Republicans Introduce Short-Term Measure to Keep Government Running, Cut Spending

The same old same old. republicans should get on their knees they are a disgusting bunch of bugs.    #ReadtheBill:  Posted by Don Seymour on February 25, 2011 Next week, the House will listen to the American people and vote on a second short-term “continuing resolution” designed to keep the government running while cutting $4 billion in spending. You can read the bill online here. This short-term measure keeps the government running for another two weeks, giving Senate Democrats additional time to consider H.R.1 -- House-passed legislation to fund the government through October. This short-term measure also cuts government spending by eliminating earmark slush funds and terminating several programs targeted in President Obama’s FY12 budget and the House-passed H.R.1.  There’s a bipartisan consensus on making these common-sense spending cuts. The only people who stand in the way are Senate Democrats – and their “army of lobbyists” – who are determined to keep the spending binge going at all costs. Congress needs to cut spending to help end some of the uncertainty facing businesses and encourage them to begin hiring again. As we’ve shown, the plan by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to keep government borrowing and spending at the “stimulus”-inflated “current levels” is not only unacceptable – it would make it harder for small businesses to create new jobs. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, for one, argues, “Sustained high rates of government borrowing would both drain funds away from private investment and increase our debt to foreigners, with adverse long-run effects on U.S. output, incomes, and standards of living.” And a group of 150 economists signed a statement to the president urging spending cuts to boost our economy. Speaker Boehner said this afternoon “[t]hese stop-gap measures are only necessary because the Democrats who run Washington failed to pass a budget, failed to stop the spending binge that’s threatened job growth, and failed to lead”: “Once the House passes our second continuing resolution early next week, I’m hopeful Senator Reid will quickly hold a vote on our short-term proposal so we can ensure the government remains open and that we’re addressing the need to cut spending to create a better environment for job growth. The House is doing its part to cut spending and avoid a government shutdown; it’s time for the Senate to take action as well.” Comments The opinions expressed below are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent those of this office. nolan vinzant commented on 2/25/2011 watch the pres, pole numbers go up. Donna Stubbs commented on 2/25/2011 Cut all spending that is not absolutely necessary to keep the USA from defaulting on its loans. Cut all foreign aid, enforce all regulations that require oversight for all programs, be vigilant to save all dollars so that the USA can once again attain more resources than we pay out. Harry Bennett commented on 2/25/2011 How can it be? The Chinese fly thousands out of Libya and we use a ferry that takes 3 days to get 600 Americans out? 112TH CONGRESS  1ST SESSION H. J. RES.  ll  Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other  purposes.  IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky introduced the following joint resolution; which was  referred to the Committee on lllllllllllllll  JOINT RESOLUTION  Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year  2011, and for other purposes.          H Approp  1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,  3 That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public  4 Law 111–242) is further amended—  5 (1) by striking the date specified in section  6 106(3) and inserting ‘‘March 18, 2011’’; and  7 (2) by adding after section 166, as added by  8 the Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011  9 (section 1 of Public Law 111–322), the following  10 new sections:  11 ‘‘SEC. 167. The amounts described in paragraphs (1)  12 and (2) of section 114 of this Act are designated as being  13 for contingency operations directly related to the global  14 war on terrorism pursuant to section 3(c)(2) of H. Res.  15 5 (112th Congress) and as an emergency requirement pur- 16 suant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Con- 17 gress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal  18 year 2010.  19 ‘‘SEC. 168. Any language specifying an earmark in  20 an appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, or in a com- 21 mittee report or joint explanatory statement accom- 22 panying such an Act, shall have no legal effect with re- 23 spect to funds appropriated by this Act. For purposes of  24 this section, the term ‘earmark’ means a congressional  25 earmark or congressionally directed spending item, as de H Approp  1 fined in clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House  2 of Representatives and paragraph 5(a) of rule XLIV of  3 the Standing Rules of the Senate.  4 ‘‘SEC. 169. The first and third paragraphs under the  5 heading ‘Rural Development Programs—Rural Utilities  6 Service—Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and  7 Broadband Program’ in Public Law 111–80 shall not  8 apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  9 ‘‘SEC. 170. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  10 are provided for ‘Corps of Engineers-Civil—Investiga- 11 tions’ at a rate for operations of $104,000,000.  12 ‘‘SEC. 171. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  13 are provided for ‘Corps of Engineers-Civil—Construction’  14 at a rate for operations of $1,690,000,000: Provided, That  15 all of the provisos under such heading in Public Law 111–  16 85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  17 ‘‘SEC. 172. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  18 are provided for ‘Corps of Engineers-Civil—Mississippi  19 River and Tributaries’ at a rate for operations of  20 $260,000,000:  Provided, That the proviso under such  21 heading in Public Law 111–85 shall not apply to funds  22 appropriated by this Act.  23 ‘‘SEC. 173. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  24 are provided for ‘Corps of Engineers-Civil—Operation and  25 Maintenance’ at a rate for operations of $2,361,000,000.  H Approp  1 ‘‘SEC. 174. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  2 are provided for ‘Department of the Interior—Bureau of  3 Reclamation—Water and Related Resources’ at a rate for  4 operations of $913,580,000: Provided, That the fifth pro- 5 viso (regarding the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund)  6 and seventh proviso (regarding the Milk River Project)  7 under such heading in Public Law 111–85 shall not apply  8 to funds appropriated by this Act.  9 ‘‘SEC. 175. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  10 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Energy Pro- 11 grams—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’ at a  12 rate for operations of $1,950,370,000: Provided, That all  13 of the provisos under such heading in Public Law 111–  14 85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  15 ‘‘SEC. 176. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  16 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Energy Pro- 17 grams—Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability’ at a  18 rate for operations of $158,910,000:  Provided, That all  19 of the provisos under such heading in Public Law 111–  20 85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  21 ‘‘SEC. 177. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  22 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Energy Pro- 23 grams—Nuclear Energy’ at a rate for operations of  24 $784,140,000:  Provided, That the proviso under such  H Approp  1 heading in Public Law 111–85 shall not apply to funds  2 appropriated by this Act.  3 ‘‘SEC. 178. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  4 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Energy Pro- 5 grams—Fossil Energy Research and Development’ at a  6 rate for operations of $635,530,000:  Provided, That the  7 second proviso under such heading in Public Law 111–  8 85 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  9 ‘‘SEC. 179. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  10 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Energy Pro- 11 grams—Science’ at a rate for operations of  12 $4,826,820,000:  Provided, That all of the provisos under  13 such heading in Public Law 111–85 shall not apply to  14 funds appropriated by this Act.  15 ‘‘SEC. 180. The last proviso under the heading ‘De- 16 partment of Energy—Atomic Energy Defense Activities—  17 National Nuclear Security Administration—Weapons Ac- 18 tivities’ in Public Law 111–85 shall not apply to funds  19 appropriated by this Act.  20 ‘‘SEC. 181. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  21 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Atomic Energy  22 Defense Activities—National Nuclear Security Adminis- 23 tration—Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation’ at a rate for  24 operations of $2,136,460,000: Provided, That the proviso  H Approp  1 under such heading in Public Law 111–85 shall not apply  2 to funds appropriated by this Act.  3 ‘‘SEC. 182. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  4 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Atomic Energy  5 Defense Activities—National Nuclear Security Adminis- 6 tration—Office of the Administrator’ at a rate for oper- 7 ations of $407,750,000:  Provided, That the last proviso  8 under such heading in Public Law 111–85 shall not apply  9 to funds appropriated by this Act.  10 ‘‘SEC. 183. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  11 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Environmental  12 and Other Defense Activities—Defense Environmental  13 Cleanup’ at a rate for operations of $5,209,031,000, of  14 which $33,700,000 shall be transferred to the ‘Uranium  15 Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning  16 Fund’: Provided, That the proviso under such heading in  17 Public Law 111–85 shall not apply to funds appropriated  18 by this Act.  19 ‘‘SEC. 184. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  20 are provided for ‘Department of Energy—Environmental  21 and Other Defense Activities—Other Defense Activities’  22 at a rate for operations of $844,470,000:  Provided, That  23 the proviso under such heading in Public Law 111–85  24 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  H Approp  1 ‘‘SEC. 185. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  2 are provided for ‘Independent Agencies—Election Assist- 3 ance Commission—Election Reform Programs’ at a rate  4 for operations of $0.  5 ‘‘SEC. 186. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  6 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—Of- 7 fice of the Under Secretary for Management’ at a rate  8 for operations of $253,190,000.  9 ‘‘SEC. 187. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  10 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  11 U.S. Customs and Border Protection—Salaries and Ex- 12 penses’ at a rate for operations of $8,063,913,000.  