Montclair NJ, Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11) endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg for president. Congresswoman Sherrill represents New Jersey’s 11th District. Sherrill serves as Freshman Whip for the New Democrat Coalition, and sits on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. She is also the Chairwoman of the Environment Subcommittee for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Senator Bernie Sanders offered a full-throated endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, urging his supporters to get behind the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But many of his most loyal followers are not feeling it just yet.
Disappointment in Mr. Sanders cascaded across the internet as he embraced his former rival, describing her as a comrade in the fight to overhaul a rigged campaign finance system and lift the poor out of poverty. The sadness was most evident on the Facebook page where the Vermont senator explained his decision in a message titled “Forever forward” that drew responses infused with a skeptical refrain: Never Hillary.
“You broke my heart and betrayed the left Senator Sanders,” wrote Cesar Agusto Diaz, a Sanders supporter from New York.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) last week turned his back on calls for him to save his party as a last-minute candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. His excuse was that he had a lot of work to do in the House.
He’s not lying.
The first order of business is protecting the GOP majority from the prospect of collapse withDonald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) at the top of the ticket in November. Right now, about 20 of the 30 Republican House seats the Democrats need to win to claim the majority are in danger.
To try to reinforce the party’s defenses against that challenge, Ryan had to break fundraising records in the first quarter of the year, hauling in $11 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee. He needs to beat that pace in the second quarter.
And Ryan will have to find those dollars while Trump continues to whip the GOP base into a frenzy against the party’s Washington establishment— including raising the specter of riots at the Republican National Convention. There is no more obvious personification of that establishment than the party’s top elected official – the very same Speaker.
Trump is increasing the pressure with daily accusations that the establishment is manipulating the delegate selection rules to steal the nomination from him.
The ugly work that went into the massive pork-filled omnibus spending bill snaking its way through congress is now starting to be exposed.
And it’s not for the faint at heart. Members of congress had little input in the bill and didn’t even in many cases know what was in it.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Republican of Alabama, in a blistering interview Thursday night, shed some light on the details.
According to Sessions, lawmakers found out what was in the bill by talking to lobbyists, who had a better idea than they did as to what was being included in the bill. “No member of even the House and Senate knew what was going on,” he told Portland, Oregon talk show host Lars Larson. “Special interests did because we heard from lobbyists what some things were being considered.”
Sessions went on to note that basically four members of congress put the deal together without consulting their colleagues. “It’s not right for ultimately four members, in secret — for reasons we have no understanding of — to make critical decisions on things,” he said.
Conservative author Diana West says America is seeing a “lining up of Democratic and Republican elites,” working to move America towards socialism.
West told Breitbart News Daily host Stephen K. Bannon that the latest, trillion dollar budget deal reflects the priorities of Republican and Democratic elites, but doesn’t reflect real conservatism.
“It is the definition of what the party elites are, the people in power are, but I don’t think it’s the definition of what a conservative is.”
She also argued that they are sending America down a path to socialism.
“There has been this movement really for 80 years in our history, of socialization….in terms of introducing the tools and mechanisms and practices of socialism into our economy, into our thinking, into our culture” West said. “Even on the right side of the spectrum there is very little consciousness that theres anything else or that there ever was anything else. “
West also told Breitbart News Daily that there appears to be an awakening amongst the American people and that it’s time for them to choose whether America is going be a country with, “sovereignty and with control over our representatives who are supposed to be working for us– the citizens, or whether we’re going to be sucked into the mob of the collectivist internationalist globalist enterprise.”
She added that it, “comes down to, again, this notion of are we citizens or are we subjects.”
Hear the complete interview:
Will the speaker’s resignation lead to a better, more effective House of Representatives?
Nick Gillespie|Sep. 25, 2015 1:37 pm
So John Boehner is stepping down as Speaker of the House. To paraphrase various Monty Python bits: And there was much rejoicing.
Pretty much from across the spectrum, I’d say. To conservatives, Boehner was a squish on all the things they care about (the Ohioan had the temerity to want to avoid a government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding). Earlier today, Donald Trump greeted Boehner’s resignation by saying, “I think it’s wonderful, frankly.” That sentiment is widely shared by many, perhaps most Republicans pols.
