Nancy Pelosi ( yeah, I know, AGAIN! ), lambasted the Republicans for being nothing but crooks. Her silence on the Democrat Culture of Corruption has been deafening. This weeks’s scandal? Dianne Feinstein.
Dianne Feinstein had been on the Military Construction Appropriations committee for six years. During four of those years, Perini Corporation and URS Corp were MAJOR recipients of the largess that is the Military Construction Appropriations committee. The good folks of California were often critical, and surprised, at Feinstein’s support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They never bothered to ask why very much tho. Feinstein’s husband’s company, Perini, received $500 million in Iraq and Afghanistan contracts. Now, we can assume Nancy Pelosi knows Dianne Feinstein pretty well. We can also assume Pelosi knew what Feinstein’s husband did as well. What we can also assume is Nancy said NOTHING during the entire time Feinstein was lining her pockets with BILLIONS in federal money. Feinstein was profiting off the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts very overtly while Nancy Pelosi and the DNC constantly harassed Dick Cheney for once being an employee of Haliburton. And why do you suppose Nancy kept her mouth shut during all this corruption?
| Date | Amount | Recipient |
| 09/20/2002 | $350,000 | DSCC/Non-Federal Unicorp Assoc |
| 03/31/2003 | $25,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 04/30/2002 | $20,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 10/28/2004 | $10,000 | Democratic Party of South Dakota |
| 10/23/1995 | $10,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 12/05/1999 | $7,500 | DSCC/Non-Federal Mixed |
| 09/15/1998 | $5,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 05/01/2000 | $5,000 | DSCC/Non-Federal Unicorp Assoc |
| 12/05/1999 | $3,750 | DSCC/Non-Federal Mixed |
| 06/14/1999 | $2,000 | Lieberman, Joe |
| 05/10/2004 | $2,000 | Farmer, Nancy |
| 08/06/2004 | $2,000 | Salazar, Ken |
| 03/18/2005 | $2,000 | Byrd, Robert C |
| 09/26/2006 | $2,000 | Whitehouse, Sheldon |
| 06/01/2004 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 06/01/2004 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 06/21/2002 | $1,000 | Bradbury, Bill |
| 06/20/2002 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 06/20/2002 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 06/01/1998 | $1,000 | Kerrey, Bob |
| 06/01/1998 | $1,000 | Kerrey, Bob |
| 06/15/1998 | $1,000 | Nixon, Jay |
| 06/15/1998 | $1,000 | Nixon, Jay |
| 02/13/2000 | $1,000 | Northern Californians for Good Govt |
| 01/23/1999 | $1,000 | Northern Californians for Good Govt |
| 10/15/1997 | $1,000 | Northern Californians for Good Govt |
| 08/22/1997 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 08/22/1997 | $1,000 | Daschle, Tom |
| 07/10/1996 | $1,000 | Northern Californians for Good Govt |
| 03/20/1996 | $1,000 | Minnick, Walt |
| 10/25/1996 | $1,000 | Strickland, Tom |
| 10/20/1995 | $1,000 | Dodd, Christopher J |
| 08/15/2001 | $1,000 | Strickland, Tom |
| 08/15/2001 | $1,000 | Strickland, Tom |
| 07/26/1994 | $1,000 | Hyatt, Joel |
| 04/09/1993 | $1,000 | Willie Brown for Assembly |
| 02/23/1994 | $1,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 02/23/1994 | $1,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 03/31/1999 | $1,000 | Gore, Al |
| 06/30/1999 | $1,000 | Lieberman, Joe |
| 03/23/2000 | $1,000 | Nelson, Ben |
| 07/06/2004 | $520 | America Coming Together |
| 03/01/2000 | ($1,000) | Kerrey, Bob |
| 06/30/1999 | ($1,000) | Lieberman, Joe |
| 04/19/2005 | $26,700 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 03/31/2004 | $25,000 | Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte |
| 10/22/1999 | $6,605 | DNC Services Corp |
Because Howard Dean, who was screaming the loudest about Republican corruption, was taking money from the Feinsteins as fast as he could stick his hands out.