13 ‘‘SEC. 188. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  14 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  15 U.S. Customs and Border Protection—Construction and  16 Facilities Management’ at a rate for operations of  17 $276,370,000.  18 ‘‘SEC. 189. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  19 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  20 Transportation Security Administration—Aviation Secu- 21 rity’ at a rate for operations of $5,212,790,000: Provided,  22 That the amounts included under such heading in Public  23 Law 111–83 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this  24 Act as follows: by substituting ‘$5,212,790,000’ for  25 ‘$5,214,040,000’; by substituting ‘$4,356,826,000’ for  H Approp  1 ‘$4,358,076,000’; by substituting ‘$1,115,156,000’ for  2 ‘$1,116,406,000’; by substituting $777,050,000 for  3 $778,300,000; and by substituting ‘$3,112,790,000’ for  4 ‘$3,114,040,000’.  5 ‘‘SEC. 190. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  6 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  7 Coast Guard—Operating Expenses’ at a rate for oper- 8 ations of $6,801,791,000:  Provided,  That section 157 of  9 this Act shall be applied by substituting ‘$17,880,000’ for  10 ‘$21,880,000’, and without regard to ‘and ‘‘Coast Guard,  11 Alteration of Bridges’’ ’.  12 ‘‘SEC. 191. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  13 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  14 Coast Guard—Acquisition, Construction, and Improve- 15 ments’ at a rate for operations of $1,519,980,000.  16 ‘‘SEC. 192. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  17 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  18 Coast Guard—Alteration of Bridges’ at a rate for oper- 19 ations of $0.  20 ‘‘SEC. 193. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  21 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—Na- 22 tional Protection and Programs Directorate—Infrastruc- 23 ture Protection and Information Security’ at a rate for  24 operations of $879,816,000.  H Approp  1 ‘‘SEC. 194. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  2 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—Of- 3 fice of Health Affairs’ at a rate for operations of  4 $134,250,000.  5 ‘‘SEC. 195. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  6 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  7 Federal Emergency Management Agency—State and  8 Local Programs’ at a rate for operations of  9 $2,912,558,000:  Provided,  That the amounts included  10 under such heading in Public Law 111–83 shall be applied  11 to funds appropriated by this Act as follows: in paragraph  12 (12), by substituting ‘$12,554,000’ for ‘$60,000,000’ and  13 by substituting ‘$0’ for each subsequent amount in such  14 paragraph; in paragraph (13), by substituting  15 ‘$212,500,000’ for ‘$267,200,000’; in paragraph (13)(A),  16 by substituting ‘$114,000,000’ for ‘$164,500,000’; in  17 paragraph (13)(B), by substituting ‘$0’ for ‘$1,700,000’;  18 and in paragraph (13)(C), by substituting ‘$0’ for  19 ‘$3,000,000’:  Provided further,  That 4.5 percent of the  20 amount provided for ‘Federal Emergency Management  21 Agency—State and Local Programs’ by this Act shall be  22 transferred to ‘Federal Emergency Management Agency—  23 Management and Administration’ for program administra- 24 tion.  H Approp  1 ‘‘SEC. 196. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  2 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  3 Federal Emergency Management Agency—National  4 Predisaster Mitigation Fund’ at a rate for operations of  5 $75,364,000.  6 ‘‘SEC. 197. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  7 are provided for ‘Department of Homeland Security—  8 Science and Technology—Research, Development, Acqui- 9 sition, and Operations’ at a rate for operations of  10 $821,906,000.  11 ‘‘SEC. 198. Sections 541 and 545 of Public Law 111–  12 83 (123 Stat. 2176) shall have no force or effect.  13 ‘‘SEC. 199. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  14 are provided for ‘Smithsonian Institution—Legacy Fund’  15 at a rate for operations of $0.  16 ‘‘SEC. 200. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  17 are provided for ‘Department of Labor—Employment and  18 Training Administration—Training and Employment  19 Services’ at a rate for operations of $3,779,641,000, of  20 which $340,154,000 shall be for national activities de- 21 scribed in paragraph (3) under such heading in division  22 D of Public Law 111–117:  Provided,  That the amounts  23 included for national activities under such heading in divi- 24 sion D of Public Law 111–117 shall be applied to funds  25 appropriated by this Act as follows: by substituting  H Approp  1 ‘$44,561,000’ for ‘$93,450,000’ and by substituting ‘$0’  2 for ‘$48,889,000’.  3 ‘‘SEC. 201. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  4 are provided for ‘Department of Labor—Mine Safety and  5 Health Administration—Salaries and Expenses’ at a rate  6 for operations of $355,843,000:  Provided,  That the  7 amounts included under such heading in division D of  8 Public Law 111–117 shall be applied to funds appro- 9 priated by this Act by substituting ‘$0’ for ‘$1,450,000’.  10 ‘‘SEC. 202. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  11 are provided for ‘Department of Labor—Departmental  12 Management’ at a rate for operations of $314,827,000:  13 Provided, That the amounts included under such heading  14 in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall be applied to  15 funds appropriated by this Act by substituting ‘$0’ for  16 ‘$40,000,000’.  