HR3427 reads as: "To establish asocial and behavorial sciences research program at the Department of Energy and for other purposes." Exactly what purposes? And why does the Department of Energy need to study our behavior? The government would not want to actually control our behavior would it? This obscure bill must be stopped! This bill was introduced on July 17th, 2009.
The introduction states, "In General- The Secretary shall establish a social and behavioral sciences research program to identify and understand social and behavioral factors that influence energy consumption and acceptance and adoption rates of new energy technologies, and to promote the utilization of the results of social and behavioral research to improve the design, development, demonstration, and application of energy technologies."
The Director of this program will have the following duties:
Develop tools, practices, and information to apply and integrate the results of social and behavioral research into programs that--
(A) design, develop, and demonstrate technologies that supply energy and improve energy efficiency; and
(B) provide information on energy consumption to consumers
Basically, the government wants to figure out how to control your thinking when it comes to the Green Industrial Complex and indoctrinate you and your children. And this Director will basically be the Behavorial Sciences Czar.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Blue Dogs Cave To Socialist-Lite ObamaCare
Today Congressman Mike Ross, who has been negotiating on behalf of the Blue Dog Democrats with Rep. Henry Waxman, announced that a deal had been struck on ObamaCare. The Blue Dogs were bought for a price. That price entails a trimming of ObamaCare to the tune of $100 billion (not much when we are speaking about $1 trillion in expenses), exemption for most small businesses and a requirement that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has to negotiate public plan rates with providers. There is also word that the public option has been replaced with co-ops that will be run on all levels: state, regional and federal. Just a nice cover for nationalized healthcare. If these people were serious, they would drop the co-ops and allow people to cross over from one state to the next to buy insurance making the market more competitive and affordable. But that takes common sense, which is lacking in Washington.
What this really boils down to is that the Blue Dogs caved to pressure and have bought into a Socialist-lite healthcare plan. There is an agreement to wait until after the recess to vote on this new bill, which still needs to be marked up in the House, so we have time to put their feet to their fire - and we will!
What this really boils down to is that the Blue Dogs caved to pressure and have bought into a Socialist-lite healthcare plan. There is an agreement to wait until after the recess to vote on this new bill, which still needs to be marked up in the House, so we have time to put their feet to their fire - and we will!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
HR2743 - The Fight For GM Dealers
When General Motors became Government Motors with a bailout and then subsequent bankruptcy filings, the decision was made to close down hundreds of GM dealerships across the country. The criteria for choosing which dealerships were to close appears to be arbitrary and in some cases has been revealed as support for Republican Party equals the closing of a dealership. Successful dealerships that had been around for generations were forced to close their doors. Now legislation has been introduced into the House to get the rights of these GM dealers back in the form of HR2743.
The Act is formally named "The Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act". It was introduced into the House in June and basically is suppose to restore the rights of GM dealers to open and run their private businesses. It has been referred to the House Committee On Financal Services. Something sinister is taking place behind the scenes though, as the United Autoworkers lobbies and strongarms the GM dealers who were allowed to keep their franchises to contact their Representatives and get them to vote against the measure.
The government, specifically Barack Obama, has told us that they do not want to run the car companies and yet they have fired the CEO of GM, told dealerships they needed to close and picked which ones and have steamrolled the bankruptcy through the courts. Now they are attempting to threaten those they allowed to stay in business to do the dirty work for them. This is what happens in a country that allows the government to take over corporations. This is corporatism - this is facism.
The Act is formally named "The Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act". It was introduced into the House in June and basically is suppose to restore the rights of GM dealers to open and run their private businesses. It has been referred to the House Committee On Financal Services. Something sinister is taking place behind the scenes though, as the United Autoworkers lobbies and strongarms the GM dealers who were allowed to keep their franchises to contact their Representatives and get them to vote against the measure.
The government, specifically Barack Obama, has told us that they do not want to run the car companies and yet they have fired the CEO of GM, told dealerships they needed to close and picked which ones and have steamrolled the bankruptcy through the courts. Now they are attempting to threaten those they allowed to stay in business to do the dirty work for them. This is what happens in a country that allows the government to take over corporations. This is corporatism - this is facism.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Coming
Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be facing confirmation hearings this week. Her confirmation is assured, but this is an opportunity for Republicans to shine a light on the Constitution and the dictates within which a sitting SCOTUS Justice is suppose to conduct him/herself. Those parameters do not include empathy or personal experience. The law is the law and the requirement of a Justice is to judge laws according to the Constitution. How would Sonia Sotomayor conduct herself as a Justice? Here are her words:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, ‘to judge is an exercise of power’ and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states ‘there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,’ I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”
“Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]… believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons… we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning…”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…. I am… not so sure that I agree with the statement. First… there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
“All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.”
