KABUL, Afghanistan — NATO and Afghan forces have killed a former Guantanamo detainee who returned to Afghanistan to become a key al-Qaida ally, international officials said Saturday. The militant’s death was a reminder of the risks of trying to end a controversial detention system without letting loose people who will launch attacks on Americans. Sabar Lal Melma, who was released from Guantanamo in 2007, had been organizing attacks in eastern Kunar province and funding insurgent operations, NATO spokesman Capt. Justin Brockhoff said. A NATO statement described Melma as a “key affiliate of the al-Qaida network” who was in contact with senior al-Qaida members in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Another former detainee who joined the al-Qaida franchise in Yemen was killed in a recent U.S. airstrike there. Troops surrounded Melma’s house in Jalalabad city on Friday night and shot him dead when he emerged from the building holding an AK-47 assault rifle. Several other people were detained, NATO said. A guard at the house, Mohammad Gul, said a group of American soldiers scaled the walls of the compound around 11 p.m. and stormed the house, shooting Melma in the assault. Three others were detained, Gul said. Melma joined a long list of detainees believed to have reconnected with al-Qaida. In 2009, the Pentagon said 61, approximately 11 percent, of the detainees released from Guantanamo had rejoined the fight. Experts have questioned the validity of that number. About 520 Guantanamo detainees have been released from custody or transferred to prisons elsewhere in the world. There are 171 inmates still held at the facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2009 just after taking office asking for it to be shut down within the year, but it has remained open as the administration has worked to find ways to deal with the inmates. After the fall of the Taliban, Melma, 49, was given the rank of brigadier general in the Afghan National Army and placed in charge of approximately 600 border security troops in Kunar, according to a file made public by WikiLeaks. But he was suspected of still helping carry out rocket attacks against U.S. troops, and he was captured in August 2002 while attending a meeting with U.S. military officials in Asadabad and transferred to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in October that year. While imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. determined he was a “probable facilitator for al-Qaida members” and was also thought to have links to Pakistan’s intelligence service. In 2005, he was described as a “medium risk” to the United States. He was sent back to Afghanistan in September 2007. NATO said in a statement that coalition forces have captured or killed more than 40 al-Qaida insurgents in eastern Afghanistan this year. In June 2010, then CIA Director Leon Panetta said only 50 to 100 al-Qaida operatives continued to operate inside Afghanistan. It’s not clear if Panetta was referring to commanders or foot soldiers. In Kabul, meanwhile, a political standoff over the makeup of the legislature continued as police escorted a handful of new lawmakers into parliament despite protests from sitting parliamentarians that the new group is illegitimate. In the southern city of Kandahar, officials said NATO forces killed a child and a shopkeeper who were caught up in a firefight between a military patrol and a gunman. NATO said one of its service members was killed in an insurgent attack on Saturday in southern Afghanistan but not provide details. The Danish military said one of its soldiers was killed in a roadside bomb that exploded as a foot patrol was moving past in southern Afghanistan’s volatile Helmand province, but it was not immediately clear if that announcement referred to the same attack. ___ Associated Press writer Adam Goldman contributed to this report from Kabul. (This version CORRECTS Corrects first name of militant to Sabar. Restores first reference to President Barack Obama, 10th paragraph.)