17 ‘‘SEC. 203. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  18 are provided for ‘Department of Health and Human Serv- 19 ices—Health Resources and Services Administration—  20 Health Resources and Services’ at a rate for operations  21 of $7,076,520,000:  Provided,  That the eighteenth, nine- 22 teenth, and twenty-second provisos under such heading in  23 division D of Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds  24 appropriated by this Act.  H Approp  1 ‘‘SEC. 204. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  2 are provided for ‘Department of Health and Human Serv- 3 ices—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—Dis- 4 ease Control, Research, and Training’ at a rate for oper- 5 ations of $6,369,767,000:  Provided,  That the amount in- 6 cluded before the first proviso under such heading in divi- 7 sion D of Public Law 111–117 shall be applied to funds  8 appropriated by this Act by substituting ‘$0’ for  9 ‘$20,620,000’.  10 ‘‘SEC. 205. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  11 are provided for ‘Department of Health and Human Serv- 12 ices—Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Ad- 13 ministration—Substance Abuse and Mental Health Serv- 14 ices’ at a rate for operations of $3,417,106,000: Provided,  15 That the amount included before the first proviso under  16 such heading in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall  17 be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by sub- 18 stituting ‘$0’ for ‘$14,518,000’.  19 ‘‘SEC. 206. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  20 are transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance  21 Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical In- 22 surance Trust Fund for ‘Department of Health and  23 Human Services—Centers for Medicare and Medicaid  24 Services—Program Management’ at a rate for operations  25 of $3,467,142,000: Provided, That the sixth proviso under  H Approp  1 such heading in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall  2 not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  3 ‘‘SEC. 207. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  4 are provided for ‘Department of Health and Human Serv- 5 ices—Administration for Children and Families—Pay- 6 ments to States for the Child Care and Development Block  7 Grant’ at a rate for operations of $2,126,081,000:  Pro- 8 vided, That the amount included in the first proviso under  9 such heading in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall  10 be applied to funds appropriated by this Act by sub- 11 stituting ‘$0’ for ‘$1,000,000’.  12 ‘‘SEC. 208. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  13 are provided for ‘Department of Health and Human Serv- 14 ices—Administration for Children and Families—Children  15 and Families Services Programs’ at a rate for operations  16 of $9,293,747,000:  Provided,  That the fifteenth proviso  17 under such heading in division D of Public Law 111–117  18 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  19 ‘‘SEC. 209. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  20 are provided for ‘Department of Health and Human Serv- 21 ices—Administration on Aging, Aging Services Programs’  22 at a rate for operations of $1,510,323,000: Provided, That  23 the first proviso under such heading in division D of Pub- 24 lic Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated  25 by this Act.  H Approp  1 ‘‘SEC. 210. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  2 are provided for ‘Department of Health and Human Serv- 3 ices—Office of the Secretary—General Departmental  4 Management’ at a rate for operations of $491,727,000:  5 Provided, That the seventh proviso under such heading in  6 division D of Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds  7 appropriated by this Act.  8 ‘‘SEC. 211. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  9 are provided for ‘Department of Education—Education  10 for the Disadvantaged’ at a rate for operations of  11 $15,598,212,000, of which $4,638,056,000 shall become  12 available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through  13 September 30, 2012:  Provided,  That the tenth, eleventh  14 and twelfth provisos under such heading in division D of  15 Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated  16 by this Act.  17 ‘‘SEC. 212. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  18 are provided for ‘Department of Education—School Im- 19 provement Programs’ at a rate for operations of  20 $5,223,444,000, of which $3,358,993,000 shall become  21 available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through  22 September 30, 2012: Provided, That of such amounts, no  23 funds shall be available for activities authorized under  24 part Z of title VIII of the Higher Education Act of 1965:  25 Provided further,  That the second, third, and thirteenth  H Approp  1 provisos under such heading in division D of Public Law  2 111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  3 ‘‘SEC. 213. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  4 are provided for ‘Department of Education—Innovation  5 and Improvement’ at a rate for operations of  6 $1,160,480,000, of which no funds shall be available for  7 activities authorized under subpart 5 of part A of title II,  8 section 1504 of the Elementary and Secondary Education  9 Act of 1965 (‘ESEA’), or part F of title VIII of the High- 10 er Education Act of 1965, and $499,222,000 shall be for  11 part D of title V of the ESEA:  Provided,  That the first,  12 fourth, and fifth provisos under such heading in division  13 D of Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds appro- 14 priated by this Act.  15 ‘‘SEC. 214. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  16 are provided for ‘Department of Education—Safe Schools  17 and Citizenship Education’ at a rate for operations of  18 $361,398,000, of which, notwithstanding section 2343(b)  19 of the ESEA, $2,578,000 is for the continuation costs of  20 awards made on a competitive basis under section 2345  21 of the ESEA: Provided, That the third proviso under such  22 heading in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall not  23 apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  24 ‘‘SEC. 215. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  25 are provided for ‘Department of Education— H Approp  1 cation’ at a rate for operations of $12,564,953,000, of  2 which $3,726,354,000 shall become available on July 1,  3 2011, and remain available through September 30, 2012:  4 Provided,  That the first and second provisos under such  5 heading in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall not  6 apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  7 ‘‘SEC. 216. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  8 are provided for ‘Department of Education—Rehabilita- 9 tion Services and Disability Research’ at a rate for oper- 10 ations of $3,501,766,000: Provided, That the second pro- 11 viso under such heading in division D of Public Law 111–  12 117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  13 ‘‘SEC. 217. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  14 are provided for ‘Department of Education—Career,  15 Technical, and Adult Education’ at a rate for operations  16 of $1,928,447,000, of which $1,137,447,000 shall become  17 available on July 1, 2011, and remain available through  18 September 30, 2012 and no funds shall be available for  19 activities authorized under subpart 4 of part D of title  20 V of the ESEA:  Provided,  That the seventh and eighth  21 provisos under such heading in division D of Public Law  22 111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  23 ‘‘SEC. 218. Notwithstanding sections 101 and 164,  24 amounts are provided for ‘Department of Education—  25 Student Financial Assistance’ at a rate for operations of  H Approp  1 $24,899,957,000, of which $23,162,000,000 shall be  2 available to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of  3 the Higher Education Act of 1965 and no funds shall be  4 available for activities authorized under subpart 4 of part  5 A of title IV of such Act:  Provided,  That the maximum  6 Pell Grant for which a student shall be eligible during  7 award year 2011–2012 shall be $4,860.  8 ‘‘SEC. 219. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  9 are provided for ‘Department of Education—Higher Edu- 10 cation’ at a rate for operations of $2,126,935,000, of  11 which no funds shall be available for activities authorized  12 under section 1543 of the Higher Education Amendments  13 of 1992 or section 117 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and  14 Technical Education Act of 2006: Provided, That the thir- 15 teenth proviso under such heading in division D of Public  16 Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by  17 this Act.  18 ‘‘SEC. 220. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  19 are provided for ‘Institute of Museum and Library Serv- 20 ices—Office of Museum and Library Services: Grants and  21 Administration’ at a rate for operations of $265,869,000:  22 Provided, That the amounts included under such heading  23 in division D of Public Law 111–117 shall be applied to  24 funds appropriated by this Act by substituting ‘$0’ for  25 ‘$16,382,000’.  H Approp  1 ‘‘SEC. 221. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  2 are provided for ‘Library of Congress—Salaries and Ex- 3 penses’ at a rate for operations of $445,951,000, of which  4 $0 shall be for the operations described in the seventh pro- 5 viso under this heading in Public Law 111–68.  6 ‘‘SEC. 222. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  7 are provided for ‘Department of Transportation—Federal  8 Highway Administration—Surface Transportation Prior- 9 ities’ at a rate for operations of $0.  10 ‘‘SEC. 223. Notwithstanding section 101, no funds  11 are provided for activities described in section 122 of title  12 I of division A of Public Law 111–117.  13 ‘‘SEC. 224. Notwithstanding section 101, section 186  14 of title I of division A of Public Law 111–117 shall not  15 apply to funds appropriated by this Act.  16 ‘‘SEC. 225. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  17 are provided for ‘Department of Transportation—Federal  18 Railroad Administration—Rail Line Relocation and Im- 19 provement Program’ at a rate for operations of  20 $10,012,800.  21 ‘‘SEC. 226. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts  22 are provided for ‘Department of Housing and Urban De- 23 velopment—Community Planning and Development—  24 Community Development Fund’ at a rate for operations  25 of $4,255,068,480, of which $0 shall be for grants for the  H Approp  1 Economic Development Initiative (EDI), and $0 shall be  2 for neighborhood initiatives:  Provided,  That the second  3 and third paragraphs under such heading in title II of di- 4 vision A of Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds  5 appropriated by this Act.’’.  6 This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Further  7 Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011’’

