Categories
Immigration Reform Politics Republican United States White House

Haley Barbour – For Immigration Reform Before He Was Against It

In today’s political climate, any Republican in favor of providing a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally would face the wrath of the GOP and the Teaparty. So a potential 2012 Presidential Republican candidate would have every right to hide that fact.

Enter Haley Barbour – the Republican Mississippi governor who was interviewed on Fox News and spoke about his ambitions for 2012. Questions were asked about Barbour’s history as a lobbyist, and in his effort to defend his position, Barbour seemed to forget one very important client he had when lobbying – The Embassy of Mexico.

Time reports;

Barbour may be eager to showcase his record, but one of Barbour’s foreign lobbying clients could cause him some troubles in the 2012 Republican primary, if he decides to run. According to a Justice Department filing by Barbour’s former lobbying firm, The Embassy of Mexico decided to retain Barbour’s services on August 15, 2001, to work on, among other things, legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for foreigners living illegally in the United States—what opponents of immigration reform call “amnesty.”

“Haley Barbour and I will lead the BG&R team,” wrote Lanny Griffith, Barbour’s former business partner, in the filing. According to subsequent filings, Barbour’s work included “building support in the legislative branch for passage of a bill related to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” As part of that work, Barbour’s firm arranged meetings and briefings with “Senators, members of Congress and their staff, as well as Executive Branch Officials in the White House, National Security Council, State Department, and Immigration & Naturalization Service.” Barbour’s firm charged Mexico $35,000 a month, plus expenses.

Could it be that Haley Barbour was once for amnesty? What would the Teaparty say if they found out about his amnesty providing past?

Mr. Barhour says he will wait until April to announce whether or not he will run for president in 2012. Until then, there are a lot of questions to be answered but chances are he’s not gonna be asked these type of questions over at the Republican branding FOX network.

Read the full Time report here.

Categories
Barack Obama Chuck Schumer Politics United States

Mr. President, This Is Not A Good Idea

Okay, so there really is a first for everything. Consider this our first and maybe not the last critique of this Administration.

What is going on with President Obama? The National Journal is reporting massive cuts to LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program),  a federally funded program geared towards helping the poorer among us to heat their homes during the cold winter months. The report states that this will be  “the biggest domestic spending cut disclosed so far, and one that will likely generate the most heat from the president’s traditional political allies.”

This is obviously an effort by the administration to appease the Republican party, who have promised the Teaparty that they will impose massive cuts to domestic spending programs.

The decision has left some in the President’s own party scratching their heads. The report continues;

One White House friend, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said earlier today that a Republican proposal to cut home heating oil counted as an “extreme idea” that would “set the country backwards.” Schumer has not yet reacted to Obama’s proposed cut. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., declared: “The President’s reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half would have a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens and I strongly oppose it.” A spokesman for Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., declared similarly: “If these cuts are real, it would be a very disappointing development for millions of families still struggling through a harsh winter.”

In a letter to Obama, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote, “We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history. Families across Massachusetts, and the country, depend on these monies to heat their homes and survive the season.”

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, would see funding drop by about $2.5 billion from an authorized 2009 total of $5.1 billion. The proposed cut will not touch the program’s emergency reserve fund, about $590 million, which can be used during particularly harsh cold snaps or extended heat spells, three officials told National Journal

Read the rest of the report here.


Categories
Barack Obama Politics Republican United States

Next Step For House Republicans – Cutting Health Care Funding

The push to end President Obama’s major initiative continues in the Republican House of Representative. After voting to repeal the law earlier in January, House Republicans are now talking about their next step in stopping Americans from getting the consumer protection and Health care the law provides. Their next step is cutting off its funding.

As reported by AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the House’s top Republicans says he believes the chamber will soon vote to block spending for President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told reporters Tuesday that by the time the House approves a government-wide spending bill for this year, it will end up prohibiting the use of money for the overhaul. The House is expected to debate that legislation shortly.

That overhaul, which became law last year, is one of Obama’s proudest legislative achievements. Republicans have opposed it as a costly, big-government overreach.

Spending for government programs expires March 4 unless Congress approves new legislation providing extra funds.

Cantor, a Virginia Republican, and other GOP lawmakers want to use the spending bill to cut government expenditures across the board.

Categories
Democratic Mitch McConnell Politics Republican

Is The Teaparty Turning On Scott Brown?

