#113th Congress | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 year

Photo

Chris Britt, Florida Politics

* * * *

But really, this all goes back to 2008, when the Republicans lost to a ni-i-i-, Barack Obama, which was just so Not The Way Things Work For Us that the party that had first attracted the Old Confederacy to the candidacy of Barry Goldwater; followed by a formal invitation to the unreconstructed Southern inbreds made by Richard Nixon; confirmed by “amiable dunce” Ronald Reagan who was smart enough to announce his candidacy as the proponent of “states’ rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a dog whistle heard by every Southernist from coast to coast; followed up by “respectable” G.H.W. Bush and the “Willie Horton ad;” followed by the incendiary speakership of Newt Gingrich, who proved that the graduate of a Pennsylvania trailer park could be as good a Confederate as any Georgia peckerwood. The result of the loss to That Guy in 2008 was the party going full CuckooBird Crazy - the knuckle-draggers who attended Palin rallies carrying “monkey dolls” turned into the Tea Party, which was institutionalized in 2014 with the creation of the House Freedom Caucus..

From the swearing-in of the Tea Party-dominated 113th Congress in January 2011, the Republicans who actually believed in governing were in the minority and on the way out, whether they knew it or not. The “Establishment” that had previously laughed at the “kooks” who were now newly-sworn-in congress critters, realized that the part of the Republican base that had sent “those guys” was part of their support too.

From that point onward, the two factions of the party were in an unspoken alliance.

The Serious People who knew that the embarrassing grandstanding and performative nonsense the “crazies” were engaged in were sure that the crazies and “learned their lesson” with their failure in the 2013 government shut down that led to the credit rating of the country being lowered, with all the blame focused on the “crazies.” The Serious People just needed to be sure the “crazies” were kept in check.

The “frontman” in the House might have been John Boehner, but the Freedom Caucus that couldn’t govern openly could prevent him accomplishing anything they didn’t agree with. And when he didn’t say “How High” on the way up when they said “Jump!” he found himself obn the slow train to Palookaville.

All Donald Trump ever did was come along and toss a lit match into the fireworks factory.

All the white supremacy that had gown in the Party of Lincoln since 1964 - quietly, of course, the way such racial order is maintained privately in most of American history - finally achieved critical mass and the crock pot boiled over when Trump turned up the heat.

It wasn’t just that Trump didn’t know anyone in Washington to bring into government that the top people in his administration were all Freedom Caucus alumni. They recognized him for what he was: the guy with the key to them running the party openly

As Josh Marshall pointed out, “It’s not the case that every Republican member of Congress is the same as Jim Jordan or Matt Gaetz. But virtually all of them rely on a coalition of voters that wants to support Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz. That’s really all that matters. The GOP is a balkanized party made up of elected officials who either are Jim Jordan or aren’t willing to cross Jim Jordan.” Or as Will Saletan put it, “The GOP is a failed state and Donald Trump is its warlord.”

In fact, the “Republican Establishment” has been dead since January 6, 2021 when - mere hourse after a violent mob had assaulted the Capitol, 137 Republican members of Congress voted in favor of the mob.

What is going on this week is not a fight between the extremists and the establishment.

It’s between two camps of extremists.

McCarthy and the rest of the “establishment” were among those who refused to certify Biden’s Electoral College victory. McCarthy, would-be “replacement” Steve Scalis, and all the others have faithfully repeated the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen; they all pushed for an end to the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate during the budget negotiations last month; they all gave money to Harriet Hageman to assure the defeat Liz Cheney in the Wyoming primary last summer; they all see Marjorie Taylor Greene as being worthy of major committee assignments; they’re all ready to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, investigate Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the first thing they did yesterday morning was to remove the magnetometers at the entrance to the House floor. They all failed to condemn the attack on Paul Pelosi; they were silent when Trump dined with Kanye West and Nick Fuentes; they support removing Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar, as “payback” for Democrats removing Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committees. Even the ones who “support” Ukraine say there can be no “blank check. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan are among McCarthy’s strongest supporters now.

How has McCarthy and any of the “responsible Republicans” been different from the 20 House Freedom Caucus members?

Well, so far, neither McCarthy nor any of the “responsible Republicans” have taken positions like those of 20-19-2022 HFC leader Andy Biggs, who refused to wear a mask even at the height of the pandemic, sought a presidential pardon for participation in the fake elector conspiracy, voted against recognizing the Capitol police who defended him on January 6, opposed aid to Ukraine while the border with Mexico is unsecured, and opposed admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO.

None of them voted with Scott Perry, who opposed a House resolution condemning Qanon and recommended Jeffrey Clark be installed as Attorney General, and also requested a presidential pardon for his activities.

These views place the Freedom Caucus outside the realm of reason, but that didn’t stop McCarthy from announcing surrender to their demands. There is no price McCarthy would not pay, but there is no way for McCarthy to negotiate with people whose only aim is to be seen as opposing him.

This is the predictable end of a political party that descended into mindless demonization of Democrats, the “deep state, immigrants, the medical profession, the “woke” military, the FBI - because it was what its Foxified base demanded.

.And their would-be warlord has discovered he has no control over his minions, because the minions don’t see themselves as such.

Yesterday, people were asking, “Where is Trump in McCarthy’s hour of need?” It’s reported today that he was working the phones for McCarthy all day, but his pleas had no impact. There’s a story that those who received his calls responded to his request they support Kevin with suggestions that Trump should become their Speaker. Naturally, such obvious flattery is Trump’s ultimate aphrodisac; it put him off his demands for loyalty. But this evening, Lauren Boebert got up in the House and publicly told “my favorite president” that he should “knock off telling us to vote for Kevin McCarthy and start telling everyone else to stop (voting for McCarthy).”

Yes, the Purveyors of Conventional Wisdom say that the opposition to McCarthy comes from the fact the 20 rebels can’t trust him, despite his demonstration that he will give in to literally every t demand. But that isn’t enough because they want to break things. Breaking things is now their only goal. Right now, that thing top be broken is Kevin McCarthy.

But all this shows that they cannot be trusted with power. McCarthy and the House Republican caucus are now defined as unfit and weakened by their behavior these past two days.

They can probably kiss their tiny four-seat majority goodbye sooner than 2024, starting with the special election to replace George-Anthony Santos-Devlolder, or whatever his name really is.

They are the Breaking Things Party. That’s it.

