Jump to content

Welcome, Guest!

Sign In or Create my Account to gain full access to the game. If you haven't already created a character, what are you waiting for?
Sign in to follow this  
Chuck J. Roy

World News Media Network

Recommended Posts

Name: World News Media Network

Call Letters: WNMN

Owner: JIm Coaver

Media Markets: Boston-Springfield, MA

Political Leaning: Moderate Conservative on most issues.


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Approved. This media entity goes public on March 29, 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COMING SOON

**EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ADAM BENSON**


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran, Pakistan relations under siege

The controversial Iran nuclear deal, negotiated chiefly by President Obama in 2015, has come under fresh fire today as the British Conservative Party - which looks set to take victory in the forthcoming elections to the UK's new Senate - announced that it would withdraw from the agreement.

The de-facto deputy leader of the party, Felicity Moore, called the agreement "the worst deal in history," and was swiftly supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Dylan Macmillan, who declared that he would never have signed the deal.

The UK Government remains implacably supportive of the agreement, which then Prime Minister Ariadne Suchet, widely regarded as the most left-wing British leader since the 1970s, signed amidst a broad consensus within the European Union, and ministers roundly criticised the Conservative opposition for its condemnation of the agreement. The Conservatives didn't have it all their own way; the former foreign minister who is widely touted as the party's prospective Senate leader came out with all guns blazing to demand that the government stick by the deal, even amidst criticism from his colleagues that the agreement allows Iran to continue its enrichment programme.

The government argues that sanctions were not working - the opposition argues that they had forced Iran to the table only for Tehran to be the recipient of "a litany of appeasement."

Here in the US, the Republican Party's fierce opposition to the deal has forced the President to refuse even to send the agreement to Congress for ratification. The debate puts the Democratic nominee, Senator Tillman, in a difficult position: at best the deal is proving divisive, and at worst it is presenting legitimate national security concerns. With the tide of right-wing parties in Europe shifting to outright opposition to the agreement, and with the British Conservatives in particular in ascendancy, the pressure on the White House is becoming immense.

Relations with Iran are not the only question mark hovering over the middle east due to interventions from the British Opposition. The Conservative candidate to become foreign minister, William Croft, last week labelled Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism, with colleagues citing the testimony of US Admiral Mike Mullen. In 2010, the UK's Prime Minister, David Cameron, said "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world."

A statement from the Conservatives today criticises Pakistan's "longstanding irresponsible policy of supporting and providing operational space for 'jihadi' terrorist groups" and doubled down on widely-reported claims that the intelligence services in Islamabad supported the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul in 2008.

The controversy swiftly turned into crisis as William Croft was hauled in to see the Prime Minister in a top-secret admonishment, reporting of the details of which has been banned under the UK's official secrets act. 

Again, dispute over Pakistan's role in the middle east puts the President - and the candidates to succeed him - in a tricky position. Even the former National Security Adviser to President Obama, James L. Jones, slammed Pakistan in 2010 for "tolerating the existence of insurgents within their border."

The world will now look to Senator Tillman on behalf of the Democrats and the Republican Presidential candidates to elucidate their own views as to the growing furore over the middle east. As ever, the news coming out of London attracts considerable interesting here in D.C.


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a rule-taker

Senator Robert Powell, the Democratic firebrand from Colorado and Senate Minority Leader, has irked Republicans in Congress by submitting a swathe of motions to suspend the rules and pass or debate various pieces of politically-charged legislation.

Senator Granata described Powell's antics as "lunacy," claiming that the Minority Leader was wasting the time of the Senate and effectively filibustering debate on other bills. He continued to say that "The majority sets the docket. The minority is absolutely free to introduce bills, but they are docketed at the discretion of the majority. If you write a good bill, the majority leader may docket it." Senator Michael Madison, from Missouri, slammed the Democrats, saying that "they are not in the majority and need to stop acting like they are."