Continue reading …
Muammar Gaddafi’s stronghold said to be a scene of growing desperation with no power or water and food running low Libyan rebels say 25 doctors are seeking entry into one of Muammar Gaddafi’s besieged strongholds in a bid to avert an escalating humanitarian crisis. The town of Bani Walid is said to be a scene of growing desperation with no power or water for a week, food running low and Gaddafi loyalists firing in the streets. Rebels have surrounded the town, one of the last in Libya that remains in the deposed leader’s grip. Despite ongoing clashes they were continuing last ditch efforts to negotiate a peaceful surrender. Rebels claimed their first priority is now bringing emergency relief to the population. At a desert outpost around 60km away, Abusif Ghnyah, a rebel spokesman who comes from Bani Walid, said: “There is no fruit or vegetables and a shortage of water. People are relying on food stored in their house. The city has been without electricity for a week and the houses rely on electricity, even for water. There is nothing at the hospital.” Two of his colleagues had gone to Bani Walid to negotiate passage for 25 doctors, Ghnyah said. “We are not fighters. We want to supply food, medicine and so on. We are preparing for humanitarian intervention. But unless it is 100% safe, we will not go in.” The talks appeared to have broken down because rebels want the doctors and ambulances to go in with an armed convoy. Pro-Gaddafi elements in Bani Walid, 140km southeast of Tripoli, have found this unacceptable. Ghnyah said 120 people gathered in Bani Walid last week and agreed a negotiated surrender, only for the meeting to be disrupted by Gaddafi loyalists shouting dissent. Ghnyah claimed that around 20 loyalist gunmen are causing mayhem in the town, “most likely” on the instructions of Gaddafi himself. “We have heard some of the Gaddafi gangs controlling Bani Walid are making trouble for the people. They are firing into the air and threatening people. They are giving guns to children. They are destroying the city.” On Saturday the rebels claimed that Bani Walid’s radio station was under their control and flags had been raised in defiance. Ghnyah added: “The whole population of Bani Walid is with us but they are frightened for their lives. Their lives are not safe if they say they are with the 17th of February [the date of the uprising]. I heard yesterday the streets are empty of people except these gangs.” Many of the rebel fighters moving up to 10km west of Bani Walid in pickup trucks with mounted artillery guns hail from the town and belong to its dominant tribe, the Warfala. They say they are unwilling to take it by force and risk civilian casualties unless entirely necessary. Various deadlines for surrender have come and gone. Ghnyah added: “We have told them they are our brothers, our elders, and we are not going there for bloodshed. We are patient because we want to save the lives of people. We don’t want to fire one shot, we don’t want to hurt the people.” But asked how just 20 Gaddafi sympathisers could be holding a town of 60,000 people hostage, Ghnyah replied: “That’s a good question.” Rebel officials have given conflicting statements about the situation in Bani Walid and other loyalist areas. Dao Salhin Eljadek, a colonel in the Tripoli Military Council, contradicted earlier reports by suggesting that Gaddafi’s sons, Saif and Saadi, are still in Bani Walid. “Saif is in Bani Walid and has given about 80 FN guns to snipers and mercenaries,” he said. “Saif is causing problems and is causing us to fight each other. The people of Bani Walid should abandon him.” He added: “I know Saadi is in Bani Walid and negotiating a surrender. If they give up, they will be given a fair trial. Everyone who was working with the Gaddafi regime, as soon as surrendering, will be treated humanely and kept safe under our control until going to court.” Asked to estimate the strength of Gaddafi’s forces, Eljadek commented: “Numbers don’t matter. We’ll do our best for the country.” Meanwhile Nato reported bombing an ammunition storage facility near Bani Walid. It also bombed a military barracks, a police camp and several other targets near Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte on Saturday night, as well as targets near Hun, a possible staging ground in the desert halfway between Sirte and Sabha. National Transitional Council officials announced plans to bring their heavily-armed fighters under control and try to integrate thousands of them into the police force and find jobs for others. Interim interior minister Ahmad Darat said: “We only need the revolutionaries for the first month. We have a plan we will announce today to include 3,000 of the revolutionaries in the interior ministry who will be trained and will work in national security. “The rest of them work in business or are builders etc – they don’t want to be in the police. They will give up their weapons. It’s just a matter of time and organisation.” Libya Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
German group that took contract to build Thameslink trains is on Crossrail shortlist despite preference for UK bid German group Siemens will build the Crossrail train fleet in its Düsseldorf factory if it wins the £1bn contract, despite the government’s stated preference for a UK-based bidder. Siemens is one of the frontrunners for the UK’s next major train manufacturing contract due to its financial heft and its selection as preferred bidder for the £1.4bn Thameslink contract. However, the furore over the Thameslink decision , which has threatened the future of Britain’s last remaining train factory at Bombardier’s Derby facility, has forced ministers to pledge that the next train supply contest will put British contenders on an “equal footing” with their European counterparts. Speaking ahead of a House of Commons hearing on Thameslink on 7 September, Steve Scrimshaw, head of Siemens’ UK rolling stock division, said the main production base for the 60 Crossrail trains will be at the group’s Krefeld plant near Düsseldorf, with some components made in the UK. “We have no plans, as we