Judge Sotomayor appears willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution and many of her statements strike me as racist against white men. The most direct example of her ideas on judicial activism can be found in her decision in Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 229 F. 3d 374 (2d Cir 2000), rev'd 534 U.S. 61 (2001). In that case, Judge Sotomayor attempted to expand the liability of individual federal agents who violate constitutional rights to include corporations. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the plaintiff was "seek[ing] a marked extension of Bivens, to a context that would not advance Bivens' core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing." Correctional Services Corp v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).
She also was recently overturned by the SCOTUS in her decision to not rule on Ricci v. DeStefano in which white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter did not have test results for a promotion counted because no black firefighters passed the test. Her decision to not rule in the case left the firefighters without promotions and thus the case continued to the SCOTUS.
Judge Sotomayor does not support U.S. sovereignty and wrote in a foreword to a book called The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases, that she believes foreign case law and statutes have a role in the adjudication of U.S. cases. And her track record with the SCOTUS is not positive either. She has drawn criticism and only received 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning in five cases not including the Ricci case, which now brings her to 15 out of 53.
This woman should not be confirmed, but our hands appeared to be tied.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, ‘to judge is an exercise of power’ and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states ‘there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,’ I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”
“Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]… believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons… we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning…”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…. I am… not so sure that I agree with the statement. First… there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
“All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.”
Judge Sotomayor appears willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution and many of her statements strike me as racist against white men. The most direct example of her ideas on judicial activism can be found in her decision in Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 229 F. 3d 374 (2d Cir 2000), rev'd 534 U.S. 61 (2001). In that case, Judge Sotomayor attempted to expand the liability of individual federal agents who violate constitutional rights to include corporations. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the plaintiff was "seek[ing] a marked extension of Bivens, to a context that would not advance Bivens' core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing." Correctional Services Corp v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).
She also was recently overturned by the SCOTUS in her decision to not rule on Ricci v. DeStefano in which white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter did not have test results for a promotion counted because no black firefighters passed the test. Her decision to not rule in the case left the firefighters without promotions and thus the case continued to the SCOTUS.
Judge Sotomayor does not support U.S. sovereignty and wrote in a foreword to a book called The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases, that she believes foreign case law and statutes have a role in the adjudication of U.S. cases. And her track record with the SCOTUS is not positive either. She has drawn criticism and only received 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning in five cases not including the Ricci case, which now brings her to 15 out of 53.
This woman should not be confirmed, but our hands appeared to be tied.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Audit The Fed - S604
S604 reads as "A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes." This is the Senate's version of a bill sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul in the House to Audit the Fed. Senator Bernie Sanders sponsored the bill and Sen. Jim DeMint had taken the full text of S604 and attached it as an amendment to HR2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which contains provisions for GAO audits on certain agencies like the Federal Reserve. The amendment was now numbered as 1367. This occured on Monday July 6th.
When HR2918 was brought up for a vote though, Sen. DeMint's amendment was no longer attached because the Democrats used a parliamentary procedure to shut down the amendment and have it tabled. That procedure was issued by Sen. Ben Nelson who raised a "point of order" to prevent the vote and claimed that the amendment violated Senate Rule 16 by "legislating" an appropriations bill. When Sen. DeMint pointed out that HR2918 contained several similar amendments, the Senate president agreed with him, but left the other amendments as they were indicating that the Democrats were specifically blocking an audit of the Fed. The Senate voted to pass HR2918 minus the "Audit the Fed" portion.
The government under the leadership of Obama is once again blocking transparency. The people of America deserve to know what the Federal Reserve has done with trillions of our dollars. Call your Senators and tell them you want S604 to receive a final vote.
When HR2918 was brought up for a vote though, Sen. DeMint's amendment was no longer attached because the Democrats used a parliamentary procedure to shut down the amendment and have it tabled. That procedure was issued by Sen. Ben Nelson who raised a "point of order" to prevent the vote and claimed that the amendment violated Senate Rule 16 by "legislating" an appropriations bill. When Sen. DeMint pointed out that HR2918 contained several similar amendments, the Senate president agreed with him, but left the other amendments as they were indicating that the Democrats were specifically blocking an audit of the Fed. The Senate voted to pass HR2918 minus the "Audit the Fed" portion.
The government under the leadership of Obama is once again blocking transparency. The people of America deserve to know what the Federal Reserve has done with trillions of our dollars. Call your Senators and tell them you want S604 to receive a final vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)