[That’s Another Fine Mess]

#TCinLA #That's Another Fine Mess #US House of Representatives #Chris Britt

4 notes · View notes

backstageprincess · 2 years

Text

Stamp out the Cancer of History

Corruption has become one of the major problems in the Philippines, the government is still fighting the increasing level of corruption, but the problem is, corrupt people is in the public office; to local government up to national government. As a matter of fact, those corrupt politicians also belong to an oligarch. Political dynasty stops the emerging politicians who have an exceptional vision for the country, and it continues the corruption which worsen everything. According to one professor, political dynasty is the cancer of history. The Philippine Government ranked 113th of 180 countries in 2019, this study shows that corruption only worsened. It may take time to find a solution but removing political dynasty will be the best solution to reduce corruption in the Philippines.

Dynastic culture in politics is not a surprise here, a member of a family will succeed to the position left by the other family member, it is not unusual in election when two family clans to fight over a certain position example mayoral, governorate and senatorial. It left the voters with no other choice but to vote which of the candidates that both belong to different political dynasty. Another problem is, if that political clan is corrupt and has been in different government positions for a long period of time, then the corruption perpetuates. Example of families that has been in a different government position for a long time up to present are the Aquino family, Cojuangco family, Binay family, Marcos family and Duterte family. First reason why the congress needs to consider to pass a bill that will limit the influence of powerful families in politics is that, it compounded the ubiquitouness of corruption in government and corrupt the check and balances, example is the former Vice President Binay who had been under investigation of Senate Blue Committee for alleged corruption, many will question the investigation because two daughter of former Vice President Binay were members of the congress, this question the effectiveness of the investigation. Second reason, it widens the gap between the poor from the rich, to privileged to the unprivileged. Corruption just lowers the economic growth and increases the poverty, some political clan put the money or funds of government to their own business, or in government projects that is irrelevant, pointless and useless to society and economy. Third reason, even they face criminal charges they can still have the power by having spouses and children reign on their seats, to make sure that the power will remain in their family. For the last reason, the emerging politicians who have good intentions are dissuade because of continues success of some political families despite corruption charges, it leaves the position open to those who just want more wealth and power. I believe, a change in political culture will help to lessen the corruption which hinders development in our economy and society. On the other hand, many still believe in those family of politicians who has a track record, good governance, and good name that is why the legacy of the family remains. One of the advantages of political dynasty according to the article by Professor Jensen Mañebog, it continues the implementation of institutional and government projects, if the dynasty is pro-service.

A consideration in removal of political dynasty in the system will help to improve our country, because it will also lessen the problems about corruption which rooted from the rule of few rich families. Others might think that it is not necessary if the other family of politicians have good governance and clean intention, but we need to look on different aspects. We need to evaluate what is good and what is bad for our country, because it can affect the economy and society. Some knowledge about politics doesn’t make us less human, in fact it helps us to vote wisely and to become a good citizen in our country.

P.S, this is the position paper I wrote for my EAPP subject noong first semester namin, hindi ako magaling sa ingles HAHAHAHA pero gusto ko ishare dito so don’t mind the grammars, wrong punctuation marks etc. kasi sabi ko nga di ako magaling sa english. Opinion ko lamang ito at ang ibang detalye ay kinuha ko sa Araling Panlipunan ko na libro noong grade 10 ako. If you want to share your thoughts you can comment naman and kung may makita kayong mali paki-comment na rin hehehe (I’m open to constructive criticism) :)

#Eapp #Position Paper #Political Dynasty #senior high school #fypシ #for you

8 notes · View notes

maturemenoftvandfilms · 3 years

Photo

Michael McCaul Born: January 14, 1962, Dallas, TX Physique: Average Build

Michael Thomas McCaul Sr. is an American attorney and politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Texas's 10th congressional district since 2005. A member of the Republican Party, he served as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security during the 113th, 114th, and 115th Congresses. As of 2018, he was the fifth-wealthiest member of Congress.

All I can say is he's husband material. At the very least, I'd be his side ass. A fourth generation Texan, Congressman McCaul is married and have five children. I have a theory on men who have more than two kids. They love to fuck. And if they have a shortage at home, they'll go looking for sex. Any kind of sex. Which brings me back to being his side ass.

#Michael McCaul #american politician #mydaddywiki #politician #PILF #mydaddywiki politicians

16 notes · View notes

somethingusefulfromflorida · 3 years

Text

2022 House Elections: Revised Worst Case Scenario

Absolute worst case scenario, I can see Republicans taking back the House 247-188.

I looked at every election in every state since the last restricting in 2012. From the 113th to the 117th Congress, I charted the shift in political party strength, then extrapolated forward based on how each state redraws its maps. The vast majority of maps are drawn by the state legislatures, and the majority of those have governors of the same party or don't allow governor vetoes at all, making it single party rule. For red states I gave Republicans a one to five seat advantage based on how many districts they'll have in 2022; for blue states, I assumed status quo or allowed the Republicans to gain one seat. The remaining states use nonpartisan political commissions, so while it should create evenly split maps or maps that reflect the statewide percentages of each party, I gave Republican an advantage here too because it is a midterm year with Democrats in power, so they stand to get a huge bump anyway.

Because this is the worst case scenario, I assumed Republicans would pick up every single possible seat they could, and inflated their numbers beyond what we could reasonably expect. I could see Republicans taking total control in some states like Iowa, but not Alabama because of black voters; there are more black voters in the south, and Republicans tend to create at least one safe Democratic seat packed with black voters to minimize the total number of competitive seats; if they got rid of these safe seats, the black voters would be spread across multiple other districts making it possible for Democrats to gain more seats than if they were packed into one or two guaranteed.

Here are my figures:

Asterisks denote vacancies, and the weird nomenclature for Pennsylvania in the 115th Congress is because there were multiple vacancies and special elections throughout the year, making the official count hard to finalize. Either way it was a Republican majority.

247-188

Texas is gaining 2 seats, so I assume they will both go Republican, and they'll probably gain 3 more from gerrymandering alone. I think 28-10 might not actually be worst case, it might actually be optimistic; we could see something as bad as 30-08

Florida, North Carolina and Montana are all gaining one seat, which will skew Republican. Colorado and Oregon are gaining one seat, but have independent commissions, so they won't skew Democratic.

California, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia are all losing one seat; New York and Illinois are safe for Democrats because they control their state legislatures, but California has a commission, so I see Republicans gaining slightly. Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania will experience disproportionate Republican fuckery. West Virginia ONLY sends Republicans to the House, so they'll actually hurt the party overall; you can't remove a Democratic seat where there is none.