currently stand, to establish a production facility in the UK for making trains for Crossrail,” he said. Siemens believes it has enough capacity in the Krefeld factory where the Thameslink carriages – to build the 60 Crossrail trains as well will be made. Scrimshaw added that Siemens, one of four bidders for the Crossrail contract, was not concerned that the government’s pledge will increase the chances of a UK-based company winning the deal. “It is not anything that we are frightened about. Ultimately it has to be in line with European Union law and I am sure the government will not break European law,” he said. EU rules bar states from showing explicit domestic bias in procurement decisions. France’s Alstom pulled out of the Crossrail process last week, citing the incompatibility of its range of products, but Siemens remains a frontrunner because the Thameslink fleet is expected to be very similar to the Crossrail rolling stock. “We are going to stay in the Crossrail process,” said Scrimshaw. The other bidders on the Crossrail shortlist are Canadian group Bombardier, Spain’s CAF and Hitachi of Japan. Last week Crossrail, which is building a new rail route linking Heathrow to Canary Wharf, said it would delay awarding the contract until 2014, allowing the government to factor in the conclusions of its procurement review. The decision to select Siemens as preferred bidder for Thameslink has enraged local politicians and trade unions, after Bombardier announced it would cut more than 1,400 jobs. The Unite union said it fears the Derby plant, which employs 3,000 people, will close once construction on a London Underground train contract has finished in 2014. The Thameslink decision triggered a political row over the government’s ability to defend British manufacturing when it has described the sector as crucial to the economic recovery. However, Scrimshaw said: “We won the bid fairly and squarely in accordance with the evaluation criteria. We have offered UK employment to up to 2,000 people, to add to the 16,000 Siemens already employs in the UK.” Siemens has a long-established presence in the UK, which dates back to 1843 when William Siemens, then a 19-year-old engineer, arrived in Britain from Hamburg. However, critics of the Thameslink deal argue that the jobs created by Siemens will not contribute to a permanent train manufacturing base that could ultimately replace Derby. Nearly three-quarters of the jobs linked to the Thameslink deal will be in construction of the train depots, train maintenance and in the local supply chain. A further 300 will be based at the Siemens electrical components facility in Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire. Siemens Germany Manufacturing sector Bombardier Crossrail Rail transport Transport Transport policy Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Well, this is is refreshing. Michael Lofgren has written a column for TruthOut explaining why he left Capitol Hill after 30 years and why Republicans are not to be trusted and have devolved into a cult. Mike Lofgren was, until recently, a staff member serving the Senate Finance Committee . No one is spared in his column. As hard as he is on Republicans, he takes it to the Democrats, too, calling them cowards who quake in fear of Republican hard-lining. Here are some snippets that caught my eye: On the debt ceiling debacle: Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might – the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was “bring it on!” It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant. On voting and Real Americans : You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn’t look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama’s policy of being black. [2] Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some “other,” who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear. On Democrats, messaging, and cowardice: How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? – can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative “Obamacare” won out. Contrast that with the Republicans’ Patriot Act. You’re a patriot, aren’t you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn’t the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme? You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. “Entitlement” has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is “entitled” selfishly claims something he doesn’t really deserve. Why not call them “earned benefits,” which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats. Republicans don’t make that mistake; they are relentlessly on message: it is never the “estate tax,” it is the “death tax.” On this point, I could not agree more. I do not understand why Democrats can’t master simple messaging. It always has to be nuanced, complicated, and wonky. Things I might understand but would have to boil down into far simpler terms for the average voter. It boggles my mind that Democrats (and this includes the President) cannot get a simple, easy message out there and hammer it home. Republicans seem to have mastered that. You should read the whole article. There’s much more in there about who runs the Republican party, why the religious sector is now mainstream and acting fully in concert with the oligarchy, and more. It’s a brutal, frank, and devastating assessment of our politics today.
Continue reading …White House Insists Illegal Uncle Onyango ‘Won’t Get Special Treatment’
September 4, 2011 No Comment
The Obama White House insisted that illegal alien Uncle Onyango will not get special treatment. Sure… Just like Obama’s illegal alien Auntie Zeituni didn’t get special treatment. CNS News reported: President Barack Obama’s uncle, facing deportation for being in the … Continue reading → Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Gateway Pundit Discovery Date : 02/09/2011 18:48 Number of articles : 2
Continue reading …Bill O’Reilly Brings on Rep. Allen West to Attack the Congressional Black Caucus
