Democratic Senators Skeptical of Carr’s Claims of FCC Independence

WASHINGTON, July 20, 2017 -- Questions over network neutrality and the ability of one nominee to be independent from his boss and the Trump Administration made for a far more contentious confirmation hearing than nominees to an independent agency like the FCC would normally receive, as the Senate Commerce Committee took up the nomination of newcomer Brenden Carr (R) and veterans Ajit Pai (R) -- currently Chairman -- and Jessica Rosenworcel, who was re-nominated by President Trump after he withdrew her nomination earlier this year.

Carr, a veteran of the federal communications bar who currently serves as General Counsel to the FCC, was the subject of aggressive questioning by democrats, including Ranking Member Bill Nelson, D-Fla, who asked the nominee whether he could be trusted to be independent of Pai once their relationship is one of equals and not employer and employee, and asked Carr if he could name one instance in which he disagreed with his boss.

Carr either could not or would not answer the question directly, but told Nelson that if confirmed he would make his own decisions and “call what I see based on facts.”

When pressed further for an example of disagreement between Chairman Pai and himself, Carr only offered a general statement that his views sometimes differed but couldn’t say as to when anything along those lines had ever happened.

Carr also claimed to be unfamiliar with several topics that one would expect a longtime FCC staffer to be conversant in, including the E-Rate program, which provides for discounted Internet access for schools and libraries. When asked how he’d vote on matters related to E-Rate, he claimed that it was “something I’m not familiar with” but promised to keep an open mind.

Both Pai and Rosenworcel, by contrast, said they were more than familiar with the E-Rate program, with the Chairman stating that the program was worth fighting for, and the Democratic nominee calling E-Rate a good thing for education.

Pai was also the subject of aggressive questioning by Republican Senators on the subject of Network Neutrality, with the goal of giving him the chance to support his decision to roll back Obama-era rules.

The Chairman told Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, that the result of the decision by then-Chairman Tom Wheeler (D) to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, was to create an environment of over-regulation which discouraged investment by broadband providers in rural areas, and in the growth of small local internet service providers.

And while Pai added that his goal was to return to a “Clinton-era light touch” regulatory environment, he was not able to provide a single example of the Title II reclassification causing companies to refrain from investing in broadband infrastructure.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., said at the end of the hearing that a vote on the three nominations could be expected within the next two weeks.

Kansas 4th, and Georgia 6th, and Bernie Sanders! Oh My!

     These past two weeks have been a whirlwind of political games for many within the democratic party. The special elections in both Kansas and Georgia have proven to be a turning point for the Democrats if they wish to regain Congress and the Presidency.
     I had the honor to move to Wichita to work the Kansas Fourth Congressional District special election. During the primary - well, before the district nominating convention, I worked on behalf of Dennis McKinney's campaign. I knocked doors, engaged with voters about the importance of voting by mail, and showing support for my candidate by gathering support from constituents. After the district convention, the democrats in the Kansas fourth decided to have James Thompson represent them as a nominee to run against Republican Ron Estes. I continued living in Kansas, with a close friend of mine, and we both volunteered for the Thompson campaign by making calls and knocking on doors towards the end of the campaign. In the end, the Thompson campaign came up only 6.8% short of winning. This is important because Trump won that district by at least 27 points and the Thompson campaign narrowed that margin. Kansas will be blue again; however, it will just have to wait until 2018.
     The Georgia Sixth Congressional District race has been interesting to watch as well. Jon Ossoff was the overall "winner" of the election last week; however, he did not break the 50% threshold so now the race will go into a runoff against Republican Karen Handel. That runoff election will take place on June 20, 2017. There has been a lot of media attention on the Georgia Sixth race and not nearly enough on the Kansas Fourth race, so I won't speak too much on the Georgia Sixth.
     With both the Kansas and Georgia races, we see two different dynamics emerge within the Democratic Party. The striking aspect is that both of these races yielded higher turnout numbers than usual for a special election. Even as Georgia Sixth goes to a runoff, the effect of 2016 is still visibly known. In Kansas, the voters in the Fourth decided to put fourth a nominee who is more aligned with the Bernie Sander's wing of the party. Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with that; however, I think this loss does provide some context as to how the Sanders model will prove to be problematic moving forward within the party. You can't have a "my way or else" mindset but have compromise on issues to advance the party. When the focus is shifted to Georgia Sixth race, we see someone who is more aligned with the "establishment" wing of the party. Overall Ossoff was able to speak to a larger audience while still maintaining his progressive candidacy. Furthermore, the problem with a "one size fits all" approach is that not every democrat is the same.  To challenge another democrat's "progressiveness" to fit your ideals, or do challenge another democrat's understanding on party politics, does not help the party overall. We need to leave 2016 in the past and realize that it is 2017 and build rapports with all areas of the Democratic Party...not continue to burn them to the ground. If we cannot focus on winning and supporting Democrats in areas of the country that provides a challenge, then we will fail to win national elections - which will trickle down to state governments as well. So let's focus on winning the future of the party and not dwell on a lost past of divided party politics.

