HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » SunsetDreams » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4

SunsetDreams

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Current location: Oklahoma
Member since: Sun Mar 9, 2008, 12:02 PM
Number of posts: 8,571

About Me

I live in deep red country, and like to see myself as a bright shining blue star in a sky full of red hues. It\'s not easy living in an area surrounded by Republicans, but I truly believe in my role of changing a heart and mind one person at a time. DU for me has became a safe haven, where I can come in gather knowledge and fellowship with Democrats, and be refueled to go out and fight yet another day.

Journal Archives

President Obama Singing ‘Let’s Stay Together’ Now A Campaign Ringtone

President Obama Singing ‘Let’s Stay Together’ Now A Campaign Ringtone

President Obama‘s surprisingly soulful rendition of Al Green‘s “Let’s Stay Together,” is now available for download on his campaign website.

RELATED: President Obama Takes Apollo Crowd To Church With Al Green’s ‘Let’s Stay Together’

Obama briefly crooned the classic soul jam during a fundraiser at Harlem’s Apollo Theatre. “I – I – I — I’m so in love with you…” Obama sang. “Don’t worry, Rev. I cannot sing like you, I just wanted to show my appreciation.”

“Those guys thought I wouldn’t do it. I told you I was going to do it!” Obama exclaimed. “The Sandman did not come out!”

Watch Obama sing below via CNN: (video at link)


http://www.mediaite.com/online/president-obama-singing-lets-stay-together-now-a-ringtone/

POTUS On Your Phone: http://www.barackobama.com/ringtone?utm_source=content&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=20120121_bo_tw_ringtone

___________________________

Call To Action: S.2003 - Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 RE: NDAA

S.2003 - Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011

A bill to clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States and for other purposes.


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2003/actions_votes

This bill was introduced by Dianne Feinstein on December 14th, and is now at the Committee on the Judiciary for review.

Please contact Congressional members and demand that they support and vote for this bill. Put the pressure on in the way that I know that DU can!

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?myzip=27310

Here is another link if you prefer:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

GO DU!

King Of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came To Town

Mitt Romney. Was he a job creator or a corporate raider?

That's the question this film answers.

And it’s not pretty.

Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during his reign at Bain. He was a predatory corporate raider. His firm didn't seek to create value. Instead, like a scavenger, Romney looked for businesses he could pick apart. Indeed, he represented the worst possible kind of predator, operating within the law but well outside the bounds of what most real capitalists consider ethical.

*snip*

Mitt Romney and his cronies pioneered ‘deindustrialization,’ a process by which they searched out vulnerable companies, took them over, loaded them with debt, and collected obscene fees while doing so. He sent jobs overseas or killed them altogether, and then picked apart the remains - including pension funds - before the companies went bankrupt.

Some might call that the free market. Most of us think its just plain wrong.

If you wonder why America has lost so many manufacturing jobs overseas, look no further than Mitt Romney – the King of Bain.

Think you know Mitt?

Think again . . .






Can be found at www.kingofbain.com


Wow that is powerful! Keep his hands off the Whitehouse!

Oh, Look Pretty Bow!




Have you ever received a gift and were afraid to rip the package to look inside, because you didn't want to rip that beautiful paper or bow?

You decide that you will be careful, and peek inside only to find the ugliest shirt you ever saw that was not even the size you wore.

So you take it back to the store where it came from, and exchange it for something you want. Even though I liked that Bow, I'm still throwing it in the trash.

This is how I see one or two issue/slogan voters. "Oh Look Pretty Bow" The wrapping/bow might be pretty on the outside but what's inside is still ugly. It's too late to exchange it for something you want, so you are stuck with that ugly shirt that's not even your size.

Ron Paul may be against wars and for legalizing marijuana on the surface but on the inside his policies are ugly, and definitely not my cup of tea. I'm throwing it in the trash. This goes for all the Republicans.

Democratic Party is more to my tastes, and it fits, sometimes a little snug, but I can stretch it out if need be.

Military NOT Authorized To Indefinitely Detain US Citizens Under The NDAA

Actual Bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

p. 362

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
17 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require18
ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

21 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require22
ment to detain a person in military custody under
23 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
24 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
25 taking place within the United States, except to the

VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
363
•S 1867 PCS
1 extent permitted y the Constitution of the United
2 States.