Senator Powell has tabled motions to suspend the rules on no fewer than five occasions since the start of the year, despite the traditional rarity of such motions - which are generally used only to quickly pass the most clearly bi-partisan bills for which both parties have declared support.

New Hampshire Republican Chuck J. Roy quipped that "If the Democrats don't want to debate, they can get out of Congress."

 


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Benson suggests arming friendly east Asian states

In an exclusive interview with WNMN, Senator Adam Benson, one of the early frontrunners in the race for the Republican nomination, has said that he would consider offering support in the form of nuclear weapons to friendly nations in east Asia should aggression from China and North Korea render the region increasingly unstable.

Senator Benson said: "if North Korea and Iran are allowed to obtain nuclear weapons and China is prepared to present a military threat to the region then on some level I don't know why our allies... stable, democratic, rational countries by any stretch... should not also possess such capabilities as well."

The Utah Senator also appeared to criticise prominent US allies such as South Korea and Japan, saying: "we have a long-standing military relationship with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan and we need to reinforce that relationship and support our allies. However, there's also a painful reality that if these countries aren't prepared to defend themselves then there is a limit on what we can do."

Continuing, Senator Benson said: "Russia... I think there's a case that they've bent it as far as they can with Iran, while China seems to be in the same boat with North Korea. Which brings us back to the underlying problem: If the other powers in an agreement or treaty aren't going to play their cards according to Hoyle, we're already in a spot, aren't we?"

"I'm not talking about arming Taiwan next week or even necessarily next year. But if the Chinese continue down one path and North Korea continues down another, that does put everyone in the region at a certain risk and in that very specific case I would have to question the use of that treaty and whether it wouldn't effectively be reduced to a blank cheque for China and their unstable next-door friend to impose its will on the region."

The Presidential candidate's comments see him join a long line of conservative voices calling upon America's allies to do more to support their own defence. In Europe, only five of the 29 NATO member states are presently meeting the target of spending 2% of GDP on defence: Estonia, Greece, Poland, the US herself and Britain meet the target, though in the case of the United Kingdom significant cuts have been made in defence spending over recent years and opposition politicians in London have expressed concern that the country could fall short of the target.

In east Asia, Japan has a strict non-aggression policy codified within its constitution following the second world war, and maintains only a small "self-defence force" - relying on America for the protection of much of its interests. Prominent military experts have expressed concern that North Korean forces could reach Seoul within 72 hours without adequate South Korean defences in the event of an invasion, and Taiwan's small military is not widely believed to be capable of resisting attack from China, which claims the territory as its own.

In his call to consider arming some of these states with nuclear weapons, Senator Benson is proposing to tear-up the postwar consensus on nuclear weapons. There has been no response as yet from other nations of the nuclear club, the P5, but WNMN will bring you that reaction - and reaction from the other Presidential candidates - as soon as we get it.


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats claim relief at Iowa straw poll result

A source in the office of presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Tillman has told WNMN that senior figures within the Tillman campaign are pleased with the results of the most recent straw poll ahead of the Iowa Caucus, which shows Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald leading the pack as favourite to pick up the victory.

A staffer from Senator Tillman's campaign office told WNMN: "I spoke with the Senator and she said she was pleased to see the Senate Majority Leader win the Iowa straw poll. He appears to be the GOP candidate of reason, willing to work across the aisle with us."

Whether the expression of relief is genuine or not is up for interpretation; an unusually straightforward endorsement of a Republican candidate ahead of the all-important Iowa Caucus could easily be read as a clumsy attempt to damage the chances of the most prominent figure in the GOP field, turning conservative voices against Senator Fitzgerald by implying that he is more likely to compromise with the Democrats - something that will be particularly unappealing to Republicans who are fighting hard for control of Congress.

As the endorsements continue to come in and as Iowa Republicans begin to make up their minds, it will ultimately be for voters to decide whether this revelation represents fair play or dirty tricks.

