SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (633119)10/25/2011 1:39:58 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Respond to of 1575981
 
Steve Wynn Reams Obama: ‘Frightened To Death’ For Future Of U.S. Business



To: bentway who wrote (633119)10/25/2011 1:59:33 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Respond to of 1575981
 
It’s not every day that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that the Executive Office of the President violated federal law, but that’s the conclusion the GAO released in a report this month, after reviewing bilateral talks with the Chinese government hosted by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) disputes GAO’s analysis, arguing that the law does not constitutionally apply to the OSTP's diplomatic activities.

The disagreement stems from meetings this past May in which officials from the OSTP met with representatives of the Chinese government to discuss technology innovation and economic issues.

After reviewing the meetings at the behest of Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., the GAO "conclude[d] that OSTP’s use of appropriations to fund its participation in the Innovation Dialogue and the [economic issues] violated” a section of the Department of Defense appropriations bill that became law in April.

"The plain meaning of section 1340 is clear," wrote GAO general counsel Lynn Gibson, adding that OSTP "contravened the appropriations restriction." The GAO report provided the text of section 1340:

"None of the funds made available by this division may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this division."

Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz responded with memorandum in which she argued that section 1340 "is unconstitutional as applied to certain activities undertaken pursuant to the President’s constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States."

She also said "most, if not all, of the activities of the activities you have described to us fall within the President’s exclusive power to conduct diplomacy."

Rick Weiss, an OSTP senior analyst and director of Strategic Communications for OSTP, said that White House OLC opinions take precedence over those of the GAO.

"That’s not our understanding,” said Dan Scandling, a spokesman for Rep. Wolf. "GAO is saying they're in violation of the law. GAO is an independent body; [the Department of Justice] is not."

Weiss cited a 2005 memo by Joshua Bolten, then-Director of the Office of Budget and Management under President George W. Bush, as a bipartisan corroboration of his conclusion.

"[T]he GAO does not provide controlling legal interpretations for the Executive Branch," Bolten wrote. "Rather, responsibility for ensuring Executive Branch agencies' compliance with law rests with their respective General Counsels and, ultimately, with the Attorney General."

GAO's general counsel argued that, absent a judicial interpretation of the law's constitutionality, Acts of Congress are "entitled to a heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality."

In any case, the Attorney General's office approved the OSTP meeting with the Chinese government, section 1340 notwithstanding. But Seitz seems to have left open the question of whether the dialogues broke the law.

Four times in her memorandum, Seitz used the phrase "most, if not all" to defend OSTP's activities as protected under the president's constitutional authority.

That ambiguity seems to undermine the defense of OSTP. "OSTP does not deny that it engaged in activities prohibited by section 1340," Gibson wrote for the GAO.

"OSTP argues, instead, that section 1340, as applied to the events at issue here, is an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s constitutional prerogatives in foreign affairs," she said.

But Seitz does not say that "all" of "the events at issue" are protected by the "president's constitutional prerogatives," -- she says, emphatically, that "most, if not all," and thus leaves open the possibility that some of those activities did violate the law.

The phrase might amount to only a minor ambiguity, but she repeated the words -- which get to the heart of her argument -- throughout the memorandum.

When The Washington Examiner asked Weiss if Seitz intended the ambiguity, he declined to comment, referring the question instead to the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Washington Examiner has requested clarification from the Department of Justice as to what Seitz meant and whether OSTP did, in fact, break the law.



To: bentway who wrote (633119)10/25/2011 5:30:14 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1575981
 
Pregnant woman stalker bentway suddenly puts Pat Robertson forward as his 'source.'

LOL



To: bentway who wrote (633119)10/26/2011 11:03:09 AM
From: tejek1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575981
 
A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party

Even as the movement’s grip tightens on the GOP, its influence is melting away across vast swaths of America, thanks to centuries-old regional traditions that few of us understand.

By Colin Woodard



When 2011 began, the Tea Party movement had reason to think it had seized control of Maine. Their candidate, Paul LePage, the manager of a chain of scrappy surplus-and-salvage stores, had won the governor’s mansion on a promise to slash taxes, regulations, spending, and social services. Republicans had captured both houses of the state legislature for the first time in decades, to the surprise of the party’s leaders themselves. Tea Party sympathizers had taken over the GOP state convention, rewriting the party’s platform to demand the closure of the borders, the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Education, a prohibition on stimulus spending, a “return to the principles of Austrian Economics,” and a prohibition on “any participation in efforts to create a one world government.” A land developer had been put in charge of environmental protection, a Tea Party activist was made economic development chief, and corporate lobbyists served as the governor’s key advisers. A northern New England state’s rather liberal Democrats and notoriously moderate Republican establishment had been vanquished.

