The carmaker gave $41,000 to groups associated with lawmakers, the vast majority of it -- $36,000 -- to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the company reported on a disclosure form last week. The CBC Foundation is a charity with 11 members of the Congressional Black Caucus on its board.
"We've always given to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation as far back as anyone can remember," said Greg Martin, GM spokesman. "Our commitment remains unabated, and we continue to be a proud supporter of their work to advance economic development in communities throughout the U.S." ...
...Because EVERYONE now apparently has a right to get high.
WASHINGTON - There should be no such thing as too poor to buy pot if you live in D.C., at least if the marijuana is for a medical condition.
That's part of the conclusion of a new law enacted in the nation's capital earlier this year. The medical marijuana law allows people to legally obtain the drug for medical reasons. But the law also includes a provision different from the 14 other states with medical marijuana laws, requiring the drug to be provided at a discount to poor residents. Who will get the reduced-price marijuana and how much it will cost, however, is still being worked out.
The politically charged decisions by veteran Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California to force public trials by the House ethics committee are raising questions about race and whether black lawmakers face more scrutiny over allegations of ethical or criminal wrongdoing than their white colleagues. ...
There’s a “dual standard, one for most members and one for African-Americans,” said one member of the Congressional Black Caucus, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The member said it’s too easy for an outside group to damage someone’s reputation by filing a claim with OCE.
“This is stacked against you once an accusation is made,” the lawmaker added. “You’re guilty until proven otherwise.”
I think this is simply another example of politicians playing the race card when it's politically beneficial to them. If blacks in Congress felt they were being treated unfairly, why didn't we hear about it until after Rangel failed to strike a deal and only now when both reps are facing politically damaging ethics charges?
What do you think--true double standard or ridiculous race-baiting?
Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson announced late Friday he would vote against the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
In a statement released this evening, Sen. Nelson said, "I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded. Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination."
So far, Nelson is the only Democrat who has come out in opposition to Kagan. On the other hand, five Republicans have signified their support of her nomination.
Public polling info shows that Kagan is one of the more unpopular Supreme Court nominees in a long time with less than half the country supporting . Still, she's expected to sail through an easy confirmation vote late next week.
If Rangel is indeed found guilty on these charges, isn't this a victory for both Republicans and the Democrats' "most ethical" Congress?Republicans wanted an election-season ethics case against Democratic powerhouse Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. And now, it looks like they have one.