.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
|
| | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+10Shansaa jam Ungern Laogorus EddieCochran OmbreBlanche Le chanoine quantat Zed Biloulou 14 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 8/11/2008, 13:47 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Browse Newspapers by country
http://newsdirectory.com/
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Canada
United States
Oceania
South America
Resources
Breaking News
Business Newspapers
College Newspapers
Media Industry Associations
Metropolitan Daily Press
Searchable Archives
Coffee Break
Television
Broadcast TV Stations
Network News
TV Networks
Additional Research
City Governments
County Governments
Travel Planner
College Locator Browse Magazines by subject
Arts and Entertainment
Automotive
Business
Computer
Culture and Society
Current Issues
Health
Home
Industry Trade Publications
Pets and Animals
Religion
Science
Sports
Travel
. . . more subjects
Magazines by Region
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America
More |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2052 - 19/3/2010, 12:39 | |
| Now for the slaughterOn the road to Demon Pass, our leader encounters a Baier.
By PEGGY NOONAN
Excuse me, but it is embarrassing—really, embarrassing to our country—that the president of the United States has again put off a state visit to Australia and Indonesia because he's having trouble passing a piece of domestic legislation he's been promising for a year will be passed next week. What an air of chaos this signals to the world. And to do this to Australia of all countries, a nation that has always had America's back and been America's friend. - Spoiler:
How bush league, how undisciplined, how kid's stuff.You could see the startled looks on the faces of reporters as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who had the grace to look embarrassed, made the announcement on Thursday afternoon. The president "regrets the delay"—the trip is rescheduled for June—but "passage of the health insurance reform is of paramount importance." Indonesia must be glad to know it's not.  Fox News Channel  Fox News Channel
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2053 - 19/3/2010, 12:47 | |
| Suite de 2052: Videos de l'interview de Barack Obama, le POTUS, par Brit Baier de FOX News. 1ere Partie
2eme Partie |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2054 - 19/3/2010, 15:09 | |
| Why Democrats Deem They Need "Deem and Pass" on Health Care by Todd S. Purdum March 18, 2010, 1:00 PM  In the view of many Congressional experts, Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful Speaker of the House in a hundred years, more potent even than the legendary “Mr. Sam” Rayburn, the longest serving speaker in history. Not since the reign of “Uncle Joe” Cannon at the turn of the 20th century, this argument goes, has a speaker exercised such thorough dominance over the people’s house.- Spoiler:
So riddle us this: Why is Pelosi floating the idea of using an arcane procedural movement to have the House simply “deem” that it has passed the Senate’s version of a health care bill (which many of her members oppose, for various reasons), and then go on to vote on a separate bill to make fixes in the bill it hasn’t technically voted on? Probably because it’s the best she can do.
“It’s more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know,” the speaker told a roundtable of bloggers this week. “But I like it,” she added, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”
The process is not quite as absurd as it sounds, and it has been used by Republicans in the past (to howls of protest from Democrats) to pass substantial measures, though nothing quite on the scale of the health care overhaul. If Pelosi uses this method, she will almost certainly prompt a constitutional challenge that could complicate the ultimate fate of the legislation.
The crux of the problem is that the House and Senate have passed different versions of a health care bill. As your 8th grade civics teacher could tell you, the usual fix for that would be a conference committee, in which both sides would iron out their differences and vote on a unified bill. The current state of small-mindedness in Washington long ago made that option seem impossible, because it would require 60 votes in the Senate to cut off debate, and Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts left the Democrats with only 59 votes. So the White House hoped it could persuade Pelosi and House Democrats to simply pass the Senate bill, even with its unpopular special deals for individual states, and then quickly come back with a separate bill that would make various revenue-related fixes under a special procedure known as “reconciliation,” that would limit debate.
But Pelosi doesn’t trust the Senate to actually pass a reconciliation bill, even with limited debate, because Republican Senators could still gum up the process by attaching an infinite number of amendments on popular items that the Democrats would have a hard time voting against. And if the Senate made any changes to the bill, it would have to go back to the House all over again. Hence the attraction of the “deem and pass” method.
In the end, though, the important part of that formulation is still the “pass” part: If the House deems the Senate version of health care to have passed, President Obama will sign it, and it will become the law of the land, regardless of what later happens in the Senate. That means House members will have effectively voted in favor of sweeping changes in the health care system, whether they have technically voted for them or not. Republicans plan to turn that against them in November, but Democrats increasingly seem to see passing nothing at all as the bigger risk.
So “deem and pass” might actually be deemed to pass for courage in the modern capital. Imagine that!
When he looked at all the Ivy League whiz kids that dominated the Kennedy White House, Mr. Sam used to say he’d feel a lot better if any of them had ever run for sheriff. Now he’d probably feel a lot better about the members of his beloved House if they didn’t always seem to be running for the hills.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2055 - 19/3/2010, 23:21 | |
| How Obama created the Biden incidentBy Charles KrauthammerFriday, March 19, 2010 Why did President Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations? And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in Israel's Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don't bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest. - Spoiler:
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That's why the Obama administration has to resort to "proximity talks" -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that's an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel -- at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2056 - 20/3/2010, 15:03 | |
| Ca ne s'arrange pas, ce qui ne l'empeche pas de continuer a nous enfiler son programme de force.
Date.......Presid.Appr.Index.....Strongly.Appr.....Strongly.Disappr.....Total. Appr.....Total Disappr
3/20/2010 ......21........................23%....................44%..................43%..........56%
3/19/2010 ......21........................23%....................44%..................45%.........55%
3/18/2010 ......20........................23%....................43%..................45%..........55%
3/17/2010 ......18........................24%....................42%..................44%..........55% |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2057 - 20/3/2010, 15:47 | |
| The Jerusalem Post
Column One: Obama's War on Israel
By CAROLINE GLICK
19/03/2010 15:56 Obama claims he's launched a political war against Israel in the interest of promoting peace. But this claim, too, does not stand up to scrutiny. - Spoiler:
Why has President Barak Obama decided to foment a crisis in US relations with Israel?
Some commentators have claimed that it is Israel’s fault. As they tell it, the news that Israel has not banned Jewish construction in Jerusalem – after repeatedly refusing to ban such construction – drove Obama into a fit of uncontrolled rage from which he has yet to recover.
While popular, this claim makes no sense. Obama didn’t come to be called “No drama Obama” for nothing. It is not credible to argue that Jerusalem’s local planning board’s decision to approve the construction of 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo drove cool Obama into a fit of wild rage at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Obama himself claims that he has launched a political war against Israel in the interest of promoting peace. But this claim, too, does not stand up to scrutiny.
On Friday, Obama ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum.
First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo.
Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967.
Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. The US suggests releasing hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons.
Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than a half million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called “right of return,” in the course of indirect, Obama administration-mediated negotiations with the Palestinians. To date, Israel has maintained that substantive discussions can only be conducted in direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials.
If Israel does not accept all four US demands, then the Obama administration will boycott Netanyahu and his senior ministers. In the first instance, this means that if Netanyahu comes to Washington next week for the AIPAC conference, no senior administration official will meet with him.
Obama’s ultimatum makes clear that mediating peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not a goal he is interested in achieving.
Obama’s new demands follow the months of American pressure that eventually coerced Netanyahu into announcing both his support for a Palestinian state and a 10-month ban on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. No previous Israeli government had ever been asked to make the latter concession.
Netanyahu was led to believe that in return for these concessions Obama would begin behaving like the credible mediator his predecessors were. But instead of acting like his predecessors, Obama has behaved like the Palestinians. Rather than reward Netanyahu for taking a risk for peace, Obama has, in the model of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, pocketed Netanyahu’s concessions and escalated his demands. This is not the behavior of a mediator. This is the behavior of an adversary.
With the US president treating Israel like an enemy, the Palestinians have no reason to agree to sit down and negotiate. Indeed, they have no choice but to declare war.
And so, in the wake of Obama’s onslaught on Israel’s right to Jerusalem, Palestinian incitement against Israel and Jews has risen to levels not seen since the outbreak of the last terror war in September 2000. And just as night follows day, that incitement has led to violence. This week’s Arab riots from Jerusalem to Jaffa, and the renewed rocket offensive from Gaza are directly related to Obama’s malicious attacks on Israel.
