We had an election. We worked hard to make a difference in Washington and in our local elections. We thought we sent a clear message and that both the Democrats and Republicans would 'get it'. The Republicans keep saying they got it. It appears they didn't.
I'm watching what is going on in this lame duck session and I am more disgusted than ever. It seems to me that the Republicans are simply playing a tricky shell game. They are moving targets, hiding behind a "good" vote in order to shove through a "bad" vote.
I picture a group of the Republican top dogs sitting around discussing the START treaty. They want it to go through but know the public is against it, that there are extremely valid reasons to wait until next year. Maybe the START treaty was a benign, so they thought, vote they could "give" Obama and crew if they gave the Republicans a victory in another area.
Discussion ensues as to how they're going to appease the voters yet obtain their objective... The current powers-that-be in the Republican hierarchy scrutinize the records of each of their co-horts, checking to see how strong they are in their home states and decide Georgia's Johnny Isakson is on point, is to be one of the designated sacrifices to get the thing through. They allowed him to vote the way they think the public would like on a requisite number of votes and now it's his turn to give one up for the team.
They know they have Scott Brown, Olympia Snow and the liberal end of the Republican Party, they just have to come up with a few more to get it through. Then they can beat their chests to the public and say they really didn't want the START treaty to pass. Lindsey Graham, who has been sliding in the estimation of conservative voters, is allowed to be the one to act like he's righteously indignant, is in tune with the tea party/9-12, etc. conservatives.
Isakson says he can't go it alone, his fellow Georgian Saxby Chambliss is going to have to vote, too. He also wants to make sure he's going to get some pet project included somewhere along the line if he's going to take one for the team. Negotiations start.
I have come to believe that on each of the votes that "we" have lost during the lame duck session, and prior, that type negotiation, or something very similar, has happened. These past few weeks Republicans have handed over victory after victory to the Democrats and Obama. It would be interesting to track the pattern of who votes on the Dem side on various controversial bills over time to see how the shell game works. They've always played it, but now it seems they've gotten a little sneakier.
As with any shell game the shill running the game is faster well able to fool most of us. Even knowing we're being duped it's virtually impossible to catch them at their game.
Yes, we busted the Omnibus bill, sent the Dems packing on that one. But we could have had it all. We could have held them off until the next session. If the Republicans stood strong we would have started fresh instead of ending the year with a whole lot of horrific baggage.
I guess we're going to need to work even harder to get rid of the rest of them and hope they haven't corrupted the new bunch we just sent to Washington by the time we send them some support in two years. I didn't expect things to change overnight, but I certainly wanted to believe that more would have gotten the message.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Dem administration advancing 'North American Union' agenda
- from back on the 16th, but I'm just now reading it... so I'm just now sharing with you. Reprinted with permission.
By Jerome R. Corsi
(c) 2010 WorldNetDaily
Acting quietly, below the radar of U.S. public opinion and without congressional approval, the Obama administration is implementing a key policy objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to erase the border with Mexico and Canada.
The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled "United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision."
"Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries," the State Department declared. "The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of 'hold the line' and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management."
At the same time, CTV News in Canada has obtained a draft copy of a declaration between the U.S. and Canada entitled "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness," to be implemented by a newly created Canadian-U.S. "Beyond the Border Working Group."
The two documents strongly suggest the Obama administration is pursuing a stealth bureaucratic methodology to establish a common North American border around the continent, encompassing the U.S., Canada and Mexico, while simultaneously moving to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico as well as between the U.S. and Canada.
Under the Bush administration's SPP, the U.S., Mexico and Canada organized some 20 different "shadow government" bureaucratic working groups composed of agency heads and undersecretaries in the three nations. The groups span a wide range of policy areas, from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, trilateral travel, transportation, energy, environment, food and agriculture, health and financial services.
WND has reported since 2006 that a blueprint published in 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Building a North America Community" called for the establishment of a common security perimeter around North America by 2010 to facilitate the free movement of people, trade and capital between the three nations of North America.
In his 2001 book, "Toward a North American Community," American University professor Robert Pastor, a co-chair of the CFR blue ribbon committee that authored "Building a North American Community," called for the creation of a North American Commission, a North American Parliament, and a North American Court on Trade and Investment.
The language of the documents declaring "A New Border Vision" with Mexico and Canada could easily have been lifted directly from the CFR report or Pastor's book.
The 2005 CFR report "Building a North American Community" called on page xvii of the Foreword for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security perimeter, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."
CTV News reported that the language of the draft agreement specified that "A New Border Vision" for the U.S. and Canada would involve "a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries."
Similarly, the U.S. State Department fact sheet calling for "A New Border Vision" with Mexico specified five areas of "joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel," namely: enhancing public safety, securing flows of people and goods, expediting legitimate commerce and travel, engaging border communities, and setting policy.
Under "setting policy," the State Department fact sheet with Mexico called for achieving rapid policy change through "an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level."
This provides additional support for the conclusion that the bureaucratic "working groups" established under SPP in the Bush administration will continue to operate under Obama administration.
CTV News reported that the draft declaration of "A New Border Vision" with Canada similarly also specified a cross-border policy agenda, including:
* An integrated cargo security strategy;
* A joint approach to port and border security and screening;
* Cross-border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies;
* A closer working relationship between the two militaries in the event of emergencies;
* A new level of collaboration on preventing and recovering from counter attacks.
Affirming the continuance of the working group process, the draft declaration with Canada specifies the U.S. and Canada "intend to address threats at the earliest point possible, including outside the perimeter of our two countries."
The origin of the SPP can be traced to a trilateral summit meeting in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, between President George W. Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
At the end of the Waco summit, the three leaders simply declared that the U.S., Mexico and Canada were now in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, without the signing of any international agreement between the three countries or the ratifying of any trilateral treaty by the U.S. Senate.
The SPP in the administration of President Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as "the eurozone."
The concern was that under the SPP, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could evolve into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the Amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.
WND has reported analysts have believed the North American integration plan will proceed incrementally, largely below the radar, since the SPP was declared "dead" by one of its chief architects, American University Professor Robert A. Pastor, who for nearly 15 years has been a major proponent of building a "North American Community."
By Jerome R. Corsi
(c) 2010 WorldNetDaily
Acting quietly, below the radar of U.S. public opinion and without congressional approval, the Obama administration is implementing a key policy objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to erase the border with Mexico and Canada.
The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled "United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision."
"Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries," the State Department declared. "The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of 'hold the line' and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management."
At the same time, CTV News in Canada has obtained a draft copy of a declaration between the U.S. and Canada entitled "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness," to be implemented by a newly created Canadian-U.S. "Beyond the Border Working Group."
The two documents strongly suggest the Obama administration is pursuing a stealth bureaucratic methodology to establish a common North American border around the continent, encompassing the U.S., Canada and Mexico, while simultaneously moving to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico as well as between the U.S. and Canada.
Under the Bush administration's SPP, the U.S., Mexico and Canada organized some 20 different "shadow government" bureaucratic working groups composed of agency heads and undersecretaries in the three nations. The groups span a wide range of policy areas, from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, trilateral travel, transportation, energy, environment, food and agriculture, health and financial services.
WND has reported since 2006 that a blueprint published in 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Building a North America Community" called for the establishment of a common security perimeter around North America by 2010 to facilitate the free movement of people, trade and capital between the three nations of North America.
In his 2001 book, "Toward a North American Community," American University professor Robert Pastor, a co-chair of the CFR blue ribbon committee that authored "Building a North American Community," called for the creation of a North American Commission, a North American Parliament, and a North American Court on Trade and Investment.
The language of the documents declaring "A New Border Vision" with Mexico and Canada could easily have been lifted directly from the CFR report or Pastor's book.
The 2005 CFR report "Building a North American Community" called on page xvii of the Foreword for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security perimeter, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."
CTV News reported that the language of the draft agreement specified that "A New Border Vision" for the U.S. and Canada would involve "a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries."
Similarly, the U.S. State Department fact sheet calling for "A New Border Vision" with Mexico specified five areas of "joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel," namely: enhancing public safety, securing flows of people and goods, expediting legitimate commerce and travel, engaging border communities, and setting policy.
Under "setting policy," the State Department fact sheet with Mexico called for achieving rapid policy change through "an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level."
This provides additional support for the conclusion that the bureaucratic "working groups" established under SPP in the Bush administration will continue to operate under Obama administration.
CTV News reported that the draft declaration of "A New Border Vision" with Canada similarly also specified a cross-border policy agenda, including:
* An integrated cargo security strategy;
* A joint approach to port and border security and screening;
* Cross-border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies;
* A closer working relationship between the two militaries in the event of emergencies;
* A new level of collaboration on preventing and recovering from counter attacks.
Affirming the continuance of the working group process, the draft declaration with Canada specifies the U.S. and Canada "intend to address threats at the earliest point possible, including outside the perimeter of our two countries."
The origin of the SPP can be traced to a trilateral summit meeting in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, between President George W. Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
At the end of the Waco summit, the three leaders simply declared that the U.S., Mexico and Canada were now in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, without the signing of any international agreement between the three countries or the ratifying of any trilateral treaty by the U.S. Senate.
The SPP in the administration of President Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as "the eurozone."
The concern was that under the SPP, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could evolve into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the Amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.
WND has reported analysts have believed the North American integration plan will proceed incrementally, largely below the radar, since the SPP was declared "dead" by one of its chief architects, American University Professor Robert A. Pastor, who for nearly 15 years has been a major proponent of building a "North American Community."
Friday, December 17, 2010
Remarks on the House floor by Congressman Paul Ryan (WI-01)
Senior Member of the House Ways and Means Committee; Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee
December 16, 2010
Let me address just a few of the issues that I have been hearing here on the floor. I'm hearing some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying "We just can't afford these tax cuts." Only in Washington is not raising taxes on people considered a "tax cut". What we're talking about here is not cutting taxes; we're talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases.
Second point: "We – meaning the government – can't afford this?" Whose money is this after all? Is all the money that is made in America Washington's money, government's money? Or is it the people's money who earned it? I hear all this talk about the death tax, the estate tax: "This is going to give a windfall to these people. All this money going to these privileged people who have built these businesses, made all this money." It's their money! We have a country built on equal, natural rights, where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, earn success – and yes, pass it on to your kids. What on earth is wrong with that? That's the American dream.
To my friends on my side of the aisle, who simply do not like some of the spending in this bill: I do not like it either. Let's cut the spending next year when were in charge. There is junk in the tax code, everybody agrees with this. This is advancing some of the junk in the tax code and what I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle next year: let's get rid of the junk in the tax code when we are in charge. Right now – let's not hit the American people with a massive tax increase.
If we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our deficit going down, there are two things we need to be doing: we need to cut spending and we need to grow the economy. We need prosperity in the country. We need job creation. We need people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes.
Is this a growth package? No, it's not a growth package. It's only a two year extension [of current tax rates]. We're not talking about a pro-growth economic package. We're talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being inflicted on the American people in about two weeks. The last thing you want to do is put more uncertainty in the economy, hit the economy with a huge tax increase, trigger a stock market sell-off and lose jobs. So do we want to make these permanent? You bet we do and that is exactly what we are going to be advancing.
We need economic growth. We need spending cuts. That's exactly what we intend on doing, and I think that's exactly the message that voters sent us. Let's prevent this tax increase from happening. Let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this bill next year. Let's make sure that when people go home for Christmas, they know that they are not going to have a massive tax increase a few days later.
This is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. This is not a bill that is going to turn it around. Next year, let's pass the policies that will turn our economy around.
December 16, 2010
Let me address just a few of the issues that I have been hearing here on the floor. I'm hearing some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying "We just can't afford these tax cuts." Only in Washington is not raising taxes on people considered a "tax cut". What we're talking about here is not cutting taxes; we're talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases.
Second point: "We – meaning the government – can't afford this?" Whose money is this after all? Is all the money that is made in America Washington's money, government's money? Or is it the people's money who earned it? I hear all this talk about the death tax, the estate tax: "This is going to give a windfall to these people. All this money going to these privileged people who have built these businesses, made all this money." It's their money! We have a country built on equal, natural rights, where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, earn success – and yes, pass it on to your kids. What on earth is wrong with that? That's the American dream.
To my friends on my side of the aisle, who simply do not like some of the spending in this bill: I do not like it either. Let's cut the spending next year when were in charge. There is junk in the tax code, everybody agrees with this. This is advancing some of the junk in the tax code and what I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle next year: let's get rid of the junk in the tax code when we are in charge. Right now – let's not hit the American people with a massive tax increase.
If we want to get this debt under control, if we want to get our deficit going down, there are two things we need to be doing: we need to cut spending and we need to grow the economy. We need prosperity in the country. We need job creation. We need people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes.
