Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration (in no particular order):
1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Top 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:
1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits
Wes Benedict, Libertarian Party Executive Director, commented, "Republicans and Democrats keep expanding government and creating more and more problems. We're encouraging as many Libertarians as possible to run for Congress in 2010. In Texas, the state with the earliest filing deadline, Libertarians have already filed for 31 of 32 Congressional seats."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Showing posts with label obama administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama administration. Show all posts
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Amnesty International, Responding to Secretary Clinton's Human Rights Address, Urges Accountability at Home
/PRNewswire/ -- Amnesty International USA Executive Director Larry Cox issued the following statement in response to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's address today at Georgetown University outlining the Obama administration's human rights agenda for the 21st century:
"Secretary Clinton rightly identifies accountability as the centerpiece of any successful human rights agenda for the United States. But if the administration means what it says, then it needs to follow through and back up rhetoric with actions. Discussion of human rights can't be an empty rebranding exercise.
"The President should appoint a bipartisan commission to investigate the abuses connected to counterterrorism policies since September 11, 2001. The administration must adhere to executive orders already in effect and close the prison at Guantanamo and abide by international legal commitments to end torture.
"The administration can't insist that other countries adhere to human rights protections while continuing to detain people outside the rule of law at home. The administration should bring charges against Guantanamo detainees who can legitimately be charged with a crime, and release the rest without further delay. To date, more than 100 individuals have already been cleared for release but remain unjustly detained in Guantanamo.
"In his Nobel Prize speech in Oslo, President Obama stated that 'no nation can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we are not willing to follow those rules ourselves.'
"Amnesty International commends the administration for signaling that it intends to engage closely on human rights. This is welcome progress.
"It should carry this message forward through measurable progress at home. Taking these steps would further enhance national security. This means prioritizing accountability for torture, fully implementing already ratified human rights treaties, and signaling strong support for those human rights treaties not yet ratified, reconstituting an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights, creating an independent, nonpartisan National Human Rights Commission, and issuing a comprehensive Executive Order on Human Rights."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Secretary Clinton rightly identifies accountability as the centerpiece of any successful human rights agenda for the United States. But if the administration means what it says, then it needs to follow through and back up rhetoric with actions. Discussion of human rights can't be an empty rebranding exercise.
"The President should appoint a bipartisan commission to investigate the abuses connected to counterterrorism policies since September 11, 2001. The administration must adhere to executive orders already in effect and close the prison at Guantanamo and abide by international legal commitments to end torture.
"The administration can't insist that other countries adhere to human rights protections while continuing to detain people outside the rule of law at home. The administration should bring charges against Guantanamo detainees who can legitimately be charged with a crime, and release the rest without further delay. To date, more than 100 individuals have already been cleared for release but remain unjustly detained in Guantanamo.
"In his Nobel Prize speech in Oslo, President Obama stated that 'no nation can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we are not willing to follow those rules ourselves.'
"Amnesty International commends the administration for signaling that it intends to engage closely on human rights. This is welcome progress.
"It should carry this message forward through measurable progress at home. Taking these steps would further enhance national security. This means prioritizing accountability for torture, fully implementing already ratified human rights treaties, and signaling strong support for those human rights treaties not yet ratified, reconstituting an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights, creating an independent, nonpartisan National Human Rights Commission, and issuing a comprehensive Executive Order on Human Rights."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Biting the Hand That Heals
/24-7/ The nation's health care system is a popular topic of discussion, and the hot-button issue within is the idea that an abundance of medical lawsuits are responsible for the increase in health care costs.
It's a dilemma - while preventable medical errors are a leading cause of injury and death, and many wronged patients never gain reparations - too many devoted physicians live and work in fear of the consequences they may face due to false claims made against them.
Enter Tort Reform
Tort reform would make it more difficult to sue doctors and obtain large judgments, usually by putting a cap on the amount a plaintiff can receive in punitive damages, and would limit the liability damages of physicians and insurance companies. Missouri capped non-economic damages at $350,000 in 2005, which some doctors claim has prompted a welcome reduction in their insurance rates.
Defensive Medicine
Some argue that such reform would reduce the threat of liability that can drive doctors to prescribe costly tests and procedures, protecting them from lawsuits, even though the tests and procedures are often medically unnecessary. Studies show that this "defensive medicine" accounts for about 3 percent, or about $60 billion a year, of overall medical spending. Reliable studies also place the cost of malpractice litigation at just 2 percent of overall health care costs. But any discussion regarding reform should focus on reducing malpractice, not just reducing malpractice claims.