September 3, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media As I already mentioned in my post on Mary Matalin defending race-baiting Glenn Beck on Blitzer’s show this week, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Andre Carson, recently made some remarks that have had these so-called “tea partiers” up in arms. And naturally, the talking heads over at Fox have been making hay of the Congressman’s remarks as well. While I agree with Donna Brazile who said that using that level of inflammatory rhetoric is not necessarily useful to the debate over whether we’ve seen a horrendous level of racism and just out and out disrespect towards our first bi-racial president and race-baiting whether it be towards African Americans, Hispanics, members of the Muslim community or a number of other groups from this so-called “tea party” and those who want to attach themselves to that label in the Congress, anyone at Fox or the likes of Allen West have absolutely no ground to stand on when it comes to criticizing anyone else for overheated rhetoric or flame throwing. So pot, meet kettle with Bill O’Reilly’s interview of Allen West on this Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor. News Hounds summed up the hypocrisy pretty well in their post here — O’Reilly Trots Out Allen West To Attack Congressional Black Caucus’ Rhetoric : Fox News’ utter hypocrisy on the subject of inflammatory rhetoric was on display (again) last night as Bill O’Reilly trotted out Rep. Allen West to disparage discuss the Congressional Black Caucus’ comments about the Tea Party. Yes, that’s the same Allen West who called Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives” and refused to apologize . That’s also the same guy who called himself the “modern-day Harriet Tubman” leading blacks from the plantation of Democrats. That Allen West was who “fair and balanced” Fox News thought an appropriate person to serve as an analyst for the supposedly inflammatory comments of Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus. I’m sure it didn’t hurt West that O’Reilly, himself, had cheered on West’s attacks on Wasserman Schultz. Yet O’Reilly was up in arms over Rep. Andre Carson’s comments saying that some Tea Party members of Congress would “love to see you and me… hanging on a tree.” OK, so I’ll agree it was inflammatory and maybe not the wisest choice of words. But why is this a major topic of discussion on Fox News, if not as an excuse to attack the Congressional Black Caucus? It’s not exactly significant to the economy, unemployment or even the 2012 election. And it’s not as if Fox News ever pays attention to anything else Rep. Carson says or does. O’Reilly reiterated his request that West get back with any response to his letter because “this is an important story.” Why is this important if you’re not out to get the CBC? Full transcript via Fox : BILL O’REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight: the Congressional Black Caucus in big trouble. The group is comprised of 43 congresspeople, all African-American, who promote policies favorable to their constituencies. The CBC generally dislikes the Tea Party, but now some of the rhetoric is getting out of hand. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) REP. ANDRE CARSON, D-IND.: Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party Movement would love to see you and me, I’m sorry, hanging on a tree. (END AUDIO CLIP) O’REILLY: Now, using violent imagery with racial overtones to attack a political group is absolutely un-American. But Mr. Carson is unrepentant. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARSON: I stand on the truth of what I spoke. My intentions weren’t to hurt anyone or any group. (END VIDEO CLIP) O’REILLY: Joining us now from South Florida, Congressman Allen West, a Republican and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. So Congressman, I understand you wrote a letter to the leader of the CBC, Congressman Cleaver. What did it say? REP. ALLEN WEST, R-FLA.: Well, basically it made reference to the comments of my colleague, Congressman Carson, as well as the comments of Congresswoman Maxine Waters, where she was telling the Tea Party to go to hell. And I don’t think that we need that type of incendiary talk coming out there. And I think that it’s a reflection that when you look at the almost 17 percent unemployment rate in the black community, 40 percent unemployment among black teens, the high incarceration rates, that we are not seeing them go at the failure of the policies of the Obama administration but rather they are trying to demonize and attack the Tea Party movement as a scapegoat for these failures. O’REILLY: Now, did Congressman Cleaver respond to your letter? WEST: Well, what we have gotten so far is that he will wait to respond later. He feels that he is right now too engaged with this job fair. So I will look forward to speaking with Congressman Cleaver when we return back to Washington, D.C. if I don’t hear something from him prior to that. Because I believe… O’REILLY: All right, would you do us a favor? And when he — when he gets back to you, would you let us know right away so we can be fair to Cleaver and see if he’s going to take action against Carson and Maxine Waters? WEST: Yes. O’REILLY: Now, here is my theory about why this is happening, and I put forth this last night. When a guy like Carson and Maxine Waters speaks in these terms, they’re always speaking to the choir, to people who are anti-Tea Party, mostly Democrats, mostly liberals, who love Barack Obama. That’s their forum here. And I believe that the CBC and other pro-Obama people are very worried that African-Americans aren’t going to turn out next year to vote as they did in 2008. And this is — these tactics are being used to demonize Mr. Obama’s opposition so that it gins up the turnout. That’s what I think is behind this. WEST: No, you’re absolutely correct and you talked about it early in your “Talking Points” when you read the statistics as far as the general approval or the opinion of the Tea Party. This is nothing but one of the tactics. I believe it’s Rule Number 13 out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” where you pick a target, you freeze it, you isolate it and you begin to attack it. And I think that’s one of the