Googlebombers turn "Abortion" into second result for "Murder"

Cory Doctorow at 4:33 AM Friday, Feb 25, 2011 

murder  search

About 230,000,000 results (0.15 seconds) 

Search Results

1. Murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of ...
   

   Murder (United States law) - Murder (Canadian law) - Murder in English law - Cuba

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder - Cached - Similar
   ►
2. Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   Generally, the former position argues that a human fetus is a human being ...
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion - Cached - Similar
   Show more results from wikipedia.org
3. Murder | Define Murder at Dictionary.com

   Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed ...
   dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder - Cached - Similar

   
   

   The Last item on the page was this

   SD to OK murder of abortion doctors? - Politics

   Feb 15, 2011 ... SD to OK murder of abortion doctors? ... The National Abortion Federation calls the bill an "invitation to murder abortion providers." ...
   politicsdownanddirty.blogspot.com/.../sd-to-ok-murder-of-abortion-doctors.html -

Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church Website During Live Confrontation

ShirLEy is an ARROGANT, person who uses the Bible and Gods word the wrong way.  She makes it sound like the internet was Gods doing just for Westboro.  Talk about hypocritical. She preaches the wrong message, and she will be the one who will have to answer to gOD when her day comes.  God (Jesus) preach love, OBEDIENCE, FAITH, AND RENEWAL.  sHE MAKES IT SOUND LIKE WESTBORO IS THE ONLY CHURCH THAT DOES GOD'S WILL. THAT THEY ARE CHOSEN, I HATE TO TELL THEM THIS AND BREAK THEIR LITTLE BITTY HEARTS, ISRAEL IS gOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE. aND NO MATTER WHat she or the rest of their group says or does will change that.  In the end Israel and Jesus win.  That has already been decided and it is written in the Bible in Revelations.  Shirley I suggest you read up on that book of the bible( basic instructions be4 leaving earth) You see our times here is limited and we are destined to spend our eternity with Jesus in His heavenly home.  I do not know where you will spend your time, i pray that it is with me and my Jesus.  i will pray for your eternal soul Shirley.   anonymous you seem to be a bright person, who keeps track of his sins, i will pray for you also that you come to the realization the christ died for our sins and that you can be freed from your terrible burden.  I would like to share heaven with more people who seem to understand the journey of Jesus.  

FRIDAY, FEB 25, 2011 18:11 ET

Anonymous shuts down Westboro Baptist Church site -- during a live interview

After asking for peace, the renegade hacker group launched its first attack on the infamous Christian group VIDEO

BY ADAM CLARK ESTES

Anonymous

A warning notice issued by Anonymous to the Westboro Baptist Church

Less than a week ago, a rumor spread that the vigilante hacker organization Anonymous had declared war on the Westboro Baptist Church. Though quickly dismissed as a hoax, the headline-grabbing possibility spread through the media faster than an offensive Kanye West tweet. Given the clandestine nature of Anonymous -- as the name implies, all of the member so of the group are, in fact, anonymous -- the truth proved elusive. Regardless, the Westboro Baptist Church started a smear campaign against Anonymous and insisted that their message could not be silence. In the words of WBC: "Bring it."

Hoping to clear the air, radio talk show host David Pakman invited a Shirley Phelps-Roper, spokesperson from the Westboro Baptist Church, and an (anonymous) member of Anonymous onto his show for a live web chat. Pakman moderated the conversation, and the banter started out almost cordial. However despite Anonymous' continued denial of a war or plans of an attack, Phelps-Roper persistently insulted the group and its representative. After Phelps-Roper tells the Anonymous representative he's going to Hell, Anonymous says, "I have a surprise for you."

Anonymous unleashed an attack during the insults and directed the audience towards downloads.westborobaptistchurch.com with a noticefrom Anonymous:

Watch the full interview here. The attack happens around the 9:00 mark:

MidweekPolitics | Feb 24, 2011 | 5,961 likes, 72 dislikes

A source from Anonymous confronts Shirley Phelps-Roper from the Westboro Baptist Church, calling the supposed letter sent to Westboro by Anonymous a hoax, and then proceeds to hack the Westboro Baptist Church website during the interview.

Website screenshot before being removed by Westboro: http://img19.imageshack.us/i/anonymou...

The David Pakman Show is an internationally syndicated talk radio and television program hosted by David Pakman

--On the Bonus Show Behind the scenes from today's interviews, pressure from Fox News CEO Roger Ailes for a publisher to cover up an affair, an 11000 year old skeleton, much more.

http://www.davidpakman.com
http://www.davidpakman.com/membership
http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow
http://www.twitter.com/davidpakmanshow
http://feeds.feedburner.com/davidpakm...
24/7 Voicemail Line & Studio Number: (219)-2DAVIDP

Broadcast on February 24, 2011

At the time of publishing this post, all of the Westboro Baptist Church's various sites -- including godhatesfags.com -- were inaccessible.