Yes folks, the entire Democrat Party was profiting from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars while Koz and all the other sheep harped on the Republicans profiting in ways they could never prove. There it is folks, in black and white. It’s overt. It’s obvious. It’s undeniable. What it also is, is cmpletely ignored by CBS, The New York Times, LA Times, etc. etc. etc.. You name a major media outlet, they’ll be on the ignoring this issue list as well. So, people like me have to rely on Rush Limbaugh and Michele Malkin. Some blogs are taking a little credit because Feinstein resigned from MILCON this week. She really didn’t have any reason to stay on MILCON any longer tho, her husband sold out of Perini and URS two years ago. Now, a lot of people will dismiss the credibility of this story because I cite Rush and Michele. I’m sure that couldn’t make Nancy, Howard, and Dianne any happier.
It just amazes me how people like Dan Rather could look the country in the face and blame it all on Dick Cheney, knowing the entire damn time it was Feinstein and the Dems making all the money off the deaths of our soldiers. And ya wanna know something else? It was that same MILCON committee shelling out billions to Feinstein at Feinstein’s direction that failed to provide adequate body armor to our troops in Iraq. And, it was that same MILCON committee handing out billions to Feinstein at the direction of Feinstein that failed to provide adequate health services to our troops that the media is whining about now.
Can we assume my "investigative" abilities are that much superior to CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox, the LA Times, the NY Times, or even the BBC? Or, can we assume that because Dianne Feinstein is an uber-liberal Democrat woman from California they all chose to look the other way while she profited off the deaths of our soldiers?
Regardless, there’s a LOT of explaining that needs to be done by Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean. However, I doubt CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN will time to squeeze this topic in while they continue to dedicate every waking second to Gonzales firing a bunch of lawyers.
Nancy Pelosi has assigned fifteen members to her new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. These folks are listed below with some of their other sponsored legislations:
| Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who will chair the committee |
|
| Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) |
|
| Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) |
|
| John B. Larson (D-Conn.) |
|
| Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.) | None related to this issue. |
| Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.) |
|
| Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) |
|
| John Hall (D-N.Y.) |
|
| Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) |
|
| F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), the ranking minority member |
|
| John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) | None related to this issue. |
| Greg Walden (R-Ore.) | None related to this issue. |
| John Sullivan (R-Okla.) | None related to this issue. |
| Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) |
|
| Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.) |
|
Basically, this group of people has a CURRENT history of non-ecological issues. Three bills directly show an interest in this issue. More bills show a pandering to those opposing the war in Iraq. More importantly, one bill shows an antagonism to spending any money on anything, one shows a preference to increase regulations and therefore restrict the development of alternative energy ( nuclear ), and two are more concerned about race than energy.
Yeah buddy, this bunch is going to get a lot done in the real world.
A bill passed Congress yesterday and no one seemed to notice. To wit, Shelley Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, introduced legislation aimed at “Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, and for other purposes.” Now, apparently this bill was rather divisive. 211 Republicans voted for it, none voted against it. 190 Democrats voted against it, none voted for it. The one independent in the House didn’t even bother to vote. What was so divisive that every single Democrat had to vote against it? Let’s look, shall we?
- Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of December 7, 2006.
- Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of December 7, 2006, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.
- Sec. 3. House Resolutions 810, 939, 951, and 1047 are laid upon the table.
Basically what this is saying is that rather than trying to get a 2/3 majority vote to get something to the floor to be voted on, let’s just go ahead and vote it up or down now. ( So we can go home for Christmas. ) What are those bills it’s referring to about?
- 810 – Stem Cell Research, that Bush vetoed in 2006.
- 939 – Count every vote, which failed in 2005.
- 951 – Video Description Restoration
- 1047 – Pentagon/911 Memorial Coin Act
HR 810 specifically reads:
One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSIONBegun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, two thousand and six
An Act
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005”.
SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:
“SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
“(a) IN GENERAL.–Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
“(b) ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS.–Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
“(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
“(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
“(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
“(c) GUIDELINES.–Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
“(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.–The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of H. R. 810–2 whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.”.
Every single Democrat voted against allowing this bill to be voted on. It may or may not make it to vote at this time, but why would every single Democrat vote against stem cell research the first possible chance they could after the “stem cell election”? ( Yeah, I know, they don’t want it voted on because it would lose. But, that’s political BS. The Republicans took a whipping on this issue and this would be their chance to set everyone straight. It is, after all, sponsored by a Republican. )
Why isn’t ANY media asking them this right now?