He seemed to be just another ordinary man, driving a pick-up truck, cruising around Massachusetts shaking hands and kissing babies. He was endorsed by the Teaparty and was poised to go down in defeat in a state that was often referred to as a liberal county – and after all, he was running a campaign to replace one of the most liberal members of Congress, the late Ted Kennedy.  At a time when Republicans only controlled 40 seats in the Senate and embraced the label “the party of NO,” Brown was seen as the automatic 41st vote against a Democratic controlled majority. The Teaparty powered his campaign with what seemed to be an unlimited amount of cash, and with the lack-luster effort of his Democratic rival Martha Coakley, Scott Brown won the Senate seat controlled by Democrats for almost 50 years.

The Teaparty rejoiced. Their 41st “NO” vote was in place and this was supposed to be the beginning of the revolution to “take their country back!” But something was different about Brown. He seemed to be putting the people of his state before the wishes of his party. He was not the rubber-stamp they expected and he even sided with Democrats on some very important pieces of legislations, like the New START Treaty, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Financial Reform and the Jobs bill in 2010 – bills geared to increase America’s security and economic standing, but vastly different from the Teaparty’s ideas on where they wanted America to be.

Now, because of his stance on these and other issues, the Teaparty is trying to unseat Brown.

Scott Wheeler, a Republican activist whose Political Action Committee invested “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in Brown’s election campaign is livid! In a recent article Wheeler wrote called, “Why Scott Brown Must Be Defeated,” Mr. Wheeler said;

An organization I run, The National Republican Trust PAC, raised and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help Scott Brown win the Massachusetts special election to fill the seat vacated upon the death of Ted Kennedy. That organization will now do everything possible to see that Brown is defeated by a primary opponent when he faces reelection in 2012. Why? Because there is no difference between him and a Democrat.

Brown is caught between a rock and a hard place. His party is turning against him, his Teaparty supporters are turning against him, and with his re-election coming up in 2012, Democrats will prefer seeing one of their own reclaim the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. Mr. Brown is feeling the uprising from all sides.

In a meeting with his constituents, Newsweek describes Brown’s opening statement to the audience as he explains the dilemma he faces;

The strain of walking such a fine line must be getting to Brown, because as soon as he finishes his initial round of pleasantries, he launches into a peevish rant about how unfair conservatives are being when they criticize him. “The Democrats are in charge!” he shouts, his voice reaching the high, strained register that teenagers typically use when they don’t want to take out the trash. “Does that mean I’m supposed to do nothing? That I’m supposed to vote with my party every single second of every single day? Why? I haven’t done it for 15 years in the state legislature. All of a sudden I’m supposed to be an ideologue? I’m not quite sure what the mystery is, folks. When I hear some of the comments…I don’t know what the mystery is. I said I was going down there to be a Scott Brown Republican, not someone who works for Harry Reid—or Mitch McConnell!” It’s as if Brown is no longer addressing the people in the room—again, they’re mostly Democrats. Instead, he seems to be fending off foes in Washington, real or otherwise. Unsure of how to react, the crowd quietly pokes at its meatloaf.

This dilemma is real, and Scott Brown knows it. If he fights for the people and does what he believe is right, then the Teaparty and the Republicans in Congress will continue to do all they can to take away his GOP membership card. If he becomes a Republican rubber-stamp, then it is very likely the citizens of Massachusetts will make their voices heard in 2012 and reward the seat to someone who puts them first. And if he aligns himself more with the Democrats, then Democrats accuse him of playing politics, just to get re-elected.

Scott Brown doesn’t need any advise from me, a simple blogger, but if I were to advise him, I would tell him to continue doing what is right for his constituents. Let the Teaparty, Republicans and Democrats fight among themselves. But knowing how the Republicans demand their caucus stick together in opposition to President Obama’s initiatives, its only a matter of time before they make Brown fall into line.

Categories
Politics United States

Transcript of President Obama’s Speech to the Chamber of Commerce.

Thank you, Tom, for your introduction. It’s good to be here today at the Chamber of Commerce. I’m here in the interest of being more neighborly. Maybe we would have gotten off on a better foot if I had brought over a fruitcake when we first moved in.