Now, let's focus on Montana and the Virginia races....and when Alabama nominates their party candidate, we will focus there as well!

Trump Knows Real Estate, Not International Law

     On April 7, 2017, the United States fired tomahawk cruise missiles into the borders of Syria, destroying an air base which was believed to be the epicenter of a chemical weapon attack on the Syrian people - by the government of Syria. The forty-fifth president of the United States cites this breach of international law as a vital national security concern. During the emergency United Nations Security Council meeting, the Russian Federation (a permanent member to the Security Council) - as well as Syria, Sweden, & Bolivia - strongly condemned violation of international law and/or act of aggression towards Syria. This strength of force has been viewed to some both in Syria and Russia as an act of war. While Iran does not sit on the UN Security Council, it did publicly state it's strong opposition to the use of force and violation of international law by the United States.
     While there is standing precedent for a president to act unilaterally without congressional approval (such law was passed back in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks and used to go into Afghanistan and eventually Iraq), it is a long standing tradition for the president to seek congressional approval before any military actions are to take place. Not to mention, a president has always sought Congress' approval for a declaration of war.
     The President of the United States is sending a dangerous message to the rest of the world by launching missiles into Syria. The message is simple: Abide by the demands of the United States or suffer the military wrath of the United States. This is not the first time this president has disrespected another country or foreign leader. The president would not shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel's hand during a photo-op/press conference, he has had tense words with the Prime Minister of Australia regarding refugees coming to the United States set up under the Obama administration, and his continued feud with Mexico over building a wall along the southern border of the United States are just a few examples of his blatant disrespect of international norms and procedures of international laws and geopolitical etiquette. These acts might seem minor to many, but they could have a direct - and potentially long-standing -  consequences for the United States on an international level. Some of the repercussions have already started with the European Union rejecting visa-free travel for all Americans.
     The President is trying to "restart" foreign policy that has been in place since the forming of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. What he should be doing is looking to history and recognize that a unilateral intervention has never been in the best interest of the United States - especially in the Middle East. In the vital interest of National Security, it would be prudent to not unilaterally engage in situations that have proper protocols and procedures to handle international violations of human rights and to international law. There are multiple cases such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Vietnam, and even in Libya  that show where unilateral efforts by the United States has proven to backfire - either by public/international lack of support or by an increase of recruitment among terrorist organizations which result in a rise in frequent terror attacks around the world (the most recent cases include the attack on Parliament in London and a truck attack in Sweden).
     The overall questions we need to keep asking are: why now and what is the end game? Is it a war with Russia, which would be utilized as a 2020 campaign ploy; or, are both countries creating a distraction because both parties understand that they are guilty of obstructing the democratic process of the 2016 election and worked in coordination and are trying to cover their tracks? Regardless, I foresee a new war that will be reminiscent of the Afghanistan/Iraq timeline where the United States will engage in Syria first, and then turn its attention to Russia and that will escalate into a global war as two superpowers who hold power places within the United Nations Security Council will force the world to take a side...and due to the mishandling of words by the current President of the United States will force China to side with Russia. Only time will tell.