Is this a growth package? No, it's not a growth package. It's only a two year extension [of current tax rates]. We're not talking about a pro-growth economic package. We're talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being inflicted on the American people in about two weeks. The last thing you want to do is put more uncertainty in the economy, hit the economy with a huge tax increase, trigger a stock market sell-off and lose jobs. So do we want to make these permanent? You bet we do and that is exactly what we are going to be advancing.
We need economic growth. We need spending cuts. That's exactly what we intend on doing, and I think that's exactly the message that voters sent us. Let's prevent this tax increase from happening. Let's clean up the stuff we don't like in this bill next year. Let's make sure that when people go home for Christmas, they know that they are not going to have a massive tax increase a few days later.
This is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. This is not a bill that is going to turn it around. Next year, let's pass the policies that will turn our economy around.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
President George W. and Laura Bush to Sign Books in Atlanta!
signing
George W. and Laura Bush
Decision Points
Thursday, December 16, 2010 • 11:30 AM
>>Borders – Atlanta - Buckhead
3637 Peachtree Rd. NE, Ste. C | Atlanta, GA | 404.237.0707
Customers MUST have a wristband in order to attend the event. A limited number of wristbands will be distributed on Wednesday, December 15th beginning at 10:00 am at the Borders Buckhead while supplies last. One wristband per person. EACH customer must purchase one copy of both Decision Points and Spoken From the Heart to receive a wristband, with a limit two books of each title per person. For
George W. and Laura Bush
Decision Points
Thursday, December 16, 2010 • 11:30 AM
>>Borders – Atlanta - Buckhead
3637 Peachtree Rd. NE, Ste. C | Atlanta, GA | 404.237.0707
Customers MUST have a wristband in order to attend the event. A limited number of wristbands will be distributed on Wednesday, December 15th beginning at 10:00 am at the Borders Buckhead while supplies last. One wristband per person. EACH customer must purchase one copy of both Decision Points and Spoken From the Heart to receive a wristband, with a limit two books of each title per person. For
Monday, December 13, 2010
Net Neutrality: Will Netflix destroy the Internet?
The FCC is slated to make some decisions on the issue on net neutrality on December 21. Given a looming video-inspired bandwidth crunch, it's important those rules are less about "rights" than economics.
READ FULL STORY
READ FULL STORY
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Change the future... become a Hollywood star!
Want to really make a impact on the future? I've put some thought into all the things we're doing to turn this big American boat around and headed back in the right direction. We are doing a lot of the right things. In some cases we're feeling our way slowly, making a few rookie mistakes, but overall our tugboats are changing the course the country has drifted onto.
It took us a long time to get here and we missed a lot of the slow nudges that got us where we are today so we can't expect to fix things overnight.
I started noodling on how we could keep the country on course long after you and I have passed on. What could we do to have a long-term, ongoing impact?
Here's a few things I came up with.
Raise our children to take over the media. We need news reporters, commentators, media outlet owners, producers, and worker bees.
Raise our children to be movie 'stars', producers, directors, buy up or start companies and be the most needed behind-the-scene workers.
Raise our children to be teachers, college professors, instructors and to be involved if they can't go into the field. We need more conservatives in the PTO / PTA's. Let 'em join the Unions, work their way up the ranks then turn them into feed and cloth the hungry organizations or some sort of organization that could have a positive impact on something other than wallets.
We already have plenty of kids who are headed into politics I'd imagine. Every child is taught that they could be the next President!
What we need is to take a page out of the lib playbook. They've infiltrated or flooded the outlets that capture our children's minds and every day they twist and shape the future.
I know we can't really train or force our children in the directions I mentioned above. We're not raising robots or mindless individuals who go where we point. In fact, if we steer them in one direction chances are they'll rebel and end up as 3-piece suit wearing bankers or corporation owners! Which is not a bad thing by any means.
However, we can talk to them while we're watching television and plant the seeds that it would be great to have more balanced reporters, movie stars who had strong values, teachers who understood the Constitution. We could talk about how great it would be to be a Robert Murdock who puts value on fair and balanced reporting. We could point out the conservative movie stars who were able to 'make it' like Kelsey Grammar or Jon Voight (although we do need to find some younger examples for upcoming kids I'd think!).
I wonder if our college conservatives are considering anything other than the normal career paths? I can't imagine how tough it would be as a college age kid to try and go into the Arts!
Anyone else have ideas for shaping our future?
It took us a long time to get here and we missed a lot of the slow nudges that got us where we are today so we can't expect to fix things overnight.
I started noodling on how we could keep the country on course long after you and I have passed on. What could we do to have a long-term, ongoing impact?
Here's a few things I came up with.
Raise our children to take over the media. We need news reporters, commentators, media outlet owners, producers, and worker bees.
Raise our children to be movie 'stars', producers, directors, buy up or start companies and be the most needed behind-the-scene workers.
Raise our children to be teachers, college professors, instructors and to be involved if they can't go into the field. We need more conservatives in the PTO / PTA's. Let 'em join the Unions, work their way up the ranks then turn them into feed and cloth the hungry organizations or some sort of organization that could have a positive impact on something other than wallets.
We already have plenty of kids who are headed into politics I'd imagine. Every child is taught that they could be the next President!
What we need is to take a page out of the lib playbook. They've infiltrated or flooded the outlets that capture our children's minds and every day they twist and shape the future.
I know we can't really train or force our children in the directions I mentioned above. We're not raising robots or mindless individuals who go where we point. In fact, if we steer them in one direction chances are they'll rebel and end up as 3-piece suit wearing bankers or corporation owners! Which is not a bad thing by any means.
However, we can talk to them while we're watching television and plant the seeds that it would be great to have more balanced reporters, movie stars who had strong values, teachers who understood the Constitution. We could talk about how great it would be to be a Robert Murdock who puts value on fair and balanced reporting. We could point out the conservative movie stars who were able to 'make it' like Kelsey Grammar or Jon Voight (although we do need to find some younger examples for upcoming kids I'd think!).
I wonder if our college conservatives are considering anything other than the normal career paths? I can't imagine how tough it would be as a college age kid to try and go into the Arts!
Anyone else have ideas for shaping our future?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
As Races End, Tea Party Plans for Next Phase
Tea-party leaders, cheering as some of their movement's most prominent figures won U.S. Senate seats in Kentucky and Florida, said Tuesday's elections were only the beginning of their quest to transform government.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778304575591081953307288.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTopStories
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778304575591081953307288.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTopStories
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Republicans, Tea Party, Americans for Prosperity, Pajamas Media...
Yowzer, this "alert" paints us all as bad, bad, people... Ya'll need to quit complaining about voter fraud, it's upsetting the left ... Hey, according to these guys, it never happens, we're making it up...
You do know this kind of stuff is used to stir up their base, right? We knew it was going to be a tough election, can't begin to imagine what's going to happen between now and 2012 election...
From Minority News (Black Radio Network):
POLITICAL TURMOIL
Editors Note: The following was released today by Estelle Rogers, Director of Advocacy, of Project Vote a national nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) that works to empower, educate, and mobilize low-income, minority, youth, and other marginalized and under-represented voters.
WASHINGTON - As the hotly contested November election nears, it should be no surprise that voter intimidation and suppression schemes are ramping up too. Even beyond the usual partisan pre-election hysteria, this year the Tea Party has made "voter fraud" a rallying cry. Never mind that it's been proven time and again that voter fraud is largely a myth; it excites the right-wing base...
http://www.blackradionetwork.com/page.php?storyID=17939
You do know this kind of stuff is used to stir up their base, right? We knew it was going to be a tough election, can't begin to imagine what's going to happen between now and 2012 election...
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Fired for wearing a USS George H W Bush shirt and hat
There's a much better story / video on World Net Daily, but for some reason the code isn't working on here, just keeps vanishing. So, here's a link: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=220049
I heard about this yesterday, or maybe the day before and didn't follow up to look at the details. Unfortunately, I am so used to this kind of story I just glanced and kept on going. But you know, if we don't pay attention to every story, if we don't speak up, if we don't keep fussing or commenting when things like this occur, then sooner or later it will become commonplace and people will just accept the new norm... so, I'm sharing and fussing.
Back in the 60's and 70's it was supposedly all about 'free speech', the rights of the individual... ah, how times haven't changed. Now they're mouthing the same words and thoughts, but the reality is glaring and many of those who might have been participated in the sham back then have wised up. It was and is really all about conformity, shutting down speech and expressions that don't promote a certain point of view. The intolerance of the unions, the left, the "I know better than you" crowd is, well, um, intolerable. I am fine if others want to speak their mind, but when they step over the line to stop me from speaking mine simply because they disagree, then they're nothing but dictators.
Think back to the 60's and 70's if you're old enough or have done some studying of that period of time. Everyone had to hate the war, wear the same type clothes, like the same kind of music, hate those money-grubbing capitalist pigs, hate the chemicals and pesticides, and so on. False words back then that captured the minds of the young, false words now that are doing the same thing... except those 60's and 70's "rebels" are now in positions of power and they're corrupting the minds of the young. Difference being they're now the rich fat-cats in many cases.
I'm so glad that we have a venue to speak our minds... and that many of us don't expect everyone to conform... that we truly believe in individual responsibility... that we've wised up...
Friday, October 22, 2010
Two stories to ponder...
Union Leads in Outside Spending
The Wall Street Journal reports that while most attention has been given to the large spending initiatives by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pro-Republican groups, the public-sector union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, is "now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections" and is spending $87.5 million to boost Democratic candidates. Said the head of AFSCME's political operations: "We're the big dog. But we don't like to brag."
AND
Biden Says Outside Funding Jeopardizes House Control
Vice President Biden told Bloomberg TV that Democrats will retain control of the U.S. Senate but he worries that "hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous donations to campaign groups backing Republicans could cost his party its House majority." Said Biden: "We will keep control of the Senate for certain, and I believe we'll keep control of the House. The only caveat I'd put in terms of the House is how much impact [the outside funding has]."
---
Money. ONE group is funneling $87 plus million to Democrats while Biden blathers about anonymous donations backing Republicans. One is a fact, the other is more Biden smoke. I thought it was interesting to see both stories, somewhat counter to each other, in the same email update (Teagan Goddard's Political Wire).
The Dems are laying the groundwork for the thrashing they're going to try and give the Republicans if they wrest control of House and / or Senate from Dems. I'm sure Democratic operatives already have strategies in place across the country for the way they're going to attack Republicans, blame them, attempt to twist things to bamboozle the American public over the next two years.
Think about how the try to blame the MINORITY Republicans for every lost vote, how they cast them as the party of no, the ones who have stopped Obama's agenda. Barf. Ooops, I guess that wasn't exactly an elegant response.
They conveniently forget that they held Congress for the last two years of Bush's term and stopped the reforms of Freddie Mac / Fannie May that Bush wanted... and blame Bush for all the problems we're experiencing.
I can see the slime oozing as they speak sometimes.
If we thought the last two years were bad, wait until we have the ability to really do something. The plans are being laid and the media is being primed. We need to be prepared, too.
The Wall Street Journal reports that while most attention has been given to the large spending initiatives by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pro-Republican groups, the public-sector union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, is "now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections" and is spending $87.5 million to boost Democratic candidates. Said the head of AFSCME's political operations: "We're the big dog. But we don't like to brag."
AND
Biden Says Outside Funding Jeopardizes House Control
Vice President Biden told Bloomberg TV that Democrats will retain control of the U.S. Senate but he worries that "hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous donations to campaign groups backing Republicans could cost his party its House majority." Said Biden: "We will keep control of the Senate for certain, and I believe we'll keep control of the House. The only caveat I'd put in terms of the House is how much impact [the outside funding has]."
---
Money. ONE group is funneling $87 plus million to Democrats while Biden blathers about anonymous donations backing Republicans. One is a fact, the other is more Biden smoke. I thought it was interesting to see both stories, somewhat counter to each other, in the same email update (Teagan Goddard's Political Wire).
The Dems are laying the groundwork for the thrashing they're going to try and give the Republicans if they wrest control of House and / or Senate from Dems. I'm sure Democratic operatives already have strategies in place across the country for the way they're going to attack Republicans, blame them, attempt to twist things to bamboozle the American public over the next two years.
Think about how the try to blame the MINORITY Republicans for every lost vote, how they cast them as the party of no, the ones who have stopped Obama's agenda. Barf. Ooops, I guess that wasn't exactly an elegant response.
They conveniently forget that they held Congress for the last two years of Bush's term and stopped the reforms of Freddie Mac / Fannie May that Bush wanted... and blame Bush for all the problems we're experiencing.
I can see the slime oozing as they speak sometimes.