 


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Prime Minister faces criminal investigation

The British Prime Minister, Caroline Blakesley, has become the subject of a police investigation into alleged misconduct in public office, after claims from the Opposition that she misused the UK's Official Secrets Act in an attempt to silence and intimidate the Conservative foreign policy spokesman, William Croft.

Mr Croft used Parliamentary Privilege, an archaic but legitimate concept of British law which exempts legislators from prosecution should they make comments on the floor of the House of Commons which would ordinarily constitute criminal offences, to reveal details of a private meeting between himself and the Prime Minister at the end of March. The meeting, which followed criticism of Pakistan as a "state sponsor of terror" by a number of senior British Conservatives, was allegedly used by the Prime Minister to threaten Mr Croft - who is himself under police investigation for potential breaches of the law.

Ms Blakesley becomes only the second sitting Prime Minister to be questioned under caution by the police whilst in office, the first having been Tony Blair, who was interviewed by investigators in the final year of his premiership in connection with allegations that his government had offered honours and appointments in exchange for donations - and joins a long line of British Prime Ministers who have been accused of malfeasance in public office, the most prominent recent example being Mary Cambel, who in 2014 was exposed as having leaked false information to the press.

The crisis in London is rapidly reaching a fever-pitch, with rows over Iran, Pakistan and the Prime Minister's behaviour spiralling almost out of control as the country approaches a series of high-profile mid-term elections widely expected to herald a poor showing for the government. We're hoping to bring in a British Member of Parliament for an interview to talk more on this, and we'll bring you that as soon as we can.

  • Like 1

Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exclusive interview with Senator Harvey Ross (R-NC)

MO:  I'm joined now by a Congress freshman; at 32 years of age, Senator Havey Ross from North Carolina is a prominent Republican who graduated from Yale with distinction after studying law. Senator Ross made headlines when he opposed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, calling it an 'assault upon individual liberty' and criticising many of his GOP colleagues for seeking, as he put it, to 'strip women of the right to choose.' Senator Ross, welcome to WNMN.

HR: Thank you for having me.

MO: Senator, I think abortion is a sensible place to start - you've attracted the ire of your GOP colleagues for your pro-choice stance, which whilst relatively popular here in New England is a bit of a black mark against your name for conservative voters in the Deep South. Why are you opposing legislation to remove government funding for abortions?

HR: Well I’m glad you asked this question so I can clear the air around my stance. I am for individual liberty and small government. This does not mean I support abortion, but I support the right to be able to make the choice to have one.

MO: So your objection to the bill is based on an attitude of permissiveness, rather than of favouring abortion as an option?

HR: Yes It’s the same way I see religion. I myself am an atheist so even thought I myself am not religious that doesn’t mean I want to limit others rights to believe what they want.

MO: It's all very well supporting individual liberty and allowing people to make their own choices, Senator Ross, but there comes a point where the authorities have to step in and say that an action is immoral or damaging, that its consequences are too negative or that they are harmful to others, and at that point the law steps in. For example, one could argue that to take cocaine or heroin is a personal choice - but the federal and state authorities recognise the harm it causes in the drug trafficking and so on, and so they outlaw it. Why is an unborn child's right to life less important than a woman's right to choose?

HR: Once again I’m not supporting abortion and I think limiting it is the best we can do. But I also think that if society sees something as immoral and damaging that the society should choose wether or not to tolerate those actions. You brought up drugs usage, while someone may do heroin or cocaine this does not mean they are no consequences to those actions. If they are publicly doing these drugs then they will not have the ability to get or keep a job and people perceptions of them change. It’s the same with abortion. If society deems abortion as immoral and wrong, then abortion will be looked down upon. But I don’t think the government gets to decide it

MO: This vision of "small government; big society" would be admirable if it made sense, Senator. If you believe that society, within which the smallest minority group is each individual of one, is the power that should decide what is acceptable or unacceptable, I pose two questions to you: first, doesn't that create a situation in which we have a tyranny of the majority? Where the individual's rights are suppressed just as readily by the wisdom of the collective as they would be by the government? Second, if you truly believe this: do you believe in legalising hard drugs?