My President & What I Can Do Moving Forward

As I sit here listening to the commentators discuss President Obama's Final Address to the nation, I am also trying to determine what to do after the weeks, and months, of the 2016 Election cycle. There are so many things to say regarding the Presidential Election of 2016 - I'll name a few that stick out to me: personal, brutal, rewarding, I had planned on writing a little bit about my campaign experience, but I want to take a moment (or two) and say that I am incredibly hurt, but not broken, over the ending of the Presidency of Barack H. Obama.

    This administration has done a lot of good things within the past eight years. For me, one thing stands out is the passage of the Affordable Care Act, which guarantees individuals with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. This was a monumental achievement. During his tenure, he repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and was a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, including paving the way for not only the overturning of Proposition 8 in California but also the passage of Marriage Equality in all fifty states with the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act. In addition to those legal victories, he also continued to make history by nominating (and confirming) the first Puerto Rican American woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Speaking of women, during his tenure as President, he nominated and confirmed two women to place on the Supreme Court thus having the most women EVER in the history of our country to sit on the bench. His administration broke racial barriers in many different ways (besides the most important as becoming President): The first African American Attorneys General and after that the first African American woman, Other cabinet positions include Secretaries of Labor, Transportation, and Interior. It is because of these accomplishments, it makes the Obama administration the most diverse in our nation's history.

    His administration was scandal-free while his family led the country with such grace & class. Furthermore, his administration's challenged the country to lead healthier and better lives. President Obama expanded the second amendment rights for gun owners to carry their weapons into national parks - Of which I greatly opposed. His administration gave the green light to the military (mainly Navy Seals) to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. His economic wit saved the economy from going over the financial brink towards collapse. His administration has reduced the unemployment rate from 7.2% to 4.7% while creating well over 2,400,000 new jobs in multiple sectors of the economy.

    All of these administration accomplishments were done with two of the most obstructive Congresses in modern history. Never in the history of the country has a Congress - mainly with the Senate - not considered a nominee for the Supreme Court; never have they not attempted to balance a budget or work with a sitting president. Simply not patriotic and I would make a strong argument that it is treasonous.

    I am deeply honored to claim Barack Obama as MY President. I have been there with him every step of the way since the summer of 2017. I voted for him twice (in 2008 and again in 2012), also attended BOTH of his inaugurations. I even served in his administration as an intern for the Department of Education. I cannot begin to thank President Obama for all he has done & accomplished.

  

    Now, during the Presidential cycle of 2016, I decided to get involved with the campaign of Hillary Clinton. I was an organizer in Buncombe County, North Carolina - the place I call home. During the campaign I pushed myself in so many ways both professional and personal. Personally, I worked on balancing the struggle of work time versus personal time. [Yes, I'm very dedicated and career-oriented...who knew?] I poured my time, energy, sweat, and blood (think papercuts, lots of them) into the campaign. I staffed events, met Senator Tim Kaine (again - and even shared a drink with him), met both President Clinton as well as his daughter Chelsea. I attended a rally in Charlotte for Hillary Clinton and I somehow made it into the nationwide political ad. I did a "call to action" rally during the final days of the election - which was both thrilling yet intimidating. As with any organizer, I called, knocked, and I did it with the strongest regional team members in the state of North Carolina. Just another reason why...#WestIsBest (and yes, I would like a gradual "wooo" and then silence<---Loved my Regional Organizing Director).

    In the end, multiple things did not line up in our favor. Some of these I've learned to accept and I am able to move on...to an extent. This leads me to where we (collectively Democrats, my generation, my fellow organizers - insert whichever you think is appropriate) go from this point forward. The road will not be easy, but it will be better if we move forward as one as we are stronger together and let those that wish to set our country back feel the burn. (<---See what I did there, Jedi mind trick, us Ravenclaws love using our wit).

    In a little over a week, the United States will inaugurate Donald J. Trump as its forty-fifth president. While I did NOT vote for him, the results "such as they are" have been certified by Congress and the official results nonetheless. Given his lack of moral character, his divisive and controversial language & remarks, he will still be sworn in and there is nothing I can do. He may be the next President of the United States, but he will not now nor will he ever be MY President. I respect the office, but I DO NOT respect the person who will hold it for the next four years as he has failed to gain any respect worthy of the office.