The Institute for Medicine estimates that more than 98,000 people die each year in the U.S. because of preventable medical errors. The reluctance of many hospitals and state governments to properly address and report these occurrences often results in patients seeking justice the only way possible-by going to court.
Moving Forward
The Obama administration has said it will provide grants of up to $3 million to states and health systems that investigate new ways of handling medical liability claims. "Tort reform's impact is significant-meaning we can measure it-but significant and small," says Leemore Dafny, who has been among the economic experts sharing recommendations with senior members of the Obama administration. She adds: "We've done some tests and it turns out that it's not going to be a huge fix."
Any attempt to make adjustments to the health care system structure would ideally strike a balance - as a patient's right to seek justice in court is diminished, the measures to prevent medical errors from occurring should be strengthened. Providers need incentives to offer cost-effective care, while patients need to trust that the judicial system will properly deal with providers who are negligent. While tort reform may not be the ultimate "silver bullet" solution, it opens up a discussion that requires the action to dig deeper and investigate further.
Article provided by Warner Law Offices PA
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
It's a dilemma - while preventable medical errors are a leading cause of injury and death, and many wronged patients never gain reparations - too many devoted physicians live and work in fear of the consequences they may face due to false claims made against them.
Enter Tort Reform
Tort reform would make it more difficult to sue doctors and obtain large judgments, usually by putting a cap on the amount a plaintiff can receive in punitive damages, and would limit the liability damages of physicians and insurance companies. Missouri capped non-economic damages at $350,000 in 2005, which some doctors claim has prompted a welcome reduction in their insurance rates.
Defensive Medicine
Some argue that such reform would reduce the threat of liability that can drive doctors to prescribe costly tests and procedures, protecting them from lawsuits, even though the tests and procedures are often medically unnecessary. Studies show that this "defensive medicine" accounts for about 3 percent, or about $60 billion a year, of overall medical spending. Reliable studies also place the cost of malpractice litigation at just 2 percent of overall health care costs. But any discussion regarding reform should focus on reducing malpractice, not just reducing malpractice claims.
The Institute for Medicine estimates that more than 98,000 people die each year in the U.S. because of preventable medical errors. The reluctance of many hospitals and state governments to properly address and report these occurrences often results in patients seeking justice the only way possible-by going to court.
Moving Forward
The Obama administration has said it will provide grants of up to $3 million to states and health systems that investigate new ways of handling medical liability claims. "Tort reform's impact is significant-meaning we can measure it-but significant and small," says Leemore Dafny, who has been among the economic experts sharing recommendations with senior members of the Obama administration. She adds: "We've done some tests and it turns out that it's not going to be a huge fix."
Any attempt to make adjustments to the health care system structure would ideally strike a balance - as a patient's right to seek justice in court is diminished, the measures to prevent medical errors from occurring should be strengthened. Providers need incentives to offer cost-effective care, while patients need to trust that the judicial system will properly deal with providers who are negligent. While tort reform may not be the ultimate "silver bullet" solution, it opens up a discussion that requires the action to dig deeper and investigate further.
Article provided by Warner Law Offices PA
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Media Analyst: White House Cover-Up of Salahi Gate-Crashing Demands an Investigative Press
/PRNewswire/ -- Accuracy in Media analyst Roger Aronoff, in a special report on the White House "GateCrashers" scandal, faulted the Obama administration for refusing to allow White House social secretary Desiree Rogers and other staffers to testify before the Homeland Security Committee. He called on the national media to further investigate what White House officials might be trying to hide.
"One thing is certain: As Obama works feverishly to pass health care legislation, the White House doesn't want a growing scandal involving the President's staff to occupy the attention of the media and Congress. The Democrats who control Congress can be expected to fall into line. These are times that demand an investigative press unwilling to play lap dog to the White House," Aronoff wrote.
Aronoff gave credit to some members of the national press, who have generally been supportive of President Obama, for speaking out on the White House's lack of transparency. They include CNN's Anderson Cooper, David Gergen and Ed Henry, and The Chicago Tribune editorial board.
On the other hand, he pointed out that NBC's Matt Lauer failed to disclose a conflict of interest when he interviewed Tareq and Michaele Salahi on The Today Show. Though the Salahis stated on the air that they were not paid in any way for the NBC interview, in fact they were under contract with Bravo, a subsidiary of NBC Universal, which prevented them from appearing on other shows.