This all shows the absolute MAXIMUM number of seats the Republicans can gain in 2022 via gerrymandering and voter suppression laws. 247, round up to 250 to account for unexpectedly worse outcomes. That's a net gain of ~38 seats, not as bad as it could be; in 2010 they gained 63, so it's not impossible that Democrats would retake the House in 2024 or 2026. I don't even want to speculate about the Senate because that depresses me more than anything; I do not want to live to see another McConnell majority. That man is a disease and I pray for his end, just as he doubtless prays for the end of democracy and political opponents.

Moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema could change EVERYTHING by nuking the filibuster to pass both the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Act to prevent this kind of Republican fuckery, then pad the Supreme Court so the 6-3 conservative majority doesn't immediately undo them extra-constitutionally (the Supreme Court is not given the authority to review laws by the Constitution, they gave themself that power in Marbury v Madison, and in recent years they've become even more egregiously partisan, striking down laws not because they're unconstitutional but because they just don't like them; SCOTUS doesn't have to justify their rulings, they can make any decision for any reason, even if it doesn't make constitutional sense).

#2022 #elections #midterms #midterm elections #2022 elections #2022 midterms #midterm #house #the house #house of representatives #the house of representatives #congress #census #redistricting #reapportionment #redistricting and reapportionment

2 notes · View notes

mysweetteame · 5 years

Text

Today's Heroine: Major Heather "Lucky" Penny.

Heather Penney Lt. USAF F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11th 2001.

Late in the morning of the Tuesday that changed everything, then 1st-Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney was on a runway at Andrews Air Force Base and ready to fly. She had her hand on the throttle of an F-16 and she had her orders: Bring down United Airlines Flight 93. The day’s fourth hijacked airliner seemed to be hurtling toward Washington. Penney was wing-man to Col. Marc Sasseville, the first two combat pilots in the air that morning. Their mission was told to stop Flight 93.

The one thing she didn’t have as she roared into the brisk crystalline sky was live ammunition. Or missiles. Or anything at all to throw at a hostile aircraft, EXCEPT her own F-16. So that was the plan.

Because the surprise attacks were unfolding faster than they could arm the war planes in that innocent age, Penney and her commanding officer went up to fly their jets straight into a Boeing 757.

“We wouldn’t be shooting it down. We’d be ramming the aircraft,” Penney recalls of her charge that day. “I would essentially be a Kamikaze pilot.”

For years, Penney, one of the first generation of female combat pilots in the country, gave no interviews about her experiences on September 11th which later included, escorting Air Force One back into Washington DC's suddenly highly restricted airspace.

But 10 years later, in 2011, she reflected on one of the lesser-told tales of that endlessly examined morning: how the first counter-punch the U.S. military prepared to throw at the attackers was effectively a suicide mission.

“We had to protect the airspace any way we could,” Penny said in 2011 from her office at Lockheed Martin, where she was a director in the F-35 program.

Penney, now a Major but still a petite strawberry blonde with a Colgate grin, is no longer a combat flier. She flew two tours in Iraq and she serves as a part-time National Guard pilot, mostly hauling VIPs around in a military Gulfstream. She takes the stick of her own vintage 1941 Taylorcraft tail-dragger whenever she can.

But none of her thousands of hours in the air quite compare with the urgent rush of launching on what was supposed to be a one-way flight to a midair collision.

She was a rookie in the autumn of 2001, the first female F-16 pilot they’d ever had at the 121st Fighter Squadron of the D.C. Air National Guard. She had grown up smelling jet fuel. Her father flew jets in Vietnam and still races them. Penney got her pilot’s license when she was a literature major at Purdue. She planned to be a teacher. But during a graduate program in American studies, Congress opened up combat aviation to women and Penney was nearly first in line.

“I signed up immediately,” she says. “I wanted to be a fighter pilot like my dad.”

On that 9/11Tuesday morning, they had just finished two weeks of air combat training in Nevada. They were sitting around a briefing table when someone looked in to say a plane had hit the World Trade Center in New York. When it happened once, they assumed it was some yahoo in a Cessna. When it happened again, they knew it was not an accident, it was war.

But the surprises were not yet complete. In the monumental confusion of those first hours, it was impossible to get clear orders. Nothing was ready. The jets were still equipped with dummy bullets from the training mission.

As remarkable as it seems now, there were no armed aircraft standing by and no system in place to scramble them over Washington. Before that morning, all eyes were looking outward, still scanning the old Cold War threat paths for planes and missiles coming over the polar ice cap.

“There was no perceived threat at the time, especially one coming from the homeland like that,” says Col. George Degnon, vice commander of the 113th Wing at Andrews. “It was a little bit of a helpless feeling, but we did everything humanly possible to get the aircraft armed and in the air. It was amazing to see people react.”

Things are different today, Degnon says. At least two “hot-cocked” planes are ready at all times, 24/7/365. Their pilots never more than yards from the cockpit, reminiscent of the Hurricanes and Spitfires of WW II Battle of Britain.

A third plane hit the Pentagon, and almost at once came word that a fourth plane could be on the way, maybe more. The jets would be armed within an hour, but somebody had to fly NOW, weapons or no weapons.

“Lucky, you’re coming with me,” barked Col. Marc Sasseville. They were gearing up in the pre-flight support area when Sasseville, struggling into his flight suit, met her eye.

“I’m going to go for the cockpit,” Sasseville said. She replied without hesitating. “I’ll take the tail.” It was a plan. And a blood pact. ‘Let’s go!’

Penney had never scrambled a jet before. Normally the pre-flight is a half-hour or more of methodical checks. She automatically started going down the list.

“Lucky, what are you doing? Get your butt up there and let’s go!” Sasseville shouted.

She climbed in, rushed to power up the engines, screamed for her ground crew to pull the chocks. The crew chief still had his headphones plugged into the fuselage as she nudged the throttle forward. He ran along pulling safety pins from the jet as it moved forward. Full fuel load would have to come later from a mid air refueling... that is if they were still in the air.

She muttered a fighter pilot’s prayer — “God, don’t let me [expletive] up” — and followed Sasseville into the sky.

They screamed over the smoldering Pentagon, heading northwest at more than 400 mph, flying low and scanning the clear horizon. Her commander had time to think about the best place to hit the enemy.

“We don’t train to bring down airliners,” said Sasseville, now stationed at the Pentagon. “If you just hit the engine, it could still glide and you could guide it to a target. My thought was the cockpit or the wing.”

He also thought about his ejection seat. Would there be an instant just before impact? “I was hoping to do both at the same time,” he says. “It probably wasn’t going to work, but that’s what I was hoping'. At that time, it was their only hope to survive.

Penney was worried about missing the target if she tried to eject too soon. “If you eject and your jet soars through without impact . . .” she trails off. For "Lucky" the thought of her failing was more dreadful than the thought of dying.