Still think some people weren’t taking advantage of Michael J. Fox?
What they are actually voting against is allowing the Republicans to get one shred of credit on this issue regardless of whether stem cell research gets advanced or not.
Still think some people weren’t taking advantage of Michael J. Fox?
Still think it’s only Republicans who have a war against science? ( and here )
This vote was largely symbolic only. However, since it was completely rejected by the Democrats, and totally ignored by the media, the symbolism is lost. When we get responsible balanced reporting then it might mean something. However, if we had responsible reporting in the first place, this vote would never have been proposed.
Fla. GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen posted this on The Hill Blog:
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.
This much-needed legislation would require that women considering an abortion be informed of the pain their unborn child would feel during the procedure, and then offer those women still considering the procedure the option of giving the unborn child anesthesia.
Medical evidence suggests an unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks, if not earlier.
As such, it is our responsibility as legislators to see women throughout America are informed of the intense pain experienced by their unborn child during an abortion and offer them an option to ease their childs pain.
So far, 94 Congressmen and women have signed on to this legislation.
I think it’s crap. The main reason I feel this way is because in the rush to abolish abortion, everyone tends to ignore the ramifications of doing so. The solution to this legislation’s problem is to simply anesthetize the fetus. The result of this legislation is to discourage those that have already considered the consequences of having a baby and decided it wasn’t the right thing to do. When a person makes that decision, they often have a compelling reason. Those reasons often include crack addicted babies, alcohol fetal syndromes, and other situations which render a healthy baby not likely. Although the "pain" felt by a fetus is fleeting at best, the pain and suffering caused by a lifetime lived with the handicaps caused by irresponsible conception are much more inhumane IMO. I used to work with people who suffered from these syndromes, it’s ugly, people, really ugly. I have seen four potential adoptions fail due to mothers-to-be addicted to drugs. God did what man tried to prevent, he aborted them all. Man now has the technology to save almost any fetus no matter the shape it’s in or the life it will become. What we don’t have is the wisdom of when it’s best to use it or not. Some lives are just not worth saving. Sounds cold, sounds crass, but it’s a fact. Spend six months volunteering for your local mental health/mental retardation board with the profoundly retarded and see how it affects you. Most of those people were born before we had a clue how fubar their lives would be. We now have the ability to know before it’s too late. What we don’t have is the emotional maturity it takes to use that technology and prevent a life of nothing but confusion and pain. Sure, some people will abort for less worthy reasons. But, forcing those that know they are conceiving a being that has no chance to survive and enjoy life is even worse to me.
It’s popular now to bash abortion. But, no one wants to accept the responsibility of the consequences. Until there is a viable means to support all the abandoned, physically and mentally handicapped children this type of legislation will compel on ALL of society, I oppose all anti-abortion legislation.
UPDATE December 7, 2006: HR 6099 failed the House 250-162 ( it needed 2/3 to pass ). Here’s the Party breakdown:
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Republican | 210 | 9 | 10 | |
| Democratic | 40 | 152 | 10 | |
| Independent | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 250 | 162 | 20 |
Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised.
The big debate going into this November has been national security, defense, or just military in general. The Republicans have been telling people the Democrats are soft on war on terror, the Democrats keep saying the Republicans have failed in the war on terror. Now, I’m a person that usually dismisses the rhetoric and focuses on what is going on. This, is what is going on, as of yesterday. In the debate over the Defense Appropriations bill, Diane Feinstein offered this amendment to the bill:
SA 4882. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. LEAHY) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill H.R. 5631, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act my be obligated or expended to acquire, utilize, sell, or transfer any cluster munition unless the rules of engagement applicable to the cluster munition ensure that the cluster munition will not be used in or near any concentrated population of civilians, whether permanent or temporary, including inhabited parts of cities or villages, camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or camps or groups of nomads.
What part of the war on terror has Feinstein missed? The whole planet has seen the numerous reports of how terrorist groups blend into the society of which they are terrorizing? Would a line of terrorists on their way to attack US interests be considered a "group of nomads" if they tell everyone they were not terrorists after they were attacked? Will the military have to make snap decisions on every single possible raid on terrorists or ask Feinstein whether a militia is a military target, temporary concentrated population, column of refugees, camp of nomads, or group of nomads? This legislation would have totally destroyed the US’s ability to go after any terrorist group since they are not considered a true national militia by any standards. They are all considered "civilians". Therefore, any attack on terrorist groups would have violated this amendment by Feinstein since she doesn’t even bother to define what is specifically a cluster munition.
