Category Archives: Republicans

04.23.13
by

ABC News: GOP Presidential Candidate Chris Christie Wants Gun Control: Chris Christie’s Gun Gamble

The Newtown, Conn., shooting has prompted a handful of states to enact tougher gun laws, and blue-state governors have led the way.

With Congress yet to agree on any federal changes, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — both thought to be Democratic presidential contenders in 2016 — have shepherded tighter restrictions in their states. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy signed a new gun law earlier this month.

Add Chris Christie to that list.

On Friday, the New Jersey Republican governor and possible GOP White House hopeful unveiled a new plan for tighter gun laws in the Garden State.

Previously on the record as supporting some gun restrictions on the books in New Jersey — some of the toughest in the nation — the governor took an active turn on the gun issue. Christie proposed requiring mental-health adjudication records be added to background checks, banning the Barrett .50 caliber rifle, new and stiffer penalties for straw-purchasers and gun trafficking, parental consent for violent video game sales, and making it easier for doctors to mandate commitment or outpatient treatment for mental-health patients deemed dangerous. He added a mental-health working group to a state gun-violence task force, charged with making recommendations.

“The existing system that we have placed in New Jersey is much stronger already than the proposed Toomey-Manchin legislation that failed in the Senate earlier this week,” Christie said at a news conference on Friday. “The [state] assembly has put some bills forward, the [state] senate’s gonna put some bills forward, I’ve now put bills forward, and now we have to let the process work to reach consensus of what works for the people of the state.”

PHOTO: In this March 12, 2013 file photo, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie addresses a packed house at St. Luke's Baptist Church in Paterson, N.J., during his 102nd town hall meeting.

Highlighting a political conundrum for Christie, the gun push will likely play well in his home state, which already restricts guns more aggressively than most — but it might raise concerns among Republicans elsewhere, posing a hurdle for Christie if he seeks the presidency in 2016.

“It’s only gonna hurt him,” said Keith Appell, a former adviser to Steve Forbes’ 2000 presidential campaign, the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth campaign, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s 2010 campaign.

“He may come right at it and try to stare people down by sheer force of his personality and attempt to convince people that he’s one of them in spite of these steps,” Appell said. “He will find, as many have before him, that it won’t play. It’ll slam him right back in the face.”

In his new push, Christie has bucked conservative orthodoxy for the second time this year. In February, he joined seven other Republican governors in accepting an expansion of state Medicaid programs under President Obama’s health-reform law, the Affordable Care Act.

“It is clear over the past two or three months that he really worked to prioritize his New Jersey constituency over his national conservative constituency, and this is kind of groundbreaking, because up until about two or three months ago, we saw a series of actions that really defied public opinions in the state,” said Prof. Brigid Harrison, who teaches political science and law at Montclair State University in Montclair, N.J.

Harrison referenced Christie’s cuts to family-planning funding in the state budget.

Christie already has some problems with conservative activists. After supporting a federal Hurricane Sandy relief bill, he was not invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual confab that hosts top conservative politicians for speeches to a large crowd of activists in the Washington, D.C., area.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/chris-christies-gun-gamble/story?id=19018480

 

04.22.13
by

Reuters: House Republican blocks consumer watchdog from testifying

A Republican lawmaker escalated a partisan fight over the new consumer protection watchdog on Monday, saying the bureau’s leader was not welcome to appear before a congressional panel that oversees financial regulators.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a Republican who leads the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray could not appear before the panel because he has not been confirmed to his position by the U.S. Senate.

Lawmakers have battled over the bureau since it was created in 2010. President Barack Obama appointed Cordray in January 2012 to lead the consumer watchdog on a temporary basis, but Senate Republicans have refused to confirm him for a full term until Democrats agree to change the bureau’s structure.

The bureau’s critics argue a recent court ruling proves that Cordray’s position is invalid, though Democrats and the consumer watchdog dispute that conclusion because the case did not deal directly with him.

Cordray is scheduled to appear before a Senate committee on Tuesday to present a semi-annual report on the bureau’s activities, but Hensarling said he would not be asked to deliver the report to the House panel.

“The Committee on Financial Services stands ready to accept the testimony of the director of the CFPB on the semi-annual report as soon as an individual validly holds this position,” Hensarling said in letters to Cordray and to bureau general counsel Meredith Fuchs.

The CFPB, formed after the 2007-2009 crisis to protect Americans from financial scams, oversees mortgages, credit cards and student loans.

Obama used a controversial maneuver known as a “recess appointment” to install Cordray temporarily while most lawmakers were out of Washington, after Senate Republicans refused to confirm him to a full term. They say the bureau should be run by a bipartisan board and not a single director.