But Lucky didn’t have to die. She didn’t have to knock down an airliner full of kids, vacationers, salesmen and girlfriends. They did that themselves.

It would be hours before Penney and Sasseville learned that United 93 had already gone down in Somerset County Pennsylvania. An insurrection by the hostage passengers and crew were willing to do just what the two F-16 pilots had been willing to do: Anything. And everything.

“The real heroes are the passengers on Flight 93 who were willing to sacrifice themselves,” Penney says. “I was just an accidental witness to history.”

Penny and Sasseville flew the rest of the day, clearing the airspace, escorting the president, looking down onto a city that would soon be sending them to war.

She’s a single mom of two girls now. She still loves to fly. And she still thinks often of that extraordinary ride down the runway years ago.

“I genuinely believed that was going to be the last time I took off,” she says. “If we did it right, this would be it.”

#skippyv20

113 notes · View notes

sixtyfivehundredmiles · 4 years

Text

Report: As EPA pulls back under Trump, serious pollution rises on Great Lakes

President Donald Trump's administration has scaled back enforcement of environmental regulations in the Great Lakes region — and it's having a noticeable, negative impact, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's own data. So states a new report from the Chicago-based nonprofit Environmental Law and Policy Center.

In this Sept. 20, 2017 photo, a catfish appears on the shoreline in the algae-filled waters of Lake Erie at the end of 113th Street in the Point Place section of North Toledo, Ohio. Annual algae blooms on the Great Lake are primarily fueled by nutrient runoff pollution from farm fields. (Photo: Andy Morrison, AP)

The data comes from multiple EPA databases and websites. It's all there for the public to access, but usually in complex charts heavy with bureaucratic, regulatory language, said ELPC executive director Howard Learner.

"You can take the individual data points, and they don't tell you a lot," he said. "But when you put them together, you then see what the overall picture looks like. And it's disturbing."

The ELPC is a leading advocate in the Midwest for improving environmental quality and protecting natural resources. Though Learner has stated, "Protecting the Great Lakes is bipartisan and nonpartisan," the group have been sharp critics of Trump's environmental policies and priorities since he took office in 2017.

The ELPC report looked at activity in EPA's Region 5, which covers Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Among its findings:

Fewer regulatory cases are being initiated and concluded by the EPA against polluters. Between fiscal years 2012 to 2015, there were an average of 320 cases initiated per year, but that has dropped to an average of 230 cases per year for fiscal years 2016 through 2019, a more than 28% decline.

Compliance with environmental regulations in the Great Lakes region is declining. In fiscal year 2019, there were 62% more facilities in "significant noncompliance" with the Clean Water Act, compared with the average number of facilities for fiscal years 2012 to 2017.

More water pollution; less looking for it

The EPA's own data shows that particularly since 2017, EPA's Region 5, overseeing the Great Lakes and surrounding states, is initiating fewer cases with polluters. Meanwhile the number of major facilities in "significant noncompliance" with the federal Clean Water Act has sharply risen.

That significant noncompliance data excludes Michigan cases, because of a data communication problem between the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy's data reporting system and the EPA's Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, said ELPC staff attorney Jeffrey Hammons, a co-author of the report. The data-sharing problem has since been resolved by the two agencies, but it made some past years' data from Michigan potentially unreliable, he said.

Data from the other five Great Lakes states provides strong evidence of declining Clean Water Act compliance in the region, however, that probably rings true in Michigan as well, Hammons said.

"The only way Michigan's data could change the regional trend is if they had a bunch of noncompliance four years ago and then it sharply went down. But that’s probably not the case," he said.

Penalties against polluters have dropped. In Region 5 in fiscal year 2016, the EPA assessed $1.91 million in penalties against violators of the federal Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a program worked through state environmental regulators to monitor point sources of pollution such as factories. The EPA assessed $1.1 million in penalties for such violations the following year. But by fiscal year 2019, the penalty amount in Region 5 had dropped to $429,774.

Compliance costs — the costs firms incur to reduce or prevent pollution to comply with a regulation — have plummeted. In fiscal year 2012, such costs totaled more than $920 million. They had dropped by nearly 73%, to $251 million, by fiscal year 2019.

The cost, penalty for polluting declines

EPA data shows that in the agency's Region 5, overseeing the Great Lakes and surrounding states, polluters are paying much less in costs of compliance with environmental regulations, and penalties for violations, under the Trump Administration.

EPA Region 5, in an emailed statement to the Free Press, said it hadn't been provided with a copy of ELPC's report, so it couldn't comment on its data or the methodology the nonprofit used to arrive at its conclusions.

"EPA Region 5 maintains a robust compliance assurance and enforcement program," the agency stated. "EPA's enforcement program is concerned with outcomes, not outputs. We don't set quotas for enforcement cases."

The agency cited progress in reductions of significant noncompliance with pollution discharge requirements from the first quarter of fiscal year 2019 to the first quarter of this fiscal year. It also cited data reporting issues with "certain states" that the agency did not specify, as "a key reason for recent increases in reported rates of significant noncompliance in Region 5."

Hammons, however, said ELPC did a data quality control check on other Region 5 states, "and they were not having the same problem" as Michigan with that data.

In his 2016 campaign, Trump frequently pledged to scale back environmental regulations toughened during President Barack Obama's tenure, and to take an approach more accommodating to business and industry.

That's come to fruition in EPA's Region 5. The ELPC report notes February 2020 staffing at the regional office at 940 people, a more than 8% reduction from two years earlier. Actual spending by the EPA nationwide on enforcement and compliance monitoring has dropped more than 18% from fiscal year 2011 levels.

The ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic further led the Trump administration late last month to waive enforcement on a range of legally mandated public health and environmental protections, saying industries could have trouble complying with them amid COVID-19. The Trump administration on Thursday scaled back an Obama-era rule that compelled reductions in emissions of mercury and other human health hazards, a move designed to limit future regulation of air pollutants from coal and oil-fired power plants.

EPA chief Andrew Wheeler said the rollback was reversing what he depicted as regulatory overreach by the Obama administration. “We have put in place an honest accounting method that balances” the cost to utilities with public safety, he said.

That's the wrong approach in a public health crisis, Learner said.

"The public expects, amid a pandemic, the president to step up with actions to help solve the problem, instead of making bad environmental problems worse," he said.

Great Lakes enforcement less prioritized

The Trump Administration has spent less on enforcement and compliance of environmental regulations through its budgeting for the Environmental Protection Agency.