The truth is, this isn’t the first time I’ve been to the Chamber, or the first time we’ve exchanged ideas. Over the last two years, I’ve sought advice from many of you as we were grappling with the worst recession most of us have ever known. It’s a recession that led to some very difficult decisions. For many of you, that meant restructuring and branch closings and layoffs that were painful to make. For my administration, it meant a series of emergency measures I wouldn’t have taken under normal circumstances, but that were necessary to stop our economy from falling off the cliff.

Now, on some issues, like the Recovery Act, we’ve found common cause. On other issues, we’ve had some pretty strong disagreements. But I’m here today because I’m convinced we can and must work together. Whatever differences we may have, I know that all of us share a deep belief in this country, our people, and the principles that have made America’s economy the envy of the world.

America’s success didn’t happen by accident. It happened because of the freedom that has allowed good ideas to flourish, and capitalism to thrive. It happened because of the conviction that in this country, hard work should be rewarded; that opportunity should be there for anyone willing to reach for it. And it happened because at every juncture in history, we came together as one nation and did what was necessary to win the future.

That is our challenge today.

We still have, by far, the world’s largest and most vibrant economy. We have the most productive workers, the finest universities and the freest markets. The men and women in this room are living testimony that American industry is still the source of the most dynamic companies, and the most ingenious entrepreneurs.

But we also know that with the march of technology over the last few decades, the competition for jobs and businesses has grown fierce. The globalization of our economy means that businesses can now open up shop, employ workers and produce their goods wherever there is internet connection. Tasks that were once done by 1,000 workers can now be done by 100, or even 10. And the truth is, as countries like China and India grow and develop larger middle classes, it’s profitable for global companies to aggressively pursue these markets and, at times, to set up facilities in these countries.

These forces are as unstoppable as they are powerful. But combined with a brutal and devastating recession, they have also shaken the faith of the American people – in the institutions of business and government. They see a widening chasm of wealth and opportunity in this country, and they wonder if the American Dream is slipping away.

We cannot ignore these concerns. We have to renew people’s faith in the promise of this country – that this is a place where you can make it if you try. And we have to do this together: business and government; workers and CEOs; Democrats and Republicans.

We know what it will take for America to win the future. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our competitors. We need an economy that’s based not on what we consume and borrow from other nations, but what we make and sell around the world. We need to make America the best place on earth to do business.

And this is a job for all of us. As a government, we will help lay the foundation for you to grow and innovate. We will upgrade our transportation and communications networks so you can move goods and information more quickly and cheaply. We will invest in education so that you can hire the most skilled, talented workers in the world. And we’ll knock down barriers that make it harder for you to compete, from the tax code to the regulatory system.

But I want to be clear: even as we make America the best place on earth to do business, businesses also have a responsibility to America.

Now, I understand the challenges you face. I understand that you’re under incredible pressure to cut costs and keep your margins up. I understand the significance of your obligations to your shareholders. I get it. But as we work with you to make America a better place to do business, ask yourselves what you can do for America. Ask yourselves what you can do to hire American workers, to support the American economy, and to invest in this nation. That’s what I want to talk about today – the responsibilities we all have to secure the future we all share.

As a country, we have a responsibility to encourage American innovation. Companies like yours have always driven the discovery of new ideas and new products. But, as you know, it’s not always profitable in the short-term for you to invest in basic research. That’s why government has traditionally helped invest in this kind of science, planting the seeds that ultimately grew into technologies from computer chips to the internet.

And that’s why we’re making investments today in the next generation of big ideas – in biotechnology, information technology, and clean energy technology. We’re reforming our patent system so innovations can move more quickly to market. Steve Case is heading up a new partnership called Startup America to help entrepreneurs turn new ideas into new businesses and new jobs. And I’ve also proposed a bigger, permanent tax credit for all the research and development your companies do in this country.

We also have a responsibility as a nation to provide our people and our businesses with the fastest, most reliable way to move goods and information. The costs to business from the outdated and inadequate infrastructure we currently have are enormous. That’s why I want to put more people to work rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges. And that’s why I’ve proposed connecting 80 percent of the country to high-speed rail, and making it possible for companies to put high-speed internet coverage in reach of virtually all Americans.

You understand the importance of this. The fact is, the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO don’t agree on a whole lot. Tom Donohue and Richard Trumka aren’t exactly Facebook friends. But they agree on the need to build a 21st century infrastructure. And I want to thank the Chamber for pushing Congress to make more infrastructure investments, and to do so in the most cost-effective way possible: with tax dollars that leverage private capital, and with projects determined not by politics, but by what’s best for our economy.

