BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
Showing posts with label gov chris christie r NJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gov chris christie r NJ. Show all posts
Chris Christie discutió con Marco Rubio durante el debate
republicano en Carolina del Sur 14 de enero de 2016. (AFP / Getty
Images) GOV Chris Christie r NJ continúa exponiendo a sí mismo
como un mentiroso, esta vez con su negación de apoyo a la nominación de
Sonia Sotomayor a la Corte Suprema. La mentira es
alucinante porque Christie tuvo la oportunidad de atraer a los votantes
hispanos con su apoyo a la nominación de Sotomayor, pero él optó por
complacer a la derecha fascista en el partido repiglican el blanco es
gente correcta. Esto de + PolitiFact .....
"Yo no apoyo a Sonia Sotomayor".
- Chris Christie en Viernes, 15 de enero 2016 en un debate republicano en Fox Business Network en Carolina del Sur en Fox Business Network
Por Amy Sherman en Viernes, 15 de enero 2016 en 12:15a.m.
Marco Rubio trató de lanzar el candidato presidencial del
Partido Republicano compatriota Chris Christie como un liberal en muchos
temas, incluyendo el nombramiento de la Corte Suprema de Justicia Sonia
Sotomayor.
Durante el debate de Carolina del Sur 14 de enero, Rubio dijo que
Christie respaldó muchas de las ideas que el presidente Barack Obama
apoya, "si es básico común, o el control de armas, o el nombramiento de
Sonia Sotomayor, o la donación que hizo a Planned Parenthood."
Christie replicó, "Vamos a los hechos. En primer lugar, yo no apoyo Sonia Sotomayor ". Luego continuó para disputar el resto de la declaración de Rubio.
Nos decidimos centrarnos en la parte de la juez de la Corte Suprema de Justicia.
¿Quién tiene razón? Apoyó Christie Sotomayor o no? Sotomayor
Sotomayor, una Corte de Apelaciones Juez, fue el primer candidato a la
Corte Suprema de Obama y la primera juez hispana del país. Ella fue confirmada por el Senado el 6 de agosto de 2009, en una votación de 68-31.
La campaña de Rubio no respondió a nuestra pregunta sobre la
reclamación, pero que rastreó algunas de las declaraciones de Christie a
través de su campaña y la cobertura de noticias.
En 2009 , Christie era candidato a gobernador de Nueva Jersey, por lo
que no llegó a votar por su nombramiento o jugar algún papel en la
investigación de antecedentes por el Senado. Pero él hizo una serie de declaraciones sobre ella en 2009 que un portavoz de la campaña Christie envió a nosotros. No
es de extrañar que Christie - un ex fiscal federal -. Se pidió a opinar
sobre un candidato del Tribunal Supremo, que era de Nueva York y fue a
la universidad de Princeton en Nueva Jersey
En un debate radial 27 de mayo 2009, Christie se le preguntó : "¿Te la has nombrado o incluso la consideraban para una cita de arriba a la banca?"
Christie respondió: "Ella no habría sido mi elección, no." Cuando
se le preguntó a elaborar, dijo Christie, "Bueno, no, me refiero a
escuchar, esa es la pregunta. Ella no habría sido mi elección. Por
supuesto que no. No es mi tipo de juez."
Sin embargo, dos meses más tarde, él hizo comentarios que mostraron
algún apoyo para su confirmación. - a pesar de que una vez más dijo que
Sotomayor no habría sido su elección
"Después de ver y escuchar a la actuación de la jueza Sotomayor durante
las audiencias de confirmación de esta semana, estoy seguro de que ella
está calificado para el puesto de juez asociado de la Corte Suprema de
Estados Unidos ", dijo Christie, un ex fiscal federal, según Politicker Nueva Jersey. "Las
elecciones tienen consecuencias. Una de esas consecuencias son los
nombramientos judiciales. Mientras que la jueza Sotomayor no habría sido
mi elección, el presidente Obama ha aprovechado su oportunidad de
llenar un puesto en la Corte Suprema por la elección de un candidato que
tiene más de probada su capacidad, competencia y la capacidad ".
Y continuó:".. Estoy a favor de su nombramiento a la Corte Suprema e
insto al Senado a mantener la política fuera del proceso y confirme su
nominación designados calificados deben ser confirmadas y merezco apoyo
bipartidista principal justicia Roberts y Justicia Alito merecían que
apoyo en base a su trabajo como Circuit Court Jueces. Lo mismo sucede
con la jueza Sotomayor. Como resultado, yo apoyo su confirmación. Este
es un momento histórico y su historia de éxito que inspira no sólo debe
hacer la comunidad latina orgullosa, pero todos los estadounidenses. "Nuestra decisión
Christie dijo: "Yo no apoyo a Sonia Sotomayor."
Cuando Sotomayor fue nominada por Obama, Christie dijo en mayo de 2009, "Ella no habría sido mi elección, no." Sin
embargo, dos meses después, Christie dijo que tenía "más que demostrado
su capacidad, competencia y capacidad", y añadió, "Estoy a favor de su
nombramiento a la Corte Suprema e insto al Senado a mantener la política
fuera del proceso y confirme su nominación."
La declaración de Christie que él no apoyó Sotomayor tergiversa su posición final. Calificamos esta afirmación falsa.
Chris Christie sparred with Marco Rubio during the Republican debate in South Carolina Jan. 14, 2016. (AFP/Getty Images) GOV chris christie r NJ continues to expose himself as a liar, this time with his denial of supporting the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The lie is mind boggling because christie had the opportunity to appeal to Hispanic voters with his support of Sotomayor's nomination, but he chose instead to pander to the right wing fascist in the the repiglican party, the white is right crowd. This from +PolitiFact .....