important things that they want to try to do. O’REILLY: Right. There’s no doubt that that’s what’s going on here. Now, I’m curious, are you the only Republican in the CBC? WEST: Yes, I am. O’REILLY: OK, now… WEST: But without being Republican or Democrat, I think that this type of rhetoric has no place in the political discourse. O’REILLY: And I think — I think 99 percent of Americans would agree with you. I haven’t heard anybody justifying Congressman Carson’s — anybody sane justifying his remarks. But when you guys meet, do you ever discuss what you just said? That for decades, more than decades, for hundreds of years, the African-American community has not — has not prospered despite massive amounts of government spending, massive interventions by the federal government, things aren’t improving, maybe there is another way. Have — do you — do you ever discuss that or are you shouted down and it’s no, we want more, we want more, we want more? WEST: Well, that’s one of the important parts, I think, in joining the Congressional Black Caucus, so that you can bring that different perspective. When you look at the history of the black community with the Democratic Party, you see slavery, you see segregation, you see the Jim Crow laws, you see secession and now you see socialism, which is really not beneficial to the black community. And we already talked about those unemployment statistics. You’re seeing the second and third generations of welfare ever since we had the great society programs and even Daniel Patrick Moynihan once gave warning to some of the policies that we were going to see implemented in the black community with the destruction of the black family. So I think it’s an important time right now that we objectively assess some of the social statistics that we see occurring in the black community. O’REILLY: All right. Thank you very much, Congressman. Let us know what Congressman Cleaver… WEST: Thanks. O’REILLY: …says it to you because this is an important story. And we appreciate your time very much tonight. WEST: Absolutely. And one final note here. If Allen West decides to leave the Congressional Black Caucus over this matter, the rest of them should tell him not to let the door hit him in the ass on the way out. Allen West has decided to join a party that has nothing but utter disdain for the working class and the poor and doesn’t even try to hide it these days. The loss of West from that caucus would mean nothing other than there’s one less member that never had the interests of the African American community at heart in the first place, unless of course anyone believes eliminating our social safety nets and giving more tax cuts to rich people is looking out for them.
Continue reading …Appearing as a guest on Friday's Last Word to discuss Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman's plan to simplify the income tax code, MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe saw extremism in the Tea Party movement as he asserted that Huntsman's plan was ” moderate when you compare it to where the Tea Party extremists want to take this.” As the discussion turned to the current anemic job growth numbers and Texas Governor Rick Perry's views on economics, Wolffe claimed that President Jimmy Carter had created more jobs that President George W. Bush as he blamed Bush and Republicans for the current economic slowdown: Most voters understand that this economy, this bad economy, is the result of Republican policies and the Bush administration. Poll after poll after poll has said that, and if you want to go into the details, over eight years of President Bush's policies of deregulation, of tax cuts, all things that Rick Perry says has created jobs, actually George Bush created a net three million jobs in eight years. He continued: Even Jimmy Carter created more jobs in one term than Bush did with these policies in two terms, so once we get into this debate, once we get beyond the superficial headlines of Perry's positioning, we're going to have this played out and people will recall, as they already in polls, that the Bush policies weren't too good. Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Friday, September 2, Last Word on MSNBC: LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Talking to reporters this morning from the bottom of the polls, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman tried to use colorful language to energize his colorless campaign. JON HUNTSMAN, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Our nation's economy is sucking wind big time, and we need a plan, we need a bold proposal. The President has had two and a half years to get something out there. He hasn't. We've been out there two and a half months. We've got, I think, the boldest of proposals, something that this country desperately needs. O'DONNELL: Huntsman's economic plan received a rave review from the Wall Street Journal editorial board today. The Journal said Huntsman's plan is “better than anything so far in the GOP presidential field.” The plan is called “Time to Compete: An American Jobs Plan.” Which is really just a tax-cutting and deregulation plan. Joining me now is the author of Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House, MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe. Thanks for joining me tonight, Richard. WOLFFE: My pleasure, Lawrence. O'DONNELL: The Huntsman plan, huge hit with the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Is this a little bit like John Edwards' health care plan being a big hit in the last presidential campaign? WOLFFE: Either that or the Bill Bradley campaign, who also had a great health care plan. (BOTH LAUGH) O'DONNELL: It was. Bradley did have a great health care plan. WOLFFE: Great plan, and it went downhill from there. Here's the thing: It says something about the Republican Party when the Wall Street Journal editorial board is actually somewhere in the middle of Republican politics, that actually Huntsman's plan is moderate when you compare it to where the Tea Party extremists want to take this. And, you know, there's a lot to be said for Huntsman's plan. It actually is