The third responsibility we have as a nation is to invest in the skills and education of our people. If we expect companies to do business and hire in America, America needs a pool of trained, talented workers that can out-compete anyone in the world. That’s why we’re reforming K-12 education and training 100,000 new math and science teachers. That’s why we’re making college more affordable, and revitalizing community colleges.

Recently, I visited GE in Schenectady, New York, which has partnered with a local community college. While students train for jobs available at the nearby GE plant, they earn a paycheck and have their tuition covered. As a result, young people can find work. GE can fill high-skilled positions. And the entire region has become more attractive to businesses. It’s win-win for everyone, and something we’re trying to replicate across the country.

To make room for these investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure, government also has a responsibility to cut the spending that we just can’t afford. That’s why I’ve promised to veto any bill larded up with earmarks. And that’s why I’ve proposed that we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years, which would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and bring this spending down to the lowest share of our economy since Eisenhower was president. And I am eager to work with both parties to take additional steps across the budget to put our nation on sounder fiscal footing.

In addition to making government more affordable, we’re also making it more effective and customer-friendly. We’re trying to run the government more like you run your businesses – with better technology and faster services. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. And we want to start with the twelve different agencies that deal with America’s exports. If we hope to help our businesses sell more goods around the world, we should ensure we are all pulling in the same direction.

This brings me to the final responsibility of government: breaking down barriers that stand in the way of your success. As far as exports are concerned, that means seeking new opportunities and opening new markets for your goods. I’ll go anywhere to be a booster for American businesses, American workers, and American products. We recently signed export deals with India and China that will support more than 250,000 jobs here in the United States. And we finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs – a deal that has unprecedented support from business and labor; Democrats and Republicans. That’s the kind of deal I’ll be looking for as we pursue trade agreements with Panama and Columbia and work to bring Russia into the international trading system.

Another barrier government can remove is a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest rates in the world. You know how it goes: because of various loopholes and carve-outs that have built up over the years, some industries pay an average rate that is four or five times higher than others. Companies are taxed heavily for making investments with equity; yet the tax code actually pays companies to invest using leverage. As a result, too many businesses end up making decisions based on what their tax director says instead of what their engineer designs or what their factory produces. This puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. That’s why I want to lower the corporate rate and eliminate these loopholes to pay for it, so that it doesn’t add a dime to our deficit. And I am asking for your help in this fight.

The last barriers we’re trying to remove are outdated and unnecessary regulations. I’ve ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them. Already we’re dramatically cutting down on the paperwork that saddles businesses with huge administrative costs. We’re improving the way FDA evaluates things like medical devices, to get innovative and life-saving treatments to market faster. And the EPA, based on the need for further scientific analysis, delayed the greenhouse gas permitting rules for biomass. I’ve also ordered agencies to find ways to make regulations more flexible for small businesses. And we’ve turned a tangle of fuel economy regulations and pending lawsuits into a single standard that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, save consumers money at the pump, and give car companies the certainty they need.

But ultimately, winning the future is not just about what the government can do to help you succeed. It’s about what you can do to help America succeed.

For example, even as we work to eliminate burdensome regulations, America’s businesses have a responsibility to recognize that there are some safeguards and standards that are necessary to protect the American people from harm or exploitation.

Few of us would want to live in a society without the rules that keep our air and water clean; that give consumers the confidence to do everything from investing in financial markets to buying groceries. Yet when standards like these have been proposed, opponents have often warned that they would be an assault on business and free enterprise. Early drug companies argued that the bill creating the FDA would “practically destroy the sale of … remedies in the United States.” Auto executives predicted that having to install seatbelts would bring the downfall of their industry. The President of the American Bar Association denounced child labor laws as “a communistic effort to nationalize children.”

Of course, none of this has come to pass. In fact, companies adapt and standards often spark competition and innovation. Look at refrigerators. The government set modest targets to increase efficiency over time. Companies competed to hit these markers. And as a result, a typical fridge now costs half as much and uses a quarter of the energy it once did, saving families and businesses billions of dollars.