Letter from Senator Bennet:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the provisions addressing detainee matters in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, S. 1867. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, the Senate recently debated several NDAA provisions addressing detainee matters. One provision, Section 1031 of the bill, attempts to codify the President’s authority to detain members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States. As requested by the Obama Administration, Section 1031 contains a provision explicitly clarifying that it does not expand the President’s existing authority to detain. A second provision, Section 1032, requires military custody of al-Qaeda members who attack or make plans to attack the United States. It is important to point out that, under this provision, the Executive Branch has the flexibility to keep a covered detainee in civilian custody, pursuant to a national security determination, or to transfer a military detainee for trial in the civilian courts. The bill also includes provisions relating to the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

Many had concerns that the detainee provisions in the NDAA amounted to a major shift in U.S. policy. Some news reports characterized the provisions of the bill as potentially allowing the indefinite detention of any U.S. citizen for any reason. Let me clearly state that the bill does not authorize any such action. In fact, by codifying the specific authority of the President, Congress has reengaged on a very important national security issue and attempted to clarify what the President can and cannot do. This is a noteworthy departure from prior post-9/11 Congress which have not come to consensus on a detainee legal framework.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that the detainee provisions could raise questions regarding the process by which the Administration detains and prosecutes members of al-Qaeda who attempt to attack the U.S. For example, we must ensure that the military custody provisions do not hamper the Administration’s ability to prosecute a detainee in civilian courts if it determines that this is the most appropriate venue.

Senator Mark Udall from Colorado offered an amendment to the NDAA that would have removed the underlying provisions addressing detainee matters. Instead, it would have required full participation from the Administration and the Senate Armed Services, Judiciary, and Intelligence committees prior to legislation codifying detainee policies. Due to my concerns with the provisions, I supported Senator Udall’s amendment. Unfortunately, it was defeated by a vote of 38 to 60.

I also supported an amendment introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California to clarify that Section 1031 does not affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the U.S., or any other persons who are captured in the United States. Senator Feinstein’s amendment passed handily.

Given the complexity and importance of this issue, and the heated rhetoric and confusion about the actual wording of the detainee provisions, I invite you to read them for yourself. You can find them at page 426 of S. 1867, which you can access here:

The overall bill, including the language of Senator Feinstein’s amendment, makes it abundantly clear that the detainee provisions do not affect existing law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens. In addition, I plan to work with the Administration to ensure that it has the flexibility to prosecute detainees in the most effective ways possible. In the end, I voted yes on the overall bill, which sets annual pay for our troops and provides the tools that keep them safe. The NDAA passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support (93 to 7) and must now be reconciled with the House version of the NDAA.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at Again, thank you for contacting me.


Sincerely,

Michael Bennet
United States

GOP Deceptions About Gas Prices


Well, here they go again. With nothing positive to campaign on, GOP strategists have decided to launch a messaging war against President Obama, blaming him for the high price of gasoline. According to the New York Times, the GOP argument is that when Obama took office in 2009, gas was $1.89 per gallon. Today, the price for that same gallon is $3.52. So it must be Obama's fault. Rick Santorum even says that the Democrats "want higher energy prices."

But as I teach my undergraduate students on their first day in class, it is easy to make statistics lie. And you can bet that as the GOP unleashes its attack dogs on the White House, they'll do just that. What they won't tell you, for example, is that under George W. Bush, the price of gasoline increased from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in July 2008, a jump of 275 percent.

Now it's true that when the economy crashed, the price of gasoline decreased temporarily, in part because the economic meltdown suppressed demand. When Obama took office in January, 2009, the economy was at its low point, and as a result the price of gas was at a low point as well. As the economy improved under Obama's direction, the price of gas returned to its pre-crash baseline.

So the GOP deceptions are based on conveniently forgetting that: (1) the low, 2009 price of gas was simply a reflection of the economic meltdown that they helped cause; (2) before the crash, gas was even more expensive under Bush than it is now; and (3) rising gas prices are a reflection of our economic rebound.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/gop-gas-prices_b_1286787.html

Fox News Resumes Perennial Gas Price Charade


As the employment outlook improves, Fox News is advising Republicans to focus on blaming President Obama for rising gasoline prices -- a claim with no relation to economic fact.


Fox News Talkers Converge On Highly Misleading Talking Point

Fox Blames Obama For Change In Gas Prices From January 2009 To Now. On at least six occasions in the past week, Fox News has pushed the talking point that gasoline prices have almost doubled (increasing 83% or 90% or 91%) since Obama took office in January 2009. The claim was also promoted this week by the Drudge Report and CNSNews, as well as the Senate Republican Conference. Fox falsely suggested that Obama's energy policies are to blame for the increase in prices, without explaining that prices were low in January 2009 because the recession slashed demand.

...

Gasoline Prices In Canada Have Followed Same Trend As U.S. The following chart shows that gasoline price trends are basically the same in Canada as in the U.S., underscoring the fact that prices are driven by the world oil market and not by Obama's policies. The difference between the two lines reflects the fact that the U.S. has relatively low gas taxes.





http://mediamatters.org/research/201202160012
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4