ELPC's report provides an example of a polluting company in the Great Lakes region, Reserve Environmental Services Inc. of Ashtabula, Ohio, east of Cleveland and less than two-and-a-half miles from the shores of Lake Erie. The waste management company handles both hazardous and non-hazardous waste, discharging into Whitman Creek, which crosses the facility's property and flows directly into Lake Erie.

More than 5,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the facility, 37% of them identified as low-income, the report found. Since Jan. 1, 2017, Reserve has reported exceeding its effluent limits nearly 200 times for potentially health-harming pollutants such as mercury, nickel, ammonia and fecal coliform. Many of the violations have been ongoing for a year or more.

"EPA has not undertaken any formal enforcement actions against Reserve," the ELPC report states. "The lack of enforcement means the potential public health harms from these potential violations are still unknown and unaddressed. The serial nature of Reserve's violations, combined with the lack of any EPA enforcement, provides a real-world example of how reduced enforcement puts the environment at risk."

As the EPA has pulled back on regulation, it has called on states to increasingly regulate their own environmental concerns. But the ELPC report shows Great Lakes states are scaling back environmental regulation, too. Michigan is one of only two states in the region, along with Minnesota, to increase its environmental regulatory budget from 2008 to 2018, up 6%. Regulatory spending is down 12% to 36% in the other five states in that time frame. But Michigan EGLE staffing levels are down 22% from 2008 levels, similar to declines in other Great Lakes states.

The ELPC called on the Trump administration and Congress to increase funding and staffing for enforcement and compliance at EPA, particularly in Region 5, and for the agency to ensure that it is effectively spending and deploying the full amount of funds appropriated to it by Congress.

Without a strong expectation of environmental law enforcement, facilities are more likely to violate the law and avoid accountability, Hammons said.

"Prevention is less expensive than remediation," he said. "Residents should not fear going for a swim in Great Lakes beaches, drinking safe, clean water from their taps, or eating local fish because nearby industrial facilities are not being appropriately held responsible for their pollution."

(source: Detroit Free Press) Keith Matheny, Detroit Free Press Published 6:00 a.m. ET April 20, 2020

#great lakes #news #environment

5 notes · View notes

noabuseofpower-tisfightback · 4 years

Photo

YOU WANT A WAR THEN LETS FIGHT #targetedindividuals #targetedindividual #mirroring #brainwashing #gangstalkers #gangstalking #perps #shadowgovernment #brainconditioning #handlers #forcedsuicide #constantsurveilence #cointelpro #mimicking #trumanshow #streettheater #communitystalking #communitystalkingvictim #mkultra #mkultramindcontrol #contractedstalking #gaslighting #gaslightingawareness #falseneighborhoodwatchlists #departmentofdefense #departmentofjustice #nsa #nasa #gaslightingabuse #gaslightingamerica (at 113th United States Congress) https://www.instagram.com/p/BVTYlacA_52/?igshid=1w8m7os19v6c

6 notes · View notes

thiswaycomessomethingwicked · 4 years

Text

@dykeofwellington

#he’s no better than any other politician

#and is indeed actively worse than quite a few

#politics

#us politics I am curious as to why you think he’s actively worse than someone like Steyer, or Tulsi Gabbard, or simply in general. Why do you feel he’s actively worse than the rest? I would also love to know who you think is the best choice out of the lot? and you’re reasoning behind that?

Hey for some reason I can’t reblog the post where you asked the above about Bernie. I’m going to give a very brief rundown of thoughts.

First, let’s clear up some rather broad, assumptions made:

am curious as to why you think he’s actively worse than someone like Steyer, or Tulsi Gabbard, or simply in general. / Why do you feel he’s actively worse than the rest?

I never said any politician’s name. Just a general indication that he’s worse than a few. I think it’s interesting you assumed I meant those two and not that he’s worse than, let’s say, Julian Castro.

I clearly said “no better than any other politician” which puts him on equal footing with Warren etc. so this assumption: Why do you feel he’s actively worse than the rest? is unwarranted.

What I was saying was basically - no better than e.g. Warren and worse than quite a few e.g. Castro, Clinton (I know, come fight me leftists who drank the almost 30 years of GOP koolaid on her) etc.

A quick rundown of issues I have with Bernie include, but are not limited to:

Inability to deal with sexual harassment in his campaign in a meaningful way (he apologized and such, but there’s not to my eyes been a significant change)

General sexism in his campaign as well as sexism displayed by followers. He’s just got a sexism issue overall.

Lack of meaningful, recent civil rights record

Unwilling to coalition build with colleagues in government (a profoundly necessary skill if you want to get anything done as president). Basically, he’s not a team player. We need team players. Team players is how DC works. (e.g. “Ms. Clinton, pointing out that Mr. Obama had to fight tooth-and-nail even for relatively centrist solutions such as the Affordable Care Act, draws the lesson that the next president must have a strong sense of practicality and realism; big rallies cannot wish away the complex politics of Congress. Mr. Sanders, by contrast, claims that Mr. Obama had insufficient revolutionary zeal.” Sanders’ view is not helpful nor realistic.)

Lack of passing meaningful policy/legislation in his 25 years as senator which indicates an overall inability to solve issues within the existing system as well as a manifestation of the above mentioned inability to coalition build. While many senators propose many bills and pass few (that’s kind of par for the course) Sanders’ are particularly lack lustre. Of the seven enacted of which he was primary sponsor, three were designations (S. 885, H.J.Res. 231, S. 893) and one was a national park boundary movement (H.R. 1353).

Bernie Sanders was the primary sponsor of seven bills that were enacted:

S. 885 (113th): A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the “Thaddeus Stevens Post Office”.

S. 2782 (113th): A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to improve the Federal charter for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and for other purposes

S. 893 (113th): Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013H.R. 5245 (109th): To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building”.

H.J.Res. 129 (104th): Granting the consent of Congress to the Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate Public Water Supply Compact.

H.R. 1353 (102nd): Entitled the “Taconic Mountains Protection Act of 1991”.

H.J.Res. 132 (102nd): To designate March 4, 1991, as “Vermont Bicentennial Day”.

Medicare for All: it’s an incredibly complicated thing to implement and I’m personally not convinced Sanders’ plan is the right approach, nor that it would pass congress when introduced.

Weak stance on gun control and relationship with the NRA

Tendency to shout over and shut people down, especially those asking questions he doesn’t want to answer

His lack of attempting to control his supporters - their misogyny and racism - are indicative of the kind of person running the campaign. These things rot from top down.

How powerfully his ego influences his actions, especially in 2016 when it took Obama hauling him into the white house before he finally stepped down and stopped running

That whole Russia murkiness

His continued view that the primaries are rigged when they aren’t, he just lost, is actively harmful

He has, or has benefited from, super PACs (he has some direct PAC contributions, but it’s not a large amount. Most of his benefits from PACs come in other forms than direct contributions).

