office; and former Bush officials continue to speak out now about how the harsh techniques yielded critical information that helped keep this country safe. But it’s ironic that the faithful are more supportive of torture, isn’t it?
Overall, Pew found 49 percent of Americans say torture is at least “sometimes” justified; while 47 percent say it rarely or never is. Republicans are more likely to support the actions than Democrats; while a majority of Independents believe that torture is sometimes justified.
Here’s my question to you: Why is it that the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support torture of suspected terrorists?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?"
Go to CNNPolitics.com's "Cafferty File" at: http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/01/why-are-frequent-churchgoers-more-likely-to-support-torture/#more-5638
MoveOn... Impeach Judge Jay Bybee... You Tube Video... Activism Link
I Received this (via Email) from Nita Chaudhary, MoveOn.org Political Action (The text is slightly modified for inclusion here):
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbuuBdFUqKY&feature=player_embedded]
"Quick quiz: You're a powerful government lawyer who gives the legal go-ahead for a secret U.S. torture program.
Do you:
a) Lose your license to practice law
b) Go to jail
c) Win a lifetime appointment to one of the highest courts in the land
In the case of Jay Bybee, the answer is "c." Bybee, the lawyer responsible for many of the worst Bush-era torture memos, is currently serving on the prestigious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, thanks to his old boss, George W. Bush.
That's just not right.
Jay Bybee showed no respect for our laws and isn't fit to be a federal judge. Can you sign our petition to Congress calling for the impeachment of Jay Bybee?
... The petition says: 'Jay Bybee, the man behind the torture memos, is unfit to be a federal judge. Congress should impeach him.
President Obama said last night that torture 'corrodes the character of a country.' He's right. Jay Bybee, who violated the law by coming up with a 'legal' rationale for waterboarding and other acts of torture, isn't qualified to hold a position charged with upholding our Constitution.
The outcry for his impeachment is growing; leading progressive in Congress are demanding answers,1 and 20,000 Americans have called for Bybee's impeachment [2] As The New York Times said: 'Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him.' [3]
The calls to impeach Bybee are getting noticed—but Congress hasn't acted yet, and might not, unless we ramp up the call for accountability. There's a real chance Bybee will be held accountable, but only if we show Congress that if they lead, we'll support them.
Can you sign the petition today?
http://pol.moveon.org/bybee/?id=16033-4553635-CSsEUTx&t=4
Thanks for all that you do.
–Nita, Kat, Peter, Ilyse, Justin and the rest of the team
------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
1. "Pressure grows to impeach Bybee over 'torture memos,'" The Times of London, April 29, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51375&id=16033-4553635-CSsEUTx&t=5
2. "Podesta Calls For Bybee Impeachment On CNN, Delivers Your Petitions To Congress," Think Progress, April 26, 2009
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/26/podesta-impeach-bybee/
3. "The Torturers' Manifesto," The New York Times, April 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html?_r=1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Respectfully Passed on By,
NS
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbuuBdFUqKY&feature=player_embedded]
"Quick quiz: You're a powerful government lawyer who gives the legal go-ahead for a secret U.S. torture program.
Do you:
a) Lose your license to practice law
b) Go to jail
c) Win a lifetime appointment to one of the highest courts in the land
In the case of Jay Bybee, the answer is "c." Bybee, the lawyer responsible for many of the worst Bush-era torture memos, is currently serving on the prestigious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, thanks to his old boss, George W. Bush.
That's just not right.
Jay Bybee showed no respect for our laws and isn't fit to be a federal judge. Can you sign our petition to Congress calling for the impeachment of Jay Bybee?
... The petition says: 'Jay Bybee, the man behind the torture memos, is unfit to be a federal judge. Congress should impeach him.
President Obama said last night that torture 'corrodes the character of a country.' He's right. Jay Bybee, who violated the law by coming up with a 'legal' rationale for waterboarding and other acts of torture, isn't qualified to hold a position charged with upholding our Constitution.
The outcry for his impeachment is growing; leading progressive in Congress are demanding answers,1 and 20,000 Americans have called for Bybee's impeachment [2] As The New York Times said: 'Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him.' [3]
The calls to impeach Bybee are getting noticed—but Congress hasn't acted yet, and might not, unless we ramp up the call for accountability. There's a real chance Bybee will be held accountable, but only if we show Congress that if they lead, we'll support them.