This is Not Fiscal Conservatism. It’s Just Politics.

by Jim Wallis 02-24-2011

The current budget and deficit debate in America is now dominating the daily headlines. There is even talk of shutting down the government if the budget-cutters don’t get their way. There is no doubt that excessive deficits are a moral issue and could leave our children and grandchildren with crushing debt. But what the politicians and pundits have yet to acknowledge is that how you reduce the deficit is also a moral issue. As Sojourners said in the last big budget debate in 2005, “A budget is a moral document.” For a family, church, city, state, or nation, a budget reveals what your fundamental priorities are: who is important and who is not; what is important and what is not. It’s time to bring that slogan back, and build a coalition and campaign around it.

The governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, says he only really cares about his budget deficit; however, it now appears that he proudly sees himself as the first domino in a new strategy for Republican governors to break their public employee unions. (We are already seeing similar actions in Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey.)  Governor Walker’s proposed bill is really more about his ideological commitments and conservative politics — which favor business over labor — than about his concern for Wisconsin’s financial health. Thousands of working-class Americans are now protesting in the streets of Madison and have made this a national debate. Even protesters in Egypt are sending messages of hope (and pizzas) to the Wisconsin demonstrators.

The Republican governors’ counter parts in the U.S. House of Representatives are also not cutting spending where the real money is, such as in military spending, corporate tax cuts and loop holes, and long term health-care costs. Instead, they are cutting programs for the poorest people at home and around the world. This is also just political and not genuine fiscal conservatism. It is a direct attack on programs that help the poor and an all-out defense of the largesse handed out to big corporations and military contractors. If a budget is a moral document, these budget-cutters show that their priorities are to protect the richest Americans and abandon the poorest — and this is an ideological and moral choice. The proposed House cuts, which were just sent to the Senate, are full of disproportionate cuts to initiatives that have proven to save children’s lives and overcome poverty, while leaving untouched the most corrupt and wasteful spending of all American tax dollars — the Pentagon entitlement program. This is not fiscal integrity; this is hypocrisy.

U.S. military spending is now 56 percent of the world’s military expenditures and is more than the military budgets of the next 20 countries in the world combined. To believe all that money is necessary for genuine American security is simply no longer credible. To say it is more important than bed nets that prevent malaria, vaccines that prevent deadly diseases, or child health and family nutrition for low-income families is simply immoral. Again, these are ideological choices, not smart fiscal ones. To prioritize endless military spending over critical, life-saving programs for the poor is to reverse the biblical instruction to beat our swords into plowshares. The proposed budget cuts would beat plowshares into more swords. These priorities are not only immoral, they are unbiblical.

Now some members of Congress seem to want to force a government showdown over all this. They are saying there will be no shared sacrifice for the rich, only sacrifices from the poor and middle-class, or we will shut down the government. The only people whose lives have returned to normal in America are the ones who precipitated our financial and economic crisis in the first place. They have all returned to record profits, while many others are still struggling with unemployment, stagnant wages, loss of benefits, home foreclosures, and more. These representatives are claiming that we should restore fiscal integrity by protecting all the soaring billionaires, while forcing the already-squeezed to make more and more concessions.

Let me offer a word to those who see this critique as partisan. I’ve had good friendships with Republican members of Congress, but not the kind who get elected by their party anymore. But let’s be clear, when politicians attack thepoor, it is not partisan to challenge them; it is a Christian responsibility.

This is wrong, this is unjust, this is vile, and this must not stand. Next week, thanks to your support, look for a full-page ad in Politico signed by faith leaders and organizations across the country that asks Congress a probing question: “What would Jesus cut?” These proposed budget cuts are backwards, and I don’t see how people of faith can accept them. And we won’t.

Christian Bible Distributors Killed by Somali Pirates

Trevor Persaud | February 22, 2011 9:12AM

Scott and Jean Adam, a retired couple who spent most of the last decade sailing the world on a "Bible Mission," were killed by Somali pirates early this morning along with two passengers on their boat, the Quest.

CT will have more information as it becomes available.

Update: CT has posted a full story with an interview with Scott Adam's Fuller Seminary classmate.

Posted by Trevor Persaud at  February 22, 2011 9:12AM | Comments (0)

Somali Pirates Capture Boat on 'Bible Mission'

The Adams have spent nine years distributing Scripture all over the world.

Trevor Persaud | February 21, 2011 1:25PM

The US military is tracking a 58-foot yacht, which Somali pirates reportedly hijacked three days ago, whose owners have spent the better part of a decade sailing the world on a mission to distribute Bibles.

The Quest, launched in December 2001 under the command of Scott and Jean Adam, had just sailed west from Mumbai, India with an ocean-borne support community called the Blue Water Rally before they broke off early last week en route to Salalah, Oman. Another couple participating in the Rally, Phyllis Macay and Bob Riggle, were also aboard for that leg of the trip.

