Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Generic Congressional Ballot – Rasmussen Reports

Generic Congressional Ballot

Generic Congressional Ballot: Democrats 40%, Republicans 38%

Sign up for free daily updates

Monday, February 02, 2015

Democrats have a two-point lead over Republicans on the latest Generic Congressional Ballot.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey for the week ending February 1 finds that 40% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Democratic candidate in their district's congressional race if the election were held today, while 38% would choose the Republican instead.

(Want a free dailye-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available onTwitterorFacebook.

The national telephone survey of 2,800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports from January 26-February 1, 2015. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC. Seemethodology.

OR

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

Read the original here:
Generic Congressional Ballot - Rasmussen Reports

DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 – OK, So what is Agenda …

Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from? Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what?

First, before I get going, I want to say that yes, I know it's a small world and it takes a village and we're all one planet etc. I also know that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that as cumbersome as that can be sometimes (Donald Rumsfeld said that the Chinese have it easy; they don't have to ask their people if they agree. And Bush Junior said that it would be great to have a dictator as long as he was the dictator), we have a three branch government and the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and self-determination. This is one of the reasons why people want to come to the US, right? We don't have Tiananmen Square here, generally speaking (yes, I remember Kent State--not the same, and yes, an outrage.) So I'm not against making certain issues a priority, such as mindful energy use, alternative energy sponsorship, recycling/reuse, and sensitivity to all living creatures.

But then you have UN Agenda 21. What is it? See our videos and radio shows at the bottom of this page, on our video page (or search YouTube for Rosa Koire) or buy BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21 by Rosa Koire click here

CLICK TO PRINT OUT FLYER: WHY IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT UN AGENDA 21? Considering its policies are woven into all the General Plans of the cities and counties, it's important for people to know where these policies are coming from. While many people support the United Nations for its 'peacemaking' efforts, hardly anyone knows that they have very specific land use policies that they would like to see implemented in every city, county, state and nation. The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, whichhas its basis in Communitarianism. By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.

In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.

U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth. Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, Americans are cast in a very negative light and need to be taken down to a condition closer to average in the world. Only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.

Agenda 21 policies date back to the 70's but it got its real start in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when President Bush signed onto it. Click here to see a list of the countries that signed UN Agenda 21. President Clinton took office the following year and created the President's Council on Sustainable Development to implement it in the United States. Made up of federal agencies, corporations, and non-profit groups, the President's Council on Sustainable Development moved quickly to ensure that all federal agencies would change their policies to comply with UN Agenda 21. A non-governmental organization called the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, is tasked with carrying out the goals of Agenda 21 worldwide. Remember: UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a global plan that is implemented locally. Over 600 cities in the U.S. are members; our town joined in 2007. The costs are paid by taxpayers.

It's time that people educate themselves and read the document and related commentary. After that, get a copy of your city or county's General Plan and read it. You will find all sorts of policies that are nearly identical to those in U.N. Agenda 21. Unfortunately, their policies have advanced largely unnoticed and we are now in the end game. People need to identify their elected officials who are promoting the U.N.'s policies and hold them accountable for their actions. Only when we've identified who the people are and what they are trying to do will we be able to evaluate whether or not we approve of the policies they are putting forward. Some people may think it's appropriate for agencies outside the United States to set our policies and some people will not. The question is, aren't Americans able to develop their own policies? Should we rely on an organization that consists of member nations that have different forms of governments, most of which do not value individual rights as much as we do? It's time to bring U.N. Agenda 21 out in the open where we can have these debates and then set our own policies in accordance with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. ***

Ok, you say, interesting, but I don't see how that really affects me. Here are a few ways:

No matter where you live, I'll bet that there have been hundreds of condos built in the center of your town recently. Over the last ten years there has been a 'planning revolution' across the US. Your commercial, industrial, and multi-residential land was rezoned to 'mixed use.' Nearly everything that got approvals for development was designed the same way: ground floor retail with two stories of residential above. Mixed use. Very hard to finance for construction, and very hard to manage since it has to have a high density of people in order to justify the retail. A lot of it is empty and most of the ground floor retail is empty too. High bankruptcy rate. So what? Most of your towns provided funding and/or infrastructure development for these private projects. They used Redevelopment Agency funds. Your money. Specifically, your property taxes. Notice how there's very little money in your General Funds now, and most of that is going to pay Police and Fire? Your street lights are off, your parks are shaggy, your roads are pot-holed, your hospitals are closing. The money that should be used for these things is diverted into the Redevelopment Agency. It's the only agency in government that can float a bond without a vote of the people. And they did that, and now you're paying off those bonds for the next 45 years with your property taxes. Did you know that? And by the way, even if Redevelopment is ended, as in California, they still have to pay off existing debt--for 30 to 45 years. So, what does this have to do with Agenda 21?

View post:
DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 - OK, So what is Agenda ...

Why Democrats may boycott Netanyahu speech to Congress

There seems to be a growing movement on the part of some groups topersuade Democratic members of Congress to skip the speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be giving to a Joint Session of Congress early next month:

Vice President Joe Biden wont commit to attending Benjamin Netanyahus speech to a joint meeting of Congress next month.