If we thought the last two years were bad, wait until we have the ability to really do something. The plans are being laid and the media is being primed. We need to be prepared, too.
Mara Liasson may have safest job in the country...
NPR has placed themselves in an untenable situation.
After the debacle of Juan Williams absurd firing, any of their analysts or reporters who want to make money as contributors on Fox News should now have carte blanche. NPR can't fire Mara Liasson. If they do, they prove what everyone knows, not just the conservatives --- it's a lib media outlet.
Of course, they should also have to fire Mara Liasson based on their rationale for firing Juan. She expresses her opinions sitting right next to Juan every Sunday and at other times, too.
NPR would also have to fire Nina Totenberg, Terry Gross and well, Vivian Schilling, NPR's CEO.
One of the reasons given for firing Williams in an internal NPR email by Schilling was "analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts."
Right after issuing that she spoke publicly about the situation making references to Williams psychiatrist, inferring he was seeing one regarding his views. Views I might add that are shared by most libs and conservatives and even many Muslim Americans. Schilling rambled on, giving her opinions about the situation and, in my opinion, she opened NPR up to a slam-dunk lawsuit from Williams. Slam-dunk as long as the case doesn't end up in front of a lib activist judge.
If NPR is serious about the reasons they gave for firing Williams, then they need to clean house. I've been listening to NPR for countless years. My drive back and forth to work used to take 45 or more minutes each way. I enjoyed NPR then and still have it on my radio dial and listen to some of the shows. I had to quit listening to some of the shows I used to enjoy simply because there was so much Bush bashing, trashing of conservatives, and now they go after the Tea Party and others.
Listen to NPR for any length of time and Schilling's assertion that views are expressed by those they interview, not their reporters and analysts is cow poop.
All day yesterday I saw examples on TV and via the Internet of their so-called balanced reporters and analysts bigoted comments in regards to conservatives. They are down-right nasty in some of the comments they've made on ABC, NBC, CNN and other outlets. Newsbusters has documented a list that is damning and they only touched on a few examples.
The hypocrisy of NPR is appalling.
The donation of over a million dollars by George Soros with all the stipulations he included is interesting, possibly sinister.
I'd like to see what would happen if George Bush, Karl Rove or some other conservative NPR and friends likes to trash made a donation with similar restrictions. What if they wanted NPR to hire 100 conservative reporters? Sponsor conservative programs? How many of you think that all of a sudden there's be a policy violation of some sort that kept them from accepting the money with strings?
NPR needs to 'fess up, get honest. Then they need to learn to stand on their own two feet and get off tax-funded welfare. If they have programming that America wants to hear then they should be able to survive without living off the federal teat and begging for money.
Speaking of begging for money, this is their annual fund-raising week. I would bet that every lib out there is ponying up right now to ensure they have a big week just to make a point. I would also bet that phone lines are going to be tied up with people complaining about the firing of Juan Williams.
I need something to make me giggle... I think I'm going to call and make a nice donation to NPR this week with some strings... re-hire Juan Williams, fire Schilling.
-----
NPR's Nina Totenberg Dismisses Tea Parties as 'Cockamamie'
NPR's Nina Totenberg on Friday night was unsure as to whether the tea parties have "any legs are not" since "at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it." On Inside Washington she called the anti-tax and anti-spending rallies "a good stunt," before declaring Americans "pay relatively small taxes" and then lecturing those unappreciative protesters about how taxes provide, as if they want taxes totally eliminated, "a civilized kind of social compact where you don't have massive civil eruptions. That is what taxes are for." To which, Newsweek's Evan Thomas chimed in: "I'm all for paying more taxes."
Christine M. Flowers: Foul air at National Public Radio
By Christine M. Flowers
Philadelphia Daily News
AFEW months ago, Mississippi Public Radio temporarily dropped "Fresh Air," the program hosted by local legend Terry Gross. The reason given was the program's "gratuitous discussions on issues of an explicit sexual nature." Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/20101022_Christine_M__Flowers__Foul_air_at_National_Public_Radio.html#ixzz135NBwGBr
Terry Gross and Bill O'Reilly: Round Two
This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Sept. 21, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: About a year ago, I appeared on NPR's "Fresh Air" program, hosted by Terry Gross (search), to talk about my book, "Who's Looking Out for You," now out in paperback. The interview became very, very controversial. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133177,00.html
After the debacle of Juan Williams absurd firing, any of their analysts or reporters who want to make money as contributors on Fox News should now have carte blanche. NPR can't fire Mara Liasson. If they do, they prove what everyone knows, not just the conservatives --- it's a lib media outlet.
Of course, they should also have to fire Mara Liasson based on their rationale for firing Juan. She expresses her opinions sitting right next to Juan every Sunday and at other times, too.
NPR would also have to fire Nina Totenberg, Terry Gross and well, Vivian Schilling, NPR's CEO.
One of the reasons given for firing Williams in an internal NPR email by Schilling was "analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts."
Right after issuing that she spoke publicly about the situation making references to Williams psychiatrist, inferring he was seeing one regarding his views. Views I might add that are shared by most libs and conservatives and even many Muslim Americans. Schilling rambled on, giving her opinions about the situation and, in my opinion, she opened NPR up to a slam-dunk lawsuit from Williams. Slam-dunk as long as the case doesn't end up in front of a lib activist judge.
If NPR is serious about the reasons they gave for firing Williams, then they need to clean house. I've been listening to NPR for countless years. My drive back and forth to work used to take 45 or more minutes each way. I enjoyed NPR then and still have it on my radio dial and listen to some of the shows. I had to quit listening to some of the shows I used to enjoy simply because there was so much Bush bashing, trashing of conservatives, and now they go after the Tea Party and others.
Listen to NPR for any length of time and Schilling's assertion that views are expressed by those they interview, not their reporters and analysts is cow poop.
All day yesterday I saw examples on TV and via the Internet of their so-called balanced reporters and analysts bigoted comments in regards to conservatives. They are down-right nasty in some of the comments they've made on ABC, NBC, CNN and other outlets. Newsbusters has documented a list that is damning and they only touched on a few examples.
The hypocrisy of NPR is appalling.
The donation of over a million dollars by George Soros with all the stipulations he included is interesting, possibly sinister.
I'd like to see what would happen if George Bush, Karl Rove or some other conservative NPR and friends likes to trash made a donation with similar restrictions. What if they wanted NPR to hire 100 conservative reporters? Sponsor conservative programs? How many of you think that all of a sudden there's be a policy violation of some sort that kept them from accepting the money with strings?
NPR needs to 'fess up, get honest. Then they need to learn to stand on their own two feet and get off tax-funded welfare. If they have programming that America wants to hear then they should be able to survive without living off the federal teat and begging for money.
Speaking of begging for money, this is their annual fund-raising week. I would bet that every lib out there is ponying up right now to ensure they have a big week just to make a point. I would also bet that phone lines are going to be tied up with people complaining about the firing of Juan Williams.
I need something to make me giggle... I think I'm going to call and make a nice donation to NPR this week with some strings... re-hire Juan Williams, fire Schilling.
-----
NPR's Nina Totenberg Dismisses Tea Parties as 'Cockamamie'
NPR's Nina Totenberg on Friday night was unsure as to whether the tea parties have "any legs are not" since "at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it." On Inside Washington she called the anti-tax and anti-spending rallies "a good stunt," before declaring Americans "pay relatively small taxes" and then lecturing those unappreciative protesters about how taxes provide, as if they want taxes totally eliminated, "a civilized kind of social compact where you don't have massive civil eruptions. That is what taxes are for." To which, Newsweek's Evan Thomas chimed in: "I'm all for paying more taxes."
Christine M. Flowers: Foul air at National Public Radio
By Christine M. Flowers
Philadelphia Daily News
AFEW months ago, Mississippi Public Radio temporarily dropped "Fresh Air," the program hosted by local legend Terry Gross. The reason given was the program's "gratuitous discussions on issues of an explicit sexual nature." Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/20101022_Christine_M__Flowers__Foul_air_at_National_Public_Radio.html#ixzz135NBwGBr
Terry Gross and Bill O'Reilly: Round Two
This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Sept. 21, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: About a year ago, I appeared on NPR's "Fresh Air" program, hosted by Terry Gross (search), to talk about my book, "Who's Looking Out for You," now out in paperback. The interview became very, very controversial. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133177,00.html
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Love Chris Christie! Video with Meg Whitman, shutting up a heckler...
We hafta clone this guy somehow.
Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
In a fascinating interview on CNN, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) makes clear he's not a big fan of Andrew Cuomo (D).
Said Spitzer: "The problem that Andrew has is that everybody knows that behind the scenes, he is the dirtiest, nastiest political player out there and that is his reputation from years in Washington."
"When his father was governor, he was the tough guy. He has brass knuckles and he played hard ball. He has a lot of enemies out there. Nobody's been willing to stand up to him. When it appeared he was going to win, it was inevitable. If it appears not to be inevitable, things may change."
"He has a lot of folks, he's really been on the wrong side of who may stand up and say, wait a minute, he may not want to pretend he plays that game. He does, and he's worse at it." Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
Said Spitzer: "The problem that Andrew has is that everybody knows that behind the scenes, he is the dirtiest, nastiest political player out there and that is his reputation from years in Washington."
"When his father was governor, he was the tough guy. He has brass knuckles and he played hard ball. He has a lot of enemies out there. Nobody's been willing to stand up to him. When it appeared he was going to win, it was inevitable. If it appears not to be inevitable, things may change."
"He has a lot of folks, he's really been on the wrong side of who may stand up and say, wait a minute, he may not want to pretend he plays that game. He does, and he's worse at it." Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
----
Seems to me there are a LOT of nasty, hard-hitting, rotten eggs in political office AND running for political office. It's amazing how much I've learned since starting to pay attention to those who shape our future. So glad for the Internet which gives us the ability to read all sides of issues (usually it's more than two sides, more like a circle of swirling opposing ideas!).
I know it takes someone with high regard for their own abilities to run for office. You also have to have super strong skin and the ability to think fast, talk smart. But some of these people are certifiable or psychopaths it seems. Not saying Cuomo is either, don't know much about him... Thought it was interesting that a fellow Dem, albeit one with questions attached to his reputation, would come out with the above.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Fantastic ad, please watch and share
Someone just zapped a link to this on Twitter... sorry, didn't catch who it was or I'd say thanks on here. This is a great ad, hope you'll help make it viral, spread it around.
Note: I haven't checked out Citizens for the Republic, but watched a few of their videos, saw their president talking with Cavuto on Fox News. Seems like a group I could get behind...
Note: I haven't checked out Citizens for the Republic, but watched a few of their videos, saw their president talking with Cavuto on Fox News. Seems like a group I could get behind...
Ms. Big Stuff Murkowski
Change the lyrics very slightly... and think Lisa Murkowski... or maybe even Barack Obama. Big Stuff. Who do you think you are?
Jean Knight, Mr. Big Stuff
(Oh yeah, ooh)
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now because you wear all those fancy clothes (oh yeah)
And have a big fine car, oh yes you do now
Do you think I can afford to give you my love (oh yeah)
You think you're higher than every star above
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now I know all the girls I've seen you with
I know you broke their hearts one after another now, bit by bit
You made 'em cry, many poor girls cry
When they try to keep you happy, they just try to keep you satisfied
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
I'd rather give my love to a poor guy that has a love that's true (oh yeah)
Than to be fooled around and get hurt by you
Cause when I give my love, I want love in return (oh yeah)
Now I know this is a lesson Mr. Big Stuff you haven't learned
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna break my heart
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna make me cry
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Just who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
Jean Knight, Mr. Big Stuff
(Oh yeah, ooh)
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now because you wear all those fancy clothes (oh yeah)
And have a big fine car, oh yes you do now
Do you think I can afford to give you my love (oh yeah)
You think you're higher than every star above
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now I know all the girls I've seen you with
I know you broke their hearts one after another now, bit by bit
You made 'em cry, many poor girls cry
When they try to keep you happy, they just try to keep you satisfied
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
I'd rather give my love to a poor guy that has a love that's true (oh yeah)
Than to be fooled around and get hurt by you
Cause when I give my love, I want love in return (oh yeah)
Now I know this is a lesson Mr. Big Stuff you haven't learned
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna break my heart
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna make me cry
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Just who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
Morning laugh... and rant...
Murkowski Campaign Misspells its Candidate's Name
Given that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) hopes thousands of Alaskans will write her name onto their ballots, she can't be happy that her campaign pulled an ad after urging voters to go to "LisaMurkwski.com", the Washington Post notes.
Ironically, the ad aimed to inform voters how to correctly file a write-in ballot.
-----
Loved it that Republicans are punishing Murkowski. She is the poster child for "it's all about me, Me, ME". She is putting her own ego above that of not just the people of Alaska, but the Republican party as a whole, conservatives across the country and the overall future of our country.
Ya know, sometimes you just have to be willing to put your own hurt and anger aside and try to channel your better side. She probably could have used her loss and status to garner respect and a good job of some sort, maybe even come back in a few years to run for another seat successfully. The fact that she chose to hurt and lash out rather than do the right thing shows that she is not someone we want in office. The sense of entitlement that some of our political 'elite' have is shameful.
One note on the Murkowski name misspelling -- from what I've heard, it's doubly critical for her because if anyone misspells her name on the ballot, it's tossed. SO, if someone puts an "a" instead of the "o" or a "y" instead of the "i", the ballot is tossed. Let's hope that there are a lot of ballots tossed, or better yet, so few that they give her ego the beating it deserves.
If Joe Miller loses and the seat goes to a Democrat because of her ego, she will be a pariah forever. I hope Joe Miller trounces both his opponents.
Given that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) hopes thousands of Alaskans will write her name onto their ballots, she can't be happy that her campaign pulled an ad after urging voters to go to "LisaMurkwski.com", the Washington Post notes.
Ironically, the ad aimed to inform voters how to correctly file a write-in ballot.
-----
Loved it that Republicans are punishing Murkowski. She is the poster child for "it's all about me, Me, ME". She is putting her own ego above that of not just the people of Alaska, but the Republican party as a whole, conservatives across the country and the overall future of our country.
Ya know, sometimes you just have to be willing to put your own hurt and anger aside and try to channel your better side. She probably could have used her loss and status to garner respect and a good job of some sort, maybe even come back in a few years to run for another seat successfully. The fact that she chose to hurt and lash out rather than do the right thing shows that she is not someone we want in office. The sense of entitlement that some of our political 'elite' have is shameful.
One note on the Murkowski name misspelling -- from what I've heard, it's doubly critical for her because if anyone misspells her name on the ballot, it's tossed. SO, if someone puts an "a" instead of the "o" or a "y" instead of the "i", the ballot is tossed. Let's hope that there are a lot of ballots tossed, or better yet, so few that they give her ego the beating it deserves.
If Joe Miller loses and the seat goes to a Democrat because of her ego, she will be a pariah forever. I hope Joe Miller trounces both his opponents.
Friday, September 10, 2010
We may be dependent upon election "quirks" to stop Dems
I read a couple of articles over the past few days on election 'quirks' that might be to our benefit in November. We all know that the Dems are planning on ramming their agenda down our throats AFTER the Nov. 2nd election if they lose the majority, probably even if they don't. Come January hopefully they won't have the ability to cripple our country any further... as long as the Republicans stay smart and hang tough.
It's kind of crazy when you think about it. They've had the majority plus the Presidency for 18 months and could have passed anything they wanted. Instead they're going to wait until after the elections to do the worst of the worst in hopes that a few Dems won't be forced to vote and lose their election. If some of these all-of-a-sudden-sorta converted leaning-more-to-the-right Dems win, they'll become back-sliders the day after the election.
Anyway, there's a possibility that election laws may keep the Dems from having enough votes to slam stuff through regardless of their desire and attempts. Per the article below, and a similar one in the Wall Street Journal, they may not have as many votes as they'd like.
The article in the Wall Street (New Spat: Senator's Swearing-In Date, Sept. 10) highlights a dispute over what happens when someone is appointed. The Republicans officials are saying the state law indicates that Michael Bennet (D) steps down Nov. 2nd if his opponent, Ken Buck (R), wins.
This is interesting stuff and will be worth watching... Let's hope the courts interpret the law the way the Republicans see it for a change.
Quirks May Cut Senate Democrats' Majority in Lame-Duck Session
Quirks in state election laws may reduce Senate Democrats’ majority right after the November election, making the always-difficult task of legislating during a possible lame-duck session even tougher. The terms of Democrats Roland Burris of Illinois, Ted Kaufman of Delaware and West Virginia’s Carte Goodwin, all appointed to their seats, will expire with the Nov. 2 elections...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/election-law-quirks-may-cut-senate-democrats-majority-in-lame-duck-term.html
It's kind of crazy when you think about it. They've had the majority plus the Presidency for 18 months and could have passed anything they wanted. Instead they're going to wait until after the elections to do the worst of the worst in hopes that a few Dems won't be forced to vote and lose their election. If some of these all-of-a-sudden-sorta converted leaning-more-to-the-right Dems win, they'll become back-sliders the day after the election.
Anyway, there's a possibility that election laws may keep the Dems from having enough votes to slam stuff through regardless of their desire and attempts. Per the article below, and a similar one in the Wall Street Journal, they may not have as many votes as they'd like.
The article in the Wall Street (New Spat: Senator's Swearing-In Date, Sept. 10) highlights a dispute over what happens when someone is appointed. The Republicans officials are saying the state law indicates that Michael Bennet (D) steps down Nov. 2nd if his opponent, Ken Buck (R), wins.
This is interesting stuff and will be worth watching... Let's hope the courts interpret the law the way the Republicans see it for a change.
Quirks May Cut Senate Democrats' Majority in Lame-Duck Session
Quirks in state election laws may reduce Senate Democrats’ majority right after the November election, making the always-difficult task of legislating during a possible lame-duck session even tougher. The terms of Democrats Roland Burris of Illinois, Ted Kaufman of Delaware and West Virginia’s Carte Goodwin, all appointed to their seats, will expire with the Nov. 2 elections...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/election-law-quirks-may-cut-senate-democrats-majority-in-lame-duck-term.html
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Box office $'s down this summer...
I just read the article posted below on the dismal dollars pulled in from movies this summer. It caught my eye mostly because of John Cusack's rant over the weekend. I scanned the article, which was linked from Breitbart's Big Hollywood site. It has all kinds of reasons, bad movies, social media letting everyone know immediately that a movie was bad, higher ticket costs, etc.
I have a few reasons movies aren't bringing in the audiences that article author Paul Dergarabedian didn't list, probably didn't even think of when writing the article.
1. People like me whose movie attendance has declined as the rhetoric from Hollywood "starts" ratcheted up. We're putting our money where our principles are these days, paying attention and aren't going to support people who are contributing dollars and influence to those trying to destroy America. (see yesterday's blog)
2. People are hanging onto their money. Duh. If you have cable or a DVD player, you'll get to see the movie sooner or later if you care. Why spend $10, $15 or whatever on a ticket, plus the cost of overpriced (understandably) popcorn and sodas? At home you can spend time with your family, pause when you want to go to the bathroom and the popcorn is cheap. Have a few friends over and make it fun!
3. The messages in the movies aren't the kind that many parents want their children learning. I am personally so tired of the social engineering that's going on in movies... and television programs, in particular those cute little kids things they feed straight into the minds of our impressionable children.
4. We have better things to do. Been to a 9-12 meeting? a tea party rally? your local political party group meeting? watching Glenn Beck and thinking there are more important things afoot these days? paying more attention to the 'real world'? The elections this year are attracting much, much more interest than in the past. We're more involved, there's more at stake. Sure we all need a break from non-stop gloom, doom, working out butts off to save the country type activities, but we're more discerning now. Plus, I think many of us are spending more quality time with our families. Going to a movie is not a 'real' family activity -- you can't talk, interact, you can't comment when they push a Hollywood idea of the world at your kids...
I could come up with some more if I put my mind to it, but I am heading out the door in about ten minutes. After yesterday's article on Cusack and Dave Radio I had to comment... Have a fantastic day, register a new conservative voter and make it better than fantastic.
I have a few reasons movies aren't bringing in the audiences that article author Paul Dergarabedian didn't list, probably didn't even think of when writing the article.
1. People like me whose movie attendance has declined as the rhetoric from Hollywood "starts" ratcheted up. We're putting our money where our principles are these days, paying attention and aren't going to support people who are contributing dollars and influence to those trying to destroy America. (see yesterday's blog)
2. People are hanging onto their money. Duh. If you have cable or a DVD player, you'll get to see the movie sooner or later if you care. Why spend $10, $15 or whatever on a ticket, plus the cost of overpriced (understandably) popcorn and sodas? At home you can spend time with your family, pause when you want to go to the bathroom and the popcorn is cheap. Have a few friends over and make it fun!
3. The messages in the movies aren't the kind that many parents want their children learning. I am personally so tired of the social engineering that's going on in movies... and television programs, in particular those cute little kids things they feed straight into the minds of our impressionable children.
4. We have better things to do. Been to a 9-12 meeting? a tea party rally? your local political party group meeting? watching Glenn Beck and thinking there are more important things afoot these days? paying more attention to the 'real world'? The elections this year are attracting much, much more interest than in the past. We're more involved, there's more at stake. Sure we all need a break from non-stop gloom, doom, working out butts off to save the country type activities, but we're more discerning now. Plus, I think many of us are spending more quality time with our families. Going to a movie is not a 'real' family activity -- you can't talk, interact, you can't comment when they push a Hollywood idea of the world at your kids...
I could come up with some more if I put my mind to it, but I am heading out the door in about ten minutes. After yesterday's article on Cusack and Dave Radio I had to comment... Have a fantastic day, register a new conservative voter and make it better than fantastic
Summer 2010 box office: What went right, what went wrong (HWD)
By Paul Dergarabedian
The opening line of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" sums up the summer movie season of 2010 most accurately: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." and so it goes as we hit a revenue record of $4.35 billion, yet find ourselves with the lowest attendance since 1997.
http://hollywoodwiretap.com/?module=news&action=story&id=51536
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Cusak, Hate, Satanic Death wishes
John Cusack has gone of the deep end... the same deep end that many other libs have jumped into with open arms. He's called for a 'Satanic death cult center' at Fox News HQ, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, GOP, etc. on Twitter over the weekend.
Every time I see a mean-natured twisted comment or rant, get attacked, read the stuff that comes out of so many liberal / progressive type's mouths these days I wonder what happened to the peace and love the left has claimed as their mantle from the 60's forward.
I got into it slightly over the weekend with a local radio personality who tweeted some maybe-not-quite-so-Cusack tweets about Glenn Beck, but hateful none the less. One of his fellow DJ's joined the conversation, making it two from Dave radio. I retweeted a tweet from someone who'd seen the same comments I saw which attracted the DJ's attention, rightfully so since the tweet had his name in it ;-)
I don't do hate. I can debate issues with people who don't attack individuals, who don't wish for satanic death cult centers, who don't spit venom. Once I see that kind of anger I'm done, no point. I blocked the radio DJs, took their radio station off my presets in the car... and now I will never be able to watch a movie with John Cusack in it again. That's a sacrifice of sorts as I have enjoyed some of his movies, usually put them on the "going to see list" when he's in one.
It used to be you could watch movies and not know a darn thing about the people in them aside from fluff. It was great to get lost in a movie and sorta believe the actor could be the person they portrayed. Once Hollywood and music-types started opening their mouth and spewing hate it became impossible for me to transcend reality and get into some of their movies.
It's impossible to see a hate-a-conservative type playing someone in the military or a political type... or even in some cases a business person... and feel they're credible, ignore their well-voiced comments in opposition to the type character they're playing.
Since some of you are going to fuss at me and say that Cusack has been a long-time Obama supporter, left winger type, I'll have to admit that I don't hear most of the stuff they have to say until it hits the current Cusack-level. When it reaches my non-Hollywood following attention level, it's gotta be pretty rabid.
I watched a good portion of Glenn Beck's Kennedy Center thing on Friday night. It was nothing but good stuff, positive talk. On the sidebar there was a running commentary by viewers. A whole bunch of lefties and haters were making very nasty, snide, ugly comments about Beck. Personal stuff, attacks on his motivation, his personality, etc. Nothing of substance. Ditto the comments by the radio DJs. Just hateful stuff, personal attacks. It was interesting, as always, to see the same talking points being typed by the haters.
At least Cusak was original in his hate-mongering.
What's so weird is these same people who are slapping at conservatives for being racist, evil, horrible people are doing so in such a stinkin', evil, horrible, nasty way. Kettle black scenario, except they're talking about a kettle that's pretty shiny for the most part (yes, there are some uglies on the right side, too). But the hypocrisy of saying evil things and thinking it's OK is mind boggling. If I said the exact same things some of them are saying about a progressive, a liberal, a Democrat, or one of their icons, I'd be forever under attack and vilified. They say that stuff and the lib left pats 'em on the back. Skewed world.
So, OK, no more Cusak movies. Darn, darn, darn. He's cute and funny... oh wait, no, he's really not funny, I just saw who he really is via his Twitter messages.