Republicans said Cordray’s appointment, as well as three additional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, was invalid because lawmakers were not technically on recess at the time.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-financial-regulation-consumerbureau-idUSBRE93L1DM20130423

04.20.13
by

Bloomberg: Obama Decision on Interrogating Suspect Draws Criticism from Civil Liberties Groups; Republicans argue still not tough enough

The Obama administration’s decision to interrogate the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing without first warning him of his rights has sparked criticism from both sides of the political spectrum about the best way to prosecute terrorism cases.

Justice Department officials have said their move to question bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev, 19, without reading him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent is a necessary legal tool in cases of domestic terrorism.

Civil liberties groups said yesterday the tactic raises concerns about infringement of Tsarnaev’s constitutional rights, especially since he’s a naturalized American citizen. At the same time, four Republican lawmakers criticized the administration for not being tough enough, saying Tsarnaev should be designated an enemy combatant with no right to counsel……..

……….

Holder’s push has been criticized by civil liberties groups that say delaying Miranda warnings poses risks to the constitutional rights of suspects.

“Obama’s Justice Department unilaterally expanded the ‘public safety exception’ to Miranda in 2010 beyond anything the Supreme Court ever authorized,” Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy group that focuses on civil-liberties litigation, said in a statement yesterday. “Each time the administration uses this exception, it stretches wider and longer.”

—

As we stated before, Republicans and Democrats (at least some of the key players in both parties) seem to think that the constitution only applies some of the time and to a subset of the citizenship.  What do you think?

Click below for the full article.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-21/obama-decision-on-interrogating-suspect-draws-criticism.html?cmpid=yhoo

04.20.13
by

Yahoo News: Boston bombing suspect’s arrest presents intelligence opportunity, legal challenges

BOSTON – Keeping bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive and able to answer questions would be a badly-needed intelligence coup for terror investigators, a former U.S. District Attorney told Yahoo News on Saturday.

“The fear of law enforcement has always been the small, insular cells that are kind of under the radar,” said Richard Roper, a federal prosecutor for 21 years. “Either the lone wolf or the small cells … they’re difficult to obtain intelligence on. I hope they get some good stuff out of him.”

On Saturday, Dzhokhar was reportedly clinging to life and under heavy guard at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He apparently suffered gunshot wounds to the neck and leg during separate gun battles with authorities on Friday.

Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, are believed to have planted the two backpack bombs near the finish line of Monday’s Boston Marathon. The twin explosions killed three people and injured 180 others……..

……..

“There’s a need to immediately question the guy whether you Mirandize him or not to save lives,” Roper said. “The question is how far do you go before it turns into a custodial interrogation?”

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina went a step further, suggesting Dzhokhar be treated as an enemy combatant like a soldier captured in war. The move drew the ire of longtime McCain aide and speechwriter Mark Salter.

“My friend, Lindsey Graham, is wrong on this,” Salter posted on his Facebook page. “However unforgivable his crimes, he’s a US citizen, arrested on US soil, with, at this time, no known associations with foreign terrorist organizations at war with the U.S. To declare him an “enemy combatant,” and deny him his rights is un-American.”

——

What do you all think, does the constitution only apply to some citizens or all?

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-bombing-suspect-arrest-presents-intelligence-opportunity-legal-183858408.html

04.18.13
by

AP Poll: Trust in government, Obama approval slip

President Barack Obama’s re-election glow is gone. Congress’ reputation remains dismal. And only about one in five Americans say they trust the government to do what’s right most of the time, an Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

Most adults disapprove of Obama’s handling of the federal deficit, a festering national problem. But they also dislike key proposals to reduce deficit spending, including a slower growth in Social Security benefits and changes to Medicare.

Rounding out the portrait of a nation in a funk, the share of people saying the United States is heading in the wrong direction is at its highest since last August: 56 percent.

The government in Washington is “dealing with a lot of stuff that are non-issues,” said Jeremy Hammond, 33, of Queensbury, N.Y.

Hammond, a Web programmer and political independent, said Congress should focus on “the incredible debt and lack of spending control.” He said it’s absurd for Congress to force the Postal Service to continue Saturday mail delivery when the agency says “we can’t afford it.”

Hammond reflects the lukewarm feelings toward Obama found in the poll. Asked his opinion of the president, Hammond paused and said: “I don’t know. I voted for him in 2008, not in 2012.” When it comes to presidents, he said, “it’s one set of lawyers or the other.”

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/poll-trust-government-obama-approval-slip-164950163–politics.html

04.17.13
by

Yahoo News: For Obama, stinging gun bill defeat is personal and political

What happens to a president who romps to reelection, channels a national tragedy that sparked coast-to-coast outrage into a deeply personal crusade, then fails to get a measure backed by nine out of ten Americans through the Senate, where his party holds a majority? Thanks to the NRA-fueled defeat of a bill that might have mildly tightened limits on gun sales, President Barack Obama is learning the hard way.