But if his campaign against Israel wasn’t driven by a presidential temper tantrum, and it isn’t aimed at promoting peace, what explains it? What is Obama trying to accomplish?
There are five explanations for Obama’s behavior. And they are not mutually exclusive.
First, Obama’s assault on Israel is likely related to the failure of his Iran policy. Over the past week, senior administration officials including Gen. David Petraeus have made viciously defamatory attacks on Israel, insinuating that the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem is a primary cause for bad behavior on the part of Iran and its proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. By this line of thinking, if Israel simply returned to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, Iran’s centrifuges would stop spinning, and Syria, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards would all beat their swords into plowshares.
Second, even more important than its usefulness as a tool to divert the public’s attention away from the failure of his Iran policy, Obama’s assault against Israel may well be aimed at maintaining that failed policy. Specifically, he may be attacking Israel in a bid to coerce Netanyahu into agreeing to give Obama veto power over any Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations. That is, the anti-Israel campaign may be a means to force Israel to stand by as Obama allows Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.
For the past several months, an endless line of senior administration officials have descended on Jerusalem with the expressed aim of convincing Netanyahu to relinquish Israel’s right to independently strike Iran’s nuclear installations. All of these officials have returned to Washington empty-handed. Perhaps Obama has decided that since quiet pressure has failed to cow Netanyahu, it is time to launch a frontal attack against him.
This brings us to the third explanation for why Obama has decided to go to war with the democratically elected Israeli government. Obama’s advisers told friendly reporters that Obama wants to bring down Netanyahu’s government. By making demands Netanyahu and his coalition partners cannot accept, Obama hopes to either bring down the government and replace Netanyahu and Likud with the far-leftist Tzipi Livni and Kadima, or force Israel Beiteinu and Shas to bolt the coalition and compel Netanyahu to accept Livni as a co-prime minister. Livni, of course, won Obama’s heart when in 2008 she opted for an election rather than accept Shas’s demand that she protect the unity of Jerusalem.
The fourth explanation for Obama’s behavior is that he seeks to realign US foreign policy away from Israel. Obama’s constant attempts to cultivate relations with Iran’s unelected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad’s Arab lackey Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, and Turkey’s Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan make clear that he views developing US relations with these anti-American regimes as a primary foreign policy goal.
Given that all of these leaders have demanded that in exchange for better relations Obama abandon Israel as a US ally, and in light of the professed anti-Israel positions of several of his senior foreign policy advisers, it is possible that Obama is seeking to downgrade US relations with Israel. His consistent castigation of Israel as obstructionist and defiant has led some surveys to claim that over the past year US popular support for Israel has dropped from 77 to 58 percent.
The more Obama fills newspaper headlines with allegations that Israel is responsible for everything from US combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran’s nuclear program, the lower those numbers can be expected to fall. And the more popular American support for Israel falls, the easier it will be for Obama to engineer an open breach with the Jewish state.
The final explanation for Obama’s behavior is that he is using his manufactured crisis to justify adopting an overtly anti-Israel position vis-à-vis the Palestinians. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that administration officials are considering having Obama present his own “peace plan.” Given the administration’s denial of Israel’s right to Jerusalem, an “Obama plan,” would doubtless require Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and expel some 700,000 Jews from their homes.
Likewise, the crisis Obama has manufactured with Israel could pave the way for him to recognize a Palestinian state if the Palestinians follow through on their threat to unilaterally declare statehood next year regardless of the status of negotiations with Israel. Such a US move could in turn lead to the deployment of US forces in Judea and Samaria to “protect” the unilaterally declared Palestinian state from Israel.
Both Obama’s behavior and the policy goals it indicates make it clear that Netanyahu’s current policy of trying to appease Obama by making concrete concessions is no longer justified. Obama is not interested in being won over. The question is, what should Netanyahu do?
One front in the war Obama has started is at home. Netanyahu must ensure that he maintains popular domestic support for his government to scuttle Obama’s plan to overthrow his government. So far, in large part due to Obama’s unprecedented nastiness, Netanyahu’s domestic support has held steady. A poll conducted for IMRA news service this week by Maagar Mohot shows that fully 75% of Israeli Jews believe Obama’s behavior toward Israel is unjustified. As for Netanyahu, 71% of Israeli Jews believe his refusal to accept Obama’s demand to ban Jewish building in Jerusalem proves he is a strong leader. Similarly, a Shvakim Panorama poll for Israel Radio shows public support for Kadima has dropped by more than 30% since last year’s election.
The other front in Obama’s war is the American public. By blaming Israel for the state of the Middle East and launching personal barbs against Netanyahu, Obama seeks to drive down popular American support for Israel. In building a strategy to counter Obama’s moves, Netanyahu has to keep two issues in mind.
First, no foreign leader can win a popularity contest against a sitting US president. Therefore, Netanyahu must continue to avoid any personal attacks on Obama. He must limit his counter-offensive to a defense of Israel’s interests and his government’s policies.
Second, Netanyahu must remember that Obama’s hostility toward Israel is not shared by the majority of Americans. Netanyahu’s goal must be to strengthen and increase the majority of Americans who support Israel. To this end, Netanyahu must go to Washington next week and speak at the annual AIPAC conference as planned, despite the administration’s threat to boycott him.
While in Washington, Netanyahu should meet with every Congressman and Senator who wishes to meet with him as well as every administration member who seeks him out. Moreover, he should give interviews to as many television networks, newspapers and major radio programs as possible in order to bring his message directly to the American people.
Obama has made clear that he is not Israel’s ally. And for the remainder of his term, he will do everything he can to downgrade US relations with Israel while maintaining his constant genuflection to the likes of Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and Turkey.
But like Israel, the US is a free country. And as long as popular support for Israel holds steady, Obama’s options will be limited. Netanyahu’s task is to maintain that support in the face of administration hostility as he implements policies toward Iran and the Arabs alike that are necessary to ensure Israel’s long-term survival and prosperity.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2058 - 20/3/2010, 16:21 | |
| Au cas ou vous aimeriez avoir des nouvelles. U.S. NEWS MARCH 18, 2010Madoff beaten in prisonPonzi Schemer Was Assaulted by Another Inmate in December; Officials Deny Incident Associated Press The Butner federal prison in July. A man who served time with Bernard Madoff there says the financier gave him investment advice.- Spoiler:
After the attack, Mr. Madoff, who pleaded guilty a year ago and was sent to a federal prison in Butner, N.C., was moved on Dec. 18 to the prison's low-security medical center for treatment. At the time, the Bureau of Prisons said that rumors of an assault were false and that Mr. Madoff suffered from dizziness and hypertension. One of his lawyers, Ira Sorkin, added at the time that Mr. Madoff was experiencing high blood pressure and heart palpitations. Mr. Sorkin declined to comment Wednesday on whether his client was beaten, saying, "I don't comment on prison conditions or his family. That has been my policy."Mr. Madoff was treated for a broken nose, fractured ribs and cuts to his head and face, according to a felon currently at Butner serving time on drug charges who was familiar with his condition at the time. The details of the injuries couldn't be independently verified.Another inmate who recently was released from Butner after serving time for drug charges and a third person who isn't an inmate and is familiar with Mr. Madoff's situation both confirmed the assault.The former inmate said the dispute centered on money the assailant thought he was owed by Mr. Madoff.The current inmate said Mr. Madoff's assailant was a beefy man serving time for a drug conviction. The alleged assailant's mother said in an interview her son had not mentioned any scuffle with Mr. Madoff but that he had been a body builder and held a black belt in Judo until he was injured in a shooting in 2002. While behind bars he has regained strength and gotten back into shape, she said.The Bureau of Prisons said it investigated the incident, a process that included an interview with Mr. Madoff. "In December he told staff he was not assaulted, and an investigation was completed following his statements, which corroborated his statements," said Traci Billingsley, a Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman."Not one inmate has told staff he was assaulted."When The Wall Street Journal asked about the alleged assailant, she said the scenario would be "virtually impossible" because that prisoner lived in a different unit from Mr. Madoff, and each unit was locked down at night.The inmate who currently resides at Butner—as well as former inmates including Kenneth Calvin "K.C." White, whose prison sentence in Butner for bank robbery overlapped with Mr. Madoff's for several weeks this summer—said prisoners of various units interacted throughout the day. Reuters
- The Butner Complex: Includes two medium-security prisons, one low-security prison, a minimum-security prison and a medical facility
- Bernard Madoff: Inmate number 61727-054 in Butner Medium I
- Location: 30 miles north of Raleigh, N.C.