HR: In response to your first question, we have the first amendment for a reason. Also the House of Representatives is based on the majority rule. If the public wants a house run by the gop then the vote the gop into the majority. The first amendment is there to make sure the minority doesn’t lose their voice in society. Secondly hard drugs ruin lives and families and should not be legalized.

MO: So one should have freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of choice - but not freedom to live without fear of being castigated and forced into ignominy by society at large. I think we'll leave that debate there, but I would like to press you on the distinction you make between abortion and the use of drugs. John Stuart Mill, the 19th Century British philosopher, said that 'my freedom to swing my fist ends at the point of connection with your face." You've clearly identified the taking of illicit drugs as a point of connection with the faces of other family members, and indeed the strangers in the cartels who live lives of slavery... the people who die in the drug wars, et cetera. Why does aborting a foetus, which many regard as being a sentient and live human being at any stage of development, not constitute a striking of the face of that living thing in the same way?

HR: Look many people disagree with my stance and that’s fine-but saying that someone deserves to have a choice taken away just doesn’t seem right to me.

MO: John Stuart Mill also said that conservatives were not necessarily stupid, but that most stupid people were conservatives. We'll leave that there. Whatever crushes individuality is despotism; that is the philosophy with which you approach individual rights and the freedom of the individual. Do you regard the imposition of punitive gun controls as despotism, and are you supporting the CCCRA? The bill puts most constitutionalists in a bit of a fix. On the one hand, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd amendment; on the other, Republicans are usually the ardent defender of states' rights and this bill would seek to take them away. On which side of the fence do you stand?

HR: The constitution says we have to right to bear arms and that shall not be infringed. I’m glad my colleague from Missouri proposed the CCCRA and I fully support the federal government standing up for our second amendment rights

MO: Who will you be backing for the Republican nomination for the Presidency?

HR: I have proudly announced that I am endorsing Senate majority leader Fitzgerald for the nomination and for the Presidency

MO: Why?

HR: I believe he is the best for the job. He has done a great job in the Senate and no matter what his opponents say he is the best for the job. When he said he’s the new sheriff in town he meant it.

MO: Can you be a little more specific? I'd like to know what in his record, his policies and his persona has convinced you that he is the right man to take on the office of the Presidency.

HR: He’s willing to go across the isle to get stuff done whereas his opponents think that partisanship is the answer to all of this countries problems. He is a kind man with strong beliefs and he is a model conservative. Although we disagree on the topic of abortion, he has been a friend to me and has helped me out in my freshman term as Senator for the great state of North Carolina.

MO: Doesn't the fact that he seems to be the Democrats' favoured candidate trouble you? Senator Tillman has effectively endorsed him.

HR: Yes it does but ultimately he is not a democrat. Like I said he is a model conservative and a great leader. It’s just that he’s made a lot of friends in Congress which I have no problem with.

MO: So it does trouble you, but you don't have a problem with it?

HR: It doesn’t trouble me as much as others. What would trouble me most is if he started compromising his beliefs in order to win over the democratic vote. That’s why I’m troubled. But ultimately I have faith in him to do what’s right for this country and not sell out to the DNC

MO: One final question, Senator Ross - as something of a libertarian, do you think the future of the Republican Party as a credible electoral force lies in the maximisation of liberties both social and economic? It's a radical viewpoint, but one which has transformed conservative fortunes across the pond and which could help to bridge the emerging demographic gap that the GOP is facing here in the US.

HR: To a point yes. Our conservative friends in places such as Britain have failed in balancing the two. But in other places such as Italy they have just the right balance. This is what our party must do in order to stay in all races and to be able to no longer be seen as the party of rich white old men.

MO: Senator Ross, from one rich white old man to another, I thank you for joining us tonight.

