Posts Tagged ‘senate majority leader harry reid’

Nevada sheriff announces feds to reopen land and end standoff with Cliven Bundy

Infowars.com
April 12, 2014

The Infowars exclusive yesterday exposing U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) involvement in the Bureau of Land Management’s land grab, which was trying to push out American ranchers such as Cliven Bundy in order to make way for Chinese solar farms, was the #1 news story in the entire world over the past 24 hours thanks to the Drudge Report and others, forcing the BLM to retreat from the standoff.

A screenshot of the Viral News Chart, showing the Infowars article connecting Sen. Reid to the land grab as the #1 story in the world.

The article, Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch, revealed that Sen. Reid is directly destroying the livelihoods of hard-working American ranchers in order to profit from future deals with Chinese energy firms and was shared on Facebook over 44,000 times, Twitter over 34,000 times and was even shared on the professional networking site LinkedIn.

And it worked. Today the Sheriff of Clark County, Nevada, Douglas Gillespie, announced that the BLM would retreat from its standoff with cattle rancher Cliven Bundy.

No doubt that the feds realized that they could not win the public relations war after the public realized that this land grab was for a solar farm.

Now this could be a ruse for the time being to get the crowds to leave so the feds can continue its criminal operation later, but Alex Jones doubts that because they have definitely lost the moral high-ground.

This is a HUGE victory that shows what We the People can do.

The coverage of the Nevada standoff on the Drudge Report, the #1 news aggregate in the world.

Spearheaded by the #1 news aggregate in the world, the Drudge Report, the real media, once called the alternative media, grew from the grassroots to report on real news and truth, unlike top-down mainstream media organizations which have been influenced by the CIA and other government agencies since at least the early 1950s and are little more than government propaganda outlets.

Americans want real truth, not lies and whitewash designed to cover up the galactic level of fraud seeping through all levels of our government which is leading once-prosperous America down the road to serfdom and poverty.

When the Founding Fathers drafted the First Amendment, particularly the freedom of the press, they envisioned the press as citizen-journalists such as Thomas Paine who stood up to the collective power structure as individuals willing to defend their birthrights.

They didn’t envision the dinosaur news outlets that we have today which serve the elite and not the people.

And everyone can stand up for their rights by becoming citizen-journalists! Shoot videos exposing corruption and fraud on your local level! Educate others through print and media about their birth rights and their human potential which only comes through liberty! Report on the real truth instead of the lies printed in ink on every newspaper daily!

Thomas Jefferson once wrote “enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”

This will happen by investigating the world around you instead of accepting the lies propagated by the establishment and the mainstream media.

This article was posted: Saturday, April 12, 2014 at 1:03 pm

By JOHN BRESNAHAN and JAKE SHERMAN | 4/24/13 9:49 PM EDT

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

A source close to the talks says: “Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get done.”

Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.

(Also on POLITICO: GOP pulls contentious Obamacare bill)

Democrats, in particular, would take a public hammering as the traditional boosters of Obamacare. Republicans would undoubtedly attempt to shred them over any attempt to escape coverage by it, unless Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) give Democrats cover by backing it.

There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.

The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty.

(Also on POLITICO: Baucus will continue ACA push)

Plus, lawmakers — especially those with long careers in public service and smaller bank accounts — are also concerned about the hit to their own wallets.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is worried about the provision. The No. 2 House Democrat has personally raised the issue with Boehner and other party leaders, sources said.

“Mr. Hoyer is looking at this policy, like all other policies in the Affordable Care Act, to ensure they’re being implemented in a way that’s workable for everyone, including members and staff,” said Katie Grant, Hoyer’s communications director.

Several proposals have been submitted to the Office of Personnel Management, which will administer the benefits. One proposal exempts lawmakers and aides; the other exempts aides alone.

When asked about the high-level bipartisan talks, Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, said: “The speaker’s objective is to spare the entire country from the ravages of the president’s health care law. He is approached daily by American citizens, including members of Congress and staff, who want to be freed from its mandates. If the speaker has the opportunity to save anyone from Obamacare, he will.”

Reid’s office declined to comment about the bipartisan talks.

However, the idea of exempting lawmakers and aides from the exchanges has its detractors, including Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a key Obamacare architect. Waxman thinks there is confusion about the content of the law. The Affordable Care Act, he said, mandates that the federal government will still subsidize and provide health plans obtained in the exchange. There will be no additional cost to lawmakers and Hill aides, he contends.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html#ixzz2RUmwWUEQ

Thursday, January 03, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) Many Americans have long known that accounting practices in the nation’s capital are, to put it mildly, “creative.” Pay increases tend to come automatically, money can be printed and valued out of thin air, and spending “cuts” generally don’t mean actual cuts to budgetary line items – only reductions in the amount of spending increases.