- Population: 786 as of March 11
- Rooms: Unlocked, with bunk beds, a desk and a sink
- Inmate Jobs: May include landscaping, tutoring or work in a textiles factory
- Amenities: Library, recreation yard, canteen , TV privileges with programming rated PG-13 or lower; no Internet access
—U.S. Bureau of Prisons; prison experts Mr. Madoff, who has served about eight months in the prison, lives in an unlocked cell at the medium-security facility tucked in a wooded area on the outskirts of the town of Butner.Mr. Madoff spends free time in the prison library on the weekends and often watches movies, including "Lethal Weapon," according to the former inmate. He said he chatted with the admitted Ponzi schemer on Saturdays in the library and asked for financial advice: "He gave me ideas on my index funds." Mr. Madoff advised him to diversify, saying he should invest in funds that track the S&P 500 index of stocks "where my money would be on all the stocks instead of putting my eggs into one basket," the former inmate said.He said Mr. Madoff also warned him off of day trading. "I was trying to get into day trading and he's like, 'That's not for you. That's for individuals like me with millions to spare,' " he said. He described Mr. Madoff as discreet and select in the company he chose to keep behind bars.The financier often dined with John Mancini, a 56-year-old pharmacist from Wappingers Falls, N.Y., who was sentenced for illegally distributing about five million tablets of the painkiller hydrocodone, the former inmate said. Mr. Mancini's attorney didn't return a call seeking comment.Both inmates said Mr. Madoff also socialized with reputed Colombo crime-family boss Carmine Persico, whose attorney couldn't be reached. Fellow prisoners say Mr. Madoff, who is Inmate No. 61727-054 at Butner, has garnered some respect from inmates because of the breadth of his Ponzi scheme. The fraud caused about $20 billion in net losses by thousands of investors.Since Mr. Madoff's arrest in December 2008, five other individuals have been charged in connection with the fraud. Two have pleaded guilty; the other three have either maintained their innocence or declined to comment. Prosecutors have said there were more alleged co-conspirators in the scheme who worked at the Madoff investment firm.Separately, prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan are building tax-fraud cases against Mr. Madoff's brother and two sons, all of whom worked at Mr. Madoff's investment firm, people familiar with the matter have said. Those men have said they had no knowledge of fraud.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2059 - 20/3/2010, 16:55 | |
| Russia's Vladimir Putin bombards Hillary Clinton with complaints about trade By Mary Beth SheridanWashington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, March 20, 2010 MOSCOW -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin greeted visiting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday with a volley of complaints about trade, while another top Russian official voiced caution about the Obama administration's campaign for tough sanctions on Iran. - Spoiler:
Clinton's meetings, at the end of a two-day trip, reflected continuing tensions in the U.S.-Russia relationship a year after the Obama administration launched a "reset." Although the two sides have moved closer on a range of issues such as arms control and Afghanistan, cooperation remains elusive.
Putin, whom many consider the real power in Russia, agreed only at the last minute to receive Clinton. He then used what was supposed to be a ceremonial photo opportunity at his ornate dacha outside Moscow to criticize the drop in U.S. trade during the global economic crisis, Russia's difficulties in joining the World Trade Organization, and U.S. sanctions that have affected Russian companies -- an apparent reference to penalties on firms doing business with Iran, Syria and North Korea.
Clinton appeared unfazed by the blunt lecture, which her aides chalked up simply to a politician's desire to impress the domestic TV audience. She highlighted how the two sides are close to agreement on a pact to succeed the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, and mentioned a recent visit by high-tech executives to Russia organized by the State Department and the White House. "If we continue to work together, we can move beyond the problems to greater opportunities," she said.
Clinton's agenda in Moscow was dominated by the almost complete agreement on each side to reduce its deployed long-range nuclear weapons and by the U.S.-led drive for tough sanctions on Iran. She also met with international mediators to discuss Middle East peace.
In a news conference earlier Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged caution on Iran sanctions, saying the Kremlin is not alarmed by the Islamic republic's nuclear program and wants to avoid "aggressive" penalties.
His remarks illustrated the difficulties the administration could face in getting the U.N. Security Council to approve new sanctions. One of Clinton's top aides, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns, told reporters on her plane Wednesday that the U.S. government feels "a sense of urgency" about Iran's nuclear program and that "it's time to demonstrate that there are consequences."
But Lavrov said Friday that reports on Iran published regularly by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "do not give reasons for any sort of alarms." He spoke minutes after Clinton had said almost the opposite, pointing to the latest IAEA report, the first to say explicitly that Iran might be trying to build a nuclear bomb.
Lavrov acknowledged that the Kremlin is unhappy with Tehran's latest actions -- which include rejecting a Russian-backed plan aimed at quickly reducing Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium -- and that sanctions are sometimes "impossible to avoid."
He added, however, that sanctions "must not be aggressive, they must not paralyze" Iran, and they should not target the civilian population or have adverse humanitarian consequences. Instead, they should be focused on decision-makers, he said.
Analysts say the Russian government has been torn over the sanctions issue. On the one hand, it was stung to discover Iran's furtive nuclear work last year and angered by its rejection of international offers to ensure that its enriched uranium is used for peaceful purposes.
But powerful lobbies close to the Kremlin are involved in the sale of weapons and nuclear energy equipment to Iran and don't want to lose that trade, analysts say. In addition, the Kremlin fears pushing Iran to the point where it quits the international Non-Proliferation Treaty and bars nuclear inspectors, diplomats say.
Despite Lavrov's reluctant tone on sanctions, Clinton aides appeared heartened Friday. They noted that he had until recently been a harsh critic of such penalties and said his list of conditions for sanctions suggest he is ready to work on a new U.N. resolution.
The United States is focusing on sanctions that would target members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and the businesses they operate.
Russia had sought to water down three previous sets of U.N. sanctions, and its support will be crucial in approving a resolution.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2060 - 21/3/2010, 16:17 | |
| Jusqu'au bout, ils devront menacer, chouchouter, promettre pour "convaincre" et obtenir les voix necessaires... Deadline Flare-Ups Threaten Health Care PassageFOXNews.com A series of last-minute flare-ups threatened to slow the Democrats' march to passage, after more than a year of grueling effort and a turbulent debate that has left the country deeply divided.- Spoiler:
A series of last-minute flare-ups ahead of a Sunday showdown vote on historic health care legislation threatened to slow the Democrats' march to passage, after more than a year of grueling effort and a turbulent debate that has left the country deeply divided.
The most intense focus among lawmakers was on a small group of Democrats concerned that abortion funding restrictions in the legislation do not go far enough. Determined to avoid votes on such a charged issue, Democratic leaders raised the possibility of an executive order from Obama that reaffirms existing federal law barring taxpayer-funded abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday she would not cut a deal to include tighter restrictions on abortion funding in the final health care bill, suggesting that she believes she has enough votes to pass the legislation without them.
Pelosi told Fox News that there will be no vote on a separate bill adding abortion restrictions championed by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. to the final legislation.
A spokeswoman for Stupak added, "discussions are continuing."
I know this is a tough vote," the president told House Democrats at a meeting on Capitol Hill. "It will end up being the smart thing to do politically," Obama said.
"It is in your hands," Obama said, bringing lawmakers to their feet. "It is time to pass health care reform for America and I am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow."
Democratic leaders appeared confident they had the votes needed to pass the landmark legislation Sunday after frenetically hunting for votes inside the Capitol as angry protesters gathered outside with some hurling racial insults at black members of Congress.