So, this is not something I particularly care about overall, because running for president is expensive (which is a Problem), and it’s a current reality to campaign financing. But he made such a big deal out of it I take vindictive pleasure in him having them/benefitting from them because I can now corner Luke Savage at a mutual friend’s annual Christmas party and tell him to shove it up his arse.

Support of Gabbard who is a bit of a Russian plant (not to mention a terrible candidate overall)

He is old, he is white, he is straight, he is cis, he is male - we have the most diverse range of potential nominees and if we think he’s the Answer or Saviour there’s a lot of unpacking of internalized stuff that needs to happen.

A personal thing, but I really, really dislike his shoutiness. He reminds me of every socialist bro who has shouted down women and other marginalized people at parties I’ve been to (I know quite a few Jacobin/Socialist hacks e.g. aforementioned Luke Savage who uses the Sanders Certified approach If You Shout Enough They Can’t Get A Word In Therefore You Win to conversations and debates) and it leaves my skin crawling.

No policy to address the needs and interests of First Nations/Native Americans including living standards, water access, education, treaty rights, any sort of reconciliation and addressing the issue of colonialism and genocide etc. (I think Castro is the only one with anything addressing Native American needs)

Breach of Clinton’s campaign voter data. Super. Shady.

Ultimately, I’m not an idealist because idealism doesn’t make for good policy. While I dislike the term leftist because it invokes, to my mind, the blind, unthinking frothing wrath of Bernie Bros(tm), I do have leftist goals.

However, I am practical about the approach, which will almost always be incremental. It’s like building a house: you lay foundations before you start on the walls, roof and insulation. Bernie wants an instant house to appear out of no where. That’s not how life nor government, works.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t push to improve things and make for a better world, a more just society. But the reality is: we have a system we must work within and so we need people who can do that effectively. That said, we can and should try to improve the system on the way, as well. But burning it down and starting from scratch is a pipe dream. Best lay it to the side and fight for things that can actually improve lives today. In the here and now.

in the end, I don’t like Bernie Sanders because he is an old, shouty white man driven by ego who is crude, mean, and isn’t a real democrat. I think we can do better.

My current list of choices for the Democratic nominee (which is open to change. It will depend on how debates play out and further policy details put forward by candidates):

Julian Castro (I like his platform the most; he has experience in DC from the Obama administration; knows how to be a team player; he’s young, intelligent and well spoken; has that “presidential” look that many voters like to see, which you know. Makes sense. Mostly I like his platform and everything I’ve heard and read about him has been positive. He also runs a (mostly) positive campaign! Unlike Some Old White Shouty Men. I can go on.)

Kamala Harris (She has a good platform with sound policy plans; she has grit and stamina needed to run against Trump; She runs a positive campaign - even using her funding to support other democrats currently primarying republicans/are just up for general re-election; she’s a senator so has experience and allies in DC with whom she can coalition build; she’s a team player; she will give us a good shot in Florida and N. Carolina; she has strong support from Black Americans who are the base of the democratic party; as DA she fought against prop 22 and prop 8 [yes, she’s not perfect as DA or AG but point to someone with a perfect track record. I’ll wait. I’m not here for perfection or purity politics, I’m here for someone who can win and will implement descent policy while in power], she pioneered one of the first open data initiative to expose racism in the legal system, lol she’s not a millionaire unlike Some Old White Shouty Man - which is neither here nor there for me personally, because again I’m realistic, just a refreshing thing. I can go on.)

Elizabeth Warren (I’m rather luke-warm on her but she’s better than the other options.)

My ideal ticket, currently, is: Harris/Castro.

Again - this is open to change. And, at the end of the day, I will vote for the democratic nominee in 2020 no matter what because we can’t have another four years of Trump.

#politics #us politics #i have voiced spicy opinions about Sanders I am prepared for the potential fallout

5 notes · View notes

thenewdemocratus · 8 months

Text

USA Today: Susan Page Interviewing Howard Dean on the State of the Democratic Party

. Source:The New Democrat I’ve been somewhat reluctant to write about why the Democratic Party lost so badly, because it was an election where I don’t know how they could’ve done better considering the state of the country and with all the issues that President Obama was having to deal with and not looking good on really any of them other than perhaps Ebola. I think they could’ve used the…

View On WordPress

#113th Congress #114th Congress #2014 #2014 Congressional Elections #2014 Mid-Term Elections #America #Barack Obama #Congressional Democrats #Democratic Party #Democrats #House Democrats #Howard Dean #President Barack Obama #Senate Democrats #Susan Page #United States #Washington #Washington DC

0 notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 years

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 28, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

This evening, President Joe Biden published an op-ed in Yahoo News about the infrastructure bill now moving forward on its way to Congress. He called the measure “a once-in-a-generation investment to modernize our infrastructure” and claimed it would “create millions of good-paying jobs and position America to compete with the world and win the 21st century.”

The measure will provide money to repair roads and bridges, replace the lead pipes that still provide water to as many as 10 million households and 400,000 schools and daycares, modernize our electric grid, replace gas-powered buses with electric ones, and cap wells leaking methane that have been abandoned by their owners in the private sector to be cleaned up by the government. It will invest in railroads, airports, and other public transportation; protect coastlines and forests from extreme weather events; and deliver high-speed internet to rural communities.

“This deal is the largest long-term investment in our infrastructure in nearly a century,” Biden wrote. “It is a signal to ourselves, and to the world, that American democracy can work and deliver for the people.”

Biden is making a big pitch for this infrastructure project in part because we need it, of course, and because it is popular, but also because it signals a return to the sort of government both Democrats and Republicans embraced between 1945 and 1980. In that period after World War II, most Americans believed that the government had a role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, investing in infrastructure, and promoting civil rights. This shared understanding was known as the “liberal consensus.”

With the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980, the Republican Party rejected that vision of the government, arguing that, as Reagan said, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” But while Reagan limited that statement with the words “in this present crisis,” Republican leaders since the 1980s have worked to destroy the liberal consensus and take us back to the world of the 1920s, a world in which business leaders also ran the government.

For the very reason that Biden is determined to put through this massive investment in infrastructure, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would like to kill it. Until recently, he has presided over the Senate with the declared plan to kill Democratic bills. He opposes the liberal consensus, wanting to get rid of taxes and stop the government from intervening in the economy. But today’s Republican lawmakers are in an awkward place: by large margins, Americans like the idea of investing in infrastructure.