"I didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor."
— Chris Christie on Friday, January 15th, 2016 in a Republican debate on Fox Business Network in South Carolina on Fox Business Network
By Amy Sherman on Friday, January 15th, 2016 at 12:15 a.m.
Marco Rubio tried to cast fellow GOP presidential candidate
Chris Christie as a liberal on many topics, including the appointment of
Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor.
During the South Carolina debate Jan. 14, Rubio said that Christie
endorsed many of the ideas that President Barack Obama supports,
"whether it is Common Core, or gun control, or the appointment of Sonia
Sotomayor, or the donation he made to Planned Parenthood."
Christie shot back, "Let’s get the facts straight. First of all, I
didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor." He then continued to dispute the rest
of Rubio’s statement.
We decided to focus on the part about the Supreme Court justice.
Who is right? Did Christie support Sotomayor or not? Sotomayor
Sotomayor, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, was Obama’s first Supreme
Court nominee and the country’s first Hispanic justice. She was
confirmed by the Senate on Aug. 6, 2009, in a 68-31 vote.
The Rubio campaign did not respond to our inquiry about the claim,
but we tracked down some of Christie’s statements through his campaign
and news coverage.
In 2009, Christie was running for governor in New Jersey, so he
didn’t get to vote on her appointment or play any role in her vetting by
the Senate. But he did make a series of statements about her in 2009
that a Christie campaign spokeswoman sent to us. It’s not surprising
that Christie -- a former federal prosecutor -- was asked to weigh in
about a Supreme Court candidate who was from New York and went to
college at Princeton in New Jersey.
In a radio debate May 27, 2009, Christie was asked: "Would you have appointed her or even considered her for a top appointment to the bench?"
Christie responded, "She wouldn’t have been my choice, no." When
asked to elaborate, Christie said, "Well, no, I mean listen, that’s the
question. She wouldn’t have been my choice. Absolutely not. Not my kind
of judge. "
But two months later, he made comments that showed some support for
her confirmation -- although he again said that Sotomayor would not have
been his choice.
"After watching and listening to Judge Sotomayor's performance at the
confirmation hearings this week, I am confident that she is qualified
for the position of associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court," said Christie,
a former federal prosecutor, according to Politicker New Jersey.
"Elections have consequences. One of those consequences are judicial
appointments. While Judge Sotomayor would not have been my choice,
President Obama has used his opportunity to fill a seat on the Supreme
Court by choosing a nominee who has more than proven her capability,
competence and ability."
He continued: "I support her appointment to the Supreme Court and
urge the Senate to keep politics out of the process and confirm her
nomination. Qualified appointees should be confirmed and deserve
bipartisan support. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito deserved
that support based on their work as Circuit Court Judges. So does Judge
Sotomayor. As a result, I support her confirmation. This is a historic
moment and her inspiring success story should not only make the Latino
community proud, but all Americans." Our ruling
Christie said, "I didn’t support Sonia Sotomayor."
When Sotomayor was nominated by Obama, Christie said in May 2009,
"She wouldn’t have been my choice, no." But two months later, Christie
said that she had "more than proven her capability, competence and
ability," adding, "I support her appointment to the Supreme Court and
urge the Senate to keep politics out of the process and confirm her
nomination."
Christie’s statement that he didn’t support Sotomayor misrepresents his eventual position. We rate this claim False.
Photo Credit: Image by Shutterstock, Copyright (c) Rayjunk MORE on the campaign of fraud, lies, manipulation and deception by the 2016 repiglican presidential candidates on the state of the Social Security program and the need to expand benefits and raise the taxable income limit. jeb bush, chris christie, marco rubio and ted cruz all want to raise the retirement age, and they have plans for cutting benefits and or privatizing Social Security, destroying the tax funded program that is in the black now, for the foreseeable future and can afford to increase benefits. The income ceiling on Social Security taxes must be raised from $118,500 to at least $250,000, should be $500,000. Both hillary clinton and Sen Bernie Sanders agree on the need raise the taxable ceiling and to expand benefits, BERNIE 2016 wants the expansion of benefits across the board, hillary would limit it. Bottom line is, the repiglicans want to take more from the poor, working class, middle class, the retired and disabled and give it to the 1%. Bernie Sanders plans to increase Social Security taxes on those who can afford it and and use the increased revenue, along with securing the Social Security trust fund from being pillaged by the federal government, to increase and expand benefits. Comfort or poverty, who you support and vote for will determine the economic state of your retirement. Your future really is in your hands. From +AlterNet ......
Photo Credit: Image by Shutterstock, Copyright (c) Rayjunk
The right-wing war against Social Security has taken a turn into new heights of hyperbole and arrogance.
For years, you may recall, the anti-Social Security crowd said
Americans could do better with investing their own money on Wall
Street, essentially privatizing the most successful and popular
government program. Then they said
seniors were stealing money from younger generations, never mentioning
that the funds came from their lifetime of work. Then last year they said
that disabled people were just pretending to be injured and defrauding
the government. Now there is an even more outrageous and baseless claim.
“They’re
telling people they have more money than they say they do,” said Alex
Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, which has
documented and burgeoning retirement security crisis and advocates for
increased benefits.
The latest example of this we-know-your-wallet-better-than-you ruse has been a series of commentaries in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Forbes by Andrew Biggs,
a “resident scholar” at the conservative American Enterprise Institute,
who was a deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration
under President George W. Bush (who repeatedly tried but failed to
privatize Social Security).
