Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts

January 4, 2019

New Congress and Republicans New Hell and... The Solar Vortex is About to Split in 3 Pieces

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Abby Finkenauer, and Sharice Davids pose for a picture at the U.S. Capitol.
 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) Abby Finkenauer (D-Iowa), and Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

A job posting by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee says it all about the party's new reality beginning today. The committee is seeking an Investigative Counsel — "an attorney with several years of investigative or litigation experience," according to the listing on Tom Manatos Jobs, a popular Capitol Hill jobs board.

Between the lines: "Litigation experience" is at least partly in anticipation of the possibility of impeachment proceedings, a Hill source tells me.
Why it matters: After controlling the entire government for two years, Republicans on the Hill and in the White House are assuming a defensive crouch, with incoming House Democratic chairs vowing aggressive investigations.
First look ... Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who today goes from majority leader to minority leader, will say in remarks during today's gavel-handover session:
"As Ronald Reagan advised us, America is too great for small dreams. When we work together, we succeed together. We are now entering a period of divided government, but that is no excuse for gridlock and inaction. We are at our best when we focus not on retribution but on building a more perfect union."
Go deeper: Republicans secretly study their coming hell

"Today," co-anchor Savannah Guthrie asks Nancy Pelosi, who will become House speaker at around 1:30 pm Thursday: "Do you believe the special counsel should honor and observe the Department of Justice guidance that states a sitting president cannot be indicted?"
The big picture: Pelosi replied, according to an excerpt from NBC: "I do not think that that is conclusive. No, I do not." With that response, she becomes the highest-ranking official to suggest President Trump could be indicted while in office.
The best time to discover the truth is following the road idiots take to discover their truth and taking the other:
The polar vortex is about to split into 3 pieces
Computer model projection of 10 mb geopotential heights (dam; contours) and temperature anomalies (°C; shading) across the Northern Hemisphere.

Scientists are seeing signs that global weather patterns toward the latter half of January and into February may shift significantly to usher in severe winter weather for parts of the U.S. and Europe.

How it works: The possible changes are being triggered by a sudden and drastic warming of the air in the stratosphere, some 100,000 feet above the Arctic, and by a resulting disruption of the polar vortex — an area of low pressure at high altitudes near the pole that, when disrupted, can wobble like a spinning top and send cold air to the south. In this case, it could split into three pieces, and those pieces would determine who gets hit the hardest. 
The big picture: Studies show that what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic, and rapid Arctic warming may paradoxically be leading to more frequent cold weather outbreaks in Europe, Asia, and North America, particularly later in the winter. 
During the past 2 weeks, a sudden stratospheric warming event has taken place, showing up first in the Siberian Arctic, and then spreading over the North Pole. 
Such events occur when large atmospheric waves surge beyond the troposphere and into the layer of air above it. Such a vertical transport of energy can rapidly warm the stratosphere, and set in motion a chain reaction that disrupts the stratospheric polar vortex.
Sudden stratospheric warming events are known to affect the weather in the U.S. and Europe on a time delay — typically on the order of a week to several weeks later, and their effects may persist for more than a month.
"In general, we see colder than normal temperatures over much of the U.S. and Europe/Northern Asia, and warmer than normal temperatures over Greenland and subtropical Africa/Asia" in the 60 days following sudden stratospheric warming events, Amy Butler, a research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, told Axios in an email.

What's next: Polar vortex projections show it's likely to split into possibly as many as 3 "sister vortices," spilling cold air out of the Arctic and concentrating it in spots across Eurasia and North America.

In the past, polar vortex splits have been associated with major snowstorms, including 2010, when the Mid-Atlantic region was buried by blizzards.
A sudden stratospheric warming event and polar vortex disruption were associated with several March snowstorms in the Northeast last winter, as well as the "Beast from the East" cold spell in Europe.
Such events can have major ramifications for energy markets, leading to natural gas price spikes, for example.
What they're saying: “Arctic change has increased the frequency of these polar vortex disruption events and following these polar vortex disruption events you get more severe winter weather," says Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at AER, a Verisk company, who studies the connections between Arctic climate change and altered weather patterns. 
Cohen and Michael Ventrice, a meteorologist at The Weather Company, told Axios that there are increasing signs of high pressure forming over the North Atlantic near Greenland as well as close to the North Pole in late January, which can block the progress of weather systems moving from west to east.
Such blocking patterns may be a manifestation of the polar vortex disruption and favor colder and stormier weather in the eastern U.S. and parts of Europe.
“Eventually we do think this blocking will set up,” Ventrice said. “I would not give up on winter.”