Luckily, SOME people saw how incredibly stupid this amendment was. Namely, every single Republican. Fifteen Democrats saw how incredibly stupid this legislation was as well. And, here is the list of idiots who thought this was a good idea:
- Boxer, Barbara [D]
- Feinstein, Dianne [D]
- Carper, Thomas [D]
- Akaka, Daniel [D]
- Durbin, Richard [D]
- Obama, Barack [D]
- Harkin, Thomas [D]
- Mikulski, Barbara [D]
- Sarbanes, Paul [D]
- Kennedy, Edward [D]
- Kerry, John [D]
- Levin, Carl [D]
- Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
- Dayton, Mark [D]
- Baucus, Max [D]
- Reid, Harry [D]
- Menendez, Robert [D]
- Bingaman, Jeff [D]
- Conrad, Gaylord [D]
- Dorgan, Byron [D]
- Wyden, Ron [D]
- Reed, John [D]
- Johnson, Tim [D]
- Jeffords, James [I]
- Leahy, Patrick [D]
- Cantwell, Maria [D]
- Murray, Patty [D]
- Byrd, Robert [D]
- Feingold, Russell [D]
- Kohl, Herbert [D]
29 of those 30 people have one thing in common. When the Democrats protest they are not soft on terror this Fall, just look at the evidence and think about what could happen if they held the majority. Ask any military person you know what the ramifications of this bill would have in the field of action. You can’t get any softer on the war on terror than this scary bad piece of legislation.
S. 2590 was a fairly obscure bill floating around the Senate. It’s not a wordy bill, so here it is:
To require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006′.
SEC. 2. FULL DISCLOSURE OF ENTITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING.
(a) In General-
(1) WEBSITE- Effective beginning January 1, 2007 and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Office of Management and Budget shall ensure the existence and operation of a single updated searchable database website accessible by the public at no cost that includes for each entity receiving Federal funding–
(A) the name of the entity;
(B) the amount of any Federal funds that the entity has received in each of the last 10 fiscal years;
(C) an itemized breakdown of each transaction, including funding agency, program source, and a description of the purpose of each funding action;
(D) the location of the entity and primary location of performance, including the city, State, congressional district, and country;
(E) a unique identifier for each such entity and parent entity, should the entity be owned by another entity; and
(F) any other relevant information.
(2) INITIAL DATA- Effective January 1, 2007, the website shall include data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
(3) PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS- Not later than January 1, 2009, information required by this section shall be posted on the website for fiscal years 1999 through 2005.
(b) Definitions- In this section:
(1) ENTITY- The term `entity’–
(A) includes–
(i) a corporation;
(ii) an association;
(iii) a partnership;
(iv) a limited liability company;
(v) a limited liability partnership;
(vi) any other legal business entity;
(vii) grantees, contractors, and, on and after October 1, 2007, subgrantees and subcontractors; and
(viii) any State or locality; and
(B) does not include–
(i) an individual recipient of Federal assistance;
(ii) a Federal employee; or
(iii) a grant or contract of a nature that could be reasonably expected to cause damage to national security.
(2) FEDERAL FUNDING- The term `federal funding’–
(A) means Federal financial assistance and expenditures that include grants, contracts, subgrants, subcontracts, loans, awards and other forms of financial assistance; and
(B) does not include credit card transactions or minor purchases.
(3) SEARCHABLE DATABASE WEBSITE- The term `searchable database website’ means a website that allows the public to–
(A) search Federal funding by name of entity, parent entity, or type of industry, geography, including location of the entity and the primary location of the performance, amounts and types of federal funding, program sources, type of activity being performed, time factors such as fiscal years or multiple fiscal years, and other relevant information; and
(B) download data included in subparagraph (A) including outcomes from searches.
(c) Website- The database website established by this section–
(1) shall not be considered in compliance if it links to FPDS, Grants.gov or other existing websites and databases, unless each of those sites has information from all agencies and each category of information required to be itemized can be searched electronically by field in a single search;
(2) shall provide an opportunity for the public to provide input about the utility of the site and recommendations for improvements; and
(3) shall be updated not later than 30 days after the award of any assistance requiring a posting.