Moreover, the perils of too much regulation are matched by the dangers of too little. We saw that in the financial crisis, where the absence of sound rules of the road was hardly good for business. That’s why, with the help of Paul Volcker who is here today, we passed a set of commonsense reforms. The same can be said of health insurance reform. We simply could not continue to accept a status quo that’s made our entire economy less competitive, as we’ve paid more per person for health care than any other nation on earth. And we could not accept a broken system where insurance companies could drop people because they got sick, or families went bankrupt because of medical bills.

I know you have concerns about this law. But the non-partisan congressional watchdogs at the CBO estimate that health care tax credits will be worth nearly $40 billion for small businesses over the next decade. And experts – not just from the government, but also those commissioned by the Business Roundtable – suggest that health insurance reform could ultimately save large employers anywhere from $2,000 to $3,000 per family. I’m also willing to look at other ideas to improve the law, including incentives to improve patient safety and medical malpractice reforms. And as I said in the State of the Union, I want to correct a flaw that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses, and I appreciate the Chamber’s help in doing that.

Of course, your responsibility goes beyond recognizing the need for certain standards and safeguards. If we’re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits can’t just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They should be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line. We cannot go back to the kind of economy – and culture – we saw in the years leading up to the recession, where growth and gains in productivity just didn’t translate into rising incomes and opportunity for the middle class.

And if we as a nation are going to invest in innovation, that innovation should lead to new jobs and manufacturing on our shores. The end result of tax breaks and investments cannot simply be that new breakthroughs and technologies are discovered in America, but manufactured overseas.

The key to our success has never been just developing new ideas; it’s also been making new products. Intel pioneers the microchip, and puts thousands to work building them in Silicon Valley. Henry Ford perfects the assembly line, and puts a generation to work in the factories of Detroit. This is how we built the largest middle-class in the world. And this is how we’ll create the base of knowledge and skills that propel the next invention, the next idea.

Right now, businesses across this country are proving that America can compete. Caterpillar is opening a new plant to build excavators in Texas that used to be shipped from Japan. In Tennessee, Whirlpool is opening their first new US factory in more than a decade. Dow is building a new plant in Michigan to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles. A company called Geomagic, a software maker, decided to close down its overseas centers in China and Europe and move their R&D to the United States. These are companies bringing jobs back to our shores.

Now is the time to invest in America. Today, American companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets. I know that many of you have told me that you are waiting for demand to rise before you get off the sidelines and expand, and that with millions of Americans out of work, demand has risen more slowly than any of us would like.

But many of your own economists and salespeople are now forecasting a healthy increase in demand. So I want to encourage you to get in the game. And part of the bipartisan tax deal we negotiated, businesses can immediately expense 100 percent of their capital investments. As you all know, it’s investments made now that will pay off as the economy rebounds. And as you hire, you know that more Americans working means more sales, greater demand, and higher profits for your companies. We can create a virtuous cycle.

And if there is a reason you don’t share my confidence, if there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines – to hire and invest – I want to know about it. I want to fix it. That’s why I’ve asked Jeff Immelt of GE to lead a new council of business leaders and outside experts so that we’re getting the best advice on what you’re facing out there – and we’ll be holding our first meeting two weeks from now, on the 24th. Together, I am confident that we can win the competition for new jobs and industries. And I know you share my enthusiasm; I know you love this country and want America to succeed just as badly as I do.

Yes, we’ll have disagreements; yes we will see things differently at times. But we are all Americans. And that spirit of patriotism, that sense of mutual regard and common obligation has carried us through times far harder than these.

Toward the end of the 1930s, amidst depression and the looming prospect of war, President Roosevelt realized he would need to form a new partnership with business if we were going to become what he would call the “arsenal of democracy.” As you could imagine, the relationship between the president and business leaders had grown somewhat fractured over the New Deal. So Roosevelt reached out to businesses; and business leaders answered the call to serve their country. After years of fighting each other, the result was one of the most productive collaborations between the public and private sectors in American history.

Some, like the head of GM, hadn’t previously known the president. If anything, he had been an adversary. But he gathered his family and explained that he was going to head up what would become the War Production Board.

“This country has been good to me,” he said. “I want to pay it back.”

In the years that followed, automobile factories converted to making planes and tanks. Corset factories made grenade belts. A toy company made compasses. A pinball machine maker turned out shells. 1941 would see the greatest expansion of manufacturing in the nation’s history. And not only did this help us win the war. It led to millions of new jobs and helped produce the great American middle class.