“One persistent feature of the
conservative attack on Social Security, and especially on the emerging
campaign to increase benefits, is the notion that the typical American
will do just fine in retirement just as it is,” wrote
Michael Hiltzik, the Los Angeles Times’ Pulitzer-Prize winning business
writer, summarizing this dubious line of attack as exemplified by
Bigg’s Wall Street Journal piece, “New Evidence on the Phony Retirement Security Crisis.”
Bigg
relies on an old Washington trick—the introduction of a new economic
metric by congressional researchers that support a predetermined
conclusion that ignores the reality faced by tens of millions of
Americans. In this instance, it’s a new formula for calculating what’s
called the “replacement rate,” or what percentage of one’s
pre-retirement income will be dispensed in Social Security benefits.
Economists typically say about 70 percent of one’s income is needed, of
which Social Security is supposed to be one source.
“A typical
middle-income individual born in the 1960s and retiring in the 2020s
will be eligible for a Social Security benefit equal to 56 percent of
his late-in-life earnings,” Biggs cheerily declares in the Wall Street Journal.
“The CBO’s [Congressional Budget Office] Social Security figures, taken
together with rising individual retirement savings, undercut the
often-voiced claim that Americans face a ‘retirement crisis’ that only
an expanded Social Security program can fix.”
The facts, as economists and economics writers have pointed out, are not with Biggs.
“If we step back from replacement rates, we can ask a rhetorical question, is $19,000 a year a middle-class income?” blogged economist Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
co-director, in response to Biggs’ claims. “Odds are that most people
would not consider $19,000 a reasonable income for a middle-class
household, hence the basis for the claim about a retirement crisis.”
Baker punctured another assertion.
“Biggs
does point to the record amount of retirement savings,” Baker said.
“This is indeed good news for those who have these savings, but
unfortunately most middle class households don’t fall into this
category. According to the Federal Reserve Board’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finance,
the average net worth outside of housing equity for the middle quintile
of households between the ages of 55 and 64 was less than $55,000. This
includes all IRAs, 401(k)s and other retirement accounts. This will
translate into roughly $3,000 a year in additional retirement income,
bringing this middle income household’s income up to $22,000 a year.”
What’s
happening is right-wingers in the think tank community in Washington,
D.C., in the majority on Capital Hill and on the 2016 presidential
campaign trail, are seeing that Democrats are making headway with voters about the need to increase social safety net benefits. As the LA Times’ Hiltzik noted,
when Biggs argued in the Washington Post that Americans’ IRAs and
401(k) balances have grown by nearly 50 percent from 1996 to early 2015,
he mistakenly “assumes that retirement assets are distributed among the
population in the same proportion as working income.”
“Is that plausible?” Hiltzik continued.
“Doubtful, because facts tell a different story. Wealth inequality is
spreading through the economy, and the gap in retirement assets may be
even wider. Enrollment in 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts
rises sharply with income… The likelihood is that the shortfall in
retirement assets is going to become grimmer with time.”
The New York Times’ editorial board amplified
that same conclusion last Sunday, noting that “36 percent of retirees
now rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income… 65
percent of retirees rely on it for more than half of their income.”
Average monthly benefits are about $1,300. As far as the purported
growing savings plans of soon-to-be seniors, the Times said that fewer
employees even have that option. Only 44 percent of workers “on the
lower half of the income scale” had retirement plans at work in 2013,
compared to 54 percent in 1995, they noted. When gender and race are factored in, women—especially women of color—are particularly vulnerable.
“In
the Uberized ‘gig economy,’ fewer workers may even have an employer to
offer them,” Hiltzik wrote. Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Institute’s
Monique Morrissey and Ross Eisenbrey write
that the U.S. has more people age 60 and older working than many
European countries because they essentially can’t afford to stop
working.
But back to the latest fuzzy math from odd government
formulas used to frame the Social Security debate and determine what
benefits will actually be. As anyone who is receiving Social Security
benefits will tell you, this new CBO formula is not the first weird
metric they’ve recently seen. Because of the unealistic way that the
government calculates cost-of-living increases for Social Security,
recipients in 2016 will not see any change in the monthly benefits from
2015. This is happening even as the prices of prescription drugs significantly increased last year, including generics which jumped 11 percent.
“Skyrocketing drug prices with no COLA [cost of living adjustment] is a huge benefit cut,” said Social Security Works’ Lawson.
Meanwhile, on the 2016 campaign trail, several Republican contenders—Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio—want
to increase the age when people can collect benefits to save money,
even though that would hit lower-wage workers the hardest. All except
for Rubio would reduce future cost-of-living adjustments, and Bush and
Cruz would revive George W. Bush’s privatization scheme.
On the Democratic side,
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would raise the income tax ceiling
that’s currently taxed for Social Security—it now is the first $118,500
of payroll income—and raise benefits. Clinton said widows and caregivers
should see the biggest increases. Sanders would raise them across the
board.
But the newest twist in the ongoing fight about Social
Security is the arrogant and plainly incorrect assertion by
right-wingers that aging Americans have more money than they think they
do—and thus there’s no need to increase government-managed retirement
benefits, but, if anything, to cut them instead.
THE Good Samaritan, Christ's lesson of how we are to treat strangers in our lands, refugees, those in need. American Christians, Evangelical, conservative, Catholic and Protestant, along with Jewish groups are condemning the calls from the political right wing of the republican party, including some of the republican presidential candidates to impose extreme limits on and / or ban completely Syrian / Arab / Muslim refugees from the U.S. Religious groups and organizations and civil rights groups are uniting in their opposition to the anti-immigrant rhetoric from right wing politicians and organizations. It is good to see these groups and people of faith across the country challenge right wing republican politicians and pundits on this issue. We can only hope this eye opening will lead to religious scrutiny of their other policies, proposals and proclamations. From +Sojourners and +POLITICO .....