I'm in mini-mourning. Because of a couple of stupid radio DJs I gave up my Dave radio station this weekend and now I'm choosing to give up John Cusak movies. Pretty soon the only people who'll going to movies will be progressives. At least I have a number of good rock radio station alternatives!
I've been reading all the articles and comments as to why various people think it's becoming so vicious. I think it's probably a combination of most of the factors I read. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you'd like to share.
I think social media is a part of it. We're anonymous and can vent our deepest, darkest thoughts. It's immediate so people can have a few drinks and then shoot off their mouth, no second tries.
It's more than just social media though, it's more than the main-stream media, more than the availability of news, more than the war... Did 9-11 trigger something or release something in us that was already there? Was it a trigger or just part of a series of events that brought us to this clear divide?
If we survived the next few years and history isn't re-written as they're trying to re-write it now, it will be interesting for our kids to look back at all the triggers. Those in the future will have much more information available to them about this time in history. We'll be able to chronicle thoughts that went out via blogs, facebook, twitter, etc.
Every time I see a mean-natured twisted comment or rant, get attacked, read the stuff that comes out of so many liberal / progressive type's mouths these days I wonder what happened to the peace and love the left has claimed as their mantle from the 60's forward.
I got into it slightly over the weekend with a local radio personality who tweeted some maybe-not-quite-so-Cusack tweets about Glenn Beck, but hateful none the less. One of his fellow DJ's joined the conversation, making it two from Dave radio. I retweeted a tweet from someone who'd seen the same comments I saw which attracted the DJ's attention, rightfully so since the tweet had his name in it ;-)
I don't do hate. I can debate issues with people who don't attack individuals, who don't wish for satanic death cult centers, who don't spit venom. Once I see that kind of anger I'm done, no point. I blocked the radio DJs, took their radio station off my presets in the car... and now I will never be able to watch a movie with John Cusack in it again. That's a sacrifice of sorts as I have enjoyed some of his movies, usually put them on the "going to see list" when he's in one.
It used to be you could watch movies and not know a darn thing about the people in them aside from fluff. It was great to get lost in a movie and sorta believe the actor could be the person they portrayed. Once Hollywood and music-types started opening their mouth and spewing hate it became impossible for me to transcend reality and get into some of their movies.
It's impossible to see a hate-a-conservative type playing someone in the military or a political type... or even in some cases a business person... and feel they're credible, ignore their well-voiced comments in opposition to the type character they're playing.
Since some of you are going to fuss at me and say that Cusack has been a long-time Obama supporter, left winger type, I'll have to admit that I don't hear most of the stuff they have to say until it hits the current Cusack-level. When it reaches my non-Hollywood following attention level, it's gotta be pretty rabid.
I watched a good portion of Glenn Beck's Kennedy Center thing on Friday night. It was nothing but good stuff, positive talk. On the sidebar there was a running commentary by viewers. A whole bunch of lefties and haters were making very nasty, snide, ugly comments about Beck. Personal stuff, attacks on his motivation, his personality, etc. Nothing of substance. Ditto the comments by the radio DJs. Just hateful stuff, personal attacks. It was interesting, as always, to see the same talking points being typed by the haters.
At least Cusak was original in his hate-mongering.
What's so weird is these same people who are slapping at conservatives for being racist, evil, horrible people are doing so in such a stinkin', evil, horrible, nasty way. Kettle black scenario, except they're talking about a kettle that's pretty shiny for the most part (yes, there are some uglies on the right side, too). But the hypocrisy of saying evil things and thinking it's OK is mind boggling. If I said the exact same things some of them are saying about a progressive, a liberal, a Democrat, or one of their icons, I'd be forever under attack and vilified. They say that stuff and the lib left pats 'em on the back. Skewed world.
So, OK, no more Cusak movies. Darn, darn, darn. He's cute and funny... oh wait, no, he's really not funny, I just saw who he really is via his Twitter messages.
I'm in mini-mourning. Because of a couple of stupid radio DJs I gave up my Dave radio station this weekend and now I'm choosing to give up John Cusak movies. Pretty soon the only people who'll going to movies will be progressives. At least I have a number of good rock radio station alternatives!
I've been reading all the articles and comments as to why various people think it's becoming so vicious. I think it's probably a combination of most of the factors I read. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you'd like to share.
I think social media is a part of it. We're anonymous and can vent our deepest, darkest thoughts. It's immediate so people can have a few drinks and then shoot off their mouth, no second tries.
It's more than just social media though, it's more than the main-stream media, more than the availability of news, more than the war... Did 9-11 trigger something or release something in us that was already there? Was it a trigger or just part of a series of events that brought us to this clear divide?
If we survived the next few years and history isn't re-written as they're trying to re-write it now, it will be interesting for our kids to look back at all the triggers. Those in the future will have much more information available to them about this time in history. We'll be able to chronicle thoughts that went out via blogs, facebook, twitter, etc.
John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders
Actor John Cusack went on a caustic Twitter rampage Sunday evening, attacking former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Fox News.
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,” Cusack tweeted.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/?test=faces
Saturday, August 28, 2010
A Muslim College in America...
Muslim liberal arts college takes root in Berkeley
Zaytuna College hopes to address U.S. Muslim community's desire for leaders who understand Islam in a western context.
At a fundraiser in February for Zaytuna College, organizers seemed intent on preempting critical questions.
"Why a Muslim College in America?" the Anaheim event was headlined, as if anticipating the query from audience members.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs-zaytuna-20100828,0,741658.story
Why indeed.
Zaytuna College hopes to address U.S. Muslim community's desire for leaders who understand Islam in a western context.
At a fundraiser in February for Zaytuna College, organizers seemed intent on preempting critical questions.
"Why a Muslim College in America?" the Anaheim event was headlined, as if anticipating the query from audience members.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs-zaytuna-20100828,0,741658.story
Why indeed.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sarah Palin in Atlanta with Karen Handel
Thought some of you might want to watch the video of Sarah's talk today. She was here in Atlanta to support Karen Handel who's running for Georgia Governor. I'm a huge fan of Karen's, known her for many years and think she'll make a fantastic governor. She's honest, ethical, a "real" person who is tough enough to stand up to Obama and all that Washington is throwing at us... Tomorrow is the run-off --- if you live in Georgia and you're registered to vote, go VOTE. If you're not registered, get your butt off the couch and do it... then start paying attention so you can make an informed choice in November.
Here are the links to Sarah's talk today (2 parts):
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=490981532001#/News/Palin+Speech+Supporting+Handel+Part+1/49906865001/50317397001/490981532001
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=490987384001#/News/Palin+Speech+Supporting+Handel+Part+2/49906865001/50317397001/490987384001
Here are the links to Sarah's talk today (2 parts):
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=490981532001#/News/Palin+Speech+Supporting+Handel+Part+1/49906865001/50317397001/490981532001
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=490987384001#/News/Palin+Speech+Supporting+Handel+Part+2/49906865001/50317397001/490987384001
As Greta said, ouch, this ad hurts...
Greta (@gretawire) just tweeted this and she's right, it hurts... Great ad mainly 'cause it's right on the money (fund raising money ala Obama I suppose).
Watch and share! They done good
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Why do government employees need unions?
Someone on Twitter (sorry, flew by quickly) just re-tweeted a point made by @seanhackbarth... This isn't the exact quote, but the gist was, 'why do we government workers need unions, doesn't the government treat them fairly?".
Wow, what an excellent point!
If you take a look at all the stats regarding how much government employees are paid as compared to the private sector, factor in their benefits, it becomes even harder to understand why they need the unions these days... Well, I guess someone has to help them get those extraordinary perks, huh?
Think about the whole picture. You and I pay their salary. Thus, you and I are paying their union dues and keeping the union bosses hoeing in high cotton as my Grandmother used to say.
Soooo, we are paying people to cajole the government to take more of our hard earned dollars to give to government workers. Sweet --- for those who have government jobs!
I've shared before that I used to work for the government. I wasn't union thank goodness or I'd have quit long before I did. The day my previously non-government job was swallowed up in the government bureaucracy is the day I started realizing that my work-aholic tendencies would not work well in that environment. When you're called into the bosses office and told you're working too hard and to cool it 'cause you're making the rest of the employees look bad, it's time to get back into the private sector (unless your a slug).
I'm not a huge fan of the government work force, federal or state, with or without union protections. Where are you treated the worst when interacting with others for services? Think about going to renew or get your driver's license, dealing with the IRS, and other areas that require you to interact with government employees. In the private sector they have to treat you well or suffer the consequences of a business down the tubes sooner or later. Not so for the government. Bad service? Who's their competition?
It's time to get rid of the unions for government employees. Our tax dollars should not be used to work against the needs of the very citizens who pay those taxes. We need to do more than clean out Congress, we need a clean sweep all the way down. Make the government employees have to live up to the same standards as the private sector and end the crazy protections that have us paying salaries rather than getting rid of the chaff. We can start by getting rid of the union protection racket.
(It crossed my mind a number of times as I wrote the above that I might wake up one day to see union thugs with bats standing on my front lawn... I guess I'm going to be on every government list before it's all said and done.)
Wow, what an excellent point!
If you take a look at all the stats regarding how much government employees are paid as compared to the private sector, factor in their benefits, it becomes even harder to understand why they need the unions these days... Well, I guess someone has to help them get those extraordinary perks, huh?
Think about the whole picture. You and I pay their salary. Thus, you and I are paying their union dues and keeping the union bosses hoeing in high cotton as my Grandmother used to say.
Soooo, we are paying people to cajole the government to take more of our hard earned dollars to give to government workers. Sweet --- for those who have government jobs!
I've shared before that I used to work for the government. I wasn't union thank goodness or I'd have quit long before I did. The day my previously non-government job was swallowed up in the government bureaucracy is the day I started realizing that my work-aholic tendencies would not work well in that environment. When you're called into the bosses office and told you're working too hard and to cool it 'cause you're making the rest of the employees look bad, it's time to get back into the private sector (unless your a slug).
I'm not a huge fan of the government work force, federal or state, with or without union protections. Where are you treated the worst when interacting with others for services? Think about going to renew or get your driver's license, dealing with the IRS, and other areas that require you to interact with government employees. In the private sector they have to treat you well or suffer the consequences of a business down the tubes sooner or later. Not so for the government. Bad service? Who's their competition?
It's time to get rid of the unions for government employees. Our tax dollars should not be used to work against the needs of the very citizens who pay those taxes. We need to do more than clean out Congress, we need a clean sweep all the way down. Make the government employees have to live up to the same standards as the private sector and end the crazy protections that have us paying salaries rather than getting rid of the chaff. We can start by getting rid of the union protection racket.
(It crossed my mind a number of times as I wrote the above that I might wake up one day to see union thugs with bats standing on my front lawn... I guess I'm going to be on every government list before it's all said and done.)
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Brave New Scary World
Remember the book Brave New World? That book, along with 1984 and similar tombs, portray a future that none of us want to experience. I don't really think we're heading toward Huxley's version of anti-utopia, but there are shades of Brave New World, 1984, We, and maybe even Animal Farm erupting which are far more scary than what those authors imagined. Why? We're living them, not reading them. We can't put the book aside and pick up another lighter story.
We're being driven there by a government that "says" they want to take care of everyone and make sure all are treated well. Unfortunately, their idea of making sure all are treated well seems to be that those who work should pick up the tab for those who don't so everyone is "equal". We're dangerously close to having more have-nots in need of a hand out than producers. We all know that when those with their hands out vote they'll support the ones who make the best promises.
We're in a litigious society which to me is a symptom more of the "I don't want to work for my living" sickness than greed. Those who hire the attorney to fight for more than they deserve want to hit the jackpot. Everyone sues these days. Whether it's vengeance, anger, hurt, or another emotion that starts the ball rolling, ultimately it becomes a quest for money. Tort reform would be fantastic, but it's going to take a re-shaping of the free-world's thinking to truly reform the court system.
Hmmm, a thought... would I trade the current nationalizing of our health care system for nationalizing the court system. Oh, shudder, no. Banish that thought. Tort reform it is!
Similarly, we're going way, way too far in trying to make sure everyone feels good about themselves. Did anyone read that short story by Huxley (I think) where the world had evolved to a point where no one was allowed to excel? I remember a scene where the main character is watching a ballet at the theater. The ballerina's are all wearing various weights on their legs or encumbered somehow so that none dances better than the other. It's been a long time, but it seems that one ballerina ditches her weights and soars, giving everyone a glimpse of true beauty.
No one is bad these days.... as long as you're not a conservative or part of the 9/12 or Tea Party movement of course. Everyone whines about their civil rights being violated and the government steps in to protect, or sue, or threaten. You as an American citizen are not allowed to think less of someone or create something that isn't equally good for all. If someone out there can't use your product, the government will step in to make you change it...