December 5, 2018

In The US Rich Minority Rules Through The Senate and Needs To be Abolished as in Wyyoming 1/2 Mil Same Power As New York 20 Mil

One question answers it all: What does the Senate do with its two senators per state and 6 years minimum power that the House with its 435 members in two years minimum power not able to do? Nothing but obstruct..please think about this. I know the senators are not going to vote themselves out of a job but americans could, And the senators could always be mix in with the house with the same power.

Usually what ever the house passes no matter how good,  the senate can just not even bring it to a vote even if it had enough votes in the senate itself to pass the legislation.
The house can't impechor pass legislation the senate dissaproves. The health benefits and the salary of these guys will save us enough to make every hungry family in america have a meal. 
For now, A bill that passes the house should get a vote in the senate.      Adam🦊
These are not just the beliefs of this blog but the belief of the longest living member of Congress:

The senate considerably dilutes the voting power of African-Americans and Latinos and Asians to a degree that should be unacceptable in polite company

 {{An Atlantic excerpt from his new memoir}}
The end of minority rule in our legislative and executive branches. The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.
Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy.
The math is even starker when you look at places like Wyoming and Vermont, each of which has fewer people in the entire state (575,000 and 625,000, respectively) than does the Twelfth Congressional District of Michigan, which I last represented and whose more than 700,000 residents are now in the hands of my wife, Debbie. She fights her heart out for them every single day. Yet her efforts are often stymied simply because it is understood that even should a good bill make it through the hyper-partisan House, it will die a quiet death in the Senate because of the disproportionate influence of small states.
With my own eyes, I’ve watched in horror and increasing anger as that imbalance in power has become the primary cause of our national legislative paralysis. In primaries, the vocal rump of a minority of obnoxious asses can hold the entire country hostage to extremist views. This insanity has sent true public servants fleeing for the exits. The Electoral College has the same structural flaw. Along with 337 of my colleagues, I voted in 1969 to amend the Constitution to abolish it. Twice in the past 18 years, we’ve seen the loser of the popular vote become president through the Electoral College formula, which gives that same disproportionate weight to small states, each of which gets two automatic votes for its two senators.
My friend Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, sees a demographic shift coming that will effectively transform us into two countries. He tells me that “in 2050, 70 percent of Americans will be living in just 15 states. That 70 percent will then have 30 senators, and the remaining 30 percent of the people, mainly those living in the smallest and poorest states, will have 70 senators.”
How do we fix this? Practically speaking, it will be very difficult, given the specific constitutional protection granted these small states to veto any threat to their outsize influence.
There is a solution, however, that could gain immediate popular support: Abolish the Senate. At a minimum, combine the two chambers into one, and the problem will be solved. It will take a national movement, starting at the grassroots level, and will require massive organizing, strategic voting, and strong leadership over the course of a generation. But it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? “Abolish the Senate.” I’m having blue caps printed up with that slogan right now. They will be made in America.
The protection of an independent press. This is where the Founding Fathers got it exactly right. Jefferson said, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Trump has said of reporters, “I would never kill them, but I do hate them. And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.”
My father started out life as a cub reporter for the Detroit Free Press. He always believed that journalism was a tremendously honorable profession. We cannot restore respect to our institutions of government until we put an end to the systematic attacks on journalism that have become prevalent. The playbook is simple: Lie. Repeat the lie. Then attack the journalists who expose those lies as being liars themselves—or, in modern parlance, “promoters of fake news.” The Nazis’ propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, replaced journalism with state-run propaganda and created a political climate based on fear and falsehoods.
The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Fourth Estate is not a branch of government, but none of the branches of government can be trusted to function honestly without an unfettered free press vigilantly holding it accountable.
Thomas Jefferson had the first word and he should have the last word: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” 
As a young man, I served in the Army during World War II. My father was a member of Congress. I learned from him and, later, from my own experience that history always repeats itself unless we remember it with clarity and conscience.
Now I am an old man. My age bears with it a responsibility to share what I’ve witnessed so that future generations avoid making the same mistakes. My advice always begins with the truth, which is why would-be despots and demagogues try so hard to discredit it. They hate it like the devil hates holy water.
The conduct and outcome of the 2016 presidential election have put the future of our country in mortal peril. After a lifetime spent in public service, I never believed that day would come. Yet it has. And we now find ourselves on the precipice of a great cliff. Our next step is either into the abyss or toward a higher moral ground. Since before the Civil War, we’ve been told that “Providence watches over fools, drunkards, and the United States.” Yet the good Lord also granted us free will. The direction we choose to follow is ours alone to make. We ask only that he guide our choice with his wisdom and his grace.
It’s up to you, my dear friends.