    Now that I think about it, there are a lot of things I can do within the next four years:

  1) I will hold his administration, his Congress and his policies under a watchful eye;

  2) I will organize my county and state party to not back down while building them up;

  3) I will stand up and reach out to those American that his administration will try and silence through unconstitutional laws and overreaching of his corrupt governmental tiny fingers;

  4) I will continue to rebuild my party, so that in 2020, we will have a candidate who will unite all democrats in all areas of the United States;

  5) I will remember the words of My First Lady and know that "when they go low, we go high" and never back down;

  6) I will remain hopeful that we will prevail as a stronger nation because we will hold our leaders accountable and ensure they do their sworn duty to uphold the United States Constitution or they risk being voted out of office;

  7) I will look to the future with a positive notion that history will give us a person who can surpass the accomplishments of President Barack Obama; and finally,

  8) I will be grateful to call myself an Obama Democrat and will make sure that his legacy remains for generations to seek the benefits.

Will you join me? We are stronger together and together, we can believe in we can do great things by moving forward. If anything President Obama has taught me, it is that when you dream big, you can achieve anything. Thank you President Obama, your leadership will be missed and I'll be forever grateful for your Presidency. I will cherish your works and I will do my best to live up to your standards.

Immediate Reaction to the First Democratic Debate of 2016 (O'Malley = Winner)

Here are my "flashpoint" thoughts" -

• Tonight's Debate Winner: Martin O'Malley (Former Governor, Maryland)
• Worst Debate Performance: Lincoln Chafee (Former Governor, Rhode Island)
• Still has work to do to appeal to ALL Democrats: Hillary Clinton (Former Secretary of State)
• Great at Domestic Policy, but needs to step up on Foreign Policy: Bernie Sanders (Senator, Vermont)
• Biggest Whiner: Jim Webb (Former Senator, Virginia)
• First 2016 Democratic Candidate to Drop Out: Lincoln Chafee (Former Governor, Rhode Island)

Clinton played a lot of defense and didn't really dive into policy changes. She even dodged questions regarding her flipping of issues like TPP and she didn't show much leadership against Wall Street. I think that will hurt her on her leadership. I was surprised she mentioned working with China to balance relations between the two countries. Sanders really needs to toughen up on the foreign policy and not mention calling on military action for a cleansing in Kosovo as history shows that was not ideal for Americans to have intervened.

O'Malley was the strong leader in tonight's debate as he threw no punches and went toe-to-toe with Sanders and Clinton more than once. He defended his time in Maryland. Every time Clinton said something, he managed to slip in his point without being arrogant.

Chafee will be the first to drop out as he kept giving the excuse of being fresh on the job in Congress and not focusing on the task at hand. The American people need someone who will be ready on day one and not have a tutorial waiting for them once they get the key to the Oval Office. Also, Jim Webb was like the product of Carson & Trump with his constant "but the rules say this" and nagging of time…is this a foreshadowing of how you will act as President? A conflict arises and you're in the situation room and whine about not talking - You would be the President, you command the room…

Overall, good performance. More to come...

The Next Speaker of the House is….Wait, Who???

     With the news that John Boehner will be resigning as Speaker of the House at the end of October, it will be a race to see who takes the gavel from him. While many are confident the next Speaker will be a  man, I am sure the Republican Party will voice their support for a woman to take the Speaker's gavel. Given the highly-charged issues of women's rights, attack on family values, and other rhetoric of the Republican Party, it will fall to someone that can go toe-to-toe with the candidate Republicans all hope will be the Democratic Nominee. Out of the twenty-two women within the Republican Party who serve in the House, I have narrowed my predictions to three women. They are all qualified based on their merit and tenure. Each candidate brings a unique perspective to the position and if elected by their peers, would able to take command once the gavel is in her hands. I will present them not only on longevity, but also on who is best qualified. The three women that are ready to take the Speaker's gavel are:

1)     Llena Ros-Lehtinen (Representative of Florida's 27th Congressional District)

        She has been in Congress since 1989 representing Florida as the first Cuban American elected, the first Latina elected. She has had prominent "rising stars" on her staff including the current Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio. She is already in a position of leadership within the House as the Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a vocal member within the following caucuses - Pro-Life Women's, International Conversation, Hispanic, and Taiwan. She is just enough of a proponent of LGBT individuals that wouldn't register with Republicans during a primary and would be able to carry women and hispanics during a general election. Her stances on pro-life women's issues and Planned Parenthood would guide the next Congress into ways to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood (even though no tax dollars fund abortions). She would be the resolute leader the Republicans are clearly lacking after the ongoing departure of Speaker Boehner - who couldn't control members of his own party including those aligned with the Tea Party Caucus.