Obama can rely only on Democrats to gain passage of his top domestic priority in a make-or-break vote for his presidency. He faces unanimous opposition from Republicans, who say the plan amounts to a government takeover of health care that will lead to higher deficits and taxes.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2061 - 21/3/2010, 16:27 | |
| Netanyahu Won't Restrict Settlement ConstructionAP Israel's prime minister says he would not restrict construction in east Jerusalem, a step requested by the U.S., but would upgrade upcoming indirect talks with the Palestinians to include the main issues dividing them.- Spoiler:
JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday he would not restrict construction in east Jerusalem, a step requested by the U.S., but would upgrade upcoming indirect talks with the Palestinians to include the main issues dividing them.
Netanyahu originally had wanted to put off a discussion of issues like the status of contested east Jerusalem, final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees until direct talks are launched.
It was not clear what Netanyahu's declared refusal to budge on east Jerusalem -- the territory that lies at the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- would mean for future relations with Washington and the rest of the international community.
Netanyahu's moves go nowhere near the U.S. demand to cancel a major new housing project at the heart of the row, but apparently he has offered enough to prompt U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to call them "useful and productive" and dispatch an envoy back to the region this week.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon, who was touring the Gaza Strip on Sunday, told reporters that Netanyahu would be meeting with President Barack Obama while in the U.S. The prime minister's office had no immediate confirmation.
He described Israel's recent opening of Gaza's borders to allow in window frames and other supplies to complete a 151-apartment U.N. housing project in southern Gaza as "a drop in a bucket of water."
The blockade causes "unacceptable suffering" and "undercuts moderates and encourages extremists," he said, after visiting the project in the Khan Younis refugee camp. "My message to the people of Gaza is this: the United Nations will stand with you, through this ordeal."
Most of the 15,000 homes destroyed or damaged during Israel's war in Gaza that ended in January last year have also not been repaired because of the blockade. Israel launched the war after years of militant rocket fire from Gaza on its southern communities.
Hamas police lined the streets in areas Ban visited. They repeatedly prevented journalists from keeping up with the U.N. convoy, blocking roads and repeatedly raising their assault rifles in the direction of the journalists' cars.
The blockade was imposed in 2007 after Hamas violently took over the territory.
Israeli construction in east Jerusalem is such a fraught issue because it challenges Palestinian claims to that sector of the city as a future capital. The announcement of a major new building project during Vice President Joe Biden's visit earlier this month insulted Washington and provoked the biggest rift between the two allies in decades.
That rift has put Netanyahu in a particularly difficult bind, forcing him to find a formula that would repair ties with the U.S. without antagonizing his hawkish coalition, which is resistant to partitioning Jerusalem.
Since the feud erupted, Netanyahu has not announced changes in Israel's policy of allowing unrestricted construction in the eastern sector, home to Jerusalem's holiest sites. And his office denied reports that he promised to slow construction in the city's eastern sector.
"Our policy on Jerusalem is the same as that of all previous Israeli governments in the past 42 years and it hasn't changed," he told his Cabinet at the start of its weekly meeting. "As far as we are concerned, building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv. We made this clear to the U.S. administration."
In a call to Clinton on Thursday, Netanyahu did assure the U.S. that a mechanism would be put in place to ensure that such announcements would not take Washington by surprise again, government officials have said.
But Cabinet ministers said in practice, construction will be restricted -- as it has been in the West Bank since November, when Netanyahu officially agreed to do so under heavy U.S. pressure.
Israel annexed east Jerusalem after capturing it in the 1967 Mideast war. The international community does not recognize the annexation and considers the Jewish construction in east Jerusalem to be settlement building.
Netanyahu also told his Cabinet that the U.S.-brokered talks with the Palestinians would include a discussion of the main issues between them, but added that a "real resolution" of the conflicts could only be achieved in direct talks.
These issues include the status of Jerusalem, final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees from the war around Israel's 1948 creation.
Netanyahu originally had wanted to put off any discussion of these issues until direct talks start.
The row over east Jerusalem construction held up the start of the indirect talks, which are to be brokered by Washington's special Mideast envoy, George Mitchell. After Netanyahu spoke with Clinton, Washington announced that Mitchell would return to the region this week to try to get the talks moving.
He is to meet with Netanyahu before the prime minister sets off for Washington and on Monday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Mitchell has said he wanted indirect talks between the leaders to begin as soon as possible.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2062 - 22/3/2010, 09:13 | |
| The Biggest Abuse of Power and Arrogance Washington Has Ever SeenBy Andrea Tantaros- FOXNews.com The "change we can believe in" from President Obama and the Democrats has resulted in a health care bill that is virtually unbelievable. Welcome to the divided states of America.- Spoiler:
In President Obama’s first State of the Union address, only mere months ago, he pledged to focus on jobs and stressed that it would be priority number one. After last night’s contested, contentious and downright partisan vote on health care, one that took rule manipulation and arm-twisting to achieve, it is clear that perversion and power lust are paramount to all else.
It is the biggest abuse of power and demonstration of arrogance ever shown by Washington, and it surely is the most gigantic and life-altering legislative move of my generation. In short, its impact can’t be underestimated.
America, after a year long battle, we've learned a lot.
We now know all about the secret deals: the Cornhusker Kickback, The Gator Aid and the Louisiana Purchase that use taxpayer money that our country doesn’t have to bribe lawmakers for their votes.
We know that this bill will not maintain quality. What is likely to happen for the average person is that the government will exert pressure to keep premiums lower and the industry will respond by offering standardized, shoddy and non-innovative products.
We know that people will now be fighting political battles to get a CAT scan or a cancer drug. Those who are ill won’t get the care they need because of some insurance company rule (that was ultimately determined by the government).
Shortly before the vote on Sunday evening, Speaker Pelosi and other Democratic so-called “feminists” called being a woman a “pre-existing condition”and argued that this bill will solve these injustices. Waiting for breast cancer screenings until age 50 is now in our the future. This bill is a nightmare for women and a nightmare for a sick person.
We know the premise that this will reduce the deficit is a hoax. The Congressional Budget Office does its analysis in a vacuum. It needs to complete its score based on assumption. Democrats can write anything into a bill and the CBO must do the tally. Even if the left writes into a bill that the revenues from a piece of legislation that will bring down the debt are coming from a pot of gold, guarded by a magic unicorn at the end of a rainbow in 2017, the CBO must score it. All of the “assumptions” that are written into this bill as almost as unlikely as that magic pot of gold (like the tax on Cadillac insurance plans in 2017).
We know, too, that once you go down the slippery slope of offering government subsidies, it’s almost impossible to climb back up. The penalty for not having insurance under the bill is far less than the cost of insurance, meaning that the people who will obtain insurance are the people who participate in the welfare portion of the new program and get these subsidies. Average Americans will be paying for all these new welfare recipients with income we don't have because of the lack of jobs we so desperately need.
Even worse, others will wait until they are sick to get insurance. You and I will be paying for the freeloaders who break their legs, sign up for insurance upon arrival to the hospital and then throw their membership out with their crutches. This is a growing issue in Massachusetts where Romneycare is failing. Democrats didn’t have the political guts to make the penalty for failure to obtain insurance high enough. Because of that cowardly move we all will pay.
We know that the most disgraceful premise of this bill uses the U.S. tax code to legislate a liberal value. Forcing people to buy insurance is unprecedented. Our government has taxed us for what we buy (i.e.: tobacco) but they have never taxed us on what we don’t buy. It’s akin to telling us what kind of car to purchase or where to buy groceries! It will open the door to whole host of mandates beyond health insurance. It didn’t work in the Soviet Union and it won’t work here.
We know that under President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid the title of “United” States of America no longer applies. Though candidate Obama ran on a promise to change the way Washington worked, President Obama has only exacerbated it.
The change we can believe in has resulted in something that is virtually unbelievable. We know that there is now one thing left to do: since Speaker Pelosi couldn’t drain the swamp as she pledged to, the American people will have to do it for her.
Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and FoxNews.com contributor. Follow her on Twitter @andreatantaros.
. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2063 - 22/3/2010, 12:22 | |
| Au tour du Senat de voter sur les "ameliorations" apportees par les Representants Democrates au texte precedemment passe au Senat et vote hier a la Chambre par 219 voix contre 212. Tant qu'ils etaient dans la fosse, ils en ont profite pour passer a 220 a 211 leur accord pour que le Senat en utilisant la "reconciliation" (51 voix necessaires au lieu des 60 coutumieres). Comme ca, question ethique et responsabilite envers les Americains qu'ils sont tout de meme supposes representer, c'est la totale!  House Votes to Pass Health Care Bill, Send 'Fixes' Back to SenateFOXNews.com A bloc of pro-life Democrats turned out to be the linchpin to passage of the Senate's massive health insurance overhaul Sunday night, as President Obama cemented a 219-212 victory with a pledge to issue an executive order "clarifying" abortion language in the Senate bill.- Spoiler:
A bloc of pro-life Democrats turned out to be the linchpin to passage of the Senate's massive health insurance overhaul Sunday night, as President Obama cemented a 219-212 victory with a pledge to issue an executive order "clarifying" abortion language in the Senate bill.The House also voted 220-211 to support a "reconciliation" bill aimed to "fix" provisions in the Senate bill that many House Democrats opposed but viewed as better than nothing. The Senate was scheduled to begin debate on those "fixes" on Tuesday, the earliest day that Obama would sign the original legislation. The president delivered a statement after the vote, calling the "reform" the "right thing to do" for families, seniors, businesses, workers and the future and "another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American dream.""The United States Congress finally declared that America's workers and America's families and small businesses deserve the security of knowing that here in this country neither illness nor accident should endanger the dreams they worked a lifetime to achieve," Obama said in the East Room of the White House as Vice President Joe Biden stood beside him."We proved that this government, a government of the people and by the people, still works for the people," he said. "I know this wasn't an easy vote for a lot of people but it was the right vote."This isn't radical reform, but it is major reform. This is what change looks like," Obama added. Thirty-four Democrats voted against the Senate bill, whose passage turned out to be incumbent upon the president satisfying pro-life Democrats like Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who insisted on stronger restrictions on abortion than the Senate's bill. The Senate bill allows insurance companies who participate in a planned government-run exchange to provide abortions but attempts to create separate accounts for those using federal subsidies who might seek abortion services. Stupak had claimed he had at least seven votes with him against the Senate bill. They turned out to be more than enough to make or break the bill. On Sunday afternoon, he said the president's promise of an executive order was enough to win over the group, even though pro-choice groups slammed Obama as a sell-out to their cause and pro-life groups said the order would change nothing in the Senate bill.Republicans too called the executive order a toothless regulation that does not have the force of law and can easily be overturned with a strike of the pen. After the vote for passage, GOP lawmakers sought to send the Senate bill back to the House committee with language asking for additional protections against tax-funded abortions like those successfully proposed by Stupak in the House legislation that passed in November. The president's executive order does "absolutely nothing to mitigate or change" in any way the Senate's provisions on abortion accounts, said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.But Stupak, who was greeted with shouts of "baby killer," responded that Republicans were merely trying to kill the bill, not save lives."The motion is really a last-ditch effort of 98 years of denying Americans health care," Stupak said. "It is the Democrats who have stood up for the principal of no public funding of abortions. It is Democrats through the president's executive order that ensure the sanctity of life is protected."House leaders on both sides of the aisle gave impassioned pleas before the final vote Sunday night, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praising Obama's leadership and House Minority Leader John Boehner warning congressional members against defying the will of the American people.Clearly angered by the impending vote, Boehner shouted at lawmakers that they can not go back to their constituents and claim to have read the bill, saved money, created jobs or acted openly in their pursuit of the legislation.Saying the actions taken by the House to get the bill passed discredits the Congress, Boehner, R-Ohio, slowly raised his voice as he demanded lawmakers answer simple questions."Can you go home and tell your senior citizens that these cuts in Medicare will not limit their access to doctors or further weaken the program instead of strengthening it? No, you can not," Boehner said to shouts of support from his GOP caucus. "And look at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability without backroom deals struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell, no you can't."Boehner warned lawmakers that they will have to face the music if they vote for the legislation."In a democracy you can only defy the will of the people for so long and get away with it," he said.Despite his dire warnings, Boehner was followed by Pelosi, who earned an equally passionate response from her Democratic colleagues."We all know, and it's been said over and over again, that our economy needs something, a jolt and I believe that this legislation will unleash tremendous entrepreneurial power to our economy,"Pelosi said. "Imagine a society and an economy where a person could change jobs without losing health insurance, where they could be self-employed or start a small business. Imagine an economy where people could follow their passions or their talent and without having to worry that their children would not have health insurance."Pelosi pledged the new legislation would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and save $1.2 trillion in its second 10 years, numbers predicated on unlikely scenarios, including Congress' withholding its authority to make discretionary spending changes to the bill and future Medicare savings. But Pelosi said when it comes to health care, all politics is personal for Americans, including those who are denied coverage for illnesses they already have when they try to sign up for insurance. "It's personal for millions of families that have gone into bankruptcy under the weight of rising health care costs. Many, many, many, a high number percentage of the bankruptcies in our country are caused by medical bills that people can not pay," Pelosi said."Being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition," she added. After the vote, Democratic leaders spoke to the press. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the majority whip, called Pelosi the most "tenacious" person he'd ever met. He added that the bill is "a giant step toward the establishment of a more perfect union." "I consider this to be the civil rights act of the 21st century because I do believe this is the one fundamental right that this country has been wrestling with now for almost 100 years," Clyburn said. Earlier, the House voted 224-206 to approve the rules for debating the Senate bill. House Republicans did all they could to slow the increasingly inevitable march toward the overhaul and were joined by 28 Democrats who voted with Republicans against the rule for debate. Once the fixes bill goes back to the Senate, lawmakers were expected to approve a series of "fixes" aimed at getting rid of special deals for some districts and states, including the "cornhusker kickback" for Nebraska and others made to win Senate support.Obama will have to sign the Senate bill into law before any fixes bill goes to the Senate under rules designed to enable Democrats to pass the bill with 51 votes, thus avoiding a Republican filibuster. Democrats control 59 of the Senate's 100 seats, one vote shy of the number needed to overcome bill-killing filibusters from a united GOP.But senators have given no guarantees they will pass the fixes, which are strictly the wishes of House Democrats.Any reconciliation package that does get sent to the Senate is facing a block -- or at least a delay -- from Senate Republicans who will try to use "hundreds" of amendments to stop the fixes."We're not going to try to drag this out forever with amendments, but I do think it's important to try to amend some portions of the bill and at least use the amendment process to demonstrate to the American people some of the things that are still wrong with this bill," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.Much may hinge on the judgments of an unelected figure, Senate Parliamentarian Allan Frumin, who will enforce the so-called "Byrd rule," named after the Democratic senator from West Virginia. The rule holds that any provisions in a reconciliation bill that do not firstly and chiefly affect the budget must be stricken from the measures.
"There are some provisions that have -- clearly, (the Congressional Budget Office) has scored as having zero or no budgetary consequence," said Bill Hoagland, a one-time aide to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "They're not important, they're not significant in the grand scheme of things. But just to have one would be enough to create the point of order and, if sustained by the chair, would create this situation where it would have to go back to the House again."Of course, the parliamentarian's rulings are not the final word in the Senate. That authority belongs to the president of the Senate, currently Vice President Joe Biden.Leading Democrats hinted on Sunday that they may invoke Biden's authority to shut down the GOP.  n'est-ce- pas? "We're going to deal with honest amendments on substance that meet the test of the Senate rules," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "But there is going to come a point when the American people and the people in the Senate are going to say this really isn't about substance, it's all about politics. Now let's make a final decision, up or down vote."Republicans may also argue that select provisions of the bill impact Social Security, and if that argument carries the day, it would, under Senate rules, effectively kill the bill.Fox News' James Rosen contributed to this report
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 22/3/2010, 13:55 | |
| Aaah Nancy  What a... nice person.  Pelosi Heckled As She Walks Through Protesters With Gavel In Hand
Video
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats purposely walked through protesters in the Capitol with her gavel in hand. They were shouting "kill the bill."Il faut ajouter que des Representants du Tea Party ont ete arretes dans les couloirs du Congres. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2065 - 22/3/2010, 14:40 | |
| Breath In - Breath Out Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL ..... Positively Sickening! 
