How Warren Buffet would implement taxes on the ultra rich.
Elizabeth Warren explaining how important it is for the middle class to fight to save their way of life.
![manicchill:
Sen. Al Franken, Rep. Jeff Landry Bridge Political Divide in an Attempt to Overturn Detainee Language in National Defense Authorization Act
Unlikely allies, Sen. Al Franken(D-Minn.) and Rep. Jeff Landry(R-LA), have joined forces in an attempt to overhaul the detainee language from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
The language in question, affirmation of the president’s right to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of joining or “substantially [supporting] al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces”, has come under fire from Representatives and Senators on both sides of the political aisle. While introducing his new bill, Landry noted that “any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a president to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming.”
from The Hill:
President George W. Bush originally claimed a similar right under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a law passed in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To the dismay of some on the left, Obama has asserted the same claim, and Congress has now codified it.
The provision, however, does not specifically exempt U.S. citizens, and that’s the rub.
“You go down a slippery slope,” Franken told The Hill. “To not give people a hearing, to not give an American citizen the right to have his case heard in a court — I think that’s one of our basic rights. Once we’re starting to get rid of our basic rights, we’re in real trouble.”
Franken and Landry are not alone in their efforts to fight what many are interpreting as a gross expansion of executive branch power. Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) introduced a similar bill already, exempting U.S. citizens from the detention provisions, but that bill was defeated 45-55 in the Senate. However, Sen. Feinstein did manage to garner the support of several prominent conservatives, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
While there’s not been a bill that’s come close to altering the language of the NDAA, yet, many view the multiple bipartisan efforts at doing-so as a clear indication that this debate will not be going anywhere.
But will the debate prove problematic for President Obama on the campaign trail? Or will the arguments stay in Washington, largely ignored by non-political junkies and those outside the Beltway?
(images courtesy of the House of Representatives)
| Follow Manic, Chill | | Subscribe to Manic, Chill(RSS) | | Subscribe via Email |](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyevwhoaqi1qigl3bo1_500.png)
Sen. Al Franken, Rep. Jeff Landry Bridge Political Divide in an Attempt to Overturn Detainee Language in National Defense Authorization Act
Unlikely allies, Sen. Al Franken(D-Minn.) and Rep. Jeff Landry(R-LA), have joined forces in an attempt to overhaul the detainee language from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
The language in question, affirmation of the president’s right to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of joining or “substantially [supporting] al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces”, has come under fire from Representatives and Senators on both sides of the political aisle. While introducing his new bill, Landry noted that “any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a president to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming.”
from The Hill:
President George W. Bush originally claimed a similar right under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a law passed in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To the dismay of some on the left, Obama has asserted the same claim, and Congress has now codified it.
The provision, however, does not specifically exempt U.S. citizens, and that’s the rub.
“You go down a slippery slope,” Franken told The Hill. “To not give people a hearing, to not give an American citizen the right to have his case heard in a court — I think that’s one of our basic rights. Once we’re starting to get rid of our basic rights, we’re in real trouble.”
Franken and Landry are not alone in their efforts to fight what many are interpreting as a gross expansion of executive branch power. Sen. Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) introduced a similar bill already, exempting U.S. citizens from the detention provisions, but that bill was defeated 45-55 in the Senate. However, Sen. Feinstein did manage to garner the support of several prominent conservatives, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
While there’s not been a bill that’s come close to altering the language of the NDAA, yet, many view the multiple bipartisan efforts at doing-so as a clear indication that this debate will not be going anywhere.
But will the debate prove problematic for President Obama on the campaign trail? Or will the arguments stay in Washington, largely ignored by non-political junkies and those outside the Beltway?
(images courtesy of the House of Representatives)
| Follow Manic, Chill | | Subscribe to Manic, Chill(RSS) | | Subscribe via Email |
Republicans are worried sick about Newt Gingrich’s ascendance, while Democrats are tickled pink.
Yet no responsible Democrat should be pleased at the prospect that Gingrich could get the GOP nomination. The future of America is too important to accept even a small risk of a Gingrich presidency.
The Republican worry is understandable. “The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handling the election over to Obama,” says former Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty, a leading GOP conservative. “I think that’s shared by a lot of folks in the Republican party.”
The Re Evaluation of the American Social Contract
We have reached a crossroads in the direction this country will take over the next century. These last few years have been filled with political corruption, inequality, and the fact that are Americans being forced to decide between two extreme agendas. The purpose of this blog is to provide information from both sides so Americans can find the middle ground that best shows their ideals, and so we may strive once again to be a moral and prosperous people who love and willingly give freedoms to all citizens.