Though Aronoff expected most Democrats in Congress to fall in line with the administration, he did recognize Reps. Chris Carney (D-PA) and Al Green (D-TX) for asking tough questions and calling for transparency from the White House.
The report is available here: What is White House Covering Up in "GateCrashers" Scandal?
Accuracy in Media is a citizens' media watchdog organization whose mission is to promote fairness, balance, and accuracy in news reporting. Founded in 1969, AIM is the oldest non-profit press watchdog group in America. For more information, please visit www.aim.org.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"One thing is certain: As Obama works feverishly to pass health care legislation, the White House doesn't want a growing scandal involving the President's staff to occupy the attention of the media and Congress. The Democrats who control Congress can be expected to fall into line. These are times that demand an investigative press unwilling to play lap dog to the White House," Aronoff wrote.
Aronoff gave credit to some members of the national press, who have generally been supportive of President Obama, for speaking out on the White House's lack of transparency. They include CNN's Anderson Cooper, David Gergen and Ed Henry, and The Chicago Tribune editorial board.
On the other hand, he pointed out that NBC's Matt Lauer failed to disclose a conflict of interest when he interviewed Tareq and Michaele Salahi on The Today Show. Though the Salahis stated on the air that they were not paid in any way for the NBC interview, in fact they were under contract with Bravo, a subsidiary of NBC Universal, which prevented them from appearing on other shows.
Though Aronoff expected most Democrats in Congress to fall in line with the administration, he did recognize Reps. Chris Carney (D-PA) and Al Green (D-TX) for asking tough questions and calling for transparency from the White House.
The report is available here: What is White House Covering Up in "GateCrashers" Scandal?
Accuracy in Media is a citizens' media watchdog organization whose mission is to promote fairness, balance, and accuracy in news reporting. Founded in 1969, AIM is the oldest non-profit press watchdog group in America. For more information, please visit www.aim.org.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Judicial Watch Obtains Documents on Obama FCC 'Diversity Czar'
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding President Obama's "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd's official mission and responsibilities.
According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace." Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the
Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the
interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."
Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to...parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget...but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."
In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are
licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.
Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."
Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of the "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.
"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
According to the documents, provided in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Lloyd's mission is "to open up opportunities for all Americans, in particular women, minorities, small business owners, to participate in and benefit from a robust communications marketplace." Among Lloyd's duties and responsibilities: "To work with the
Consumer Bureau (and other bureaus as appropriate) to collect relevant data and assess the
interaction between communications service providers and consumers in minority communities..." and "to consult with other federal agencies to determine best practices for advancing the goal of greater inclusion and diversity in government programs."
Judicial Watch also requested information pertaining to Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd's office staffing and budget for operation and administration. However, according to FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman, "We could locate no records responsive to...parts of your request. While Mr. Lloyd shares support staff with others in OGC (Office of General Counsel), no one was hired or assigned specifically to support him in his work. His position is funded out of the agency's fiscal year budget...but he has no separate budget for operation and administration."
In May 2009, Judicial Watch uncovered documents that demonstrate the FCC plans to use the professed goal of "diversity" to regulate free speech in the media. For example, in December 2007, the FCC proposed new "localism" measures to force broadcast stations to offer programming more "responsive to the needs and interests of the communities that they are
licensed to serve." Some legal analysts have said such "localism" policies represent a back-door into the controversial Fairness Doctrine, which the Obama administration claims to oppose.
Lloyd, meanwhile, has been criticized heavily for making a number of controversial statements on race. For example, during a conference in 2005, Lloyd said, "There's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." During a 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd also said Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's rise to power was "really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution."
Judicial Watch's FOIA request regarding Mark Lloyd is part of the organization's comprehensive investigation of all Obama administration czars. Judicial Watch has filed a FOIA request with the Office of Management and Budget as well as requests with each separate "czar" office. Article II section 2 of the Constitution, states that, "...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."
Unlike the heads of other executive departments (such as the Secretaries of Energy, Transportation, etc.), most of Obama's "czars" have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate or have had their positions authorized by Congress. Some of these appointees might not have even been subjected to a basic FBI background check. Importantly, some of the "czars" work for the president in the White House -- these individuals could claim "executive privilege" if ever subpoenaed to testify before Congress. And they may not be subject to transparency laws.