Hes not the only one.

Dozens of House Democrats are privately threatening to skip the March 3 address, according to lawmakers and aides, in whats become the lowest point of a relationship between the Israeli prime minister and President Barack Obama thats never been good.

Democrats have had to balance publicly supporting Israel with backing Obama, whos trying to close a deal with Iran to curb its nuclear programs over vehement opposition from Netanyahu, who has expressed concerns that the U.S. president is being naive. Negotiations are facing a deadline at the end of March for a political framework.

The speech was devised by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer to provide Netanyahu a prominent Washington platform to warn about the dangers of the proposed deal with Iran. But it also appeared to be based on an Israeli perception that Obama was weakened after midterm elections gave control of both houses of Congress to Republicans, and timed to take place just two weeks before Netanyahu faces reelection on March 17 and footage of American officials applauding him couldnt hurt his prospects.

But that reading of Obama seems not to have been updated since November, when Obamas own poll numbers started moving up again, and hough Netanyahus Likud Party is still leading in Israeli polls miscalculated the backlash in Israel from putting his relationship with the American president on the line.

Netanyahus already been denied an Oval Office meeting with Obama. Secretary of State John Kerry has no plans to meet with him while hes in town, a State Department official told POLITICO on Tuesday.

()

The president and his aides wont tell Democrats to skip the speech. But they arent telling Democrats to go, either.

Visit link:
Why Democrats may boycott Netanyahu speech to Congress

Why Democrats may boycott of Netanyahu speech to Congress

There seems to be a growing movement on the part of some groups topersuade Democratic members of Congress to skip the speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be giving to a Joint Session of Congress early next month:

Vice President Joe Biden wont commit to attending Benjamin Netanyahus speech to a joint meeting of Congress next month.

Hes not the only one.

Dozens of House Democrats are privately threatening to skip the March 3 address, according to lawmakers and aides, in whats become the lowest point of a relationship between the Israeli prime minister and President Barack Obama thats never been good.

Democrats have had to balance publicly supporting Israel with backing Obama, whos trying to close a deal with Iran to curb its nuclear programs over vehement opposition from Netanyahu, who has expressed concerns that the U.S. president is being naive. Negotiations are facing a deadline at the end of March for a political framework.

The speech was devised by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer to provide Netanyahu a prominent Washington platform to warn about the dangers of the proposed deal with Iran. But it also appeared to be based on an Israeli perception that Obama was weakened after midterm elections gave control of both houses of Congress to Republicans, and timed to take place just two weeks before Netanyahu faces reelection on March 17 and footage of American officials applauding him couldnt hurt his prospects.

But that reading of Obama seems not to have been updated since November, when Obamas own poll numbers started moving up again, and hough Netanyahus Likud Party is still leading in Israeli polls miscalculated the backlash in Israel from putting his relationship with the American president on the line.

Netanyahus already been denied an Oval Office meeting with Obama. Secretary of State John Kerry has no plans to meet with him while hes in town, a State Department official told POLITICO on Tuesday.

()

The president and his aides wont tell Democrats to skip the speech. But they arent telling Democrats to go, either.

See the article here:
Why Democrats may boycott of Netanyahu speech to Congress

Rules for Benghazi panel fuel Democrats suspicion of political motive

A congressional investigation of the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, is operating outside rules that require other House committees to publicly disclose how much money they spend and the issues they intend to pursue, according to Democrats on the panel.

The arrangement has added to suspicion among Democrats that the Republican-led committee with no budget constraints or clear end date is politically motivated and aimed primarily at damaging a likely White House run by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attacks in Libya.

The House investigation of Benghazi operates with no limit on its budget or timeframe, according to a letter of protest submitted by Democrats to the House Administration Committee, which oversees the chambers other panels.

The letter calls for a public debate about the amount of additional time and money Congress plans to spend investigating Benghazi, and for a public hearing before the House Administration Committee, as is typically required of other panels.

The Benghazi committee is on course to spend more than $3million in 2015, exceeding the annual budgets of long-standing committees that oversee veterans affairs and other issues, according to the letter.

The letter was signed by all five Democrats on the Benghazi panel, including Elijah E. Cummings (Md.). A spokesman for the Republican chairman of the Benghazi committee, Trey Gowdy (S.C.), declined to comment.

Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Administration Committee, said in a written response that the issues being raised by Democrats could have been debated on the House floor, and she described the Democrats letter as remarkably odd.

The conflict reflects the extent to which political tensions persist more than two years after Islamist militants killed four Americans in eastern Libya, including the U.S. ambassador to the country, J. Christopher Stevens.

As many as eight previous investigations have rejected many of the most politically charged Benghazi allegations.

A two-year inquiry by the House Intelligence Committee criticized a flawed process that led White House officials to make erroneous assertions about the nature of the Benghazi attack, and concluded that the State Department facility where Stevens was killed had been inadequately protected.

View post:
Rules for Benghazi panel fuel Democrats suspicion of political motive