November 7, 2018

Democrats Won the House Now What Happens Next?

 The count has not finished  yet Trump is already scared. He is tweeting about fighting the house if they fight him. . He knows thegouse can investigte him and will and give security to Dept. of Justive and investigators. He forgets the house of Representatives are supposed to check on the President. They can make his life miseraable if they wanted like the GOP House did to Pres. Obama. I know Nancy likes to make deals and nobody knows her job like she does, love her or hate. There is no doubt the members will elect her as their leader again. Who else would stand up to the bully at the beige house without burning the whole Congress? He majesty Nancy Pelosi.🦊Adam Gonzalez
Picture "Nancy Pelosi, Down and Dirty"
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011

With the House of Representatives in Democrats’ control, the next two years will give them the opportunity to show that there’s a better model of legislating, that Congress is capable of doing more for Americans than cutting taxes for the wealthy and menacing everyone else’s health care. Now and again Democratic leaders may need to play constitutional hardball — and they’ll have a chance to do it in a more constructive fashion than Mitch McConnell and his team, who have dominated Congress since 2014. 
Even as Democratic House members are picking the confetti from their hair, one thought should be foremost in their minds: How do they avoid screwing things up?
First up: Pick policy battles wisely.
For the midterms, Democrats adopted a trio of policy goals: lowering health care costs, creating jobs by investing in infrastructure, and cleaning up politics via a comprehensive reform package that would tighten ethics laws and shore up the integrity of our electoral system. These are popular causes with bipartisan appeal.
They are also causes for which the president has explicitly expressed his own enthusiasm, whether real or feigned. This gives Democrats the chance to press President Trump about whether he is interested in making progress on his stated goals or is a hypocrite intent on waging partisan trench warfare for the remainder of his term.
First up on the Democrats’ agenda is expected to be the reform package. But they also plan to move quickly to address the plight of the Dreamers, some 700,000 immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children and granted protection from deportation by President Barack Obama. Huge majorities of Americans support letting the Dreamers stay. Finding a compromise path with Mr. Trump would be good policy and good politics.
Of course, even if the president is interested in chalking up a few bipartisan wins, the Republican Senate is unlikely to play along. There’s nothing wrong with Democrats pursuing legislation, such as to raise the minimum wage, that fills out their governing priorities even if, for now, it does little more than clarify the contrasts between their priorities and their opposition’s. 