(d) Agency Responsibilities- The Director of OMB shall provide guidance to agency heads to ensure compliance with this section.
(e) Report- The Director of OMB shall annually report to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform on implementation of the website that shall include data about the usage and public feedback on the utility of the site, including recommendations for improvements. The annual report shall be made publicly available on the website.
Seems simple enough. The Federal Government will be required to develope a web page with a database of organizations and people that receive federal funding. It also leaves the Feds the ability to not publish those that it sees fit for "national security" issues.
However, something odd happened to S. 2590 on the way to the floor. And it made me look silly. Rumors started flying on the internet that a "secret hold" had been placed on this legislation. So, I spouted off on Independent Sources that there was no such thing as a "secret hold". I did that because I am fairly familiar with the House of Representative rules. However, I had never pondered or dealt with the US Senate, which is a different animal apparently. Apparently in the Senate, a Senator CAN hold a piece of legislation without mentioning who they are. This sucks in my opinion and circumvents the entire intent Constitution.
I can’t find much history on the anonymous hold, which is it’s real term. However, in 2003, Trent Lott submitted Senate Resolution 216 to eliminate the anonymous aspect of the hold. This would have made Senators accountable for their intent to delay or circumvent the Constitutional process regarding the right to vote. However, people were much more concerned with crucifying Lott in 2003 than considering his legislation. Still reeling from his flattering Strom Thurmand, his legislation went nowhere. Which led to what is occuring today.
The database in question will acheive very little if anything. The information is already out there in various formats. However, the publicity stirred over making the database available COULD be more valuable IMO than the database itself. When word got out that an anonymous hold had been put in place, the blogs went wild over the "secret senator" and made efforts to expose said secret senator. I assumed it would be Frist, since he has the power to bring it to the floor regardless of the "secret hold". Frist saw the fuss and started commenting on it. Next thing you know, Senators Byrd and Stevens claimed they were the ultimate power brokers of the US Senate, not Frist, by claiming they were the secret holders. Byrd as usual, was totally unapologetic in doing it "secretly":
"Senator Byrd wanted time to read the legislation, understand its implications, and see whether the proposal could be improved, Gavin said.
Now, that’s total bull. YOU read the legislation and I explained its implications in 30 seconds. There really are none. It’s clear, concise, and very limited in what it can do. What it will do is make things a lot EASIER for the general public to scrutinize who is spending what. And, since Stevens and Byrd are the ultimate pork barrel spenders of the entire US Senate, this probably does raise some implications for them individually. And, that is EXACTLY why this Senate rule has GOT TO GO!
The same bloggers who wanted to hang Ted Stevens because they assumed it was him need to start putting pressure on the entire US Senate to revive Trent Lott’s resolution from 2003 and PASS IT NOW! Here it is, cut and paste it and send it to all your Congressmen and Senators:
Resolved, That (a) the majority and minority leaders of the Senate or their designees shall recognize a notice of intent of a Senator who is a member of their caucus to object to proceeding to a measure or matter only if the Senator–
(1) submits the notice of intent in writing to the appropriate leader or their designee, and
(2) submits, within 3 session days after the submission under paragraph (1), the following notice for inclusion in the Congressional Record and in the applicable calendar section described in subsection (b):"I, Senator ____, intend to object to proceeding to ____, dated ____."
(b) The Secretary of the Senate shall establish for both the Senate Calendar of Business and the Senate Executive Calendar a separate section entitled "Notices of Intent to Object to Proceeding". Each such section shall include the name of each Senator filing a notice under subsection (a)(2),
the measure or matter covered by the calendar which the Senator objects to, and the date the objection was filed.
(c) A Senator may have an item with respect to the Senator removed from a calendar to which it was added under subsection (b) by submitting the following notice for inclusion in the Congressional Record:
"I, Senator ____, do not object to proceeding to ____, dated ____."
Senator Frist has stated his objection to the "secret hold" in regards to this issue, he needs to be the person who submits this legislation. It’s up to the blog world apparently to make it happen.
17
Aug
Not only did she rule on the merits of the case she asked to judge, she went above and beyond the call of duty to demand a halt to the wiretap program entirely, immediately, as in, right now.