Christian groups are strongly condemning the anti-refugee rhetoric coming from top GOP leadership this week, reports POLITICO.
In the wake of the Paris attacks, many in the U.S. media speculated
that one or more of the attackers had entered France as refugees from
Syria, prompting state senators, governors, and even U.S. presidential
candidates for the GOP to vow to close U.S. borders to Syrian refugees
altogether.
These statements are being decried by Christians
nationwide, including those with more historically conservative
positions on immigration and foreign policy. According to POLITICO:
A
push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees "does
not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which are
evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice
president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that
helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want
to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ...
doesn’t reflect who refugees are."
...World Relief is one of
nine groups, several of them faith-based, that help the U.S. resettle up
to 70,000 refugees from around the world in the United States each
year. Others include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Church World Service. Many
other faith-based groups, including evangelical Christian organizations,
also perform aid work overseas specifically aimed at refugees fleeing
conflicts.
Some advocates were particularly shocked when
Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, New Jersey's governor,
said that the U.S. should bar Syrian orphaned toddlers if necessary.
"That
was offensive. That was mean-spirited," said one advocate with a
Christian group that resettles refugees. ..."It’s easy to pick on
vulnerable refugees who have no voice."
- See more at: https://sojo.net/articles/christian-groups-censure-gop-over-syrian-refugee-crisis#sthash.Xsua2uA3.dpuf
Christian groups are strongly condemning the anti-refugee rhetoric coming from top GOP leadership this week, reports POLITICO.
In the wake of the Paris attacks, many in the U.S. media speculated
that one or more of the attackers had entered France as refugees from
Syria, prompting state senators, governors, and even U.S. presidential
candidates for the GOP to vow to close U.S. borders to Syrian refugees
altogether.
These statements are being decried by Christians
nationwide, including those with more historically conservative
positions on immigration and foreign policy. According to POLITICO:
A
push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees "does
not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which are
evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice
president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that
helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want
to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ...
doesn’t reflect who refugees are."
...World Relief is one of
nine groups, several of them faith-based, that help the U.S. resettle up
to 70,000 refugees from around the world in the United States each
year. Others include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Church World Service. Many
other faith-based groups, including evangelical Christian organizations,
also perform aid work overseas specifically aimed at refugees fleeing
conflicts.
Some advocates were particularly shocked when
Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, New Jersey's governor,
said that the U.S. should bar Syrian orphaned toddlers if necessary.
"That
was offensive. That was mean-spirited," said one advocate with a
Christian group that resettles refugees. ..."It’s easy to pick on
vulnerable refugees who have no voice."
Evangelical Christians, as well as Christians
more broadly, are a core group in the Republican electoral base and are
among the most passionate advocates for aiding refugees.
Mike Huckabee along with other politicians, have worked
to gain evangelical support, but may be threatening that by taking a
stance against Syrian refugees. | AP Photo
Faith-based groups, who play a key role
in resettling refugees to the United States, say they are dismayed by
the wave of anti-refugee fervor set off by the Paris terrorist attacks
and are urging supporters to contact elected officials on behalf of
victims of the Syrian civil war.
Evangelical Christians, as well as Christians more broadly, are a
core group in the Republican electoral base and are among the most
passionate advocates for aiding refugees.
A push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees
"does not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which
are evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice
president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that
helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want
to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ...
doesn’t reflect who refugees are."
Reports that a Syrian migrant may have played a role in last week's
attacks in Paris, which killed around 130 people, have set off a GOP-led
backlash over the Obama administration's plans to admit 10,000 Syrian
refugees next year. More than half of U.S. governors have said they do
not want Syrian refugees resettled in their states, while House Speaker
Paul Ryan says he wants a vote this week on GOP-drafted legislation to
halt the administration's plans.
World Relief is one of nine not-for-profit organizations, several of
them faith-based, that help resettle up to 70,000 refugees from around
the world in the United States each year. Others include the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee
Service, and the Church World Service. Many other faith-based groups,
including evangelical Christian organizations, also perform aid work
overseas specifically aimed at refugees fleeing conflicts.
For Republican presidential contenders such as former Arkansas Gov.
Mike Huckabee and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who have been working hard at
shoring up evangelical support in a crowded field, harsh words against
refugees carries a risk of looking politically opportunistic instead of
compassionate. Some advocates were particularly shocked when Republican
presidential candidate Chris Christie, New Jersey's governor, said that the U.S. should bar Syrian orphaned toddlers if necessary.
"That was offensive. That was mean-spirited," said one advocate with a
Christian group that resettles refugees. He added: "it’s disappointing
because there have been Republican senators and presidents who have
strongly supported this program over the years. There’s a proud
tradition in the Republican Party of welcoming those who are fleeing
persecution, and this takes the party in a negative direction. It’s easy
to pick on vulnerable refugees who have no voice. But there are
immigrant groups who have voting power that understand what is going on.
They understand that it’s an anti-immigrant message."
Even though many on the Christian right have reservations about
immigration overall, and may in particular be unhappy about people who
illegally enter the United States, there's long been a recognition that
refugees fall under a different category. The 11 million Syrians who
have either fled the Arab country or are displaced within it are dodging
terrorist groups such as the Islamic State or the barrel bombs of
Syrian President Bashar Assad. Many are elderly, widowed or in need of
medical care.