For the families of those killed or wounded by gun violence and who watched with judging eyes as the Senate killed the measure by a vote of 54-46 (it needed a supermajority of 60 votes to pass) what to make of the vote was an easy call.

“Shame on you!” Patricia Maisch shouted from the visitors gallery above the Senate floor.

Maisch, a grandmotherly figure who disarmed the shooter in the Tucson carnage that nearly claimed the life of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, was happy to elaborate as reporters swarmed her after the vote. “I decided I could not sit still,” she said. “They have no souls, they have no compassion.”

But on Wednesday, they had the votes.

That’s Message One for Obama from this stinging legislative defeat: Having emotion and the majority on your side isn’t enough. NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, after all, didn’t even need to show up.

The knock on Obama has often been that he’s Mr. Spock, viewing his approach as the most logical and assuming that logic will trump the other’s side’s arguments and emotions. But only the most cynical observers will argue that the president didn’t take this fight personally – with frequent flashes of very public anger and anguish ever since the slaughter of 20 schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary. And supporters of the legislation deployed the families of the slain as lobbyists in the weeks leading up to the vote.

Moreover, as the White House never tired of pointing out, polls show roughly 90 percent of Americans support expanded background checks.

“I will put everything I’ve got into this, and so will Joe,” Obama promised in January, with Vice President Biden at his side. “But I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it.”

In the end, though, four red-state Democrats joined 41 of the Senate’s 45 Republicans to defeat the bill. Why stick their necks out for legislation whose death in the Republican-led House of Representatives was essentially foreordained?

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-stinging-gun-bill-defeat-personal-political-234849868–politics.html;_ylt=AhMEeTY6VfIiF8QAHtN7SpvyWed_;_ylu=X3oDMTQzNzlxa2ZiBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIFRvcFN0b3JpZXMEcGtnA2QzMGIyZjAzLTk5OTEtMzY3My1hOWJiLTUwMTBjNjhkNmE5MgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDTWVkaWFTZWN0aW9uTGlzdAR2ZXIDYjBlMGU5NDMtYTdjMi0xMWUyLWFmZmUtNzM5MDdkZGMxMTA0;_ylg=X3oDMTNqcDRvMzU3BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMjEwZTBhNzAtMzljNC0zNDg0LTg4MmUtZDAzYWU0ZTg3YjgxBHBzdGNhdAN1LXN8Y3JpbWVzYW5kdHJpYWxzBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0A1FFX1Rlc3Q-;_ylv=3

04.17.13
by

CNN: Senate rejects expanded gun background checks

In a major defeat for supporters of tougher gun laws, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday defeated a compromise plan to expand background checks on firearms sales as well as a proposal to ban some semi-automatic weapons modeled after military assault weapons.

The votes were on a series of amendments to a broad package of gun laws pushed by President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre in December.

However, fierce opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association led a backlash by conservative Republicans and a few Democrats from pro-gun states that doomed key proposals in the gun package, even after they had been watered down to try to satisfy opponents.

After the votes, Obama angrily criticized the NRA and senators who voted against the expanded background checks for rejecting a compromise he said was supported by a strong majority of Americans.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html

04.15.13
by

Tax Day Special: With Both 2012 POTUS Tax Rates Under Attack, Just what is a fair tax rate?

Has President Obama been taking advice from Mitt Romney’s tax accountant?

Months after attacking Mr. Romney for his low tax rate, some critics are now turning the tables on the president, saying his 2012 tax rate is too low.

The president paid $112,214 in federal income taxes on an adjusted gross income of $608,611 in 2012, making his effective federal tax rate 18.4 percent. (The Obamas also paid $29,450 in Illinois income tax.)

Apparently, that’s a lot less than some folks at MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” pay.

“The president was talking about how shameful it is that Mitt Romney paid less in taxes than teachers paid in taxes, and yet Barack Obama, reportedly worth $14 million, paid less in taxes than teachers or Warren Buffet’s poor, overworked secretary,” “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough said on Monday’s show.

Is Obama’s tax rate too low?

Click below for the full article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0415/Obama-s-tax-rate-is-18.4-percent.-Is-that-too-low-for-a-millionaire?nav=topic-tag_topic_page-storyList

04.15.13
by

Ron Paul: “The Neo-Conservative Era Is Dead”

Former Congressman Ron Paul, the libertarian icon, is launching a new institute “for peace and prosperity.” A “media advisory” posted on his Facebook page Friday explains:

The neo-conservative era is dead.

Former Congressman Ron Paul will hold a press conference this Wednesday to launch his next big project: the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. After decades in and out of the US House of Representatives leading the call for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties, Dr. Paul is launching a revolutionary new vehicle to expand his efforts. The Institute will serve as the focal point of a new coalition that crosses political, ideological, and party lines.

Click below for the full article.

[http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15099-the-neo-conservative-era-is-dead-ron-paul-institute-for-peace-and-prosperity]