"Obama seems to have a 'czar' for everything and too many wield power with zero congressional and public accountability. And considering the radical views of 'czars' like Mark Lloyd, the more information the American people can get on them the better. Do we really want a race-baiting promoter of Hugo Chavez presiding over questionable diversity programs at the FCC?" said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, June 1, 2009
Democrats Return to Washington Ready to Force Workers, Families, Small Businesses to Pay a National Energy Tax
Congress is returning to Washington after its Memorial Day recess, and among the top issues slated for House action in the coming weeks is the Democrats’ massive national energy tax to be paid by anyone who drives a car, buys a product made in America, or has the audacity to flip on a light switch. The tax could cost American families up to $3,100 per year and will send countless American jobs overseas to China and India at a time when U.S. workers can afford it least. With the Obama Administration taking responsibility for the future of General Motors today, how can Washington Democrats seriously claim they are looking out for the best interests of American workers at the same time that they’re advocating a significant new tax that will kill their jobs?
Republicans spent the Memorial Day recess sounding the alarm on the national energy tax – called “cap and trade” by the legislation’s supporters – in venues across the country, capped off with Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) delivering the weekly GOP address on Saturday to expose the Democrats’ scheme and highlight better solutions proposed by Republicans:
“The national energy tax imposed by Speaker Pelosi’s climate change bill would double electric bills here in Indiana, working a severe hardship on low-income families, but that’s only where the damage starts. In a state where we like to make things, like steel and autos and RVs, it would cost us countless jobs, many of them heading off-shore to China and India. Our farmers and livestock producers would see their costs skyrocket. And our coal miners would be looking for new work, while we leave affordable, homegrown energy idle in the ground.”
In summits held in Pittsburgh, PA, Indianapolis, IN, and San Luis Obispo, CA last week, the House GOP’s American Energy Solutions Group – led by Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) – highlighted the devastating impact a national energy tax would have on jobs and local economies. An editorial in this morning’s Wheeling (WV) Intelligencer highlights one of the consequences the Democrats’ national energy tax could have on that community: the downfall of both the coal and steel industries and the families who depend on them:
“Measures such as the ‘cap and trade’ proposal to limit carbon dioxide emissions have been covered widely by the press, including this newspaper. Much of the focus has been on coal-fired power plants. That is appropriate because of the drastic effect ‘cap and trade’ would have on the coal industry and customers of coal-fired power plants.”
“Not much has been said about the effect ‘cap and trade’ would have on other industries, however. Clearly, certain facilities used in the steel industry could be affected dramatically if the legislation is enacted…”
“The domestic steel industry has been hurt badly by a combination of government failure to protect it from unfair foreign competition, and enforcement of air pollution rules. We hope members of Congress do not allow ‘cap and trade’ to become one of the final nails in the coffin of the steel industry. We urge Wilson and other lawmakers representing this area to refuse to allow that to happen.”
At a time when our nation is struggling to save American jobs, is a national energy tax really the kind of policy that Americans are expecting out of the leaders in Washington? Shouldn’t they expect Democrats and Republicans alike to work on an “all of the above” plan that creates jobs, lowers energy prices, and cleans up the environment at the same time? That’s what Rep. Pence’s American Energy Solutions Group supports – and that’s what it has been advocating around the nation and in the halls of Congress. Cornerstones of the House Republicans’ “all of the above” strategy are:
Increasing environmentally-safe energy production on remote lands and far off our shores;
Promoting the use of alternative fuels that will reduce carbon emissions, such as nuclear, clean-coal, and renewable energy technologies; and
Encouraging increased efficiencies and cutting edge technologies to maximize America’s energy potential.
As Congress begins a four-week sprint toward the Independence Day recess, will Democrats stubbornly barrel ahead with their plan to saddle American workers, families, and small businesses with a national energy tax? Or will they work with Republicans to create jobs, protect the environment, and lower energy prices – all without raising taxes?
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Republicans spent the Memorial Day recess sounding the alarm on the national energy tax – called “cap and trade” by the legislation’s supporters – in venues across the country, capped off with Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) delivering the weekly GOP address on Saturday to expose the Democrats’ scheme and highlight better solutions proposed by Republicans:
“The national energy tax imposed by Speaker Pelosi’s climate change bill would double electric bills here in Indiana, working a severe hardship on low-income families, but that’s only where the damage starts. In a state where we like to make things, like steel and autos and RVs, it would cost us countless jobs, many of them heading off-shore to China and India. Our farmers and livestock producers would see their costs skyrocket. And our coal miners would be looking for new work, while we leave affordable, homegrown energy idle in the ground.”
