Justifying the spending addiction

Republican leaders should — and I’m confident that they will — take a principled position to save our nation from further bankruptcy, which is what a rational populace would call our situation. The president knows only the blame game; he doesn’t know about accepting responsibility. Someone has to step up and take on the role of grown-up; don’t count on it being Obama. In his four total years in the Senate, he (along with Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, Patty Murray and, oh yeah, Joe Biden) opposed raising the debt ceiling, and now as president viciously demagogues those who do the same thing he did in 2007. He is shameless.
It is characteristic of addiction that the addict tries to justify his actions. If they do not make sense, then he will come up with equally nonsensical rationalizations. And so his pathology spreads throughout his entire psyche, as each error must be rationalized by another, and another, and another.

Right now, the per capita debt in America is greater than the per capita debt in Greece. We have seen the Greek spending addicts, their rioting, their protests, their descent into permanent indigence. We have seen this, and yet we will not repent. Sounds like the addict to me.
How can we be so cruel to the most innocent of all, the children? As we mark the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (and 50 million legally murdered as a result), it’s obvious that our cruelty to our children, both in killing them or in saddling them with our debts, is a result of the same radix malorum, cupiditas. May God have mercy on this country.
View Comments

View the original article here

California Introduces Bill To Expand Access To First-Trimester Abortions

As states across the country impose restrictions to limit women’s access to abortion, California lawmakers are taking the opposite route. On Wednesday, Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation to expand the availability of first-trimester abortions by allowing more medical professionals — such as nurses and midwives — to perform the procedure.

Assembly Bill 154 revives last year’s push to allow nurses to perform nonsurgical abortions. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) ended up signing a watered down version of that bill, which only allowed non-doctors to perform early abortions after going through training in a specific pilot program. The California’s Nurses Association opposed the initial version of last year’s bill because they wanted to see the results from a multi-year study on early abortion that researchers were conducting at the University of California-San Francisco — but since the results from that study were published last week, lawmakers say the political landscape is different now.

The six-year study led by UCSF found that first-trimester abortions are just as safe when they are performed by professional nurses, physician assistants, and midwives as when they are performed by doctors. In a press release about their results, the researchers explained that expanding the abortion procedure beyond doctors could ultimately help eliminate the economic and racial barriers that prevent some women in California from accessing early abortions:

Nationally, 92 percent of abortions take place in the first trimester but studies find that black, uninsured and low-income women continue to have less access to this care, according to the researchers.

In California, 13 percent of women using state Medicaid insurance obtain abortions after the first trimester. Because the average cost of a second trimester abortion is substantially higher than a first trimester procedure and abortion complications increase as the pregnancy advances, shifting the population distribution of abortions to earlier gestations may result in safer, less costly care, according to the research team.

“Increasing the types of health care professionals who can provide early aspiration abortion care is one way to reduce this health care disparity,” said lead author Tracy Weitz, PhD, MPA, a UCSF associate professor and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. “Policy makers can now feel confident that expanding access to care in this way is evidence-based and will promote women’s health.”

In a press conference on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to unveil the bill, California lawmakers said they are committed to ensuring that women can access reproductive care no matter where they live in the state. According to the bill’s sponsors, 52 percent of California counties don’t have an abortion provider other than hospitals, which may have limited services. “California will not go back. We are going to go forward,” said state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D).

But other states across the country are going back, as women’s access to first-trimester abortions continues to be threatened. In states like Iowa, Texas, and Wisconsin, anti-choice lawmakers are imposing unnecessary barriers to early abortion — even though restrictions on first-trimester abortions simply lead to a rise in more costly later term abortion procedures.

View the original article here

Presidential Proclamation -- National Day of Hope and Resolve, 2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

NATIONAL DAY OF HOPE AND RESOLVE, 2013

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Four years ago, the American people came together to chart a new course through an uncertain hour. We chose hope over fear and hard work during hardship, confident that the age-old values that had guided our Nation through even its darkest days would be sufficient to meet the trials of our time.

Together, we have brought a decade of war toward a responsible end. We have saved our economy from collapse and fought for a future where everyone has an equal chance at opportunity. Millions of men, women, and children have made service their mission, reaffirming that America's greatest strength lies not in might or wealth, but in the bonds we share with one another.

Today, I have sworn an oath to preserve the fundamental freedoms and protections that are the lasting birthright of all who call this land home. I stand humbled by the responsibilities entrusted to me by our people, and I pray God's grace will see us through the tests we will surely face in the days ahead. But even as I assume once more the solemn duty of this Presidency, let us also remember that the oath I spoke shares much in common with those taken by every service member and every immigrant, and with the pledge we make before our flag. These are the words of America's citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

On the opposite end of the National Mall from where I delivered my address, a preacher once told us "we cannot walk alone." Empowered by our faith in each other and united by the purpose that binds our fates as one, let us learn again that most enduring lesson. Let us renew our resolve to meet the challenges of our age together. And when our grandchildren reflect on the history we leave, let them say we did what was required of us, that our words were true to our Founders' dreams for a young Republic and our actions foretold the dawn of a new and brighter day.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 21, 2013, a National Day of Hope and Resolve. I call upon all Americans to join together in courage, in compassion, and in purpose to more fully realize the eternal promises of our founding and the more perfect Union that must remain ever within our reach.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

Read the official transcript or watch the video of President Obama's Second Inaugural Address.

The President's second term will offer many ways for citizens to participate in conversations with the President and his team about the issues that are most important to them.

Doris Kearns Goodwin, Robert Caro, Michael Beschloss, and Douglass Brinkley have written more than a dozen books about American presidents, and they have some thoughts about the 2013 Inauguration.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Four Ways The Virginia GOP’s Redistricting Power Grab Could Be Stopped By Legal Action

Yesterday, when Virginia state Sen. Henry Marsh (D) was away from the state capitol to attend President Obama’s inauguration, Virginia Republicans rushed through a gerrymandering bill that that could potentially transform the evenly divided Virginia senate into a 27-13 Republican majority. The Virginia senate is currently split 20-20 between Democrats and Republicans, and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) indicated that he would have opposed the gerrymander if given the tiebreaking vote. Thus the bill would not have passed if Republicans had not used Sen. Marsh’s absence to push it through when a key opposing vote was absent.

This is not an isolated incident. A memo from the Republican State Leadership Committee openly bragged that U.S. House Republicans kept their majority because of gerrymandering, and, indeed, these gerrymanders were so effective that Democratic House candidates would need to win the national popular vote by more than 7 points in order to take back the chamber. Meanwhile, top Republicans are also pushing a plan to rig future presidential elections by reallocating electoral votes in blue states to the Republican candidates for president.

Nevertheless, it is not certain that the Virginia GOP’s underhanded move to gerrymander the state senate will survive contact with the courts or the Department of Justice. Although the fate of any challenge to this partisan gerrymander is uncertain, here are four ways the gerrymander could still go down:

No Mid-Decade Gerrymanders: The Virginia Constitution provides that “[t]he General Assembly shall reapportion the Commonwealth into electoral districts in accordance with this section in the year 2011 and every ten years thereafter.” When a constitution specifically instructs a legislature to take a particular action or grants a specific power to those lawmakers, courts sometimes read it to implicitly prevent them from taking other actions. Thus, when the state constitution instructs Virginia lawmakers to redistrict every ten years, it implicitly instructs them not to engage in mid-decade gerrymanders, and the new maps are invalid. The Virginia Supreme Court has not weighed in on this question, but a Virginia trial court concluded in 2012 that one purpose of this provision in the state constitution was “to preclude ‘politically convenient redistricting whenever one political party or the other might gain the upper hand and find it attractive to redraw political boundaries to consolidate power.’”Voting Rights Act: The Voting Rights Act not only forbids state voting laws which have a discriminatory impact on minorities, Section Five of the Act also requires new voting laws in some parts of the county to “pre-clear” those requirements with the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, DC before they can take effect. Much of Virginia remains subject to Section Five, so the maps could be stopped if they diminish minority voting strength in the covered areas. There’s only one problem: the conservatives on the Roberts Court are widely expected to strike down Section Five before the Court adjourns this June.What’s Left Of The Voting Rights Act: Even if the conservative justices strike down Section Five, Section Two of the Voting Right Act still prohibits redistricting that dilutes minority voting strength. To the extent that the new GOP maps dilute the minority vote, they could be subject to a lawsuit under Section Two. Such a lawsuit, however, would ultimately appeal to the same Republican-dominated Supreme Court that is expected to strike down Section Five.The U.S. Supreme Court Could Actually Do It’s Job: As a final note, the entire purpose of partisan gerrymanders is to weaken the voting power of people who hold one viewpoint (in this case, Democrats) while strengthening that of people who hold an opposing view (in this case, Republicans). This is a textbook violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s conservatives have refused to even consider cases challenging partisan gerrymanders, although Justice Kennedy suggested that his opposition to gerrymandering lawsuits is not entirely absolute.

View the original article here

Obama's speech was a conservative speech

Obama's speech was a conservative speech - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('');} Follow @thehill!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaign 2012Business & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireBallot BoxOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressFloor ActionGOP12In The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireBallot BoxOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressFloor ActionGOP12In The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions   Obama's speech was a conservative speechBy David Swerdlick, contributing editor, TheRoot.com-01/23/13 10:45 AM ET Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

The conventionally wise have weighed in and declared — with equal parts delight and dismay — that the president’s second inaugural address was a robust defense of contemporary liberalism that heartened the left and caused the right to issue a resigned “We told you so”: Barack Obama the progressive finally emerged on Inauguration Day.
 
With the Washington Post’s Michael Gerson — once a George W. Bush speechwriter — calling Obama’s speech a “a raging bonfire of straw men” and the Post’s Dana Milbank describing the president as preaching to the choir with “a leftover campaign speech combined with an early draft of the State of the Union address,” you’d think that Obama had served up a point-by-point defense of his discretionary spending prerogatives while challenging Republican House Speaker John Boehner to a winner-take-all hand of head’s-up Texas hold ‘em to settle the federal budget.
 
But they’re both wrong.

Hardly a liberal call to arms, Obama’s second inaugural was a conservative speech that touched on universal, almost inarguable themes that recast the traditional American dream in a modern context — and that could easily have been delivered by a GOP president — past, present or future.
 
Starting off with a nod to the Declaration of Independence — and a tone that was pure benediction and contained no condemnation — Obama affirmed that “what makes us Americans is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” — before reminding that those same truths have “never been self-executing” and admonishing that although “freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by his people here on earth.”
 
Obama moved on to say that “We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal not just in the eyes of God but also in our own” — ratifying the oft-stated Republican credo of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
 
At the only point when he mentioned government programs by name — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — Obama explained his view that “these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. It’s a point that’s sure to be contested in the halls of Congress, but one that starts with the advanced capitalist case for social spending — not as a hammock, but as a safety net that frees us “to take the risks that make this country great.”
 
Then he expressed his intention to “try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully” — a prerogative he’s more than earned as the Commander-in-Chief who doubled down in Afghanistan, toppled Muammar Qaddafi and finally hunted down Osama bin Laden.
 
And concluding with his most memorable line linking “Seneca Falls to Stonewall to Selma” Obama consecrated a principle that seemingly no conservative would want to argue with: that all — not just some — Americans have equal rights. And by linking what can only be described as the tea party moments of the women’s, gay and lesbian, and black civil rights movements, the president found his own way to say that “he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”
 
Yes, I suppose you could hear all of this as a liberal love letter, which Slate’s John Dickerson categorized as “partisan” and evocatively described as “the song of America’s civil rights progress.” But if civil rights progress is the exclusive province of liberals, then it’s a pretty damning indictment of today’s conservatism.
 
A nod to the nation’s founding principles, a pledge to seek peace and the public recognition by the leader of the free world of the struggle of women, gays and lesbians and people of color for equality should be considered bipartisan, at least. As former House Speaker and 2012 Republican presidential also-ran Newt Gingrich noted, it was “classically American, emphasizing hard work, emphasizing self-reliance, emphasizing doing things together.”
 
And if that message is taken as the opposite of conservative — even on Inauguration Day 2013—then conservatism is in worse shape than we thought.
 
Swerdlick is a contributing editor to TheRoot.com. You can follow him on Twitter @Swerdlick.

Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); View Comments Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/278773-obamas-speech-was-a-conservative-speechThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | OpinionView News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & InfrastructureGO TO THE HILL HOME » More Videos »

Congress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedLess talk, more action: No budget, no payObama lays out liberal vision for America; Now for the follow-upObama calls for citizen participationWhat Zero Dark Thirty gets wrong about Guantánamo lawyersWhy Obama's 'extended hand' is counter-productiveEmailedWhat Zero Dark Thirty gets wrong about Guantánamo lawyersObama lays out liberal vision for America; Now for the follow-upRight seeks to further weaken NLRBThe problem with tortureStrengthening cross-border trade with CanadaDiscussedRight seeks to further weaken NLRBThe problem with tortureBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More The Administration HeadlinesObama calls for citizen participationInaugural speech a new start on a never-ending journeyAvoiding a second-rate second termMore The Administration Headlines » The Administration News RSS feed »  Congress Blog Topics Campaign » Cardoza's Corner » Civil Rights » Economy & Budget » Education » Energy & Environment » Foreign Policy » Healthcare » Homeland Security » Judicial » Labor » Lawmaker News » Politics » Presidential Campaign » Religious Rights » Technology » The Administration »Briefing RoomHillary Clinton pays off 2008 campaign debtDAY'S END ROUNDUPPaul Ryan: Obama punted on debt crisis in inaugural speech
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogSchool choice: 49 million students still without optionsObama's speech was a conservative speechLess talk, more action: No budget, no pay
More Congress Blog »Pundits BlogJustifying the spending addictionState of the unionGun issue could decide midterm elections
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomRep. Fattah defends Beyonce from 'detractors'Lawmakers mark Roe v. Wade anniversaryStudy: Tweets about inauguration mostly positive
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyNews bites: Jobs threatened patent suit to enforce no-hire policyOVERNIGHT TECH: Uber used social media to beat local regsNew chairman of House Trade panel open to online privacy regulation
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)House Republican fears Obama has ‘boxed himself in’ on Keystone decisionWhite House starts review of revised gas ‘fracking’ ruleNews bites: Obama’s climate evolution, Ikea boosts renewables spending, and more
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxRNC launches outreach effort to find a 'path forward' for the GOP Ron, Rand Paul not backing challenger to RNC Chairman PriebusPoll: Clinton more popular than Biden
More Ballot Box »On The MoneySenate Dems to move budget through committee for first time in four yearsNews bites: What do I stand forHouse GOP debt-ceiling bill gaining momentum ahead of floor vote
More On The Money »HealthwatchDoctors praise bill to repeal Medicare cost-cutting boardDem bill named for Gingrich targets Medicare tax loopholeNews bites: Coming around
More Healthwatch »Floor Action'No Budget, No Pay' advances in the House, passage expected soonSen. Roberts' resolution reaffirms Congressional authority over debt limitReid warns that Senate rules will change with or without Republicans
More Floor Action »TransportationNews bites: 777 to the rescueAviation maintenance group hits TSA for 'inaction' on securing international repair facilities Sen. Rockefeller: Hearings on 787 'Dreamliner' malfunctions likely
More Transportation »DEFCON HillAir Force chief: Scope of Lackland scandal ‘stunning’Group argues Armed Services panel has not done enough on sexual assaultOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Congress jumps into Benghazi, Lackland
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsClinton gets emotional in Senate testimony about Benghazi attackGOP critics get opportunity to grill Secretary Clinton on BenghaziUS vows continued push for Middle East peace after Israeli vote
More Global Affairs »In The KnowObama thanks staffers, volunteers at Staff BallCelebs party at White House until 2 a.m.Marine Corps spokesman: Inaugural music was pre-recorded
More In The Know »RegWatchProposal would send hundreds of research chimps into retirementCoast Guard to slash crewmember drug testing requirements Liberal Dem: EPA should flex its powers on climate change
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSDick MorrisObama reveals real agendaMarkos MoulitsasGOP out of stepMore Columnists »

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.

Home/NewsNews by SubjectBlogsBusiness & LobbyingOpinionCapital LivingSpecial ReportsJobsVideo Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact | Advertise | RSS | Subscriptions

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

View the original article here

‘Olympus Has Fallen’ And America’s Enemies

First, a huge thanks to Alan Pyke, Sharmin Kent, and Betsy Phillips for filling in while I was at Sundance, with help from Zack Beauchamp and Travis Waldron. I’m incredibly grateful for their help, and I hear you gave them a great time.

It makes a certain amount of sense to me that, given the vitriol directed at President Obama, that some insecurities about presidential safety would come out in Hollywood products, the first of which, Olympus Has Fallen, has released its initial trailer:

What’s most interesting to me is not so much that the presidency is portrayed as under attack, or the psychological struggles of Gerard Butler (for that, I recommend Ralph Fiennes’ adaptation of Coriolanus, in which Butler is tremendous, as is everyone else), but who’s doing the attacking. Initially, the movie throws out images of mujahideen-like attackers wielding rocket launchers, only to transition to Washington, DC-born actor Rick Yune playing some kind of sinister and powerful if as-yet-nationally-unaffiliated foreigner who hired them. My bet was that he ends up being North Korean or from some other not-particularly-powerful Asian country that Americans don’t actually feel any geopolitical anxiety about, though, as with the North Koreans in Red Dawn, he’ll be standing in for our worries about an emergent China, or something.

I understand why pop culture wants to play with American worries about our place in the world, why a movie would show the consequences of our actions blowing back on us, why Homeland throws out the specter of symbols like Hezbollah and al Qaeda hooking up, despite the geopolitical realities that divide those groups. But it would be nice if we could deal with those anxieties in a way that reflect reality. The White House doesn’t always have to blow up for us to acknowledge that we’re worried about our place in the world.

View the original article here

Remarks by the President at Commander-in-Chief Ball

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Walter E. Washington Convention Center
Washington, D.C.

8:48 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Let me begin by just saying you all dress up pretty nice.  (Applause.)  I hope everybody is having a wonderful time.  Now, those of you who are in uniform, you look outstanding.  Your dates do look better, though.  (Applause.)  I just want to point this out.  (Laughter.) 

I’m not going to give a long speech.  What I really want to do is come down and express the extraordinary gratitude not just of me as your Commander-in-Chief, but more importantly, the thanks of all the American people. 

I want to start by thanking some of our outstanding leaders who are here:  our hosts, our Senior Enlisted Advisors from all five branches of our military.  (Applause.)  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Marty Dempsey, who promised to sing sometime tonight, so you should hold him to it.  (Laughter.)  The Vice Chairman, Sandy Winnefeld, and all our outstanding members of the Joint Chiefs.  Our Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Vietnam veteran, Ric Shinseki, who is here. 

And we’re honored to be joined by some truly extraordinary Americans, our wounded warriors, who inspire us with their incredible strength and resolve.  (Applause.)  Our enlisted men and women and junior officers -- the backbone of our military.  (Applause.)  Our amazing military families -- (applause) -- including the families of the fallen -- our Gold Star families  -- we will stand with you always.

The members of the legendary Tuskegee Airmen in the house.  (Applause.)  And the recipients of our nation’s highest military decoration -- the Medal of Honor.  We are honored by your presence.  (Applause.)

Today, we experienced the majesty of our democracy; a ritual only possible in a form of government that is of, and by and for the people; a day made possible because there are patriots like each and every one of you who defend our freedom every single day.

So this little party is just another way to say something we can never say enough:  thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you for volunteering.  Thank you for stepping up.  Thank you for keeping us strong.  Thank you for always making us proud.  I have no greater honor than being your Commander-in-Chief.  (Applause.) 

It’s because of you that with honor we were able to end the war in Iraq.  Because of you that we delivered justice to Osama bin Laden.  (Applause.)  Because of you that it’s even possible to give Afghans a chance to determine their own destiny.  We are going forward, and we’ll keep our military the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.

Now, tonight, we’re also joined by some of our servicemembers in Afghanistan.  They can’t see us, but we can see them on this monitor. 

Who we got there?  General, are you there?  Abe? 

MAJOR GENERAL ABRAMS:  Sir, good evening.  Mr. President, congratulations on your inauguration.  It is Major General Abrams, commanding general of the 3rd Infantry Division and Regional Command-South.  We’re honored to be able to join you there this evening. 

Sir, I’m joined tonight by some fantastic airmen and non-commissioned officers and soldiers serving here in Kandahar. 

SERGEANT JACKSON:  Congratulations, Mr. President.  Sergeant First Class Orlando Jackson from Lake Charles, Louisiana -- 3rd Infantry Division, Falcon Brigade, Task Force Light Horse.  I just wanted to congratulate you on a job well done. 

MASTER SERGEANT SKOWRONSKI:  Mr. President, Master Sergeant Robert Skowronski, Superintendent 807th Expeditionary Air Support Operations Squadron, hailing from Detroit, Michigan.  I want to say, go Tigers!  (Applause.)

SERGEANT WOOD:  Good evening, Mr. President.  My name is Sergeant First Class David Wood.  I'm out of Monument, Colorado -- 3rd Infantry Division, Falcon Brigade, Task Force Light Horse.  Thank you very much for having us here at your party.  Congratulations.  (Applause.)

MASTER SERGEANT GODLEWSKI:  Good evening, Mr. President -- Master Sergeant James Godlewski.  I'm the Operations Superintendent, the 807th Expeditionary Air Support Operations Squadron and the world's greatest Air Force.  (Applause.)  I want to say congratulations on tonight.  I hope you guys have a blessed evening.  (Applause.)  

MAJOR GENERAL ABRAMS:  Mr. President, we're honored to be able to join you tonight.  And we've got one more thing for all of you there -- Rock of the Marne!  (Applause.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughter.)  Well listen, to all of you who are there, we know it's tough being away from your families.  We know the incredible sacrifices and challenges that you meet every single day.  But I can tell you that you've got a room full of patriots here.  (Applause.)  And although I've got to admit that they're a little spiffied up right now -- (laughter) -- their heart and soul, their dedication, their sense of duty is at one with every single one of the folks who are in Kandahar right now. 

And I want you to know that when I was standing on the steps of the Capitol today, looking out over close to a million people, the single-biggest cheer that I always get -- and today was no different at my Inauguration -- was when I spoke about the extraordinary men and women in uniform that preserve our freedom and keep our country strong.  (Applause.)  So know that every single day we are thinking of you. 

We're going to make sure that you've got the equipment, the strategy, the mission that allows you to succeed and keep our country safe.  Know that we are going to be looking after and thinking about your families every single day, and that when you get back home you're going to be greeted by a grateful nation, and that you will be on our minds tonight and every single night until our mission in Afghanistan is completed. 

Can everybody please give our comrades-in-arms a huge round of applause?  (Applause.)  And please, all of you give our very best to your families back home, because I know it's just as tough, if not tougher for them to see you in harm's way and away from the family.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

There's one last thing I've got to do.  I've got a date with me here.  (Applause.)  She inspires me every day.  She makes me a better man and a better President.  (Applause.)  The fact that she is so devoted to taking care of our troops and our military families is just one more sign of her extraordinary love and grace and strength.  I'm just lucky to have her.  (Applause.) 

I said today at the lunch over at the Congress that some may dispute the quality of our President, but nobody disputes the quality of our First Lady.  (Applause.) 

Ladies and gentlemen, my better half and my dance partner, Michelle Obama.  (Applause.)

END
9:00 P.M. EST

Read the official transcript or watch the video of President Obama's Second Inaugural Address.

The President's second term will offer many ways for citizens to participate in conversations with the President and his team about the issues that are most important to them.

Doris Kearns Goodwin, Robert Caro, Michael Beschloss, and Douglass Brinkley have written more than a dozen books about American presidents, and they have some thoughts about the 2013 Inauguration.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

House Republican Leader Calls For Defunding The United Nations

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK)

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), the fifth-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives has called for defunding and abandoningof the United Nations, in favor of conducting U.S. international relations “in another way.”

Speaking before a town hall meeting earlier this month, Lankford gladly weighed in on every topic that his constituents threw at him. One resident seemed particularly riled by the insidious effect the U.N. has on the United States’ policies, particularly the ominous sounding “Agenda 21? and its aims of achieving sustainable development. When asked about his views on the relationship between the U.N. and United States, Lankford didn’t hesitate to make his distaste for international partnerships clear:

CONSTITUENT: The UN in my opinion is a continuing criminal enterprise. I would like to know why we are still funding them?

LANKFORD: Right. [Loud applause] You know where I am on that completely. The UN had a set purpose in its earliest days of trying to form relationships, but it has far left that. Our technology has far exceeded the purpose of what we have in the UN. The “benefits” of what we could get out of the UN we can do with a telephone now and over a Skype. […] It is a transition of wealth from wealthy nations to poorer nations is what the UN’s sole purpose is now. I would be glad to defund it and do our relationships in another way.

Watch his remarks here:

Lankford is previously on record as supporting the concept of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the U.S. from paying its dues to the United Nations, that time at another town hall in 2011. The Congressman was also one of 130 representatives who signed onto a letter warning of the dangers of any potential U.N. Arms Trade Treaty to the rights of Americans.

These stances put him well within the mainstream of GOP thought on international organizations, considering that the foreign policy plank in the 2012 Republican Platform firmly declared that Republicans “strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.” Unfortunately for them, that places the GOP well outside the mainstream among the public, as polling shows approximately eight in ten voters believe that the U.S. maintain a strong role in the United Nations, and that the U.S. keep up a strong relationship with the U.N.

Contrary to the belief of Lankford and his questioners, the United Nations does much more than serve as a forum that can be replaced by Skype. The U.N. provides critical relief in the event of wars and natural disasters, sheltering thousands of refugees in the countries surrounding Syria and Mali, as well as feeding millions on the verge of starvation. Current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice has also previously stated that the U.N. saves the U.S. millions in terms of providing security. “If the US was to act on its own – unilaterally – and deploys its own forces in many of these countries, for every dollar the US would spend, the UN can accomplish the mission for twelve cents,” Rice said in an interview in 2009.

Even U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton — a harsh U.N. critic — has praised the role the U.N. plays in providing humanitarian relief in times of disaster. That hasn’t stopped Republicans from pushing massive cuts to the organization and to the U.S. State Department since they retook control of the House in 2010 or spiking multiple treaties in the Senate.

View the original article here

Celsion rises after expanding China partnership

NEW YORK -- Shares of Celsion Corp. climbed Tuesday after the company expanded a drug development deal with a Chinese pharmaceutical company.

THE SPARK: Celsion said Zhejiang Hisun will have the option to seek marketing approval for Celsion's liver cancer drug ThermoDox in Hong Kong and Macau. The companies had already agreed to collaborate in China. Celsion will get $5 million upfront and said it could get "several hundred million U.S. dollars" from Hisun over the next decade. The Lawrenceville, N.J., company will support Hisun's work on the manufacturing of ThermoDox in China, and Hisun will make and distribute the drug in those markets.

THE BIG PICTURE: ThermoDox is a version of doxorubicin, an older chemotherapy drug. Celsion said ThermoDox is heat-activated and is designed to deliver bigger doses of the doxorubicin directly to tumors.

In May 2012 the companies announced a development agreement that only applied to China. Celsion agreed to supply the drug to Hisun, while Hisun would help secure marketing approval for ThermoDox.

Celsion does not have any approved drugs, but it expects to report results from a late-stage clinical trial of ThermoDox before the end of January.

Hisun will have an option to pay Celsion another $5 million in the next few months. That payment will give it the right to market ThermoDox in Hong Kong and Macau, and will be part of a total payment to Celsion worth $25 million. Celsion said it could get a total of $55 million in upfront and regulatory milestone payments over the next 18 months, and $45 million more if ThermoDox drug reaches sales targets. It will also receive royalty payments of more than 10 percent on sales in the region.

THE ANALYSIS: Roth Capital Partners analyst Joseph Pantginis said the deal is a major expansion of Celsion's previous agreement with Hisun, and said he is "impressed" with the new agreement. He said the partnership could help speed up marketing approval for ThermoDox. Pantginis maintained a "Buy" rating on Celsion shares, with a price target of $10.

SHARE ACTION: Shares of Celsion gained 75 cents, or 10.7 percent, to $7.75 in afternoon trading. The shares have quadrupled in value over the last year, as they closed at $1.69 on Jan. 23, 2012.

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court Won’t Change Marijuana’s ‘Dangerous Drug’ Classification

In the debate over the legal status of marijuana, one of the major obstacles to more lenient federal treatment is the Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of cannabis as a dangerous drug with no medical use. A federal appeals panel declined Tuesday to change that classification, finding that the DEA’s decision not to reschedule marijuana was not so improper that it warranted court invalidation:

On the merits, the question before the court is not whether marijuana could have some medical benefits. Rather, the limited question that we address is whether the DEA’s decision declining to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana under the CSA was arbitrary and capricious. [...]

Petitioners … are left with the difficult task of showing that the DEA has misapplied its own regulations. [...]

[W]e are obliged to defer to the agency’s interpretation of “adequate and well-controlled studies.” Judged against the DEA’s standard, we find nothing in the record that could move us to conclude that the agency failed to prove by substantial evidence that such studies confirming marijuana’s medical efficacy do not exist.

Since the Controlled Substances Act was first passed in 1970, marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I drug, the most restrictive of the five schedules. The initial House of Representatives report recommended that Congress classify marijuana as Schedule I at least temporarily “until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue,” reasoning that uncertainty remained about the effects of the drug. But multiple requests that the DEA reconsider its decision have failed, on the grounds that there is still insufficient research to make a determination.

Plaintiffs in this case had cited more than 200 peer-reviewed studies, and argued that larger-scale studies are precluded precisely because the government doesn’t support research on Schedule I drugs. The Schedule I designation also means no prescriptions can be written for the drug, and Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee cited the designation as the reason for blocking that state’s medical marijuana law. Both Chafee and Washington Gov. Christie Gregoire have called for the drug to be rescheduled.

In a deferential and unsurprising ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said it was bound by the DEA’s determination about what types of studies constitute “adequate and well-controlled.” But as the court explains, this decision represents courts’ extreme hesitance to disturb the determinations that agencies make, rather than any assessment of the medical benefits of the drug.

Nonetheless, it signifies the intractable battle to remove one of the major hurdles in reforming federal marijuana law. The classification of marijuana as a drug with no medical value appears increasingly at odds with the opinions of many doctors who attest to the medical benefits of the drug, and of patients, who take advantage of dispensaries in the 18 states where they are now legal.

A number of highly addictive and potent drugs, such as cocaine, opium poppy, morphine and codeine, are listed as Schedule II, designated for those drugs that have a high potential for abuse and dependence, but which have “a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.” And the synthetic version of THC, known as dronabinol, is listed as Schedule III, even though THC is the ingredient in cannabis that causes psychoactive effects.

View the original article here