Can you sign the petition today?
http://pol.moveon.org/bybee/?id=16033-4553635-CSsEUTx&t=4
Thanks for all that you do.
–Nita, Kat, Peter, Ilyse, Justin and the rest of the team
------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
1. "Pressure grows to impeach Bybee over 'torture memos,'" The Times of London, April 29, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51375&id=16033-4553635-CSsEUTx&t=5
2. "Podesta Calls For Bybee Impeachment On CNN, Delivers Your Petitions To Congress," Think Progress, April 26, 2009
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/26/podesta-impeach-bybee/
3. "The Torturers' Manifesto," The New York Times, April 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html?_r=1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Respectfully Passed on By,
NS
Thursday, April 30, 2009
James Dobson... Barack Obama... Pat Robertson... Your Thoughts... Old Poem... Quotes
["Barack Obama pisses off James Dobson"; submitted to You Tube by AntiConformist911 on June 30,
2008; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b52aT2chS-o]
Reverend Pat Robertson, who reputedly filled former President George Bush Jr.'s legal cabinet with religious (or pseudo-religious?) prodigies apparently said (MSNBC Contessa Brewer) - when the last Presidential election (potential candidates, etc) was still being tossed to and fro - that he would endorse Rudy Giuliani for president...
Now Reverend Pat Robertson is apparently (based on recently viewed You Tube videos) "toasting" Barack Obama as being Mr. Wonderful... and continuing on (Reverend Robertson) with his evangelising and "predictions" - as oodles of money (more than likely...) continues to stick to his behind like flies stick to those gooey icky things my mother used to hang around the house...
What is up with this stuff, folks?
We are moving closer, or so it would appear, to holding some of the members of the former Bush Jr. Administration responsible for what appears to be "less than ethical" (ahem) behavior...
But is anyone looking at these [Dobson, Robertson, others of the same ilk (I've got some particular folks in mind here - NOT all folks that are religious...)] guys?
Did you know that Reverend Pat Robertson, who once (possibly more than once) ran for President, reputedly received $14 MILLION dollars of YOUR tax money (prior to or during 2007) "to provide faith based service here and abroad?" (Michelle Goldberg, "The Rise of the Christian Nation"; "Freethought Today"; 3/2007; P. 10)?
Do you remember him raving and ranting about gays and Chavez?
Are you aware of the money this man allegedly exploited from the African people under the guise of evangelism? [Data can be provided...] --- or that Robertson's personal jet reputedly crashed when en route to a gambling casino?
What do you think (this is for the genuinely religious and/or spiritual - and those who are neither...) about this chameleon aspect of some of these mega-buck preachers? Do you think - as I do - that some of them should "maybe" be under some serious investigation (possibly for illegal donations, lobbying, etc.) too?
Whatever the case (I do hope I get some responses...) - I'm going to end this with a couple of quotes:
----------------------------------------------------
"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate" (John F. Kennedy; "Follow Your Dreams"; 1995; Day Dream, Inc.]
"Who dares to teach must never cease to learn" (John Cotton Dana; Ibid.]
-------------------------------------------------
Peace, Love, Equality and Humane Justice,
N.S.
2008; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b52aT2chS-o]
Reverend Pat Robertson, who reputedly filled former President George Bush Jr.'s legal cabinet with religious (or pseudo-religious?) prodigies apparently said (MSNBC Contessa Brewer) - when the last Presidential election (potential candidates, etc) was still being tossed to and fro - that he would endorse Rudy Giuliani for president...
Now Reverend Pat Robertson is apparently (based on recently viewed You Tube videos) "toasting" Barack Obama as being Mr. Wonderful... and continuing on (Reverend Robertson) with his evangelising and "predictions" - as oodles of money (more than likely...) continues to stick to his behind like flies stick to those gooey icky things my mother used to hang around the house...
What is up with this stuff, folks?
We are moving closer, or so it would appear, to holding some of the members of the former Bush Jr. Administration responsible for what appears to be "less than ethical" (ahem) behavior...
But is anyone looking at these [Dobson, Robertson, others of the same ilk (I've got some particular folks in mind here - NOT all folks that are religious...)] guys?