In summits held in Pittsburgh, PA, Indianapolis, IN, and San Luis Obispo, CA last week, the House GOP’s American Energy Solutions Group – led by Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) – highlighted the devastating impact a national energy tax would have on jobs and local economies. An editorial in this morning’s Wheeling (WV) Intelligencer highlights one of the consequences the Democrats’ national energy tax could have on that community: the downfall of both the coal and steel industries and the families who depend on them:
“Measures such as the ‘cap and trade’ proposal to limit carbon dioxide emissions have been covered widely by the press, including this newspaper. Much of the focus has been on coal-fired power plants. That is appropriate because of the drastic effect ‘cap and trade’ would have on the coal industry and customers of coal-fired power plants.”
“Not much has been said about the effect ‘cap and trade’ would have on other industries, however. Clearly, certain facilities used in the steel industry could be affected dramatically if the legislation is enacted…”
“The domestic steel industry has been hurt badly by a combination of government failure to protect it from unfair foreign competition, and enforcement of air pollution rules. We hope members of Congress do not allow ‘cap and trade’ to become one of the final nails in the coffin of the steel industry. We urge Wilson and other lawmakers representing this area to refuse to allow that to happen.”
At a time when our nation is struggling to save American jobs, is a national energy tax really the kind of policy that Americans are expecting out of the leaders in Washington? Shouldn’t they expect Democrats and Republicans alike to work on an “all of the above” plan that creates jobs, lowers energy prices, and cleans up the environment at the same time? That’s what Rep. Pence’s American Energy Solutions Group supports – and that’s what it has been advocating around the nation and in the halls of Congress. Cornerstones of the House Republicans’ “all of the above” strategy are:
Increasing environmentally-safe energy production on remote lands and far off our shores;
Promoting the use of alternative fuels that will reduce carbon emissions, such as nuclear, clean-coal, and renewable energy technologies; and
Encouraging increased efficiencies and cutting edge technologies to maximize America’s energy potential.
As Congress begins a four-week sprint toward the Independence Day recess, will Democrats stubbornly barrel ahead with their plan to saddle American workers, families, and small businesses with a national energy tax? Or will they work with Republicans to create jobs, protect the environment, and lower energy prices – all without raising taxes?
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Statement On Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism In Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support Petition
Statement On Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism In Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court
/PRNewswire / -- The following is a statement of 9/11 Family Members: Mike Low, Father of Sara Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11; Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett, Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court:
Today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration's decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.
We are deeply dismayed by this decision, filed by the solicitor general of the United States in response to the Supreme Court's February 23, 2009 invitation for the government to express its views in the 9/11 families' request to appeal a portion of the case to the Court. The Administration's filing mocks our system of justice and strikes a blow against the public's right to know the facts about who financed and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that result.
The Administration apparently gave less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies, and more weight to political concerns and pleadings of a foreign government on the behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy and others who stand accused of financing the attacks that murdered our loved ones. Sadly, although the Administration's obviously politically based filing is merely informational and in no way binding on the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court were to follow it, these people will avoid being held accountable not because they are innocent, but because they are royalty.
The Administration's filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case -- one that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder of our family members -- does not warrant the Supreme Court's time. Contrary to the view expressed by the Obama Administration in the solicitor general's filing, the victims of the September 11th attack deserve to have their claims decided under accurate legal standards.
For all of these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court to reject the solicitor general's politically-premised filing, along with its wrongheaded priorities, accept our petition, and grant us our fundamentally American right to have our day in Court.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire / -- The following is a statement of 9/11 Family Members: Mike Low, Father of Sara Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11; Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett, Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court:
Today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration's decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.
We are deeply dismayed by this decision, filed by the solicitor general of the United States in response to the Supreme Court's February 23, 2009 invitation for the government to express its views in the 9/11 families' request to appeal a portion of the case to the Court. The Administration's filing mocks our system of justice and strikes a blow against the public's right to know the facts about who financed and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that result.
The Administration apparently gave less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies, and more weight to political concerns and pleadings of a foreign government on the behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy and others who stand accused of financing the attacks that murdered our loved ones. Sadly, although the Administration's obviously politically based filing is merely informational and in no way binding on the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court were to follow it, these people will avoid being held accountable not because they are innocent, but because they are royalty.
The Administration's filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case -- one that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder of our family members -- does not warrant the Supreme Court's time. Contrary to the view expressed by the Obama Administration in the solicitor general's filing, the victims of the September 11th attack deserve to have their claims decided under accurate legal standards.
For all of these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court to reject the solicitor general's politically-premised filing, along with its wrongheaded priorities, accept our petition, and grant us our fundamentally American right to have our day in Court.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)