To liberals, Boehner was always ready to help defend war, surveillance, No Child Left Behind, the unpaid-for Medicare expansion under Bush, you name it.
And for libertarians, he was terrible in virtually every possible way. He was a go-along, get-along kind of guy always willing to do the bidding of state at the expense of the individual. And despite professions on his part of having a small-government vision, he could never quite get around to naming a program he was, you know, actually willing to cut or even trim in any sort of way that might impact things.
As it happens, in my latest Daily Beast column, which went live just a few hours before Boehner announced his resignation, I wrote this about his lack of vision and clarity when it came to minimizing the size, scope, and spending of government:
Most Republicans, however, say it will be tough to round up the votes to overthrow the speaker.
By Jake Sherman and Lauren French
7/28/15 6:01 PM EDT
Updated 7/28/15 10:28 PM EDT
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows had heard from leading conservatives that trying to oust Speaker John Boehner right now was a bad idea.
Reps. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), fierce and frequent critics of leadership, thought the move was ill-advised. Some of Meadows’ friends didn’t even see it coming. But just before 6 p.m. Tuesday — a day before the House was set to leave town for its five-week summer recess — Meadows offered a motion to vacate the chair, an extraordinarily rare procedural move that represents the most serious expression of opposition to Boehner’s speakership. If the motion were to pass — most Republicans say it will be hard to cobble together the votes — Boehner would be stripped of the speaker’s gavel, potentially plunging the House of Representatives into chaos.
GOP leaders were taken completely by surprise. Meadows, a second-term Republican, hadn’t even asked for a meeting with Boehner or other top Republicans to air his gripes.
Until now, the North Carolina Republican had taken small steps to undermine Boehner — he voted against procedural motions and against Boehner for speaker. Now he’s declared all-out war, and he could quickly find out how many people are willing to back him up.
Meadows, however, didn’t go as far as he could have. A motion to vacate the chair — last attempted roughly a century ago — is typically considered a privileged resolution. In that format, the House would hold a vote within two legislative days. Meadows, however, chose not to offer it in that form, which he said was a sign that he wanted a discussion.
After 20 months of negotiations, this week President Obama announced a nuclear arms deal that will give Iran sanctions relief and a path to obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The Iranian regime has done nothing to prove that it has earned the trust or respect of the international community and should not be rewarded with sanctions relief. This deal will only further destabilize an increasingly volatile region.
President Obama asks for this deal to be judged on its original goal and its merits. But it should be judged on the ability to keep weapons out of the hands of a regime that is both a sponsor of terrorism and an enemy of the United States and its allies.
By that standard, it fails horribly.
One of the most imperative aspects of a deal is the ability to verify that Iran is fulfilling its end of the agreement. The president may claim that this deal “is not based on trust; it is built on verification,” but this is not reflected in the actual provisions of the deal. The president himself has stated that a deal must allow for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anytime, anywhere. Yet this deal fails to live up to the president’s own standards. Instead it allows Iran to object to inspections and dispute the inspections in front of a resolution panel— a process that can take up to 24 days. This is hardly the spontaneous inspection that will ensure compliance.
Under this deal, Iran is not required to fully dismantle existing bomb making technology. Rather, Iran is allowed to continue its enrichment capabilities. But that becomes almost irrelevant when you consider that in ten short years the United States and its allies will have little ability to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. After a decade, the limits on Iran’s nuclear activities will begin to sunset.
In recent years Iran has involved itself in both regional and sectarian conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. By lifting the sanctions, billions of dollars in frozen assets will be freed up, and Iran will be rewarded for its bad behavior.
Due to provisions included in the eleventh hour of negotiations, this deal lifts the arms embargo after just five years, and after eight years the restrictions on ballistic missile transfer will be lifted. This will no doubt benefit Russia, who stands to make considerable money by providing missile technology to Iran. The reality for the US and its allies is that lifting this embargo will allow Iran to further support bad actors and terrorism in the region.