We have faced hard times before. We have faced moments of tumult and change before. We know what to do. We know how to succeed. We are Americans. And as we have throughout our history, I have every confidence that will rise to this occasion; that we can come together, that we can adapt and thrive in a changing economy. And we need look no further than the innovative companies in this room. If we can harness your potential and the potential of the people all across our country, there will be no stopping us.

Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Categories
Black people Politics United States

Yes, Black History Month is Relevant in 2013 – Part 2

Publisher’s Note: Below is another response I received after reading a piece in the New York Daily News on the relevance of Black History Month. I’ve opened a forum for- discussion on  this topic. The piece, called “Black History Month, it is time to get rid of this celebration,” drew some strong feelings among the EzKool community. This post was written by Renee Brown, a lawyer from Texas.

By Renee Brown

It is hard to believe that black history month and whether it is worthwhile is even an issue still being debated. I recently read an article posted by a young man in the New York Daily news which argued that Black history represented division, and a continued promotion of segregation between the races. He even went on to say that black folks should be insulted by the idea of black history month – given that it is celebrated during the shortest month of the year.

I was saddened by his misunderstanding of black history month.  I was appalled that he would suggest that the celebration of black contribution to American and world history was somehow divisive.  He indicated that he was a tutor.  However, I do not believe that it is history.  If so, surely he would be well aware of the fact that still today little attention is given to the history of African Americans or any other groups that have contributed to our society and the world at large. While he may be true that there are no other specially designated months to celebrate Asian or Hispanic history – I want to address why black history was created and is still relevant today.

Dr. Carter G. Woodson, the founder of Negro history week, believed that the study of black history was especially important to blacks because it was a counter to white chauvinism and racism.  Wilson was deeply committed to the advancement of black people and understood that the self-esteem of young black men and women was deeply connected to such information.  Moreover, he believed that if whites knew more about blacks other than the racist propaganda they too would have a greater respect for blacks.  Furthermore, American history books failed to address the contributions blacks made to the history of this country.  This dearth of information withheld from history classes and textbooks helped to reinforce negative stereotypes that not only did whites believe, but so did many blacks.  As such, he found it of great importance to celebrate African heritage and championed the idea of black history week.  In 1926, black history week was created.

When did black history week become black history month?  It was not until nearly forty years later, during the civil rights movement did understanding and appreciation of black history expand beyond the black community.  Why was February the shortest month of year chosen as black history month?  The month was chosen by the NAACP mainly to in recognition of the birthdays of famed abolitionists Frederick Douglass and President Abraham Lincoln.  The fact that February was the shortest month was not intended to slight the importance of black history in anyway.

Still today, our history books have failed to adequately address the accomplishments, challenges and contributions of black Americans and other minority groups.  This failure has forced minority communities to educate their members and the larger society about their heritage, thus, giving rise for the need of celebrations such as black history month.  A modern example of this lack of historical accounting in education regarding the challenges and achievements of blacks, Hispanics, and Asians can be found For instance, in May 2010 the Texas State Board of Education elected to alter the curriculum in its social studies text books that would leave out critical events and people in history.  So if the information is not given at school in the textbooks there is an even greater need for celebrations like black history month to raise awareness and educate black students and others about our history.

If the standard curriculum for history and social studies was more inclusive to all minority groups perhaps there might not be a need for black history month.  On the other hand, even if the textbooks did a better job of educating the populous about the tragedies and triumphs of black Americans I would argue that there would still be a need for black history month.  Every group has a duty to educate its own about their ancestry and heritage for the purpose of passing down values and standards.  Unfortunately, in 2011 there are still a large percentage of blacks who do not know of Dr. Woodson or the many other blacks that made significant contributions to the advancement of black Americans.  As an educator, I would argue that not only is black history month necessary, but more should be done to encourage black self-awareness.  Given all of the negative imagery of black Americans on television today, it is imperative for blacks to study and understand their history if we are to continue on the path of positive advancements initiated by ancestor like Dr. Woodson and the many before.