Democrats will theoretically have the power to set the agenda, but they will still be contending with a Republican Senate leader who takes pride in obstructionism for partisan gain. (See: Merrick Garland.) Managing expectations will be vital, and scoring policy victories will require finding the right pressure points. If Democrats can find an issue or two — like spending to fix bridges and tunnels — that will put Republican lawmakers on the opposite side from the president, all the better. As Rahm Emanuel, Chicago’s mayor and a seasoned Democratic street fighter, observed, “Part of politics is unifying your team and dividing the other.”
Avoid the “I” word for now.
Impeachment is neither a sensible nor a winning issue to open with. Even many Americans who dislike Mr. Trump will, absent overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses, balk at efforts to remove a sitting president. (Polls show the percentage of support for impeachment ranging from the high 30s to the high 40s.) Just ask former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose rabid push to bring down President Bill Clinton led to electoral disaster for the Republicans in the 1998 midterms, resulting in Mr. Gingrich being driven from leadership by his own members.
Democrats would do well to wait and see if the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, turns up high crimes and misdemeanors before deciding whether to pursue the painful and divisive path of impeachment. If so, they’ll want to bring along at least some of their Republican colleagues.
Don’t go crazy with the subpoenas.
It has been a long two years for Democrats, watching Republicans fail to check Trumpian excesses. Which means the new majority might be tempted to overreach and, like Mr. Gingrich’s self-styled revolutionaries, wind up coming across as more partisan and prurient than public-spirited. Investigations should be strategic and methodical and clearly in the public interest — for instance, looking into corruption among cabinet officials or waste of taxpayer dollars, rather than targeting more lascivious matters, like hush-money payments to former mistresses.
The trick will be finding the right balance in both tone and topic. Many Trump-hating Democrats might be in the mood for payback, but most Americans could easily be turned off by overt political games. And, let’s not forget, this is ultimately not about scoring points — Americans deserve better from their government.
The topic of Mr. Trump’s tax returns will be especially ticklish. The president’s refusal to follow his predecessors’ example and release such basic information raises too many questions about conflicts of interest to ignore. But things could get ugly. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has the right to request a copy, at which point the White House must decide if it wants to mount a legal challenge. Democrats need to be ready to make a cogent case — persuasive to the public as well as the courts — for why Mr. Trump’s taxes are a matter of critical concern.
For now, Democratic representatives are making properly judicious noises about oversight. They are holding meetings among themselves to determine which issues should be priorities and how to avoid overlap among the committees. But once the new chairmen take over, the leadership will need a firm hand to minimize the wilding.
Groom the party’s next leaders. 
The widespread assumption in Democratic circles is that Nancy Pelosi will reclaim the speaker’s gavel. Practically speaking, this may be for the best, but even Ms. Pelosi has begun referring to herself as a “transitional” leader.
After 16 years as the House Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi comes with a truckload of baggage, and a growing contingent within her own party feels it is time for a generational overhaul. But the reality is that she has no obvious successor. Her two deputies, Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, offer no fresher blood. Her presumed heir, Joseph Crowley, is on his way out the door, having lost his seat in the primary election. And while plenty of hungry younger members are eyeing the post, none is seen as having the mix of experience, savvy and grit needed to steer the caucus — which will feature a large, diverse freshman class — through what promises to be a wild two years.
Love her or hate her, nobody herds the cats better than Ms. Pelosi.
That said, the Democratic leadership is staler than week-old toast. And while victory tends to cool intracaucus griping, if Ms. Pelosi becomes speaker, she owes it to the institution and her colleagues to set about raising a new generation of leaders, helping prepare such up-and-comers as Cheri Bustos, Hakeem Jeffries, Linda Sánchez, Ruben Gallego, Joseph Kennedy III, Ben Ray Luján, Eric Swalwell and Seth Moulton, among others.
Given the dismal example set so far by President Trump, Democratic leaders now have a political opportunity, and also a heavy responsibility. Winning the House is one thing. Restoring some sanity to American politics and a sense of higher, common purpose to American governance is yet another. 
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on FacebookTwitter (@NYTopinion) and InstagramBy The Editorial Board

November 6, 2018

2018 Midterms and Nine LGBTQ Congressional Candidates You Should Know👀

Representation by people from the LGBTQ community is still sparse within the U.S. government, especially for some of the most powerful positions.
Congress, in particular, has remained largely white, male, cisgender, and straight for the majority of the country’s history. And in the Senate, there’s been a slow change, with politicians like Illinois’s Carol Moseley Braun, who became the first woman of color elected to the Senate, in 1992, and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, who became the first openly gay person elected to the U.S. Senate, in 2012.
Fortunately, the range of candidates running for and being elected to government positions has become more diverse, with a historic number of LGBTQ candidates who've won primaries this year. Now, ahead of the November 6 midterms, there are more LGBTQ candidates running than ever before. Below, we introduce some of these candidates and explain what you should know about them.

Katie Hill, 31 — 25th Congressional District, California

  Katie Hill for Congress
Katie Hill is a bisexual woman who is vying to unseat anti-LGBTQ Rep. Steve Knight in California. Hill’s platform prioritizes advancing LGBTQ equality, finding solutions to homelessness, and advancing the expansion of Medicaid and other health care programs in California. She is a Democrat and also comes from a background of service, having run a homeless services agency. 