Some Republican candidates have suggested that only Syrians who are
Christian be allowed on U.S. soil, something President Barack Obama has blasted
as shameful. Yang said many evangelical Christians would also oppose
such a religious test, especially because many are eager to share their
faith with new arrivals.
The United States so far has admitted roughly 2,100 Syrians since the
conflict in the country began in March 2011. To be allowed in, refugees
have to undergo the most stringent security checks of any traveler
heading to the United States, according to the State Department.
Officials from the Obama administration on Tuesday began reaching out to
the media and lawmakers in a bid to explain the screening process,
which takes an average of 18-24 months.
Meanwhile, faith-based groups have also stepped up their advocacy
efforts for refugees. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a
statement expressing distress over calls by elected officials to halt the resettlement program.
"These refugees are fleeing terror themselves — violence like we have
witnessed in Paris," said the statement by Bishop Eusebio Elizondo,
chairman of the conference's committee on migration. "Instead of using
this tragedy to scapegoat all refugees, I call upon our public officials
to work together to end the Syrian conflict peacefully so the close to 4
million Syrian refugees can return to their country and rebuild their
homes. Until that goal is achieved, we must work with the world
community to provide safe haven to vulnerable and deserving refugees who
are simply attempting to survive."
Since the Paris attacks, World Relief has used a website
to urge people to contact their governors to express their support for
resettling Syrians. The Anti-Defamation League also has spoken out in
favor of helping the Syrian refugees, noting that U.S. wariness to
accept Jewish refugees during World War II is an example that must not
be repeated.
Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief executive officer of the ADL and a
former Obama aide, stressed that much remains unknown about the Paris
attacks, including the exact nature of the allegation that a Syrian
migrant was one of the eight or nine attackers. Even if a terrorist
posed as a migrant to reach France, it's less likely that the U.S., with
oceans to protect it and a stricter screening process, faces the same
level of dangers, other advocates said.
"Republicans and Democrats have to tread very carefully here,"
Greenblatt said. "Faith-based voters are very attentive to these issues.
They’re very sensitive to helping those in need."
Joanne Kelsey, assistant director for advocacy with Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service, said she hoped that the sound and fury
over refugees would soon be replaced with reason as Republican lawmakers
and officials get more details about how the refugee program works.
"This is a very reactionary time," she said.
Christian groups are strongly condemning the anti-refugee rhetoric coming from top GOP leadership this week, reports POLITICO.
In the wake of the Paris attacks, many in the U.S. media speculated
that one or more of the attackers had entered France as refugees from
Syria, prompting state senators, governors, and even U.S. presidential
candidates for the GOP to vow to close U.S. borders to Syrian refugees
altogether.
These statements are being decried by Christians
nationwide, including those with more historically conservative
positions on immigration and foreign policy. According to POLITICO:
A
push by Republican presidential candidates to ban Syrian refugees "does
not reflect what we've been hearing from our constituencies, which are
evangelical churches across the country," said Jenny Yang, vice
president for advocacy at World Relief, an evangelical organization that
helps resettle refugees. "Most of the people have been saying we want
to continue to work with refugees, that what happened in Paris ...
doesn’t reflect who refugees are."
...World Relief is one of
nine groups, several of them faith-based, that help the U.S. resettle up
to 70,000 refugees from around the world in the United States each
year. Others include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service, and the Church World Service. Many
other faith-based groups, including evangelical Christian organizations,
also perform aid work overseas specifically aimed at refugees fleeing
conflicts.
Some advocates were particularly shocked when
Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, New Jersey's governor,
said that the U.S. should bar Syrian orphaned toddlers if necessary.
"That
was offensive. That was mean-spirited," said one advocate with a
Christian group that resettles refugees. ..."It’s easy to pick on
vulnerable refugees who have no voice."
- See more at: https://sojo.net/articles/christian-groups-censure-gop-over-syrian-refugee-crisis#sthash.Xsua2uA3.dpuf
chris shristie is a liar. desperate to get back to the "grown up" stage for the next republican / tea-bagger debate he is resorting to flat out lies about the tax proposals of the Democratic presidential candidates. This from +PolitiFact sets the record straight.....
The Democrats plan "to raise your tax rates to 70 or 80 percent."
— Chris Christie on Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 in the fourth GOP undercard debate.
By Linda Qiu on Thursday, November 12th, 2015 at 11:25 a.m.
New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie speaks during the Republican Presidential Debate
sponsored by Fox Business and the Wall Street Journal Nov. 10, 2015.
(Getty Images)
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie may have gotten bumped to
undercard debate, but that didn’t deter him from aiming above the GOP
field and targeting the other side instead.
Don’t worry about his fellow Republican rivals, Christie said, worry
about the Democrats and Hillary Clinton, who is "coming for your
wallet."
"If anybody believes the stuff they heard from that Democratic debate a few weeks ago, there’s nothing for free," Christie said.
"What they forgot to tell was that they’re going to raise your tax
rates to 70 or 80 percent in order to provide all of that stuff." Severalofyou asked us to look into whether Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley want to hike up taxes to 70 or 80 percent.
The Christie camp told us that it’s been widely reported that Sanders
"doesn’t flinch" over returning to a 90 percent top marginal tax rate.
But that’s not the same thing as a tax increase of 70 or 80 percent for
the average taxpayer (Christie earned a Pants on Fire
for his statement last debate that Sanders wants a 90 percent rate for
ordinary Americans). Nor does that prove that Clinton and O’Malley also
want a tax rate, top marginal or otherwise, of 70, 80 or 90 percent.