The Adams have spent the past nine years distributing copies of Scripture, including both “Catholic Bibles” from the American Bible Society and NIV Bibles from the International Bible Society, to spots across the world as far-flung as New Zealand, El Salvador, the Cook Islands, British Columbia, and Fiji.

“We seek fertile ground for the Word and homes for our Bibles,” the Adams wrote on their website. “Often, the ultimate homes are best found by people who are already living locally and seeking and cultivating that fertile ground. AND even more extraordinary are the times when people have been praying for Bibles for their group or their schools and when we arrive we are often greeted by the attitude of, ‘We were expecting you.’”

Scott Adam is a Master of Divinity graduate from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. He also received a Master of Theology from the school in 2010, says Fred Messick, Fuller’s Associate Vice President of Public Affairs.

"The Fuller community is urgently praying for Scott and his wife and their friends, and we obviously encourage others to keep them in their thoughts and prayers," Messick told Christianity Today.

Reports from Somali officials suggest that the yacht is now headed toward Puntland, a well-known pirate haven. The US military is monitoring the situation and is prepared to intercept the ship before it makes landfall—at which time, prospects for a simple resolution would grow much smaller.

Obama Finds a New Model for Presidential Success

By MARK HALPERIN Monday, Dec. 13, 2010

President Barack Obama holds a meeting with the President's Export Council on Dec. 9, 2010

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

Now he's the one who needs hope and change.

Barack Obama's unsettled presidency is presently tied to four interconnected projects: 

1) bringing back the economy, 

2) raising the standard of living of the nonwealthy, 

3) fulfilling his remaining campaign promises, and 

4) getting re-elected. 

The final three all depend primarily on the first, and making the economy grow is, to some degree, out of the President's control. Obama's political enemies think he is on track to achieve none of the four and are anticipating an overthrow in 2012.

But by closing 2010 with the kind of bipartisan compromise that was supposed to be the hallmark of his Administration, Obama showed that he is capable of change, and that there is hope he can achieve his goals.(See the top 10 political gaffes of 2010.)

To avoid seeing the economy stall again, the President needs to demonstrate to Washington and t�he nation that he will have a method of centrist governance when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January. This month's tax-deal success, bipartisan heartburn notwithstanding, can serve as a template. Here's a simple rule to guide the President: if a proposal is denounced by both Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin, it will probably find support in the center of the electorate.

The conditions that brought the White House and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to the negotiating table — the guns-to-their-heads imperative of expiring tax rates for every American on New Year's Day — won't exist on other issues in 2011. But the basic terms that got them to an agreement can be applied to a whole host of concerns. And both sides of the table now have exercised their cooperative muscles — and perhaps have built some trust and respect. The political nihilists on the right and the left cannot fathom or tolerate such deals. The notion of swallowing something that their opponents want is tautologically antithetical to their mind-set. But when John Boehner takes the Speaker's gavel, the tax deal is going to seem less like a one-off and more like a model.

Obama made the first big step toward real compromise by incorporating two elements that were distasteful to him, in the form of continued lower income-tax rates for the wealthiest and generous rates for the estate tax. When necessary, he can follow the same pattern of accepting the unwelcome with the essential to get deals on energy, immigration, education and, most important, deficit reduction.(See the top 10 campaign ads of 2010.)

As shrewd conservative commentators have pointed out, Obama got the kind of stimulus package he believes the country needs to keep up the momentum for growth, incorporating a lot of new spending and targeted tax breaks that Republicans can live with, even if they don't love them. In every area on which the President has an unfilled campaign promise, if both sides are willing to produce votes in Congress for grand bargains that contain elements they dislike, the country is going to see a lot of progress, including on the twin (and sometimes contradictory) goals of economic stimulus and deficit reduction.

Obama offered two memorable press-conference performances last week. In the first, he conveyed cranky annoyance with liberals for standing in the way of swift passage of the tax deal. In the second, after a private White House powwow with Bill Clinton, he abruptly abandoned the former President at the briefing room's podium, leaving the confident, compelling Clinton to play virtual President in support of the package. Not Obama's most distinguished moments, to be sure. But such tactical blips won't impede his strategy overall — for now.

Over time, this new Obama — the one who, out of necessity, is going to make deals with Republicans to fix the economy and get things done, rather than keep his wagon hitched to the liberal wing of his party — has a chance to have not only a liberated and happy holiday season, but also a 2011 filled with the fruits of a successful midcourse correction that has not yet been a part of his presidential repertoire. That's change the President can believe in.

One Nation, Halperin's politics column for TIME.com, appears every Monday.