This just raises all kinds of worms.
-
Taylor was appointed by Jimmy Carter, whose presidency was ended by the terrorist storming the American embassy in Tehran, and, more recently has been harder on President Bush than any terrorist organization. She was promoted twice during the Clinton presidency. Clinton’s legacy was marked by repeated terrorist attacks with no real response. Now, apparently, she feels we need to return to those days.
-
Although wildly liberal, the 6th Circuit is predominantly conservative. Her decision will most likely be immediately overturned.
-
She cites the "right to privacy" in the Constitution as the underlying violation. Here’s the Constitution as The Founders wrote it: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." — Nowhere does it give the rights Judge Taylor cited. And, not only that, it does assure what President Bush was trying to do. Ohhhh kaayyyyyy. Kinda scary to me that Judge Taylor is interpreting the Constitution to be what she wants as opposed to what it is.
-
Dearborn, which is in her district, has the highest concentration of Muslims in the US.
- The ACLU could have filed this case anywhere, why Detroit?
- Democrat Judge Taylor is just more nails in the Democrat we’re-not-soft-on-terrorism coffin.
It goes on and on. I’m sure the happiest people in the country right now are the Republican candidates for national office this fall. And, I’m quite certain this will be an ’08 issue as well.
A while back, I did a thingy on the recently revised estate tax legislation that did pass. Namely, I predicted a slaughter of wealthy individuals in the year 2010 based on that legislation.
They must have read it. Congress just revised the estate tax legislation to eliminate that one year bonanza for heirs in 2010. It did other things too.
Kids, put away those guns.
10
Jun
First of all, I’ve been watching this, if not blogging on it. I have been 100% for it since I saw it floating around. Not for what it’s been advertised, but for this:
The biggest telecommunications legislation in a decade, approved 321-101, would make it easier for telephone companies to enter the subscription television market. A national franchise process would replace the current system where potential providers must negotiate contracts municipality by municipality, sometimes taking months and years.
I have run into this brick wall repeatedly for years. The cable franchising system allowed the local cable company to not only block competitors from providing more and possibly better cable services, it also blocked our community from soliciting and starting a local tv station for our community. In this day and age, using copper based lines for ONE PROVIDER ONLY is ridiculous. And, that’s on top of the other lines already run for telephone. We should have one line running into our house, and that’s it. The services we choose to have will come on that one line. How could anyone oppose that?
Well, actually 101 Representatives voted against it. Primarily they wanted "net neutrality". Now, that almost seems contrived to me in that by busting up legally protected monopolies, the neutrality will be in the favor of the consumer. What some of the legislators wanted was for the feds to mandate neutrality.
Now, to me, that is exactly what is wrong with some people in DC. Which side of "free market" vs government regulation are they on? And, given a level playing field, the neutrality is guaranteed in that if one provider’s not comeptitive, another one will be more than happy to jump in IMMEDIATELY as opposed to the inadequate provider having a lock for another five or six years it would take to bust up the franchise agreement.
This is big folks, a lot bigger for you than you are probably aware.
The spin is already there as well, Republicans were bought out by the telephone companies. Don’t buy it, you are the winner here. Big time.
Good.
I never was really worried about this one. I’ve been around long enough to know a political ploy when I see it. The Republicans only did this to define the parties for the upcoming races. That’s all. The reason I say this is a good part of Congress are laywers. Some are even constitutional law lawyers. Bottom line, especailly in the Senate, these people know the constitution better than the average Joe. It’s their job. What they know is the US Constitutuion does not guarantee ANYONE the right to be married. It’s not a gay/staight/andogynous issue. It’s purely a legal issue. Therefore, I imagine, any legislation regarding marriage on the federal level will be struck down by the Supreme Court. Now, the Republicans can stick to their core philosophy of smaller government and have a social issue for the elections. Now, if the Democrats had been smarter, they would have supported this ban 100% and allowed it to pass on to Congress. Congress is much more liberal than the Senate is. Most likely, it would have died in committee or even smarter yet, passed in such a way it could not be resolved in committee. Then, the Democrats would have neutralized the issue and gotten what they wanted as well.
Either way, it needs to be over. Marriage is not something to be defined by government. That includes judges as well. ( What’d he say? )