It is in this context in which voters should actually view the recently completed “balanced tax-and-spending deal” reached by lawmakers and President Obama this week that ostensibly avoided the impending “fiscal cliff,” because there was nothing balanced about it.

Why? Because there literally were no spending cuts at all – again, only reductions to the growth of current line items – and most of the legislation involves increasing taxes on a whopping 77 percent of Americans.

BTTWait – didn’t Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi all claim that Congress and the administration would not be raising taxes on anyone but the most well-to-do wage earners (the ol’ class warfare card)?

Yes, they did. But a closer examination reveals that is precisely what happened. And keep in mind these tax hikes are in addition to the $1 trillion worth of tax hikes contained in Obamacare, which hit Jan. 1.

‘We simply can’t cut our way to prosperity’

“President Obama this morning pocketed the Republican concessions on tax hikes included in the Fiscal Cliff deal and promised that it was only the beginning of new taxation to be assessed on the American people,” wrote veteran White House correspondent Keith Koffler on his website, WhiteHouseDossier.com.

Appearing in the White House briefing room the evening of Jan. 1 to praise the last-minute deal, the president was clear with Republicans that he will continue to seek what he called a “balanced” approach to reducing the deficit – which is this president’s code for “balancing” spending cuts with raising taxes, the latter of which is something Obama’s wanted to do since taking office.

That said, the spending spree will continue, and will actually rise in the coming months and years, per the president:

We can’t simply cut our way to prosperity. Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans. And we can’t keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and still expect to succeed in a 21st century economy. So we’re going to have to continue to move forward in deficit reduction, but we have to do it in a balanced way, making sure that we are growing even as we get a handle on our spending. … Today’s agreement enshrines, I think, a principle into law that will remain in place as long as I am President: The deficit needs to be reduced in a way that’s balanced. Everyone pays their fair share. Everyone does their part. That’s how our economy works best. That’s how we grow.

But there’s nothing about this deal that is balanced (let alone “fair,” considering the very tax brackets Obama has repeatedly targeted are the same ones that already pay, by far, the lion’s share of federal income taxes.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation that http://washington.cbslocal.com, at a cost of $7 million to taxpayers, raises $43 in new taxes for every $1 in so-called spending cuts.

That’s “balanced?”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038541_tax_deal_fiscal_cliff_spending_cuts.html#ixzz2GwbZe0JN

By David Sherfinski

The Washington Times

Monday, December 3, 2012
Coburn wants decisions by judge rather than VA for impaired troops

A major defense-spending bill hit an unexpected bump on its journey through the U.S. Senate over an amendment on veterans’ gun rights, which devolved into a heated floor debate and foreshadows a potential battle over Democrats’ vows to tweak the filibuster rules in the clubby, traditionally collegial body.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed “mentally incompetent” to have their cases adjudicated by a judge — rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently — and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.

“We’re not asking for anything big,” Mr. Coburn said Thursday evening on the Senate floor. “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

The late-night tussle served to pick at the scab of the ongoing debate over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to reform the chamber’s filibuster rules to place limits on the minority party’s ability to hold up debate on legislation, however.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, objected to Mr. Coburn’s proposal once he found out it was part of a package of amendments to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act the body was to vote on.

“I love our veterans; I vote for them all the time, they defend us,” Mr. Schumer said. “But if you are mentally ill, whether you’re a veteran or not, just like if you’re a felon, if you’re a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

After a similar plea from Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, and a warning from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, that the move could embolden Democrats’ push for filibuster reforms, Mr. Coburn eventually backed off.

“There’s more here, frankly, than just a refusal to allow an amendment,” Mr. McCain said. “That is going to mean that it’s more likely that we have this showdown, which we think — many of us think — would be devastating to this institution and the way that it’s done business for a couple of hundred years.”

rebound-fxThe quarrel over the broader bill and the filibuster continued on the Senate floor Monday when Mr. McCain dinged Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, when he alluded to Mr. Paul’s previous threats to filibuster the bill if there was not a vote on an amendment to ensure a trial to American citizens accused of terrorism. That provision was approved by the Senate last week.The measure that sparked last week’s late-night imbroglio is also part of a still-pending sportsman’s bill that the Senate declined to vote on last week. Similar legislation has been proposed in past years, and a bill introduced by Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican, and Sen. Jim Webb, Virginia Democrat, passed the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs unanimously in September.

The debate on the measure should not be about gun control, but about veterans’ mental health, said Tom Tarantino, senior legislative associate for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

“If even one person will not go to seek the help they need and they fall through the cracks because we failed to remove the mental health stigma as much as possible, then we’ve failed,” he said. “Right now, what happened is someone pulled the thread of politics in something that should not political. And that thread’s starting to unravel.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/change-on-veterans-gun-rights-lights-fire/#ixzz2E7a4ZgPs
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter