|
National 
Fri May 17, 2013 at 00:29 PM CDT
|
(Thanks to Jordan and the folks at CREDO for calling out Ted Cruz. His office has already received OVER 5000 faxes. Click the link and add to the pile! - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
I was outraged when a few dozen members of the Senate managed to block an up-or-down vote on expanded background checks for gun buyers.
But then my friends at Mayors Against Illegal Guns exposed the donation records of the gun lobby to some of those senators, and it was easy to see what compelled these members of Congress to vote against the vast majority of their constituents: money.
That's why they created this powerful receipt to show how Senator Ted Cruz is bought and paid for by the NRA.
Click here to send a free fax to Sen. Cruz with this receipt from the gun lobby for his vote blocking expanded background checks for gun buyers.
The strengthened background check bill could have saved countless lives. And over 90% of Americans, and 74% of NRA members, supported expanding background checks in this way.1
But because the NRA opposed the plan, these bought and paid for senators helped block an up-or-down vote.2
The 45 members of the Senate who voted against the vast majority of Americans on background checks have accepted over $8 million — just in contributions and independent expenditures — from the NRA and other lobbying groups that act as a front for gun manufacturers.
Putting the NRA's agenda above the will and needs of their constituents is wrong. They need to hear that from constituents like you.
Click the link below to send a free fax of Senator Cruz's gun money receipt straight to his office:
http://act.credoaction.com/letter/gun_vote_receipt_Cruz/
Thank you for taking action against the NRA's corruption.
Jordan Krueger, Campaign Manager
CREDO Mobile from Working Assets
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 45 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 02:10 PM CDT
|
While Senator Ted Cruz's keynote address to CPAC last week may have caught the excited attention of red-state nutter-butters, those of us who graduated from the sixth grade noticed that Wackobird needs a history lesson.
Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, did a good job tracking and correcting what he refers to as, "Ted Cruz's twisted vision of economic history," where, "Ronald Reagan cured double-digit unemployment by cutting spending and reducing the federal debt, and Jimmy Carter was guilty of 'out-of-control regulation.'"
Brooks' post is worth reading in its entirety. Here's a snippet, with the rest below the fold: In Sen. Ted Cruz's twisted vision of economic history, Ronald Reagan cured double-digit unemployment by cutting spending and reducing the federal debt, and Jimmy Carter was guilty of "out-of-control regulation."
In the real world:
- Total federal spending soared during Reagan’s deficit-plagued first term, and the national debt nearly doubled. His budget director later resigned and wrote a book criticizing Reagan’s failure to cut spending.
- And Carter signed landmark bills freeing airline, railroad and trucking rates from federal regulation, easing regulation of natural gas prices and eliminating federal regulation of interest rates paid by banks to small savers.
These are only a few of the disconnects between economic reality and Cruz’s oversimplified, often inaccurate attempt to paint President Obama’s record as the “exact opposite” of Reagan’s.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 894 words in story)
|
|
Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 02:18 PM CST
|
For weeks Congressional Republicans, including Texas' own Senator John Cornyn criticized the President's comprehensive immigration reform proposal because they thought border security should be the top priority. On Tuesday Rep. Pete Gallego who represents the longest stretch of Texas-Mexico in Congress made it clear that the single biggest threat to border security is actually sequestration. In his first floor speech he admonished Congress for its finger pointing on the issue and challenged members to work together to solve the nation's problems.
"In small town West Texas when there's a fire everyone works together to put the fire out and no one focuses on how the fire started or who started the fire until after the fire is out. Here and now in Washington many folks are more focused on who is to blame for the sequester than trying to do something about it." - Rep. Gallego
The Congressman characterized the across the board cuts as having both economic and national security implications, saying, "Not having a vote this week is a decision by some in Congress for decreased border security, job loss and furloughs, and it devastates local communities and the state of Texas." His district contains a number of strategic military bases including Ft. Bliss in El Paso and Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio that could face furloughs in the tens of thousands.
His office also released this handy infographic of the impact of sequestration on the US-Mexico border. You can follow him on twitter at @RepPeteGallego and see his house floor speech below the jump.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 14 words in story)
|
|
Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:41 PM CST
|
 Texas may not yet be blue but our border certainly is. In the state House, Texas Democrats represent the entirety of the Texas-Mexico border, while freshman Congressman Pete Gallego's 23rd district represents 800 of the 1,954 total miles along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Congressman appeared on MSNBC's Jansing & Co. to talk about the fate of Comprehensive Immigration Reform in this session of Congress.
I think immigration reform gets done this session of Congress. From the perspective of both parties it is time...I think the Republicans saw with what happened with the latino electorate last and time and in places like Texas thats a really significant thing. -Congressman Gallego
Obama won the 2012 election with over 70% of the Hispanic vote, and announcing Comprehensive Immigration Reform as a top 2nd term priority during the State of the Union has left Republicans both nationally and in Texas struggling to find a viable position on the issue.
Most people don't really care where the idea comes from, I think they want action, they want something to happen, they're tired of the prolonged conversations. -Congresman Gallego
Thats true even in Texas, according to a poll...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 388 words in story)
|
|
Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 00:11 PM CST
|
 Immigration reform presents Texas Democrats with a rare but golden opportunity to create a narrative. From Governor Perry's State Of The State to the bills filed so far this session, Texas Republicans have been interestingly mum on the issue of immigration compared to recent sessions. They have either had a change of heart on issues like "Voter ID", and "Sanctuary Cities" (which Perry classified as "emergency legislation" in 2011, but it did not reach his desk) or demographic realities have forced a different strategy. I assume the latter, but if not talking about immigration is the new strategy, that should be low hanging fruit for Democrats at the state and federal level.
The costs of our antiquated system gives Texas Democrats the ability to approach reform from an economic perspective. Not only has the State Comptroller's report indicated that undocumented workers were an actual net value to taxpayers, but the federal expenditures for immigration enforcement were significantly more than that of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined.
President Obama has already stated that Immigration Reform will be a top priority of his 2nd term agenda. It's also clear by their courting of Texans behind the scenes and at the national convention that Texas is part of that equation. Look for a strong statement on Immigration in the State of the Union tomorrow. With headlines like "On immigration, Texas surprisingly quiet" in Politico and "A Texas-sized silence as immigration talks ramp up" in the Dallas Morning News, it sure seems like a great time to say something.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:42 PM CST
|
(Virginia Tech alumnus, UT graduate student and founder of Students for Gun-Free Schools Texas John Woods weighs in on President Obama's announcement today. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Almost six years ago, I lost my girlfriend, Maxine Turner, in the worst school shooting in American history. Yesterday, she would have turned twenty-eight. Some have said she was "in the wrong place at the wrong time." But she wasn't. She was in a classroom -- the right place.
Maxine's killer, Seung-Hui Cho, was the one in the wrong place at the wrong time. And over the last several years I watched as, time after time, his rights were given more weight than those of anyone else -- more than Max's right to a safe classroom, more than your right to walk down the street without feeling the need to carry a firearm, more even than the American people's right to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals and terrorists.
This morning, President Obama presented his plan for reducing gun violence in America. It respects and supports the Second Amendment (as do I, a concealed carry licensee), ensuring that upstanding, law-abiding citizens continue to have access to firearms, while also keeping weapons designed for hunting people out of the hands of known criminals.
Read more below the jump.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 708 words in story)
|
|
Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 09:45 AM CST
|
 According to the Ohio-based Council of Smaller Enterprises small businesses keep 45 cents of the dollar you spent in the local community compared to only 14 cents by national chains, that's why I was particularly disturbed by Walmart's holiday ad campaign to “match any local competitor's advertised price”. It's particularly egregious that they chose to target local retailers instead of well, say, Target. Walmart has long been blamed for the disappearance of small local businesses as it is it's nearly impossible for them to compete with the leveraging power of a giant corporation. So its no coincidence they do not match “Going out of business or closeout prices”. The multinational company uses its market power to keep prices artificially low enough to snuff out the local competition, but once Walmart is the sole retailer in an area or community there's no longer an incentive to keep prices that low. This seek and destroy policy is bad for the consumer, the community and ultimately their own employees. “Walmart has taught us that the low price is the correct price and we have lost track of quality in many categories as part of the equation of price.” - Charles Fishman, author of The Wal-Mart Effect The “Walmart Effect” must be a part of any discussions regarding the Fiscal Cliff. Many people may not realize that Walmart not only competes against local businesses but fights for tax subsidies and is one of the largest contributors to expanding Medicaid roles. In Texas, Walmart has been the beneficiary of over $90 million worth of taxpayer subsidies. Coast to coast Walmart has put taxpayers on the hook so it can maximize profits and avoid paying employees liveable wages. A 2004 study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that "reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance." The same study suggested it would cost the average Walmart shopper an additional $12 a year if Walmart didn’t short-change its employees. Across the country, the Tampa Bay Times reported, “Wal-Mart has more workers enrolled in the state Medicaid program than any employer in Florida.”
In the midst of international strikes by Walmart employees over rolled-back benefits, the company has been linked to a garment factory in Bangladesh that exploded killing 112 workers that was found to be caused by “unpardonable negligence”. The company has also been under investigation by the US Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Mexico. If Walmart would tolerate such deplorable working conditions outside of the U.S., left to their own devices why should we expect it to be any different here in America? Americans would never allow factories with those conditions to open here, but that hasn’t stopped the company from backsliding towards exploitation of their American workforce as well as taxpayers.
 This is why as consumers we need to be more conscious about our spending, not because companies are immoral but because they are amoral. We must also consider the loss to the community when the local sporting good store, gun store, clothing store, shoe store, grocery store, cosmetics store, et al., are replaced by a giant gray box with an equally giant gray parking lot.
I’m reminded of earlier this year when American Express promoted its “Small Business Saturday”. I didn't understand the concept of spending so much time and money promoting local retailers on this one day instead of talking about how important it really is everyday. Though I have to admit I find myself at Walmart a couple times a year looking for whatever thing I need right at that moment in the middle of the night (or when I can’t find it anywhere else). While Walmart really does provide low prices for fixed and low income people, those who can afford it should help re-empower their local economy by shopping small everyday. Henry Ford ensured his employees could afford the products they sold, but in a shrewd twist of corporatism Walmart employees may not be able afford to shop anywhere else.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:21 AM CST
|
(An important issue. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
By Renato RamÃrez
Chairman of the Board and CEO, IBC-Zapata
&
James C. Harrington
Director, Texas Civil Rights Project
The U.S. Senate will soon vote on a law that would gravely undermine Americans' privacy and give expanded, unbridled surveillance over people's e-mails to more than 22 government agencies.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, has capitulated to law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department, and is sponsoring a bill, authorizing widespread warrantless access to Americans' e-mails, as well as Google Docs files, Twitter direct messages, and so on, without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.
Leahy's bill would only require the federal agencies to issue a subpoena, not obtain a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause. It also would permit state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
Even in situations which still would require a search warrant, the proposed law would excuse law enforcement officers from obtaining a warrant (and being challenged later in court) if they claim an "emergency" situation.
Not only that, but a provider would have to notify law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell its customers they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena. The agency then could order the provider to delay notification of customers, whose accounts have been accessed, from three days to "ten business days" or even postpone notification up to 360 days.
Agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for electronic communications include the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the NLRB, OSHA, SEC, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission. There is no good legal reason why agencies like these need blanket access to people's personal information with a mere subpoena, rather than a warrant.
One might expect better of Leahy, given his liberal credentials; but he has been quite disappointing. In fact, he had a hand in making the Patriot Act bill less protective of civil liberties. Nor has the Administration been helpful in this regard, quite to the contrary. Expectations of "law and order" types might not be as high in terms of protecting civil liberties, but they should not be as unsatisfactory as they are with proponents of constitutional freedoms.
The revelations about how the FBI perused former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail without a warrant should alarm us all, who have less power and prestige than he did.
If the Fourth Amendment is to have any meaning, it is that police must obtain a search warrant, backed by probable cause, before reading Americans' e-mails or other communications. If we are to preserve our constitutional protection from warrantless searches, unreviewed by the courts, we need to let our U.S. Senators from Texas hear from us immediately and resoundingly.
We cannot allow the government to undermine our rights, bit by bit, even in the name of national security, which too often is the mantra it so casually uses. As Ben Franklin said, those who give up freedom in the name of security deserve neither.
This abridgement of our fundamental rights affects us all -- conservative, liberals, and libertarians alike. Our allegiance to the Constitution must be non-partisan. Write or call your Senators -- now.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 03:45 PM CDT
|
|
 With the help of the infamous Yes Lab the oft-controversial environmental organization Greenpeace and members of the Occupy Wall Street movement have launched a viral negative ad campaign against the Dutch oil giant Shell. The group staged a fake gala at Seattle's Space Needle to "celebrate Shell’s era-defining Arctic drilling". A youtube video entitled "#ShellFAIL: Private Arctic Launch Party Goes Wrong" soon made its way to the top of reddit. They followed up with a fake Shell website articready.com, the twitter handle @ShellisPrepared and memes that mock the company's stance on global warming. As journalists began to question the legitimacy of the video the group stayed one step ahead by releasing a fake press release from Shell threatening to sue over the video.
More below the jump:
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 329 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jul 13, 2012 at 00:00 PM CDT
|
|
In our ongoing coverage of equality news, here's the latest from Texas and the Nation.
Google announced a worlwide campaign to promote safer working conditions for its LGBT employees called "Legalise Love" last week. Google's campaign kicked off in Singapore, and Google has plans to eventually expand the initiative to every country where it has an office. Google has a new webpage dedicate to the campaign. The Homophobic American Family Association is considering a boycott of Google in response.
The Episcopal Church backed churchwide blessings of Gay Couples at their General Convention on Tuesday. Under the new policy, each Episcopal bishop will decide whether to allow the ceremonies in his or her local diocese.
Noting that the Episcopal Church's approval of marriage equality signifies changing social attitudes about gays in the United States, the Baltimore Sun Newspaper endorsed gay marriage yesterday. From the Maryland paper's editorial:
"...it's important for Maryland to be a welcoming place for families of all kinds. The only reason the state is involved in marriage at all is that strong marriages make strong families, and strong families make strong communities. That's true whether the couples involved are gay or straight."
A new study suggests a strong connection between family rejection and abuse and homelessness for LGBT youth. 68% of LGBT homeless youth surveyed reported having experienced family rejection, and 54% reported having experienced family abuse.
ABC News reports that a New Jersey couple is threatening to sue the antigay group Public Advocate of the United States over its use of the couple's engagement photo (below left) in a homophobic political advertisement (below right). The antigay group stole the couple's engagement photo from a personal blog.
A Phillipene immigrant filed a lawsuit on Thursday challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and seeking the legal right to stay in the United States baed on her same-sex marriage to an American Citizen.
The Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), an organization of black clergy members, protested the NAACP's support of marriage equality at the NAACP's annual convention in Houston.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