2)     Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Representative of Washington's 5th Congressional District)

        She has been in Congress since 2005 and she hails from the state of Washington - a great state to retire to by the way…it's the New Hampshire of the West Coast.  She has given the State of the Union Response back in 2014 and many political pundits stated she did an amazing job and great response. She is the highest ranking woman serving as the House Republican Conference Chairwoman - which makes sense for her to be the next Speaker if the former mentioned Congresswoman declines the position. She is a member of  the Energy and Commerce committee which will play a big role regarding domestic issues in the 2016 election. She receives high praise from the Family Research Council, Gun Owners of America (as of 2014) and other Conservative groups throughout the nation. She is also a member of the Tea Party express of 2010 election cycle.

3)     Marsha Blackburn (Representative of Tennessee's 7th Congressional District)

        She is a well-known member of Congress within the Tea Party Caucus and those that identify as Tea Party members within the Republican Party. She is an avid opponent of Planned Parenthood, a staunch supporter of traditional marriage and doesn't support any politics that favor LGBT Americans. She has a favorable rating with all of the known conservative groups. If the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party does indeed want to overtake the party - Congressman Marsha Blackburn would be at the head of the line with the flag "Don't tread on me" waving and proclaiming strong conservative values that make Reagan look liberal. For the record, Marsha Blackburn is only one of a few female members of Congress that use the term "Congressman" to identify herself.

     Out of all of these members, the most logical choice would be Congresswoman Llena Ros-Lehtinen.  For the Tea Party Caucus to proclaim "victory" - without a naval warship - then Marsha Blackburn is the choice. For a new voice while bridging the gap between the establishment republicans and new age republicans, the choice would be Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

If the Republicans want to attempt to challenge Hillary Clinton (who is their only person running in a democratic primary apparently) in next year's election and have Republicans take the House, the Senate, and the White House, then the logical choice would be Congresswoman  Llena Ros-Lehtinen.


I guess time will tell. How interesting would a Latina Speaker of the House be if it came from the Republican Party. It would cover two political demographic bases and maybe secure the White House…unless those groups actually do research on the current Republican Party and then a Democrat will win since they have nothing to justify their stances on such issues.

2016 GOP Debate: Round 2 goes to Fiorina

 Everything about last night’s debate was interesting.  We finally saw the cracks beginning to form from inside the Trump egg since his fall off of the polls (thanks to the surge of Dr. Ben Carson). I just hope all the tea partiers and all the anti-government people can’t put Trump back together after last night’s dismal performance.

            On the other hand, how about Carly Fiorina’s performance? She did an amazing job and came to the debate well prepared - which I image is the same way she handled a meeting at HP. She not only went toe-to-toe with Trump, she also took on Christie for a few minutes. Fiorina is the new front-runner by the end of two weeks. While her message of getting right to work on the first day is ideal for a Republican (making calls to Israel & Iran and telling Iran where the United States stands), her business experience is not the best for her to cling to regarding qualifications. The main reason she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground is because it was dealing with the powerhouses of Apple and Microsoft (at times). She will know what to do on day one, unlike Trump who will learn on the job, but it won’t be for the right reasons. I have much more to discuss about the debate from last night and I think the best way to discuss it is to focus on each candidate on the stage. Overall, I think by the end of  two weeks the polls will read as follow:

1) Fiorina 29%
2) Trump 23%

3) Carson 21%

4) Rubio 12%

5) Bush 5%

6) Kasich 4%

7) Paul 2%

8) Christie 1%

9) Cruz 1%

10) Huckabee 1%

11) Lindsey 1%

The next to drop out will probably be Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana – by Halloween.

Update: My first percentages equaled 196% - I have revised them (What can I say, I'm not a math major haha)