It really does get ridiculous sometimes as illustrated in the following article. Where are we headed? 1984? Atlas Shrugged? Brave New Scary World? Soylent Green?
Byron York - Why did feds claim Kindle violates civil rights?
Did you know the Justice Department threatened several universities with legal action because they took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks?
Last year, the schools -- among them Princeton, Arizona State and Case Western Reserve -- wanted to know if e-book readers would be more convenient and less costly than traditional textbooks. The environmentally conscious educators also wanted to reduce the huge amount of paper students use to print files from their laptops.
It seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, now under an aggressive new chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
We're being driven there by a government that "says" they want to take care of everyone and make sure all are treated well. Unfortunately, their idea of making sure all are treated well seems to be that those who work should pick up the tab for those who don't so everyone is "equal". We're dangerously close to having more have-nots in need of a hand out than producers. We all know that when those with their hands out vote they'll support the ones who make the best promises.
We're in a litigious society which to me is a symptom more of the "I don't want to work for my living" sickness than greed. Those who hire the attorney to fight for more than they deserve want to hit the jackpot. Everyone sues these days. Whether it's vengeance, anger, hurt, or another emotion that starts the ball rolling, ultimately it becomes a quest for money. Tort reform would be fantastic, but it's going to take a re-shaping of the free-world's thinking to truly reform the court system.
Hmmm, a thought... would I trade the current nationalizing of our health care system for nationalizing the court system. Oh, shudder, no. Banish that thought. Tort reform it is!
Similarly, we're going way, way too far in trying to make sure everyone feels good about themselves. Did anyone read that short story by Huxley (I think) where the world had evolved to a point where no one was allowed to excel? I remember a scene where the main character is watching a ballet at the theater. The ballerina's are all wearing various weights on their legs or encumbered somehow so that none dances better than the other. It's been a long time, but it seems that one ballerina ditches her weights and soars, giving everyone a glimpse of true beauty.
No one is bad these days.... as long as you're not a conservative or part of the 9/12 or Tea Party movement of course. Everyone whines about their civil rights being violated and the government steps in to protect, or sue, or threaten. You as an American citizen are not allowed to think less of someone or create something that isn't equally good for all. If someone out there can't use your product, the government will step in to make you change it...
It really does get ridiculous sometimes as illustrated in the following article. Where are we headed? 1984? Atlas Shrugged? Brave New Scary World? Soylent Green?
Byron York - Why did feds claim Kindle violates civil rights?
Did you know the Justice Department threatened several universities with legal action because they took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks?
Last year, the schools -- among them Princeton, Arizona State and Case Western Reserve -- wanted to know if e-book readers would be more convenient and less costly than traditional textbooks. The environmentally conscious educators also wanted to reduce the huge amount of paper students use to print files from their laptops.
It seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, now under an aggressive new chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Obama's Beach Blanket Recovery: It's Happy, Snappy & Incredibly Crappy
This is spot on, funny yet very serious... humorous yet sad... ya gotta watch and pass it along!
Sunday, August 1, 2010
State to citizens: No more petitions for you
Proposal would 'virtually eliminate' citizens' right to decide referendums
An amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution proposed by Democrats could virtually put an end to citizen-initiated referendums in the state. The amendment, proposed jointly by state Rep. Byron Rushing in the House and by state Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem in the Senate, would exclude any citizen petition that deals with issues concerning a person's right to "the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=185741
It's getting stranger and stranger in our world. One has to wonder if the people who propose things like this think beyond the moment. They seem to have an inability to look at the long-term affects of the legislation they propose, just like those who are doing the Obama crew's bidding.
We all keep asking the question of the public and the libs 'would you be applauding if the Republicans or Bush White House did the vast majority of things "your" folks are doing?'. The answer would be a resounding NO. They'd be screaming about the government invading their privacy, curtailing their freedoms, and so on.
We face multi-front ignorance mixed in with willful short-sighted self-interest these days.
The legislators are putting in legislation and acting with an eye out for immediate returns, not thinking about the long-term ramifications... or how the next "regime" might turn their new laws around on the very people now doing their bidding.
On another front we have the ignorance of the masses who embrace the platitudes, slogans and hype. Many are simply good people who believe the love mantra chanted as the cloak for under-the-sheets deceit. Others are just barely voting-age kids who haven't moved outside the cocoon of parental protection into the real world yet. Some are wolves in sheep's clothing. Others play the pied piper. It's a mixed crowd of all types, some who simply see that they can make a profit and believe they'll be part of the new elite.
Then there are those who are simply corrupt and will jump on any bandwagon that keeps them in power and/or riches. There are those who are scrambling to keep their power. There are true believers... it's a huge mixed bag. You have the ultra rich plagued with guilt about their riches who can be easily played, the ultra rich who don't have guilt but love being sucked up to... Then there's the media, a class all its own. Hard to figure out why they're so eager to give up their freedom of speech, their ability to be independent, isn't it?
Ah well, we all know we're at a cross-roads. We all know the very fundamental foundations of our freedoms are being attacked not just daily, but every minute of the day.
The name of the game is power. Every action the current regime has enacted, every attack, every change, ultimately corrals power into the White House and creates a "new" upper power class. We've seen similar actions throughout history. They ultimately fail because they can not be sustained. But oh, the times are dark until the people rebel or their system completely collapses.
We are in a unique situation when compared to similar country take-downs in the past in that we have the Internet, we have the ability to communicate and to shed light on actions. In the past things were done under the proverbial cloak of darkness. Today, everything sooner or later passes through the network and we see what they're doing.
I know Obama and friends are trying to shut down the media and our ability to write, share, expose what they're doing. November can't come soon enough.
An amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution proposed by Democrats could virtually put an end to citizen-initiated referendums in the state. The amendment, proposed jointly by state Rep. Byron Rushing in the House and by state Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem in the Senate, would exclude any citizen petition that deals with issues concerning a person's right to "the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=185741
It's getting stranger and stranger in our world. One has to wonder if the people who propose things like this think beyond the moment. They seem to have an inability to look at the long-term affects of the legislation they propose, just like those who are doing the Obama crew's bidding.
We all keep asking the question of the public and the libs 'would you be applauding if the Republicans or Bush White House did the vast majority of things "your" folks are doing?'. The answer would be a resounding NO. They'd be screaming about the government invading their privacy, curtailing their freedoms, and so on.
We face multi-front ignorance mixed in with willful short-sighted self-interest these days.
The legislators are putting in legislation and acting with an eye out for immediate returns, not thinking about the long-term ramifications... or how the next "regime" might turn their new laws around on the very people now doing their bidding.
On another front we have the ignorance of the masses who embrace the platitudes, slogans and hype. Many are simply good people who believe the love mantra chanted as the cloak for under-the-sheets deceit. Others are just barely voting-age kids who haven't moved outside the cocoon of parental protection into the real world yet. Some are wolves in sheep's clothing. Others play the pied piper. It's a mixed crowd of all types, some who simply see that they can make a profit and believe they'll be part of the new elite.
Then there are those who are simply corrupt and will jump on any bandwagon that keeps them in power and/or riches. There are those who are scrambling to keep their power. There are true believers... it's a huge mixed bag. You have the ultra rich plagued with guilt about their riches who can be easily played, the ultra rich who don't have guilt but love being sucked up to... Then there's the media, a class all its own. Hard to figure out why they're so eager to give up their freedom of speech, their ability to be independent, isn't it?
Ah well, we all know we're at a cross-roads. We all know the very fundamental foundations of our freedoms are being attacked not just daily, but every minute of the day.
The name of the game is power. Every action the current regime has enacted, every attack, every change, ultimately corrals power into the White House and creates a "new" upper power class. We've seen similar actions throughout history. They ultimately fail because they can not be sustained. But oh, the times are dark until the people rebel or their system completely collapses.
We are in a unique situation when compared to similar country take-downs in the past in that we have the Internet, we have the ability to communicate and to shed light on actions. In the past things were done under the proverbial cloak of darkness. Today, everything sooner or later passes through the network and we see what they're doing.
I know Obama and friends are trying to shut down the media and our ability to write, share, expose what they're doing. November can't come soon enough.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Overcriminalization
"Overcriminalization" includes applying criminal sanctions to conduct that traditionally has not been considered inherently wrongful, federalizing crime that properly belongs under state jurisdiction, and attaching criminal penalties without criminal intent. Reasonable people may disagree whether any specific bill included in the Legislative Update Alert is an abuse of criminal law or is in fact justified. Nevertheless, the Legislative Update Alert includes all bills our researchers have identified that add or enhance federal criminal penalties. Please visit us at Overcriminalized.com
It's part of the Heritage Foundation's huge library of things to scare the you-know-what out of you! Of course, they do more than scare you, they give you the tools to fight the good fight, too.
It's a great resource and chocked full of information that shows you just exactly what "our" politicians are trying to do to us. When you read this, combine it with all the other bits and pieces that we hear and read, you get a very clear, shockingly clear, picture of where this White House, and all their minions in Congress and throughout the country, are taking us. Guaranteed to spur you to work harder to change the culture in our government.
One thing I found interesting personally is that yesterday or the day before I posted a release from the Obama White House about the last item in this newsletter regarding Native American art, new penalties, etc. We have Arts Across Georgia, focusing (duh) on the arts. I got the release, glanced at it, then posted it not thinking anything much about it. That is, until I read the bit in the last paragraph of the newsletter below. I'm SO glad there are people at the Heritage Foundation who are looking at these things closely and clearly.
Here's a sample of the info included in yesterday's update:
S. 3598: Secure Water Facilities Act
Sponsor: Lautenberg (D - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the administrator of the Environmental protection Agency to reduce or eliminate the risk of releases of hazardous chemicals from public water systems and wastewater treatment works, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/15/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/15/2010: Referred to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Commentary: This bill calls on the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate new regulations establishing risk-based performance standards for the security of public water systems that serve more than 3,300 people or otherwise present a security risk. The bill and regulations would also protect certain information from disclosure, including any vulnerability assessment of a water system, documents that relate to audits or inspections of covered systems, and documents relating to a security threat or breach. “Whoever discloses protected information in knowing violation of the regulations” will be subject to imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. If the person who unlawfully discloses protected information is a federal officeholder or employee, that person will be subject to possible removal from federal office or employment.
S. 3599: Secure Chemical Facilities Act
Sponsor: Lautenberg (D - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to enhance the security of chemical facilities and for other purposes.
Status:
7/15/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/15/2010: Referred to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Commentary: This bill would modify and make permanent the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to regulate security practices at chemical facilities. It would call for the risk-based designation and ranking of chemical facilities that possess substances of concern or meet other criteria established by the Secretary of DHS. The bill and regulations would also protect certain information from disclosure, including information related to the assessment of the vulnerability of a chemical facility, documents that relate to an audit or inspection of a covered chemical facility, and documents relating to a security threat or breach of security. “Any person” who discloses protected information “in knowing violation of the regulations” will be subject to imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. If the person who unlawfully discloses protected information is a federal official or employee, that person will be subject to possible removal from federal office or employment.
S. 3632:
Sponsor: Gillibrand (D - NY)
Official Title: A bill to provide for enhanced penalties to combat Medicare and Medicaid Fraud, a Medicare data-mining system and a beneficiary verification pilot program, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/22/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/22/2010: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
Commentary: This bill, a nearly identical companion to H.R. 5044, includes provisions that would double the criminal penalties for specified knowing and willful wrongful acts in connection with federal health care programs and that would create a new offense for those who, knowingly, intentionally, and with the intent to defraud, “traffic” in Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary identification numbers or billing privileges. One subpart of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(a) prohibits the making of false statements or representations in connection with applications for benefits or payments under a federal health care program. The penalty for making such false statements or representations other than “in connection with the furnishing (by that person) of items or services for which payment is or may be made” will be doubled, with imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of $10,000 increasing to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of $20,000. The penalty for (1) making false statements or representations by someone in connection with that person’s furnishing of items or services for which payment is or may be made; (2) receiving kickbacks, bribes, or rebates; (3) making false representations with respect to the condition or operation of institutions: or (4) engaging in illegal patient and admittance practices would be doubled as well, increasing from imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $25,000 or both to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $50,000, or both. In addition, the bill would create a new offense for, knowingly, intentionally, and with the intent to defraud, selling or distributing two or more Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary identification numbers or billing privileges. The violation of this provision would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.