Did you know that Reverend Pat Robertson, who once (possibly more than once) ran for President, reputedly received $14 MILLION dollars of YOUR tax money (prior to or during 2007) "to provide faith based service here and abroad?" (Michelle Goldberg, "The Rise of the Christian Nation"; "Freethought Today"; 3/2007; P. 10)?
Do you remember him raving and ranting about gays and Chavez?
Are you aware of the money this man allegedly exploited from the African people under the guise of evangelism? [Data can be provided...] --- or that Robertson's personal jet reputedly crashed when en route to a gambling casino?
What do you think (this is for the genuinely religious and/or spiritual - and those who are neither...) about this chameleon aspect of some of these mega-buck preachers? Do you think - as I do - that some of them should "maybe" be under some serious investigation (possibly for illegal donations, lobbying, etc.) too?
Whatever the case (I do hope I get some responses...) - I'm going to end this with a couple of quotes:
----------------------------------------------------
"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate" (John F. Kennedy; "Follow Your Dreams"; 1995; Day Dream, Inc.]
"Who dares to teach must never cease to learn" (John Cotton Dana; Ibid.]
-------------------------------------------------
Peace, Love, Equality and Humane Justice,
N.S.
Ron Paul... Hillary Clinton... National Organization... Barack Obama... Change for Women
["Ron Paul Gets Unexpected Hillary Clinton Response"; as submitted to You Tube by votepaulkucinich2012 on April 29, 2009; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzjuJ2MG9jM]
Received via Email from NOW Media Relations
"Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy
President Barack Obama's first 100 days have brought real change for women.
Obama swiftly signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, repealed the Global Gag Rule, restored international family planning aid and acted to rescind Bush's harmful health care refusal rule. He also signed the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program with important provisions for immigrant children, and created the White House Council on Women on Girls.
The administration has been responsive to advocates' concerns, including provisions in the economic recovery plan that will put women as well as men back to work. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis are particularly excellent advocates for women, and there are many women in important administration posts, though far from gender parity.
In just 100 days President Obama has begun reversing the extensive damage done to women's rights these last eight years, giving us an idea of what is possible with enlightened leadership. I look forward to many more victories for women and girls in the coming days and years."
Respectfully posted by,
NS
Received via Email from NOW Media Relations
"Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy
President Barack Obama's first 100 days have brought real change for women.
Obama swiftly signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, repealed the Global Gag Rule, restored international family planning aid and acted to rescind Bush's harmful health care refusal rule. He also signed the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program with important provisions for immigrant children, and created the White House Council on Women on Girls.
The administration has been responsive to advocates' concerns, including provisions in the economic recovery plan that will put women as well as men back to work. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis are particularly excellent advocates for women, and there are many women in important administration posts, though far from gender parity.
In just 100 days President Obama has begun reversing the extensive damage done to women's rights these last eight years, giving us an idea of what is possible with enlightened leadership. I look forward to many more victories for women and girls in the coming days and years."
Respectfully posted by,
NS
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Swine Flu... Advocating for Paid Sick Days... Working Families Rally Video... Wal-Mart... National Partnership for Women and Families
Connecticut rally (at Wal-Mart) for Paid Sick Days:
["April 1st - Working Families rally for paid sick days"; as submitted to You Tube by luciusvideo
on April 01, 2009; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBSWbjfLIfU]
From my email:
"It's scary. It's confusing. And we all want to do what health experts and government officials say will keep us safe.
But as the 'swine flu' claims more lives in Mexico, and the number of cases in the United States climbs, a lot of us can't do what officials recommend without losing a paycheck or a job.
'This is a serious event… If you have a fever and you're sick or your children are sick, don’t go to work and don't go to school.' That’s what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends.
It's good advice…until you consider that nearly half of private sector workers in the United States don't have a single paid sick day. It's even worse for low wage workers. And nearly 100 million workers don’t have a paid sick day they can use to care for a sick child.
We need paid sick days.
The Healthy Families Act would provide up to seven paid sick days a year so workers can take care of themselves or a sick family member. This modest bill will be introduced in Congress in May — and it needs the support of all Senate and House Members.
It's time to stop letting scare tactics by organized business interests block the progress we need...