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 22/3/2010, 18:26, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 22/3/2010, 15:18 | |
| Si Nancy nous avait promis de nettoyer Washington, elle nous a montre comment (message precedent)... le POTUS, lui avait promis transparence et travail en cooperation entre les deux partis politiques. Le deuxieme, de toute evidence, n'existe pas, la premiere, pas vraiment non plus!
Senate Won’t Release Letter to Calm Nervous House Members on Reconciliation
March 19, 2010, 5:23 p.m.
By Emily Pierce
Roll Call Staff |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2068 - 23/3/2010, 21:46 | |
| States Plot to Block, Limit Health Care Reform BillBy Judson Berger- FOXNews.com Virginia and Florida became the first two states to file lawsuits against the new health insurance law signed by President Obama Tuesday as dozens of states scramble to put up legislative barricades between themselves and the bill requiring Americans purchase health insurance.- Spoiler:
The proverbial ink had yet to dry on the nation's new health care reform law Tuesday before two states -- Virginia and Florida -- filed lawsuits and more scrambled to put up legislative barricades between themselves and the bill requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or face stiff penalties.
The tactics, employed everywhere from Arizona to Virginia, are the strongest sign that the health care reform fight is far from over.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced he dropped off his challenge at the court at 12:02 p.m. ET, minutes after President Obama's signing ceremony to usher in the massive overhaul. Virginia Solicitor General E. Duncan Getchell walked the six blocks from the state attorney general's office in Richmond to the U.S. District Court to file his claim that the federal law conflicts with recently passed Virginia law saying no resident shall be required to "maintain or obtain" personal coverage.
At least 36 state legislatures so far have proposed measures to challenge the constitutionality of the new federal bill, while 29 states are also calling for ballot questions to amend their constitutions and 13 are looking to change state law.
Some states are doing both.
"They're all very different," said Michelle Blackston, spokeswoman for the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is tracking the proposals.
Most states are seeking to prevent their residents from having to follow the new federal requirement to buy health insurance or to pay the coming fines if they don't. Virginia and Idaho already have enacted such laws.
Others are working their way through the legislative process, according to NCSL.
An Arizona proposal to block the so-called "individual mandate" has passed both legislative chambers. A Utah proposal that requires state permission to enact provisions of the federal law has also passed both chambers; a similar measure to Virginian and Idaho has passed one chamber in Tennessee and Georgia; and resolutions on state constitutional amendments have advanced in Florida and Missouri.
Click here to see a list of state legislative actions.
Some of the actions taken require a simple majority while others require two-thirds approval for passage, meaning an overwhelming portion of state lawmakers would have to object to the federal plan.
One problem facing all the state proposals is that federal law generally trumps state law. Constitutional experts say this means, until a court decision comes along to back them up, the state legislatures' action are mostly symbolic.
But citizen challenges are expected, and at least a dozen state attorneys general have announced their intention to file lawsuits challenging the bill.
Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, said the interplay between the court cases and the state proposals is key.
He said the state laws prohibiting the mandate from being enforced may not actually stop residents from being fined for not purchasing insurance in the near-term, but they could strengthen the court cases of those challenging the health care bill.
And, in turn, the states may rely on a high-level court decision to be able to exert their independence.
"Ultimately, I think the courts are going to have to resolve this," he said.
Turley said the myriad legal challenges will probably be consolidated and reach the appeals court level, if not the Supreme Court.
"I think the justices would certainly give this a close read for possible review," Turley said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2069 - 23/3/2010, 22:05 | |
| RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlogBy Jay CostMarch 22, 2010 Obamacare politically vulnerableLiberal commentators are comparing the passage of ObamaCare to other landmark pieces of legislation - like Social Security and Medicare. - Spoiler:
I agree that in the provision of social welfare, this bill ranks nearly as high. But when you examine how the welfare is provided - it is strikingly inferior. Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson made use of an ingenious social insurance system - promoting the idea that we all pay in today to take out tomorrow. It was consistent with American individualism. It was simple. It was intuitive. It was bipartisan.Obama's new system has none of those virtues. It's an impenetrable labyrinth of new taxes, benefits, and regulations, passed on the narrowest of possible majorities with more than 10% of the Democratic caucus joining every Republican. Even Wile E. Coyote would be embarrassed by its inefficiencies. Still, the thought among its proponents at the moment is that the legislation, once enacted, cannot be repealed. It will have the benefit of our system's strong "status quo bias." Accordingly, expect yesterday's critics of the filibuster to become its valiant defenders should push come to shove.The status quo bias is a very real thing, and it makes the Republican efforts to modify or repeal challenging. The GOP must control the entire government by January, 2013 to enact major changes to the legislation. By then, the thinking goes among proponents, those with a personal stake in preserving the legislation will be in place to protect it, just as seniors have been on guard against raids on Social Security.Yet it's not that simple. The Democrats crammed a $2 trillion bill into a $1 trillion package by delaying the distribution of most benefits for four years, until 2014. This creates two major political vulnerabilities for ObamaCare. The first is an imbalance between winners and losers through the next two elections. Harold Lasswell defined politics as who gets what, when, and how. By this metric, ObamaCare is bad politics for the foreseeable future. Like any major piece of legislation, this bill assigns winners and losers. The winners will be those who today are uninsured, but who will (eventually) acquire insurance. But there will not be a major reduction in the uninsured until 2014. So, the actual winners are going to be pretty few in number for some time.Meanwhile, the losers begin to feel the effects immediately. Between now and the next presidential election, ObamaCare is going to pay out virtually zero dollars in benefits, but it will take billions out of Medicare. This is bad for seniors. They have an incentive to oppose portions of this bill (while supporting others, like the closing of the "Doughnut Hole," which Republicans will never repeal). While the Democrats will claim that this reduction in benefits will have no effect on the quality of their care, CBO is much less certain:Under the legislation, CBO expects that Medicare spending would increase significantly more slowly during the next two decades than it has increased during the past decades (per beneficiary, after adjusting for inflation). It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of spending could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care. (Emphasis mine) The italicized sentence is an enormous political problem for the Democratic Party. After decades of developing a reputation for defending the interests of senior citizens, the Democrats have put it in serious jeopardy with this legislation. And they've done so right at the moment when demographic shifts are making the senior population more powerful than ever. Why create such an imbalance between winners and losers? The Democrats are not fools. Why would they do this?The answer is pretty simple: to hide the true cost of the bill. They don't want to push a $2 trillion program now because this country is facing the greatest deficit crisis it's seen in decades - and such a price tag does not make for good politics these days. These budgetary gimmicks enabled them to pass the bill, winning over enough self-described "deficit hawks" in the Blue Dog wing of the party to limp to 219 in the House last night. Yet their smoke and mirrors can only mask, not alter the reality, which is this: at a time when the country is facing an enormous deficit problem, the Democrats have created another significant financial obligation for Uncle Sam. This is the second major political vulnerability of ObamaCare.It's easy to forget these days, seeing as how we've been on a 15-year break from the politics of deficit reduction, just how brutal it tends to be. If you want to know why the parties have become so polarized in the last 30 years, the deficit is a big part of the answer. When Reagan indexed the tax code and stopped runaway inflation, governmental bean counters couldn't depend on bracket creep to solve future imbalances between taxes and spending - and so the lines between the two parties were drawn starkly and clearly. Deficit reducers always have to choose between two undesirable alternatives: cut spending or raise taxes. The problem with both tactics is that somebody loses while nobody really wins. The benefits of a reduced deficit are diffused across the population and are but weakly felt. Tax increases or spending cuts are felt directly and intensely. Typically, to balance the budget, somebody has to be made worse off tomorrow than they are today.But not when it comes to ObamaCare, at least not prior to 2014. The benefits could be altered to ease the deficit burden without making anybody worse off tomorrow than they are today. Of course, the beneficiaries of the subsidies would not be as well off tomorrow as they expect to be, but that's different from being made worse off. That could be an important distinction if the politics of deficit reduction are as fiercely zero-sum as they have been in decades past. If it comes down to a choice between a new tax on the middle class or scaling back the unimplemented provisions of ObamaCare, guess what the policymakers in Washington, D.C. will choose.We're definitely heading toward some kind of hard choice about the deficit. If we weren't, the Democrats wouldn't have employed all those gimmicks to claim that the bill costs less than $1 trillion. They know people are worried about this issue.Last week, President Obama said again and again that the time for talk is over. Yet this week he's going on the road to defend his new bill.This is why. ObamaCare is politically vulnerable. It lacks the bipartisan support that created and protected new entitlements in decades past. The public does not have confidence in it. Worst of all, it creates an imbalance between winners and losers for four years, and it amounts to a staggeringly expensive new entitlement at a time when the country has to think hard about how to trim its sails.Follow me now on Twitter!