very similar in some degree to the Bowles-Simpson committee, which was actually set up by the President that the Wall Street Journal editorial board hates so much. There simplifying the tax code is great, and you just cannot get anyone in Congress to vote for ending the mortgage interest tax relief. O'DONNELL: Right, his plan in some specifics calls for lower tax rates across the board, income tax rates, just leaving us with only three, an eight percent rate for the lowest, a 14 and a 23. But to get there, he eliminates every single deduction and credit in the personal income tax code, so he eliminates the biggest one, the mortgage deduction, as you've said. It means it would also eliminate the deduction for health care that if you receive health care through your employer, that would be treated as taxable income, and so it's a very easy thing to rip apart. If a plan like that made its way into the general election, running against someone who wants to take away your mortgage deduction is running against someone who wants to, in effect, destroy the current dollar value of your home because the real estate market would sink on something like that. WOLFFE: Right, hits the middle class and hits the housing market, which has been one of the biggest drags on this economy. And this is he kind of big irony here, which is that these Republican candidates, and Huntsman is the most reasonable of them, but in general they're saying we get the economy more than this crazy Democrat who loves big governnment, we know what business wants, and yet, and yet their economic plans would either hurtsthe housing market, which this reasonable plan from Huntsman would do, or it would cut those government jobs that have done so much good for Rick Perry's job record in Texas or it would just kill jobs in general because there is no growth in anything other than the public sector right now because the private sector has been spooked by the Republican tactics over things like the debt limit. O'DONNELL: Of course, there's the mandatory, you know, defang that horrible EPA, that Environmental Protection Agency that's ruining the country and killing jobs. Never mind that job growth and wealth in the country has exploded since the creation of the EPA to levels uncontemplated before, especially top end wealth. But now to Rick Perry: Is today, like most campaign days so far today for Perry and the Rrepublican campaign, the really good day for Rick Perry since he's the job king at this stage of the Republican campaign, zero job growth number lets him trumpet everything he's done or claims to have done in Texas on job creation. WOLFFE: Look, this should be the best day of any of the Republican candidates' news agendas, news moments, because they're terrible numbers for the White House, and the President has a bad record on jobs that he's got to go out and defend. When you look at Rick Perry, though, there's the Texas echo that's a problem. Never mind if you strip aside the headline numbers and get into all of that, most voters understand that this economy, this bad economy, is the result of Republican policies and the Bush administration. Poll after poll after poll has said that, and if you want to go into the details, over eight years of President Bush's policies of deregulation, of tax cuts, all things that Rick Perry says has created jobs, actually George Bush created a net three million jobs in eight years. Even Jimmy Carter created more jobs in one term than Bush did with these policies in two terms, so once we get into this debate, once we get beyond the superficial headlines of Perry's positioning, we're going to have this played out and people will recall, as they already in polls, that the Bush policies weren't too good. O'DONNELL: We now have projections that the jobs picture a year from now in the presidential campaign is going to look pretty much like the jobs picture does today. If that holds, if that is true, and if Perry is the emerging nominee for the Republicans, it seems like it will clearly be a jobs campaign at that point. What does the Obama campaign think it's going to be able to do against Perry on jobs? WOLFFE: Well, I think the, what they're expecting is that this is not just going to be about jobs, it's going to be about the role of government when times are tough. And if you assume that the economy is the same – and, by the way, t hat's a big assumption. You know, in 2007, Barack Obama thought the whole campaign would be about Iraq, and by 2008 it wasn't about the war at all, it was about the economy. So a year is an extremely long time in politics. But the debate here is: W hat can government do when times are difficult? Should government be cut? Will that create jobs? Or is government the last best hope? That's how this is going to play out – at least that's how the White House hopes it's going to play out. And judging by what the Republicans are saying, they think small government means more jobs. Well, let's take it to the people and see what they think, too. O'DONNELL: Richard Wolffe of MSNBC, thanks for joining me tonight, Richard. WOLFFE: You bet,
Continue reading …Appearing as a guest on Friday's Last Word to discuss Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman's plan to simplify the income tax code, MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe saw extremism in the Tea Party movement as he asserted that Huntsman's plan was ” moderate when you compare it to where the Tea Party extremists want to take this.” As the discussion turned to the current anemic job growth numbers and Texas Governor Rick Perry's views on economics, Wolffe claimed that President Jimmy Carter had created more jobs that President George W. Bush as he blamed Bush and Republicans for the current economic slowdown: Most voters understand that this economy, this bad economy, is the result of Republican policies and the Bush administration. Poll after poll after poll has said that, and if you want to go into the details, over eight years of President Bush's policies of deregulation, of tax cuts, all things that Rick Perry says has created jobs, actually George Bush created a net three million jobs in eight years. He continued: Even Jimmy Carter created more jobs in one term than Bush did with these policies in two terms, so once we get into this debate, once we get beyond the superficial headlines of Perry's positioning, we're going to have this played out and people will recall, as they already in polls, that the Bush policies weren't too good. Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Friday, September 2, Last Word on MSNBC: LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Talking to reporters this morning from the bottom of the polls, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman tried to use colorful language to energize his colorless campaign. JON HUNTSMAN, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Our nation's economy is sucking wind big time, and we need a plan, we need a bold proposal. The President has had two and a half years to get something out there. He hasn't. We've been out there two and a half months. We've got, I think, the boldest of proposals, something that this country desperately needs. O'DONNELL: Huntsman's economic plan received a rave review from the Wall Street Journal editorial board today. The Journal said Huntsman's plan is “better than anything so far in the GOP presidential field.” The plan is called “Time to Compete: An American Jobs Plan.” Which is really just a tax-cutting and deregulation plan. Joining me now is the author of Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House, MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe. Thanks for joining me tonight, Richard. WOLFFE: My pleasure, Lawrence. O'DONNELL: The Huntsman plan, huge hit with the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Is this a little bit like John Edwards' health care plan being a big hit in the last presidential campaign? WOLFFE: Either that or the Bill Bradley campaign, who also had a great health care plan. (BOTH LAUGH) O'DONNELL: It was. Bradley did have a great health care plan. WOLFFE: Great plan, and it went downhill from there. Here's the thing: It says something about the Republican Party when the Wall Street Journal editorial board is actually somewhere in the middle of Republican politics, that actually Huntsman's plan is moderate when you compare it to where the Tea Party extremists want to take this. And, you know, there's a lot to be said for Huntsman's plan. It actually is very similar in some degree to the Bowles-Simpson committee, which was actually set up by the President that the Wall Street Journal editorial board hates so much. There simplifying the tax code is great, and you just cannot get anyone in Congress to vote for ending the mortgage interest tax relief. O'DONNELL: Right, his plan in some specifics calls for lower tax rates across the board, income tax rates, just leaving us with only three, an eight percent rate for the lowest, a 14 and a 23. But to get there, he eliminates every single deduction and credit in the personal income tax code, so he eliminates the biggest one, the mortgage deduction, as you've said. It means it would also eliminate the deduction for health care that if you receive health care through your employer, that would be treated as taxable income, and so it's a very easy thing to rip apart. If a plan like that made its way into the general election, running against someone who wants to take away your mortgage deduction is running against someone who wants to, in effect, destroy the current dollar value of your home because the real estate market would sink on something like that. WOLFFE: Right, hits the middle class and hits the housing market, which has been one of the biggest drags on this economy. And this is he kind of big irony here, which is that these Republican candidates, and Huntsman is the most reasonable of them, but in general they're saying we get the economy more than this crazy Democrat who loves big governnment, we know what business wants, and yet, and yet their economic plans would either hurtsthe housing market, which this reasonable plan from Huntsman would do, or it would cut those government jobs that have done so much good for Rick Perry's job record in Texas or it would just kill jobs in general because there is no growth in anything other than the public sector right now because the private sector has been spooked by the Republican tactics over things like the debt limit. O'DONNELL: Of course, there's the mandatory, you know, defang that horrible EPA, that Environmental Protection Agency that's ruining the country and killing jobs. Never mind that job growth and wealth in the country has exploded since the creation of the EPA to levels uncontemplated before, especially top end wealth. But now to Rick Perry: Is today, like most campaign days so far today for Perry and the Rrepublican campaign, the really good day for Rick Perry since he's the job king at this stage of the Republican campaign, zero job growth number lets him trumpet everything he's done or claims to have done in Texas on job creation. WOLFFE: Look, this should be the best day of any of the Republican candidates' news agendas, news moments, because they're terrible numbers for the White House, and the President has a bad record on jobs that he's got to go out and defend. When you look at Rick Perry, though, there's the Texas echo that's a problem. Never mind if you strip aside the headline numbers and get into all of that, most voters understand that this economy, this bad economy, is the result of Republican policies and the Bush administration. Poll after poll after poll has said that, and if you want to go into the details, over eight years of President Bush's policies of deregulation, of tax cuts, all things that Rick Perry says has created jobs, actually George Bush created a net three million jobs in eight years. Even Jimmy Carter created more jobs in one term than Bush did with these policies in two terms, so once we get into this debate, once we get beyond the superficial headlines of Perry's positioning, we're going to have this played out and people will recall, as they already in polls, that the Bush policies weren't too good. O'DONNELL: We now have projections that the jobs picture a year from now in the presidential campaign is going to look pretty much like the jobs picture does today. If that holds, if that is true, and if Perry is the emerging nominee for the Republicans, it seems like it will clearly be a jobs campaign at that point. What does the Obama campaign think it's going to be able to do against Perry on jobs? WOLFFE: Well, I think the, what they're expecting is that this is not just going to be about jobs, it's going to be about the role of government when times are tough. And if you assume that the economy is the same – and, by the way, t hat's a big assumption. You know, in 2007, Barack Obama thought the whole campaign would be about Iraq, and by 2008 it wasn't about the war at all, it was about the economy. So a year is an extremely long time in politics. But the debate here is: W hat can government do when times are difficult? Should government be cut? Will that create jobs? Or is government the last best hope? That's how this is going to play out – at least that's how the White House hopes it's going to play out. And judging by what the Republicans are saying, they think small government means more jobs. Well, let's take it to the people and see what they think, too. O'DONNELL: Richard Wolffe of MSNBC, thanks for joining me tonight, Richard. WOLFFE: You bet,
Continue reading …
Type: Office Product Title: Board Dudes Magnetic Dry Erase Rewards Chore Chart (11020-4) See all customer reviews Product Description: Keep the responsibilities around the house in check and up to date. 11″ x 14″ chore chart provides columns for the days of the week and rows for the various chores around the house. This item includes reward magnets to show your appreciation for a job well done. Features: Magnetic Dry erase chore chart Includes reward magnets for reinforcing a job well done Includes a dry erase maker and mounting strips Columns for the days of the week See the details
Continue reading …
Environmental groups dismayed as president – under pressure from GOP – delays enacting stricter standards until 2013 Barack Obama has bowed to pressure from Republicans in Congress to postpone plans to introduce tighter controls over smog-producing companies. The decision provoked expressions of dismay among environmental groups campaigning for cleaner air. The retreat will add to the growing perception among voters that Obama is a weak president, reluctant to stand up to the Republicans. Obama had insisted he was intent on pushing ahead with tougher rules to force businesses to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone. But Republicans argued it would increase the burden on businesses at a time when they are struggling and could lead to job losses. The Republican House majority leader, Eric Cantor, had described the proposed regulations as “job-killers”. It is another victory for the Republicans, who only control the House of Representatives but have managed to dictate much of the political agenda in the Democratic-controlled White House and Senate. Republicans, who return to Congress from holiday next week, paralysed Washington in the weeks running up to the summer break by threatening to vote against raising the country’s debt ceiling, forcing Obama to concede substantial spending cuts. The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, hailed Obama’s latest climbdown on Friday. “The president took a step today that highlights the devastating impact on jobs that has been created by this administration’s regulatory overreach. This action alone will prevent more job losses than any speech the president has given,” McConnell said. One of McConnell’s Senate colleagues, John Barrasso, echoed him: “Job creators scored a major victory today in the fight against Washington’s red tape.” Democrats in Congress saw it as a setback. Ed Markey, a Democratic congressman on the House natural resources committee, said: “I am disappointed that the president chose to further delay important clean-air protections that would have helped to prevent respiratory and cardiac disease in thousands of Americans.”Obama had promised to replace weak air-control standards introduced by George W Bush. In a statement, Obama said on Friday the changes would have to be delayed until 2013, after the White House election in November next year. He cited the impact on business as the reason for the delay. Obama insisted he remained committed to the environment. “At the same time, I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover,” he said. His decision overrules the advice of the federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency, a body treated with derision by Republicans, who see it as an embodiment of “big government”. In his statement, Obama told the head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, to withdraw the proposal to tighten standards. The EPA’s independent panel of advisers earlier this year unanimously agreed that public health would benefit from the introduction of higher standards. Jackson had said the changes would have helped prevent as many as 12,000 premature deaths a year and save $100bn (£61.6bn) in health costs. The new rules would have forced companies to reduce emissions of certain chemicals that help create smog. Dow Chemical said the changes would cost as much as $90bn. Earthjustice, which has launched legal actions aimed at tackling smog-producers, expressed disappointment. Martin Hayden, the group’s vice-president, said: “The Obama administration knows the heavy cost of smog pollution but has made the terrible decision to leave outdated, weak standards in place, leaving thousands of Americans who suffer from lung and breathing problems at the mercy of this dirty air.” Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said: “The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of protecting the air we breathe. This is a huge win for corporate polluters and huge loss for public health.” US domestic policy Barack Obama Pollution Obama administration Activism Republicans Democrats United States US politics Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …