U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes
108th
Congress -
2nd
Session (2004)
|
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Senate votes to remove congress part 1
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 1st Session
XML U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary| Question: On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 3304 ) | |||
| Vote Number: | 284 | Vote Date: | December 19, 2013, 11:14 PM |
| Required For Majority: | 1/2 | Vote Result: | Motion Agreed to |
| Measure Number: | H.R. 3304 (A bill to authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other veterans who were previously recommended for award of the Medal of Honor. ) | ||
| Measure Title: | An act to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other veterans who were previously recommended for award of the Medal of Honor. | ||
| Vote Counts: | YEAs | 84 |
| NAYs | 15 | |
| Not Voting | 1 |
| Vote Summary | By Senator Name | By Vote Position | By Home State |
| Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea Baldwin (D-WI), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Begich (D-AK), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Yea Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Blunt (R-MO), Yea Booker (D-NJ), Yea Boozman (R-AR), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Coats (R-IN), Yea Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Coons (D-DE), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay Cruz (R-TX), Nay Donnelly (D-IN), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Fischer (R-NE), Yea Flake (R-AZ), Nay | Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Hagan (D-NC), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea Heinrich (D-NM), Yea Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea Heller (R-NV), Yea Hirono (D-HI), Yea Hoeven (R-ND), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johanns (R-NE), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Johnson (R-WI), Yea Kaine (D-VA), Yea King (I-ME), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Yea Manchin (D-WV), Yea Markey (D-MA), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Merkley (D-OR), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Moran (R-KS), Yea | Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting Paul (R-KY), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Risch (R-ID), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schatz (D-HI), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Scott (R-SC), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Warner (D-VA), Yea Warren (D-MA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay |
| Vote Summary | By Senator Name | By Vote Position | By Home State |
| YEAs ---84 | ||
| Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Blunt (R-MO) Booker (D-NJ) Boozman (R-AR) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Coons (D-DE) Cornyn (R-TX) Donnelly (D-IN) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Fischer (R-NE) Franken (D-MN) | Gillibrand (D-NY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Heinrich (D-NM) Heitkamp (D-ND) Heller (R-NV) Hirono (D-HI) Hoeven (R-ND) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Johnson (R-WI) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Kirk (R-IL) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Manchin (D-WV) Markey (D-MA) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) | Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Portman (R-OH) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Rubio (R-FL) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Scott (R-SC) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Vitter (R-LA) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS) |
| NAYs ---15 | ||
| Barrasso (R-WY) Coburn (R-OK) Corker (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) Cruz (R-TX) | Enzi (R-WY) Flake (R-AZ) Lee (R-UT) Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY) | Risch (R-ID) Sanders (I-VT) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Wyden (D-OR) |
| Not Voting - 1 | ||
| Nelson (D-FL) | ||
| Vote Summary | By Senator Name | By Vote Position | By Home State |
| Alabama: | Sessions (R-AL), Nay | Shelby (R-AL), Nay |
| Alaska: | Begich (D-AK), Yea | Murkowski (R-AK), Yea |
| Arizona: | Flake (R-AZ), Nay | McCain (R-AZ), Yea |
| Arkansas: | Boozman (R-AR), Yea | Pryor (D-AR), Yea |
| California: | Boxer (D-CA), Yea | Feinstein (D-CA), Yea |
| Colorado: | Bennet (D-CO), Yea | Udall (D-CO), Yea |
| Connecticut: | Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea | Murphy (D-CT), Yea |
| Delaware: | Carper (D-DE), Yea | Coons (D-DE), Yea |
| Florida: | Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting | Rubio (R-FL), Yea |
| Georgia: | Chambliss (R-GA), Yea | Isakson (R-GA), Yea |
| Hawaii: | Hirono (D-HI), Yea | Schatz (D-HI), Yea |
| Idaho: | Crapo (R-ID), Nay | Risch (R-ID), Nay |
| Illinois: | Durbin (D-IL), Yea | Kirk (R-IL), Yea |
| Indiana: | Coats (R-IN), Yea | Donnelly (D-IN), Yea |
| Iowa: | Grassley (R-IA), Yea | Harkin (D-IA), Yea |
| Kansas: | Moran (R-KS), Yea | Roberts (R-KS), Yea |
| Kentucky: | McConnell (R-KY), Yea | Paul (R-KY), Nay |
| Louisiana: | Landrieu (D-LA), Yea | Vitter (R-LA), Yea |
| Maine: | Collins (R-ME), Yea | King (I-ME), Yea |
| Maryland: | Cardin (D-MD), Yea | Mikulski (D-MD), Yea |
| Massachusetts: | Markey (D-MA), Yea | Warren (D-MA), Yea |
| Michigan: | Levin (D-MI), Yea | Stabenow (D-MI), Yea |
| Minnesota: | Franken (D-MN), Yea | Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea |
| Mississippi: | Cochran (R-MS), Yea | Wicker (R-MS), Yea |
| Missouri: | Blunt (R-MO), Yea | McCaskill (D-MO), Yea |
| Montana: | Baucus (D-MT), Yea | Tester (D-MT), Yea |
| Nebraska: | Fischer (R-NE), Yea | Johanns (R-NE), Yea |
| Nevada: | Heller (R-NV), Yea | Reid (D-NV), Yea |
| New Hampshire: | Ayotte (R-NH), Yea | Shaheen (D-NH), Yea |
| New Jersey: | Booker (D-NJ), Yea | Menendez (D-NJ), Yea |
| New Mexico: | Heinrich (D-NM), Yea | Udall (D-NM), Yea |
| New York: | Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea | Schumer (D-NY), Yea |
| North Carolina: | Burr (R-NC), Yea | Hagan (D-NC), Yea |
| North Dakota: | Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea | Hoeven (R-ND), Yea |
| Ohio: | Brown (D-OH), Yea | Portman (R-OH), Yea |
| Oklahoma: | Coburn (R-OK), Nay | Inhofe (R-OK), Yea |
| Oregon: | Merkley (D-OR), Nay | Wyden (D-OR), Nay |
| Pennsylvania: | Casey (D-PA), Yea | Toomey (R-PA), Yea |
| Rhode Island: | Reed (D-RI), Yea | Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea |
| South Carolina: | Graham (R-SC), Yea | Scott (R-SC), Yea |
| South Dakota: | Johnson (D-SD), Yea | Thune (R-SD), Yea |
| Tennessee: | Alexander (R-TN), Yea | Corker (R-TN), Nay |
| Texas: | Cornyn (R-TX), Yea | Cruz (R-TX), Nay |
| Utah: | Hatch (R-UT), Yea | Lee (R-UT), Nay |
| Vermont: | Leahy (D-VT), Yea | Sanders (I-VT), Nay |
| Virginia: | Kaine (D-VA), Yea | Warner (D-VA), Yea |
| Washington: | Cantwell (D-WA), Yea | Murray (D-WA), Yea |
| West Virginia: | Manchin (D-WV), Yea | Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea |
| Wisconsin: | Baldwin (D-WI), Yea | Johnson (R-WI), Yea |
| Wyoming: | Barrasso (R-WY), Nay | Enzi (R-WY), Nay |
| Vote Summary | By Senator Name | By Vote Position | By Home State |
Senate sends defense bill to Obama
Senate sends defense bill to Obama
It leaves out an amendment by Sen. Gillibrand on sexual assault prosecution. | AP Photo
By JUANA SUMMERS and AUSTIN WRIGHT | 12/19/13 11:52 PM EST
The Senate approved a sweeping defense policy bill late Thursday
that protects troop bonuses and reforms some ways the Pentagon handles
sexual assaults in the military but leaves debates for another day on
other major issues, from Iran sanctions to NSA eavesdropping.
The 84-15 vote followed a drawn-out partisan spat that at times appeared to threaten the annual National Defense Authorization Act. Senate Republicans, particularly, fumed about the compromise legislation’s movement through Congress on a fast track, with no opportunity for amendments.
Continue Reading
“I don’t know what we’re going to do, given the dictatorial fashion in which he’s running the Senate,” McCain added, complaining about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
The House, which has recessed for the holidays, has already approved the mammoth measure. And President Barack Obama is expected to sign it. On Thursday, before the Senate acted, White House press secretary Jay Carney hailed the measure for providing the administration “additional flexibility” to transfer prisoners at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to other countries.
But Carney also said that “the bill does not address all of the administration’s concerns” and “includes a number of provisions that restrict or limit the Defense Department’s ability to align military capabilities and force structure with the president’s strategy.” For example, it protects certain Air Force aircraft that service leaders say they want to scrap to save money.
The final compromise, fashioned by the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, leaves out Democratic language that would have eased restrictions on transferring Gitmo detainees to the United States — a provision that would have helped the administration achieve its goal of shuttering the facility.
It also does not include a controversial amendment by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to remove decisions about prosecuting sexual assault from the military chain of command. The New York Democrat says she’s secured a commitment from Reid to bring her proposal to the floor as a stand-alone measure next year. Although she may get her vote, the legislation is not expected to survive in the Republican-controlled House.
(Also on POLITICO: Full defense policy coverage)
Thursday’s defense bill also sidesteps the debate over Iran. Senators who wanted to offer amendments imposing tougher sanctions were blocked because of the bill’s fast-track process, which supporters said was necessary to get it finished before the end of the year. So Iran sanction hawks’ efforts will have to wait until next year. Movement now toward stricter sanctions, the White House has warned, would undermine its ongoing negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear program.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested Reid had fast-tracked the defense bill because he “can’t stomach” a politically uncomfortable Iran vote.
Overall, the bill would authorize about $527 billion in base defense spending for the current fiscal year, plus funds for the war in Afghanistan and nuclear weapons programs overseen by the Energy Department. The numbers are in line with the Pentagon’s request but more than $30 billion above the levels set under the bipartisan budget agreement passed in Congress this week.
Appropriations committees are expected to work through the holidays on spending bills for passage before the Jan. 15 expiration of the current continuing spending resolution that funds the federal government. If Congress is able to act in time, it would finally give the Defense Department and the rest of the government a budget.
(Also on POLITICO: Patty Murray backs off military pension cut)
The elevated spending levels in the new defense authorization bill allowed the Armed Services committees to avoid tough strategic choices about what to cut and what to keep under the spending caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011. But it also means the bill is out of sync with the fiscal realities facing the Defense Department.
That won’t be the case next year, according to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who told POLITICO his committee would match its topline numbers for fiscal 2015 to the levels put forward in the budget deal. The Pentagon is preparing its fiscal year 2015 budget proposal for submission to Congress early next year.
Amid the year-end crunch, Levin said he was happy the bill would get done again this year and keep alive a 51-year streak of passage for the yearly measure.
“I really feel that Christmastime, for the troops and their families, for them to get any message other than, ‘We’re passing the bill,’ would have been a really terrible message,” he said. “So I’m elated, frankly, we passed the bill for their sake.”
The 84-15 vote followed a drawn-out partisan spat that at times appeared to threaten the annual National Defense Authorization Act. Senate Republicans, particularly, fumed about the compromise legislation’s movement through Congress on a fast track, with no opportunity for amendments.
Continue Reading
Text Size
- -
- +
- reset
“It’s a failure of leadership on the part of the
majority leader,” Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters, echoing
Republican colleagues who said the accelerated process was designed to
prevent tough votes on Iran sanctions and other controversial issues.
(Sign up for POLITICO’s Morning Defense tip sheet)“I don’t know what we’re going to do, given the dictatorial fashion in which he’s running the Senate,” McCain added, complaining about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
The House, which has recessed for the holidays, has already approved the mammoth measure. And President Barack Obama is expected to sign it. On Thursday, before the Senate acted, White House press secretary Jay Carney hailed the measure for providing the administration “additional flexibility” to transfer prisoners at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to other countries.
But Carney also said that “the bill does not address all of the administration’s concerns” and “includes a number of provisions that restrict or limit the Defense Department’s ability to align military capabilities and force structure with the president’s strategy.” For example, it protects certain Air Force aircraft that service leaders say they want to scrap to save money.
The final compromise, fashioned by the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, leaves out Democratic language that would have eased restrictions on transferring Gitmo detainees to the United States — a provision that would have helped the administration achieve its goal of shuttering the facility.
It also does not include a controversial amendment by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to remove decisions about prosecuting sexual assault from the military chain of command. The New York Democrat says she’s secured a commitment from Reid to bring her proposal to the floor as a stand-alone measure next year. Although she may get her vote, the legislation is not expected to survive in the Republican-controlled House.
(Also on POLITICO: Full defense policy coverage)
Thursday’s defense bill also sidesteps the debate over Iran. Senators who wanted to offer amendments imposing tougher sanctions were blocked because of the bill’s fast-track process, which supporters said was necessary to get it finished before the end of the year. So Iran sanction hawks’ efforts will have to wait until next year. Movement now toward stricter sanctions, the White House has warned, would undermine its ongoing negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear program.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested Reid had fast-tracked the defense bill because he “can’t stomach” a politically uncomfortable Iran vote.
Overall, the bill would authorize about $527 billion in base defense spending for the current fiscal year, plus funds for the war in Afghanistan and nuclear weapons programs overseen by the Energy Department. The numbers are in line with the Pentagon’s request but more than $30 billion above the levels set under the bipartisan budget agreement passed in Congress this week.
Appropriations committees are expected to work through the holidays on spending bills for passage before the Jan. 15 expiration of the current continuing spending resolution that funds the federal government. If Congress is able to act in time, it would finally give the Defense Department and the rest of the government a budget.
(Also on POLITICO: Patty Murray backs off military pension cut)
The elevated spending levels in the new defense authorization bill allowed the Armed Services committees to avoid tough strategic choices about what to cut and what to keep under the spending caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011. But it also means the bill is out of sync with the fiscal realities facing the Defense Department.
That won’t be the case next year, according to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who told POLITICO his committee would match its topline numbers for fiscal 2015 to the levels put forward in the budget deal. The Pentagon is preparing its fiscal year 2015 budget proposal for submission to Congress early next year.
Amid the year-end crunch, Levin said he was happy the bill would get done again this year and keep alive a 51-year streak of passage for the yearly measure.
“I really feel that Christmastime, for the troops and their families, for them to get any message other than, ‘We’re passing the bill,’ would have been a really terrible message,” he said. “So I’m elated, frankly, we passed the bill for their sake.”
Author:
Read more about:
Short URL:
http://politi.co/JNEFGDBigger, Badder NDAA 2014 Quietly Passed the House and Senate – and It Is On the Way to Obama’s Desk
Bigger, Badder NDAA 2014 Quietly Passed the House and Senate – and It Is On the Way to Obama’s Desk
Yesterday the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act was fast-tracked through the Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments. And you know, its Christmastime, so they just passed it so that they could recess for the holidays. The new version of the NDAA has already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.
It authorizes massive spending, including $527 billion in base defense spending for the current fiscal year, funding for the war in Afghanistan, and funding for nuclear weapons programs.
The indefinite detention allowed by the original NDAA is still here, and it’s actually worse now, because there are provisions that will make it easier for the government to target those who disagree. Section 1071 outlines the creation of the “Conflict Records Research Center”, where the unconstitutionally obtained information that the NSA has collected is compiled and shared with the Department of Defense. The information, called in the wording “captured records,” can be anything from your phone records, emails, browsing history or posts on social media sites.
The New American reports in detail on the expansion of powers:
For two years, the NDAA included provisions that purported to authorize the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain any person (including an American citizen) who he believes “represent[s] an enduring security threat to the United States.”One thing that was omitted is the amendment on the prosecution of sexual assaults in the military. So, we can all be locked up indefinitely for crimes that haven’t been proven, but they don’t care so much if military members continue to rape other military members.
Such an immense grant of power is not only unconscionable, but unconstitutional, as well.
Regardless of promises to the contrary made every year since 2011 by President Obama, the language of the NDAA places every citizen of the United States within the universe of potential “covered persons.” Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and to nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.
Finally, there is in the NDAA for 2014 a frightening fusion of the federal government’s constant surveillance of innocent Americans and the assistance it will give to justifying the indefinite detention of anyone labeled an enemy of the regime.
Section 1071 of the version of the 2014 NDAA approved by the House and Senate committees this week expands on the scope of surveillance established by the Patriot Act and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
Section 1071(a) authorizes the secretary of defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center.’” According to the text of the latest version of the NDAA, the center’s task would be to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”
In order to accomplish the center’s purpose, the secretary of defense will create an information exchange in cooperation with the director of national intelligence.
Key to the functioning of this information exchange will be the collection of “captured records.” Section 1071(g)(1), defines a captured record as “a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations from countries, organizations, or individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”
When read in conjunction with the provision of the AUMF that left the War on Terror open-ended and the prior NDAAs’ classification of the United States as a battleground in that unconstitutional war, and you’ve got a powerful combination that can knock out the entire Bill of Rights.
Finally, when all the foregoing is couched within the context of the revelations regarding the dragnet surveillance programs of the NSA, it becomes evident that anyone’s phone records, e-mail messages, browsing history, text messages, and social media posts could qualify as a “captured record.”
After being seized by the NSA (or some other federal surveillance apparatus), the materials would be processed by the Conflict Records Research Center created by this bill. This center’s massive database of electronic information and its collaboration with the NSA converts the United States into a constantly monitored holding cell and all its citizens and residents into suspects. All, of course, in the name of the security of the homeland. (source)
The final compromise, fashioned by the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, leaves out Democratic language that would have eased restrictions on transferring Gitmo detainees to the United States — a provision that would have helped the administration achieve its goal of shuttering the facility.If you’re wondering who this year’s enemies of the Constitution are, here is the roll call from the Senate yesterday.