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 24/3/2010, 07:10 | |
| Comme je l'avais predit la promesse* faite aux pro-lifers juste avant le vote de dimanche pas n'a pas ete tenue, le POTUS n'ayant pas signe l'"Acte Executif" en meme temps que la loi hier... * Promesse, on ne peut pas parler d'un accord s'il n'est pas respecte et encore moins, s'il n'a jamais ete question qu'il le soit (Nancy etant totalement pour le paiement des avortements par les assurances enfin pour etre plus exacte, par ce qui sera l'assurance gouvernementale siquand elle parvient(dra) a ses fins) On Health Care Day, Obama Skips Signing Executive Order on Abortion; Stupak, on Defense, Compares Order to Emancipation ProclamationPresident Obama signed the Senate health care bill into law Tuesday. He did not sign the executive order on abortion negotiated with Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak in an 11th-hour arrangement that may well have saved the entire health care reform effort.- Spoiler:
A White House official told Fox, Obama will not sign the Executive Order Tuesday and has set no specific date to do so. Stupak predicted Obama would sign the order later this week. The White House said only that Obama would sign the order "soon."In two celebratory speeches Tuesday - one at the bill's signing, the other at the Interior Department with health care advocates - Obama said nothing about the abortion issue or the executive order.Stupak, meanwhile, is under fire for accepting the order as his price for supporting the health care overhaul legislation, which passed on a vote of 219-212.Stupak released a statement today defending the as-yet-unsigned executive order, placing it on a list of other significant orders that included Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and Harry Truman's 1948 order desegregating the U.S. armed forces."Throughout history, Executive Orders have been an important means of implementing public policy," Stupak said in a statement. "The most famous Executive Order was the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln in 1863."The Stupak-negotiated abortion executive order has drawn withering criticism from pro-life groups. Stupak called the attacks "disingenuous."“This Executive Order has the full force and effect of law and makes very clear that current law of no public funding for abortion applies to the new health care reform legislation," Stupak's statement said.The White House contends the executive order merely re-states existing law under the Hyde amendment that prohibits direct federal funding of abortion through Medicaid."He believes that the bill maintains the status quo and he thinks the executive order reiterates that strong belief," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of Obama's take on the underlying bill and the executive order. "What the bill does and what the executive order does is underscore that the status quo is preserved."It's not clear the support of Stupak and a handful of other pro-life Democrats guaranteed the bill's passage."I'm not sure that that's altogether knowable," Gibbs said. What is clear is the deal gave House Democrats sufficient pad to protect dozens of members from the expected Republican election-year taunt that any one lawmaker who voted yes was the decisive vote. Republicans used that strategy successfully in 1994 to defeat many House Democrats after then-President Bill Clinton's budget, a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, passed in the House by one vote.Here is the list of previous executive orders Stupak cited as important as the one accompanying today's freshly signed health care law.• In 2007 President Bush signed Executive Order 13435 restricting embryonic stem cell research.• In 1863 President Lincoln issued Executive Order 95, more commonly known as The Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in states rebelling against the United States.• With a series of executive orders in 1962 and 1963 President Kennedy imposed trade and travel restrictions with Cuba. President Carter let some restrictions lapse but they were reinstated by President Reagan. It wasn’t until 1992 that Congress codified the embargo against Cuba, but the restrictions had already been in place most of the prior 30 years by Executive Order.• In 1948 President Truman issued Executive Order 9981 to desegregate the Armed Forces.
----- Alors, Si! le POTUS va bien signer aujourd'hui l'ordre executif au cours d'une ceremonie privee a laquelle les elus pro-life dont il est question au debut de ce message, seront invites.  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2071 - 24/3/2010, 11:48 | |
| Sunday's Socialist Triumph
By John Stossel
March 24, 2010
Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday launched the Democrats' argument for the health care bill, claiming, "This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country." Does that suggest that opposition is un-American?
...
If they can stand up to the coming propaganda, America may be free, and the life of the wider free world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.
But if the voters succumb to those seven months of blandishments and deceptions, then free America -- including all that we have known and cared for -- will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
Article complet... |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2072 - 24/3/2010, 12:25 | |
| Joy and bitterness over Obamacare O'Reilly - Video |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2072 - 24/3/2010, 12:42 | |
| Je n'apprecie pas particulierement le Papa, mais j'aime bien le fils. Costs of this debacle will be high Republican Rep. Paul Ryan voted no on Sunday. Here's his take on health care reform. By Paul Ryan - Spoiler:
 Ryan
strict |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2074 - This one says it all!! 24/3/2010, 13:38 | |
| Noemie Emery: Congress lags behind public moodBy: Noemie Emery
Examiner Columnist
March 24, 2010
History was made Sunday in several ways. The bill passed is a historical change, and a massive expansion of government. It was also the first major bill to be passed against the will of the country, to be passed by only one part of one party, and in the face of a wave of public revulsion, expressed over 10 months in such different outlets as mass demonstrations, three big elections, and polls. - Spoiler:
It was not only not bipartisan, but it was less than one party, in the sense that the great war of passage was the attempt by the leaders to force their members to vote in a way that outraged their constituents, by way of threats, ultimatums and bribes.
It is the first bill whose supporters say they have to sell it now after passage, as they failed so spectacularly to sell it the first time. It is the first whose passage was greeted with cries for repeal by so many mainstream and respected political leaders, the first to be challenged in court right off the bat by two different state governments, with thirty-plus more in the wings.
If this has the sense of a civic rebellion, it is one, and for a good reason: The members of Congress who passed the bill are the constitutionally and legitimately elected representatives of the voters in question, but, at least in this instance, they are legislating consciously and defiantly against those voters' will.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., voted for health care, and Nebraska detests it. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., voted for health care, and Arkansas hates it. Massachusetts' two senators were proud sponsors of health care when it passed in December, and three weeks later the state elected Sen. Scott Brown on a pledge to oppose it.
There is a disconnect here between Congress and voters that is causing the system to buckle in places, as voters maneuver and struggle to make themselves heard. Passage increased the debate and the anger, instead of resolving them. They won't be resolved very soon.
Obama and Congress came to us in two "wave" elections, reacting to different events, 2006 came after the worst month in Iraq since the invasion and was the response to it, one year after Katrina and the government's failure to handle it; and it came after a torrent of scandals concerning the Republican Party in Congress.
Do the names Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay ring bells?
They should, as revulsion with them is one reason health care is passing.
Another reason health care is passing is the panic and meltdown in the fall of 2008. Iraq had been stabilized, and John McCain led in early September, but the financial implosion changed everything: Independents and swing states swung hard to Obama, leading him in the end to a seven point margin, pickups in purple and red states, and very large gains in the Senate and House.
Congress stayed where it was, but by mid-2009 the independents and swing states had moved back to the center, fleeing Obama and his agenda, while the liberals in office remained. Elections in 2009 would have solved this, but there were just two of them. The rest have to simmer, and wait.
As National Review put it, "The Democratic supermajorities already seem like the product of a passing mood on the part of the public." The mood has passed on, as of July 2009, but the country is stuck with the Congress it brought along with it.