She’s also talked at length about her experiences with being pregnant at 18 years old and the importance of a woman’s right to choose. Hill is running in a traditionally Republican district, where Republican representatives have been the majority for years. 
[[Sharice Davids, 38 — 3rd Congressional District, Kansas]] If elected to represent the 3rd district in Kansas, Democrat Sharice Davids could become one of two first Native American women in Congress (the other being Deb Haaland of New Mexico). With a victory following November 6, Davids would also be making history as Kansas's first openly LGBTQ representative.
Davids participated in the White House Fellowship program in 2016 during Obama’s presidency. She’s also a former mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter — so she’s no stranger to tough fights.

Lauren Baer, 37 — 18th Congressional District, Florida
Barrier-breaking Lauren Baer, who’s running in Florida’s 18th district as a Democrat, could become Florida’s first-ever openly LGBTQ congressperson if elected. Baer is running to make Florida better for the most marginalized communities and has focused on championing quality, affordable health care, improving public schools, and combating environmental issues.
She also served as an official in the Obama administration from 2011 to 2017, acting as a senior adviser to secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, as well as to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

 The second time could be the charm for Angie Craig, who first ran against Republican Representative Jason Lewis in 2016 and lost by only two points. If elected, Craig would become Minnesota's first openly LGBTQ representative. She is running as a Democrat.
Craig has spent more than 20 years working in the health care field. Now, she says she wants to use her experience to fix health care systems that currently don’t prioritize or help the most marginalized people, and to provide more opportunities for health care expansion so that all families in Minnesota have access to services. 
Jamie McLeod-Skinner, 51 — 2nd Congressional District, Oregon
Jamie McLeod-Skinner, a Democrat, was the first openly lesbian person elected to the Santa Clara City Council in California, in 2004. If elected in Oregon on November 6, she will become the state’s first openly LGBTQ congressperson. She believes it’s way past time to provide health care for all people and is striving to rebuild the middle class, as well as to focus on the needs of rural communities.
Ultimately, she’s hoping to unseat a lifelong politician, Republican Representative Greg Walden, who has been re-elected every time since first winning Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District, in 1998.

 Chris Pappas, 38 — 1st Congressional District, New Hampshire

Chris Pappas, the Democratic candidate from New Hampshire, is openly gay and already heavily involved in local politics, having represented his district on the New Hampshire Executive Council for the past five years. Pappas supports universal health care, reproductive health, and family planning, and has championed strong public school systems as the foundation of society. Pappas’s district is traditionally a swing district, so his win would be a big deal both for New Hampshire and for the country as a whole. The district, which has toggled between Democratic and Republican representatives every election for the past decade, could have its politics transformed by whichever candidate wins.
 Kyrsten Sinema, 42 — 9th Congressional District, Arizona
A Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema is the current congressional representative in Arizona, serving for the past five years. She’s also the first openly bisexual Senate nominee ever. Sinema has prioritized expanding access to quality, affordable health care, creating educational opportunities, helping veterans receive benefits and creating good-paying jobs for people in Arizona.
Now, according to her platform, she has plans to fix a “dysfunctional Washington,” as well as to continue to make good on the promises and issues she’s prioritized since taking office.

My Approved PortraitsIncumbent candidate Tammy Baldwin was the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, in 2012 (as well as the state’s first woman to be elected to serve in the Senate). Before that, she served in the House of Representatives for 14 years. During her career, Baldwin has important health care reform initiatives, like the rule that allows young people to stay on their parents’ insurance up to age 26. She has also pushed for action to be taken to address the opioid epidemic.
During this race, Baldwin has upheld these same values in her current platform, and is also prioritizing issues like fighting for debt-free higher-education opportunities for students.

Mark Pocan, 54 — 2nd Congressional District, Wisconsin
Also an incumbent in Wisconsin, Mark Pocan is currently one of only seven LGBTQ members in Congress. Pocan serves as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, in addition to the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus.
Among other issues, Pocan is pushing to increase social-safety-net programs that help families, including unemployment compensation, aid to increase access to higher-education assistance, health care reform, and bolstering Social Security for seniors. Pocan has most recently introduced legislation that would terminate the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) and instead “implement a humane immigration enforcement system that upholds the dignity of all individuals,” according to a press release from his office.


Running! is a Teen Vogue series on getting 

involved in the government.

Featured Posts

The New Pretty Face At Netflix is 20, Gay and Has Cerebral Palsy

Ryan O'Connel, the new pretty face IN Hollywood is gay and by the way he has Cerebral Palsy Photo: Sarah Walker ...