Categories
Barack Obama Christian Politics United States

President Obama Again Defends His Christian Religious Beliefs

We’ve heard it all before. Without any proof whatsoever, Conservatives go on the radio waves and on television and continue the lies and propaganda that President Obama is a Muslim. And although the Constitution specifically says there shall be no religious test to be president, this particular president is constantly under scrutiny about his religious affiliations. How amazing is the fact that the same people pushing their love for the Constitution of the United States in the media are the same ones putting President Obama through a religious litmus test that– if they had truly ever read the Constitution– they’d know was a worthless effort.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Categories
Politics

For Security Concerns, Bush Can’t Go To Switzerland

Former President George Bush has a love affair with conservative Republicans and the Teaparty here in America. As far as they are concerned, the 43rd president could not do no wrong and was the best thing that ever happened to America, next to their supreme idol, Ronald Reagan that is. But in Switzerland, it’s quite a different story, as they took the initiative to cancel a scheduled fund raiser by the former president, because of “security concerns.”

The organizer of the event in Geneva, the United Israel Appeal, informed Bush of the cancellation on Friday. The Associated Press reports the following;

The Swiss daily newspaper Tribune de Genève reported Saturday that the charity feared that protests against Mr. Bush planned by left-wing groups could result in violence.

“The calls to demonstrate were sliding into dangerous terrain,” the charity’s lawyer, Robert Equey, told the newspaper. “The organizers claimed to be able to maintain order, but warned they could not be held responsible for any outbursts.”

Other possible reasons for the cancellation? The report continues;

Several human rights groups including Amnesty International and the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights had planned to ask Swiss prosecutors to open a criminal investigation against Mr. Bush over the admission in his recent memoirs that he personally authorized the waterboarding of terrorism suspects.

“Whatever Bush or his hosts say, we have no doubt he canceled his trip to avoid our case,” the Center for Constitutional Rights and others said in a statement.

Categories
Chuck Schumer Politics Republican

Democrats Looking At Other Options Besides Individual Mandate

Mccaskill 220-250
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

They’re pretty certain the provision will hold up against the onslaught of the Republicans and the Supreme Court, but just in case the unexpected happens, some Congressional Democrats are already making other preparations to replace the individual mandate.

One idea floating around is that of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). According to her plan, an open enrollment period will be offered where people can voluntarily buy insurance policy. After that period passes, anyone wishing to purchase insurance will incur a penalty, causing their policy to be considerably higher.

The idea is based on existing requirements, where once a year individuals get to choose their insurance policies that best suit their needs. After that period passes, they face an expensive alternative when the need to get insurance arises.

Derek Thompson of the Washington Posts explained it this way;

Let’s say I tell you at the beginning of flu season that you can buy Nyquil for a $2 discount today, but tomorrow the price will go up to $20 forever. What do you do? You stock up on Nyquil, of course! Note that I haven’t required that you do anything. I’ve just weighted the incentives to make you buy the medicine. It’s not a mandate, just an irresistible deal.

Although this plan sounds like a great idea, even Claire McCaskill have reservations. She explains, “the issue is will the research support that approach as workable to still allow us to cover people with pre-existing conditions.”

The advantage of the individual mandate meant that everyone had a responsibility to insure themselves, thus, bringing more money into the insurance industry eventually reflecting in lower premiums for individuals. It also allow for the coverage of pre-existing conditions because more people will be involved in the program. Mrs. McCaskill’s method raises questions about whether pre-existing conditions and other important aspects of the Health reform will be implemented if individuals choose not to participate.

As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) expressed his concerns with this idea, saying that altering the mandate will weaken the bill. He said;

“You’d have to look at the specific proposals. The bottom line is that if you change the mandate, one of two things will happen: Many of the good things in the bill will not be there, such as pre-existing conditions, or premiums will go way, way up.”

The individual mandate is under attack by Republicans as unconstitutional, although when the idea was first floated in 1993 for then president George Bush, they were all in support of the idea. Mr. Mark Pauly, the original author of the now controversial idea said questioning the mandate’s constitutionality was never the issue when it was first introduced, saying;

“I don’t remem­ber that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Con­gres­sional Bud­get Office in 1994 was, effec­tively, as a tax. You either paid the tax and got insur­ance that way or went and got it another way. So I’ve been sur­prised at that argument.”

Categories
Politics United States

What Americans Want From The 112th Congress This Year

According to a new Gallup Poll, a whopping 83% of Americans want Congress to do something about an energy bill favoring clean energy or alternative energy. This same poll also finds that 76% of Americans want the tax system overhauled, and 72% want a speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan.