It also does not include a controversial amendment by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to remove decisions about prosecuting sexual assault from the military chain of command. The New York Democrat says she’s secured a commitment from Reid to bring her proposal to the floor as a stand-alone measure next year. Although she may get her vote, the legislation is not expected to survive in the Republican-controlled House.
Thursday’s defense bill also sidesteps the debate over Iran. Senators who wanted to offer amendments imposing tougher sanctions were blocked because of the bill’s fast-track process, which supporters said was necessary to get it finished before the end of the year. So Iran sanction hawks’ efforts will have to wait until next year. Movement now toward stricter sanctions, the White House has warned, would undermine its ongoing negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear program.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested Reid had fast-tracked the defense bill because he “can’t stomach” a politically uncomfortable Iran vote. (source)
source: Activist Post
Unsurprisingly, there is little hope that President Obama will fail to sign this into law.Under the new and “improved” NDAA, I’m a belligerent for writing this, and you’re a belligerent for reading this. God help you if you email someone about it or share it on Facebook. We’re all going to be busted as belligerents under this one.
See you at Gitmo or the FEMA camps!
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Daisy Luther of The Daily Sheeple.
Daisy Luther is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple. She lives on a small organic farm in the Pacific Northwestern area of the United States. Daisy is the creator of The Organic Prepper
where she writes about healthy prepping, homesteading adventures, and
the pursuit of liberty and food freedom. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter. She can be contacted at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca. Wake the flock up!
Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide
The Daily Sheeple Home Page
Washington, D.C. – It’s official, Jay-Z’s voice has a huge impact even in Washington, D.C. ‘Open Letter
hite House Press Secretary Questioned about Obama Reference in Jay-Z’s ‘Open Letter’
Washington, D.C. – It’s official, Jay-Z’s voice has a huge impact even in Washington, D.C. ‘Open Letter’
must have been a powerful song because it eventually made it’s way to
the Washington and the White House in just a short period of time.
Obviously angered by all the questioning and investigating into his fifth anniversary in Cuba, Jay couldn’t keep his silence for long. With the assistance from Swizz Beatz and Timbaland, Jay-Z opted to the studio, quickly recorded ‘Open Letter’ and immediately released it the next day. Now the following day, during a White House press conference, White House press secretary Jay Carney was questioned about the President’s reference on the track.
During the press conference, a reporter quoted part of the song for Carney and eventually inquired if the President spoke to Jay-Z in regards to his trip to Cuba. Carney concluded that the U.S. Department of the Treasury handled those matters and stated that the President and Jay-Z had no prior conversation before the rapper’s trip to Cuba.
These were Carney’s comments:
“I guess nothing rhymes with ‘treasury.’ Because Treasury offers and gives licenses for travel as you know and the White House has nothing to do with it. I am absolutely saying that the White House and the President on down had nothing to do with anybody’s travel to Cuba. That is something that Treasury handles.”
“It’s a song Donovan, the President did not communicate with Jay-Z over this trip.”
Seriously, check out the Video:
Carney: 'The President Did Not Communicate With Jay-Z': http://youtu.be/nkAA7F4rsLc via @youtube
My only comment: LMAO!!
Keep posted to 24HourHipHop.com for more updated news on this story because apparently it’s not going to end anytime soon.
-Zenn Lee
Follow Us on Twitter:
Obviously angered by all the questioning and investigating into his fifth anniversary in Cuba, Jay couldn’t keep his silence for long. With the assistance from Swizz Beatz and Timbaland, Jay-Z opted to the studio, quickly recorded ‘Open Letter’ and immediately released it the next day. Now the following day, during a White House press conference, White House press secretary Jay Carney was questioned about the President’s reference on the track.
During the press conference, a reporter quoted part of the song for Carney and eventually inquired if the President spoke to Jay-Z in regards to his trip to Cuba. Carney concluded that the U.S. Department of the Treasury handled those matters and stated that the President and Jay-Z had no prior conversation before the rapper’s trip to Cuba.
These were Carney’s comments:
“I guess nothing rhymes with ‘treasury.’ Because Treasury offers and gives licenses for travel as you know and the White House has nothing to do with it. I am absolutely saying that the White House and the President on down had nothing to do with anybody’s travel to Cuba. That is something that Treasury handles.”
“It’s a song Donovan, the President did not communicate with Jay-Z over this trip.”
Seriously, check out the Video:
Carney: 'The President Did Not Communicate With Jay-Z': http://youtu.be/nkAA7F4rsLc via @youtube
My only comment: LMAO!!
Keep posted to 24HourHipHop.com for more updated news on this story because apparently it’s not going to end anytime soon.
-Zenn Lee
Follow Us on Twitter:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)