[Iran Press TV] Democratic Leader Nancy San Fran Nan Pelosi Congresswoman-for-Life from the San Francisco Bay Area, born into a family of politicians. Formerly Speaker of the House, but it's not her fault they lost. Really. Noted for her heavily botoxed grimace... (D-Calif.) accused House Speaker John It is not pronounced 'Boner!' Boehner ... the occasionally weepy leader of House Republicans... on Sunday of "want[ing] to go over the edge" when it comes to negotiations to keep the government from defaulting on its debts.
The federal government will hit its debt limit sometime around the November election, but extraordinary measures, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ...President B.O.'s snotty-looking treasury secretary, noted neither for his honesty nor for his competence, though he does wear natty suits... has said, can keep the government paying its bill into the new year, when a new Congress is sworn in.
Boehner, however, began negotiations on the debt ceiling last week, saying that new tax revenues were off the table and that any increase in the debt limit must be accompanied by an equal number of cuts.
Pelosi described Boehner's approach to coming debt-ceiling negotiations as immature and irresponsible. "Last year, just the threat of not lifting the debt ceiling caused our credit rating to be lowered. This is not a responsible, mature, sensible place for us to go. We all know we have to reduce the deficit. We have to do it in a balanced way," she said on ABC's "This Week." "The speaker wants to go over the edge."
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation," said that Boehner's approach was "incredibly irresponsible" and risked the global economy.
If the speaker was serious about moving forward, Pelosi said, he should bring the middle-class tax cuts to the floor now so that they are not held hostage during negotiations after the election. "I challenge the speaker right now to bring the middle income tax cuts to the floor," she said. Pelosi praised the defense cuts that are scheduled to take effect in 2013 as a result of the previous debt ceiling deal.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pushed back against the Pentagon cuts, an indication of how hard it will be to come to a deal. "I don't think we ought to cut a penny less than we ought to cut. I'm perfectly open to how we arrange those reductions," he said on "Face the Nation."
"I happen to be among those who think it's much too tough on the Defense Department," he said.
Pelosi, while battling Boehner, has also been taking fire from her progressive flank, with former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) challenging her to reject benefit cuts for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that are included in the so-called Simpson-Bowles plan.
ABC's George Stephanopolous asked Pelosi about the feud with Feingold.
"I don't think he understands what that is," she said, referring to Simpson-Bowles. "What I said was -- and what I believe -- is that the framework of Simpson-Bowles was a very important one. It assumed the expiration of the high-end tax cuts. It took a harsh look at all of our spending, including defense spending ... What I didn't like about it was what it said about Social Security. But I said that can be handled separately."
She added that she had backed the president while he tried to reach a deal with Boehner. That deal included major cuts to social insurance programs. "We stuck with the president on the grand bargain that he had last year, that he and the speaker agreed to, and then the speaker walked away from," she said.
Why? To honor the victims in this way would acknowledge that the radical Islamist perpetrators were domestic terrorists.
"The Administration objects to section 552, which would grant Purple Hearts to the victims of the shooting incidents in Fort Hood, Texas, and Little Rock, Arkansas," the veto threat states. "The criminal acts that occurred in Little Rock were tried by the State of Arkansas as violations of the State criminal code rather than as acts of terrorism; as a result, this provision could create appellate issues."
On June 1, 2009, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who had spent time in Yemen and was an avowed jihadist, killed one soldier and wounded another in a drive-by shooting on a military recruiting office in Little Rock. He pleaded guilty to murder, avoiding trial and the death penalty, and was sentenced to life in prison.
Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major who had email communications with senior al-Qaeda recruiter and Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, awaits military trial for the Nov. 5, 2009, massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 were killed and 29 wounded.
I hate to say it, but Obama is correct in the PH not being applicable to these people. The PH is only given when enemy combatants or through enemy action causes a wound. Traitors and fratricide don't qualify for the awarding of the PH.
Injuries or wounds which do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart include frostbite or trench foot injuries; heat stroke; food poisoning not caused by enemy agents; chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy; battle fatigue; disease not directly caused by enemy agents; accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action; self-inflicted wounds (e.g., a soldier accidentally fires their own gun and the bullet strikes his or her leg), except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence; post-traumatic stress disorders; and jump injuries not caused by enemy action.
It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria. In the case of an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down by enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made. As well, individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment. Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence, such as by driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.
In this case the fratricide bullets were not discharged with the intent of destroying the enemies of the US on the battlefield.
Special consideration can be given and the award still given, but generally is only supposed to be given on a battlefield. Not to people that were hit by a traitor's bullet.
While Obama may have the letter of the rules correct, he sure as hell doesn't have the spirit for it and is doing this for political purposes, IMHO. I believe some other award is needed for service people that are injured or killed by turncoats and our "paid" advisers (see Afghanistan translator fucktards).
The battle field is here. Since Al Qaeda took down the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and when people said "Let's Roll" and took down the hijackers dieing in a Pennsylvania field. Any where Jihad is implemented by Islamists or by a lone wolf is a battle field. Especially at a U.S. Fort stateside by a former US Soldier that went over to the other side and single handedly massacred dozens of our troops in that fort. Those troops WILL be honored.
The reluctance of the Obama administration to aware the Purple Heart has nothing to do with geography. The issue surrounds the categorical denial of domestic terrorism carried out by Islamic personnel, who also wear the uniform of the United States military.
Obama administration officials may have pressured government contractors to change job loss estimates associated with coal regulations, audio recordings reveal. Say it ain't so! Not in the battleground states!
The tapes show that unnamed officials with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) asked government contractors to change their calculations of job losses associated with the Stream Protection Rule.
A preliminary draft of an environmental impact statement estimated that up to 7,000 coalminers could lose their jobs under the administration's "preferred" regulation. After a leaked copy of the report went public, officials asked the contractors to compare job estimates to a model in which another regulation was enforced, rather than the real world numbers.
"It's not the real world, this is rulemaking OBAMAWORLD!!!," an OSM official tells a skeptical contractor on the recording.
"If we're to assume [the 2008 rule] is enforced in the coal-producing states, this is a very small [impact]," the contractor replies. "But that, as you said, is not the real world, that's pretending ... I thought we were looking at what's going to change in Kentucky, what's going to change in Pennsylvania, what's going to change in Ohio, what's going to change in Wyoming." That will put Pennsylvania into Romney's win column, which is why the White House is lying.
When a second OSM official makes light of the "theoretical discussion," the contractor shoots back that "his [the OSM official's proposed criteria] was theoretical, mine was practical."
The agency fired the contractors studying the rule less than one month later. Report to the reeducation camp, peasant!
The House Natural Resources Committee obtained the tapes from an unidentified third party after OSM provided heavily redacted transcripts--the exchange above, for example, was blacked out--and withheld the audio recordings.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R., Ohio) blasted the administration's refusal to cooperate with the investigation.
"The tapes validated many of our concerns that the administration went into this with an intent of devastating the coal industry, fully knowing that the provisions in the proposed rule would put 7,000 jobs at risk," he said. "And they wanted to get away with it by playing pretend." It's also called Chicago and Dhimocrat politics
The committee has served OSM with two subpoenas since the beginning of the year. Department officials denied any wrongdoing and accused the committee of launching a political witch-hunt.
"The documents reflect the fact that there is a lot of analysis, discussion, and input that's needed if we're going to have a balanced rule that continues to support the development of important domestic resources," Department of the Interior spokesman Adam Fetcher said. "We look forward to the Committee's input on the substantive issues at any time, including once a rule is proposed, but the Committee's cherry-picking of the documents to manufacture a false narrative shows again that their investigation is about politics, not good policymaking."
Contractors and officials acknowledged in the closed-door meetings that rewriting the rule would be "atomic" for small businesses and start-up coal operations and worried aloud that spending $200 million per year to protect only 15 miles of stream in high unemployment regions such as Appalachia would be a hard "sell." Obama ain't selling it. It is being shoved down your throat in a communist style.
Since 1983, mining companies have conducted operations while maintaining a 100-foot barrier between their activities and streams.
The rule, known originally as the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, was never codified and has been loosely enforced. George W. Bush signed an official Stream Buffer Zone rule in 2008 that maintained the 100-foot restriction, but also included more exemptions for mining companies to conduct operations within the barrier.
When Obama came into office, he ordered OSM to rewrite the rule to please his environmentalist base. OSM has spent more than $5 million studying the impacts of sediment run off and water protection and hopes to release an official rule proposal later this year.
Former contractors who studied the rule told the Washington Free Beacon that such a calculation would have made job losses seem smaller, but also denied that OSM acted inappropriately.
The committee released the tapes on Friday. OSM officials have until May 24 to respond to a second subpoena from the committee. Johnson pledged to continue pushing for transparency at the agency.
"We're going to keep marching down this path," he said. "We're not going to stop until we get a full accounting of why the administration has chosen to rewrite this rule and why they are going about it in a speedy, haphazard way."
Fetcher said that OSM has fully cooperated with the committee, providing it with more than 13,000 pages of documents detailing the history of the rule.
He did not respond to an email asking if the department would release the recordings before the deadline, however. This is pretty much getting close to a tar and feathers solution, if not more. Vote like your country depends on it people, because it does.