None of the three Democrats have released formal tax plans, but
spokespeople for Clinton and Sanders said Christie’s statement is
"ridiculous" and "completely false." Tax analysts also told us that
there’s nothing in what Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley have said so far
that suggest rates that high. The tax plans
Here’s what each candidate has proposed so far, according to analysis by the free market-oriented Tax Foundation and the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, as well as our own research:
Clinton’s tax plan
Sanders’ tax plan
O’Malley’s tax plan
• Makes the higher education tax credit permanent and creates a credit for out-of-pocket health care costs
• Repeals the Cadillac tax in the Affordable Care Act
• Creates medium-term capital gains rates between 24 and 39.6
percent (current short-term rate is 39.6 percent and long-term rate is
20 percent)
• Creates a 15 percent tax credit for companies that share profits with workers
• Creates a high-frequency trading tax
• Eliminates carried interest loopholes
• Raises the top marginal income tax rate from 39.6 percent to above 50 percent
• Creates a net investment income surtax of 10 percent
• Raises capital gains and dividends tax rates to the level of income taxes
• Raises the top estate tax rate from 40 percent to 65 percent (estates under $3.5 million would be exempt)
• Repeals the Cadillac tax in the Affordable Care Act
• Raises the payroll tax of 12.4 percent to 12.8 percent
• Eliminates deferral on foreign income
• Creates a $20 per ton carbon tax
• Creates a financial transaction tax
• Creates a Wall Street speculation tax
• Eliminates the cap on Social Security taxes
• Repeals the Cadillac tax in the Affordable Care Act
• Creates a financial transaction tax
Compared to the Republicans’ tax plans,
the Democrats’ proposals are less detailed and make minor changes to
the current system, said the Tax Policy Center’s Roberton Williams. He
and other experts emphasized that no Democrat has offered a detailed tax
plan with specific rates, let alone rates as high as Christie says.
"It does not seem likely that the Democratic candidates intend to
levy very high rates on the median American household," said Scott
Greenberg, an analyst with the Tax Foundation.
"Christie’s claim is more of a statement of ‘there’s no such thing as
free lunch,’ " observed Bill Smith, the managing director of the tax
consulting firm CBIZ MHM, adding, "But I don’t think any of one of (the
Democrats) in their wildest dreams would raise taxes to 70 or 80 percent
across the board." Not exactly ‘your tax rates’
Both Greenberg and the Williams pointed out that it’s plausible that
the Democratic candidates would increase the rate on top earners. But
that’s not the same thing as raising "your tax rates to 70 or 80
percent."
"It may be necessary to raise top individual tax rates to levels such
as 70 or 80 percent to fund Democratic candidates’ spending proposals
without increasing the deficit or taxing middle- and low-income
Americans," he said, referring us to a Wall Street Journalanalysis of the price tag of Sanders’ proposals.
As we’ve previouslynoted,
Sanders has said he doesn’t think a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent
would be too high. And he’s specifically proposed to raise the top rate
from its current rate of 39.6 percent to above 50 percent. In other
words, for individuals making more than $400,000 a year (roughly the threshold
for the top 1 percent of incomes), any amount they make above $400,000
would be taxed at 50 percent. The income earned below $400,000 is taxed
at lower rates.
Sanders has also proposed to raise the top estate tax to 65 percent,
which would affect estates worth more than $1 billion (there are 537 individuals with that much wealth in the United States today).
Again, both of those top rates would affect just a tiny fraction of
Americans. Sanders’ proposal to increase the federal payroll tax from
12.4 to 12.8 percent would hit everyone — but that’s nowhere near 70 or
80 percent.
Clinton and O’Malley, for their parts, haven’t said anything specific
about raising income or estate tax rates. But like Sanders, their
proposals would mostly affect the wealthy and still not at the levels
Christie is suggesting.
Take for example, Clinton’s proposal to raise taxes on capital gains,
the profits that come from selling an asset like a stock or property.
In 2014, 42 percent of these investments, about $305 billion out of $722
billion, came from the top 0.1 percent, reported PolitiFact Virginia.
Currently, the short-term rate is 39.6 percent (the same as income),
but it decreases to 20 percent once you’ve held on to that stock for
longer than a year. Clinton’s plans adds four additional brackets
for investments held between one and six years. The highest rate
proposed by Clinton, 39.6 percent, still doesn’t come close to
Christie’s purported 70 or 80 percent. Our ruling
Christie said the Democrats plan "to raise your tax rates to 70 to 80 percent."
We understand the spirit of Christie’s statement, but that doesn’t
make it accurate. None of the three Democrats running have proposed
raising rates to 70 or 80 percent for the average taxpayer or is it
likely that they will. Christie is exaggerating the rate hikes proposed
by the Democrats, the amount of people they’ll affect or both.
We rate Christie’s claim False.
I want to know why so many of these republican dominated state legislatures, so many of these republican governors, the vast majority proclaiming their Christianity as guiding them in their decisions, continue to LIE to the citizens of their states about Planned Parenthood, continue to block Medicare expansion in their states, continue to cut funding for much needed social safety net programs, continue to serve the the 1% at the expense of the middle class, the working class, the poor, families, vets, seniors.....Planned Parenthood isn't abortion central and isn't murdering babies for body parts. They provide medical services for women, men, children, families who can't afford to pay for health care. AND I really want to know why these republicans, mostly white men, rail against the intrusion of all government into our personal lives and then pass "christian sharia" laws regulating the lives of women. The religious and political hypocrisy is glaring and disgusting. Please sign this petition campaign from +Daily Kos , and don't forget....