S. Amendment 4486:
Sponsor: Pryor (D - AR)
Official Title:
Status:
7/19/2010: Introduced in Senate
Commentary: This Amendment is proposed for H.R. 5297, which would create the Small Business Lending Fund Program. It addresses the Earned Income Credit (EIC) that can be claimed by some individual taxpayers. It would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a), to address the problem of identity theft involving the EIC. Any person who “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority” someone else’s means of identification or a false identification document in connection with a willful attempt to evade or defeat taxes by claiming the EIC or submits a false or fraudulent statement in connection with a claim for EIC benefits would be subject to the penalties for identity theft set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1028(b), plus an additional term of imprisonment of up to 5 years.
S. Amendment 4488:
Sponsor: Boxer (D - CA)
Official Title:
Status:
7/20/2010: Introduced in Senate
Commentary: The Amendment is proposed for H.R. 5297, which would create the Small Business Lending Fund Program. A participating lender that “knowingly makes a false statement with respect to the income, assets, or other qualifications of a small business concern” in connection with a loan or loan application would be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both.
H.R. 5788: Mine Safety Accountability and Improved Protection Act
Sponsor: Moore (R - WV)
Official Title: A bill to honor the nation’s fallen miners by requiring improved mine safety practices and compliance in order to prevent future mine accidents.
Status:
7/20/2010: Introduced in House
7/20/2010: Referred to House Education and Labor Committee
Commentary: This bill would increase the enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and establish a National Mine Safety Board and empower it to conduct independent investigations of mine accidents that involve 3 or more deaths. The bill would also increase the penalty for any willful violation of a mandatory health or safety standard or for any knowing failure to comply with orders issued by the Secretary. The penalty for a first conviction would increase to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $1,000,000, or both, from the current penalty of imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine of $250,000, or both, as set out in 30 U.S.C. § 820(d). The penalty for subsequent violations would increase to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $2,000,000, or both, from the current penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both. The bill would also make it unlawful to retaliate against anyone who has provided information “related to the existence of a health or safety violation or an unhealthful or unsafe condition, policy or practice” to enforcement officials. The penalty for that offense would be imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. The bill would increase the penalty that may be imposed on any unauthorized advance notice of any health or safety inspection to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both, from the current penalty of imprisonment for up to 6 months, a fine of $1,000, or both, as set forth in 30 U.S.C. § 820(e). Finally, where a business entity is responsible for the violation, any director, officer, or agent of that operator who “willfully authorized, ordered, or carried out such violation, failure, or refusal, or any policy or practice that contributed to the occurrence of a fatality” will be subject as an individual to the same civil and criminal penalties that can be imposed on the operator.
H.R. 5810: Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2010
Sponsor: Lungren (R - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/21/2010: Introduced in House
7/21/2010: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: The bill would make it unlawful for any person to “knowingly aim[] the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft.” The bill does not safeguard those who aim a laser at an aircraft or its flight path accidentally, inadvertently, or with benign intent. It would not prohibit the aiming of a laser beam at an aircraft by authorized individuals conducting research, development, operations, testing, or training, or anyone using the laser to send an emergency distress signal. The penalty for unlawfully aiming a laser at an aircraft would be imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.
H.R. 5663: Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010
Sponsor: Miller (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to improve compliance with mine and occupational safety and health laws, empower workers to raise safety concerns, prevent future mine and other workplace tragedies, establish rights of families of victims of workplace accidents, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/1/2010: Introduced in House
7/1/2010: Referred to House Education and Labor Committee
7/13/2010: Hearing Held by House Education and Labor Committee
7/21/2010: Mark up in the House Education and Labor Committee
7/21/2010: Ordered to be reported
Commentary: Section 820(d) of Title 30, U.S. Code, currently prohibits “willfully” violating a mandatory mining health or safety standard or “knowingly” violating or refusing to comply with certain orders issued by the Secretary of Labor. This bill would significantly lower the protectiveness of the mental state required to prove a violation of a mandatory health and safety standard from “willfully” to “knowingly.” Violators are currently subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $250,000, or both on the first conviction, and imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both for subsequent violations. This bill would increase the penalty for first violations to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $1,000,000, or both, and the penalty for subsequent violations to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $2,000,000, or both. Under 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), a director, officer, or agent of a corporate violator who “knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried out” the conduct leading to the violation is subject to prosecution to the same extent as the corporation. This provision will not necessarily be interpreted by the courts to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the director, officer, or agent had any actual knowledge that what he or she authorized, ordered, or carried out was unlawful.
H.R. 5626: Blowout Prevention Act of 2010
Sponsor: Waxman (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to protect public health and safety and the environment by requiring the use of safe well control technologies and practices for the drilling of high-risk oil and gas wells in the United States, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/29/2010: Introduced in House
6/29/2010: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
7/15/2010: Mark up in the House Energy and Commerce Committee
7/15/2010: Ordered to be reported House
Commentary: This bill would, beginning one year after its enactment, require applicants for permits to drill for a “high-risk well” to attest to the capacity of their blowout prevention and remediation ability and call for the promulgation of regulations specifying the minimum standards for blowout preventers, third-party certifications, and documentation. Any person who “knowingly and willfully” violates any provision of the act or any regulation that implements it, makes a false statement in a document that is filed or required to be filed, or falsifies or tampers with a required monitoring device will be subject to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of up to $10 million, or both. Under the bill, an officer or agent of a corporation that is subject to prosecution who “knowingly and willfully, or with willful disregard” orders or carries out the prohibited activity is subject to prosecution to the same extent as the corporation. This provision will not necessarily be interpreted by the courts to require the officer or agent to have actual knowledge that what he or she authorized, ordered, or carried out was unlawful.
H.R. 5566: Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010
Sponsor: Gallegly (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interstate commerce in animal crush videos, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/22/2010: Introduced in House
6/22/2010: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
6/23/2010: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
6/23/2010: Ordered to be reported
7/19/2010: Reported to House
7/21/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
Commentary: This bill replaces H.R. 5092 and is a response to the U. S. Supreme Court’s April 2010 decision in United States v. Stevens, in which the Court found that 18 U.S.C. § 48, which prohibits the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty, violated the First Amendment because it was substantially overbroad. The Court noted, among other things, that the reach of § 48 was so broad that it would include depictions of hunting activities. Because the statute applied to depicted conduct that was illegal in any state where the depiction was created, sold, or possessed, the Court also observed that a “depiction of entirely lawful conduct runs afoul of the ban if that depiction finds its way into another State where the same conduct is illegal.” This bill would prohibit the knowing sale or distribution in interstate or foreign commerce of “animal crush videos” and create safe harbors for depictions of veterinary or animal husbandry practices and depictions of hunting, trapping, or fishing. It would apply to depictions of actual conduct that violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to animals under Federal law “or the law of the State in which the depiction is created, sold, distributed, or offered for sale or distribution.”
H.R. 4173: The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009
Sponsor: Frank (D - MA)
Official Title: To provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/2/2009: Introduced
12/2/2009: Referred to House Financial Services Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Agriculture Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Rules Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Budget Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee
12/11/2009: House Passage
1/20/2010: Received in Senate
1/20/2010: Referred to Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
5/20/2010: Discharged Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
5/24/2010: Senate Passage
6/30/2010: Conference report passed in the House
7/15/2010: Conference report passed in the Senate
7/21/2010: Signed by the President
Commentary: This wide-ranging financial markets regulatory bill would, among many other things, establish a Financial Services Oversight Council including the heads of the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and National Credit Union Administration Board. The stated purposes for the Council include monitoring financial markets, advising Congress of financial regulatory developments, and coordinating financial regulatory actions among member agencies. The bill provides for the establishment of a regulatory regime that will cover transactions in derivatives and give oversight responsibility to the CFTC, requiring the registration of traders and trading activities. Section 13(a)(5) of Title 7, U.S. Code, governs the trading of commodity futures and other instruments regulated by the CFTC. It provides that “[a]ny person” who “willfully” violates “any other provision of this chapter, or any rule or regulation thereunder” will be subject to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $1 million, or both, plus the costs of prosecution. Section 13(a)(5) further provides, “[N]o person shall be subject to imprisonment under this paragraph for the violation of any rule or regulation if such person proves that he had no knowledge of such rule or regulation.” Where the transaction involves securities-based derivative instruments, responsibility for regulatory oversight is vested in the SEC. Section78ff of Title 15, U.S. Code, specifies the penalties for violating the securities laws. [Editor's Note: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' far more thorough description and analysis of the many criminal provisions in this wide-ranging bill is available at http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/whitecollar/HR4173].
H.R. 725: Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009
Sponsor: Pastor (D - AZ)
Official Title: A bill to protect Indian arts and crafts through the improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes.
Status:
1/27/2009: Introduced
1/27/2009: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
1/27/2009: Referred to House Natural Resources Committee
12/2/2009: Hearing Held by House Natural Resources Committee
12/16/2009: Mark up in the House Natural Resources Committee
12/16/2009: Ordered to be reported House Natural Resources Committee
1/15/2010: Discharged House Judiciary Committee
1/15/2010: Placed on House calendar
1/19/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
1/20/2010: Received in Senate
3/26/2010: Placed on Senate calendar
6/23/2010: Senate Passage
7/26/2010: House Passage
Commentary: As introduced, this bill was titled the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009. It was identical to H.R. 7024 and S. 1255 in the 110th Congress and S. 151 in the current Congress and reduced penalties for some violations of the prohibition on misrepresenting goods for sale as having been produced by Native Americans. As passed by the Senate, the bill would not only reduce penalties set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1159 for some violations of the prohibition on misrepresenting goods for sale as having been produced by Native Americans, it would also change the sentencing powers of Native American tribal courts. With respect to misrepresentation, under current law, "knowing" violations are punishable by criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years for a first offense, and by criminal fines of up to $1,000,000 and imprisonment of up to 15 years for subsequent offenses. This legislation would change the penalty structure in two ways. First offenses concerning goods worth less than $1,000 would be punishable by fines of up to $25,000 and imprisonment of up to a year, and fines for subsequent offenses would be calculated under Title 18 rather according to the fines defined under this new penalty scheme. With respect to the sentencing powers of Native American tribal courts, current law does not permit a tribal court to impose a term of imprisonment greater than 1 year, a fine of $5,000, or both. Under the bill as passed by the Senate, a tribal court would be able to sentence a defendant who has previously been convicted of the same or a comparable offense by any jurisdiction in the United States, or a defendant who is being prosecuted for an offense comparable to an offense that would be punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year if prosecuted by the United States or any of the States to imprisonment for up to three years, a fine of $15,000, or both. Even when multiple charges are involved, the tribal courts would be unable to impose imprisonment longer than 9 years. Significantly, nothing in the bill as passed by the Senate would give a Native American tribe criminal jurisdiction over a non-Native American. Since 1990, tribes have been empowered to exercise criminal jurisdiction over any Native Americans, including those who are not members of the tribe.
It's part of the Heritage Foundation's huge library of things to scare the you-know-what out of you! Of course, they do more than scare you, they give you the tools to fight the good fight, too.
It's a great resource and chocked full of information that shows you just exactly what "our" politicians are trying to do to us. When you read this, combine it with all the other bits and pieces that we hear and read, you get a very clear, shockingly clear, picture of where this White House, and all their minions in Congress and throughout the country, are taking us. Guaranteed to spur you to work harder to change the culture in our government.
One thing I found interesting personally is that yesterday or the day before I posted a release from the Obama White House about the last item in this newsletter regarding Native American art, new penalties, etc. We have Arts Across Georgia, focusing (duh) on the arts. I got the release, glanced at it, then posted it not thinking anything much about it. That is, until I read the bit in the last paragraph of the newsletter below. I'm SO glad there are people at the Heritage Foundation who are looking at these things closely and clearly.
Here's a sample of the info included in yesterday's update:
S. 3598: Secure Water Facilities Act
Sponsor: Lautenberg (D - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the administrator of the Environmental protection Agency to reduce or eliminate the risk of releases of hazardous chemicals from public water systems and wastewater treatment works, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/15/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/15/2010: Referred to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Commentary: This bill calls on the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate new regulations establishing risk-based performance standards for the security of public water systems that serve more than 3,300 people or otherwise present a security risk. The bill and regulations would also protect certain information from disclosure, including any vulnerability assessment of a water system, documents that relate to audits or inspections of covered systems, and documents relating to a security threat or breach. “Whoever discloses protected information in knowing violation of the regulations” will be subject to imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. If the person who unlawfully discloses protected information is a federal officeholder or employee, that person will be subject to possible removal from federal office or employment.
S. 3599: Secure Chemical Facilities Act
Sponsor: Lautenberg (D - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to enhance the security of chemical facilities and for other purposes.