So the voters have taxation with misrepresentation, and discontent and the anger roll on.
Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2075 - 24/3/2010, 13:47 | |
| Former GE CEO Jack Welch: Obamacare costs going to be "out of sight"
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
03/23/10 5:22 PM EDT
The legendary businessman is dubious about the financial claims surrounding Obamacare:
The newly passed overhaul of the nation’s health care system is expected to push expenses "out of sight" and cost the country "a couple trillion dollars," Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, told CNBC.
Welch said while he doubts that employees will be laid off due to the expense of health care, the cost of the new policy is going to be “out of sight.”
“I think we're talking about a couple trillion dollars…of overage, not savings," he said.
It sounds like Welch and the CEO of Caterpillar are on the same page. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2076 - 24/3/2010, 14:18 | |
| La madame, la a droite, Nancy , la Presidente de l'Assemblee, a 11% de taux d'approbation aupres des Americains... On dirait pas, hein comme ca..., elle est contente, contente d'elle... (j'allais mettre quelque chose de personnel et de pas gentil, je me retiens, c'est dur, mais je me retiens!) ReutersMarch 23: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) (L) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (R) shake hands across Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C) to show their unity on the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, during remarks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington.=========Alors pour en revenir aux choses serieuses.Obama and Netanyahu Hold Closed-Door TalksAP In a break with custom that seemed linked to the crisis complicating U.S.-Israel relations, reporters were not invited to see the leaders shake hands and begin their talks.- Spoiler:
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Tuesday in an unusual pair of low-profile meetings at the White House amid a serious dispute about settlement construction.
In a break with custom that seemed linked to the crisis complicating U.S.-Israel relations, reporters were not invited to see them shake hands and begin their talks. It is highly unusual for a visiting ally not to be seen with the president, either for photographs or statements.
At issue is Israel's announcement two weeks ago, as Vice President Joe Biden visited, that it will build 1,600 new apartments in east Jerusalem, the largely Arab section of the disputed holy city. Palestinians claim east Jerusalem as the capital of a future state and have delayed new U.S.-sponsored peace talks over what they say is an Israeli land grab.
Obama and Netanyahu initially conferred for about 90 minutes in the Oval Office -- a half-hour longer than scheduled. After that meeting, Obama retired to the residence while Netanyahu stayed behind in the White House to consult with his staff in the Roosevelt Room, a White House official said late Tuesday.
Netanyahu then asked for a second meeting with Obama, who came back downstairs to the Oval Office for another 35 minutes of talks with the prime minister, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive diplomatic issue.
Although they met for a total of two hours, the White House did not issue a formal statement on what was discussed in either meeting, another break with custom. Israeli officials also had no comment.
Israel on Tuesday unveiled a grandiose plan for hotels, businesses and new housing for Palestinians in the center of east Jerusalem, but the announcement only brought Palestinian suspicion that it was an unacceptable payoff for new building in Jewish neighborhoods. The plan calls for developing a large area across from the Old City wall for tourism and commerce, as well as building 1,000 additional apartments.
On Capitol Hill, Netanyahu received a warm public reception from Congress on Tuesday, with a top Democrat and Republican joining to praise a leader who has refused to back down in a disagreement the White House says threatens new peace talks.
The bipartisan welcome underscored the breadth of congressional support for Israel even when a U.S. president wants to keep his distance. And it pointed to the limited options, beyond verbal rebukes, that the Obama administration faces in pressuring the Jewish state.
"We in Congress stand by Israel," the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., assured Netanyahu at an all-smiles appearance before the cameras. "In Congress we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel."
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton greeted Netanyahu this week with a polite rebuke. Expansionist Israeli housing policies erode trust and the U.S. position as an honest broker, she said. Netanyahu's public reply came quickly: Jews have built their homes in Jerusalem for centuries and will continue, he told a pro-Israel audience.
U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell spent Sunday and Monday shuttling between Israeli and Palestinian officials. He returned to Washington for meetings on Tuesday but appeared to have made little headway with the Palestinians. The State Department said the administration had "seen progress" from Mitchell's discussion but gave no dates for the start of a new round of talks with Mitchell as go-between.
P.J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman, told The Associated Press that the U.S. and Israel were currently engaged in "give and take."
"We are not going to talk about the precise steps both sides have to take. We will continue to discuss those steps privately," Crowley said.
There is no percentage for the Obama White House in taking on Israel too directly. Like lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Obama is mindful that American Jewish backers of Israel are traditionally reliable political supporters for Democrats.
Both nations are now trying to move on without backing down. But on Capitol Hill, lawmakers lavished praise on Israel.
"We have no stronger ally anywhere in the world than Israel," said House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "We all know we're in a difficult moment. I'm glad the prime minister is here so we can have an open dialogue."
Pelosi and Boehner both pointed to the threat from Iran as a top concern and an area in which the United States will cooperate with Israel. Netanyahu thanked his congressional hosts for what he called warm, bipartisan support.
"We face two great challenges," Netanyahu said, a "quest for peace with our Palestinian neighbors" and stopping Iran from developing atomic weapons.
Obama has remained out of the fray as Clinton and other U.S. officials have rebuked Israel.
Netanyahu's visit was planned before the housing dispute, and the Obama administration appears eager to let the awkwardly timed visit pass with as little public remark as possible. Both countries are eager to defuse the tensions but have refused to detail what promises Netanyahu is making to ease the most serious diplomatic breach between the two nations in decades.
In his meeting with Pelosi, Netanyahu said Israel had been building in east Jerusalem since the 1967 Mideast war, when it captured the West Bank from Jordan and would continue, according to Netanyahu's office.
The United States and other would-be international peacemakers have never recognized Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem and equate the Jewish concentrations there with Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The West Bank would make up the bulk of a future Palestinian state, and Palestinians claim that Jewish building leaves them with less space and undesirable or unworkable borders.
The Palestinian demand for a halt to building in Jerusalem as a precondition for peace talks, Netanyahu said, will serve only to delay peace talks further. Netanyahu said the sides "must not be trapped by an unreasonable and illogical demand."
Tensions between the U.S. and it main Mideast ally were palpable on Monday when Netanyahu abruptly rescheduled the venue and format of a meeting with Clinton. Instead of seeing her before photographers at the State Department, Netanyahu had Clinton come to his hotel suite for a private, one-on-one talk without aides present, U.S. officials said.
That was followed by a private dinner at Vice President Joe Biden's home that was meant to salve hurt feelings. Biden was visiting Jerusalem when Netanyahu's government announced the major building plan. Netanyahu said he was unaware of the move, blaming low-level bureaucrats, but Biden condemned the step in a written statement and Clinton followed up with an angry phone call to the prime minister
. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2077 - 24/3/2010, 18:47 | |
| Ca alors c'est marrant quand on pense qu'il a mis un plan tout a fait comparable a l'OBamacare dans le Machachuchet J'ai du mal a comprendre des gens super-intelligent (rien a voir avec Bush 43, hein) qui insistent a reproduire ce qui n'a pas marche. Romney Launches “Prescription for Repeal”March 24, 2010 - 10:21 AM | by: Anita Siegfriedt Mitt Romney’s 'Free and Strong America' PAC announced a new donation program today called 'Prescription for Repeal.'According to a release, the program's aim is to "support conservative candidates who will repeal the worst aspects of Obamacare and restore commonsense principles to healthcare."The first endorsements go to three conservatives in key Ohio Congressional Districts.Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio’s Second Congressional District who is running for reelection to her third full term.Representative Steve Chabot, who served as Congressman in Ohio’s First Congressional District for fourteen years is running for his old seat.Steve Stivers, a former State Senator running for Ohio’s Fifteenth Congressional District. His opponent, Representative Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), voted in favor of healthcare reform.The PAC will send each endorsed candidate a primary election contribution of $2,500.“America has unfortunately been taken down the wrong path by President Obama, which is why it’s critical we elect fiscally-responsible conservative leaders who will restore commonsense principles to healthcare,” said Romney. |
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
(j'emprunte, Bran)