Republicans are continuing their endless crusade against women’s reproductive rights in state legislatures across the country.
With the nation's attention directed at Congress, they are trying to dismantle Planned Parenthood state-by-state.
POPE FRANCIS supports the Iran nuclear deal as another step to nuclear disarmament and peace. He is able to cite the teachings of Christ to validate his stand. The opponents of the agreement, including all the Christians / Catholic Christians, can't do that. They rely of manipulating the fear of terrorism to justify their calls for rejecting the Iran nuclear deal and perpetuate the war state our nation has devolved to being. They rely on fear, not facts, and though they are Christians they are lying and deceiving about the agreement. What a testimony by them, and those people of faith who willingly spread their lies and deception. As for the retired generals and admirals who are opposed to the agreement consider the fact that those with honorable military records allowed those who share the responsibility for our illegal and immoral war in Iraq and the illegal and immoral Iran-Contra affair sign their letter to congress. Really? Ret lt. gen. william g "jerry" boykin, ret vice admiral john poindexter and ret maj. gen. richard secord? REALLY??? From +Sojourners and +Washington Post
Pope Francis Supports the Iran Deal. So Why Do These Catholic Candidates Oppose It?
"We
need to be artists in the promotion of peace, we should be flexible,
patient, and advocate the preservation of the simplicity of the heart." —Pope Francis
As
the United States continues to navigate sensitive diplomatic channels
with Cuba, Palestine, Russia, and Iran, an unlikely actor has emerged:
Pope Francis.
In just a couple years, Pope Francis has managed
to skillfully inject his unique brand of diplomacy onto the world stage.
Yet with all diplomatic actions, only time will tell if Pope Francis’
efforts at achieving a more peaceful world will be short lived or
long-lasting. Unfortunately, some within the United States aren’t
content with allowing long-term diplomatic strategies develop, and have
actively sought to undermine efforts to peacefully resolve differences
among nations.
The
nuclear deal with Iran is one such instance. After the nuclear deal
between the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China,
Germany, the European Union and Iran was made public on July 14th,
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi SJ said in a statement, "The agreement on the Iranian nuclear program is viewed in a positive light by the Holy See."
That same day, the head of the U.S. Bishops' international peace committee, Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces, New Mexico, issued a statement calling
on Congress "to endorse the result of these intense negotiations
because the alternative leads toward armed conflict, an outcome of
profound concern to the Church."
Despite endorsements from both
the Vatican and the USCCB international peace committee, every single
Republican Catholic running for president has firmly rejected the Iran
nuclear agreement — from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who called the Iran nuclear deal the "single most disturbing" chapter of the Obama presidency, to former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who said the Iran deal "is the greatest betrayal of American national security in our history."
Yet
without encounter and dialogue, how can the United States react to
constantly evolving threats its national security? History has shown,
from the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty in 1991, that constructive dialogue between the most bitter of
enemies is possible.
Some believe the economic sanctions
currently imposed on Iran are deterring it from seeking nuclear weapons —
that by agreeing to gradually remove sanctions, the United States is
throwing away its primary bargaining chip. But despite widespread
poverty and the devaluing of Iranian currency, there are few indications
that harsh sanctions have deterred the Iranian government from seeking a
nuclear weapon. Ultimately, maintaining or increasing sanctions will
only serve to punish the average Iranian citizen and strengthen hardliners within the Iranian government.
Those opposed to the Iran deal cite the
risk of nuclear proliferation in the region. However, for decades, the
Vatican has been a leading force in calls for nuclear disarmament. It’s
unlikely Pope Francis and the Vatican would support the Iran deal if
they believed other nations in the region had a greater chance of
acquiring nuclear weapons.
Pope Francis recently declared the theme of the 2016 World Peace Day will
be "Overcome Indifference and Win Peace." Such a theme reflects the
genuine desire by Pope Francis to create pathways to lasting peace
through encounter and dialogue. His Holiness understands that
indifference breeds hatred, and that hate is the enemy of peace. Without
encounter and dialogue, hatred has the opportunity flourish unabated.
In a speech at the 2014 World peace Day, Pope
Francis recognized international agreements and national laws alone
aren’t enough to protect humanity from the risk of armed conflict. What
is needed, the pope believes, is "a conversion of hearts… which would
permit everyone to recognize in the other a brother or sister to care
for, and to work together with, in building a fulfilling life for all."
If
through this nuclear deal, the United States can create a culture of
encounter and dialogue with those who seek peace within Iran, I think
Pope Francis would agree the deal was well worth the real or imagined
risks.
- See more at:
https://sojo.net/articles/pope-francis-supports-iran-deal-so-why-do-these-catholic-candidates-oppose-it#sthash.Kr525zXl.dpuf
"We
need to be artists in the promotion of peace, we should be flexible,
patient, and advocate the preservation of the simplicity of the heart." —Pope Francis
As
the United States continues to navigate sensitive diplomatic channels
with Cuba, Palestine, Russia, and Iran, an unlikely actor has emerged:
Pope Francis.
In just a couple years, Pope Francis has managed
to skillfully inject his unique brand of diplomacy onto the world stage.
Yet with all diplomatic actions, only time will tell if Pope Francis’
efforts at achieving a more peaceful world will be short lived or
long-lasting. Unfortunately, some within the United States aren’t
content with allowing long-term diplomatic strategies develop, and have
actively sought to undermine efforts to peacefully resolve differences
among nations.
The
nuclear deal with Iran is one such instance. After the nuclear deal
between the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China,
Germany, the European Union and Iran was made public on July 14th,
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi SJ said in a statement, "The agreement on the Iranian nuclear program is viewed in a positive light by the Holy See."