See more from Gallup

Categories
Politics United States Environmental Protection Agency

Republicans Are Now Attacking The Air You Breathe

New legislation is being introduced in the Senate by John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming that will take away the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, also called the EPA.

This has always been a goal of the Republican party, and now with the numbers they’ve gained in the House of Representatives and the Senate, they are determined to pursue their ill-advised goals.

So what will Mr. Barrasso’s  new legislation do?

  • It will overturn the EPA’s 2009 finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are harmful to public health and the environment.
  • It will stop any actions by the EPA to regulate or stop any greenhouse gas emission without approval from the Congress
  • It will stop any federal laws from discussing or referring to global warming. These laws includes the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

The bill will also allow regulation on pollutants and other greenhouse gases to go forward if an immediate threat is posed to the general public, so if a company continues to expose the public to polluted air that may possibly pose a threat in the future, then according to this bill, no regulation will be allowed on the companies.

The bill will also allow a previously negotiated vehicle mileage and emission standard agreement to go forward, but it takes away the power to manage how the regulations are enforced from the EPA and shifts the responsibility to the Department of Transportation.

The global warming policy director for the National Wildlife Federation, Mr. Joe Mendelson, disagrees with the basis of Mr. Barrasso’s bill.  Mr. Mendelson, who was part of the legal team that won the Supreme Court case that led to the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public welfare and the environment, said;

“It would create a parade of polluter loopholes allowing for unlimited carbon pollution. Americans don’t want Congress undermining The EPA’s work on new clean vehicle standards and cleaning up dirty smokestacks.”

In a statement, Mr. Barrasso explains the reasoning for his bill;

“It’s time for the administration to face the facts: Americans rejected cap and trade because they know it means higher energy prices and lost jobs. Washington agencies are now trying a backdoor approach to regulate our climate by abusing existing laws.”

I will do whatever it takes to ensure that Washington doesn’t impose Cap and Trade policies in any form.”

This bill is of no surprise. Republicans have a proven track record of protecting companies over the lives of real living (polluted air) breathing Americans. The EPA’s goal is to make sure that these companies maintain some standards in the amount of gas emission they’re allowed to emit into the atmosphere, but according to the Republican way of thinking, doing so will impose unnecessary regulations, cause the company to loose some of their profits, and worst of all ultimately result in a healthier environment for the nation.

According to their ideology, a healthy nation is of less importantance than the right of  a company to dump infinite amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere for the sake of profit for said company.

Profits over human lives!

Categories
Ezra Klein Politics United States

Ezra Klein Is Wrong On This Issue

Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly ran an interesting piece, stating that judges who voted against the Affordable Care Act, or what the conservatives are calling ObamaCare, receive more press attention than those who voted for the bill.

He then broke it down by the numbers showing that on verdict 1, which supported the Democratic position of Health Care, received an average of 581 words from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Associated Press and Politico.

On verdict 2, which also went in favor of the Democrats and the Obama administration, received an average of 438 words per article from the same four news agencies.

However, when verdict 3 came out by Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, whose decision went against the Democrats, the same four news agencies wrote an average of 1648 words in articles. Then yesterday, January 31st, another Federal Judge in Florida issued verdict 4 against the Health Reform Bill, and receive an average of 1742 words from the four. Mr. Benen question was, “If there’s a sensible explanation for this, I’d love to hear it.”

Ezra Klein, who writes for the Washington Post responded to Mr. Benen’s article saying,

“I actually think there is a sensible explanation for this: The two judges who ruled for the bill upheld the status quo. And they went first. So their rulings changed nothing. No one could accuse me of harboring an anti-ACA agenda, but I didn’t give those rulings much coverage.

The two judges who ruled against the bill called for enormous changes to the status quo, and enormous changes to the status quo are almost the definition of what “news” is. These two rulings have genuinely called the bill’s future into question, and that’s a big story.”

Well, although I tend to agree with Ezra Klein on many issues, and besides the fact that we share the same first name, I’ll have to disagree with his position on this matter.

Benen is right! There is simply no sensible explanation for the one-sided coverage. And although some may claim the sensationalism of a Federal Judge voting against the status quo is the “definition of what news is,” I prefer to think of the sensationalism of a life changed, if the Health Care reform law remains in effect. Now that’s news!

Exit mobile version