HR: Thank you for having me.

 


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parody of a Farce?

Debate in the Senate today became a parody of a farce as Senators Madison and Powell embarked on a game of "I asked first" on the floor.

Senator Powell, the Democrat from Colorado, proposed an amendment to the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Bill which would ensure that the legislation did not apply during the first three months of pregnancy. Senator Madison, who is a Republican from Missouri, responded by asking whether the Democrats would vote for the bill as a whole were the amendment passed.

There followed a series of back-and-forth questions, with Senator Powell asking whether the Republicans supported the amendment in principle and Senator Madison firing back by demanding that his question was answered first - on the grounds that it had been asked first.

Quite why nobody has suggested using the self-executing rule to tie passage of the amendment to passage of the main bill is beyond most commentators, and it's certainly beyond WNMN. In the meantime, we'll try and get both Senators on the channel so they can continue to avoid each other's questions for your entertainment.

Next up on WNMN, it's the weather. Whether it will or whether it won't, we'll hopefully get some straighter answers.


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Prime Minister criticised in Pakistan investigation

The British Prime Minister, Caroline Blakesley, has been criticised by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service for her conduct during the recent political row over Pakistan.

An investigation was launched into the Prime Minister after allegations were made of malfeasance in public office, when it transpired that she had shared sensitive information with the Opposition foreign affairs spokesman and used the Official Secrets Act to prevent any other Opposition leaders from becoming aware of it. It was also alleged that the Prime Minister had threatened Conservative Member of Parliament William Croft with unspecified “consequences” if he refused to rescind his claims that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism.

The row exploded last week when Mr Croft made use of a concept in British law known as Parliamentary Privilege to disclose information on the floor of the House of Commons, the dissemination of which would ordinarily constitute an offence. Following lively debate amongst MPs, with Conservatives rallying behind Mr Croft and representatives of the governing left-wing coalition supporting the Prime Minister, London’s police service opened an investigation into both of the main actors.

That investigation ended today with an exoneration of Mr Croft’s position, with prosecutors determining that there were no grounds for action against him based on his disclosures to Parliament. The Prime Minister also avoids prosecution, but was described as “skating on very thin ice,” with her conduct in the private Westminster meeting between herself and Mr Croft branded as intimidatory; the Crown Prosecution Service, which functions as the United Kingdom’s independent prosecuting body, criticised the Prime Minister’s language and warned that she had sailed close to the wind in becoming liable for criminal charges.

The decision to prosecute neither party restores calm to what has been a febrile atmosphere in Westminster, with Opposition threats to impeach the Prime Minister falling by the wayside and calls for Mr Croft’s resignation being silenced.

The debate around Pakistan’s relationship with terror continues unabated.

  • Like 1

Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four more years of gridlock

The dying days of the Obama Presidency have been defined by inaction and impotence, as Democratic control of the White House partnered with Republican control of Congress. Tonight's results confirm that, for the immediate future at least, the legacy of a divided nation - and a divided government - will continue.

Senator Tillman won the Presidential election by a large margin, extending the Democratic lead in the popular vote over President Obama's 2012 success. But the Republicans maintained a majority in both the Senate and the House, leading to speculation that for at least the first half of the Tillman Presidency, it will be difficult if not impossible for the Democrats to get their way.

The Republicans have made clear their combative approach to legislating in the last few months, invoking the ire of the Democrats by blocking a handful of motions to suspend the rules. Should this continue, it seems likely that the United States will continue in a protracted period of gridlock - with the White House made impotent by an unobliging Congress.


Chuck J. Roy
Senator from New Hampshire
******

Former Governor of New Hampshire (2003-2005)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chuck J. Roy said:

OOC: Please also include the text of the article in the post per a new game policy change. In the future the site will automatically delete attached files/images and I don't want the article lost. I do like the formatting of the pdf, so feel free to still upload the files for people to choose which format they prefer. Thank you. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...