Email your members of Congress today. Ask them to support the Healthy Families Act.
Let's give all workers a minimum standard of paid sick days.
Sincerely,
Debra L. Ness, President"
Source: National Partnership for Women & Families (info@nationalpartnership.org)
----------------------------------------------
For New York State You Would Send Your Emails to:
Senator Charles 'Chuck' E. Schumer
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Representative Maurice D. Hinchey
Direct Links are available through the http://www.spreadingourwings4.blogspot.com blog site
---------------------------------------------
Stay healthy!
NS
["April 1st - Working Families rally for paid sick days"; as submitted to You Tube by luciusvideo
on April 01, 2009; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBSWbjfLIfU]
From my email:
"It's scary. It's confusing. And we all want to do what health experts and government officials say will keep us safe.
But as the 'swine flu' claims more lives in Mexico, and the number of cases in the United States climbs, a lot of us can't do what officials recommend without losing a paycheck or a job.
'This is a serious event… If you have a fever and you're sick or your children are sick, don’t go to work and don't go to school.' That’s what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends.
It's good advice…until you consider that nearly half of private sector workers in the United States don't have a single paid sick day. It's even worse for low wage workers. And nearly 100 million workers don’t have a paid sick day they can use to care for a sick child.
We need paid sick days.
The Healthy Families Act would provide up to seven paid sick days a year so workers can take care of themselves or a sick family member. This modest bill will be introduced in Congress in May — and it needs the support of all Senate and House Members.
It's time to stop letting scare tactics by organized business interests block the progress we need...
Email your members of Congress today. Ask them to support the Healthy Families Act.
Let's give all workers a minimum standard of paid sick days.
Sincerely,
Debra L. Ness, President"
Source: National Partnership for Women & Families (info@nationalpartnership.org)
----------------------------------------------
For New York State You Would Send Your Emails to:
Senator Charles 'Chuck' E. Schumer
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Representative Maurice D. Hinchey
Direct Links are available through the http://www.spreadingourwings4.blogspot.com blog site
---------------------------------------------
Stay healthy!
NS
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Fair Tax Reform... You Tube Video... Religous Tax Exemption Issue... Holy Cow Issue... AP... DF... Separation of Church and State Issue...
["NY Clergy Ask Legislators to Support Fair Share"; as submitted by FairTaxReform on March 26, 2009; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19aPAAH7MOE]
This video is posted with some inner conflict... for though it is great to see / hear some NY State Clergy speak out on behalf of tax reforms that would benefit (it appears) the poor... there are other members of the Clergy that don't appear to be too awfully concerned one way or the other... and some members of the clergy that make one wonder, as the song (by Three Non-Blonds) goes, "What's Up?"
Some churches are extremely "elegant" - to say the least - with some here in the City owning properties (with religious tax exemption status) over the 1 Million Dollar mark...
Should these churches (This would require legislative changes and such, to be sure) be taxed? Should these churches be taxed after they hit a certain monetary (often reflected in their property holdings) value?
Should the amount of people a church serves and how often and how "freely" minister to the community be a part of determining (along with the churches cumulative assets) whether a church (or other religious institution) is allowed full religious non-profit tax exemption, partial religious non-profit tax-exemption - or none?
There are certainly churches in the City of Kingston that are reaching out to the people, freely (or at very low cost) providing space for a lot of needed programs and otherwise staying involved in the community...
But there are also some churches in the City of Kingston that appear to be a bit exclusive... and there are some church properties - still on the City's religious tax exemption rolls (and the taxpayer's backs) that are actually sitting (some of this is big $$$$$ folks...) empty.
Which is an issue, along with the "good works" of some religious bodies (Thank you.) --- that I believe deserves a little "look see" around here...
What got me going on this sort of topic again?
Not the video, per se... Although it does strike me as ironic that the folks portrayed are speaking in beautiful "empty" churches about how "everyone" needs to chip in - in regard to taxes - during this economic crisis...
Instead, I was more provoked by a small article in Friday's "Daily Freeman" (DF) - titled, "New York Minister's Pay Package Causes Stir" (Associated Press; DF; 4/24/09; P. B5)
Quote:
"NEW YORK... The chairman of Manhattan's Riverside Church Council is defending the incoming senior minister's $600,000-plus salary package. Billy Jones says the Rev. Brad Braxton's pay package is comparable to those at similar-size congregations... It includes a $250,000 annual salary and $11,500 living allowance. It also covers housekeeping, entertainment, travel and personal development. And there's an annual payment into a fund for home purchase..."
