Showing posts with label CONGRESS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CONGRESS. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2018



Founder Craig Newmark

US Congress just passed HR 1865, "FOSTA", seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.

Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.

To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Additionally, it establishes enhanced penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 25 years, or both—for a person who commits the offense in one of the following aggravating circumstances: (1) promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more persons, or (2) acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

A person injured by an aggravated offense may recover damages and attorneys' fees in a federal civil action.

A court must order mandatory restitution, in addition to other criminal or civil penalties, for an aggravated offense in which a person acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

A defendant may assert, as an affirmative defense, that the promotion or facilitation of prostitution is legal in the jurisdiction where it was targeted.

(Sec. 4) The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill.

The amendments apply regardless of whether alleged conduct occurs before, on, or after this bill's enactment.

(Sec. 5) The bill amends the federal criminal code to define a phrase related to the prohibition on sex trafficking. Currently, it a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in a venture that engages in sex trafficking. This bill defines "participation in a venture" to mean knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a sex trafficking violation.

(Sec. 6) A state may file a federal civil action to enforce federal sex trafficking violations.

(Sec. 7) This section states that this bill does not limit federal or state civil actions or criminal prosecutions that are not preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

(Sec. 8) The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress on information related to damages and mandatory restitution for aggravated offenses under this bill.

EDITORS NOTE: You would think with all the money these websites make, they would sue. Come on Craig Newmark, are you going to stand bye and do nothing? Comment as you see fit below! 

Friday, May 12, 2017


Jerry Springer’s Statement on the AHCA Healthcare Bill Passing The House

James Edstrom & Jerry Springer

May 4th will likely not be remembered as much as 9/11… and yet, what Congress did last Thursday will end up killing many more Americans than Osama bin Laden ever did.

With millions and millions of people facing the reality of being dropped from insurance plans (unless the Senate defeats this bill), does anyone seriously believe that only 3000 Americans will die because they couldn’t afford a doctor, or a treatment, or medicine or a hospital?

This cruel and utterly insensitive attack on middle and low-income Americans is an act of war… no less deadly and unconscionable, simply because the perpetrators of this legislative violence happen to be wealthy white men who reside in Washington.

The picture of Republican Congressmen gathering on the White House lawn smiling, laughing, clapping and cheering what they just did is, frankly, chillingly disgusting and reminiscent of Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake!”

This isn’t just politics. It isn’t just Republican vs. Democrat. It’s indecency. You wonder what kind of person is perfectly comfortable with removing protection from fellow Americans who face a cancer diagnosis, heart disease or any other medical condition or emergency that threatens their life or the lives of their family.

Never mind that we the taxpayers pay the health insurance of every one of these Congressmen. I mean, will they be willing to give up THEIR insurance to get a taste of the panic and despair they just visited on millions of others?

Good Lord! What did they just do? What moral ethic condones this? What religion suggests this is appropriate? What kind of patriotism preaches love of America… but the hell with protecting Americans?

We’re better than that. Aren’t we?

To the members of Congress who laughingly voted for this…it’s not just about how your constituents can live…it’s about how YOU can live…with yourself.

-Jerry Springer

Wednesday, March 29, 2017



Jerrold Nadler

Jerrold Nadler Speaks -- Several weeks ago, the White House released the president’s budget, a document outlining the administration’s spending priorities for our nation. As many of us expected, it was absurd; full of disastrous cuts that will harm everyday Americans. But I cannot say that I am surprised, the budget simply reflected the policies and priorities the Administration has been advocating for since Day 1.

As an example of what I believe are some of the president's proposed draconian cuts, the budget eliminates Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which help families stay in safe, affordable housing and supports programs such as Meals on Wheels, which provides food to the sick and elderly. The budget also cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which works to ensure we have clean air to breathe and water to drink.

Furthermore, the budget ramps-up military spending in a show of force that doesn't make our country any safer and may well provoke friend and foe alike. It makes devastatingly unrealistic cuts to the State Department — including removing the Special Envoy position dedicated to monitoring antisemitism around the globe — which would cripple our diplomatic efforts to prevent and solve conflicts peacefully.

Congress should oppose this absurd budget, which doesn’t even achieve the House Majority's long-stated goal of deficit reduction, but does threaten the lives of every single American. 

Friday, June 27, 2014


Barack Obama

Despite Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s threat this week to sue President Obama over his use of executive orders, the president refused to apologize for his actions during an exclusive interview with ABC News and took the Republican Party to task for what he described as its attempt to interfere with the basic functions of government.

“You notice that he didn't specifically say what exactly he was objecting to,” the president said when asked about the suit by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos during an interview Thursday in Minnesota.