So the Republicans have engaged in a careful dance over this new measure. Biden wants to demonstrate to the country both that democracy can deliver for its people and that the two parties in Congress do not have to be adversarial. He wanted bipartisan support for this infrastructure plan.

A group of Democrats and Republicans negotiated the measure that is now being prepared to move forward. Last week, five Republican negotiators backed the outline for the measure. They, of course, would like to be able to tell their constituents that they voted for what is a very popular measure, rather than try to claim credit for it after voting no, as they did with the American Rescue Plan.

Negotiators were always clear that the Democrats would plan to pass a much larger bill under what is known as a “budget reconciliation” bill in addition to the infrastructure plan. Financial measures under reconciliation cannot be killed by filibuster in the Senate, meaning that if the Democrats can stand together, they can pass whatever they wish financially under reconciliation. Democrats planned to put into a second bill the infrastructure measures Republicans disliked: funding to combat climate change, for example, and to promote clean energy, and to invest in human infrastructure: childcare and paid leave, free pre-kindergarten and community college, and tax cuts for working families with children.

Crucially, that bigger measure, known as the American Families Plan, will also start to dismantle the 2017 Republican tax cuts, which cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Biden wants to return the corporate tax rate to 28%, still lower than it was before 2017, but higher than it is now.

To keep more progressive Democrats on board with the bipartisan infrastructure bill, Democrats need to move it forward in tandem with the larger, more comprehensive American Families Plan. This has been clear from the start. After announcing the bipartisan deal, Biden reiterated that he would not sign one without the other.

And yet, although he himself acknowledged the Democratic tandem plan on June 15, McConnell pretended outrage over the linkage of the two bills. McConnell and some of his colleagues complained to reporters that Biden was threatening to veto the bipartisan bill unless Congress passed the American Families Plan too.

It appears McConnell had hoped that the bipartisan plan would peel centrist Democrats off from the larger American Families Plan, thus stopping the Democrats’ resurrection of the larger idea of the liberal consensus and keeping corporate taxes low. Killing that larger plan might well keep progressive Democrats from voting for the bipartisan bill, too, thus destroying both of Biden’s key measures. If he can drive a wedge through the Democrats, he can make sure that none of their legislation passes.

Over the weekend, Biden issued a statement saying that he was not threatening to veto a bill he had just worked for weeks to put together, but was supporting the bipartisan bill while also intending to pass the American Families Plan.

McConnell then issued a statement essentially claiming victory and demanding control over the Democrats’ handling of the measures, saying “The President has appropriately delinked a potential bipartisan infrastructure bill from the massive, unrelated tax-and-spend plans that Democrats want to pursue on a partisan basis.” He went on to demand that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) agree to send the smaller, bipartisan bill forward without linking it to “trillions of dollars for unrelated tax hikes, wasteful spending, and Green New Deal socialism.”

McConnell is trying to turn the tide against these measures by calling the process unfair, which might give Republicans an excuse to vote no even on a bill as popular as the bipartisan bill is. Complaining about process is, of course, how he prevented the Senate from convicting former president Trump of inciting the January 6 insurrection, and how he stopped the establishment of a bipartisan, independent committee to investigate that insurrection.

But McConnell no longer controls Congress. House Speaker Pelosi says she will not schedule the bipartisan bill until the American Families Plan passes.

Pelosi also announced today that the House is preparing legislation to establish a select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol. She had to do so, she noted, because “Senate Republicans did Mitch McConnell a ‘personal favor’ rather than their patriotic duty and voted against the bipartisan commission negotiated by Democrats and Republicans. But Democrats are determined to find the truth.”

The draft of the bill provides for the committee to have 13 members. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), himself likely to be called as a witness before the committee, will be able to “consult” with the Speaker on five of the members, but the final makeup of the committee will be up to the Speaker. This language echoes that of the select committee that investigated the Benghazi attack, and should prevent McCarthy from sabotaging the committee with far-right lawmakers eager to disrupt the proceedings rather than learn what happened. Instead, we can expect to see on the committee Republicans who voted to establish the independent, bipartisan commission that McConnell and Republican senators killed.

Biden’s op-ed made it clear that he intends to rebuild the country: “I have always believed that there is nothing our nation can’t do when we decide to do it together,” he wrote. “Last week, we began to write a new chapter in that story.”

—-

Notes:

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-americans-can-be-proud-of-the-infrastructure-deal-214533346.html

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/reconciliation-republicans-mcconnell-biden-infrastructure-bipartisan

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/26/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-framework/

https://www.axios.com/mcconnell-approach-infrastructure-biden-democrats-440f11de-2661-4f7c-951c-d3b304374325.html

Sahil Kapur @sahilkapurThe Jan. 6 select committee will have 13 members. Kevin McCarthy gets "consultation" on five of them but Nancy Pelosi has the last word. From the text: 666 Retweets3,137 Likes

June 28th 2021

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/567/text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#infrastructure #Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From an American #Biden Administration #goverment #effective government #political #corrupt GOP #criminal GOP

1 note · View note

donald-trump-official · 5 years

Text

August 7th, 2019. The US federal government has been shut down for the past 8 months. Congress just passed their 113th bill to supply funding, sending it to the president for a signature. Donald trump says he won’t sign it until they include $3 billion for “impenetrable sea wall defenses” and an additional platoon of ICE agents fully trained in the art of “tunnel hunting”. The last bill included $2 billion for training marine life to smell drugs. America is great again.

#trump speaks again #satire #donald trump #parody

87 notes · View notes

creepingsharia · 5 years

Text

Terror-linked CAIR reports at least 57 Muslims elected to local, state, and national positions

September 11 was just the beginning of their jihad.

Source: Jetpac: Building American Muslim Political Infrastructure

In this historic election year, 49% of eligible voters voted in the first midterm election ever to have more than 100 million voters. We haven’t had a turnout percent this high since 1966, and you’d have to look all the way back to 1914 to find an election with more than 50% participation. With some votes in GA, TX, and FL still being counted there’s a chance this election will break that record.

It was a record year for Muslim involvement, too. Jetpac has confirmed at least 128 American Muslims ran for office in this cycle. Numbers haven’t been that high since 2000, when about 700 Muslims ran, and 153 were elected. Jetpac is working on a full report to be released next week, in partnership with CAIR.

Below, we’ve broken down the campaigns of American Muslims across the country at the Federal/Statewide, State Legislative, County, Judiciary, and Municipal levels. Click the links to jump to those sections.

We’ve pulled this information from a number of sources—let us know if we’ve made a mistake, or forgotten to add anyone. We’ll be updating the list as we get more results.