Say "what?"
I don't expect ministers and such to live in hovels - but isn't the above a little beyond the beyond????? With the probable (although not absolute) factor of receiving religious tax-exempt status (in regard to income, housing, other?) as well...
Which leads me around to another topic I used to address more often... That being the necessity of (and, in many cases, the continued violation of) "separation of church and state."
Why?
Because this reveals that in at least some instances, religious folks that also engage in politics are quite likely (this is not an absolute) to have a serious TAX advantage over the regular politically minded guy or gal... who is more apt, in these cases, to have trouble (of course, other factors come into this, as well, like an already captive audience...) raising campaign funds - and/or to have their reputations smeared because they (trying to feed their family and campaign / run for office....) fell behind on their taxes at some point during their lifetime...
Fair is fair - and I think all of this deserves some serious scrutiny.
What do you think?
Peace, Love, Equality and Humane Justice,
NS
This video is posted with some inner conflict... for though it is great to see / hear some NY State Clergy speak out on behalf of tax reforms that would benefit (it appears) the poor... there are other members of the Clergy that don't appear to be too awfully concerned one way or the other... and some members of the clergy that make one wonder, as the song (by Three Non-Blonds) goes, "What's Up?"
Some churches are extremely "elegant" - to say the least - with some here in the City owning properties (with religious tax exemption status) over the 1 Million Dollar mark...
Should these churches (This would require legislative changes and such, to be sure) be taxed? Should these churches be taxed after they hit a certain monetary (often reflected in their property holdings) value?
Should the amount of people a church serves and how often and how "freely" minister to the community be a part of determining (along with the churches cumulative assets) whether a church (or other religious institution) is allowed full religious non-profit tax exemption, partial religious non-profit tax-exemption - or none?
There are certainly churches in the City of Kingston that are reaching out to the people, freely (or at very low cost) providing space for a lot of needed programs and otherwise staying involved in the community...
But there are also some churches in the City of Kingston that appear to be a bit exclusive... and there are some church properties - still on the City's religious tax exemption rolls (and the taxpayer's backs) that are actually sitting (some of this is big $$$$$ folks...) empty.
Which is an issue, along with the "good works" of some religious bodies (Thank you.) --- that I believe deserves a little "look see" around here...
What got me going on this sort of topic again?
Not the video, per se... Although it does strike me as ironic that the folks portrayed are speaking in beautiful "empty" churches about how "everyone" needs to chip in - in regard to taxes - during this economic crisis...
Instead, I was more provoked by a small article in Friday's "Daily Freeman" (DF) - titled, "New York Minister's Pay Package Causes Stir" (Associated Press; DF; 4/24/09; P. B5)
Quote:
"NEW YORK... The chairman of Manhattan's Riverside Church Council is defending the incoming senior minister's $600,000-plus salary package. Billy Jones says the Rev. Brad Braxton's pay package is comparable to those at similar-size congregations... It includes a $250,000 annual salary and $11,500 living allowance. It also covers housekeeping, entertainment, travel and personal development. And there's an annual payment into a fund for home purchase..."
Say "what?"
I don't expect ministers and such to live in hovels - but isn't the above a little beyond the beyond????? With the probable (although not absolute) factor of receiving religious tax-exempt status (in regard to income, housing, other?) as well...
Which leads me around to another topic I used to address more often... That being the necessity of (and, in many cases, the continued violation of) "separation of church and state."
Why?
Because this reveals that in at least some instances, religious folks that also engage in politics are quite likely (this is not an absolute) to have a serious TAX advantage over the regular politically minded guy or gal... who is more apt, in these cases, to have trouble (of course, other factors come into this, as well, like an already captive audience...) raising campaign funds - and/or to have their reputations smeared because they (trying to feed their family and campaign / run for office....) fell behind on their taxes at some point during their lifetime...
Fair is fair - and I think all of this deserves some serious scrutiny.
What do you think?
Peace, Love, Equality and Humane Justice,
NS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