Status:
7/15/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/15/2010: Referred to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Commentary: This bill would modify and make permanent the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to regulate security practices at chemical facilities. It would call for the risk-based designation and ranking of chemical facilities that possess substances of concern or meet other criteria established by the Secretary of DHS. The bill and regulations would also protect certain information from disclosure, including information related to the assessment of the vulnerability of a chemical facility, documents that relate to an audit or inspection of a covered chemical facility, and documents relating to a security threat or breach of security. “Any person” who discloses protected information “in knowing violation of the regulations” will be subject to imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. If the person who unlawfully discloses protected information is a federal official or employee, that person will be subject to possible removal from federal office or employment.
S. 3632:
Sponsor: Gillibrand (D - NY)
Official Title: A bill to provide for enhanced penalties to combat Medicare and Medicaid Fraud, a Medicare data-mining system and a beneficiary verification pilot program, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/22/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/22/2010: Referred to Senate Finance Committee
Commentary: This bill, a nearly identical companion to H.R. 5044, includes provisions that would double the criminal penalties for specified knowing and willful wrongful acts in connection with federal health care programs and that would create a new offense for those who, knowingly, intentionally, and with the intent to defraud, “traffic” in Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary identification numbers or billing privileges. One subpart of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(a) prohibits the making of false statements or representations in connection with applications for benefits or payments under a federal health care program. The penalty for making such false statements or representations other than “in connection with the furnishing (by that person) of items or services for which payment is or may be made” will be doubled, with imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of $10,000 increasing to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of $20,000. The penalty for (1) making false statements or representations by someone in connection with that person’s furnishing of items or services for which payment is or may be made; (2) receiving kickbacks, bribes, or rebates; (3) making false representations with respect to the condition or operation of institutions: or (4) engaging in illegal patient and admittance practices would be doubled as well, increasing from imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $25,000 or both to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $50,000, or both. In addition, the bill would create a new offense for, knowingly, intentionally, and with the intent to defraud, selling or distributing two or more Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary identification numbers or billing privileges. The violation of this provision would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.
S. Amendment 4486:
Sponsor: Pryor (D - AR)
Official Title:
Status:
7/19/2010: Introduced in Senate
Commentary: This Amendment is proposed for H.R. 5297, which would create the Small Business Lending Fund Program. It addresses the Earned Income Credit (EIC) that can be claimed by some individual taxpayers. It would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a), to address the problem of identity theft involving the EIC. Any person who “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority” someone else’s means of identification or a false identification document in connection with a willful attempt to evade or defeat taxes by claiming the EIC or submits a false or fraudulent statement in connection with a claim for EIC benefits would be subject to the penalties for identity theft set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1028(b), plus an additional term of imprisonment of up to 5 years.
S. Amendment 4488:
Sponsor: Boxer (D - CA)
Official Title:
Status:
7/20/2010: Introduced in Senate
Commentary: The Amendment is proposed for H.R. 5297, which would create the Small Business Lending Fund Program. A participating lender that “knowingly makes a false statement with respect to the income, assets, or other qualifications of a small business concern” in connection with a loan or loan application would be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both.
H.R. 5788: Mine Safety Accountability and Improved Protection Act
Sponsor: Moore (R - WV)
Official Title: A bill to honor the nation’s fallen miners by requiring improved mine safety practices and compliance in order to prevent future mine accidents.
Status:
7/20/2010: Introduced in House
7/20/2010: Referred to House Education and Labor Committee
Commentary: This bill would increase the enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and establish a National Mine Safety Board and empower it to conduct independent investigations of mine accidents that involve 3 or more deaths. The bill would also increase the penalty for any willful violation of a mandatory health or safety standard or for any knowing failure to comply with orders issued by the Secretary. The penalty for a first conviction would increase to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $1,000,000, or both, from the current penalty of imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine of $250,000, or both, as set out in 30 U.S.C. § 820(d). The penalty for subsequent violations would increase to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $2,000,000, or both, from the current penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both. The bill would also make it unlawful to retaliate against anyone who has provided information “related to the existence of a health or safety violation or an unhealthful or unsafe condition, policy or practice” to enforcement officials. The penalty for that offense would be imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. The bill would increase the penalty that may be imposed on any unauthorized advance notice of any health or safety inspection to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both, from the current penalty of imprisonment for up to 6 months, a fine of $1,000, or both, as set forth in 30 U.S.C. § 820(e). Finally, where a business entity is responsible for the violation, any director, officer, or agent of that operator who “willfully authorized, ordered, or carried out such violation, failure, or refusal, or any policy or practice that contributed to the occurrence of a fatality” will be subject as an individual to the same civil and criminal penalties that can be imposed on the operator.
H.R. 5810: Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2010
Sponsor: Lungren (R - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/21/2010: Introduced in House
7/21/2010: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: The bill would make it unlawful for any person to “knowingly aim[] the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft.” The bill does not safeguard those who aim a laser at an aircraft or its flight path accidentally, inadvertently, or with benign intent. It would not prohibit the aiming of a laser beam at an aircraft by authorized individuals conducting research, development, operations, testing, or training, or anyone using the laser to send an emergency distress signal. The penalty for unlawfully aiming a laser at an aircraft would be imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.
H.R. 5663: Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010
Sponsor: Miller (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to improve compliance with mine and occupational safety and health laws, empower workers to raise safety concerns, prevent future mine and other workplace tragedies, establish rights of families of victims of workplace accidents, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/1/2010: Introduced in House
7/1/2010: Referred to House Education and Labor Committee
7/13/2010: Hearing Held by House Education and Labor Committee
7/21/2010: Mark up in the House Education and Labor Committee
7/21/2010: Ordered to be reported
Commentary: Section 820(d) of Title 30, U.S. Code, currently prohibits “willfully” violating a mandatory mining health or safety standard or “knowingly” violating or refusing to comply with certain orders issued by the Secretary of Labor. This bill would significantly lower the protectiveness of the mental state required to prove a violation of a mandatory health and safety standard from “willfully” to “knowingly.” Violators are currently subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $250,000, or both on the first conviction, and imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both for subsequent violations. This bill would increase the penalty for first violations to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $1,000,000, or both, and the penalty for subsequent violations to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $2,000,000, or both. Under 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), a director, officer, or agent of a corporate violator who “knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried out” the conduct leading to the violation is subject to prosecution to the same extent as the corporation. This provision will not necessarily be interpreted by the courts to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the director, officer, or agent had any actual knowledge that what he or she authorized, ordered, or carried out was unlawful.
H.R. 5626: Blowout Prevention Act of 2010
Sponsor: Waxman (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to protect public health and safety and the environment by requiring the use of safe well control technologies and practices for the drilling of high-risk oil and gas wells in the United States, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/29/2010: Introduced in House
6/29/2010: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
7/15/2010: Mark up in the House Energy and Commerce Committee
7/15/2010: Ordered to be reported House
Commentary: This bill would, beginning one year after its enactment, require applicants for permits to drill for a “high-risk well” to attest to the capacity of their blowout prevention and remediation ability and call for the promulgation of regulations specifying the minimum standards for blowout preventers, third-party certifications, and documentation. Any person who “knowingly and willfully” violates any provision of the act or any regulation that implements it, makes a false statement in a document that is filed or required to be filed, or falsifies or tampers with a required monitoring device will be subject to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of up to $10 million, or both. Under the bill, an officer or agent of a corporation that is subject to prosecution who “knowingly and willfully, or with willful disregard” orders or carries out the prohibited activity is subject to prosecution to the same extent as the corporation. This provision will not necessarily be interpreted by the courts to require the officer or agent to have actual knowledge that what he or she authorized, ordered, or carried out was unlawful.
H.R. 5566: Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act of 2010
Sponsor: Gallegly (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interstate commerce in animal crush videos, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/22/2010: Introduced in House
6/22/2010: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
6/23/2010: Mark up in the House Judiciary Committee
6/23/2010: Ordered to be reported
7/19/2010: Reported to House
7/21/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
Commentary: This bill replaces H.R. 5092 and is a response to the U. S. Supreme Court’s April 2010 decision in United States v. Stevens, in which the Court found that 18 U.S.C. § 48, which prohibits the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty, violated the First Amendment because it was substantially overbroad. The Court noted, among other things, that the reach of § 48 was so broad that it would include depictions of hunting activities. Because the statute applied to depicted conduct that was illegal in any state where the depiction was created, sold, or possessed, the Court also observed that a “depiction of entirely lawful conduct runs afoul of the ban if that depiction finds its way into another State where the same conduct is illegal.” This bill would prohibit the knowing sale or distribution in interstate or foreign commerce of “animal crush videos” and create safe harbors for depictions of veterinary or animal husbandry practices and depictions of hunting, trapping, or fishing. It would apply to depictions of actual conduct that violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to animals under Federal law “or the law of the State in which the depiction is created, sold, distributed, or offered for sale or distribution.”
H.R. 4173: The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009
Sponsor: Frank (D - MA)
Official Title: To provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes.
Status:
12/2/2009: Introduced
12/2/2009: Referred to House Financial Services Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Agriculture Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Rules Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Budget Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
12/2/2009: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee
12/11/2009: House Passage
1/20/2010: Received in Senate
1/20/2010: Referred to Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
5/20/2010: Discharged Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
5/24/2010: Senate Passage
6/30/2010: Conference report passed in the House
7/15/2010: Conference report passed in the Senate
7/21/2010: Signed by the President
Commentary: This wide-ranging financial markets regulatory bill would, among many other things, establish a Financial Services Oversight Council including the heads of the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and National Credit Union Administration Board. The stated purposes for the Council include monitoring financial markets, advising Congress of financial regulatory developments, and coordinating financial regulatory actions among member agencies. The bill provides for the establishment of a regulatory regime that will cover transactions in derivatives and give oversight responsibility to the CFTC, requiring the registration of traders and trading activities. Section 13(a)(5) of Title 7, U.S. Code, governs the trading of commodity futures and other instruments regulated by the CFTC. It provides that “[a]ny person” who “willfully” violates “any other provision of this chapter, or any rule or regulation thereunder” will be subject to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $1 million, or both, plus the costs of prosecution. Section 13(a)(5) further provides, “[N]o person shall be subject to imprisonment under this paragraph for the violation of any rule or regulation if such person proves that he had no knowledge of such rule or regulation.” Where the transaction involves securities-based derivative instruments, responsibility for regulatory oversight is vested in the SEC. Section78ff of Title 15, U.S. Code, specifies the penalties for violating the securities laws. [Editor's Note: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' far more thorough description and analysis of the many criminal provisions in this wide-ranging bill is available at http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/whitecollar/HR4173].
H.R. 725: Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009
Sponsor: Pastor (D - AZ)
Official Title: A bill to protect Indian arts and crafts through the improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes.
Status:
1/27/2009: Introduced
1/27/2009: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
1/27/2009: Referred to House Natural Resources Committee
12/2/2009: Hearing Held by House Natural Resources Committee
12/16/2009: Mark up in the House Natural Resources Committee
12/16/2009: Ordered to be reported House Natural Resources Committee
1/15/2010: Discharged House Judiciary Committee
1/15/2010: Placed on House calendar
1/19/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
1/20/2010: Received in Senate
3/26/2010: Placed on Senate calendar
6/23/2010: Senate Passage
7/26/2010: House Passage
Commentary: As introduced, this bill was titled the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009. It was identical to H.R. 7024 and S. 1255 in the 110th Congress and S. 151 in the current Congress and reduced penalties for some violations of the prohibition on misrepresenting goods for sale as having been produced by Native Americans. As passed by the Senate, the bill would not only reduce penalties set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1159 for some violations of the prohibition on misrepresenting goods for sale as having been produced by Native Americans, it would also change the sentencing powers of Native American tribal courts. With respect to misrepresentation, under current law, "knowing" violations are punishable by criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years for a first offense, and by criminal fines of up to $1,000,000 and imprisonment of up to 15 years for subsequent offenses. This legislation would change the penalty structure in two ways. First offenses concerning goods worth less than $1,000 would be punishable by fines of up to $25,000 and imprisonment of up to a year, and fines for subsequent offenses would be calculated under Title 18 rather according to the fines defined under this new penalty scheme. With respect to the sentencing powers of Native American tribal courts, current law does not permit a tribal court to impose a term of imprisonment greater than 1 year, a fine of $5,000, or both. Under the bill as passed by the Senate, a tribal court would be able to sentence a defendant who has previously been convicted of the same or a comparable offense by any jurisdiction in the United States, or a defendant who is being prosecuted for an offense comparable to an offense that would be punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year if prosecuted by the United States or any of the States to imprisonment for up to three years, a fine of $15,000, or both. Even when multiple charges are involved, the tribal courts would be unable to impose imprisonment longer than 9 years. Significantly, nothing in the bill as passed by the Senate would give a Native American tribe criminal jurisdiction over a non-Native American. Since 1990, tribes have been empowered to exercise criminal jurisdiction over any Native Americans, including those who are not members of the tribe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)