Or so they thought.

Less than a year later, it’s Maine’s Tea Party that’s on the wane. Prone to temper tantrums and the airing of groundless accusations, Governor LePage—who won office by less than two points in a five-way race, with just 38 percent of the vote—quickly alienated the state party chair and GOP legislative leadership. His populist credentials were damaged when it was revealed that much of his legislative agenda— including a widely condemned proposal to roll all state environmental laws back to weak federal baselines—had been literally cut and pasted from memos sent to his office by favored companies, industrial interests, or their lobbyists. His economic development commissioner was forced to step down after allegedly insulting several (previously friendly) audiences, while a court ruled that his environmental protection nominee violated conflict-of-interest provisions. He triggered international media coverage, a lawsuit, and large protests after removing a mural depicting the history of Maine’s labor movement from the Department of Labor because an anonymous constituent compared it to North Korean “brainwashing.” Eight of twenty GOP state senators blasted the governor’s bellicose behavior in an op-ed carried in the state’s newspapers, the largest of which declared in April that “the LePage era is over.” Power in the state’s diminutive capital, Augusta, now resides with the senate president, a Republican moderate who was Senator Olympia Snowe’s longtime chief of staff.

The Tea Party itself has been all but destroyed in Maine by its association with the debt ceiling hostage takers in Washington, according to Andrew Ian Dodge, founder of the organization Maine Tea Party Patriots and the state movement’s most high-profile activist. “There were people saying, ‘Yes, I think we should default,’ and there were the rest of us saying, ‘You’re insane,’ ” says Dodge, a dark-horse challenger to Snowe. “Now I’m emphasizing my Tea Party links even less because a lot of people think they are the crazy people who almost drove us off a cliff.”

Indeed, in much of the northern tier of the country, the Tea Party has seen a similar reversal of fortune. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker—who won by just 6 percent— has faced powerful resistance to his deregulatory, antiunion, antigovernment agenda, including the recall of two of his senatorial allies; his political future is uncertain. In Massachusetts, Tea Party-backed Senator Scott Brown has emerged as a moderate Yankee Republican along the lines of Snowe. In New Hampshire, Tea Party organizer Jack Kimball stepped down as state party chair this September after losing the confidence of the state’s leading Republicans. “This is the establishment Republicans versus the Tea Party that helped get them into office,’’ one angry Tea Party activist said of Kimball’s departure. “They rode us in, now they’re bringing us back to the barn.’’

When the Tea Party burst onto the national scene in the summer of 2010, it looked like a national movement. From Wasilla, Alaska, to Augusta, Maine, it dominated GOP rhetoric and produced candidates in virtually every level of government and section of the country. But over the past year, even as its grip on the national GOP has strengthened, its influence has melted away in large swaths of the northern half of the continent, its activists forced to confront the fact that their agenda and credo are anathema to the centuries- old social, political, and cultural traditions of these regions. The Tea Party agenda may hold sway over large parts of the South and interior West, and with the economy and the president in such a weakened state a Tea Party favorite like Rick Perry could conceivably win the White House. But the movement has no hope of truly dominating the country. Our underlying and deeply fractured political geography guarantees that it will never marshal congressional majorities; indeed, it almost guarantees that the movement will be marginalized, its power and influence on the wane and, over large swaths of the nation, all but extinguished.

We’re accustomed to thinking of American regionalism along Mason-Dixon lines: North against South, Yankee blue against Dixie gray or, these days, red. Of course, we all know it’s more complicated than that, and not just because the paradigm excludes the western half of the country. Even in the East, there are massive, obvious, and long-standing cultural fissures within states like Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, and Ohio. Nor are cultural boundaries reflected in the boundaries of more westerly states. Northern and downstate Illinois might as well be different planets. The coastal regions of Oregon and Washington seem to have more in common with each other and with the coasts of British Columbia and northern California than they do with the interiors of their own states. Austin may be the capital of Texas, but Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are the hubs of three distinct Texases, while citizens of the two Missouris can’t even agree on how to pronounce their state’s name. The conventional, state-based regions we talk about—North, South, Midwest, Southwest, West—are inadequate, unhelpful, and ahistorical.

« Previous1 2 3 4 5

washingtonmonthly.com