Federal and Statewide Races

Candidate District Result Agha Khan (R) NJ 10th Congressional District LOST Andre Carson (D) IN 7th Congressional District WON Ilhan Omar (D) MN 5th Congressional District WON Keith Ellison (D) MN Attorney General WON Omar Qudrat (R) CA 52nd Congressional District LOST Rashida Tlaib (D) MI 13th Congressional District WON Mahmoud Mahmoud (NWF) NJ 8th Congressional District LOST

Of the above wins, we have a lot of firsts for American Muslims: Rashida Tlaib is the first Palestinian-American woman to be elected to Congress, Ilhan Omar will be the first Somali woman, and—without getting into the exact times their races were called—they’re both the first American Muslim women to be elected as members of the House of Representatives. Keith Ellison will be the first American Muslim State Attorney General, and the first American Muslim elected to statewide office.

State Legislative Races

While we didn’t get all the wins we wanted, it can’t be stressed enough that each and every one of these candidates had a victory—regardless of the numbers that came in yesterday. These are our community leaders, and they fought so hard for their voices to be heard. Congratulations to each and every one of you.

Quick note: Amir Malik’s race in MN’s 37B District is within 100 votes. While the unofficial results are predicting a win for his opponent, it’s still very close.

Candidate District Result Abbas Akhil (D) NM State House District 20 WON Abdullah Hammoud (D) MI State House District 15 WON Aboul Khan (R) NH State House Rockingham 20 District WON Aisha Yaqoob (D) GA State House District 97 LOST Ako Abdul-Samad (D) IA State House District 35 WON Amir Malik (D) MN State House District 37B 50/50 Annisa Karim (D) FL State Senate District 28 LOST Charles Fall (D) NY State House District 61 WON Hana Ali (D) TN State House District 45 LOST Hodan Hassan (D) MN State House District 62A WON Jason Dawkins (D) PA State House District 179 WON Johnny Martin (D) AZ State House District 25 LOST Mohamud Noor (D) MN State House District 60B WON Mujtaba Mohammed (D) NC State Senate District 38 WON Nasif Majeed (D) NC State House District 99 WON Naveen Malik (D) SD State House District 31 LOST Rizwan Ahmed (D) FL State House District 111 LOST Robert Jackson (D) NY State Senate District 31 WON Safiya Wazir (D) NH State House Merrimack 17 District WON Sheikh Rahman (D) GA State Senate District 5 WON

There were dozens more in the County and Municipal elections and you can view the results at the Jetpack website. To help Muslims further implement the sharia, six of the seven Muslims running for judicial positions WON.

Judiciary Races

Candidate District Result Adel A. Harb MI Wayne County Circuit Court WON George Abdallah Jr. CA Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Office 12 WON Halim Dhanidina CA Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three WON Rabeea Collier TX District Courts, 113th District WON Sam Salamey MI District Courts, District 19 WON Shadia Tadros NY Syracuse City Court LOST Shahabuddeen Ally NYC Civil Court, NY County WON

Jetpac, the organization that compiled the information above – and is building infrastructure that helped these Muslims and more in the future to get elected – has partnered with terror-linked CAIR to report on the mid-terms. More on Jetpac in this post: Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. Political Infiltration on Steroids

“We partnered with CAIR to produce a report on American Muslim Election victories and voter attitudes. Click below to check it out!”

Click here to view the report in PDF. States infiltrated the most are:

California – 11

New Jersey – 10

Michigan – 8

Minnesota – 5

As we noted on Twitter (click to watch video):

You were warned. Immigration has consequences. The worst is yet to come. See how sharia is creeping (or taking over) in your state at https://t.co/vvAQmjde6R pic.twitter.com/XDzG2Gd4so

— Creeping Sharia (@creepingsharia) November 11, 2018

Please Share & Help Wake America Up

#cair #Creeping Sharia #islam #law #Legal #Life #Media #Muslim #News #Politics #Random #Religion #Sharia #travel

14 notes · View notes

anestheticx · 5 years

Text

#Beto is a shitty moderate with a voting history that is complacent with conservative ideals. “But we have to beat TRUMP!” With half baked, pseudo “change” filled with capitalist cookies? How about no.

Beto has frequently voted against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration priorities.

Capital & Main reviewed the 167 votes O’Rourke has cast in the House in opposition to the majority of his own party during his six-year tenure in Congress. Many of those votes were not progressive dissents alongside other left-leaning lawmakers, but instead votes to help pass Republican-sponsored legislation.

A few instances include the following in which Beto voted to:

- Reinforce Republicans’ anti-tax ideology

- Chip away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), -

- Weaken Wall Street regulations

- Boost the fossil fuel industry

- Bolster Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

-Undermine the fight against climate change

In the last two years, O’Rourke was among the top fifth of all lawmakers voting against his own party’s positions. FiveThirtyEight has calculated that in that same time period, O’Rourke has voted for the Trump administration position roughly 30% of the time. The website said that is above what analysts predict would come from a legislator representing a district as Democratic as O’Rourke’s.

In the 113th Congress, he was more conservative than 76 percent of Democrats.

In the 114th Congress, he was more conservative than 79 percent of Democrats.

In the 115th Congress, he was more conservative than 77 percent of Democrats.

Moderates are more naive than the visionaries they despise so much if they think tinkering around the edges and making deals with fascists will solve systemic problems in this decrepit Oligarchy and sad excuse for an economy.

It’s time to rewrite the social contract, not manage decline.

#beto #betonyourself #beto o'rourke #political opinion #politics #2020 election #election #bernie 2020 #biden #beto 2020 #Beto politics #conservative #moderate

1 note · View note

ncpssm · 5 years

Link

With the 116th Congress kicking off on January 3, 2019, and the Democrats seizing control of the House, it did not take long for a bill to emerge that would strengthen and expand the nation’s Social Security program. Seven years ago, when U.S. Congressman John Larson (D-CT) first introduced the Social Security 2100 Act during the 113th Congress, the GOP controlled Congress blocked a fair hearing and vote. Now, with a Democratic majority in the House Larson’s Social Security proposal will finally get a thorough review as Democrats take control of the House Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor. These committees have oversight of Social Security.

Larson chose to throw the bill into legislative hopper on the 137th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s birth, who signed Social Security into law in 1935...

...“For years, fiscal hawks have told us that the only way to ‘save’ Social Security is to cut benefits for future retirees. Congressman Larson’s bill is a resounding rebuke to those claims. The Social Security Act 2100 keeps the program financially sound for most of this century while boosting benefits for millions of beneficiaries,” said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

via Go Local Providence.