“I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they're doing nothing,” the president added later.

Boehner said Wednesday during the announcement of the lawsuit that the president had “not faithfully executed the laws,” but Obama sharply disagreed during his interview with ABC News.

“The suit is a stunt,” he said.

As for immigration overhaul, the president cited public support for it, insisting he was open to compromise with the Ohio Republican during his interview with Stephanopoulos.

“What I've told Speaker Boehner directly is, ‘If you're really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, why don't you try getting something done through Congress?’” the president said.

"You're going to squawk if I try to fix some parts of it administratively that are within my authority while you're not doing anything?" Obama said, directing his comments toward Republicans.

Monday, October 14, 2013


Why Refusing to Raise the Debt Ceiling Will Not Result in Default on American Debt

By: Brian Woodward

 Barack Obama

The media, members of Congress, and the President of the United States have gleefully disseminated misinformation about what would happen if we do not raise the debt ceiling by October 17th. The biggest blow these lies encountered was when Moody’s, one of the nation's top credit rating agencies, released a memo on October 7th stating:

“We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact...The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default...The budget deficit was considerably larger in 2011 than it is currently, so the magnitude of the necessary spending cuts needed after 17 October is lower now than it was then”

What that means is that almost everything you have heard in any form of media from whatever slant it comes from (in regards to not raising the debt ceiling) has been absolutely wrong.

It is amazing to me that both parties in Congress, according to the polling data, are the ones that American’s blame the most. Americans have always hated Congress, at least in terms of the approval ratings they give, but it is the President who is supposed to lead, and he more than anyone else has been unwilling to be forthright about the situation.

Forget about the outlandish strategy of the Republicans to try to pass a Continuing Resolution that “defunds” the Affordable Care Act.

That is not the real issue here.

This fight is about America’s spending problem. It was then Senator Obama who voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 who said this "Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here’.” He seems to have forgotten that he made this statement, because his remarks last week conveyed the complete opposite sentiment asserting, “Everybody should say one of the most valuable things we have is America's creditworthiness. This is not something we should even come close to fooling around with.”

Not only is he completely wrong about what would happen to the United States credit rating (see Moody’s research note), he has for political purposes reversed his rhetoric, apparently discrediting his views when he was a United States Senator. Individuals are of course afforded the right to change their mind due to changes in data, but at the least he should be willing to say he was wrong in 2006. Instead, he presses on as if he never put up that fight and made those statements about raising the debt ceiling.

He admonishes Speaker Boehner for his actions, but it can be easily argued that the Speaker is simply taking Obama’s 2006 remarks to heart -- “Leadership means that the buck stops here.”

Economists, excluding the rogue Paul Krugman, are laughing at the panic perpetrated by the politicos. Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) put it slightly vulgarly, and somewhat incomplete, but nonetheless made an effective point in stating "I'm not as concerned as the president is on the debt ceiling, because the only people buying our bonds right now is the Federal Reserve. So it's like scaring ourselves."

What most people do not comprehend is that the majority of the United States debt is owed to itself, meaning individuals and institutions that purchase treasury notes, the social security trust fund, civilians retirement funds, and of course as the Senator mentioned, the Federal Reserve are the largest holders of the debt. In totality, as of last year, entities of the United States own 65.8% of the national debt. Furthermore, contrary to what many of you have been told, China only owns 8.1% of our debt. The notion that they will or do “own us” is fallacious, their commitment to our currency is much more of a problem for them than us.

This is a fight for fiscal responsibility cloaked in the media as an attempt to repeal Obamacare. It is true that Senator Ted Cruz seized his opportunity at fame, or if you like, notoriety. It is also true that Speaker Boehner (due to the pressure applied by the “Tea Party”) has continually spoken about negotiating the terms of Obamacare. No thinking person anticipates any major, or for all intents and purposes, minor concessions on the health care law. However, individuals like our own Senator Tom Coburn understand the importance of fiscal responsibility.

Cutting spending is the goal of the GOP in this fight. I suppose this is when Obama apologists assert that he has “cut spending in half” or “reduced deficits in a historical fashion”. Anyone that is familiar with big data and statistics knows that “numbers” are quite subject to manipulation. From when President Obama took office to now he has cut spending in relation to GDP. However, his spending in relation to GDP is also the highest in the history of the republic.

The research director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget explains how easy it is to manipulate the data. He used an example of incurring a deficit of one percent of GDP in the first year of office and .5 percent after the four year term. He states: "That would look like a 50 percent improvement in the level...However, a change in deficits that went from 10 percent of GDP to 5 percent of GDP would also register as a 50 percent improvement – despite being a much larger change in relation to the economy."