Saturday, August 31, 2013



Article: War in Syria
Source: The Guardian/The Observer



US attack on Syria delayed after surprise U-turn from Obama

President insists the US should take military action against Assad but says he will seek the authorisation of Congress first
A US military attack against Syria was unexpectedly put on hold on Saturday, after president Barack Obama said that while he backed the use of force after what he called "the worst chemical weapons attack of 21st century", he would first seek the approval of Congress.
Obama said he had decided the US should take military action against Syria and had been told by his advisers that while assets were in place to launch strikes immediately, the operation was not "time sensitive".
"After careful deliberation I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets," he said in an address to the nation. "This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground."
He added: "Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I am confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behaviour and degrade their capacity to carry it out."
Obama said his most senior military advisor had told him an attack would be "effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now" and added that he was willing to wait for the approval of Congress. He did not say whether he would launch military strikes if Congress voted against the measure.
Congress is not due to return from the August recess until 9 September. A statement from Republican leaders including John Boehner, the House speaker, said there would be no early recall. The statement said: "In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people."
An earlier recall of Congress remains a possibility, but it would be highly unusual.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, welcomed Obama's decision, saying in a statement that the president's role as commander-in-chief is strengthened when he has the support of lawmakers.
Obama's decision to seek the formal backing of Congress took Washington by surprise. Obama was widely believed to be on the cusp of military action against Syria over the chemical weapons attack last week, which the administration has said killed almost 1,500 people.
It was a dramatic turnaround by the White House, which had indicated it was on the verge of launching strikes against Syria without the approval of Congress.
Obama said that while he still believed that as president he has the authority to launch strikes, he was mindful of the need for democratic backing and would "seek authorisation for the use force from the American people's representatives in Congress".
The announcement was a sign of the growing sense that the White House feels exposed over Syria, amid waning international support, minimal public backing and a chorus of concern on Capitol Hill. In 2011, Obama was strongly criticised for not consulting Congress before launching strikes against Libya.
The president's critics in Congress were emboldened by the vote against military action in the British parliament on Thursday, and there was growing pressure on Obama to show he had the backing of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Obama directly referred to the vote in Britain, saying that some advisers had advised against a congressional vote after "what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week, when the parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the prime minister supported taking action."
But he insisted that taking limited military action against Syria was the right choice, even without the support of the United Nations security council, which he said was "completely paralysed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable".
Russia and China have used their veto to block authorisation for the use of force against Syria.
"I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of our war that I was elected to end," Obama said. He added that the US should not turn a "blind eye" to the use of chemical weapons.
"Young boys and girls gassed to death by their own government," he said. "This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security."
He added: "What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?"
Immediately after Obama made his televised remarks from the White House Rose Garden, he and the defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, began briefing US senators for the start of what will be an intense lobbying campaign.
The UN inspectors who have spent almost two weeks investigating the alleged chemical weapons attack outside Damascus are now out of Beirut and headed for their headquarters at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, at the Hague. The UN team departed Syria earlier than expected, in what some interpreted as a sign that military strikes were due to take place over the weekend.
Earlier on Saturday, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who has supported Bashar al-Assad since the start of the Syrian civil war, challenged the US to present its case for military intervention to the UN security council and urged further talks at the G20 summit in St Petersburg next week.
Putin rejected US intelligence claims that Assad's regime used chemical weapons in Syria, saying it would be "utter nonsense" for government troops to use such tactics in a war it was already winning.
On Friday, secretary of state John Kerry gave a detailed statement of what he said was the "clear and compelling" evidence Assad's forces were behind the attack in the Damascus suburbs last week.


TO DO: War in Syria
Source: Left Action

Stop the Rush to War in Syria


Sign your name, and send a message to our elected officials: Stop the rush to war in Syria.
What is happening in Syria is shocking and horrific.  Innocent civilians are being slaughtered.  Atrocities are being committed.  The desire to do something about it is certainly understandable.
But it is unclear how an American attack -- especially a unilateral one -- will make things better.  And it could make things much worse.
We've already seen what can happen when we get involved in a war without clear objectives, international support, and an exit strategy. 
Send a message to our leaders.  Tell them not to rush into another war.
Tell them to stop the Rush to war in Syria.

"Stop the rush to war in Syria."





By signing, you agree to Left Action's terms of service and may receive updates on this and related campaigns and offers from Left Action. We agree that you can unsubscribe whenever you want.

Thursday, August 29, 2013



Article: LGBTQ
Source: Huff Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/same-sex-couples-federal-taxes_n_3837444.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003&ir=Gay%20Voices


Same-Sex Married Couples To Get 

Federal Tax Recognition Regardless 

Of State

Posted:   |  Updated: 08/29/2013 6:37 pm EDT



WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of the Treasury announced Thursday that when it comes to taxes, it will recognize same-sex couples' marriages even if they live in a state that does not.
The decision, which was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, marks the latest political progress for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
Prior to this spring, the Internal Revenue Service did not recognize same-sex married couples pursuant to section 3 of DOMA. Once DOMA was overturned in June, the question became: What about same-sex married couples who moved to a state that didn’t recognize their marriage (a couple married in Massachusetts who moved to Arkansas, for example)?
Thursday’s ruling by Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew provides a uniform policy for the IRS; the state of celebration -- where the wedding took place -- now trumps the state of residency when it comes to federal tax status for same-sex married couples.
“Today’s ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve,” Lew said in a statement. “This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.”
The new policy, which was first shared by Lew in a conference call that included LGBT advocates, holds a bit of political significance. It was the burden of federal tax law on same-sex couples, after all, that prompted the legal challenge to DOMA in the first place.
Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case, sued the government after being forced to pay estate taxes following the death of her wife, Thea Spyer. Had they been a heterosexual couple, Windsor's tax burden would have been zero. After DOMA was overturned, it was reported that the IRS owed Windsor $363,053.
Under the new Treasury policy, all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, employee benefits, IRA contributions, earned income, child tax credits, and income, gift and estate taxes, will apply to same sex couples regardless of where they live. On the flip side, gay couples also will now be subjected to the so-called marriage penalty, in which some (usually upper-middle class) joint filers incur a higher tax burden than they would if they filed as single people.
The policy only applies to married couples, and not those in domestic partnerships or same-sex unions.
“With today’s ruling, committed and loving gay and lesbian married couples will now be treated equally under our nation’s federal tax laws, regardless of what state they call home,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin. “These families finally have access to crucial tax benefits and protections previously denied to them under the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act.”
The Treasury’s actions on Thursday are just the latest in a set of LGBT policies offered by agencies within the Obama administration following the DOMA ruling. TheFederal Election Commission, and Departments of Health and Human Services andHomeland Security, also extended federal benefits to gay couples in states that don’t recognize their marriages.
UPDATE: Commenting on the Treasury Department's new policy, Edie Windsor hailed the decision as the precise remedy that she sought when she challenged the constitutionality of DOMA.
The Obama administration has taken another step toward equality today by ensuring that legally married gay couples can no longer be discriminated against for federal tax purposes. The reason I brought my case against DOMA all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court was because of a massive estate tax bill I received from the federal government after my beloved spouse, Thea Spyer, passed away. Thanks to today’s ruling at the Treasury Department, no one will have to experience the pain and indignity that I went through, ever again. I feel so proud and grateful to my country and to our president.



TO DO: "Oil-Free" Congress
Source: MoveOn.Org

http://pol.moveon.org/oilfree/




Make Congress "Oil-Free"

Since 1990, Big Oil has given more than $190 million to members of Congress and 75% ($142,635,314!) 
of those donations have gone to Republicans. Those donations guarantee an energy policy that serves 
the oil industry's interests over the public interest. Until we stop politicians from taking oil money, it'll be 
hard to move into a clean-energy future.


I want my representative and senators to lead the way to energy independence by pledging to stop taking any campaign contributions from the oil & gas industry.


A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your representative and senators when you click the button below.
Your Name
E-mail
Your Street Address
CityStateZip
Your message to your representative and senators: (optional)

 I authorize MoveOn.org Political Action to send an email statement containing my comment (see right), in my name and from my email address, as part of the petition delivery process.
Member of Congress? 
Make the pledge!
YOUR COMMENT TO CONGRESS

TO: Your Representative
CC: (Your Senators)
FROM: (Your Name and Email)
SUBJECT: Congress must go "Oil-Free"
__________

Dear Representative,

(Your personal note)

I'm writing to ask you to publicly pledge not to take any further campaign contributions from the oil industry. As you know, Americans have become increasingly concerned about the high price of our nation's addiction to oil and want a clean energy future. While there is a lot of talk in Washington about our addiction to oil, there is very little action.

Before we can expect to free the nation from its dependence on oil, we need politicians who will free themselves from their dependence on the oil industry. That's why we are asking you to stop taking contributions from Big Oil.



This campaign is based solely on word of mouth. It is CRUCIAL that you tell others. To transmit a
brief letter to your e-mail circle, just press
:


Article: Oil & Gas Industry/Campaign Contributions
Source: The Hill

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/316147-gop-candidates-rake-in-oil-and-gas-money#ixzz2bOTuyKZD

Republicans rake in cash from oil-and-gas industry

By Zack Colman 08/08/13 11:42 AM ET
The oil and gas industry has donated overwhelmingly to Republicans for the 2014 election cycle through various political action committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
GOP candidates snagged 85 percent of the $2.6 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry, OpenSecrets data shows, citing July 29 data released by the Federal Election Commission.
ExxonMobil topped the list at $344,500 in contributions, $304,500 of which went to Republicans.
Koch Industries, owned by the billionaire brothers who have often backed conservative candidates and causes, came in second by giving $297,000 to Republicans and $5,000 to Democrats.
Rounding out the top five were Marathon Petroleum ($226,000), Halliburton ($161,500) and Chevron ($153,501).
The mining industry has also heavily favored Republicans, giving 83 percent of a total $476,000 in donations to GOP candidates.
The Electric utility industry was less skewed toward Republicans. Such PACs have contributed $3.1 million, handing checks to GOP candidates two-thirds of the time.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013



TO DO: Voting Rights Act
Source: NAACP

http://www.naacp.org/page/s/vra-no-voting-rights


Tell your representatives they must act NOW to protect 

voting rights


The Supreme Court just made a major decision that impacts voting rights for 
every American.  In striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act -- but 
leaving Section 5 untouched -- there is no longer a mechanism in place to 
prevent states with a history of voter disenfranchisement from enacting such laws.


While this is a setback, it is by no means the end of the game. The Supreme 
Court's decision gives Congress complete authority to ensure no person is denied 
the right to vote.

Communities of color, and young, women, elderly, and disabled 
voters are at risk. Tell Congress to take immediate action to protect 
the voting rights for millions of Americans. Sign our petition today.