President Obama claims that if Iran violates the deal the sanctions will snap back into place. This just isn’t reality. Snapping back the sanctions—as the president claims he will do—will take an act of the same international body that worked on the agreement. It will be out of the hands of this or any other White House.
So where are we now?
Unfortunately, due to a bill that passed in May without my support, Congress’ ability to stop this deal from being implemented is greatly diminished. Instead of requiring a majority of Congress to approve the treaty, the so-called Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 turns the Constitution on its head and requires Congress to block a treaty. Knowing this, President Obama has already issued a veto threat if Congress tries to block this deal.
Even if Iran abides by all of the provisions in this deal, in 15 years they will be able to proliferate weapons grade nuclear materials and possess ballistic missiles. By implementing this agreement, we will not make the world a safer place; we will essentially start a countdown until this terrorist regime has nuclear weapons.
This is not a political issue; this is an issue of national security for the United States and for our allies around the world. Over the span of the negotiations, 367 Members of Congress from both parties have called upon the president expressing the standards that a final deal must achieve. Yet this deal fails to achieve these standards.
The administration consistently said that a bad deal is worse than no deal, yet it delivered this terrible agreement to the American people. As I’ve said since the beginning of these negotiations, any agreement that allows Iran to acquire, build, or proliferate nuclear weapons—now or in the future—is a threat to the United States and its allies.
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.
The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.
The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement.
Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.
By David Nakamura and Paul Kane June 12 at 2:22 PM
President Obama suffered a major defeat to his Pacific Rim free trade initiative Friday as House Democrats helped derail a key presidential priority despite his last-minute, personal plea on Capitol Hill.
The House voted 302 to 126 to sink a measure to grant financial aid to displaced workers, fracturing hopes at the White House that Congress would grant Obama fast-track trade authority to complete an accord with 11 other Pacific Rim nations.
“I will be voting to slow down fast-track,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the floor moments before the vote, after keeping her intentions private for months. “Today we have an opportunity to slow down. Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for American workers.”
The dramatic defeat could sink the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping free trade and regulatory pact that Obama has called central to his economic agenda at home and his foreign policy strategy in Asia. Obama’s loss came after a months-long lobbying blitz in which the president invested significant personal credibility and political capital.
GOP Rep: House Leaders Made False Promise to Get My Crucial Vote
By Joel Gehrke
December 12, 2014 12:53 AM
Representative Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) accused House Republican leadership of reneging on a deal made with him to get his support on a crucial procedural vote that almost killed the $1.1 trillion cromnibus.
“I was very surprised and even more disappointed to see the cromnibus back on the floor,” Stutzman said in a Thursday evening statement. “The American people deserve better.”
Stutzman was one of the last Republicans to cast his ballot in favor of a rule allowing the House to vote on the cromnibus. National Review Online reported that Stutzman backed the rule at the last minute after leadership told him that they would pull the cromnibus, once the rule was passed, and replace it with a short-term continuing resolution favored by rank-and-file conservatives. With the last-minute help of Stutzman and outgoing Representative Kerry Bentivolio (R., Mich.), leadership won the vote 214-212.
“I supported the Rule because I was informed by leadership that the cromnibus was dead and a short term CR would take its place,” Stutzman said.
Paul Vagianos President of the Chamber of Commerce spoke at tonight Council meeting Ad nauseam on how he believes that this Council will build a parking garage and that he and the Chamber are 100 % behind the Council plans. He went on to say that he and Amy Bourque, President Citizens for a Better Ridgewood have struck up a new friendship.
Well I was wondering why Citizens for a Better Ridgewood has been low key. Maybe they need a new President. The parking garage is a prelude to the massive expansion in the CBD. The garage will be sited by the developers as as a place to put overflow parking for the tenements. Its should also be noted that if a parking garage is built on the Hudson St the site it will also be very close to Mr Vagianos eatery along with the old Bank of America building and we all know who owns that.
Our Deputy Mayor the narcissist that he is could not help himself and said that he will not be one of past Council Members who pictures are on the wall that did not build a garage. Well Al I guess you have more wisdom then all the Council member that have come before you.
The Ridgewood Blog Polls VOTE NOW!
Do You Have Safety Concerns for Children Playing on Turf Fields