That same day, the head of the U.S. Bishops' international peace committee, Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces, New Mexico, issued a statement calling
on Congress "to endorse the result of these intense negotiations
because the alternative leads toward armed conflict, an outcome of
profound concern to the Church."
Despite endorsements from both
the Vatican and the USCCB international peace committee, every single
Republican Catholic running for president has firmly rejected the Iran
nuclear agreement — from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who called the Iran nuclear deal the "single most disturbing" chapter of the Obama presidency, to former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who said the Iran deal "is the greatest betrayal of American national security in our history."
Yet
without encounter and dialogue, how can the United States react to
constantly evolving threats its national security? History has shown,
from the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty in 1991, that constructive dialogue between the most bitter of
enemies is possible.
Some believe the economic sanctions
currently imposed on Iran are deterring it from seeking nuclear weapons —
that by agreeing to gradually remove sanctions, the United States is
throwing away its primary bargaining chip. But despite widespread
poverty and the devaluing of Iranian currency, there are few indications
that harsh sanctions have deterred the Iranian government from seeking a
nuclear weapon. Ultimately, maintaining or increasing sanctions will
only serve to punish the average Iranian citizen and strengthen hardliners within the Iranian government.
Those opposed to the Iran deal cite the
risk of nuclear proliferation in the region. However, for decades, the
Vatican has been a leading force in calls for nuclear disarmament. It’s
unlikely Pope Francis and the Vatican would support the Iran deal if
they believed other nations in the region had a greater chance of
acquiring nuclear weapons.
Pope Francis recently declared the theme of the 2016 World Peace Day will
be "Overcome Indifference and Win Peace." Such a theme reflects the
genuine desire by Pope Francis to create pathways to lasting peace
through encounter and dialogue. His Holiness understands that
indifference breeds hatred, and that hate is the enemy of peace. Without
encounter and dialogue, hatred has the opportunity flourish unabated.
In a speech at the 2014 World peace Day, Pope
Francis recognized international agreements and national laws alone
aren’t enough to protect humanity from the risk of armed conflict. What
is needed, the pope believes, is "a conversion of hearts… which would
permit everyone to recognize in the other a brother or sister to care
for, and to work together with, in building a fulfilling life for all."
If
through this nuclear deal, the United States can create a culture of
encounter and dialogue with those who seek peace within Iran, I think
Pope Francis would agree the deal was well worth the real or imagined
risks.
William
G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense under
George W. Bush and is now the executive vice president of the Family
Resource Council, is among the signatories of a new letter opposing the
nuclear deal. (Ed Andrieski/Associated Press)
A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to
Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear
agreement, which they say threatens national security.
The letter
is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to
support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if
Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc
groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and
nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers,
many of whom have worked in the White House during various
administrations dating to the 1980s.
The letter, addressed to Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, is a response to one sent last week by three dozen retired senior military officers who support the nuclear deal.
“The
agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the
Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American
interests as well as our allies,” the letter states.
The
signatories include retired generals and flag officers from every
branch of service, including a handful who were involved in some public
controversies during their careers.
One is retired Lt. Gen.
William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for
intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice
president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches,
including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations
against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against
Satan.
It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord,
who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan
administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in
Nicaragua.
Many of the signatories served in the White House,
under Democratic administrations as well as Republican. The only thing
they appear to have in common is that they consider the Iran nuclear
deal a threat to U.S. interests in the region and its own national
security.
Leon
A. “Bud” Edney, a retired admiral who served as vice chief of naval
operations, initiated the letter after he read the letter by other
retired officers in support of the agreement.
“I looked at the
letter they published, and thought it was very weak,” Edney said. “I
just don’t agree with it.” He then got the alternative viewpoint rolling
through e-mails sent to some of his Navy and Marine friends. They in
turn passed it on.
The competing opinions espoused by people
within each group reflect the intense lobbying campaign underway even as
Congress is in recess. Lawmakers must vote by Sept. 17 whether to
“disapprove” the deal. The Republican majority is unanimously opposed to
the agreement, so the Obama administration is focusing on ensuring that
enough Democrats support it to sustain a presidential veto. They are
close to succeeding. So far, 29 senators have announced their support,
only five votes short of the 34 needed to block a veto override.
Retired
Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who was vice commander of U.S. Air
Forces in Europe, said he considers the agreement the most dangerous
nuclear accord in U.S. history.
“What I don’t like about this is,
the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the
Iranians,” he said. “They are purveyors of radical Islam throughout the
region and throughout the world. And we are going to enable them to get
nuclear weapons. Why would we do that?”
McInerney said he thinks
that most retired general officers do not support the agreement, but he
said some did not sign the letter because they feared negative career
repercussions.
“I don’t think the retired general officers
necessarily speak with one voice,” he said. “We’ve all gone our own way
when we retired.”
The opinions expressed in the letter were
popular enough that people rushed to sign on, even in the hours before
it was sent to Congress. The number of signatories almost doubled
between Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, copies of the letter
showed.
But
it’s unclear whether the letter, or any of those written by people on
either side of the issue, will have any effect on Congress. Edney
suspects it won’t.
“I don’t think this letter will sway
anything,” he said. “It’s just the opinion of people who have served
their country. It’s an alternative view to what I consider a very weak
letter put out by the administration implying generals and admirals
support this agreement. But I don’t think it will have any impact.” Read more: These Iranian pro-democracy activists want Congress to back the nuclear deal Iran’s hard-liners want a better nuclear deal, too How a nuclear deal can keep Iran from ‘cheating’
